• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Decoding the new AMD naming scheme

I usually pick things up easily, and I still find this incredibly confusing. I hate the way that A-series APUs are named, and this is just as bad.
 
I don't like this.

R9 280X should be: R280
R7 250 should be: R250

Horrible. Nvidia simplified things to three digits a long time ago. AMD looks to be doing this, but then all of a sudden there's the "R9" and "R7" identifiers? So R9 represents the equivalent of the 7900 series. But wouldn't the 8 in 280X also represent the higher class GPU? Why two different identifiers marketing this as a high end card? Looking at it all together, it's confusing.

I think they are trying to do what Nvidia did in the 200 series. GTX = R9, GTS = R7, GT = R5. But I never liked this either. The second number always identified the card as high class anyway - it's redundant. GTX 280 - that's how you know it's top class, not the GTX. GTS 250 that's how you know it's mainstream class.

So if we see R9, the consumer should associate it with high end performance. Ok, but why not just associate the 8 with high end performance?

Redundant identifiers only make it look more confusing than it really is.

And I don't like them still having this arbitrary suffix. Nvidia does it too. 660Ti > 660. So is AMD gonna have a 280X and a regular 280? Or a 280XT? Gonna being back the XTX? 660Ti should have been the 665.

Radeon X1950XTX is still the most ridiculous card naming, but all those X's must mean it's fast! I guess this stuff works? Not sure what Nvidia sees in the "Ti" though, does it mean anything to the average consumer? But it looks like they may have dropped it for the 700 series, at last.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if they can carry the variant around across market segments. This would result in things like:

R9 250X
R9 250
R9 240

R7 250X
R7 250
R7 240

Where the variant really is what it says, some variant on the card. For example, 240 means 2GB RAM where 250 means 4GB RAM.

The R# would be the market segment, such as integrated, consumer, enthusiast.
 
I wonder if there will be overlaps like that.
R9 280x
R7 280x

If not it's not so different. The R could be Radeon.
So
9 280x is like 9280
7 250x = 7250

It's clear which is higher anyway. I don't know what I think of it, just show me the performance already. 😉
 
Last edited:
Reading that article I just realized Radeon HD, the HD stood for 'high definition'. I never had that click in my brain before now...

I still think the names are stupid. They should just name them 'low', 'medium', 'high', 'ultra' for what settings you're most likely to be forced to use and a year they come out. AMD Ultra 2013!
 
I just read the article; AMD's new naming scheme is confusing the bejesus out of me.

Why can't they stick with a nomenclature that follows tradition, i.e. A-B-C = Generation, Family, Variant. Now it's in the order of B-A-C = Family, Generation, Variant.

The most descriptive information should be at the front, but now it's somewhere in the middle.
 
Saylick said:
I just read the article; AMD's new naming scheme is confusing the bejesus out of me.

Why can't they stick with a nomenclature that follows tradition, i.e. A-B-C = Generation, Family, Variant. Now it's in the order of B-A-C = Family, Generation, Variant.

The most descriptive information should be at the front, but now it's somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

You wouldnt need an overpayed useless marketing division for that. :awe:
 
Doesn't seem that complicated to me. Looks like they are following intel's move. Whenever an average person asks me about a cpu, they always just mention "i3, i5, or i7". AMDs new scheme looks like R7, R9.
 
It was inevitable that the nomenclature would get an overhaul, as they were again running out of single digit numbers for the generation indicator. Like Borkil said, he whole R9/R7 thing reminds me of Intel's i7/i5/i3 naming gimmick with its processors since Nehalem.

On another note, it seems HIS is going to keep trying to push useless 2 GB DDR3 cards with neither the bandwidth nor the shading power to make use of all that memory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top