Radeon 9800 se -> 9800

[Myrmecophagavir]

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 9800SE 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.

Thanks for pointing out those slides. But I don't see why you said that about GF4 MX - no-one was excusing them in this thread before you said that?

 

[demalion]

Myrm,

Um, ATI once claimed that their naming scheme was aligned with DX versions. So, all 7xxx's should have been "DX7" cards. All 8xxx's DX8, and all 9xxx's DX9's. See something wrong with this picture? I hope so. ATI is at least as guilty as nVidia was with the GF4 MX.

If JC called the GF4 MX the greatest lie in the IT marketing history , why is ATi trying so hard to catch up ? First there was the 9000 a tad slower than the 8500 , then there was the 9600 a tad slower than the 9500 Pro and now this .... Could they at least use other numbering scheme or overclock the chips a bit to leave up to their name ?

OK , GF4MX had nothing to do with the original GF4Ti core while these 9800SE solution are using exactly the same core and they really ARE DX9 capable while GF4MX was mearely DX8 compatible .

Do you interpret these differently than I do, or did you just not notice them? Hopefully it answers your question.

 

[demalion]

It's clear from your previous post that your definition of technology generation doesn't overlap very much with my own, but that's ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Well, when you say something doesn't make sense, then you're saying I have no basis for disagreeing. If that's changed, great.

So the 9100 doesn't fit with ATi's own naming conventions, great, we agree.

What puzzled me was why you asked the question, as I stated.

I even think that the 9800SE is worse name than the 9100 (atleast for the 4 pipe one), which is why I don't know why people who dislike it insist on bringing up the GF 4 MX when there is plenty of on topic and accurate criticism to bring forth, especially if this is now an official naming policy (it not being official naming when originally brought up a while ago was about the only saving grace I found in the name for the 4 pipe part).

Would you please leave out the GF4 MX references? I never brought that up nor did I compare ATi's apparent problems adhering to its own naming conventions with it. Thanks.

The technology generation issue was only brought up at all to specifically discuss why the 9000 was not equivalent to the GF 4 MX naming problems...please take a look at the post you replied to (Chalnoth's quote in my above post was part of it) If that part of the conversation doesn't apply to you, you can ignore it, but it is the conversation that you entered.

IMO the 9800 SE is just yet another product carrying the wrong name, just like all 9000, 9100, 9200 and 9600 series cards.

No, I think it markedly worse than the ones you listed, actually, at least for the 4 pipe card. I categorically disagree with the idea of "all bad things being equally bad". I'm assuming you aren't proposing that, if the GF 4 MX conversation is irrelevant to your viewpoint? I can omit future GF 4 MX commentary in posts to you if you make your viewpoint clearer.

 

[KimB]

Demalion, read what I wrote, not what you think my motives were.

Not once did anybody say that nVidia's naming of the GeForce4 MX was less than bad.

 

[demalion]

I already provided my reasoning with regard to "technology". Simply saying "that is not so" does not do anything to answer it. The 9000 delivers the same old features, using new technology and less transistors. Please don't tell me silly things like technology does not mean technology.

And the GeForce4 MX offered new things like multisampling AA and anisotropic filtering, as well as a number of video features. Obviously you don't think that those qualify it for a GeForce4 name. Why would you think that a "streamlined" R2xx core would qualify the 9000 for a "9" as the first digit in its number? From what I've seen, the GeForce4 MX offered quite a bit more in terms of new features.

But that doesn't matter. Technology generation has always referred to the programming interface, nothing else.

Since when? Did you dictate this to the industry and I just missed the memo? I'm familiar with phrases like "DX generation" having a pretty fixed meaning, but I must have missed this one.

ATi can't decide how to assign their own technology generations, even when there is logic and evidence to support their choice? Chalnoth, that doesn't make sense.

nVidia can't decide how to assign their own technology generations, even when there is logic and evidence to support their choice?

Is there a particular reason why these don't exist in your universe, even when pointed out: the "complete DX 8 support" of the GF 4 MX, without shaders, being the same spec item as listed for the GF 4 Ti; the difference in how the GF 4 MX compares to the GF 3 and how the 9000 compares to the 8500?

You're applying a double standard. I don't excuse the GeForce4 MX, and I don't excuse the Radeon 9000.

No, I'm not applying a double standard. I'm stating the difference clearly and unambiguoulsy, and you are choosing to repeatedly ignore it. As I said, "never" in reply to my initial question would have been a suitably brief reply.

