3D Board Naming (from ATI's new 2004 thread)
- Thread starter KimB
- Start date
Chalnoth said:
Hmm...
http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9000/radeon9000pro/index.html
Seems they are not pretending that indeed it is DX9 hardware like nvidia does with the GF 4MX yet by claiming DX 8.1 status. What nvidia has done with the Geforce 2 MX is quite nearly fraud. What you are making complaints about with regards to ATi amounts to a change of policy in marketing. That is quite different then what nvidia has been doing with the MX series cards. Not only was the original MX core upgraded to Geforce 4 status in name but DX 8.1 API status as well even when it clearly is not.
Did I deny what it said in ATI's whitepapers? No.Sabastian said:
The point remains that most people never bother to pay attention to such things. Most people look at what is on the box. If you think back to when nVidia released the GeForce4 MX, the complaints were never about nVidia claiming DirectX 8 support. That was, after all, a valid claim. The drivers did support the DirectX 8 API. It was misleading in terms of the colloquial use of the term, but it was technically correct.
I claim the primary problem with the GeForce4 MX was the GeForce4 in the name.
After all, if you had the choice between a GeForce4 MX and a GeForce3, with the MX being cheaper, which one would you buy, knowing nothing about what was in the box? That was the problem, and ATI has repeated the problem.
So, a user goes into the store, and sees a Radeon 9000 and a more expensive Radeon 8500. Which will this person buy? The Radeon 9000. The person also sees an even more expensive Radeon 9500 and Radeon 9700. The person will likely assume that the 9000 is just a slower version of the 9500 and 9700.
What makes this even worse is that ATI held it over nVidia's head about six months previous that their naming scheme was more accurate and less misleading. They specifically stated what their naming scheme meant. Just six months later, they broke their own rules. People who buy entry-level cards typically don't dig into product specs, or even know what to look for within those specs. DirectX version support is but one line in a long list. Most people don't know what is important in that list (and those of us who really know much at all about the cards know that such feature lists can be very misleading anyway).
Dear Chalnoth,
Point of reference: the RV250/280 was designed as a refinement of the R200, with the goal of retaining similar performance with reduced transistor count. Just pointing out (again) that technology doesn't just result in bigger hammers.
Say, maybe we can reflect on the arguments already put forth on the matter, and actually avoid another off-topic introduction of the "GF4MX discussion" being brought up simply because you can't resist an opportunity to insist "nVidia did better" regardless of any facts or logic anyone presents? Not a good track record, but could we give it a try?
[url=http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=157968#157968 said:demalion[/url]]
How many times will we have this discussion before people will pay more attention to provided information than what they simply like to believe?
Sorry, nVidia is not absolved of doing something worse than ATI based on repeating things demonstrated to be false. Why does that seem so unacceptable? There are significant problems with the [9000] to discuss, but please give up on excusing the GF 4 MX and nVidia by saying others are doing the same thing while ignoring inconvenient information to the contrary.
Point of reference: the RV250/280 was designed as a refinement of the R200, with the goal of retaining similar performance with reduced transistor count. Just pointing out (again) that technology doesn't just result in bigger hammers.
Say, maybe we can reflect on the arguments already put forth on the matter, and actually avoid another off-topic introduction of the "GF4MX discussion" being brought up simply because you can't resist an opportunity to insist "nVidia did better" regardless of any facts or logic anyone presents? Not a good track record, but could we give it a try?
Chalnoth said:
NO. You continue to paraphrase incorrectly. ATI never said it was DirectX generation. DEJA-VU: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=52310&
Okay, fine, technology generation.
According to ATI's own internal numbers, the 9000 and 9200 were not of the same technology generation as the 9500 and higher.
And certainly the 9100 was not of the same technology generation.
You should also note that the first digit was explicitly chosen to coincide with DirectX generations. If not DirectX generation, then what was it?
Technology generation means, to me, architecture basis. The R2xx/RV2xx is one technology generation, the R3xx/RV3xx is another. The NV2x is one, the NV3x is another.
And notice the last point:
According to ATI's own internal numbers, the 9000 and 9200 were not of the same technology generation as the 9500 and higher.
And certainly the 9100 was not of the same technology generation.
You should also note that the first digit was explicitly chosen to coincide with DirectX generations. If not DirectX generation, then what was it?
Technology generation means, to me, architecture basis. The R2xx/RV2xx is one technology generation, the R3xx/RV3xx is another. The NV2x is one, the NV3x is another.
