NVIDIA's Recent Rebranding Practice

[Zap]

Originally posted by: oopyseohs
You are right about NVIDIA also having a super confusing naming policy. 9800GTX+ and GTX 260 Core 216 probably are the worst culprits.

There is no NVIDIA GTX 260 Core 216. NVIDIA has a GTX 260. Period. Nothing more. The added "Core 216" was just marketing that certain vendors did.

Originally posted by: geokilla
I somewhat like what NVIDIA's doing. Basically, they're gonna be releasing mainstream to high-end cards, while they'll keep production of the older cards and pushing them down the ladder. The 8800GT which used to be a moderate to high end GPU back in the 8800GTX days could now be considered mainstream. So it's like 2 years from now, the current "king", GTX280 may be renamed GTS360 and it'll become a mainstream card, while we'll be getting a GTX380 as a high-end enthusiast card.

That's a good point. The thing is that it really only works if stuff gets "rebranded." If someone wants something that is less performance but cheaper than GTX 200 series, something like an 8800 GT is PERFECT! However, some people just won't buy it because "oh that's old stuff." So, what is a manufacturer to do? Spend money to make a brand new chip that performs exactly the same and then call it something new like GTS 250? How about just using the same chip that performs exactly the same and calling it a GTS 250? They hit the same price and performance points in the product lineup. The difference is that if they did the first, they'd be spending a lot of R&D money. If they did the second, they will (and are) incurring the wrath of enthusiasts. If they just kept things the way they were and kept using the old product names, then they get bashed for not coming out with new stuff, and those who don't know any better won't buy it because it is "old."

I do think that NVIDIA could have handled it much better. In the immortal words of our senior director of marketing, "Just make it stop!"

 

[faxon]

dont forget that the 4850 is just a lower clocked RV770 chip with DDR3 attached to it. ooh, the horrors! so long as the monikor for denoting performance based on a flat rate numeric digit stays in the HD4k series, i dont care what the hell they say it is. who knows, maybe the yeilds on RV770 chips are high enough now that they can get away with doing this without even changing the cooler?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Let's wait until this next part is actually announced before we make any assumptions shall we? As I said, neither company is beyond reproach, but right now Nvidia seems to covet the title moreso.

Rofl, you realize the "GTS 250" hasn't launched yet either and that you're basing this latest round of criticism on the same sources you want to wait and see on with the RV790? Again, take a step back (maybe take off the tin foil hat) and see how ridiculous your stance is here.

Anyways, I don't care enough about these rebrands to continue posting about this. Like I've said before, people who get all worked up over one vendor or another's use of arbitrary naming conventions certainly need to have an appetite for crow.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Let's wait until this next part is actually announced before we make any assumptions shall we? As I said, neither company is beyond reproach, but right now Nvidia seems to covet the title moreso.

Rofl, you realize the "GTS 250" hasn't launched yet either and that you're basing this latest round of criticism on the same sources you want to wait and see on with the RV790? Again, take a step back (maybe take off the tin foil hat) and see how ridiculous your stance is here.

Anyways, I don't care enough about these rebrands to continue posting about this. Like I've said before, people who get all worked up over one vendor or another's use of arbitrary naming conventions certainly need to have an appetite for crow.

Indeed... aside from the fact that the GTS250 specs are already finalized and Nvidia itself has unofficially announced it. *shrug* Arbitrary naming conventions are fine, except when you start renaming the same part across multiple generations which creates market confusion.

 

[oopyseohs]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: oopyseohs
You are right about NVIDIA also having a super confusing naming policy. 9800GTX+ and GTX 260 Core 216 probably are the worst culprits.

There is no NVIDIA GTX 260 Core 216. NVIDIA has a GTX 260. Period. Nothing more. The added "Core 216" was just marketing that certain vendors did.