Yes, because it makes sense to rename things when you are...introducing a new naming scheme and applying it to your entire product line up.

No, it was convenient for ATI at the time.

There is a logical fallacy here: the two statements are not even remotely mutually exclusive. Try "Yes, it was convenient for ATI at the time." See how your comment completely fails to provide grounds for contradicing mine, and how your disagreement is actually unsupported?

It was a way to lash out at nVidia.

What if they deserve criticism? What if they deserve more criticism than ATI? Are these things remotely possible as far as you're concerned?

I know ATI deserves criticism for naming, but not for the same reasons as the GF 4 MX. By any objective evaluation of what the 9000 and GF 4 MX deliver in features and performance compared to the prior generation's high end, and especially with regard to the manufacturer specs listings associated with them, the GF 4 MX is worse. Do you have anything new to add, besides that you consider these objective measure irrelevant and will continue to demonstrate it by ignoring their every mention?

 

[demalion]

Demalion, read what I wrote, not what you think my motives were.

Not once did anybody say that nVidia's naming of the GeForce4 MX was less than bad.

Pardon, you seem to have some misunderstanding of my statements. Excusing means "making seems less bad than it was", not (necessarily) "making seem not bad" in my usage.

Please consider the phrases "overlook, make allowances for, to serve as justification", and consider their relevance to your treatment of the distinct problems the GF 4 MX has in comparison to the 9000. Perhaps this helps your understanding.

 

[KimB]

Yes, because it makes sense to rename things when you are...introducing a new naming scheme and applying it to your entire product line up.

No, it was convenient for ATI at the time.

There is a logical fallacy here: the two statements are not even remotely mutually exclusive.

I don't think you understood what I was attempting to state. It was convenient to point out their "proper" naming scheme at the time, in order to make a jab at nVidia. They later made the exact same naming mistake with the 9000. In other words, their "proper" naming scheme was convenient at the time. When they felt it became inconvenient, they dropped it.

Oh, and here's a nice quote:

RADEON™ 9200SE strikes a perfect balance between performance and price to offer the best value in desktop graphics. The advanced SMARTSHADER™ and SMOOTHVISION™ technologies offer the latest in visual realism and image quality. The Quad Pipe Architecture provides the power to enjoy the latest Microsoft® DirectX® 8, DirectX® 9 and OpenGL® based games

From http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200se.html

I know ATI deserves criticism for naming, but not for the same reasons as the GF 4 MX. By any objective evaluation of what the 9000 and GF 4 MX deliver in features and performance compared to the prior generation's high end, and especially with regard to the manufacturer specs listings associated with them, the GF 4 MX is worse. Do you have anything new to add, besides that you consider these objective measure irrelevant and will continue to demonstrate it by ignoring their every mention?

The GeForce3 wasn't a previous generation. The GeForce2 was. There is no difference, because the GeForce4 MX was one technology generation behind what the name implied. The Radeon 9000 was, also, one technology generation behind what the name implied. And the GeForce4 MX did offer more in features (if not performance) than the apex of the previous generation: the GeForce2 Ultra.

 

[KimB]

Oh, and one final thing. At least nVidia's naming scheme, within a particular product generation, was never ambiguous as to which cards were better. ATI's naming scheme right now is quite confusing.

 

[Althornin]

Oh, and one final thing. At least nVidia's naming scheme, within a particular product generation, was never ambiguous as to which cards were better. ATI's naming scheme right now is quite confusing.

yes, but you also unilaterally place the 9000 below the 8500, and the 9600 below the 9500 (pro) which is just not the case.

 

[demalion]

Yes, because it makes sense to rename things when you are...introducing a new naming scheme and applying it to your entire product line up.

No, it was convenient for ATI at the time.

There is a logical fallacy here: the two statements are not even remotely mutually exclusive.

I don't think you understood what I was attempting to state. It was convenient to point out their "proper" naming scheme at the time, in order to make a jab at nVidia.

Yes, because there was a significant problem with nVidia's naming scheme. Carmack remarked on it as well, not just ATI. What does this change?

They later made the exact same naming mistake with the 9000.

This seems a pretty clear illustration that you are indeed going to simply ignore direct and clear statements because they simply contradict your preferences, and on ignoring whether they are true, relevant, or coherent.

In other words, their "proper" naming scheme was convenient at the time. When they felt it became inconvenient, they dropped it.

