Geforce4 Ti 4800!

[demalion]

Ok, here is where things get more confusing: ATi releases the 9000...now, this isn't simple in the details because it does have newer features and all the old features (as far as the consumer is concerned) of the 8500, and sometimes it is even faster as the name implies. The problem is that in general it is slower. Now, all in all this is not good, but it is not as bad as the "unannounced" speed decrease of the "OEM" and also not as bad as the GF4 MX problem. I think that atleast the last statement can be agree upon.

IMO, it's even worse (R9000) then the GF4 MX problem since Ati went out and and "complained" about Nvidias naming scheme and said that they would stick to their nr = DX version so that the consumers would know what they're getting. And as soon as they got a chance, they broke their own rule.

OK, my text about the problem with the GF 4 MX and the mention of atleast one place you can search right now for mislead consumers is right there to read. OK, could you illustrate to me what is worse about the 9000 naming scheme in comparison to the GF 4 MX naming? I'll take an initial guess:

It is dishonest to have a 9 in the name with DX 9 about to be out, to which I'd argue who would that mislead? Obviously you and me and people like us who know what DX 9 is...oops..."will be"...and therefore who clearly know how the 9000 doesn't meet it. What other consumers are going to be mislead by this name? For which DX 9 application? If you could illustrate how that dishonesty is worse than the GF 4 MX naming (your specific argument...I'm not arguing that it isn't "bad"), please do...keep in mind my example of atleast one place to search for examples of the already existing impact on consumers of the GF 4 MX naming. As I recall, before the 9000 was available for sale it was also made clear that contrary to what many (including myself) had thought, the number was not referring to "DX version".

Hmm...I'm sure I have this wrong, because this outlook is still confusing to me...so could you provide your actual reasoning?

 

[Bjorn]

Well, uh, you can't talk about names and have a discussion about being "misleading" usless you also consider the products they represent.

Of course.

 

[Bjorn]

It is dishonest to have a 9 in the name with DX 9 about to be out, to which I'd argue who would that mislead? Obviously you and me and people like us who know what DX 9 is...oops..."will be"...and therefore who clearly know how the 9000 doesn't meet it. What other consumers are going to be mislead by this name? For which DX 9 application? If you could illustrate how that dishonesty is worse than the GF 4 MX naming (your specific argument...I'm not arguing that it isn't "bad"), please do...keep in mind my example of atleast one place to search for examples of the already existing impact on consumers of the GF 4 MX naming. As I recall, before the 9000 was available for sale it was also made clear that contrary to what many (including myself) had thought, the number was not referring to "DX version".

Hmm...I'm sure I have this wrong, because this outlook is still confusing
to me...so could you provide your actual reasoning?

I thought i'd stated the reason pretty clearly in my post but here it goes again:

I wouldn't have a problem with the R9000 name at all,
IF if wasn't for the fact that Ati joined the choirs when Nvidia got flack for the GF4 MX thing.
They said "We are going to stick to our naming scheme which is nr = DX version, this is good for the consumers bla bla bla". And as we all know, they broke that rule pretty quick.

Also note that i said IMO. This is because i tend to have a problem with people complaining about a thing and then do exactly the same thing themselves.

 

[martrox]

I think both nVidia & ATI deserve to be beat up by using the names Radeon 9000 for a DX8 Part & GF4MX for a DX7 part. Both are misrepresenting themselves to the public, period.

However, this discussion has NOTHING to do with either of these cards. What it does have to do with is Anands nVidia bias. The point is that he is trying to downplay nVidia's misrepresentation by comparing it to ATIs, which just doesn't hold water. The fact is, a 9500 PRO is faster than a 9500, as the nominclature implies. Just how it achieves the difference is not any big deal, as both cards still have exactly the same features. nVidia's naming, if Anand is to be believed (which isn't a given, so don't flame me as a fanATIc ), is that a GFTI44800 is NOT faster than a GF4 4600TI, and that a GF4TI4800SE is acually slower than either! Now, just how does this compare?

9500
9500 PRO - Faster than 9500 - same features

GF4TI4600
GF4TI4800 - not faster than a GF4TI4600 - adds 8XAGP
GF4TI4800SE - SLOWER than all above - but still adds 8XAGP

This speaks volumes for Anand's "fairness"

 

[SirPauly]

From my understanding, the first number in the naming scheme translates into generation -- not DirectX. The 9XXX family is the 9th generation from ATI that just happens to be selling DirectX 9 hardware for the most part. However, I don't buy this 100 percent, I still feel that the naming scheme was also designed based on the DirectX version as well and if you look at it this way, well, the ATI 7000 and ATI 9000 names may look misleading to some. You can offer points and counter points 'till you're red in the face on both sides of the fence.

 

[Ichneumon]

I wouldn't have a problem with the R9000 name at all,
IF if wasn't for the fact that Ati joined the choirs when Nvidia got flack for the GF4 MX thing.
They said "We are going to stick to our naming scheme which is nr = DX version, this is good for the consumers bla bla bla". And as we all know, they broke that rule pretty quick.

