View Full Version : HardOCP refuses to review GTS 250
Not sure if this belongs to the forum, pop-corn worthy if anything.
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=Mzc5NTUsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=
Any other media outlets taking HardOCP's stance?
willardjuice
20-Feb-2009, 00:33
The internetz is serious business.
ChrisRay
20-Feb-2009, 02:28
The internetz is serious business.
Everyone loves drama on the sidelines ;)
Davros rembrands CrisRay as Susan - as he wasnt sexy enough
ChrisRay
20-Feb-2009, 07:41
dderrr what? ;p
dizietsma
20-Feb-2009, 07:57
Chris Ray Tracing 280 Golden Sample.
Davros rembrands CrisRay as Susan - as he wasnt sexy enough
Isn't Susan the "girl next door"? :razz:
John Reynolds
20-Feb-2009, 14:24
This has been another episode in our favorite daytime soap opera, "All our ASICs".
rpg.314
20-Feb-2009, 14:48
Hang on, what's this drama about? I followed the first link and it didn't enlighten me.
homerdog
20-Feb-2009, 15:22
Apparently NVIDIA was mad at Kyle for not reviewing their cards They Way It's Meant To Be Reviewed, so they told their AIB partners not to supply [H] with review samples of the GTS250. So now Kyle is telling NVIDIA to fuck itself.
He did review them, years ago when they first came out :D
Personally I think it a bit churlish. Why not just link to the previous review and say this is the performance you will get scaled bya 15% clock increase or whatever it is. I do find it humorous just from the POV that everyone rags on [H] saying they are in the bed for Nvidia.
Gotta love it coming on the heals of Kyle's quad-sli-slamming review. Personally I'm on Kyle's side on this one - he calls it like it is and they want him to spin. He's being a journalist and they want to force him to be a spinster. Good for the Frgmstr.
I don't think the content was inaccurate or bad, just that he came off all grumpy.
Still given the likely pressure then I can understand why he might have been grumpy.
He did review them, years ago when they first came out :D
Thats my thought aswell. I'm a big Nvidia fan, but this rebranding will only fool those who dont follow the industry/market. I say good for Kyle for not wanting to try to fool those who might visit his site.
On a side thought, he could have agreed but started his whole review with something to the likes of "We reviewed these exact same cards before here, here and here only now they have a different name but still taste the same." in like 24pt font to include the links.
John Reynolds
20-Feb-2009, 18:51
I don't think the content was inaccurate or bad, just that he came off all grumpy.
Still given the likely pressure then I can understand why he might have been grumpy.
My only thought is I wouldn't take my relationship bickerings with a company that provides review samples public unless absolutely necessary. And then only if you have the scope of readership Kyle has standing in front of his bully pulpit to leverage a 'changed' attitude from your PR/marketing contacts from that company. Maybe that's the case here, but Kyle has in the past demonstrated a tendency to be a bit quick on the draw taking things public.
Anyone wanna buy my GTS 257? It's brand new!
JR that is exactly what I was getting at. It seemed a tad too much, too soon, but perhaps it is an unusual show of restraint that I am not aware of. (But like you said history tends to indicate that is not the most likely scenario).
Silent_Buddha
20-Feb-2009, 21:39
Dang. I wasn't even aware until just now the GTS 250 was going to be a rebranded (twice over) video card. I was assuming it was going to be a new card in the 200 series based on tech from the 200 series.
Ugh... Nvidia just sank another notch in my eyes. BTW - I haven't been keeping up on stuff like this (obviously). Is ATI doing the same thing with any of the 4000 series?
Regards,
SB
Rangers
20-Feb-2009, 23:32
Thats my thought aswell. I'm a big Nvidia fan, but this rebranding will only fool those who dont follow the industry/market. I say good for Kyle for not wanting to try to fool those who might visit his site.
On a side thought, he could have agreed but started his whole review with something to the likes of "We reviewed these exact same cards before here, here and here only now they have a different name but still taste the same." in like 24pt font to include the links.
Whats wrong with rebranding? Who really cares?
Especially as Nvidia's architecture is basically the same on all it's GPU's. I mean I compare my 128 SP's in 9800GTX+ to GT 260 or whatever just fine. It's basically the same architecture.
I guess, would people be happy if Nvidia made a "true" GT250 an all new sku and die..that would end up performing exactly like G92 anyway, with similar SP's, rops, and everything else? Simply because then it's "new"?
However, Nvidia seems the target of a lot of ire lately, and I have to wonder if being the last GPU only company really is going to start being a problem for them (although the two things arent related, it just seems like they're struggling).
trinibwoy
21-Feb-2009, 00:37
I guess, would people be happy if Nvidia made a "true" GT250 an all new sku and die..that would end up performing exactly like G92 anyway, with similar SP's, rops, and everything else? Simply because then it's "new"?
Yep, they would.
pjbliverpool
21-Feb-2009, 01:36
Yep they they would. But there would be very little benefit for the consumer (if any) and negative benefit for NV (which they would pass on to he consumer).
I really don't see the issue with this rebranding. It makes the product line much simpler to understand IMO and as Rangers said, G92 is already little more (or less) than a cut down GT2xx anyway.
A GT250 review has its merits. Its nice to see how that card sits in the current NV product range (next to the 240, 260 and 285). Its also nice to see how it performs in the latest titles at image quality settings that are expected from a midrange card.