Originally posted by: geokilla
I somewhat like what NVIDIA's doing. Basically, they're gonna be releasing mainstream to high-end cards, while they'll keep production of the older cards and pushing them down the ladder. The 8800GT which used to be a moderate to high end GPU back in the 8800GTX days could now be considered mainstream. So it's like 2 years from now, the current "king", GTX280 may be renamed GTS360 and it'll become a mainstream card, while we'll be getting a GTX380 as a high-end enthusiast card.

That's a good point. The thing is that it really only works if stuff gets "rebranded." If someone wants something that is less performance but cheaper than GTX 200 series, something like an 8800 GT is PERFECT! However, some people just won't buy it because "oh that's old stuff." So, what is a manufacturer to do? Spend money to make a brand new chip that performs exactly the same and then call it something new like GTS 250? How about just using the same chip that performs exactly the same and calling it a GTS 250? They hit the same price and performance points in the product lineup. The difference is that if they did the first, they'd be spending a lot of R&D money. If they did the second, they will (and are) incurring the wrath of enthusiasts. If they just kept things the way they were and kept using the old product names, then they get bashed for not coming out with new stuff, and those who don't know any better won't buy it because it is "old."

I do think that NVIDIA could have handled it much better. In the immortal words of our senior director of marketing, "Just make it stop!"

That is a very good point, I never thought of it like that. I suppose it is an efficient business decision and prevents a lot of older but still capable parts to be "recycled" so to speak. RE the GTX 260: Wasn't there a period where there was the 192 shader version and the 216 version? That is what I was referring to. I guess now since there is only the 216 one then there is only one designation.

My only other comment would be about the feature set of the card. Like suppose the 8800GT didn't have DX10 support (it does) and the GTS240 didn't either. Nowadays when DX10 support is given, then that would be a problem. I guess you can make that argument for DX 10.1 (EDIT: not that 10.1 is a big deal), but NV doesn't support it at the high-end on their new cards anyway so its a non-issue.

 

[Pelu]

Originally posted by: bluemax
Can anything beat ATI with rebadging the Radeon 8500 almost a dozen times?

what? how many times?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Pelu

Originally posted by: bluemax
Can anything beat ATI with rebadging the Radeon 8500 almost a dozen times?

what? how many times?

I'm only aware of the 9000, 9200, and 9250.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Pelu

Originally posted by: bluemax
Can anything beat ATI with rebadging the Radeon 8500 almost a dozen times?

what? how many times?

I'm only aware of the 9000, 9200, and 9250.

It's best not to nitpick the rebranding on slow cards. They are never designed to play games or anything, so it's not like anybody is ever tricked by it.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Pelu

Originally posted by: bluemax
Can anything beat ATI with rebadging the Radeon 8500 almost a dozen times?

what? how many times?

I'm only aware of the 9000, 9200, and 9250.

There was the 9100 as well which was a 100% equal crossover, as well as its "SE" cousins. "A dozen" is an exaggeration... it's still a lot of names for the same chip, even if it's only refined a teeeeensy bit.

 

[kreacher]

Its idiotic, Nvidia think they can fool people into buying what is basically the same card again for marginal gains but a lot more $$. What do they think will happen once someone upgrades from 8800GTS 512 to GTS240 and then asks people why they didn't get any next generation boost.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: kreacher
Its idiotic, Nvidia think they can fool people into buying what is basically the same card again for marginal gains but a lot more $$. What do they think will happen once someone upgrades from 8800GTS 512 to GTS240 and then asks people why they didn't get any next generation boost.

woot, cheaper, better, cards for me, who actually bothers to do at least the minimum of research before i buy a new product instead of saying "mmm, bigger number, must be faster"

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: kreacher
Its idiotic, Nvidia think they can fool people into buying what is basically the same card again for marginal gains but a lot more $$. What do they think will happen once someone upgrades from 8800GTS 512 to GTS240 and then asks people why they didn't get any next generation boost.

woot, cheaper, better, cards for me, who actually bothers to do at least the minimum of research before i buy a new product instead of saying "mmm, bigger number, must be faster"

Pretty much my take on it too.

If you're dumb enough to buy without reading up first...you deserve exactly what you get.

 

[garritynet]

Its not like the prices aren't going down on the cards and its not Nvidia's fault that people are going to associate an older name as being less powerful. If all they have to do is give the card a new name for it to be competitive then why shouldn't they? I mean the MSRP of the 8800GTX was $699 and when the 9800GTX rebrand was $299, how many people who purchased the 8800GTX/9800GTX at that price point are going to upgrade to a $149 card? I mean we are talking about the uneducated masses that equate larger numbers to larger performance right? Surely they are not going to think a cheaper card than the one they had before is going to be an improvement?

The 9800GTX just hit $149 about a month ago when I purchased mine. If they rebrand it as a $79 GTX 305 next year I am not going to rush out to replace my $500 GTX 295 with it hoping for better performance.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

OR instead of trying to rename those cards for sale, they can JUST LOWER THE PRICE so more people will buy. OR SPEND THEY MONEY ON BETTER PERFORMANCE.

i still think that its not very nice of nvidia to do all this renaming (it seems to be way more popular with them than ATI these past years) to play tricks on the consumers.

 

[dguy6789]

This isn't anything new at all. Radeon 8500 -> 9100, Geforce 2 - Geforce 4 MX, Radeon 9600 -> Radeon X1600 etc... I don't see why anyone would complain about this. Just make the names less confusing is all I ask for. Having Geforce 9800s on the same shelf as Geforce GTX200 cards is confusing, no real way of telling which one is better without prior knowledge. Moving all of the cards to a single naming scheme of GTS/X makes more sense. Nobody would mistake a Geforce GTS 250 for being faster than a GTX 280.

 

[Jacen]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
This isn't anything new at all. Radeon 8500 -> 9100, Geforce 2 - Geforce 4 MX, Radeon 9600 -> Radeon X1600 etc... I don't see why anyone would complain about this. Just make the names less confusing is all I ask for. Having Geforce 9800s on the same shelf as Geforce GTX200 cards is confusing, no real any way of telling which one is better without prior knowledge. Moving all of the cards to a single naming scheme of GTS/X makes more sense. Nobody would mistake a Geforce GTS 250 for being faster than a GTX 280.

Why not move them all to the same scheme after they phase out the old one? Wouldnt that make even more sense if they were really out to "Help".

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: chizow
Both sides do it and will continue to do so. Speaking of which...... ATI rebadges the RV770 for their new high-end part.

Both sides do rebadge old hardware to continue to sell it. Its cheaper than developing new hardware and extends the life of an existing product line. However, the link you posted is not a rebranding or rebadging. The overclocked card still features the Radeon 4xx0 naming scheme, so its obviously from the 4xxx generation of ATI cards. Its higher model number denotes that it is faster than other 4xxx parts. 4850 to 4870 to 4890. The RV790 core that'll be used also makes sense because its essentially cherry picked RV770. Makes perfect sense to me. And it'll make sense to customers shopping for a new video card.

Nvidia's rebadging simply serves to confuse the customers and get them to spend money on either an inferior product or the same product they already have.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: oopyseohs
So NVIDIA is getting ready to launch its latest set of graphics cards that have been rebadged from previous generations. The GeForce GTS 250 is apparently a rebadge of the GeForce 9800GTX+, while the GTS 240 is a rebadge of the 9800GT, which was a rebadge of the 8800GT.

The 8800GT came out in October of 07, which was quite some time ago. Now we are going to see practically the same card (overclocked) launched as another new product?

In some ways it makes me sick that old products sold under new names can still make money. It also lets these companies pull back on designing and innovating on new parts.

To me the worst part is that there will be plenty of reviews of these new cards, when the performance is far from new; why not just copy/paste the numbers from the old 9800GTX+ and 8800GT articles?

People are still buying 9800GT's and 9800GTX's aren't they? Do you really care what the card is called? Is Nvidia cranking up the price on the renamed cards? If so, that is the only real problem I can see with renaming. If they are renaming cards and offering them at the same price, there is no problem. People who buy these level of cards probably know better what to look for as far as specifications go. The average Joe does not buy much more than integrated Intel graphics chipsets. They don't even know what the hell that is. As long as they can see their screens, check their email, browse the web on their favorite search engine and chat with their high school sweethearts on facebook, they're content. So don't feel you have to stand up and fight for the uneducated consumer. Chances are they will never be shopping for cards of this caliber. There will be some who want to game, but if they're looking at a choice between a 9800GT or a GTS240, and they are virtually the same price (considering o/c'd models and memory size), how would they be getting hurt going with the "newer sounding card" for the same price?

Answer: They won't.

As I said, the only problem with this is if the renamed cards that are exactly the same as their 9xxx counterparts are jacked up in price. I would have a big problem with that. As would anybody. I'll change my tune on this renaming thing if this is the case.

 

[SirPaulie]

I'm not a fan of name-changes because of confusion, but to create a more Cuda/PhysX branding or recognition is not a bad idea in the big picture and hopefully moving forward, nVidia's naming will be less complicated for the consumer.

The key to some is using older tech but it still delivers nice performance in some of the more modern titles -- especially with 1 gig of ram. If priced aggressively -- a very nice value choice for maybe it's potential price-point. Some claim that there are many G-92 reviews but they're not 1 gig reviews and that extra ram really helps and would be prudent to let the consumer know about it in my mind. To blanket things so strongly isn't objective to me.

The negative may be, re-naming sucks at times but this may be a way to create more value for G-92's; to sell more chips; to lower inventories. It's more about what they cost than what they're named to me.

nVidia's naming confusion didn't start with the GTS-250 but hopefully, finally, it ends, and nVidia may offer an easier naming scheme moving forward for their products.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Both sides do rebadge old hardware to continue to sell it. Its cheaper than developing new hardware and extends the life of an existing product line. However, the link you posted is not a rebranding or rebadging. The overclocked card still features the Radeon 4xx0 naming scheme, so its obviously from the 4xxx generation of ATI cards. Its higher model number denotes that it is faster than other 4xxx parts. 4850 to 4870 to 4890. The RV790 core that'll be used also makes sense because its essentially cherry picked RV770. Makes perfect sense to me. And it'll make sense to customers shopping for a new video card.

Nvidia's rebadging simply serves to confuse the customers and get them to spend money on either an inferior product or the same product they already have.

Yes I'm well aware both sides do it, I just find it hilarious certain people only find issue when one vendor does it, but it makes "perfect sense" when the other does it.

In any case, AMD has rebadged the same exact core to the RV790 and the new name is rumored to be 4970, not 4890 as you thought. That kinda throws a wrench in everything, as now the 4850 needs to be renamed the 4770, the 4830 to 4670, the 4670 to 4570. And there's still the 4870X2, which is lower than the 4890, but still clearly faster. And what about the 3870 that's still faster than the 4670, I mean new 4570. I'm so confuzzeeed.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SirPaulie
The key to some is using older tech but it still delivers nice performance in some of the more modern titles -- especially with 1 gig of ram. If priced aggressively -- a very nice value choice for maybe it's potential price-point. Some claim that there are many G-92 reviews but they're not 1 gig reviews and that extra ram really helps and would be prudent to let the consumer know about it in my mind. To blanket things so strongly isn't objective to me.

Hmmm did I miss some rumor link that said it had 1GB? If it does, that'd change everything as the 9800GTX+ 1GB actually beats the 512MB 4870 quite often With both a clockspeed bump and more VRAM this would make sense filling the gap between GTS 240/4850 and the 512MB 4870 in both performance and price.

 

[nosfe]

why all the hate for confusing naming schemes? it's not like we care about those poor impulse buying consumers

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: chizow
Anyways, I don't care enough about these rebrands to continue posting about this. Like I've said before, people who get all worked up over one vendor or another's use of arbitrary naming conventions certainly need to have an appetite for crow.

Speaking of crow.

Originally posted by: chizow
Yes I'm well aware both sides do it, I just find it hilarious certain people only find issue when one vendor does it, but it makes "perfect sense" when the other does it.

In any case, AMD has rebadged the same exact core to the RV790 and the new name is rumored to be 4970, not 4890 as you thought. That kinda throws a wrench in everything, as now the 4850 needs to be renamed the 4770, the 4830 to 4670, the 4670 to 4570. And there's still the 4870X2, which is lower than the 4890, but still clearly faster. And what about the 3870 that's still faster than the 4670, I mean new 4570. I'm so confuzzeeed.

As I mentioned earlier - we now have conflicting rumors from multiple "sources" - is it the 4890 or 4970? Hmm... has AMD announced either product, let alone the RV790? Nope. The difference is that Nvidia HAS announced the GTS250.

As far as I know, AMD isn't selling any of these "rebranded" 3-series cards yet, other than an inf file showing it. And funny how you complain... but the 3870 is supposed to slide into the 4700-series, meaning the 4670 and the 4830 don't need any sort of renaming in terms of performance.

The point is if there's a clearly logical methodology that easily determines performance, it's not all bad. On the other hand, with Nvidia's common rebranding practice obfuscating performance characteristics (Hmm... GTX280 > 9800GTX, so logically the GTX250 is based on the GT200 core and hence GTS250 > 9800GTX as well!) is detrimental and down right wrong. But then again, it is all about making money, so I can't fault them for trying to sell pigs with lipstick on them.

 

[SirPaulie]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: SirPaulie
The key to some is using older tech but it still delivers nice performance in some of the more modern titles -- especially with 1 gig of ram. If priced aggressively -- a very nice value choice for maybe it's potential price-point. Some claim that there are many G-92 reviews but they're not 1 gig reviews and that extra ram really helps and would be prudent to let the consumer know about it in my mind. To blanket things so strongly isn't objective to me.

Hmmm did I miss some rumor link that said it had 1GB? If it does, that'd change everything as the 9800GTX+ 1GB actually beats the 512MB 4870 quite often With both a clockspeed bump and more VRAM this would make sense filling the gap between GTS 240/4850 and the 512MB 4870 in both performance and price.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/show...p=1270590&postcount=39

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Speaking of crow.

Oh I'm certainly going to reply to direct quotes to point out clear cases of bias and hypocrisy, especially if I get to lace my reply with heavy doses of sarcasm and satire.

As I mentioned earlier - we now have conflicting rumors from multiple "sources" - is it the 4890 or 4970? Hmm... has AMD announced either product, let alone the RV790? Nope. The difference is that Nvidia HAS announced the GTS250.

Yep, but if its anything other than a 4875 or 4892 my head will 'splode because it won't make any sense to meeeeeee. Also, where has Nvidia announced the GTS 250? I'd love to find out its exact specs as well.

As far as I know, AMD isn't selling any of these "rebranded" 3-series cards yet, other than an inf file showing it. And funny how you complain... but the 3870 is supposed to slide into the 4700-series, meaning the 4670 and the 4830 don't need any sort of renaming in terms of performance.

Buh, buh 4 is greater than 3, and the 3870 is faster than the 4670 and none of it makes sense.....waahhhhh. And don't look now....but the RV740 aka 4750 is faster than the RV770LE aka 4830. 4750 preview Ruh roh....I smell a rebrand coming. And if not, I demand one11!!!!1! There is no God if arbitrary naming conventions don't make sense. LOL.

The point is if there's a clearly logical methodology that easily determines performance, it's not all bad. On the other hand, with Nvidia's common rebranding practice obfuscating performance characteristics (Hmm... GTX280 > 9800GTX, so logically the GTX250 is based on the GT200 core and hence GTS250 > 9800GTX as well!) is detrimental and down right wrong. But then again, it is all about making money, so I can't fault them for trying to sell pigs with lipstick on them.

Rofl, and from all "reports" the GTS 250 is faster than the 9800GTX, so what was the problem again? And if it comes with 1GB, it'll be even better positioned as it will often outperform the 4870 512MB as well, while still being slower than the GTX 260 and 1GB 4870. Seems to make perfect sense to me. /endsarcasm