9900 GTX?

Wow nVidia must really be smoking something funny in marketing department, the "GeForce GTX 280" with GTX being first before the number ?

And why the heck did they pick the number 280 ? I think the 9900GTX would have been a bad ass name to close the whole GeForce series out, then in like 2009 come out with a brand new next generation name and product.

I am still pissed at them for the whole 9800GTX naming, which is almost slower than the older lower named and awesome card 8800GTX, the 9800GTX name just does not make any sense what so ever, I always expected something named 9800GTX to be a bad ass 8800GTX killer, not actually slower :rolleyes: The 9800GTX should have been named 9800GT, and then this new 280 thing should be named 9900Ultra or something
 
I thought they were going to make the naming conventions easier. I have no idea why they put GTX first and what the 2 stands for. I was hoping GeForce would close with the 10 series (Geforce X200, X800, etc).
 
Zorachus said:
Wow nVidia must really be smoking something funny in marketing department, the "GeForce GTX 280" with GTX being first before the number ?

And why the heck did they pick the number 280 ? I think the 9900GTX would have been a bad ass name to close the whole GeForce series out, then in like 2009 come out with a brand new next generation name and product.

I am still pissed at them for the whole 9800GTX naming, which is almost slower than the older lower named and awesome card 8800GTX, the 9800GTX name just does not make any sense what so ever, I always expected something named 9800GTX to be a bad ass 8800GTX killer, not actually slower :rolleyes: The 9800GTX should have been named 9800GT, and then this new 280 thing should be named 9900Ultra or something
Click to expand...
Almost? Try 1680x1050 + 8xAA 16xAF and 8800 GTX wins with 30% margin or AA with 1920x1200 etc.

Well since GT200 seems to have the performance of next generation card 9900 GTX wouldn't have been good name.
----
I think that you'll love Geforce 9800 GT! If you look at spec list you'll notice that this is pretty much identical with 8800 GT and they will have the same performance. 9800 GT will use G92b (55nm) and will consume less power and will be cheaper to make..perhaps it will be cheaper than 8800 GT.
 
nVidia has spoken out about how to newbies their naming conventions atm are stupid and confusing. So what better time to change that than with their first truly new architecture in more than a year and a half?

My hypothesis for the new naming scheme:
  • ATi denotes the class of card by the number that comes after the series (so in 3870, the 3 denotes the series and the 8 denotes the high-end gaming grade class; the 70 and 50 further differentiate between cards of that class) but it looks like nVidia will instead opt to use alphabetic cominations to establish the class of the product (so GTX = high-end gaming grade gpu) with the number then representing the series (so the 2 in 280 represents series 2) and the last two numbers differentiate between two cards of the same class (so 80 would be higher than 60- duh)
  • I'd assume that GTX will stand for the high-end gaming grade, while they'll adopt GTS for mid-range gaming grade cards, and GT for budget-range gaming grade cards, and perhaps new naming conventions for anything below that (perhaps GS and GSO)
  • So, adapting the current 9 series and G92 cards to this naming scheme and calling it series '1', we'd get the GX2 180 (9800GX2), GTX 180 (9800GTX), GTX 160 (G92-8800GTS), GTS 180 (the new 55nm 8800GT), GTS 160 (8800GT), GT 180 (9600GT), and GT 160 (the 9600GSO/8800GS)
 
Some new specs:

gtx200seriesspecnn_fx57.jpg


Source:
http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_23295300/tm.htm
 
TerranUp16:
There were nothing special:
-No DX10.1 support for GT200
-PhysX would be part of CUDA, at least for GT200 cards. So Nvidia's card would do physics calculations as well as graphics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top