And notice the last point:
Not only was this broken (9200 slower than 9100, in many cases, not to mention performance disparities with the higher 9x00 cards), but it implies the full meaning of "technology generation." If the last 3 digits only denote performance, then the first digit obviously denotes featureset. The 9000, 9100, and 9200 do not have the same featureset as the higher 9x00 cards.
Neither ATi (nor even nVidia until the FX) released budget parts of the same "technical" gen as their high-end. And that ATi quote says "generation," not "technical generation," so there's nothing inaccurate about it. I understand the part numbers suck, but there's no need to distort the truth to find fault. It's quite clear that by ATi's rules their cards are decently named, albeit still imperfectly. I don't see that changing with the next "gen," either. I'm assuming ATi will release a repackaged DX9 R300 series card as their budget line, and the high-end will be an architecturally and technically superior DX9.1 card.
The GF4MX4000 is only the latest example of how effed up 3D product naming is. I mean, nV did things right with the 5000 series, then they revert to the same schemes that earned them so much flak back in the GF4Ti days!
The GF4MX4000 is only the latest example of how effed up 3D product naming is. I mean, nV did things right with the 5000 series, then they revert to the same schemes that earned them so much flak back in the GF4Ti days!
As I understand it, the GF4MX is GF4Ti technology, with the DX8 parts stripped out. So, it resembles a GF2, but is not one. That makes it closer to being the same 'technology generation' than the R9000 is to the R9500+, and neither can claim the 'DX generation' tag. I just love these arguments. 
But it was the old design with additions, rather than the new design with subtractions (though, you could argue the GF3 and GF4Ti are GF2's with extra bits tacked on or replaced).
Either way, both were quite clearly misnamed, so hopefully Nv will stick with the scheme they had for the FX 5x00, and ATI will keep their RV380 and R420 names different enough - but I can't see the latter happening, with there only really one name (9900) left for 2 or more GPU's. Either we get an R3x0 'R10000' with the R4x0 'R10700', or more SE/LE/Pro/XT extensions, neither of which are ideal.
Either way, both were quite clearly misnamed, so hopefully Nv will stick with the scheme they had for the FX 5x00, and ATI will keep their RV380 and R420 names different enough - but I can't see the latter happening, with there only really one name (9900) left for 2 or more GPU's. Either we get an R3x0 'R10000' with the R4x0 'R10700', or more SE/LE/Pro/XT extensions, neither of which are ideal.
I can see it now... NVIDIA releases the NV40, which, to everyone's complete surprise, kicks ass. Marketing at ATI goes crazy and demands a huge core speed increase, which is not possible without a voltage increase, which again is not possible without a cooler overhaul. The cooler is redone, but... it's really loud. And then the R420 comes out as the Radeon 5800 Ultra.
Where's the "ballpunch" smiley when you really need it.... :?The Baron said:I can see it now... NVIDIA releases the NV40, which, to everyone's complete surprise, kicks ass. Marketing at ATI goes crazy and demands a huge core speed increase, which is not possible without a voltage increase, which again is not possible without a cooler overhaul. The cooler is redone, but... it's really loud. And then the R420 comes out as the Radeon 5800 Ultra.
A joke, my friend, a joke. Many people were convinced that the NV30 was going to rock just as much as the R420 is now rumored to rock, so I'm just trying to provide a bit of insight through humorous references to cards past.digitalwanderer said:Where's the "ballpunch" smiley when you really need it.... :?The Baron said:I can see it now... NVIDIA releases the NV40, which, to everyone's complete surprise, kicks ass. Marketing at ATI goes crazy and demands a huge core speed increase, which is not possible without a voltage increase, which again is not possible without a cooler overhaul. The cooler is redone, but... it's really loud. And then the R420 comes out as the Radeon 5800 Ultra.
Yeah, but it's close to the tech equivelent of a pun and I figure 'punchnuts' would be as aprapo as a good "GROAN!".The Baron said:A joke, my friend, a joke. Many people were convinced that the NV30 was going to rock just as much as the R420 is now rumored to rock, so I'm just trying to provide a bit of insight through humorous references to cards past.digitalwanderer said:Where's the "ballpunch" smiley when you really need it.... :?The Baron said:I can see it now... NVIDIA releases the NV40, which, to everyone's complete surprise, kicks ass. Marketing at ATI goes crazy and demands a huge core speed increase, which is not possible without a voltage increase, which again is not possible without a cooler overhaul. The cooler is redone, but... it's really loud. And then the R420 comes out as the Radeon 5800 Ultra.
Similar threads
- Locked