It's like I'm continually saying there isn't a problem with the 9000 naming scheme, and every distinction from the GF 4 MX I point out and support disappears into a black hole of staggering bias. Do you really make sense to yourself right now?

Oh, and here's a nice quote:

RADEON™ 9200SE strikes a perfect balance between performance and price to offer the best value in desktop graphics. The advanced SMARTSHADER™ and SMOOTHVISION™ technologies offer the latest in visual realism and image quality. The Quad Pipe Architecture provides the power to enjoy the latest Microsoft® DirectX® 8, DirectX® 9 and OpenGL® based games

And nVidia lists the GF 4 MX as having "complete DirectX 8 support, including DX 8.1", exactly as they list for the GF 4 Ti.

One of these statements is associated with the phrase "DX 9 compatible" that both ATI and nVidia use for their DX 8 parts running DX 9 drivers, and has atleast a direct and clear basis for validity (for example: HLSL supports the GF 4 Ti and 9000 cards). It can indeed be misleading, but it is absolutely true. (That's my defense of the 5200's DX 9 compliant label, too, since that seems to concern you).

The other is associated with specifically equating a card without shaders with a card that has them. Where is the parallel to that established?

These are simply not the same thing.

Is this your answer to my request for "something new to add"? It fails, AFAICS.

I know ATI deserves criticism for naming, but not for the same reasons as the GF 4 MX. By any objective evaluation of what the 9000 and GF 4 MX deliver in features and performance compared to the prior generation's high end, and especially with regard to the manufacturer specs listings associated with them, the GF 4 MX is worse. Do you have anything new to add, besides that you consider these objective measure irrelevant and will continue to demonstrate it by ignoring their every mention?

The GeForce3 wasn't a previous generation.

Hmm? Did the GF 4 MX come out before the GF 3, or are you just redefining "generation" to something new to suite you, so you can disagree again without actually saying anything to counter what I've provided?

The GeForce2 was. There is no difference, because the GeForce4 MX was one technology generation behind what the name implied.

Eh? It wasn't the GF 3 MX. Where are you getting "one technology generation"? Are you bad at math, or are you looking at something besides "4 - 2" that I am just missing? Are you proposing only underlying technology matters, and name does not, and proving yourself wrong for me? Will you ever actually answer the questions I pose?

The Radeon 9000 was, also, one technology generation behind what the name implied.

There you saying technology isn't what you don't want it to be, and considering that a proof. Your definition of "technology generation" is valid, but it is not the only valid definition. Did you dig up that memo to start to show otherwise?

And the GeForce4 MX did offer more in features (if not performance) than the apex of the previous generation: the GeForce2 Ultra.

Didn't it drop environmental bump mapping? Anyways, it wasn't called the GF 3 MX which would be necessary for your parallel, even ignoring the entire "DX 7->DX 8" versus "DX 8->DX 9" discussion you'd refuse to have after that.

Please be more coherent.

 

[demalion]

Oh, and one final thing. At least nVidia's naming scheme, within a particular product generation, was never ambiguous as to which cards were better. ATI's naming scheme right now is quite confusing.

It all boils down to "nVidia is better than ATI" for you, doesn't it? It also neglects details like the 4800SE name.

This has no relation to our discussion except in a mind that divides the world into "ATi versus nVidia". All we're doing is illustrating an incompatibility between viewing the world as "ATI versus nVidia" with discussion based on whether something simply makes sense or not.

As for my part, I'm done with aiding you in your demonstration of that in this particular thread. Maybe the 9800SE problems will be remembered at some point and you'll remember that it is possible to criticize ATI without the goal of "making allowances for, overlooking, or serving as justification for" things nVidia earned criticism for.

 

[KimB]

yes, but you also unilaterally place the 9000 below the 8500, and the 9600 below the 9500 (pro) which is just not the case.

I don't remember doing that. Certainly not in this thread.

 

[KimB]

And nVidia lists the GF 4 MX as having "complete DirectX 8 support, including DX 8.1", exactly as they list for the GF 4 Ti.

You're taking things far out of context. Did you actually look at the two product overviews?

API support is listed last. The rest of the features are listed before that. The programmability features of th GeForce4 Ti are listed first. nVidia is not aligning their products with DirectX versions. Just because you choose to align features with DirectX versions doesn't mean everybody does. In particular, it makes a fair amount of sense not to, since no video card has yet supported every feature of a given DirectX version (at least, not at the release of that version).

Again, I'll state it. It was listed under API support, the final part of the features section (just before the last few lines, under compatibility).