Sure we can work this out from older reviews and +/- 10% to account for image quality settings etc.... or we can just read a nice convenient new review that tells us everything we need to know without the effort of having to dredge through 6 month old reviews.
One thing is certain though, they should absolutely make it very clear in every review that this is a re-branded 9800GTX+. But then, if anything, as a consumenr I would see that as a bonus. Afterall, it was pretty recently that that was an ultra high end GPU.
ChrisRay
21-Feb-2009, 02:04
Thats exactly my thoughts. With the exception of geometry shader improvements. The performance benefits would be small. If any at all..
willardjuice
21-Feb-2009, 06:26
Not in cuda though! For developers it's disappointing.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
21-Feb-2009, 10:52
I suspect that Kyle would quite clearly complain that it's nothing more than a rebrand of an old model to sell old stock. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nvidia reviewer guidelines tell the reviewers to specifically not mention that fact, and this is where the conflict arises. If Nvidia can't control what HardOCP publishes, they've decided to prevent Kyle from publishing anything by blocking any form of review sample. H fights back by revealing such behind the scene tactics to his audience and the rest of us.
ChrisRay
21-Feb-2009, 12:13
Hehe I'm sorry that conspiracy theory is obsurd. Nvidia couldn't hide it or control the web like that if they wanted too. 90% of the time reviewer guides get published anyways. Reviewers Guides are typically on Nvidia's press website and not watermarked and they really aren't as devious as you might think. They are just general guides with typically useful data on recent games, software, specs, ect. And occasional suggestions on how to benchmark new titles((such as Mirrors Edge and PhysX processing and multiple cards)). They typically have a comparison chart ((typically the type everyone here loves!)) of their own internal benchmarks as well.
So there are no "orders" in these guides ?
CarstenS
21-Feb-2009, 14:11
So there are no "orders" in these guides ?
Orders like "Thou shalt not name GTS 250 a 9800 GTX++"?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
21-Feb-2009, 15:47
Hehe I'm sorry that conspiracy theory is obsurd. Nvidia couldn't hide it or control the web like that if they wanted too. 90% of the time reviewer guides get published anyways. Reviewers Guides are typically on Nvidia's press website and not watermarked and they really aren't as devious as you might think. They are just general guides with typically useful data on recent games, software, specs, ect. And occasional suggestions on how to benchmark new titles((such as Mirrors Edge and PhysX processing and multiple cards)). They typically have a comparison chart ((typically the type everyone here loves!)) of their own internal benchmarks as well.
So why did Nvidia organise a boycott of HardOCP with every Nvidia partner that might supply them with a review sample? Kyle seems to be saying it's for fear that HardOCP might say something about the card just being a rebadge of an older card.
If that's not a problem, and if there's no sanction against saying it's an older rebadge, then why alienate one of Nvidia's biggest friends in the hardware website world?
A company like Nvidia only tries to lock out someone like Kyle because (a) Kyle won't toe the party line, or (b) punishment for past offences.
John Reynolds
21-Feb-2009, 19:28
If you think NV PR isn't aggressive, bullish, or willing to hold grudges over many years, you're sadly mistaken. You also do not generally get sampled by AIB partners unless NV PR/marketing has you on their 'approved' list.
I write the above without any intentional criticsm, it's just the nature of how they operate.
ChrisRay
21-Feb-2009, 23:15
Oh I know that Nvidia will suggest, Mention, and encourage testing of CUDA/PhysX every chance they get. I am simply pointing out that original conspiracy theory you posted was hog wash about sealing an identity about a product like that. Its not something they could hide it anyway. Anyone with a screw driver and 10 minutes could look under the heatsink.
As far as any sorta political clash between HardocP and graphic vendors. Wouldn't be the first time. But I wouldn't know the personal details either.
*Edit* I was pretty tired last night. I just thought what you were saying about reviewers guides to be fairly funny. Thats all.
ninelven
22-Feb-2009, 00:13
The problem with the rebranding is that it gives the uneducated consumer the false sense of innovation.
If it were truly just about consolidating the naming scheme, they could have / should have done that when the GTX280 and GTX260 first launched. The 9800 "brand" still carried weight at the time so they stuck with it, now that it is losing steam (simply due to being around for so long) they have the motivation to change it.
It is just a gimmick to help spark more sales, but that is (and always has been) the nature of Nvidia. They are in business to make $$$, and they are good at it.
homerdog
22-Feb-2009, 03:25
They are in business to make $$$, and they are good at it.
I couldn't resist. (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=52324)
ninelven
22-Feb-2009, 05:40
And yet, they could buy AMD...
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12222&Itemid=1
Jawed
Oh. My. God. I know mobile branding has always been a mess, but that takes the trophy. And come on, the 9800M GTX already had 112 SPs...
No, taking the trophy would be calling it GTX285M. Maybe there's a hint in there somewhere that in fact GTX285M is coming a little later?...
And, shouldn't we be expecting GTX295M too?
Jawed
Here are NV's guidelines to boards partners regarding the GTS 250 launch :
3/3 – Reviews go live of GTS 250 1GB fast boards (738/1100)
3/10 – GTS 250 1GB fast boards (738/1100) and 512MB boards available for sale.
3/17 – GTS 250 1GB slow boards (738/1000) available for sale.
NOTE: The older slow 1GB (1000MHz memory) boards should not go on sale till after 3/17. The only exceptions are if partners can overclock the memory on these to hit 1100MHz.
