does nvidia still rebrand cards?

[Shephard]

My card is 9800 GT which is just the same as a 8800 GT as I remember.

Then there is 8800 ultra which was there best at the time. Then they rebrand as 9800gtx+ for next series. Then after that GTS 250...

Did nvidia stop doing this? I thought it was really annoying that they did that to customers.

How come they did this? I guess some people think they are upgrading to new card because it's new series, but all it has is a new name. :'(

 

[aaksheytalwar]

With low end stuff. Yes

 

[SPBHM]

My card is 9800 GT which is just the same as a 8800 GT as I remember.

Then there is 8800 ultra which was there best at the time. Then they rebrand as 9800gtx+ for next series. Then after that GTS 250...

Did nvidia stop doing this? I thought it was really annoying that they did that to customers.

How come they did this? I guess some people think they are upgrading to new card because it's new series, but all it has is a new name. :'(

it's far more common for mobile and OEM GPUs to be renamed... but both AMD and NV basically are still renaming cards.... but mostly for low end cards....

GT 630 = GT 440/GT430, GT 620/610 = GT 520...
now there are 3 different "cards" named GT 640m for mobile, one uses GK107, and I think the others use GF116...
as for AMD they renamed mobile 6600/6700 to 7600...

also some OEM cards go even further, I think the 5450 was called also 6350 and 7350,
the 6700 series was basically exactly the 5700...

but anything higher than the GT 640 is using a new GPU at the moment, the same for the Radeons 7700 and higher....

some people just make their decision based on the name, so a "geforce 600" should be good and newer...

but to be fair, it can also help in some cases... if it still makes sense to sell an old card, if the 8800GT kept its original name, it could be confusing with the slower 9600GT and 9500GT released a few months later... or the 5700 which was clearly faster than the 6600 series, and with mostly equivalent features...

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Just don't get a cheapo card and you'll.be fine.

 

[amenx]

My card is 9800 GT which is just the same as a 8800 GT as I remember.

Then there is 8800 ultra which was there best at the time. Then they rebrand as 9800gtx+ for next series. Then after that GTS 250...

The 8800(gtx) Ultra is a totally different card to the 9800gtx+. Different gen, process, mem bus, transistor count, ROPs, tex units, altogether different card that was not renamed/rebranded. It was also still more powerful than the 9800gtx+ when the latter was released.

The 8800gts 512mb was rebranded to 9800gtx+ then to 250gts. Ironically the 8800gts 512 superseded the 8800gts 320/640mb cards yet basically retained the same model name. It should have been called 9800gts from the start as it was a good 30% better performer than the 8800gts 640mb.

 

[Zap]

Yes they still rebrand cards in the low end, and sometimes mid range. They've got to keep up with all the AMD rebranding, after all. Srsly though, they BOTH do that.

My card is 9800 GT which is just the same as a 8800 GT as I remember.

Then there is 8800 ultra which was there best at the time. Then they rebrand as 9800gtx+ for next series. Then after that GTS 250...

The 8800 Ultra was never rebranded as anything. The 8800 GT, 9800 GT,l 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ and GTS 250 were all the same GPU. The GT cards had parts disabled, resulting in 112 cores while the others had the full 128 cores. There were also some die shrinks along the way, with corresponding clock increases. So, the two GT cards are the same (though I think the 9800 was updated with a die shrink sans rebrand) and the GTX+ and GTS are the same. The GTX is different. Also, RAM capacities and clock speeds varied, to differentiate the products. So really, the only straight up rebrands were the 512MB versions of those I mentioned earlier.

That is, unless anyone feels that a GTX 660 Ti, 670 and 680 are "rebrands" of each other.

 

[iMacmatician]

So, the two GT cards are the same (though I think the 9800 was updated with a die shrink sans rebrand)

Yep, the 9800 GTX to 9800 GTX+ transition included a die shrink from 65 nm to 55 nm plus slightly higher clocks.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Isn't the perf diff like 5% btw them.

 

[toyota]

AMD does the same thing...

 

[Zap]

Isn't the perf diff like 5% btw them.

I think the difference can be higher depending on which ones you compare. Take the slowest 256MB 8800GT and the fastest 1GB GTS 250 and I think you'll find quite a performance difference.

But yes, GTX to GTX+ was very small difference as the only performance difference was due to higher core, shader and memory clocks. While that didn't sound very good, note that the higher clocks were possible due to the die shrink. It also allowed the GTX+ to need only one 6-pin PCIe power plug (not always implemented) while the GTX needed two. Additionally, the cards could be smaller (not always implemented).

So, to call something like this (GTX to GTX+) a rebrand is both somewhat true, as well as very unfair.

AMD does the same thing...

Yup.

 

[Shmee]

Keep in mind the card parts besides the GPU also changed between these. For instance, the 9800 GTX needed 2 6 pin power connectors, the 55 nm versions didn't. Also, the GTS 250 did not support 3 way SLI (only one SLI connector up top)

They also came in different lengths. My original 9800 GTX is huge.

