3D Board Naming (from ATI's new 2004 thread)

[KimB]

Well, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. ATI has followed nVidia's business model and has "released" a full family of products with every major launch.

The only real question is whether ATI will have a complete family of new products, or a number of renamed/misnamed ones (i.e. Radeon 9000-9200).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The only real question is whether ATI will have a complete family of new products, or a number of renamed/misnamed ones (i.e. Radeon 9000-9200).

Yeah, ATI unfortunately copied nVidia's tactics with the GeForce4ti/AGP 8X situation.

With some luck, nVidia will start copying ATI's model of actually releasing a next-gen product with next-gen features who's performance doesn't suck.

 

[Novdid]

It wasn't the naming of the 8x versions that annoyed me the most, it was the various GF4 MX's.

But then again misleading is what all is about in this business, no???

 

[Sage]

It wasn't the naming of the 8x versions that annoyed me the most, it was the various GF4 MX's.

But then again misleading is what all is about in this business, no???

of course, then there is the 256MB FX5200 which is so very popular because people go "WOW a 256MB card! thats SO FAST" but the FX5200 is barely able to run DX8.1 code even, it's so flukking SLOW

 

[KimB]

Barely able? It just runs the games at lower resolution, possibly without AA/AF. But you should still be able to turn all other in-game quality options to high.

 

[jjayb]

Well, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. ATI has followed nVidia's business model and has "released" a full family of products with every major launch.

The only real question is whether ATI will have a complete family of new products, or a number of renamed/misnamed ones (i.e. Radeon 9000-9200).

gf4 Mx400 anyone?

]Barely able? It just runs the games at lower resolution, possibly without AA/AF. But you should still be able to turn all other in-game quality options to high.

Lower rez without aa and af? That sounds like a real winner.

"Happy! happy! joy! joy! My games all run great at 640x480 Resolution!!!!! Now if I could only figure out how to force 320x240 the card would be blazing fast!"

 

[Sage]

Barely able? It just runs the games at lower resolution, possibly without AA/AF. But you should still be able to turn all other in-game quality options to high.

the problem is that the generation before it (NV25/28) can run DX8.0 WITH AA and AF at reasonable resolutions.

 

[rwolf]

Barely able? It just runs the games at lower resolution, possibly without AA/AF. But you should still be able to turn all other in-game quality options to high.

Some people like their games running like a powerpoint slideshow.

Besides I am sure that Doom3 and HL2 will look great at 640X480..

 

[Hellbinder]

Well, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. ATI has followed nVidia's business model and has "released" a full family of products with every major launch.

The only real question is whether ATI will have a complete family of new products, or a number of renamed/misnamed ones (i.e. Radeon 9000-9200).

Why am i not supprised??

First of all Nvidia does not have a history of releasing a full family of products at one time. It Virtually *Never* happens if ever. Their releases and introductions have been staggared.

Secondly ATi is not just *renaming* products. They are Seperate Chip revisions. With disticnt internal Changes. The 9000 and 9200 are not hardware identical.

Renamed, misnamed.. You clearly are learning your tactics from Brian Burke very well.

 

[Xmas]

Secondly ATi is not just *renaming* products. They are Seperate Chip revisions. With disticnt internal Changes. The 9000 and 9200 are not hardware identical.

But 8500 and 9100 are, AFAIK.

 

[chavvdarrr]

Secondly ATi is not just *renaming* products. They are Seperate Chip revisions. With disticnt internal Changes. The 9000 and 9200 are not hardware identical.
Renamed, misnamed.. You clearly are learning your tactics from Brian Burke very well.

Can you give some info on diffreences between 8500/9100 and 9000/9200? or performance delta between 9000/9200? Except that from clock differences...

 

[karlotta]

Secondly ATi is not just *renaming* products. They are Seperate Chip revisions. With disticnt internal Changes. The 9000 and 9200 are not hardware identical.

But 8500 and 9100 are, AFAIK.

No not the 9100, the 8500 and the 9200 are the same core.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No not the 9100, the 8500 and the 9200 are the same core.

The 8500 and 9100 are the same core.

The 9200 is basically the 9000 core with added support for AGP 8X.

 

[karlotta]

ok i sux.. They are all realy R2xx ..... are they not?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

ok i sux.. They are all realy R2xx ..... are they not?

Yes....If memory serves, the 8500/9200 is the R200, the 9000 is the RV250, and the 9200 is the RV280. They are all DX8 parts.

 

[Rodéric]

ok i sux.. They are all realy R2xx ..... are they not?

Yes....If memory serves, the 8500/9200 is the R200, the 9000 is the RV250, and the 9200 is the RV280. They are all DX8 parts.

mmh ?
Which one should be 9100 instead of 9200 ?
I don't remember...

(Originally I planned on correcting you, but since I don't remember... ^^)

 

[Tridam]

8500/9100 : r200
9000 : rv250
9200 : rv280

 

[KimB]

mmh ?
Which one should be 9100 instead of 9200 ?
I don't remember...

(Originally I planned on correcting you, but since I don't remember... ^^)

Well, the 9000 and 9200 would more accurately be called some number < 8500. They are not DX9 parts, and I really hope ATI takes after nVidia here, and fixes their misleading naming scheme (as nVidia did after the GF4 MX).

 

[Ailuros]

Naming schemes leave me fairly in the cold, albeit I can see the point where it can get misleading for the average consumer.

On the other hand I'm not so sure that buying today a NV34 the consumer isn't being actually mislead too, while thinking that he's purchased a dx9.0 accelerator. Times worse if one fetches a 64bit version.

It doesn't mean that it wasn't a smart move from NVIDIA, rather the opposite; sales figures tell their own story.

In the end though for the user lack-lustering performance is far from being a eulogy.

 

[Sabastian]

In reference to this whole Geforce 4 MX naming scheme there is also the matter that the Geforce 4 MX is touted as a DX8.1 card, when it really isn't DX8.1 at all. It is only DX7. Essentially it is based off the original Geforce 2 MX with memory controller improvements and a bumped up clock speed.

Nvidia still sells the card as if it is DX 8.1 you can read it at the bottom of this PDF from nvidia under features.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/LO_20020204_8254.html

API support

Complete Direct X support, including Direct X 8.1

From what I know about the Geforce 4 MX this is outright fraud. There is a big difference between simply changing the name of the core vs selling it as something it really is not. Ironically nvidia owes somewhere in the range of 80% of the market share it had in the past to the MX series of cards.