DriverHeaven.
There could be others too but by the time I got to their conclusion, I could not believe any one could have written that objectively. I wont be going back there any time soon.
gts 250 reviews
- Thread starter Razor1
- Start date
There could be others too but by the time I got to their conclusion, I could not believe any one could have written that objectively. I wont be going back there any time soon.
lol... that was funny. So things Nvidia sell to partners aren´t always official?
LOL yeah it is funny, but that is part of the business, nV sells ram and GPU's to partners, and boards depending on the card, but the board partners are able to customize the boards, ram amounts, and cooler depending on the card, higher end cards there is a lot less flexibility in this regard, but midrange and lower end, they have quite a bit.
Freak'n Big Panda
Regular
Well here's my take on the whole renaming business for what it's worth. First off ATI has done this a bunch of times as well. RV610 Radeon HD 2400 series to RV620 Radeon HD 3400 (which was for all intent and purposes the same) series. X800 series R420 to X850 R480, basically the same chips just a minor clock boost. There are other examples as well. G92 full has now showed up in the 8800 GTS, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+, and now the GTS 250 and GTX 280M. The differences between these parts are minimal at best and the gap between them is closed to almost nothing if you take ocing into account.... but the same can be said about HD 2400 vs 3400 or R420 vs R480.
The difference between NV's and ATI's renaming boils down to two things really:
-NV renaming is more aggressive in that they have many more products with the same chip under different names
-NV naming has already been criticized in recent months
I think the second point is really coming into play here. The community is fed up with Nvidia's naming already so they're reacting very badly to the GTS 250. Why were they fed up with the naming scheme in the first place? It's downright confusing. It started really with the 8800 GTS 512, which although having the same name as the 8800 GTS 640/320 was much faster and used a different chip. Then the 9800 GT came out, which as we all know was just a 8800 GT. Then the 9800 GTX which was just a 8800 GTS (but not the 640/320 version). Then the 9800 GTX+, now the GTS 250.
Truly confusing, only people on these boards would be able to sort through that sordid mess.
I don't think anybody will argue that ATI's naming scheme is as convoluted or confusing as what Nvidia has been doing. That's the source of the problem from my POV. It's *much much* easier to determine what chip your getting with ATI's naming conventions.
The difference between NV's and ATI's renaming boils down to two things really:
-NV renaming is more aggressive in that they have many more products with the same chip under different names
-NV naming has already been criticized in recent months
I think the second point is really coming into play here. The community is fed up with Nvidia's naming already so they're reacting very badly to the GTS 250. Why were they fed up with the naming scheme in the first place? It's downright confusing. It started really with the 8800 GTS 512, which although having the same name as the 8800 GTS 640/320 was much faster and used a different chip. Then the 9800 GT came out, which as we all know was just a 8800 GT. Then the 9800 GTX which was just a 8800 GTS (but not the 640/320 version). Then the 9800 GTX+, now the GTS 250.
Truly confusing, only people on these boards would be able to sort through that sordid mess.
I don't think anybody will argue that ATI's naming scheme is as convoluted or confusing as what Nvidia has been doing. That's the source of the problem from my POV. It's *much much* easier to determine what chip your getting with ATI's naming conventions.
Kanyamagufa
Regular
Me neither. Everyone has been very straightforward as far as I can see. Most sites have gone so far as to try and speculate what nvidia was thinking when creating the GTS 250. Whether or not this is a result of the situation with Kyle I have no idea, but the sites I trusted before didn't fail me this time.
Anandtech actually throws out props to Charlie! Got a good chuckle from that.
jimmyjames123
Regular
Throwing out a shout to Charlie was utter stupidity IMO, unbelievable that they did that. Pretty poor article in general too 
hoom
Veteran
Sorry to be a spoilsport but shouldn't this thread be in the 3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices section?
Especially since its just another G92 card.
(gotta say that its pretty impressive longevity of a core though)
Especially since its just another G92 card.
(gotta say that its pretty impressive longevity of a core though)
Jawed
Legend
RV740 being called HD48xx does sorta screw with this though. The mobile part now, the desktop part in a month's time?
Jawed
Throwing out a shout to Charlie was utter stupidity IMO, unbelievable that they did that. Pretty poor article in general too
The Anand article went even further supposedly... but they pulled it and re-wrote the conclusion to be a bit milder towards nV.
To me GTS250 is just old wine in new jars.
Afaik mobile parts have always had their 'seperate' namingscheme, so a M97 based Mobility Radeon HD4860 doesn't have to be the same as the RV770 based Radeon HD4830 as long as it's faster than the Mobility Radeon HD4850 which it is. But yeah, it still is pretty much confusing since most people will think they're using the same GPUs
Throwing out a shout to Charlie was utter stupidity IMO, unbelievable that they did that. Pretty poor article in general too
It is odd though that they hadn't even been briefed on the existence of the GTS250 when review samples had already gone out to other reviewers. I doubt they would've done that if they weren't pretty sure NVIDIA was screwing them around purposefully.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Maybe one day we'll see them do something similar to Intel in order to futher differentiate mobile chips from desktop chips even if they are the same generation and use similar technology.
IE Intel uses Core 2 Duo for both but different model numbers.
ATI could use Radeon for both but different model numbers. Although at least they do denote Mobile Radeon for notebook parts. But the model numbers are still the same as desktop parts making uninformed people expect the same level of performance.
Nvidia could use Geforce for both and different numbers. At least with the Mac line they use 1xx which has no companion in the desktop realm. However, I'm still disgusted with G92b being named mobile GTX 260 and mobile GTX 280. That's disingenuos at best and downright scummy at worst. Implies both similar performance and same technology generation.
And yes, it's disgusting when ATI does it also.
Regards,
SB
Jawed
Legend
That's because they haven't been officially launched yet. Just like GTS240 hasn't been officially launched yet, either.
Jawed
ehr...
Medion has "Geforce GT120" cards in their PC's for over a month now I guess.
GT 120 I'm sure pretty soon the rebranding of the 8600/9500's will be complete.
