Geforce4 Ti 4800!

[SteveG]

For starters we have the GeForce 4 Ti 4800, but don't let the name excite you - the card is nothing more than a GeForce4 Ti 4600 with AGP 8X support. Even more disappointing is that there's talk of a GeForce4 Ti 4800-SE that runs at the same clock speed as the current-gen Ti 4400 but with AGP 8X support.

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.

C'mon people, it is completely absurd to take this little statement of Anand's as "proof" that he is somehow Nvidia-biased. If he was Nvidia biased, would he have brought attention to the fact that the naming is misleading or disappointing? No, he would have just mentioned the facts and left it at that.

It is easy for someone to initially accuse ATI of being misleading with the 9500/9500PRO. On the surface, the argument is simply that "PRO" is usually used to indicate speed binning, while the 9550 and 9500PRO have major architectual differences. Upon further analysis, you would come to the realization that the architectural differences only impact the speed, not the features, so the naming really is not misleading at all. This is not necessarily an *obvious* point, evidenced by the fact that B3D forum members have taken both sides of the argument.

Now did Anand have the benefit of a Beyond3D debate before he wrote those words? Did he write those words thinking that they would be dissected and argued by a bunch of obsessive 3D fans looking for any excuse to divide the entire world into pro-Nvidia or pro-ATI camps? If he had, he might have been more careful. And if he cared to argue the point, and was exposed the insight of some of the people on this forum, he'd probably be convinced that the naming really is NOT as misleading as he implied, and maybe he'd take the words back.

As someone else pointed out, Anand spent maybe 10 seconds writing those words. To take them as some kind of window to his soul, exposing him once and for all as an Nvidia-biased journalist, is really a stretch.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

C'mon people, it is completely absurd to take this little statement of Anand's as "proof" that he is somehow Nvidia-biased.

To be clear, I never said any such thing.

This is just another (IMO) example of Anand's Bias.. One of the more blatant examples of which is publishing benchmarks directly comparing GeForce4 using 8X aniso vs. Radeon at 16 X.

Did he write those words thinking that they would be dissected and argued by a bunch of obsessive 3D fans looking for any excuse to divide the entire world into pro-Nvidia or pro-ATI camps?

Lol...he should have. That's always the result, isn't it?

To take them as some kind of window to his soul, exposing him once and for all as an Nvidia-biased journalist, is really a stretch.

Agreed. Thing is (again), Anand has already been established as such (IMO), and this is just another example of it. If there had been no previous demostrations of bias, I would not take this case to be some blatant "smoking gun."

Sure, because I already conceive of Anand as being biased, I can be accused of "looking to find it." But I still stand by my opinion that equating GeForce4 4400 / 4600 / 4800 naming with that of the 9500 / 9500 Pro naming is just completely nonsensical and can't think of a reasonable justification for making it...

 

[Dave Baumann]

Not that I really wish to continue the discussion on naming, but...

Something to bear in mind when considering Anand's thoughts is that if you remember back to his 9500 preview you'll know that Anand actually believes that 9500 and 9500 PRO are both physically different chips from each other and from 9700. That misunderstanding can give some reason as to his thought here.

 

[SirPauly]

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.

 

[BRiT]

Yes. No where does ATI say that the first digit corresponds to DirectX functionality. Its from misinformed sites like Anandtech that people got the falacy of the first digit corresponding to DirectX compliancy.

--|BRiT|

 

[ben6]

well I think there's enough confusion as to branding really . The reason ATI gave at their launch for naming the 9000 the 9000 was because their add-in partners asked them to (Stanley Ossias the 9000 Product manager made the quote) , I think if they had their druthers ATI might have named it differently....

 

[Bjorn]

Yes. No where does ATI say that the first digit corresponds to DirectX functionality. Its from misinformed sites like Anandtech that people got the falacy of the first digit corresponding to DirectX compliancy.

--|BRiT|

Hmm, i'm pretty sure that they have made that statement (first digit = DX version).

Anyway, even if they didn't, would you say that the R9000 is from the same technology generation as the R9700 ?
That the only difference between them is relative speed ?

I wouldn't.. Imo, this statement is pretty much the same thing as saying first digit = DX version.

 

[demalion]

Yes. No where does ATI say that the first digit corresponds to DirectX functionality. Its from misinformed sites like Anandtech that people got the falacy of the first digit corresponding to DirectX compliancy.

--|BRiT|

Hmm, i'm pretty sure that they have made that statement (first digit = DX version).

Anyway, even if they didn't, would you say that the R9000 is from the same technology generation as the R9700 ?

Well, yes.

Look at the release times. Look at the common features and design elements (the "hardware optimizations borrowed from the 9700", and the "Video Soap" functions).

What they are is not are targetted at the same market segement, hence the different featuresets.

If the GF 3 didn't exist, the difference between the GF 4 MX and the Radeon 9000 would still be significant to the consumer...pixel shaders are a big feature to simply omit. To the consumer the difference between DX 7->8 new features and DX 8->9 new features is quite a bit more significant even if DX 9 were released right now...but the fact is the GF 4 MX was released well after DX 8 was, and this is not at all the case with the 9000 and DX 9.

That the only difference between them is relative speed ?

Well, no.

Those are two different questions and as far as the slide information indicates only the first is relevant to your concern about hypocrisy as we've discussed.

Or are you retracting that you agree that the GF 4 MX is worse in terms of the effect on the consumer?

I wouldn't.. Imo, this statement is pretty much the same thing as saying first digit = DX version.

I think you're stretching to maintain your stance in the face of your (our) impression of the DX version correlation apparently being shown to be incorrect. I also thought it was DX version, but I was spending a lot of time at Rage3D at the time and it seems my memory mistook rumors and 2nd hand info for something an ATi representative actually said.

I mean, I think it is pretty hard to support the statement you just made objectively based on these slides. I suppose you could choose to equate "Technology Generation" to "Direct X version", but based on those slide shots that would be your fault, not anyone else's.

In the absence of a statement fitting what you thought ATi said (maybe with some more digging someone will find it, but it is looking unlikely now), I think your comments are very unreasonable.

 

[Nagorak]

I think the most misleading part about the GF4 MX is the "MX". If they'd just called it the GF4 "slow-ass budget card" then there'd be no confusion.

 

[Bjorn]

Well, yes.

Look at the release times. Look at the common features and design elements (the "hardware optimizations borrowed from the 9700", and the "Video Soap" functions).

Ok, so the GF4 MX-Ti problem is not a problem at all then ?
They share some things, they are released pretty much at the same time,thus, they are of the same technology generation.
And they're definitely planned for different market segments.

If that's your opinion, fine.. But i don't agree.

Well, no.

Those are two different questions and as far as the slide information indicates only the first is relevant to your concern about hypocrisy as we've discussed.

IMO, they're not two different questions. As i see it, "same technology generation" doesn't have anything to do with the timing of the release. I'm more concerned about the technology itself.

Or are you retracting that you agree that the GF 4 MX is worse in terms of the effect on the consumer?

Nope, but what has that got to do with this ?

I think you're stretching to maintain your stance in the face of your (our) impression of the DX version correlation apparently being shown to be incorrect. I also thought it was DX version, but I was spending a lot of time at Rage3D at the time and it seems my memory mistook rumors and 2nd hand info for something an ATi representative actually said.

I mean, I think it is pretty hard to support the statement you just made objectively based on these slides. I suppose you could choose to equate "Technology Generation" to "Direct X version", but based on those slide shots that would be your fault, not anyone else's.

In the absence of a statement fitting what you thought ATi said (maybe with some more digging someone will find it, but it is looking unlikely now), I think your comments are very unreasonable.

Sorry, i'm not stretching anything at all as i see it.

It's pretty obvious to me that Ati meant to use their naming scheme as with the 8500 series. And it's ok with me for the 9500, 9500 PRO, 9700 and 9700 PRO. They share the same technology and the only difference between them is speed. You know what features you'll get, and you can choose speed going by the last 3 digits (and name (PRO)), just as the slides say.

But i'm sorry, nothing in the world can convince me that the 9000 belongs to the same technology generation as the 9500 and up.

 

[Bjorn]

I think the most misleading part about the GF4 MX is the "MX". If they'd just called it the GF4 "slow-ass budget card" then there'd be no confusion.