The 1GB GTS 250 will be released with 0.8ns memory or 1.0ns memory, just like the 9800 GTX+. Nvidia AFAIK never mentioned this slower memory but is bundling it with the G92b to board partners.
I guess part of the rebrand strategy is to associate the "new" GTS 250 with better PhysX and CUDA marketing. Nvidia doesn't have "great" products these days (doesn't mean they're bad either) so they have aggressive marketing trying to get these to look as best as possible. That of course includes trying to get most of the reviews done the way they like -> insist on the extra value brought by CUDA and PhysX.
It's not a big new product launch so they can afford ignoring some major websites which are reluctant to do that and could have a significant negative impact on the product image at launch. Nvidia and AMD always check with their partners who get the boards and ask them to send boards in priority to some website and not to some other. That being said somebody knowing people in the industry (such as Kyle) doesn’t need Nvidia or AMD support to get a board…
Nvidia’s strategy is always pissing off the uncooperative press when its products are not obvious winners. That’s why Kyle reacted I guess.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
24-Feb-2009, 14:25
Charlie is also claiming (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/123/1051123/nvidia-cuts-reviewers-gts250) that Nvidia are silently sending out overclocked & cherry picked cards to reviewers that are not representative of the retail product:
Not only that, but the flat-out dishonesty is that Nvidia gave its board partners 'special' boards to send to reviewers. They are not allowed to give out their own vanilla cards, they MUST use the special set supplied by Nvidia.
Why is this dishonest? Want to bet that those boards have cherry-picked chips and RAM that clocks to the moon? That they will do everything better than any card you will ever be able to buy? Basically, Nvidia supplied ringers to the press that are not representative of what you can buy, and forced OEMs to give them to review sites without telling them. The technical term is 'mushrooming', feed them [scatological reference deleted] and keep them in the dark.
When it starts with Charlie is claiming I start ignoring.
Personally I think it a bit churlish. Why not just link to the previous review and say this is the performance you will get scaled bya 15% clock increase or whatever it is. I do find it humorous just from the POV that everyone rags on [H] saying they are in the bed for Nvidia.
GTS250, according to Tridam, is clocked exactly the same as 9800GTX+
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=571&card2
so there is absolutely no reason to review it as a new product. Well, that's ignoring advertising $. Factor those in and who knows, eh?
Jawed
Charlie is also claiming[/URL] that Nvidia are silently sending out overclocked & cherry picked cards to reviewers that are not representative of the retail product:
ChrisRay will show up soon to dispell that rumour ;)
Silent_Buddha
24-Feb-2009, 20:28
So, will the GTX (fast) boards have a different name than the GTX (slow) boards? Or will this be a classic bait and switch?
Review fast boards, sell fast boards for first week in order to maintain illusion that GTX (fast) board is what everyone will be able to buy. After first week, start mixing in GTX (slow) boards in order to maximize profit margins. Review sessions are over and people won't "notice" they now have slower cards than what was reviewed.
That's an even worse situation than just rebranding an existing card to make people believe it's new tech. Hopefully there will be something to let consumers know the difference between GTX (fast) and GTX (slow). In which case ignore all this speculation.
What's even worst your average consumer that doesn't go to enthusiast sites will see GTX 250 and immediately think it's gotta be faster than his 9800 GTX. Replaces said card and notices little to no performance gain. Yeah that's a good situation.
Regards,
SB
CarstenS
24-Feb-2009, 21:22
In case you're interested, what kind of difference it'd make, it so happens, that we've reviewed a 1-Gig-9800-GTX+ from Gigabyte last week (soon to be GTS250 <slow>) and also ran the benchmarks with mem oc'ed to 1.1 GHz (soon to be GTS 250 <fast)>:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,676413/Reviews/Geforce-9800-GTX-with-1-GB-video-memory-reviewed/
pjbliverpool
24-Feb-2009, 21:31
What's even worst your average consumer that doesn't go to enthusiast sites will see GTX 250 and immediately think it's gotta be faster than his 9800 GTX. Replaces said card and notices little to no performance gain. Yeah that's a good situation.
Regards,
SB
Well strictly speaking, it is faster than a 9800GTX. Its a 9800GTX+ :wink:
More seriously though, why would someone assume that? And if they did I would question their knowledge of PC hardware in general.
Afterall, the 9800GTX was the fastest PC GPU of the previous generation while the GTS 250 is clearly positioned as a mid range card. Its very rare that a mid range card is faster than the fasterst card of the previous generation so if someonw were to assume it will be, I would say the blame lies with them rather than NV.
John Reynolds
24-Feb-2009, 21:53
More seriously though, why would someone assume that? And if they did I would question their knowledge of PC hardware in general.
I remember arguing with an engineer at work back in 2002 that his GF4 MX was not in fact a GF4 but rather a rebranded GF2. He absolutely refused to believe me, because his card was clearly labelled as a GF4. Informed consumers have never been a majority.
Richard
25-Feb-2009, 01:59
Afterall, the 9800GTX was the fastest PC GPU of the previous generation while the GTS 250 is clearly positioned as a mid range card. Its very rare that a mid range card is faster than the fasterst card of the previous generation so if someonw were to assume it will be, I would say the blame lies with them rather than NV.
What JR said, also, do regular people know that the suffixes actually mean something other trying to sound cool? :twisted:
I remember arguing with an engineer at work back in 2002 that his GF4 MX was not in fact a GF4 but rather a rebranded GF2.
You're both wrong.
