chavvdarrr
Veteran
I like his style.
Actually I like someone who doesn't have any insider info to post his thoughts.
NVIDIA GT200 Rumours & Speculation Thread
- Thread starter Arun
- Start date
- Status
Actually I like someone who doesn't have any insider info to post his thoughts.
I think that supposed naming scheme makes a lot of sense, and it goes along with my earlier expectations that GT200 was no "Geforce 9900".
The first name, "Geforce", is obvious of course.
The second designation denotes the broad market segment ("GTX" for high-end, "GTS" for performance, "GT" for midrange and "GS" or "G" for entry-level).
The third number denotes how much faster any given model is compared to the another within the same segment.
So we know that a "280" is indeed faster than a "260" or a "240".
Basically, a nice blend of old Geforce designations with the current ATI nomenclature style.
The first name, "Geforce", is obvious of course.
The second designation denotes the broad market segment ("GTX" for high-end, "GTS" for performance, "GT" for midrange and "GS" or "G" for entry-level).
The third number denotes how much faster any given model is compared to the another within the same segment.
So we know that a "280" is indeed faster than a "260" or a "240".
Basically, a nice blend of old Geforce designations with the current ATI nomenclature style.
i write for myself. The people that can see beyond what they call my 'lack of style', are my audience; i am not for everyone and that is also my intention
i am a professionally paid and published writer - my intention is to relax and converse here. This is more of a 'chat' than a formal paper and i do not have an Nazi Editor breathing down my neck here; only the very nice mods that make B3D work so well are tolerant in Speculation and Rumor threads [and you are sadly my peers, whether you will acknowledge it or not] =P
actually i am working on my Life's work - for decades! i expect to publish it this year. And i can also imagine that William Faulkner's friends also said. "No one will read The Sound And the Fury, never mind waste time trying to understand it". Look at the convoluted mess A. Crowley published; WR Burroughs .. all popular - and NOT for everyone!
i do not expect to be understood by everyone either
Now, after explaining myself and wasting bandwidth - what is is about *my posts* CONTENT that you are having a problem with?
The fat margins that nVidia is tickled pink with?
The fact the GT200 is new "tesla" architecture and will be a "monster" and will be the basis for the GPUs that nVidia releases for the next 2-3 years?
Or perhaps you disagree that there really is a GT100? [there is not]
Perhaps you had problems with me *correctly predicting* - weeks ago! - that GT200 was going to be released in May ... June at the latest, when *everyone else* was saying late Q2 - did you?
i was right then =P
^all of the above^
So it's just my style?
Last edited by a moderator:
apoppin said:
Yes it is. I guess receiving constructive feedback is not a skill you've quite mastered as yet. Wasn't trying to insult or embarrass you. And writing for yourself on a public forum is just a tad narcissistic btw.
Obviously some people like your style. Was just mentioning that all the extra noise may cloud the point you're trying to make. I know it makes it difficult for me to grasp the content of your posts. Style is one thing but if that style obfuscates the message then is it really a positive thing? I can't (and didn't) comment on the content because I'm not sure what you're saying.
I guess I'll just have to try harder to understand what you're saying. No harm intended.
I was wondering how they would identify mainstream and lower parts using this approach. So a x600GT would become a GT 260? But there will also be a GTX 260 or GTS 260? That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Like Arun said people have become used to the number being the primary performance indicator. That has remained the case with AMD's scheme as well. Now we have to ask whether the 260 is a GTX or GT? Ugh...
No there is no GT100. Just like there is no G60. All these "codenames" are not on the same level (as Arun already pointed out 4 different codenames that are all basically valid).
You are missing the context of T. You know the word behind the T, you know GT200 is comming out. Yet you have zero idea what came before T and what comes after T (let alone which products it maps to). So I'd be a tad careful about your first statement.
Even easier:
Geforce A+
Geforce A
Geforce B+
etc...
Just don't buy a Geforce D, Geforce E or Geforce F and you'll be fine.
"Ultra", as you suggested, wouldn't fly. Nvidia has been known to use the word to designate cheaper than top-of-the-line products before (old nForce's, mostly).
Besides, between "Mega" and "Super" the potential confusion for any average joe buyer would be even greater.
You missed, first digit of the number seems to indicate gen of US-architecture.
Well, since they're starting these designations from scratch, why limit themselves with an architectural detail like that ?
The unified shader design or "generation" is merely one of many elements that compose a monolithic GPU.
Last edited by a moderator:
You wouldn't be able to, as the lowest one would be at least C.Even easier:
Geforce A+
Geforce A
Geforce B+
etc...
Just don't buy a Geforce D, Geforce E or Geforce F and you'll be fine.
Well, in a marketing manner of speaking. From what I understand, there will be changes in the architecture, but the stream processors themselves will be identical to those of G8x/G9x chips.You missed, first digit of the number seems to indicate gen of US-architecture.
You wouldn't be able to, as the lowest one would be at least C.
LOL, my thoughts exactly.
Kaldskryke
Newcomer
I would perfer it if the "GTX" part didn't change. I mean GTX 280 for high-end, GTX 260 for mainstream, GTX 240 for mainstream. Changing around that GTX is just extra noise that's not needed when you have numbers to play with. NVIDIA said they're looking into making their product names more intuitive, and I think nothing is more intuitive than numbers. The GTX/GTS/GT/GS reverse-alphabetical ordered suffixes always bothered me. I'd be happiest if the GTX thing was dropped altogether, but maybe there'd be confusion between Geforce 260 and Geforce 256?
Kaldskryke
Newcomer
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure there's anything particularly new about the GT200 architecture - at least not from what the rumors I've read say. It seems like G92, but with more of everything. The leap from G70 to G80 was for sure new - unified shaders! But GT200 doesn't seem to be introducing anything that G80 didn't have. So how can you say that GT200 is the basis for the next 2-3 years instead of G80?
I would certainly despise you less if your style and attitude was a lot more conservative.
You forget NV30.
i had to work with the bob but the a b c would be pretty good for the average joe
i just wish they stuck with the normal names they really screwed up with the 9800's
why didn't just call them the 8900? didn't they do that with the 7 series if my memory serves me right (i bought a ati that gen so i didn't pay much attention to nvidia's naming)
- Status