I don't agree. The most misleading part is the GF4 name.
I think it is pretty well known that MX stands for slow ass budget part (GF2 Mx).

 

[demalion]

Well, yes.

Look at the release times. Look at the common features and design elements (the "hardware optimizations borrowed from the 9700", and the "Video Soap" functions).

Ok, so the GF4 MX-Ti problem is not a problem at all then ?

I really hate when people ask a question I answered in text they simply did not quote.

What they are is not are targetted at the same market segement, hence the different featuresets.

If the GF 3 didn't exist, the difference between the GF 4 MX and the Radeon 9000 would still be significant to the consumer...pixel shaders are a big feature to simply omit. To the consumer the difference between DX 7->8 new features and DX 8->9 new features is quite a bit more significant even if DX 9 were released right now...but the fact is the GF 4 MX was released well after DX 8 was, and this is not at all the case with the 9000 and DX 9.

I hope it is clear where the GF 4 Ti fits in with relation to the GF 4 MX in that text? This is the difference between the 9000 and GF 4 MX naming, and it seems pretty clear that is what I said. Take this difference away (i.e., the GF 4 Ti was DX 9, and the GF 4 MX was DX 8 ), and the naming situations are equally bad. Add it in and it makes the GF 4 MX naming worse (IMO, and again I've explained why it is my opinion).

They share some things, they are released pretty much at the same time,thus, they are of the same technology generation.
And they're definitely planned for different market segments.

See above.

If that's your opinion, fine.. But i don't agree.

Did I mention how much I hate having to requote myself? Well, anyway, I hope what is actually my opinion is clear now.

Well, no.

Those are two different questions and as far as the slide information indicates only the first is relevant to your concern about hypocrisy as we've discussed.

IMO, they're not two different questions. As i see it, "same technology generation" doesn't have anything to do with the timing of the release. I'm more concerned about the technology itself.

What is this "technology" you speak of? For you it is DX version, but as I said that is your assumption...these slides seem to imply it is not something ATi actually said. I hope you'll note this discussion is not about a dispute of the 9000 name being "bad", but it being worse than the GF 4 MX naming.

Hmm...is Video Soap considered a "DX 9" feature? Would that be enough for you?

Or are you retracting that you agree that the GF 4 MX is worse in terms of the effect on the consumer?

Nope, but what has this got to do with this ?

If you didn't read that text I requoted, I can understand your confusion. It is in conjunction with the points I illustrated there that this part of my post was made. If upon re-reading it you still don't see the connection I can further clarify.

I think you're stretching to maintain your stance in the face of your (our) impression of the DX version correlation apparently being shown to be incorrect. I also thought it was DX version, but I was spending a lot of time at Rage3D at the time and it seems my memory mistook rumors and 2nd hand info for something an ATi representative actually said.

I mean, I think it is pretty hard to support the statement you just made objectively based on these slides. I suppose you could choose to equate "Technology Generation" to "Direct X version", but based on those slide shots that would be your fault, not anyone else's.

In the absence of a statement fitting what you thought ATi said (maybe with some more digging someone will find it, but it is looking unlikely now), I think your comments are very unreasonable.

Sorry, i'm not stretching anything at all as i see it.

It's pretty obvious to me that Ati meant to use their naming scheme as with the 8500 series. And it's ok with me for the 9500, 9500 PRO, 9700 and 9700 PRO. They share the same technology and the only difference between them is speed. You know what features you'll get, and you can choose speed going by the last 3 digits, just as the slides say.

But i'm sorry, nothing in the world can convince me that the 9000 belongs to the same technology generation as the 9500 and up.

Hmm...OK then. I didn't set out to convince you of this, but I am saying:

1) Based on these slides, your assumption that "technology generation" = "DX version compatibility" is your assumption, and does not have anything to do with ATi hypocrisy.

2) Based on these slides, maintaining that based on your own assumption this is worse than the "GF 4 MX" naming is emphatically unreasonable.

I've given the reasons why, and highlighted the key phrases in your text as I've replied.

 

[Bjorn]

I'll make it short:

First of all, i (as i told you in the PM) don't believe that it's worse for the consumer.