Cookie Monster
25-Feb-2009, 06:36
You're both wrong.
Hes perfectly right. The Geforce 4 MX was nothing more than a geforce 2 "on steroids" since it didnt have DX8 support like the Geforce 4/3. It did support some newer features compared to the Geforce 2 like MSAA and other architectural tweaks (like the improved memory controller) found on the Geforce4/3 hardware hence why its on steroids.
Hes perfectly right. The Geforce 4 MX was nothing more than a geforce 2 "on steroids" since it didnt have DX8 support like the Geforce 4/3. It did support some newer features compared to the Geforce 2 like MSAA and other architectural tweaks (like the improved memory controller) found on the Geforce4/3 hardware hence why its on steroids.
I'm sure you know this because you've seen the architecture, right? No? Well at least you wrote batteries of directed tests to measure its behavior and compared it to a GF2 and a GF4? No? Hmm, ok, so you basically looked at a single feature in a tiny part of the pipeline, and used that to decide that your point was true?
ChrisRay
25-Feb-2009, 07:46
ChrisRay will show up soon to dispell that rumour ;)
I havent signed up to review anything or signed any specific NDAs right now. Nor have I been briefed. Of course thats always subject to change. ((in the possible near future)) But I don't have an Geforce GTS 250 board. Maybe Nvidia is afraid I'll call it a G92?! ;)
GTS250, according to Tridam, is clocked exactly the same as 9800GTX+
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=571&card2
so there is absolutely no reason to review it as a new product. Well, that's ignoring advertising $. Factor those in and who knows, eh?
Jawed
what of what Cartsen said? Did they increase the mem clock or not?
CarstenS
25-Feb-2009, 12:13
Tridam (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1270590&postcount=39) postet a nice piece of info. Apparently, there's the upclocked version first and then the same-clocked version to follow two weeks after. Both compared to standard-clocks for 9800 GTX+/1G which normally come with 1 GHz memclock instead of 1.1 GHz.
According to GPUReview, as I linked, there are plenty of 1100MHz memory 9800GTX+ cards out there already.
Jawed
pjbliverpool
25-Feb-2009, 17:02
I remember arguing with an engineer at work back in 2002 that his GF4 MX was not in fact a GF4 but rather a rebranded GF2. He absolutely refused to believe me, because his card was clearly labelled as a GF4. Informed consumers have never been a majority.
Yeah but to be analogous to my point he would have also have to have believed that his GF4MX (a budget card) was faster than a GF3 Ti500 (a multi hunded $ top end card of a few months previous).
Not believing its a rebranded GF2 and that are two pretty different things IMO.
I don't expect consumers to understand the architecture in any level of detail. But I would expect them to understand that a mid range card of todays generation is not necessarily going to be faster than the top end card of the previous generation. Thats more common sense that specifc knowledge IMO.
homerdog
25-Feb-2009, 17:52
Doesn't matter what they call it, RV740 is gonna eat its lunch. :twisted:
pjbliverpool
25-Feb-2009, 19:35
Doesn't matter what they call it, RV740 is gonna eat its lunch. :twisted:
Sounds like its actually going to be slower than the GTS 250 to me. Might be a bit faster than the GTS 240 though.
Silent_Buddha
25-Feb-2009, 22:00
According to GPUReview, as I linked, there are plenty of 1100MHz memory 9800GTX+ cards out there already.
Jawed
The thing that sticks out though is that this is a classic bait and switch for a new product.
Reviews of only the Fast version. Only the Fast version to be sold during the first week to maintain the illusion that this is the product everyone will get. Switch to Slow version after review fever has died down to make more money.
The performance difference may be negligible, but the fact remains that Nvidia is marketing the Fast version to the public but has full intentions of selling the Slow version under the same name and price. And, of course, they can get away with it since they aren't personally making any claims about what you'll get to avoid liability. But they are doing it in all but name by only allowing the Fast version to be reviewed and sold at first.
At least in the past, slower but same named products were at least confined to the OEM space due to OEM requests for cheaper parts. (at least in the US I know Asia has different standards in some of the countries)
Regards,
SB
homerdog
25-Feb-2009, 22:51
Sounds like its actually going to be slower than the GTS 250 to me. Might be a bit faster than the GTS 240 though.
Just a little slower assuming Guru3D's card was at final clocks, but at <$100 MSRP I'd call that a lunch eating. :grin:
Richard
26-Feb-2009, 01:06
I'm sure you know this because you've seen the architecture, right? No? Well at least you wrote batteries of directed tests to measure its behavior and compared it to a GF2 and a GF4? No? Hmm, ok, so you basically looked at a single feature in a tiny part of the pipeline, and used that to decide that your point was true?
That may very well be but for the end-consumer (what JR was pointing out) it was a GF2 on steroids. You got "SM 0.5" instead of SM 1.1, you got the same amount of video memory (if you had the GF2Ti), etc. Yes there were differences and the clock/mem was higher but in the real world:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pc-graphics-xbox,423-13.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pc-graphics-xbox,423-11.html
You got slightly better perf than a GF2 but lower than a GF3, not to mention that once games started requiring DX8 you were out of luck. Which was JR's whole point: the name "GF4" led people to believe it was better than GF3 when it was actually worse and little better than a GF2.
Carmack himself blasted nvidia for naming the NV17 a GF4 card and actively told people not to buy it and get a GF3 instead.
But I would expect them to understand that a mid range card of todays generation is not necessarily going to be faster than the top end card of the previous generation.