Here are both documents:
GeForce4 Ti
GeForce4 MX

Oh, and I would like to comment again on what I said about that being "deep in the product overview," to which you replied that it was one the second page. There are only two pages. The line you quotted was four bullet points from the end.

 

[KimB]

It all boils down to "nVidia is better than ATI" for you, doesn't it? It also neglects details like the 4800SE name.

An interesting point, but I was specifically referring to the GeForce FX product line, not the GeForce4 line (which does have problems, obviously).

As for my part, I'm done with aiding you in your demonstration of that in this particular thread. Maybe the 9800SE problems will be remembered at some point and you'll remember that it is possible to criticize ATI without the goal of "making allowances for, overlooking, or serving as justification for" things nVidia earned criticism for.

It's not about justification. It's about nVidia having fixed the problem (with their new products). ATI is currently only perpetuating the problem.

 

[Althornin]

Oh, and one final thing. At least nVidia's naming scheme, within a particular product generation, was never ambiguous as to which cards were better. ATI's naming scheme right now is quite confusing.

Let me address this again.
Firs off, it is a lie. TI 4800SE anyone?
Secondly, my original response stands. Your statements are implication enough.

 

[KimB]

Sorry, I was wrong about that.

I had thought that that whole thing was sorted out, that nVidia changed the name. But oh, well. It was one product.

Got to love your perpensity for personal attacks, though. It wasn't a lie. It was a mistake.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Some people have RSI up their ass.

RSI = repetetive strain injury.

Sorry, I was wrong about that.

I had thought that that whole thing was sorted out, that nVidia changed the name. But oh, well. It was one product.

Got to love your perpensity for personal attacks, though. It wasn't a lie. It was a mistake.

 

[Althornin]

Sorry, I was wrong about that.

I had thought that that whole thing was sorted out, that nVidia changed the name. But oh, well. It was one product.

Got to love your perpensity for personal attacks, though. It wasn't a lie. It was a mistake.

*crackle* pot to kettle! Come in kettle!

Hmm. If it was a mistake, fine - sorry for calling you a liar.
I dont think i have a "perpensity" for personal attacks though. I just happen to tire of your ceaseless changing of position to whatever position makes nVidia look good at the moment. If you need an example of such a time, i will be ahppy to provide it. As i ahve said to you tons of times - you seem smart. Take off you nVidia brand rose colored glasses (i usually call them blinders) and attempt to be impartial. As it is, discussions with you are futile.

Why can you not admit flaws in nVidias naming schemes without justifying/comparing to ATI? Sure, i dont like the 9800SE branding. I think the 8500/9000/9100/9200 issue is confusing, but i dont think it is an outright untruth by marketing. the 9000 is FASTER in certain things. Not raw horsepower, but i has more...finesse! Same situation with the 9500/9600. Sure, the current FX line is less confusing and more obvious wrt perforamnce based on the numbers. So? Is that what we were talking about?

 

[incurable]

It's clear from your previous post that your definition of technology generation doesn't overlap very much with my own, but that's ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Well, when you say something doesn't make sense, then you're saying I have no basis for disagreeing. If that's changed, great.

There is no indication in my post that I changed my point of view (good thing, cause I haven't), I'm just accepting that you wont change your POV no matter what, therefore further discussion is futile and I concluded that "we'll just have to agree to disagree there".

So the 9100 doesn't fit with ATi's own naming conventions, great, we agree.

What puzzled me was why you asked the question, as I stated.

I ask (non-retorical) questions to get them answered and thought that was a rather common concept amongst humans.

The technology generation issue was only brought up at all to specifically discuss why the 9000 was not equivalent to the GF 4 MX naming problems...please take a look at the post you replied to (Chalnoth's quote in my above post was part of it) If that part of the conversation doesn't apply to you, you can ignore it, but it is the conversation that you entered.

How about only answering points actually made in the post you're replying to? If you feel the need to comment to certain comparisons made in other posts, please reply to these posts specificially.

IMO the 9800 SE is just yet another product carrying the wrong name, just like all 9000, 9100, 9200 and 9600 series cards.

No, I think it markedly worse than the ones you listed, actually, at least for the 4 pipe card. I categorically disagree with the idea of "all bad things being equally bad". I'm assuming you aren't proposing that, if the GF 4 MX conversation is irrelevant to your viewpoint? I can omit future GF 4 MX commentary in posts to you if you make your viewpoint clearer.