What i said is that i really dislike hypocrisy. And that's what i think that Ati has done in this case.

What these slides say is:

1: first digit = technology generation
2: last digits (+ end tag) is relative speed within that generation.

Imo, same technology generation is more then borrowing some optimizations and 1-2 features from another generation (f.e video soap which is'nt really a feature for the gamer). As i see it, the GF4 Mx has more in common with a GF4 Ti then the R9000 has with the R9700.

We're talking about DX 8 vs DX9 which is a huge step as i see it.
Thus, i think that the R9000 is a clear break from the "rules" stipulated by these slides. Clearly hypocrisy with regards to the crap thrown at Nvidia.

 

[Nagorak]

Personally I don't think either naming scheme is really "bad". They both have definitely been the source of some confusion though. You can find posts all the time on forums that go something like "[I'm an idiot, who didn't read up on anything!] I replaced my GF3 Ti500 with a GF4 MX and it runs slower. Whyyyyyy?!!!" But I'm sure some people stupidly "upgrade" to a R9000 from an R8500 too.

The way I see it though is if people don't do their homework, they get what's coming to them. Marketting is always designed to sell units and you can't really blame a company for trying to sell their products. But if you fall for some marketting BS, whether it be a naming scheme, an ad on TV or whatever, you really only have yourself to blame for being so foolish.

 

[Mummy]

This thread is disgusting, should this forum be renamed to "3D Technology and marketing analysys" ? pages and pages of bullshit, i would suggest moderators to propose a vote for who is more evil between NV and ATi so we can stop flooding the forum with this stupid blabbering ONCE FOR ALL, since i've seen enough of this kind of threads personally.

I think its pretty clear to anyone that both nVidia and ATi are intentionally misleading with their product names (who more, who less), as is Intel, AMD, Matrox, Sis, Trident, PowerVR or anyone else, if we were to not buy anything from a "marketing evil" company we'd probably go live in a cave (nature doesnt have a marketing dep).

My opionion is that consumer have to get a clue, it might sound extreme, but we live an a world that is evil, so ignorance is a fault (im not defending either NV or ATi, its just how things work).

Though.. i would like to know if any of you guys never said something completely wrong to someone to have advantage in some kind of matter (either social or economic), or voted for a party that has his candidate saying like "Microsoft is a great company, i dont know why we are doing this (referring to the Antitrust trial)" (dont know the exact speech but it sounded like that), how do u mix the fact that your lovely Bush is defending one of the most evil Companies in the history (business-wise speaking, they didnt kill anyone [i think]) with your nittpicking about either nVidia or ATi marketing ? this is just an example though, my point is that most of you guys are just big hypocrits.

 

[Bjorn]

This thread is disgusting, should this forum be renamed to "3D Technology and marketing analysys" ? pages and pages of bullshit, i would suggest moderators to propose a vote for who is more evil between NV and ATi so we can stop flooding the forum with this stupid blabbering ONCE FOR ALL, since i've seen enough of this kind of threads personally.

I agree, even though it might make me a hypocrite.

I think its pretty clear to anyone that both nVidia and ATi are intentionally misleading with their product names (who more, who less), as is Intel, AMD, Matrox, Sis, Trident, PowerVR or anyone else, if we were to not buy anything from a "marketing evil" company we'd probably go live in a cave (nature doesnt have a marketing dep).

I agree again. (boooring but hey, what can i say ?)

 

[demalion]

This thread is disgusting, should this forum be renamed to "3D Technology and marketing analysys" ? pages and pages of bullshit, i would suggest moderators to propose a vote for who is more evil between NV and ATi so we can stop flooding the forum with this stupid blabbering ONCE FOR ALL, since i've seen enough of this kind of threads personally.

Well, that discussion is based on the technical aspects of the products in question. Your complaint is not. Are you not yourself a hypocrite for posting it in this forum? Or maybe, just maybe, there is room for a discussion of opinions relating to issues of 3d hardware and technology.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I feel it important to point out that my not sharing it does not make my posts, for example, "bullshit".

I think its pretty clear to anyone that both nVidia and ATi are intentionally misleading with their product names (who more, who less), as is Intel, AMD, Matrox, Sis, Trident, PowerVR or anyone else, if we were to not buy anything from a "marketing evil" company we'd probably go live in a cave (nature doesnt have a marketing dep).