Actually i lot quite a few noobs (for lack of a better name) that believe the higher the number the better
pjbliverpool
26-Feb-2009, 11:54
Actually i lot quite a few noobs (for lack of a better name) that believe the higher the number the better
Yeah I know quite a few myself. My point though was that I wouldn't hold NV to blame if someone did make that assumption. I would blame the individual for not doing at least a basic amount of research into what they were buying.
The only other option would be to have graphics cards being named in a never ending upwards scale of numbers based on their performance.
There is always going to be someone out there stupid enough to think a GeForce 4MX 440 must be more powerful than a Geforce GTX 285 :lol:
Blazkowicz
26-Feb-2009, 12:40
I'm not aware of msaa on geforce 4MX, lol, that would make it a better card than those atrocious radeon 9200SE/9250 :lol:. (well, perhaps a MX440 already is..)
by the way it's actually geforce 2MX on steroids. it's not too unlike the voodoo3, that was called the voodoo3 instead of banshee 2.
It's a mix of GF2 & GF4 IP, with the most important parts from an end-user POV being GF2-based but still plenty of GF4 technology. That does make it problematic to call it a GF4 since it is inferior to GF3 in several key ways feature-wise, but architecturally it's unfair to call it a GF2.
There, happy? :p
There is always going to be someone out there stupid enough to think a GeForce 4MX 440 must be more powerful than a Geforce GTX 285
Imagine the awesome power of the GeForce Ti 4200!!
homerdog
26-Feb-2009, 16:48
So am I alone in thinking RV740 will be the final nail for G92? Don't see how GTS250/240 can be competitive on a price/perf level at all against that little devil. Perhaps I'm underestimating the power of the Evil Green Marketing Machine...:grin:
pjbliverpool
26-Feb-2009, 17:41
Whats the actual price difference between the 3? I have no idea what that level of GPU is going for these days!
homerdog
26-Feb-2009, 19:06
HD4770 (?) is expected at ≤100USD; GTS250/240 I dunno, all we've got is Charlie (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/123/1051123/nvidia-cuts-reviewers-gts250) claiming they'll be jacking it up compared to the 9800s. FWIW the cheapest 9800GTX+ is $145 on Newegg and $110 for the 9800GT and it's doubtful they'll be lowering it for the rerehash.
Edit: Ah but it appears the GTSs are due a couple months before RV740.
http://xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20090225091941_fourth_encounter_with_nvidia_s_g92_ is_approaching_geforce_gts_250_due_in_days.html
In fact, Nvidia bets heavily on the low price of the GeForce GTS 250: the 512MB version should cost $129 and 1GB version is projected to be available at manufacturer suggested retail price of $149, considerably lower compared to price-points of the 9800 GTX+ models.
Jawed
homerdog
26-Feb-2009, 19:58
$129's not bad (and lower than I expected :oops:).
Silent_Buddha
26-Feb-2009, 20:09
For people that are looking for video cards down in that range however, 129 is a whole lot more expensive than 99. For marketting to consumers 99 is a lot more attractive than 100. :p
Regards,
SB
new rumor, I heard they're going to sell the "new" GeForce GTS 256 for about $125 ;) (and that without any rebranding)
pjbliverpool
26-Feb-2009, 21:51
new rumor, I heard they're going to sell the "new" GeForce GTS 256 for about $125 ;) (and that without any rebranding)
:lol: I hadn't realised how amazingly close those names actually are!
and a GeForce GTS 256.003 for $125.32
ChrisRay
27-Feb-2009, 00:48
Well considering the SLI perk. It's clear Nvidia isn't trying to hide anything.
but there is some smoke and mirrors since they'll now be running on "CUDA processors" instead of stream processors/shader cores/intahwibbles and fail to mention that there is a functional difference.
Bizarrely, G92b will also have only 4 clusters enabled for GTX160M
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12295&Itemid=1
what's the matter with using G94b :shock:
Jawed
AnarchX
27-Feb-2009, 14:20
Latest Mobile FW 179.44 says:
NVIDIA_G94.DEV_0631.1 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M"
Also it looks like there will be a G96-based GeForce 200M:
NVIDIA_G96.DEV_0653.1 = "N10P-GV1"
CarstenS
27-Feb-2009, 14:40
Might there be a difference between "Enthusiast" GTX 160M and "Performance" GTS 160M if they even coexist?
BTW, IMO it'd make sense wrt to cost-effectiveness: For mobile you only have to bin (=lower costs) on only one of the two GPUs, you have the ability to sell I dare say everything off of the G92-wafers (= higher revenue per fixed-price wafer) and finally, you have more of the same package (= lower cost per piece of this package).
What doesn't make sense though, is to keep selling another Chip (G94) with basically the same specs in mobile too.
Might there be a difference between "Enthusiast" GTX 160M and "Performance" GTS 160M if they even coexist?
When I read the Fudzilla article I have to admit the X did make me think the rumour was rubbish.
Jawed
CarstenS
27-Feb-2009, 16:04
Quite likely. At least, I am not aware of such a thing (if that means anything).
i dont mind re branding, as long as they rebrand while lowering the price that is all i care about.
While GTS250 may be a 9800 GT and itself is a 8800GT which is again a slightly scale down of 8800 GTX.
What matters is pricing..... Could anyone provides Info on the pricing history.