I think categorizing the bad into different sub-categories is a highly subjective task that would probably produce as many different rankings of bad as you ask people. I don't say that all bad things are equally bad, it's just that they all should be corrected one way or the other. (in an ideal world, of course)

I think the naming conventions is something ATi has to work on in the future as the current Radeon 9xxx product line-up has the majority of cards not adhering to the rules published with the launch of the Radeon 8500 series.

cu

incurable

 

[demalion]

It's clear from your previous post that your definition of technology generation doesn't overlap very much with my own, but that's ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Well, when you say something doesn't make sense, then you're saying I have no basis for disagreeing. If that's changed, great.

There is no indication in my post that I changed my point of view (good thing, cause I haven't), I'm just accepting that you wont change your POV no matter what, therefore further discussion is futile and I concluded that "we'll just have to agree to disagree there".

I will change my point of view when provided with a coherent case for doing so. You have not provided one. By what criteria are you exempt from this step?

I thought I'd understood you, but apparently my understanding was in error. You aren't "agreeing to disagree", you're "agreeing not to pay attention to the reasons for an opposing viewpoint". As I would be if I responded to your assertion about "it not making sense" by saying "conversation with you was futile" instead of providing the reasons why "it", contrary to your statement, does make sense.

So the 9100 doesn't fit with ATi's own naming conventions, great, we agree.

What puzzled me was why you asked the question, as I stated.

I ask (non-retorical) questions to get them answered and thought that was a rather common concept amongst humans.

But I'd already provided the reasoning and observation...what I did to answer your question was simply repeat them. That's what puzzled me, though you've perhaps resolved this puzzlement.

Another example of this occurrence coming up.

The technology generation issue was only brought up at all to specifically discuss why the 9000 was not equivalent to the GF 4 MX naming problems...please take a look at the post you replied to (Chalnoth's quote in my above post was part of it) If that part of the conversation doesn't apply to you, you can ignore it, but it is the conversation that you entered.

How about only answering points actually made in the post you're replying to?

OK, this is a "non-rhetorical" question you are proposing. Here is me being puzzled because I'm repeating something I just stated: The commentary in question was part of exactly what you were replying to in your post. In fact, it is the exact same commentary that is present verbatim in your post. To me, it is puzzling to have to point this out explicitly. Can you understand why?

If you feel the need to comment to certain comparisons made in other posts, please reply to these posts specificially.

Yes, I understand this concept. I could ask "Do you?" and return your snide commentary in turn, or I can state that I am puzzled and ask if you perhaps didn't understand that I stated this before or didn't take note of the conversation you entered. Your responses seem to be geared towards encouraging the first, and treating the second with contempt.

IMO the 9800 SE is just yet another product carrying the wrong name, just like all 9000, 9100, 9200 and 9600 series cards.

No, I think it markedly worse than the ones you listed, actually, at least for the 4 pipe card. I categorically disagree with the idea of "all bad things being equally bad". I'm assuming you aren't proposing that, if the GF 4 MX conversation is irrelevant to your viewpoint? I can omit future GF 4 MX commentary in posts to you if you make your viewpoint clearer.

I think categorizing the bad into different sub-categories is a highly subjective task that would probably produce as many different rankings of bad as you ask people.

Eh? It is a 4 pipe card, with the 9800 name, and the suffix has been used to indicate higher performance contrary to its significantly lower performance. These are not subjective evaluations, nor is the performance, nor is the featureset, these are things objectively verifiable. The other cards and names have such factors as well.
There are an abundant amount of ways they can be ranked based on these things, but there are a limited amount of ways that make sense. You can ask a person and they can say that the 9600 should be called a 9800 and the 9800 a 9600. Does this make sense? Perhaps, but it would require a considerable explanation.

I don't say that all bad things are equally bad, it's just that they all should be corrected one way or the other. (in an ideal world, of course)

OK.

I think the naming conventions is something ATi has to work on in the future as the current Radeon 9xxx product line-up has the majority of cards not adhering to the rules published with the launch of the Radeon 8500 series.

Well, it was first digit being technology generation (notwithstanding that this is discussion you are "agreeing to ignore") and numbers after indicating relative performance within the generation. With ATI's explanation of the Pro addendum (Pro full performance, non Pro somewhat reduced), the 9000, 9200, 9600, 9700, and 9800 (non SE) fit this by objective criteria. The 9100, 9500 Pro, and 9800 SE do not. You are free to interpret this differently, but you are not free to state that this evaluation does not make sense because "everything is subjective anyways".