This is the 2nd time you've stated that, but I know of nowhere that ATI officialy said that their card numbering scheme directly correlated to DX versions! can you linkify?

It has been said that nr=DX ver, but not by ATI afaik. I don't know of any "rule" that says ATI has to use that for their numbering scheme either.

The R9000 got its numbering because it is an 8500 that inhereted a bunch of tech from the 9700 (more advance pixel shader primarily), which makes it more advanced than the 8500.

Seems to me your only problem with the name is some percieved law which says ATI's numbering scheme has to correlate to Dx version.

I agree that 9000 isn't the best name for the card, but i'm not convinced that 8500SE or 8500<something> would have been any better than calling it 9000. with ATI phasing out its 7xxx and 8xxx generation cards, calling it 9000 makes sense as it puts it at the bottom of the pile of 9xxx cards.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Actually:

We can't only fault NVIDIA for misleading nomenclature though, the difference between ATI's Radeon 9500 and Radeon 9500 Pro is huge yet the difference in name implies nothing more than clock speed changes.

I disagree with that statement, so I tend to agree with the assesment that Anand is trying to grasp at atraws here to somewhat justify nVidia's naming.

Or - gasp - he might just have a different interpretation than you. Anand is a good political writer, and he knows that if you're going to chastise party A (particularly for something that hasn't actually happened yet, and may not), it is only fair to test whether the same charge sticks to A's opponent.

I know you still pretend to be objective, Joe, but it seems clear that ever since you purchased your R8500, you've transitioned from Defender of the 3dfx Faith to Knight in King ATI's Court. Certainly, one can reasonably argue that the 9500 and 9500Pro nomenclature is reasonable, but you only seem troubled by such issues when they cast a negative light on ATI or its products.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It has been said that nr=DX ver, but not by ATI afaik. I don't know of any "rule" that says ATI has to use that for their numbering scheme either.

There was a bunch ATI 'PR' of slides effectively rubishing the GF4 line a while after its release. I think it had the type of things Bjorn has mentioned in it.

I forget which site showed the slides, but I'd imagine they are still about.

 

[martrox]

Both nVidia & ATI should be bitchslapped for these kind of things......

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Anand is a good political writer...

And I disagree. IMO he's a BIASED political writer, drawing analogies where they don't apply. Can I not express my view?

I know you still pretend to be objective, Joe, but it seems clear that ever since you purchased your R8500, you've transitioned from Defender of the 3dfx Faith to Knight in King ATI's Court.

Sigh....every onece in a while I have to deal with one of these types of posts.

Please point out to me where exactly you think I have been unfair, or at least not have backed my opinions with a basis for that opinion. Even better, refute that basis.

Or do you think that ANAND'S COMPARISON is actually relevant? (9500 Pro is in fact a faster card than the 9500....what about Ti 4800 SE vs. 4600?)

Certainly, one can reasonably argue that the 9500 and 9500Pro nomenclature is reasonable, but you only seem troubled by such issues when they cast a negative light on ATI or its products.

Really? Then you must have missed it when I said that I didn't like or agree with ATI's naming of the 9000.

I own the 8500 because that was the best bang-for-the-buck card I could buy at the time. (I got in on the $200 Dell deal when most Radeons were selling everywhere for $250....)

Does being smart with my money mean I can't be objective?

Go on Oompa Loompa ...ask me any question regarding ATI / nVidia or their products. Test my objectivity. Good luck.

 

[Randell]

aye Joe, people forget there was a 2-3 month window when the Gf3 Ti500 was in the UK up to £70-£100 dearer than the retail 8500, and the 8500LE was cheaper than the Gf3Ti200. With a lot of initial driver issues sorted by November 2001, the 8500 was the best bang for buck buy Autumn '01. But buying that product over the Gf3Ti200 was a mistake in alot of peoples eyes and made you a FanATIc.

 

[BoddoZerg]

Why do people even bother to contemplate the logic of graphics chip naming scheme? Its obvious no such thing exists.

On the one hand, it's absurd that GeForce4 Ti4800 is the same speed as GF4-Ti4600. But you could say that it's even WORSE to call a videocard Radeon9000 when it is actually slower than a Radeon8500. You could also argue that "GeForce4MX" is misleading because it implies GeForce4-like performance when it's nothing of the sort. But you'd also have to say that Radeon9500 is horribly misleading; it's half as many pipes as Radeon9500Pro or Radeon9700, clearly it'll be nowhere near the performance. Although, at least radeon9500 is the same directx level as Radeon9500Pro.

From a marketing standpoint I think that ATi's nomenclature is horrible. Their usage of "Pro" is confusing. When nVidia says "MX", people think "Castrated" - and they are inevitably correct. But with the regular/Pro designation, ATi means totally different things depending on the model number. The 9000Pro and 9700Pro are just speed binned versions of the non-pro, meaning a small to moderate performance difference in any case, but the 9500Pro has twice the fillrate of a 9500!

From an "honesty" standpoint, of course nVidia is much worse. The 9000/8500 flub isnt too bad, no one will use DX9 features for years anyways, but the lack of DX8 on GF4MX severely cripples it for upcoming games like DOOM3. However, ATi makes themselves out as hypocrites when they criticize nVidia for naming the "GeForce4MX", then turn right around and put out a Radeon9000.

