Nvidia's Name Scheme irritates me =(

[FearoftheNight]

Hi guys. I've like Nvidia for a while now and I always liked GeForce. In fact I haven't even look at ATi since their Rage days but now I have their R300 and RV300. I was just taking a shower and it just occured to me that the FX 5200 gets stepped on by ti 4xxx. Thats just not right. Shouldn't bigger # mean better? Grr... :evil:

 

[Schadenfroh]

sorta like the 8500 versus the 9000. higher number = better performance.

 

[Rand]

Just like the GF "4" MX is slower and has less features then the GF "3" Ti.
Not that ATi is any better though, their almost as bad in many respects.

The same applies for many industries through... it's far from exlusive to graphics card or even the computing industry itself.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Rand
Just like the GF "4" MX is slower and has less features then the GF "3" Ti.
Not that ATi is any better though, their almost as bad in many respects.

The same applies for many industries through... it's far from exlusive to graphics card or even the computing industry itself.

ATI are even worse than Nvidia, ATI's latest video cards (apart from the 9800 Pro) are slower than the video cards they have replaced.

"The Radeon 9600 Pro are a perfect example of bigger numbers not necessarily meaning higher performance; as we noted in our overview of the RV350's technology, the Radeon 9600 Pro is actually more like a regular Radeon 9500 than a Radeon 9500 Pro." - Anandtech

"Newer is not automatically synonymous with better, as this review shows. From ATi's perspective, the Radeon 9600 PRO is a success, as it is able to beat the FX 5600 Ultra in the majority of the tests. At the same time, it costs less to produce than the older 9500 PRO model. From the consumer's perspective, the newcomer is a step backwards, though, considering the better overall performance of the "old" 9500 PRO. The performance gap between the generations becomes especially apparent when FSAA and/ or anisotropic filtering is used. Since ATi's main concern is selling cards and making a profit, their step, backwards or not, is understandable." - Tom's Hardware Guide

What about the Radeon 8500? Even though it's numbered lower than the radeon 9000, radeon 9000 pro and radeon 9100 the Radeon 8500 outperforms them all.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: FearoftheNight
Hi guys. I've like Nvidia for a while now and I always liked GeForce. In fact I haven't even look at ATi since their Rage days but now I have their R300 and RV300. I was just taking a shower and it just occured to me that the FX 5200 gets stepped on by ti 4xxx. Thats just not right. Shouldn't bigger # mean better? Grr... :evil:

The FX5200 was designed to replace the GF4 MX440 not the GF4 Ti4200. Right now the Ti4200 is a great purchase but what about when DX9 games become available will it's performance be good then?

You seem to forget that the Ti4200 was designed to run DX8 games which it does very well, the Geforce FX was designed to run DX9 games but also be compatible with earlier games. IMO when DX9 games become available the Ti4200 will be left in the dust by the DX9 equipped video cards.

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

ATI are even worse than Nvidia, ATI's latest video cards (apart from the 9800 Pro) are slower than the video cards they have replaced.

I don't particularly find either distinctly worse then the other.. they've both made a habit of oresenting misleading proudct names. GF2 MX200 was easily blown away by any classic GF.
GF2 MX400 beaten by the GF DDR.
GF4 MX420 merely competitive against a product two marketing generations prior in the GF2 GTS. GF4 MX slower and less features then the GF3.
GF FX 5200 slower then then some of the GF4 series.

Such has been true ever since the TNT2 M64 and in some cases even earlier.

ATi has the 9600Pro beaten by the 9500Pro, 9000/9100 by then 8500 (In some cases depending upon core/mem clock).
They market the classic Radeon 64MB DDR VIVO as being a Radeon 7200 level prouct despite clearly performing beyond such.
Individual manufacturers have R7500 SDR products clocked lowly enough that their being outperformed by the Radeon 64MB VIVO in some instances.

Again, one can look back before even the Rage IIC core to find similar examples from ATi.


I disagree that 'all' of ATi's recent cards beyond the 9800Pro are slower then those they replaced.

9800Pro>9700Pro
9800>9700
9600>9500
9100>8500

All are newer and faster.
For newer and slower one need only look at...
9600Pro<9500Pro... beyond that I don't see that much of their present generation is distinctly worse then the prior generation.

I omit Radeon 9100 vs Radeon 8500 as that depends on core/mem clock on individual products so tremendously.
We've seen R8500's launched as low as 166/166 and as high as 290/290.... yielding performance raging from below that of the non-Pro Radeon 9000 all the way up to superior to the 9100 Pro.


If I had to choose one manufacturer as being preferabe I'd lean towards ATi as their products have at least always equaled or improved the underlying core architectural abilities even when performance has decreased. nVidia has decreased architectural flecibility along with performance.
ATi also has the dubious honour of using their partners as an excuse owing to their lamentable past decisions to allow such a wide ranging variance in clockspeed of past products.

In the end it seems hard to defend either manufacturer in my mind.

 

[tapir]

bottom line is to read comparisons and not buy video cards based on their model numbers

 

[spanky]

IMO when DX9 games become available the Ti4200 will be left in the dust by the DX9 equipped video cards.

and when that time comes around... then i will go buy a 9700 or fx for like $150

 

[FearoftheNight]

I know 5200 was meant to replace MX. BUt mX was a baad series as everyone agrees because it was under a GF3 performance wise. And my point was that 4200....5200....bigger #? And Directx 9 support won't do anyone good w/o any horsepower behind it.