Edit: So from a little Research, Geforce 8800 GTX was launched on Nov 2006 Pricing at $559,
GTS 250 is launching ( March 09 ) 1GB version at $149. The faster clock speed and memory more then made up for the lost of 128Bit memory performance.
So today $149 will get you the top performing Graphics Card 27 months ago worth of $559.
( I dont know if the 512Mb $129 version will be a match for 8800GTX )
Compare to CPU performance this isn't such a bad deal at all.
pjbliverpool
03-Mar-2009, 17:53
i dont mind re branding, as long as they rebrand while lowering the price that is all i care about.
While GTS250 may be a 9800 GT and itself is a 8800GT which is again a slightly scale down of 8800 GTX.
What matters is pricing..... Could anyone provides Info on the pricing history.
Edit: So from a little Research, Geforce 8800 GTX was launched on Nov 2006 Pricing at $559,
GTS 250 is launching ( March 09 ) 1GB version at $149. The faster clock speed and memory more then made up for the lost of 128Bit memory performance.
So today $149 will get you the top performing Graphics Card 27 months ago worth of $559.
( I dont know if the 512Mb $129 version will be a match for 8800GTX )
Compare to CPU performance this isn't such a bad deal at all.
The GTS 250 is a rebranded 900GTX+, not a 9800GT/8800GT. So its quite a lot faster than a regular 8800GTX.
So the real comparison should be between the 250 at its current price and the 9800GTX+ at both its launch price, and its most recent price.
In both cases the 250 looks like a decent deal to me. Of course thats only in comparison to NV's own line up. If it wasn't for AMD, we wouldn't be seeing these price cuts at all.
watch-out. the $149 is for the "slow" GTS-2501GB, you'll pay another premium for the "fast" version that went on review today. it's nice that the reviewers got the same marketing slides as l'Inq, you can see them quoting tidbits from it.
Kanyamagufa
04-Mar-2009, 09:09
This whole renaming scene feels like something out of a Monty Python sketch...
Captain Jack Sparrow may have put it best, though; "That's just maddeningly unhelpful."
Blazkowicz
04-Mar-2009, 13:26
I like the renaming! it properly markets the G92b with a bit of a refresh on price and frequencies.
consumers don't know about GPUs and stuff, so they don't care, informed people know about GPUs, frequency, ram, architecture etc. so they don't necessarily have to care either.
I like the renaming! it properly markets the G92b with a bit of a refresh on price and frequencies.
consumers don't know about GPUs and stuff, so they don't care, informed people know about GPUs, frequency, ram, architecture etc. so they don't necessarily have to care either.
No, frequencies have not been refreshed. Guess that makes you a consumer not an informed person.
Jawed
Blazkowicz
04-Mar-2009, 22:15
ouch, I'm pwned! :razz:
though, while googling about the GTS 240, it's said to be faster than the 9800GT. not that I care much about 5 or 10%, but whatever. for someone with a NV bias a G92b is reasonable.
from this end of the market, note that the 9800GTX+ was a no-go anyway (too expensive)
trinibwoy
05-Mar-2009, 16:41
No, frequencies have not been refreshed. Guess that makes you a consumer not an informed person.
Isn't the word on GTS 240 that it's a 9800GT at 9800GTX+ frequencies?
Isn't the word on GTS 240 that it's a 9800GT at 9800GTX+ frequencies?
You got me there - I can't even find GTS240:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_family.html
Do you think this'll do?:
http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=2425&l1=2&l2=6&l3=656&l4=0
Jawed
Cookie Monster
06-Mar-2009, 04:46
Isn't the word on GTS 240 that it's a 9800GT at 9800GTX+ frequencies?
Think its at 9800GTX frequencies.
dizietsma
06-Mar-2009, 11:40
If only nvidia hadn't used the decimal system and instead used hexadecimal we wouldn't be in this mess now .
Welcome the A200, A400, A600 and A800.
:)
trinibwoy
06-Mar-2009, 13:38
Think its at 9800GTX frequencies.
Could be - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,676512/Geforce-GTS-240-with-G92b-and-9800-GTX-clock-speeds-GTS-250-with-9800-GTX-clocks/News/
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14551
:roll:
Jawed
pjbliverpool
12-Mar-2009, 12:38
Thats a bad move IMO. the 240 re-name made a lot of sense in light of its increased clocks and the existance of the 250. No we are stuck with understanding 2 different naming schemes for what is essentially the same architecture.
Well maybe the arrival of the "not for individual purchase" GeForce GTS 150 card explains it a bit. nVidia already screwed up with the new namingscheme eventhough you can't buy this in the shops...
Check the GeForce GTS150 specs (http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_150_us.html) which basically is GeForce GTX250 'slow'.... it's the 'old' GF9800GTX+ using the original PCB and original GTX+ cooler and 1GB memory.
And since GTS150 would probably be faster than GTS240, while also having better specs... well you can see where this is going.... very confusing already :roll:
And since GTS150 would probably be faster than GTS240, while also having better specs... well you can see where this is going.... very confusing already :roll:
This can't be! renaming the card was supposed to make it better for consumers, are nvidia really only after the money of unknowing customers?
trinibwoy
13-Mar-2009, 11:28
Check the GeForce GTS150 specs (http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_150_us.html) which basically is GeForce GTX250 'slow'.... it's the 'old' GF9800GTX+ using the original PCB and original GTX+ cooler and 1GB memory.