 

[MrB]

it's all marketing. They sit around the table, think about names that will confuse the hell out of consumers and watch the chaos happen

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Their usage of "Pro" is confusing. When nVidia says "MX", people think "Castrated" - and they are inevitably correct. But with the regular/Pro designation, ATi means totally different things depending on the model number.

You accuse ATI of meaning different things with Pro, and nVidia just meaning "castrated" with MX? That is entirely inconsistent.

With the GeForce2 line, the ONLY way the MX was castrated was in terms of performance. With the geForce4 line, the MX was castrated by a different level of DX support, in addidtion to performance. So clearly by your own logic, nVidia means "entirely different things" by "MX", depending on the model number.

IMO, ATI using "Pro" is completely consistent: the pro version is simply a faster card than the non-pro version. Completely consitent across every product line where the "Pro" moniker is used. (At least for the past few generations...don't recall about all the Rage Pro days!) You might argue about "how much faster?". But how much faster with the 9500 Pro be than the non Pro in bandwidth limited situations...given that the two have the same amount of bandwidth?

Look, in the end, both ATI and nVidia have some naming schemes with Marketing clearly in mind. However, the point of the particular gripe in this thread is the comparision of the 9500 and 9500 Pro to the suppossed Ti 4600 / 4800 / Ti / Se. I just don't see how Anand made a relevant comparison.

 

[demalion]

BoddoZerg,

I'm confused by how on the one hand "Pro" is confusing to use to mean more speed, and on the other "MX" is intuitevely "crippled". To me "Pro" is pretty clear, as clear as Ultra and Turbo in terms of marketing.

You also seem to have missed that the 4800-SE is actually slower than a 4600 according to Anand in your list of observations, and I mention this for completeness.

"You could argue" seems a meaningless beginning to a sentence where an explanation of "why it is valid to argue" such does not follow. IMO, your text seems to follow that trend with assertions without any explanation of why "you'd also have to", etc. For example, why does fill rate matter to the consumer? I'll predict you'll answer speed. With the answer the same as for "Why does clock speed matter to the consumer?" it is unclear to me why the naming difference qualifies as "horrible" without further clarification.

For my full views in context, my first post in the thread is available.

 

[SirPauly]

I have to admit, ATI's naming is quite simple with the 9xxx family:

9000

9000 Pro

Pro is faster.

9500

9500 Pro

Pro is faster.

9700

9700 Pro

Pro is faster.

9700 is faster than the 9500

9500 is faster than the 9000

I think this is the main point about the naming with the 9xxx series was the over-all speed point -- not confuse it with core clocking or architecture differences like some like to raise, hehehe. I can't think of a simpler naming scheme or one that offers more common sense.

 

[martrox]

I cannot help but agree with bot Joe & demalion here. BoddoZerg, your nVidia bias is really showing here. Myself, Joe & demalion have in no way excused ATi for their transgression with the 9000. But, for you to say that the 9500 is crippled and is badly named is just plain ignorant, as you have no idea just what it will do. The one thing we do know about the 9500 is that it will be slower than the 9500 PRO...... but just where do you see the reasoning for the GF4T!4800SE being slower than the GF4TI4600? Now, just where is the problem here, ATI or nVidia?

 

[megadrive0088]

To all intents and purposes, to the consumer GF2MX was just a slower version of GF2GTS

I tend to think of the GF2MX as a nuetered GF2GTS, with the MX version having half of its pipelines cut out, or at least not functioning.

And to fault Nvidia, calling the NV17 a GF"4"MX is extremely pathetic and disturbing, when it cannot even do what a plain GF3 or GF3Ti200 can do.

 

[SvP]

It took Anand 30 seconds to write that, but this thread is already about 8 hours old.

Fanboys have bought and will be buying the brand, enthusiasts have bought and will be buying the FPS numbers and professionals sadly generally don't post here. Does it really matters what one or another card is called?

I konw - I have the right not to read these threads...

 

[Teasy]

IMO, it's even worse (R9000) then the GF4 MX problem

How can you say that? Lets look at this for a moment. Geforce 4 MX was basically a Geforce 2 in features. So it was actually two generations behind its name of Geforce 4 and the MX bit on the end was confusing for anyone not totally up to speed on this sort of stuff, they had no way of knowing that a Geforce 4MX was any worse then a Geforce 4 TI never mind a Geforce 3.

Radeon 9000 is the equivalent of a Radeon 8500, so only one generation behind its name, infact not really a full generation because at least its only 500 above 8500 and 500 less then any of the newer DX9 parts. There is no way anyone is going to think that a Radeon 9000 is the same as a Radeon 9700 or a Radeon 9500. Yes its still slightly confusing and could lead to some disapointment when someone buys it instead of a retail 8500 and then finds out its usually a little slower. But at least they'll have basically a 8500, almost as fast and with all the same features, they will not end up with a original Radeon so its nowhere near as bad as buying a Geforce 4 MX expecting Geforce 4 features and getting Geforce 2 features.