Well, we could have a whole discussion about this if you want. I've already put snippets of it in places but have refrained from a thorough discussion in this forum. If you want to have it, start a thread in General discussion and invite me. In the meantime, I'll settle for I don't agree with your simple parallels.

My opionion is that consumer have to get a clue, it might sound extreme, but we live an a world that is evil, so ignorance is a fault (im not defending either NV or ATi, its just how things work).

Well, I've seen that type of moral standard put forth quite often. I don't agree with it, and I'm also willing to discuss why in that above mentioned thread if you wish.

Though.. i would like to know if any of you guys never said something completely wrong to someone to have advantage in some kind of matter (either social or economic),

Ah, the popular "you've lied, so it is alright for everyone to lie". Well, not having named and sold products, I haven't taken anyone's money from "lying". I hope you realize simplification does not mean equality, and why, again, discussion of this would take its own thread.

or voted for a party that has his candidate saying like "Microsoft is a great company, i dont know why we are doing this (referring to the Antitrust trial)" (dont know the exact speech but it sounded like that),

Well, if I "voted for a party" who said such a thing, I'd have to say it illustrates the problems of the two party system as in effect right now pretty well. By the way, if you want to have THAT discussion, I recommend yet another separate thread elsewhere for it.

how do u mix the fact that your lovely Bush is defending one of the most evil Companies in the history (business-wise speaking, they didnt kill anyone [i think]) with your nittpicking about either nVidia or ATi marketing ? this is just an example though, my point is that most of you guys are just big hypocrits.

Well...speaking for some of the Americans whom you seem to want to bash, I'd direct you to the popular vote figures for the election that put Bush in office. In short, some American people aren't fond of Bush and some of his actions at all. Is this a surprise to you?

I always find the stance that criticism shouldn't be offered because the person making the criticism can be criticized to be a moral black hole that allows anything to be justified. I also find outrage because of this stance disturbing and hypocritical in itself, as the person doing it fits what they are criticizing pretty well. But, as I mention, I recommend discussing this in another thread.

EDIT: I will note that I didn't come into the thread criticizing YOU for hypocrisy, but am responding to the way you are accusing myself and others.

 

[nAo]

Well, that discussion is based on the technical aspects of the products in question. Your complaint is not. Are you not yourself a hypocrite for posting it in this forum?

Demalion, maybe you should learn what a meta-discussion is. That's a good example of meta-post from Mummy. Your reply is quite funny, you don't want us to believe you're so ingenuous, don't you?

Or maybe, just maybe, there is room for a discussion of opinions relating to issues of 3d hardware and technology.

If is there it'd required just a few posts. Instead we can read tons and tons of waste. Technical aspect in this kind of discussions are candies to distract and to legitimate such posts in front of moderators. Who doesn't believe that? All that you and other want to do is to bash, IMHO.
To reply to your question: no, there is (or would be) no space to such discussions. But you're lucky, I'm not a moderator


ciao,
Marco

 

[demalion]

Well, that discussion is based on the technical aspects of the products in question. Your complaint is not. Are you not yourself a hypocrite for posting it in this forum?

Demalion, maybe you should learn what a meta-discussion is. That's a good example of meta-post from Mummy. Your reply is quite funny, you don't want us to believe you're so ingenuous, don't you?

I've noticed the trend to make discussions a "waste" by the same people who label it a waste. It is accomplished by posts that ignore points already made and prolong the discussion by making it necessary to repeat points already made and cover every facet of the original comment in detail. To me that makes your "If is there i'd required just a few posts" comment interesting, as such posts as yours and Mummy are what are responsible for it not being "just a few posts".

I think talking around all of the points I raised and calling my reply "quite funny" accomplishes bashing and time wasting pretty well. In the absence of any attempt to discuss anything I discuss, perhaps you can see why I find your post unappealing? You could have used a private message, and if you wish to continue to post text of this nature I ask you to do so.

Or maybe, just maybe, there is room for a discussion of opinions relating to issues of 3d hardware and technology.

If is there it'd required just a few posts.

