-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
ATI's naming convention sucks the sack
- Thread starter straxusii
- Start date
What difference does that make though? Performance wise it sits directly below the 260 and all we're talking about is performance. Are the features vastly different?
Well they could easily differentiate between gaming cards and mainstream cards.
Like ATI 5870 Extreme Gamer
ATI 5850 Pro Gamer
ATI 5670 Gamer-Lite
ATI 5570 Multimedia Pro
ATI 5450 Office Pro
Imagine if Windows 7 was released as:
Windows 7 500
Windows 7 400
Windows 7 300
...instead of Ultimate, Home Premium, and Pro.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 264
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're right, Nvidia's naming scheme is soooo much better...
8800gt, 9800 something, 250 what? same card with many names?
8800gt, 9800 something, 250 what? same card with many names?
But the price clearly reflects the gaming performance, and your not going have to tell people spending £300 on a graphics card for an office PC that its over kill.
So ruling out people that have no concept of money or cant read a products description, I don't see how adding words like "office" and "pro" would make anything any simpler.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,840
Product descriptions are crap though, they always bang on about BLISTERING PERFORMANCE on even the worst of cards. The only real way of finding out if a card is good enough for some proper gaming is to either ask on forums like these or by going to benchmark sites, and even then you need to be a bit more tech savvy to do even that.
Wernt ATI doing something like "Premium Graphics" logo's on there cards that easily show which ones are up to snuff ?
Last edited:
It used to be SE/LE, plain, Pro, XT after the number (such as 9600, 9800) before they introduced the X\HD prefix. Although half the time the old Radeon 9500 Pro beat the 9600...
The 128-bit Radeon 9800 was labelled as SE (and the all-in-wonder versions usually unlocked to 256-bit
).
The 128-bit Radeon 9800 was labelled as SE (and the all-in-wonder versions usually unlocked to 256-bit
).
Radeon 9500 Pro was possibly the best bang for buck card ever. 9500 also unlocked to 9700 if you got lucky.
Didn't 9800 launch the same time as 9600 and then they rebranded DX8 cards as 9000, 9100 and 9200? That was when all the SE bobbins started too. A 9800SE was about the same performance as a 9600XT or 9500Pro and considerably less than a 9700 or 9700 pro.
I think basically the problem is both ATI and nVIDIA release more GPUs than can be justified in terms of performance or features. IMO a die shrink isn't worth a new name.
That was the other thing - a first number name change used to mean a new Direct X feature set.
Didn't 9800 launch the same time as 9600 and then they rebranded DX8 cards as 9000, 9100 and 9200? That was when all the SE bobbins started too. A 9800SE was about the same performance as a 9600XT or 9500Pro and considerably less than a 9700 or 9700 pro.
I think basically the problem is both ATI and nVIDIA release more GPUs than can be justified in terms of performance or features. IMO a die shrink isn't worth a new name.
That was the other thing - a first number name change used to mean a new Direct X feature set.
You mean like a 5970 is similar to a 5770?
When a 4890 is faster than a 5770
True.
Having said that, it's in their interest to sell their newer cards, even if the older cards perform better. The newer cards likely can be sold at higher prices, better yields, etc.
So it's in their interests to keep users in the dark if a previous-gen card outperforms a next-gen card.
Product descriptions are crap though, they always bang on about BLISTERING PERFORMANCE on even the worst of cards. The only real way of finding out if a card is good enough for some proper gaming is to either ask on forums like these or by going to benchmark sites, and even then you need to be a bit more tech savvy to do even that.
Wernt ATI doing something like "Premium Graphics" logo's on there cards that easily show which ones are up to snuff ?
Well I suppose they all have some added tinsel,
A. 4350.
B. 5970
My only suggestion to make it simpler would be if they could actually incorporate shader model or directx number into the name.
Would work out something like :
HD3870 = Radeon DX10.0-870 or SM4.0-870
HD4870 = Radeon DX10.1-870 or SM4.1-870
HD5870 = Radeon DX11.0-870 or SM5.0-870
And so-on for the lower models. Rubbish looking names for marketing though.
Would work out something like :
HD3870 = Radeon DX10.0-870 or SM4.0-870
HD4870 = Radeon DX10.1-870 or SM4.1-870
HD5870 = Radeon DX11.0-870 or SM5.0-870
And so-on for the lower models. Rubbish looking names for marketing though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
As Wes said, new generation, new line up, they are named compared to each other, based on the core inside them, which truly surprisingly get better the higher the number, then have another number to distinguish between the varients of that core.
Considering the OP, with all the confusion managed to list them from fastest to slowest, I'm failing to see his issue.
Unless you have each name with a 3dmark score included in the name, how do you propose they differentiate them. Shader type and dx version is ridiculous, considering the OP is asking how a non tech savy person could tell the difference, how would someone be able to do two things, compare the performance between several cards with the same features there, and what about a faster dx10 card vs a slower dx11 card.
The names are fine as is, theres rarely a cross over between generations where one card is faster than another. Yes the 4890 is faster than a 5770, get over it, in another 3-4 months there won't be any 4890's. The idea is an entire new range replaces an entire old range.
Infact, this thread feels might close to trolling and just looking for an argument.
Rephrased op question " the naming scheme for numbers is horrible, how am I supposed to know which number is bigger, 10,9,8,7,6, its tosh, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference, its madness I tell you, madness".
As for the Windows comparison, how on earth would you be able to cope if they were called Windows 7 500,400,300, lol, well I think it would be stupendously easy to tell that Windows 7 500 would offer more pointless extra features than Windows 7 400, which is the model up from Win 7 300.
Considering the OP, with all the confusion managed to list them from fastest to slowest, I'm failing to see his issue.
Unless you have each name with a 3dmark score included in the name, how do you propose they differentiate them. Shader type and dx version is ridiculous, considering the OP is asking how a non tech savy person could tell the difference, how would someone be able to do two things, compare the performance between several cards with the same features there, and what about a faster dx10 card vs a slower dx11 card.
The names are fine as is, theres rarely a cross over between generations where one card is faster than another. Yes the 4890 is faster than a 5770, get over it, in another 3-4 months there won't be any 4890's. The idea is an entire new range replaces an entire old range.
Infact, this thread feels might close to trolling and just looking for an argument.
Rephrased op question " the naming scheme for numbers is horrible, how am I supposed to know which number is bigger, 10,9,8,7,6, its tosh, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference, its madness I tell you, madness".
As for the Windows comparison, how on earth would you be able to cope if they were called Windows 7 500,400,300, lol, well I think it would be stupendously easy to tell that Windows 7 500 would offer more pointless extra features than Windows 7 400, which is the model up from Win 7 300.