Wtf? I thought the GTS150 was going to be G94 based. So the only difference between GTS150 and GTS250 is 100Mhz memory clock? There's no way people can be this incompetent so I've gotta agree now with all the people who say Nvidia is just intentionally f*cking with their customers and partners in order to dump old inventory.
pjbliverpool
13-Mar-2009, 12:35
How is the 150 priced compared to the 250? I'm just not seeing the logic behind using different names. Clearly it makes no sense from a product positioning point of view but it doesn't seem to help the things sell either.
I mean, why name a part GTS 150 when you could justifiably call it a GTS 250? Surely thats going to hurt their sales?
In effect we now have:
'old PCB' 9800GTX+ 512MB @ 1100Mhz = GTS 250 512MB 'fast'
'old PCB' 9800GTX+ 1024MB @ 1000Mhz = GTS 150
'new PCB' 9800GTX+ 1024MB @ 1000Mhz = GTS 250 1024MB 'slow'
'new PCB' 9800GTX+ 1024MB @ 1100Mhz = GTS 250 1024MB 'fast'
Have I got that right? If so, its a complete mess.
PJ, now throw in what was planned to be GTS 240...
How is the 150 priced compared to the 250? I'm just not seeing the logic behind using different names. Clearly it makes no sense from a product positioning point of view but it doesn't seem to help the things sell either.
I mean, why name a part GTS 150 when you could justifiably call it a GTS 250? Surely thats going to hurt their sales?
In effect we now have:
'old PCB' 9800GTX+ 512MB @ 1100Mhz = GTS 250 512MB 'fast'
'old PCB' 9800GTX+ 1024MB @ 1000Mhz = GTS 150
'new PCB' 9800GTX+ 1024MB @ 1000Mhz = GTS 250 1024MB 'slow'
'new PCB' 9800GTX+ 1024MB @ 1100Mhz = GTS 250 1024MB 'fast'
Have I got that right? If so, its a complete mess.
Well I guess that depends on how they want to market it. I mean if the GTS 150 is on par with the HD4850 then the GTS 250 have to be a whole lot faster - after all it's a whole generation number above the GTS 150 isn't it ;) So yeah may be I'm a bit in conspiracy theory mode but the naming scheme you described actually fits nicely with it ;) I guess we'll just have to wait and see how things will play out :)
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
13-Mar-2009, 17:16
Nvidia are just treading water. They can't match price/performance with ATI (particularly in the high volume middle-market segments) except at the expense of their margins. They haven't got anything ready to go that will fix that, so they are just stalling with marketing rebranding until they can bring something new to the table.
Nvidia's been going for "bigger, faster, more expensive" for a while now, and ATI sidestepped them wth their "smaller, faster, price/performance" that's given ATI better margins and more room for undercutting. So instead Nvidia rebadge their old products and look to the next-gen product for some kind of solution for the changed market landscape.
And it is all completely irrelevant. Unless someone knows the margins on the 9800/250 which is competitive with the 4850 then it is just blowing smoke. The fact is Nvidia's last gen is competitive with AMDs current gen who cares what generation they are.
And it is all completely irrelevant. Unless someone knows the margins on the 9800/250 which is competitive with the 4850 then it is just blowing smoke. The fact is Nvidia's last gen is competitive with AMDs current gen who cares what generation they are.
Is the GTX260 price competitive with the 4870 or is the GTX295 price competitive with the 4870X2? :runaway:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
13-Mar-2009, 18:23
And it is all completely irrelevant. Unless someone knows the margins on the 9800/250 which is competitive with the 4850 then it is just blowing smoke. The fact is Nvidia's last gen is competitive with AMDs current gen who cares what generation they are.
So if that's the case why do Nvidia need to rebrand the cards with a different name? Why pretend they are something new when they are not and "who cares what generation they are"? The only reason for that is to fool the potential customer.
Fact is that while the 250 may be competative in price/performance for the customer, it's not competative for Nvidia in terms of margins in the marketplace, and until they have something that is, they are just making do with rebranding and re-marketing until they have something new. Just the die size difference tells you that Nvdia is getting less chips per wafer than ATI, yet they are being forced to sell at the same price with a complex board.
trinibwoy
14-Mar-2009, 08:46
Does anyone know what AMD's graphics division margins look like?
So if that's the case why do Nvidia need to rebrand the cards with a different name? Why pretend they are something new when they are not and "who cares what generation they are"? The only reason for that is to fool the potential customer.
Fact is that while the 250 may be competative in price/performance for the customer, it's not competative for Nvidia in terms of margins in the marketplace, and until they have something that is, they are just making do with rebranding and re-marketing until they have something new. Just the die size difference tells you that Nvdia is getting less chips per wafer than ATI, yet they are being forced to sell at the same price with a complex board.
Well the customer is what I care about as I am one.
We don't know the margins. That is the fact. If you have specific information please enlighten us.
Is the GTX260 price competitive with the 4870 or is the GTX295 price competitive with the 4870X2?
We already went over this actually. Sorry if you missed it.
Maybe you should try reading what people write or alternatively writing something useful yourself.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
14-Mar-2009, 11:22
Well the customer is what I care about as I am one.
You keep saying "its competative, it's competative" but only from one narrow viewpoint, and not relevent to why Nvidia is rebranding rather than innovating. Sure, they've cut the prices of their more expensive cards to try and make people buy them, but taking last years $200 cards and selling them for $100 to make them match the ATI price performance isn't competative for Nvidia - it's a desperate move, just like rebranding instead of bringing new products with the same margin problems. It's not competative when you are forced to sell the product you made at half the price you wanted. Great for the customer, right up until you go bankrupt or come up with something you can make money on.
We don't know the margins. That is the fact. If you have specific information please enlighten us.
If I had such info beyond conjecture, then I wouldn't be able to share it, as you well know.
And since you have no such information you have no valid argument that it isn't competitive. You have conjecture that it isn't. For all we know Nvidia has margins on the 250 that are very similar to the 4850.
We already went over this actually. Sorry if you missed it.
Maybe you should try reading what people write or alternatively writing something useful yourself.
Not in this thread, I'm not your personal stalker so .. you've dodged the question once again.
Arty try this http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48843 If you want to discuss more of nvidia's lineup and the cost/performance comparison to AMD.
Rurouni
14-Mar-2009, 19:35
I don't mind they rebrand their card as long the numbering scheme is inline with the performance and features. Although in Nvidia case is borderline ridiculous.
What I do mind is that their selling their top of the line mobile GPU with series 8 tech but brand it the GTX2xx! That's a bit to much for my stomach to handle...
Now, the desktop parts differentiate the rebrand stuff as GTS2xx, and the true next gen parts are the GTX2xx series... Why not the mobile parts use the GTS naming scheme? Surely by naming it GTS280M is enough to convey that it's top of the line mobile GPU... I just hope someone that do a lot CUDA programming and rely heavily on the GTX2xx architecture don't get fooled by the GTX260/280M branding and expect it to have the same feature as their desktop counterpart.
Found this :
According to DailyTech, NVIDIA will not be going ahead with its controversial GTS 240 rebrand of the GeForce 9800 GT graphics card. The GPU firm has been under pressure from frustrated GPU board partners. Instead, NVIDIA is telling its customers to focus on three cards using the 9800 GT name. Besides the standard version, there is a reduced power version of the 9800 GT and the 9800 GT OC version. The original 65nm 9800 GT used the same original G92 chip as the 8800 GT and had the exact same specifications. A 55nm die shrink resulted in a G92b chip, which NVIDIA used as well in the 9800 GTX+ -- this has also come under controversy for being rebranded as the GTX 280M despite not using a GT200 chip.
http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIA+Backs+Away+From+GTS+240+Rebrand+of+9800+GT/article14551.htm
Silent_Buddha
14-Mar-2009, 23:40
It's nice to see board partners finally standing up to Nvidia a bit and telling them to shove it. At least in this one isolated case.
And you know it's getting bad and ridiculous when even the board partners are going up to Nvidia and basically saying, "WTF are you thinking?"
Regards,
SB
Found this :
http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIA+Backs+Away+From+GTS+240+Rebrand+of+9800+GT/article14551.htm
You seem to be developing a habit of posting stuff that's already been posted in the thread :razz:
Jawed
You seem to be developing a habit of posting stuff that's already been posted in the thread :razz:
Jawed
Yeah, and as was said earlier it is incoherent and makes no sense (the 240 rebrand as it would have been slower than the 150).
DegustatoR
17-Mar-2009, 01:13
Yeah, and as was said earlier it is incoherent and makes no sense (the 240 rebrand as it would have been slower than the 150).
150 makes no sense. 240 is the result of this.
What the hell is wrong with NVIDIA? Why can't they maintain their own naming scheme? It's like they have a hundred of people naming cards independently not talking to each other and trying to compete with each other.
I don't get it, why can't they put an end to this crap? They had a new naming scheme for half a year and it's already FUBAR thanks to themselves...
entity279
17-Mar-2009, 04:17
yeah, if they got on with that stupid 9800gtx+ -> gts 250 rebrand, i would rather they also have the 240. It makes the naming scheme much more coherent.
yeah, if they got on with that stupid 9800gtx+ -> gts 250 rebrand, i would rather they also have the 240. It makes the naming scheme much more coherent.
Only if they also rebrand consumer (not OEM) 9600GT and 9500GT and all the other G9x GPUs still on sale. Is 9400GT on sale? 9300?
One of the ironies of the 150 name is that it correctly describes G9x-based architecture as being the generation before 2xx GPUS.
So, erm, 9300 should be G100, 9400GT - G110, 9500GT - G120, 9600GT - GS130, 9800GT GT 140 and 9800GTX GTS 150.
Does that make sense?
Are there any G8x GPUs still on sale? Should they be the G0xx series? Doesn't that make 8400GS the G000 in the new naming scheme? :lol:
Wow, that's a name to conjure with, "all zero".
Jawed
Are there any G8x GPUs still on sale? Should they be the G0xx series? Doesn't that make 8400GS the G000 in the new naming scheme? :lol:
Wow, that's a name to conjure with, "all zero".
Jawed
The nVidia "Geo" I think one of the mods here would be proud.
I think G92 was supposed to have been EOL around now and the real GTS250, the 40nm replacement for G92, was supposed to have appeared.
But with the "40nm problems" (whatever they are) and inventory issues with G92, G92 is forced to come out as GTS250.
So, if there is a replacement for G92 on 40nm, using GT2xx tech, the next question is, what are they going to name it? GTS250? Will that be like 9600GSO?
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=563&card2=601
:roll:
Or, GTS350? :razz:
Jawed
The nVidia "Geo" I think one of the mods here would be proud.
Damn, I need a real :rofl: smilie :lol::lol::lol::lol:
I dunno, though, would you be happy to be associated with absolute junk?
Jawed
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.