Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 13 May 2011.
when's ati coming out with the shrink?
I thought bit-tech had gone back in time!
i hate nvidia's naming scheme, its as bas as intel's seshhh.
I guess they're scared about putting out a card that has a name ending in 5 after the dreadful 465.
this is terrible. When I looked at the article my first thought was "wtf bit-tech? did someone put up an archived article by mistake" whoever is working in Nvidias (and ATIs for that matter) marketing department and comes up with the naming schemes should really reconsider their ideas. Who the hell at the company thought this makes sense????
Oh the old days, how I fondly remember those.
I had the GeForce 3 Ti500, the big buzz about that was the nfiniteFX™ engine.... great I thought... limitless power... then the GeForce 4 Ti4600 came out... which had 2 nfiniteFX™ engines.... 2 x Infinity anyone?
They should have called the 560 Ti the 565, and leave this new card named the 560 as it is. I think the 465 might have tainted the 65 suffix a lot for them to do this though.
According to the rumour sites, AMD has taped out their 28nm Fusion designs. I'm sure the Graphics side (Southern Islands?) won't be too far behind. I suppose you can expect them by the end of the year, barring some show stopping issue in the process (the design itself is pretty mature).
Pfff, Nvidia and Intel have the worse naming schemes EVER. It's just designed to create confusion so they can sell steps-backward cards as higher end products. Glad to be on AMD's side on this one...
The Nvidia naming line up is awfully crowded to be slotting in new models: 520, 530, 540, 550 Ti, 560, 560 Ti, 570, 580, 590. We'd better hope there is no refresh in the works!
The "Ti" zombie-like resurrection was a stupid move on Nvidia's part, IMO. Of course the conspiracy-laden explanation for Nvidia's naming is that it is on purpose: A confusing scheme exploits the suckers...I mean, consumers.
The more Nvidia mucks around with their naming scheme* the more I like AMD's, although their upcoming CPU naming scheme is promising to be the biggest, most confusing naming s***-storm of all time... >>OF ALL TIME!<<
Dipweasel 1: I've got a Gigabyte GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB Super Overclock 1000MHz! w00t!
Dipweasel 2: Pfft! Loser! I've got an EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti Maximum Graphics Edition Crysis 2! It's big in Japan!
Right, with the AMD system of a 6870 being slower than a 5870 and so forth? Sorry, but AMD are just as bad with naming. It should be that a 6870 is superior to a 5870, a 6850 to a 5850, and so on, as it was with the 4xxx series to 5xxx. But no, the 6xxx series just ballsed that up.
Anyone thinking the latest AMD GPU names???
Anyone over 11 years of age should know that you don't use naming schemes to compare performance between generations. How old are you?
Quick question: If I had a HD5850 should I get a HD6770 to replace it? It seems a sensible upgrade, because 6770 is a higher number than 5850. Also, my forehead hurts. Do you think I should stop hitting it on the desk?
What worries me more is the fact that they are showcasing these three games.
What have they paid to get 'good enough' performance out of the 'basic' 560 ?
These aren't TWIMTBP games are they ?
The naming for the 4k and 5k series from AMD made perfect sense. 2xx Nvidia cards and 4xx, 465 excepted, also followed clear logic. So apparently both companies can do it when they feel like it. This is just silly.
They've got some odd logic here.
According to this article, nVidia is seeing a discrepancy between the % of people using GF9800 cards and the people gaming at 1920x1280, claiming that the former are obviously using the latter, and are having to "make compromises in performance, graphical settings, or both to play games at such a high resolution." Let's assume they're using Dec 2010 stats, in order to justify their rationale. If we convert all percentages to whole numbers to simplify the math (everything is scalable after that), then the percentage of DX10 card users in Dec 2010 was 72.37%, or 72 people (out of 100). 5.9% (call it 6) of those people owned GF9800 cards. .06 * 72 = 4.32 ... let's round it all the way up to 5, just to help out nVidia here. That means 5 people out of 100 are making the compromises nVidia says they are ... if we assume those are the same people gaming at 1920x1080!.
No where does it say those 5 people (5% of the total user base) are the same people as those gaming at 1920x1080 ... in fact, they can't be, because a full 21% of the user base is gaming at 1920x1080!
So, either nVidia is REALLY concerned about the 5% of the total user base in Steam ....
or this is just more marketing bull***t to help them get rid of wafers that didn't make the 560 Ti edition.
Never try to edit your post directly on the comments page ...
Wow, somebody is feeling a bit patronising today aren't they. I never even mentioned a 5850 to a 6770. For that, I'd personally expect the 5850 to be faster, but the 6770 to have features (be that power draw, or whatever) that the other didn't. Lo and behold, that's what happens.
Yet what happens when you go for like-for-like? The assumption would be that a 6850 is faster than a 5850. This isn't the case. Equally, a 6870 would be assumed to be faster than a 5870, but no, you need a 6890.
AMD/ATi used to have it that the x870 was the fastest single card in a generation, which then got supplanted by the x890 in mid-cycle. The 4xxx series and 5xxx series followed this perfectly, and it all made sense. Yet when the 6xxx series came along, you could buy a new GPU that was slower than its equivalent model in the old generation. Sense was not made.
Shame they didn't do exactly as r3loaded said and replace the Ti with 5's on the end. It'd be the easiest naming scheme yet!
Rule of thumb: add 100 to the 5000 series card. It's still the same scheme just moved up, likely because the 900 range was only being used for one card. Move it up and you have more cards with 9 in their name, looks faster.
It's mildly frustrating when looking between generations, but numbers really only ever mean where the card is intended to sit in the product line up. If you're upgrading purely on product names and not looking at the performance you're already doing it wrong. A quick glance at a benchmark and you'd quickly see something has changed.
Exactly, bitching at naming/numbering schemes is just an excuse for fanboys to ride in on their white horses and start pointing fingers.
Geez they are big companies they want to sell products so they pull a few marketing tricks here and there big deal.
Separate names with a comma.