I "understand" the new naming alignment just fine. My opinion about it is still the same.
I also know the excuse they made up for it, as crappy as it sounds -> to give space for the graphics parts in the new apus.
The numbers in the naming scheme have always been there for the less-geeky costumer to differentiate the card's general performance. It's been like that for 10 years since the Radeon 8500.
If they needed the change the names to accomodate new sub-families, they sould've changed the whole naming scheme (like nVidia did from 9xxx to GTx 2xx), but never should they trick people into downgrading a HD5850 to a HD6850.
My point was simple and pretty much indisputable.
nVidia did lots of naming crap in the 8000->9000 era. They launched cards with higher performance and lower "naming points" (8800GT vs. 8800GTS 320/640) and cards with higher "naming points" and equal performance (8800GT = 9800GT).
But they never launched a card with higher "naming points" and lower performance.
That new low has been set by AMD.
The "we aren't talking about NVidia" argument can't be applied anymore.
Copy-pasta of a post I made with no inkling of those slides:
The parts should have been called the 6700 series IF they didn't change the whole system. Except they did. More accurately, they're "going back to where they came from". the x800 series being the high end in any generation is a recent development.
In 2005 they firmly established a comprehensive naming scheme with the X1000 series. X1300 + suffix--->X1400 + suffix--->X1600 + suffix --->X1800 + suffix--->X1900 + suffix.
The next generation was the first "HD" generation, and the x300 and x800 series were skipped. HD 2400 + suffix--->HD 2600 + suffix--->HD 2900 + suffix.
The "x800 series as high end" scheme started with the HD 3000 series. HD 3400 (3450, 3470)--->HD 3600 (3650, 3690) --->HD 3800 (3850, 3870, 3870X2).
The HD 4000 series saw the proliferation of more cards. HD 4300 (4350)--->HD 4500 (4550)--->HD 4600 (4650, 4670)--->HD 4700 (4770)--->HD 4800 (4830, 4850, 4870, 4890, 4870X2).
The HD 5000 series followed the scheme but "spreading out" the cards even more among the "groupings" to avoid clumping (i.e. the 4800 series with 5 cards). Thus the 5700 now has more than one card (and this would only be the 2nd time there is an x700 series) while the dual-gpu solution was moved to another group (HD 5900) as the 5970.
Now this final point is what boggles me. There weren't really any "violent reactions" towards the 5970's naming. Some even says it's for the better as the "X2" gets dropped. Yet when the 6000 comes wherein the x900 series would be used more (i.e. like in the X1900 and HD 2900 series which obviously predates HD 3800 and HD 4800 series as the "high-end") it's met with downright animosity.
It's quite apparent that using the x900 series in the HD 5000 generation had more than one reason; the HD 6000 generation is already in development even in the preceding months of it's predecessor's launch. The widening of the cards through all the series numbers to avoid the clumping in the x800 series that happened with the 4800's is enough of a sign that this shouldn't have come as a surprise, or done in a whim just a few weeks before launch date.
The existence of the HD 5970 should have been a "flag" already that the top of the line would be the x900 series (again). Of course this would mean that everything else would get a "step down". But if this 6000 series' comprehensive naming scheme would also mean the elimination of a "full" series used with just one card (4500 "series", 4700 "series", 5900 "series", 5500 "series", 5600 "series") and avoiding "clusters" of numerous cards into one grouping (4800 series with 5 cards, 5800 series with 3), it would be for the better.
I would venture a guess that the 6000 generation would still be similar to the 3000/4000 series in naming, with a "wider coverage" through various series. Thus: HD 6400 (Caicos?)--->HD 6600 (Turks?)--->HD 6700 (6750, 6770) --->HD 6800 (6850, 6870)--->HD 6900 (6950, 6970, 6990).
If they needed the change the names to accomodate new sub-families, they sould've changed the whole naming scheme (like nVidia did from 9xxx to GTx 2xx), but never should they trick people into downgrading a HD5850 to a HD6850.
How would you call the difference between the HD 2000 series and HD 3000 series then? In the latter the high-end were x800's, in the former the high-end were x900's...so even with an increase in generation the high-ends decreased in series number.
Talking about Nvidia, they didn't really change the whole naming scheme, they just came up with a new set of numbers and made the suffixes into prefixes (xxxx GTX became GTX xxx). The use of which still persists in their naming, whereas it has been dropped by AMD/ATi 2 years ago.
And in Nvidia's case it's more of a "no choice but to change it"...unless they wanted to have a 10800 GT? AMD would reach this point within two generations anyway (after the HD 7000 series) because of their older cards with 8xxx and 9xxx in their names.