And strangely enough I've managed to convey my point on the issue in 2 posts, with the rest of the posts being restatements of things I've already said and/or replies to posts like yours and Mummy which have even less to do with the topic than the posts you criticize. I agree it would only take a few posts, but I don't think it is my fault it did not.

Instead we can read tons and tons of waste.

Now, you see, I'd criticize you of hypocrisy for being the cause of the waste. In the parameters you specify (that it should only have taken a few posts), I think it is pretty clear you are directly responsible for it taking more than that in this instance. I do think this particularly oftl-used approach of depracating other forum members warrants a reply in the forum or I wouldn't have bothered to post here and done it in a PM.

By the way, I'd finished replying to Bjorn until Mummy made a comment.

Technical aspect in this kind of discussions are candies to distract and to legitimate such posts in front of moderators.

Oh, I see, I'm only out to bash nVidia, and I really don't think those things concerning the technical aspects of what I said. Good to be told what I really think. Is this your "subtle" way of implying I'm a "fanboi"? I've had this discussion before and I've answered it pretty thoroughly. If you choose to have ignored the opportunity to read what I've said then, that is your fault not mine. But it is an awfully convenient crutch to dismiss another's viewpoint, isn't it?

Who doesn't believe that? All that you and other want to do is to bash, IMHO.

And you are entitled to populate the thread with such a meaningful statement, and yet my opinions are not valid...because I'm a "fanboi", correct? And here we are, more spam as I answer your accusations you just pulled out of your rear, and it is I alone, and not you, responsible for this waste? I'd almost forgotten my practice of not answering certain discussion chains in threads, but I just remembered so my common "have the last word" disclaimer applies here.

To reply to your question: no, there is (or would be) no space to such discussions. But you're lucky, I'm not a moderator

Progressively, over time, your comments to me accompanied with smilies have grown more grating. I've lost the ability to think you are doing anything else but disparaging me and trying to "hide" it behind the winks and grins, and the "friendly" tone they are meant to imply are false. I'd appreciate it if you didn't use them in future, as it just makes me think less of you. But perhaps that is only a cultural clash, and we can discuss it further in PMs.

 

[Sabastian]

1: first digit = technology generation
2: last digits (+ end tag) is relative speed within that generation.

Imo, same technology generation is more then borrowing some optimizations and 1-2 features from another generation (f.e video soap which is'nt really a feature for the gamer). As i see it, the GF4 Mx has more in common with a GF4 Ti then the R9000 has with the R9700..

How is it that the Geforce 2 MX series that is in reality a DX7 peice of hardware(Actually marketed as a DX8 part BTW.) has more in common with the Geforce 4 Ti series(DX8) then the Radeon 9000(DX8.1 using PS1.4) and the Radeon 9700?(Currently using DX8.1.)

This is "hypocrisy" IMO. The Geforce MX doesn't even have a Pixel Shader and additional the Radeon 9000 using DX 8.1 with PS1.4 compliancy goes a long way to being PS 2.0 compliant. Moreover the memory controller on the Radeon 9000 is similar to the Radeon 9700. IFAIK because the Geforce MX used the same memory controller that the Geforce Ti series uses it was good enough reason to brand it in the same family as the Geforce 4 family and also marketed as a DX8 card of which it is clearly not. So IMHO what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

No amount of criticism would make nvidia change their naming scheme of the geforce MX cards and in reality nvidia was the first one to infringe on this scam marketing. What was ATi to do? Take the high road and compete at a disadvantage? No.. that is simply preposterous. While most of us enthusiasts know the difference between the cards the vast majority out there in the real world only know that a "geforce is the fastest" card on the market..... geforce 2 MX or not.

Now ATi is playing the same game and is receiving just criticism but to say that the geforce 2 MX has more in common with the geforce 4 Ti series then the Radeon 9000 has with the rest of ATIs DX9 line up is pure hypocrisy. In addition, to forget who first created the confusion (Nvidia with the geforce 2 MX cards.) is unfair to ATi, whom at this point, vastly deserves more market acclaim then nvidia.

To clarify what I am saying here ..... both companies have infringed on this taboo marketing but it was nvidia whom originally implemented the scam. Nvidia forced ATIs hand here, plain and simple.