 

[FalseChristian]

The 9800GT was exactly the same as a 8800GT. The same clocks and everything. Now, maybe, the 9800GT might have been a better overclocker than the 8800GT but that's it.

I should know. I had 2 8800GT 512 MB is SLI.

 

[SPBHM]

The 9800GT was exactly the same as a 8800GT. The same clocks and everything. Now, maybe, the 9800GT might have been a better overclocker than the 8800GT but that's it.

I should know. I had 2 8800GT 512 MB is SLI.

some 9800GT were exactly 8800GT with a new bios, others obviously had different PCBs and others the 55nm G92B, while I think all the 8800GT and the early 9800GT used the 65nm G92, but apart from OC/power G92 and G92B performed equally

but as I said, I don't see rebrand always as a bad thing, I remember buying a Radeon 9100, which was exactly a 8500LE, and faster than the newer 9000 PRO

in a way GTX 560 is a rebranded GTX 460 "OC"...

 

[Shmee]

I thought the 9800 GT was mostly 55nm?

 

[SPBHM]

I thought the 9800 GT was mostly 55nm?

most cards probably are, but many early 9800GT use the 65nm chip...
also, the specs, clocks and all are 100% the same, so 9800GT performs exactly like any 8800GT.

I think the 9600GT also had originally a 65nm G94 and later a 55nm version,

another rebranded card was the 8800GS, later called 9600GSO,

9800GT was also called GTS 240 (OEM only).

 

[toyota]

never mind

 

[Fallengod]

I was about to say, AMD does the same exact thing. If you are going to "out" nvidia for it, lets be fair here....

Also, there were 9800GT's that were different from an 8800GT..... Its not like they were the same exact card with a different name, which is obviously what you were implying. 9800GT's were known for being quite a bit better actually(I would know anyways as I owned both). In fact, for the most part, they dont just rebrand cards. Usually there are differences, even if they might be negligible. Get your facts straight. Much of that stuff is just related to business strategy and marketing.

 

[SPBHM]

I was about to say, AMD does the same exact thing. If you are going to "out" nvidia for it, lets be fair here....

Also, there were 9800GT's that were different from an 8800GT..... Its not like they were the same exact card with a different name, which is obviously what you were implying. 9800GT's were known for being quite a bit better actually(I would know anyways as I owned both). In fact, for the most part, they dont just rebrand cards. Usually there are differences, even if they might be negligible. Get your facts straight. Much of that stuff is just related to business strategy and marketing.

quite a bit better!?
both used the G92 with 112 "cuda cores", at the exact same clock,

and as I said, there is even the 9800GT 65nm... so you have the same chip and performance...

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-5190-view-GeForce-9800-GT-65nm-vs-55nm.html

 

[Fallengod]

quite a bit better!?
both used the G92 with 112 "cuda cores", at the exact same clock,

and as I said, there is even the 9800GT 65nm... so you have the same chip and performance...

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-5190-view-GeForce-9800-GT-65nm-vs-55nm.html

They performed basically the same, but the 9800GT was known for running quite a bit cooler and overclocking better. Just sayin...

 

[SPBHM]

They performed basically the same, but the 9800GT was known for running quite a bit cooler and overclocking better. Just sayin...

some 8800GT also ran cooler and overclocked better than others...
the 9800GT was just a continuation of the 8800GT, obviously the "8800GT" name was abandoned earlier, and 9800GT had a die-shrink and possibly the process maturing, newer PCB designs, and all of that, but that's doesn't mean one of the earlier models using the 65nm GPU will necessarily overclock better than one sold as 8800GT just because of the new name...

also, my 55nm 9600GT overclocked less than most 65nm 9600GT.

 

[Arkaign]

Low end has been stagnant for years. I recently replaced a buddy's dead 6600 vanilla with a GT620 ($10 AR), and if anything it was slower for the games he plays (original CS and UT mostly, hah)

 

[frozentundra123456]

They performed basically the same, but the 9800GT was known for running quite a bit cooler and overclocking better. Just sayin...

There was also a low power 9800GT after the die shrink that was slightly undervolted and underclocked. I used one of these for a couple of years with an OEM 300 watt power supply and was very happy with it. As a matter of fact I just retired it a couple of months ago.

 

[Eureka]

It doesn't make sense to develop new cards for old-end, and even midrange. It's easier to just shrink the die of an older model and call it development.

 

[VirtualLarry]

in a way GTX 560 is a rebranded GTX 460 "OC"...

I thought GTX460 1GB (original) was GF104, and GTX560 was GF114.

 

[Zap]

Low end has been stagnant for years. I recently replaced a buddy's dead 6600 vanilla with a GT620 ($10 AR), and if anything it was slower for the games he plays (original CS and UT mostly, hah)

Don't know about CS, but I think the problem with UT has to do with drivers. I remember BITD with a 3dfx card and then GeForce cards of the time, the game played nice and smooth. However, sometime along the way Nvidia stopped caring about older games, so they don't play right anymore.

At least that's my theory.

I remember going back to play Crimson Skies around 5 years ago, and it was completely unplayable with GPU acceleration turned on with Nvidia cards. Radeons worked fine, and software rendering worked fine.