Why doesn't AMD bring back the XT/Pro monikers?

[GodisanAtheist]

Its fairly well understood that the 7xxx series has a mountain of headroom in overclocking potential, but not everyone likes or wants to overclock or doesn't like the various issues with non-ref OC'ed cards (laughably underwhelming OCs/disproportionate mark-up).
Lets say AMD wanted to release a reference 1200 core clock or 2304 GCN version of the 7970, with no major underlying changes in microarch.

Simple question: Would you like to see

AMD bring back the XT/Pro moniker (Radeon HD7970 XT)
or
Add an xx80 moniker (Radeon HD7980)
or
Simply up the generation of the series to 8xxx (Radeon HD8970)

to differentiate the new refresh card from the launch cards?

Which do you think would be the most clear and straightforward naming convention? Do you think a combination of multiple naming conventions would work best (XT for a reference overclock, xx80 for additional GCN cores?) Or do you think the current naming convention isn't broken so there is no reason to really fix it?

Edit:
Post #27
Ok, since I suppose this old thread of mine become much more relevant given the recent news of the 7970 Ghz Edition, I'll bump it. I suppose AMD has already decided on "Ghz Edition" which, IMO, is a god damn retarded moniker but whatever.

 

[JAG87]

Just like you said at the end, a combination would be ideal.

Pro/XT for higher clocks with exact same GPU
Minor name change for different GPU with the same architecture
Major name change for different architecture

 

[f1sherman]

Do I care about the names?

No not really. Matter of fact, it pisses me off immensely when I see the amount of wasted bandwidth (and my clicks ) on naming discussions.

It's a valid topic in marketing though.

Would this bring anything to anyone?
I doubt it would.

Adding XTX on top of it would not change anything.
HAWK, Lighting, Direct CU etc... are already established and well recognizable trademarks.

But I can think of the few problems that may arise by AMD supporting 1200MHz referent designs.

 

[Lonyo]

The number is far far better.
Why would you want a LESS CLEAR naming scheme?

Clocks are for partner board differentiation, and it's unlikely that two products will be released where only the clocks are different, so there's no reason to add suffixes for clocks.

The current scheme is much better than crappy suffix schemes, see the 460/560 series from NV, and past series from both AMD and NV where suffixes were used.
Clear, concise, and comparable within a family. Suffixes = BAD BAD BAD

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The number is far far better.
Why would you want a LESS CLEAR naming scheme?

Clocks are for partner board differentiation, and it's unlikely that two products will be released where only the clocks are different, so there's no reason to add suffixes for clocks.

The current scheme is much better than crappy suffix schemes, see the 460/560 series from NV, and past series from both AMD and NV where suffixes were used.
Clear, concise, and comparable within a family. Suffixes = BAD BAD BAD

-So the 4890 never happened and will never happen again forever, yes?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

because its extraneous marketing nonsense, the numbering system is fine, and would be perfect if marketing couldn't get their grubby paws on it to taint the system (example, the 6790, its a Barts GPU, so it should be 6830, but apparently they want to associate with 5700/6700s since it has the same GPU specs despite being different architectures)

on a related note, its too bad nVidia brought back the Ti garbage

That being said I don''t mind it if these old nostalgic terms were used as informal code names, heck, AMD still does this with their GPUs, naming the XT the full version with the Pro being the first step down (and even having an LE version in some instances, which dates way back to the origins of the Radeon brand name), for instance the 7970 is Tahiti XT and the 7950 is Tahiti Pro...

 

[ultimatebob]

I would like a part numbering system that is based off of performance, dammit! I'm sick of vendors renaming their 6xxx series parts with 7xxx part numbers every year without actually making any improvements.

Maybe they could call it an AMD "Speedmark" system, where the reference card is a Radeon 6990. That card gets a Speedmark based part number of 1000... anything faster gets a higher number and anything slower gets a lower number.

That way, when the AMD "Radeon S 1250 Extreme" comes out, we'll know EXACTLY how much faster it is.

 

[nitromullet]

The less a company uses the word 'Extreme' or the letter 'X' the better.

The only use of 'X' that is ok is when used as part of 'FX' to let us know to stay away from a crappy product that has been named as such to "pay homage" to a previous good or beloved product.

 

[ElFenix]

frankly their naming scheme doesn't leave enough space in the numbers. they've pushed the numbers higher and higher and now a distinctly mid range part (x7xx) uses the same number as the old high end part (9700pro).

at least they've not completely abandoned their naming scheme like intel has (how is ivy a 3rd gen core i part? wouldn't it be either 2nd or 4th gen?)

 

[Lonyo]

-So the 4890 never happened and will never happen again forever, yes?

1) That was in the past, and yes, it won't happen again.

2) The HD4890 wasn't just different clocks.
It was a different GPU. That had different clocking characteristics, and hence could clock higher.

Overclocking an HD4870 didn't make it an HD4890.

 

[videogames101]

7970 Pro

PLEASE

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Just like you said at the end, a combination would be ideal.

Pro/XT for higher clocks with exact same GPU
Minor name change for different GPU with the same architecture
Major name change for different architecture

:thumbsup:

 

[lamedude]

I just want the x2 back. 5970 = 2 5870s but 6970 != 2 6870s, 4890=faster 4870 but 6990 = 2 6970s?

 

[dajeepster]

I just want the x2 back. 5970 = 2 5870s but 6970 != 2 6870s, 4890=faster 4870 but 6990 = 2 6970s?

that's lame dude..

rofl

 

[bunnyfubbles]

frankly their naming scheme doesn't leave enough space in the numbers. they've pushed the numbers higher and higher and now a distinctly mid range part (x7xx) uses the same number as the old high end part (9700pro).

at least they've not completely abandoned their naming scheme like intel has (how is ivy a 3rd gen core i part? wouldn't it be either 2nd or 4th gen?)

Ivy has more right to be called 3xxx than SB-E...

 

[nenforcer]

Geforce GTX 666 Ti Core 666 Edition

 

[X98]

amd will never get there grubby hands on ATi's legendary monikers

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Since nobody pointed it out:

AMD is actually still using the LE/Pro/XT nomenclature. It's just that they only use it for the code names. For example:
5830 = Cypress LE
5850 = Cypress Pro
5870 = Cypress XT

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Since nobody pointed it out:

AMD is actually still using the LE/Pro/XT nomenclature. It's just that they only use it for the code names. For example:
5830 = Cypress LE
5850 = Cypress Pro
5870 = Cypress XT

I did point that out

 

[Chiropteran]

I like the numbers. Biggers numbers are better. Pretty simple and easy.

 

[Mistwalker]

I like the numbers. Biggers numbers are better. Pretty simple and easy.

This, all day long.

Extra monikers might have some marketing use, but easier to understand, clear lineups are always going to benefit the end user.

 

[Jman13]

I'd like a naming scheme that doesn't require research beforehand. Sure, if you KNOW that the first number in the nVidia scheme is the 'generation' number, and then the second number is the speed within the family, it's not super hard to follow, but it still leads to problems. Which is faster, a 260 or a 550? A GTX 280 or a 460? Unless you go online and lookup benchmarks you have absolutely no idea.

And the reusing of 4 digit names now with ATI/AMD. Is my old Radeon 9600 Pro better than a new 6850? Sounds like it should be! (obviously I know the answer to this, people).

I agree...start a line, make higher numbers faster, and continue...and don't feel the need to have huge numbers. nVidia should just keep continuing, but stop with the 'generation' stuff and just go: 600 for a low end part, 650 for a mid range part, 700 for a high end part, etc...and just slot in new cards whereever they fall. New card faster than the old 600 and slower than the 700? Make it a 660. Faster than the 700, but only by a little? 710.

When I bought my new video card, I was so stinkin' confused since I hadn't stayed up to date on the video card market in years. So the 550 is slower than the 480....which is much faster than the 460, which is also a little faster than the 550, but not as fast as the 560. Then there's the 285, which you'd expect with the '80' series being top end would still be faster than a 460...but nope...they're close in performance, with the 460 being a little better overall.

How is anyone supposed to know this without doing huge amounts of research? I know for people like us, it's a minor inconvenience if you haven't stayed current, but for the average person who just wants a video card upgrade? They've got to be absolutely lost.

 

[formulav8]

I believe they still use XT/Pro Core codenames.

 

[NTMBK]

Has anyone mentioned they use them in their codenames yet? Because they use them in their codenames.

 

[JimKiler]

While I will not take credit for AMD moving away from suffixes I did an ATI/AMD survey and stated I want to walk into a store and be able to know which card is faster and slower and the suffixes only serve to confuse anyone who is not educated or cannot memorize the performance. I told them the only exception was for dual cards but with the revisions to those even a dual card does not need to be labeled as dual cores.

BTW the last time i walked into a B&M store for a video card was a Nvidia 5600 ultra.