• 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

Current radeon naming scheme is pretty logical, but in any case does it really matter? If you're ready to part with a few hundred quid, surely you'll have the time to spend a few minutes looking up the specs and reviews of each card?
 
5970
5870
5850
5770
5750

Says a heck of a lot more than

5900
5800
5700
5600
5500

The first number SHOULD be the generation (we will ignore the 5100 series), the second number is the chip:

59 = 2x cypress
58 = cypress
57 = juniper
56 = redwood

The third/fourth is what performance bracket of the chip:

70 = high
50 = mid
30 = value

Pretty clear to me.
 
I've always looked at it like this:

XYZ0

X = tech number, (higher = newer). 5 brings us DX11
Y = major performance level (higher = better), in the case of older cards this was:
  • 8 - enthusiast
  • 7 - performance
  • 6 and lower - basic gaming/office work
Z = minor performance level (higher = better).

Then, if there's a x2 on the end (4870x2), it's exactly what it says on the tin; 2 x 4870.

I find nVidia much more confusing, 8800GT, 8800GTX, 8800GTS, 8800GTS OC, etc etc, which one is more powerful? Then with all the name swapping and so on. Yeah, seems a much better solution to naming conventions, amirite?
 
Yeah its pretty clear by price, description and name what your getting. If your buying from a wed site you would also have the option of picking a group of cards and researching them.

Its a lot different if your in a shop looking at boxes though !
 
Last edited:
Of course it goes by generation, othrwise everyone would be up in arms as the old FX5800 isn't much much faster than the dual card GTX 295 when its a much, much bigger number, as its 5 thousand 8 hundred, which is 5 thousand and odd more, jesus, it should be about 500x times faster the old FX, something wrong there ey :p
 
Last edited:
creed said:
Good point made by that man, clear proof that it is also true with AMD that bigger numbers dont always = faster cards.



Whilst ATI's current naming scheme makes a lot of sense, the average (non-forum using) PC buyer/builder will inevitably look for and rely on the higher numbers.
Click to expand...

Your forgetting the 5770 has more features and other advantages over the 4890. Most people given the choice would still opt for a 5770 out the two, simply for the features, silence & power consumption.
 
Nvidia's naming scheme is a lot worse than ATIs. As the guy above said, there was the 8800gt, then the 9800gt which you'd assume to be quite a bit better (as it's the next generation, such as the 7800 was a lot better than the 6800) but no, it's exactly the same card, then they even carried it on to their newest series with the GTS 250, same card, different name. Now THAT's confusing naming imo.

Also, the 320 and 640mb 8800gts cards are worse than the 8800gt 512mb, but the 512mb 8800gts is better than both. Why did they give it exactly the same name? It's just extremely annoying.
 
ghop said:
Nvidia's naming scheme is a lot worse than ATIs. As the guy above said, there was the 8800gt, then the 9800gt which you'd assume to be quite a bit better (as it's the next generation, such as the 7800 was a lot better than the 6800) but no, it's exactly the same card, then they even carried it on to their newest series with the GTS 250, same card, different name. Now THAT's confusing naming imo.

Also, the 320 and 640mb 8800gts cards are worse than the 8800gt 512mb, but the 512mb 8800gts is better than both. Why did they give it exactly the same name? It's just extremely annoying.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't defend Nvidia's 8 series naming at all, it was a farce, the GTX2XX series was clearly better than ATI though
 
straxusii said:
Why the hell do we have 5970, 5870,5830,5770 etc what a load of tosh.

Why not simply have:
5900 (5970)
5800 (5870)
5700 (5850)
5600 (5830)
5500 (5770)
etc

Or is it too dangerous to give the consumer a clear idea of which cards perform best?
Click to expand...

I think you need be borderline 'special' not to understand how the naming convention works.
Possibly the most pointless/groundless thread I'v wasted my life reading.

Next time how about asking your handler to explain it to you.
 
Last edited:
Meaker said:
5970
5870
5850
5770
5750

Says a heck of a lot more than

5900
5800
5700
5600
5500

The first number SHOULD be the generation (we will ignore the 5100 series), the second number is the chip:

59 = 2x cypress
58 = cypress
57 = juniper
56 = redwood

The third/fourth is what performance bracket of the chip:

70 = high
50 = mid
30 = value

Pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about for consumers, not us enthusiasts. You seriously think all that makes sense to the average consumer?
 
Uriel said:
Radeon 9500 Pro was possibly the best bang for buck card ever. 9500 also unlocked to 9700 if you got lucky.
Click to expand...

The 9500 non-pro with L-shaped memory unlocked 75% of the time, because ATI used binned non-pro Radeon 9700s.

Uriel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they die shrinked the lower end to 130nm first.

Uriel said:
A 9800SE was about the same performance as a 9600XT or 9500Pro and considerably less than a 9700 or 9700 pro.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Uriel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The OEMs buy them up because they base their view on model numbers and version numbers rather than actual benchmarks. Same with the regular Joe Public that make up 80% of the buyers.

Uriel said:
That was the other thing - a first number name change used to mean a new Direct X feature set.
Click to expand...

It did for a while, yes.
 
straxusii said:
I'm talking about for consumers, not us enthusiasts. You seriously think all that makes sense to the average consumer?
Click to expand...

Yeah and within a series (say 5) then the performance is higher with the higher overall number.

Also 5870 -> 5850 -> 5770 is a lot clearer about the performance differences of 5800 -> 5700 -> 5600

Also what would YOU call the 4870 in there? Combine the fact that the 5770 does pretty well against the 4870.

You have to expect people to do SOME research. Its very easy to figure out that the numbers are pretty honest within a generation but dont shift much out of that.
 
FX5200 - I remember looking on the shelves in the purple (then red and yellow probably) place and thinking it looked amazing. After all the 4200 ran Battlefield 1942 brilliantly...

I felt sorry for my mate that ran a LAN cafe and 'upgraded' all the 4200s to 5200s.
 
Uriel said:
FX5200 - I remember looking on the shelves in the purple (then red and yellow probably) place and thinking it looked amazing. After all the 4200 ran Battlefield 1942 brilliantly...

I felt sorry for my mate that ran a LAN cafe and 'upgraded' all the 4200s to 5200s.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Probably didn't help that the Geforce 4 Ti4200 could do 8 pixels per clock vs the 4 of the Geforce FX5200 :p
 
At least it's not like Nvidia who have several different cards with the same or similar names, especially at the mobile end. I mean they have a GTX 260 and a GTS 260 there, and to confuse the issue just that little bit more, the GTS 260 is a newer core with more features!

Then there's the desktop GTX 260 which has two versions that perform significantly differently (216 vs. 192), and whilst when it was released they were branded 'max core', they no longer make any distinction between them. There's also the GTX 280 and 275 which perform more or less exactly the same, and in many benchmarks the 275 has the edge due to the higher core speed. The GTS 250 is the same as the 9800 GTX+, which is similar to the 9800 GTX which is more or less the same as the 8800 GTS 512MB. Try explaining that to someone looking not particularly well endowed in GPU knowledge for an upgrade from their trusty 8800 GTS 512MB.

Then there's the fact that they're now rebadging low-end GT200 parts as GT300 parts at the low end, i.e. the GT 210 has become the GT 310 in OEM systems.

Nvidia's system might seem simple, but the fact is it really tells you **** all about the product you're about to receive. At least ATi's system, for the most part, actually tells you more or less what you're going to get in 4 numbers, without the confounding letter monikers which, in their only example of a distinction, are actually backwards. Great!

I mean seriously, their name scheme is completely ****ed. Anyone who claims ATi's system is difficult to understand by comparison is merely being tricked by Nvidia's extremely effective marketing machine. I mean for the love of all things logical, at least to understand ATi's 5 series naming scheme all you have to do is ask someone briefly. To understand Nvidia's you have to have an in-depth knowledge of all the performance of their cards. This whole thread is utter madness.


Edit: Just to clarify, I don't think I can emphasise enough how poor Nvidia's naming 'scheme' is at the moment. That's not to say they don't have some great products at certain segments of the market (Tegra 2 <3), but to applaud their naming scheme is just wrong, shameful and frankly deceitful or horribly mislead.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom