Is NVIDIA's rebranding strategy helpful?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Castiel

No, I want real innovation that warrants a new name!

What is the point if that "new inovation" yields a card that is identical to or worse than an already existing card?

You're saying that if nVidia released a new core with 120SP's, 40 TUs, 16 ROPs, and a 256-bit and called it a GTS250, you wouldn't have a problem with it? But because they re-used the G92b core, which has better specs, you don't like it?

[DrPepper]

I wonder if they could die shrink it to get rid of the external pci-e connector.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

I wonder if they could die shrink it to get rid of the external pci-e connector.

or better yet... if youre gonna give it a new name... then die shrink it and put another connector (upping the voltage) on so it can run at 1GHz core - maybe up the ram too. then i'd buy just for kicks.

[niko084]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

What is the point if that "new inovation" yields a card that is identical to or worse than an already existing card?

You're saying that if nVidia released a new core with 120SP's, 40 TUs, 16 ROPs, and a 256-bit and called it a GTS250, you wouldn't have a problem with it? But because they re-used the G92b core, which has better specs, you don't like it?

http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do...64_1&id=1355_1

While I can see the point in a better revision, I don't see enough change among the basic levels say 8800GT - 9800GT, seriously..... Now granted that's a pretty hard comparison... GTX260 to GTX260 216, I can respect that, saying it's pretty much the same card outright with a minor mod.

[wolf]

newtekie and darkmatter, i agree.

just know your products people, i think nvidia are smart for doing this NOW, sure the names are screwy, but as the GTS240 and 250 it will make MORE sense than now.

everyone re brands, and not everyone is in uproar about that, its just remarketing the products to suit today's market. simple and effective.

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

No, and i hate the sixc month cycle

[mlee49]

Rebranding is a tired method for marketing but it works. How else are you going to buy the near exact same thing six months from now that they sold you already? It's a sales ploy that needs to stop.

[farlex85]

It's silly but understandable. I don't like it at all, but I understand why they do it. I'll just keep shaking my head.....

[DrPepper]

I wonder if the pcb will be changed around or made shorter etc.

[inf3rno]

I want the real innovation like they launched the new architecture of GTX 260, and 280 like 4XXX series of ATI but re branding a previous product proves less loyalty with the previous products holder. This is just my opinion and I have right to be fair.

I have used my every card from nVIDIA side except one and I am fan of this company but what switched me from them the higher prices and the old technology and I make my way through ATI and I am happy with their latest chip.

[FordGT90Concept]

IMO, all cards that have G92, G92a, and G92b should have been labeled GeForce 9###. All the new inferior cards should land below the higher performing GeForce 9### series.

Once they created a new GPU (GT200) which overthrows what the old version could do (G92), they release a new line (2## series). This is what both ATI and NVIDIA have been doing for many years. What broke rank is the 8800 GT and 8800 GTS 512.

Simply put, it is a marketing failure on NVIDIA's behalf. They're having to sell not-so-old products at bargin bin price just because they screwed up on model numbers. People that know what's going on are annoyed while those that don't end up paying extra for parts that aren't much better than parts costing half as much. It's a bargin for those in the know, basically.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

What is the point if that "new inovation" yields a card that is identical to or worse than an already existing card?

You're saying that if nVidia released a new core with 120 SP's, 40 TUs, 16 ROPs, and a 256-bit and called it a GTS250, you wouldn't have a problem with it? But because they re-used the G92b core, which has better specs, you don't like it?

Yep, either that or make a more expensive card with 144 SP, 48 TU, 16 ROPs and 256 bit that could still be slower than G92 because of the lack of TUs. Or just go overboard and release a 144 SP, 72 TU, 20 ROP and 320 bit card that would ensure the performance at a much higher price, something nobody needs.

You know what's funny? That probabaly most people complainig about the rebranding don't have a clue about why the new chips would have to have the numbers we are mentioning. Why not a 150 SP, 64 TU, 20 ROP and 128 bit GDDR5 memory interface right??

[Joe Public]

I forgave them the first time. but a second rebranding on the same product is ridiculous. Ok, fine, it's obivous it's to try to sell their old tech and not get stuck with it, which benefits noone. But they might better have called it 9850GT or 9900GT instead of GTX 240, because that lineup should be reserved for the GT200 generation chips.

[AboAl3meer KG21]

Ithink Nvidia will Not rise again cuse the ATI crushed them with the 4800 series i mean realy since the 8800 GT Nvidia never product any Powerful GPU

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by AboAl3meer KG21

Ithink Nvidia will Not rise again cuse the ATI crushed them with the 4800 series i mean realy since the 8800 GT Nvidia never product any Powerful GPU

Not quite so.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by AboAl3meer KG21

Ithink Nvidia will Not rise again cuse the ATI crushed them with the 4800 series i mean realy since the 8800 GT Nvidia never product any Powerful GPU

Originally Posted by btarunr

Not quite so.

Exactly bt. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...12084&Itemid=1

Originally Posted by Joe Public

I forgave them the first time. but a second rebranding on the same product is ridiculous. Ok, fine, it's obivous it's to try to sell their old tech and not get stuck with it, which benefits noone. But they might better have called it 9850GT or 9900GT instead of GTX 240, because that lineup should be reserved for the GT200 generation chips.

What most of you guys don't understand is that there's no GT200 based chip that would be better than G92. And I challenge anyone to spec one.

This is an overview of DX10 GPU architectures:



SP= Stream Processor, Ati ones have 5 ALU's each.
TU= Texture Units
SM= Shader Multiprocessor = 8 SPs + a shared L1 cache. It's the most efficient basic compute core of Nvidia.
TPC= Thread Processing Cluster. In Nvidia's arch, has one TM, a certain number of SM and a shared L2 cache.
ROP= Raster Operator
RU= 4 Rops and a 64bit memory interface make a raster unit in both Nvidia and Ati architectures.

So with those elements, which have proven to be effective in both Nvidia and Ati architectures (the way to go for a cheap, balanced and fast architecture), I challenge anyone to find a combination of those, that for the same price (die area), beats G92 = 8 TPC (2 SM each)+ 4 RU.

To keep into account is that at 55nm:

- 1 G92 TPC (*and it's associated cache and interconnects) has a die area of aproximately 24 mm^2.
- 1 GT200 TPC* = ~40 mm^2
- 1 RU* = ~10 mm^2

i.e:

GT200b = ~470 mm^2 => 40*10 TPC + 10*8 RU = 400 + 80 = 480
G92b = ~230 mm^2 => 24*8 TPC + 10*4 RU = 192 + 40 = 232

^^ Calculated from die shots, for example: http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gt...ot-colored.jpg

The unpaid no prize contest starts NOW!! Good luck.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by niko084

http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do...64_1&id=1355_1

While I can see the point in a better revision, I don't see enough change among the basic levels say 8800GT - 9800GT, seriously..... Now granted that's a pretty hard comparison... GTX260 to GTX260 216, I can respect that, saying it's pretty much the same card outright with a minor mod.

I don't get your point with that, seriously, I'm confused. Mind explaining a little more?

Originally Posted by mlee49

Rebranding is a tired method for marketing but it works. How else are you going to buy the near exact same thing six months from now that they sold you already? It's a sales ploy that needs to stop.

They aren't trying to get people to buy the same card over again. The current 8800GT and 9800GT owners are not the target market here. And noone that already has an 8800GT or 9800GT should be buying one of these. And any idiot that buys solely on name alone deservers to just get a rebrand of the same card they already have, and probably will be totally happy with it too.

Originally Posted by AboAl3meer KG21

Ithink Nvidia will Not rise again cuse the ATI crushed them with the 4800 series i mean realy since the 8800 GT Nvidia never product any Powerful GPU

Odd how you say the 4800 series crushed them, yet their, now, 2 generation old card is still good enough to compete with the 4800 series. It is so good in fact that nVidia doesn't feel the need to release a new card to compete with the 4800 series. We can talk about ATi crushing nVidia when they come up with a single core that isn't matched by nVidia's 2 generation old core.

[GPUCafe]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

Exactly bt. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...12084&Itemid=1



What most of you guys don't understand is that there's no GT200 based chip that would be better than G92. And I challenge anyone to spec one.

This is an overview of DX10 GPU architectures:

http://img.techpowerup.org/090218/Architecture.jpg

SP= Stream Processor, Ati ones have 5 ALU's each.
TU= Texture Units
SM= Shader Multiprocessor = 8 SPs + a shared L1 cache. It's the most efficient basic compute core of Nvidia.
TPC= Thread Processing Cluster. In Nvidia's arch, has one TM, a certain number of SM and a shared L2 cache.
ROP= Raster Operator
RU= 4 Rops and a 64bit memory interface make a raster unit in both Nvidia and Ati architectures.

So with those elements, which have proven to be effective in both Nvidia and Ati architectures (the way to go for a cheap, balanced and fast architecture), I challenge anyone to find a combination of those, that for the same price (die area), beats G92 = 8 TPC (2 SM each)+ 4 RU.

To keep into account is that at 55nm:

- 1 G92 TPC (*and it's associated cache and interconnects) has a die area of aproximately 24 mm^2.
- 1 GT200 TPC* = ~40 mm^2
- 1 RU* = ~10 mm^2

i.e:

GT200b = ~470 mm^2 => 40*10 TPC + 10*8 RU = 400 + 80 = 480
G92b = ~230 mm^2 => 24*8 TPC + 10*4 RU = 192 + 40 = 232

^^ Calculated from die shots, for example: http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gt...ot-colored.jpg

The unpaid no prize contest starts NOW!! Good luck.

FYI, the die-size of G92b is in the region of 270mm2. Still, your calculations are not far off. GJ.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

They aren't trying to get people to buy the same card over again. The current 8800GT and 9800GT owners are not the target market here. And noone that already has an 8800GT or 9800GT should be buying one of these. And any idiot that buys solely on name alone deservers to just get a rebrand of the same card they already have, and probably will be totally happy with it too.

That is not the point, no one no matter how little knowledge they have deserves to be duped.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Odd how you say the 4800 series crushed them, yet their, now, 2 generation old card is still good enough to compete with the 4800 series. It is so good in fact that nVidia doesn't feel the need to release a new card to compete with the 4800 series. We can talk about ATi crushing nVidia when they come up with a single core that isn't matched by nVidia's 2 generation old core.

Again, not sure what you are implying here. 4870 competes well with the GTX260 (GT200) & 4850 competes well with the 9800GTX+ (G92). So in a way, RV770 has broader scope of implementation and competes well with Nvidia's latest arch.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by GPUCafe

FYI, the die-size of G92b is in the region of 270mm2. Still, your calculations are not far off. GJ.

Are you sure? Hmm every comment about it's size that I have seen that actually measured the chip physicslly said around 230, but it might be. I remember the 270 figure came out before the chip shipped based on the linear reduction from 65nm to 55nm. It's 270 in the end? It doesn't really matter anyway.

[GPUCafe]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

Are you sure? Hmm every comment about it's size that I have seen that actually measured the chip physicslly said around 230, but it might be. I remember the 270 figure came out before the chip shipped based on the linear reduction from 65nm to 55nm. It's 270 in the end? It doesn't really matter anyway.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...gtx-55nm-g92/1

Personally my measurements came out to 275mm2 (16.6 x 16.6) to be exact. Other reviews also put in the same range. But 230mm2 is beyond what I call margin of error.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by GPUCafe

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...gtx-55nm-g92/1

Personally my measurements came out to 275mm2 (16.6 x 16.6) to be exact. Other reviews also put in the same range. But 230mm2 is beyond what I call margin of error.

The problem with that is that he wants to obtain that result from the start because that's what he said and wants to be right, and in a picture things can vary a lot. IMHO he takes too much pixels for the G92b and too few pixels for the G92. By my measures based in that same picture the result is 242mm^2. As you can see things can change a lot.

Another thing that I noticed is that the chips are not 100% square and that while G92 is taller than fatter, G92b is wider than taller. So those who meassure one dimension and just multiplicate it, obtain a very different result depending on which dimension they choosed to measure.

Anyway, I have a 9800GTX+ at home, my brother's card, but he doesn't let me take out off his PC, much less removing the heatsink. I'm still trying, but I've been trying to take a look at that damn card since November, with no luck.

[GPUCafe]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

The problem with that is that he wants to obtain that result from the start because that's what he said and wants to be right, and in a picture things can vary a lot. IMHO he takes too much pixels for the G92b and too few pixels for the G92. By my measures based in that same picture the result is 242mm^2. As you can see things can change a lot.

Another thing that I noticed is that the chips are not 100% square and that while G92 is taller than fatter, G92b is wider than taller. So those who meassure one dimension and just multiplicate it, obtain a very different result depending on which dimension they choosed to measure.

Anyway, I have a 9800GTX+ at home, my brother's card, but he doesn't let me take out off his PC, much less removing the heatsink. I'm still trying, but I've been trying to take a look at that damn card since November, with no luck.

I'm sure the Richard (reviewer) measured it physically rather than deducing the size from the photo. My measurements are also taken physically.

I wouldnt suggest you take off the HSF off your brother's card as that would void the warranty.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by AboAl3meer KG21

Ithink Nvidia will Not rise again cuse the ATI crushed them with the 4800 series i mean realy since the 8800 GT Nvidia never product any Powerful GPU

Crushed? Perhaps not. Revitalized the market, absolutely. The 4800 Series was exactly what it needed to be, but in no way did ATi"crush" Nvidia with these cards.

I think both companies will rise and fall, just like it has always been.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Odd how you say the 4800 series crushed them, yet their, now, 2 generation old card is still good enough to compete with the 4800 series. It is so good in fact that nVidia doesn't feel the need to release a new card to compete with the 4800 series. We can talk about ATi crushing nVidia when they come up with a single core that isn't matched by nVidia's 2 generation old core.

Thankyou! thats what im saying! and to repeat myself the 4800 series was awesome, its exactly what the market needed, and indeed it does compete well against current generation cards too.

however. If you were sitting on an 8800GTX/Ultra, or even 8800GTX/Ultra SLi that you bought 1.5-2.5 years ago, there would be NO reason to upgrade to a 4850 or 4850CF, and even 4870's arent a HUGE amount better than an 8800Ultra, only about ~25-30%

the point is, OLD technology is still keeping up with ATi's best, and more to the point, just keeping up enough to not warrant an upgrade.

Interesting to say that buying a G80GTX/Ultra taht long ago was a genuine investment! i know i still have my 8800GTX oc, sitting in eager anticipation of its newest pixels to crunch.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by GPUCafe

I'm sure the Richard (reviewer) measured it physically rather than deducing the size from the photo. My measurements are also taken physically.

I wouldnt suggest you take off the HSF off your brother's card as that would void the warranty.

It would void the warranty only if they notice it.

As for the size I don't know man, and TBH it doesn't really matter, it's just that I usually want to know things for fact. In some "local" forums here in Spain, a lot of people have measured the size physically and the results are varied. You kow when speaking about mm it's hard unless you use proffessional measuring tools. Let's say the actual lenght is 16mm, it's not too difficult that some can measure 15mm and others 17mm. And the results of ponderating them are 225 and 289 respectively.

So I really don't know what to think. I do know that G92b is smaller than RV770 though. That's undeniable when looking them at the same photo or both them against a coin, for example. And RV770 is said to be 260mm^2, so...

[Baam]

Its fine to do it. I think ATI should do it with there old 3800 series cards. Thanks for the 4800 series or Nvidia would still be charging 300 bucks for a 9800.