According to a DT article it seems the next cards will be named X2xxx
So put me on the list for a couple of x2900s come late Feb
So put me on the list for a couple of x2900s come late Feb
R600, etc naming scheme kinda confirmed
- Thread starter LittleNemoNES
- Start date
Originally posted by: gersson
According to a DT article it seems the next cards will be named X2xxx
So put me on the list for a couple of x2900s come late Feb
Amd x2 900+
We're going backwards
lol
Fix your rig link (I gather you wanted the conroe link):
http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.aspx?rigid=33598
Now that I think about, I've been running the 2800xp too for years. My first real "build" (if you could call it that).
ROFL.....That would be neat though.
Gotta hand it to NV....they really got their naming scheme done properly (or at least, way better than ATI).
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Well, until they hit the 10th gen, that's what got ATI. Nowhere to go after the 9800XT, but X's. Somehow, I don't think NVIDIA's flagship card will ever be the GeForce 10800GTX, but I could be wrong. We'll see how they handle it.
how is nv's naming scheme even better?
6800, 7800, 7900, 8800
x800, x1800, x1900, x2000
is there really that much of a difference?
actually the x2xx series seems to be smarter since its a whole new series of dx10, so the change from x1xxx to x2xxx makes more sense than going from 6800, 7800, 8800 as they change from dx9 to dx10
6800, 7800, 7900, 8800
x800, x1800, x1900, x2000
is there really that much of a difference?
actually the x2xx series seems to be smarter since its a whole new series of dx10, so the change from x1xxx to x2xxx makes more sense than going from 6800, 7800, 8800 as they change from dx9 to dx10
The difference is that NV hasn't reached past 9000+ for their naming scheme like ATI did. Once that happens, NV will have to deal with it (hopefully come up with something a little more elegant than adding an x in front of the nomenclature).
So yes there is a difference. 9800 to x800 to x1800 seems a lot different to me than 5800 to 6800 to 7800. How big of a difference? To you, not much. To others, a whole deal, apparently.
No, x2xx is not smarter and doesn't make anymore sense than anything else they have come up with in the past. And I seriously doubt anyone correlates the move to x2xx with dx10.
In the end, you and me will know the difference between the model numbers, and Mr. Bob won't because that's who really matters and that's why the nonsense ensues!
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
6800 Ultra vs X800XT PE
7800GTX vs X1800XT
7900GTX vs X1900XT vx X1900XTX
8800GTX vs X2800XTX
Too many Xs in the Radeon line up (though the XFX XXX Edition series of GPUs takes the first prize). And the X in the Radeon line is supposed to be the roman numeral X. Kinda like Flight Simulator X or MacOS X.
9800-> X800 where X=10.
It's true, I don't like the alphabet soup and the sheer number of GPUs and their variants on the market. Here's an idea:
Flagship $600 - X2800XT
High-End $400 - X2800XL
Performance $250 - X2600XT
Mid-Performance $175 - X2600XL
Budget $125 - X2300XT
Value $85 0 X2300XL
Halfway through the product cycle, as parts are refreshed with modest speed bumps or change in manufacturing process, change the last two 0s to 50. If the market allows for a little more variance, use the PRO suffix to launch cards below the XL level.
XT > XL > PRO. See, nice and simple?
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
That makes sense, but we'll probably end up with something more like this:
X2800XTX
X2800XT
X2800XL
X2800Pro
X2800
X2800GTO
X2800GTO2
X2800LS
X2800LT
...and then there will be two versions of one or more of the cards with different core/mem speeds.
Maybe Nvidia can just revert back down after hitting 9xxx. For example, two generations from now, they release the 1xx series! 3 release cards: 180, 160, and 120 (high, mid, and low). Now, for a refresh, bring out the 190, 170, and maybe a turboovercachedhypermegamemory 130 lowend version. Then the lineup is: 120, 130, 160, 170, 180, 190 and it leaves room for 94 other model numbers if they so desire.
That being said, the bigger names are better for them since search engines would find "x1900xtx" much more easily than "190". I wonder if that is part of the reasoning, along with a simple desire to have a "sweet" sounding name?
That being said, the bigger names are better for them since search engines would find "x1900xtx" much more easily than "190". I wonder if that is part of the reasoning, along with a simple desire to have a "sweet" sounding name?
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,202
- 216
- 106
The naming scheme for R600 was predictable enough don't you guys think. I was expecting just that and nothing else. Would another naming scheme be better anyway if you think about it twice ? I think X2xxx is more than ok, it's a logical "sequel" to the previous architecture's naming scheme.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter