NVIDIA GTS 240 - This is getting old

[translatingthename]

So I was reading around various tech sites including [H] and stumbled across news that the upcoming GTS 240 card from NVIDIA is actually the same damn thing as the 9800GT, which was the same thing as the 8800GT (albeit with slight overclocks each time).

Is anybody else getting kind of sick of seeing the same card that has been on sale since October of 2007? That was like 1.5 years ago... c'mon guys, we're not that stupid.

/rant

 

[Kowan]

I don't buy low end cards, but if looking for a friend and it offered decent performance/price for their use...

 

[CrimandEvil]

Yeah, it's getting old. Although, good to see that the major performance head start that NV had over ATI has gone be used perfectly to re-release cards that are one year plus old!!

 

[translatingthename]

Yeah, it's getting old. Although, good to see that the major performance head start that NV had over ATI has gone be used perfectly to re-release cards that are one year plus old!!

QFT

Seems like they should do something to combat the ATI cards though, since the competition is a lot better now than it was back then.

 

[450]

QFT

Seems like they should do something to combat the ATI cards though, since the competition is a lot better now than it was back then.

Part of thinks that they're already doing that, and they're just building enough stock right now so its like 8800-levels of pwnage all over again.

 

[translatingthename]

Part of thinks that they're already doing that, and they're just building enough stock right now so its like 8800-levels of pwnage all over again.

hmm.. YOu could be right. They are working on the 40nm stuff IIRC. Next generation video cards from both companies sound pretty nice. I think I heard that ATI's RV740 will be the first or one of the first 40nm cards and it might be entirely bus-powered. Can anyone verify that? Performance is supposed to be pretty good for a mainstream card like that so I would imagine that would be a good choice for HTPC use.

 

[450]

I'm pretty confident that ATi could make a powerful bus powered card. I mean I have the HD4670 and considering that it is getting power just from the PCI-E slot, I'm quite impressed.

 

[ChronoDetector]

No, I won't. Seriously, WTF is wrong with NVIDIA? How many products are they going to rename? Its getting old and stupid.

 

[Elledan]

I'll stick with new cards which support all features of OpenGL 3.x and CUDA (the GT200 core has double-precision floating point support. Very useful). In short, this card is useless to me as it's outdated technology.

It might be okay for a budget box, though.

 

[kantjd]

It's not getting old... it's getting PATHETIC!

Shame on NVIDIA...

 

[osrk]

hmm.. YOu could be right. They are working on the 40nm stuff IIRC. Next generation video cards from both companies sound pretty nice. I think I heard that ATI's RV740 will be the first or one of the first 40nm cards and it might be entirely bus-powered. Can anyone verify that? Performance is supposed to be pretty good for a mainstream card like that so I would imagine that would be a good choice for HTPC use.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4750-rv740-review-preview-test/

nope sorry it will still have a 6 pin connector in the back.

 

[Monkey God]

so much anger over a name change.
really? is that what you are in up in arms over?
if you dont like it, buy ATI

 

[anime4u]

I'll just wait for 4Q 2009 to get the new nvidia cards.

 

[nissanztt90]

I honestly dont really care at all. They can rename their cards to their hearts content, in the end, its up to the consumer to be educated. You generally get what you pay for, so as long as they arent charging anymore than they were, i dont really see an issue. There are cards to cover several market segments...who really gives a shit what they are called? As i said in another thread, Joe Average is gonna go to Best Buy and buy a 200 dollar 1gb 9500GT anyway.

 

[eric66]

'Nvidia Announces GTS230 plus a little surprise at Cebit. (8600GTS AGP)

According to Fudgezillion nVidia is planning to introduce:

THE ALL NEW GTS230!!! AKA 9600GT

Paul Bogus from Tommy's Hardware said:
"We just got word from reliable sources that Nvidia is yet-again, re-branding the current 9600GT tag. With all the emphasis lately spent on green ecology and aims to reduce power and the like, this unpleasant 'surprise' is just a smack in the face, considering the recently released in ultra limited quantities 'green' version of the 9600GT."

'Yeah Right!' to saving the environment.

Tittie Kanchelskis from guyu3d added:
"I tend to disagree with Paul and this is what I would call an act of genius. I foresee Nvidia conquering the world once again and it'll be back to the good old days of the Geforce 1/2 when GTS,GT, and GTX directly made you think 'Nvidia'. How is this wrong? VW's golf has several variants too. They call the mainstream TSi, the mid-range GT, and the flagship, the GTi. I don't see anything wrong but just basic common sense"

Last but not least, Cusheila Pussylla, from critically acclaimed site anehtech said:
"You guys know what? I know the 'surprise' that Nvidia has been planning for over a month. Before someone else lets the cat out of the bag, let me be the pioneer conveyor." The hint is that there'll be yet another AGP resurrection, and it'll involve the numerics 8600"
GTS220? Omg!'

http://vr-zone.com/forums/397144/nv...a-little-surprise-at-cebit.-8600gts-agp-.html

 

[kadozer]

Leave Nvidia alone!

 

[64bit_is_here]

really, nvidia sucks so hard now, its amazing. wondering when theyl be charged for misleading adverstising

 

[AmongTheChosenX]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4750-rv740-review-preview-test/

nope sorry it will still have a 6 pin connector in the back.

they couldnt measure power consumption because its an engineering sample card. theres no telling whether or not the rv740 40nm core will need the 6 pin connector or not.

 

[nissanztt90]

really, nvidia sucks so hard now, its amazing. wondering when theyl be charged for misleading adverstising

Lol @ misleading advertising. You were just kidding, right? You wanna explain how changing the name is even close to misleading to warrant legal action? Misleading would be to advertise the new GTS250 as based on the GT200 core, when its really based on G92. You guys really need to get over yourselves and this "nVidia sucks so hard right now cause they renamed something" crap. Get over it, dont buy nVidia.

 

[AmongTheChosenX]

Lol @ misleading advertising. You were just kidding, right? You wanna explain how changing the name is even close to misleading to warrant legal action? Misleading would be to advertise the new GTS250 as based on the GT200 core, when its really based on G92. You guys really need to get over yourselves and this "nVidia sucks so hard right now cause they renamed something" crap. Get over it, dont buy nVidia.

you're posts literally contradicts itself.....

 

[Deleted member 83233]

so much anger over a name change.
really? is that what you are in up in arms over?
if you dont like it, buy ATI

It's totally silly. Ok, so it's worth a mention, so people are aware of it when they go to buy, but really, who cares? If you want a faster card, or a card with more features, buy the high-end, buy the competition. People are still running, and buying used 8800GTs. Why? Because it's a pretty nice card. There are tons of games that run great on them still, at fairly high resolutions. Why not keep selling them, and keep the name consistent with their current product line? This way they have a top to bottom solution.

I agree with others that their goofy handling of the press was out of line, but really, as long as you've done your research, and know what the card is that you're buying, it doesn't even remotely matter what it's called.

I've bought a few 9800GTs for people that needed that level of performance and that level of pricing. I knew they were rebadged 8800GTs, but you know what? They were the card I needed for that price/performance. I don't care if they called them 7600GSes as long as the specs were the same.

 

[nissanztt90]

you're posts literally contradicts itself.....

Not really. As long as its known that its based on the G92 core, they can call it "Dog Poo" for all i care. Despite it being a name change that makes everyone go nuts, i think its not really a bad idea. The second number will dictate its performance position compared to the rest of their line up. Seems to me that ironically their second renaming scheme is getting the cards names back on track with performance levels.

 

[AmongTheChosenX]

Not really. As long as its known that its based on the G92 core, they can call it "Dog Poo" for all i care. Despite it being a name change that makes everyone go nuts, i think its not really a bad idea. The second number will dictate its performance position compared to the rest of their line up. Seems to me that ironically their second renaming scheme is getting the cards names back on track with performance levels.

but seeing, its passive misleading advertisement. by slapping "GT(S or X)xxx" into the cards name, it is IMPLIED that the card is a stripped GTX280/GTX260, and is actually that same core. fact is that IT IS NOT THE SAME CORE.

 

[Silus]

but seeing, its passive misleading advertisement. by slapping "GT(S or X)xxx" into the cards name, it is IMPLIED that the card is a stripped GTX280/GTX260, and is actually that same core. fact is that IT IS NOT THE SAME CORE.

Uh?
You really seem motivated into spinning this into what it isn't...

"slapping" GTS xxx or GTX xxx on a card's name, only means that it's using the new NVIDIA naming scheme. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the chip being used in the card itself.

 

[AmongTheChosenX]

Uh?
You really seem motivated into spinning this into what it isn't...

"slapping" GTS xxx or GTX xxx on a card's name, only means that it's using the new NVIDIA naming scheme. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the chip being used in the card itself.

its just a way to get the semi-enthusiast into buying the wrong card... not everyone reads tech articles every day.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

its just a way to get the semi-enthusiast into buying the wrong card... not everyone reads tech articles every day.

In this particular instance it's not "the wrong card." It falls in line pretty well performance-wise, and will play games as expected.

I can't even count the threads where people say they can play any game maxed at blah blah blah resolution on an 8800GT. There are a lot of people who aren't complaining about the performance of this card on the latest games. (with the exception of maybe Crysis, and even then it does pretty well for what is now considered a budget card.)

By renaming it, they're not implying anything other than that it performs at the bottom end of their current product line. If there were major features missing in comparison to the true GTX chips, that would be one thing. As it is though, they are all DX-10 compliant, all perform decently well, and they're just filling in the bottom end that's left out by starting the line previously with the 260. I really don't see the problem.

 

[DeadSkull]

Another g92 rebrand just to make more money. Now if Nvidia did a straight up die shrink of the good old g80 core and gave it similar clocks to 9800gtx /gtx+ with similar memory speeds that would be awesome. But ofcourse that would cost a lot more manufacturing wise for nvidia so thats why they keep taking the cheap small g92 chip and constantly renaming it.

 

[UtopiA]

Doesn't calling a card "GTS 250" imply that it's based on the GT200?

 

[nissanztt90]

Doesn't calling a card "GTS 250" imply that it's based on the GT200?

No. Not at all. Your saying because half the name is re-used, that means its based on a certain architecture. By your logic, you can say the 9800GTX was misleading because its different than the 7800 GTX, which shares 6 of 7 characters. Same with the 8800GTS to 8800 GT.

Same with 8800GTS to 8800GTS. Oh wait, lets name this card an 8800GTS even though we have one based on G80, but well base it on G92, and this card will be better and faster. Wait, that wasnt misleading now was it, because it performed better.

You guys seriously need to find something better to do with your time.

Another g92 rebrand just to make more money. Now if Nvidia did a straight up die shrink of the good old g80 core and gave it similar clocks to 9800gtx /gtx+ with similar memory speeds that would be awesome. But ofcourse that would cost a lot more manufacturing wise for nvidia so thats why they keep taking the cheap small g92 chip and constantly renaming it.

A straight up die shrink of G80 and with 9800GTX clocks...is a 9800GTX. Taking the G92 and renaming it is a good idea, plain and simple. The performance is in line with the name, compared to the latest GPUs released. You wanna cry over it being a rename? Go ahead. You guys can whine and cry to your hearts content. It almost seems like they fired the dumbass who did the first dumbass renaming, and hired someone with half a brain to get them back on track with a simple naming scheme that tells it how it is. Excellent marketing IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

I could see this being an issue under other circumstances. However the 8800GT based cards these are built on are great cards with some mileage left in them on a budget-minded level. Why would they want to design a completely new card that would perform on nearly the same level. What they'd be doing is taking the GT-200, and then crippling it, when they already have a card that will perform the same way in stock, and ready to go. You might argue that they could just leave the name the same. That however would put people off from buying it thinking that it's missing something. If it actually was, then ok, but it's got the same capabilities as the new cards for the most part. DX10, PhysX, PureVideo or whatever it's called, so there's no reason to design a GT200 with less cores and memory bandwidth that will do the same thing. It wastes their money, and it wastes ours by having to pay for the redesign.

As I said before though, they shouldn't have treated the press the way they did. That's probably what got all the complaints rolling.

I like Nvidia, but I'm not defending the company here. I'm defending the practice itself in THIS particular instance. I just don't see anything dishonest going on here. (except asking the press not to disclose it) I just see a simple re-branding to create an easy to understand top-to-bottom product line without wasting capital on an unnecessary low-end-GT200 based card. Pure and simple. Taken stock, right off the shelf, how could you complain about the 8800GT or the 240 or whatever you want to call it for the money? The people it may disappoint are the ones that want a new GT200 based low-end, so they can OC the hell out of it due to the smaller process. I can understand that point of view I suppose, but taken stock, they do what they say they will.

 

[DeadSkull]

A straight up die shrink of G80 and with 9800GTX clocks...is a 9800GTX. Taking the G92 and renaming it is a good idea, plain and simple. The performance is in line with the name, compared to the latest GPUs released. You wanna cry over it being a rename? Go ahead. You guys can whine and cry to your hearts content. It almost seems like they fired the dumbass who did the first dumbass renaming, and hired someone with half a brain to get them back on track with a simple naming scheme that tells it how it is. Excellent marketing IMHO.

Not really straight up die shrink is it, since the memory bus width shrank from 384 bit down to 256. I guess a cost saving measure on nvidias part but also hurts 9800gtx /gtx+ performance once you go 1680x1050 or high with liberal amounts of AA applied. I was talking about keeping the 384 bit bus width but even with faster core/shader/mem speeds.

 

[Unknown-One]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

The card still fills a performance bracket, it's getting very cheap, there's nothing inherently wrong with it...so who cares what they call it? There's no point in spending R&D time on building a brand new card to perform exactly the same.

They're just renaming it for consistencies sake, get over it people.

 

[nissanztt90]

Not really straight up die shrink is it, since the memory bus width shrank from 384 bit down to 256. I guess a cost saving measure on nvidias part but also hurts 9800gtx /gtx+ performance once you go 1680x1050 or high with liberal amounts of AA applied. I was talking about keeping the 384 bit bus width but even with faster core/shader/mem speeds.

Dont consider the better memory compression logic either or anything...

It might not have kept up with the 8800GTX at 1920x1200 with high AA, but it was half the price.

Wait...hey...lets try and cater to people that run at 1920x1200 with high AA, that represents a huge part of the market (/SARCASM). Screw them for trying to bring the same performance for a much more affordable price to the huge portion of the gaming population that doesnt use 1920x1200 with 8xAA.

Deleted Post-Oldie

Oh hey wow...the typical ad hominem with no counter arguement...what a surprise!

 

[vengence]

/sigh

you people bitch and bitch and bitch about naming schemes. And Nvidia goes out and tries to unify thier naming scheme so some one can walk into a store and see:

GTX 240 = 150$
GTX 260 = 250$
GTX 280 = 400$

and be able to make a half decent decision about what they are buying. Instead you would rather them walk into the store and see 8800 GT and instead by the 9600 GS because it says 9600 on it?

 

[UtopiA]

Oh hey wow...the typical ad hominem with no counter arguement...what a surprise!

I didn't make an argument, I asked a question.


Now I will make an argument:
I agree with your answer, but while the names "7800" and "9800" are clearly separated by two generations of cards, how many generations separate the GTS 250 and GTX 280? Three? 0.3? There's no indicator.

It's not so much about how many letters and numbers are matching, but the naming scheme itself.

The name GTS 250 does indeed imply the card is a GT200 chip, or perhaps a gimped GT200 chip ("S" vs "X").
It sounds like a new card, made with a cheaper version of the GT200 (In the same way the 8800GT was related to the 8800GTX).

And for those saying "What's wrong with renaming the card?" I reply by asking...
What's wrong with leaving the card name alone?

 

[nissanztt90]

And for those saying "What's wrong with renaming the card?" I reply by asking...
What's wrong with leaving the card name alone?

Right and wrong is relative, as is very evident in this thread.

By changing everything to a GTx ###...is unifies the naming scheme, quite well. The number can much more clearly dictate the performance, which in the end is what matters to the average Joe, so they dont end up buying a 9500GT with 1gb of ram from Best Buy for 200+.

Consider the previous example of the ridiculously priced 8600GT/9500GT/shitty lowend cards being sold to Best Buy for a very low price, then they jack the price up to take advantage of consumers ignorance....if you were the supplier...how would you feel?

 

[DeadSkull]

Dont consider the better memory compression logic either or anything...

It might not have kept up with the 8800GTX at 1920x1200 with high AA, but it was half the price.

Wait...hey...lets try and cater to people that run at 1920x1200 with high AA, that represents a huge part of the market (/SARCASM). Screw them for trying to bring the same performance for a much more affordable price to the huge portion of the gaming population that doesnt use 1920x1200 with 8xAA.

So wait...first you claim that 9800GTX is a straight up die shrink of 8800 GTX and now you're trying to evade this whole argument all together because 24" LCD owners represent a small percentage of the market and nv/ati don't have them in mind when they release these type of cards. Sure 8800GTS when it first launched brought some serious performance for a lot lower price vs 8800GTX/ultra but its still not the same card/chip with the same capabilities. And with the 65nm die size and smaller memory interface Im sure nvidia made a boatload of money of those cards when they launched.

 

[UtopiA]

By changing everything to a GTx ###...is unifies the naming scheme, quite well. The number can much more clearly dictate the performance, which in the end is what matters to the average Joe, so they dont end up buying a 9500GT with 1gb of ram from Best Buy for 200+.

The naming scheme makes sense in terms of performance, but Joe might think he's getting new tech when he buys his GTS 250, since it sounds as if the card is related to the GT200, no one would ever guess it's related to the G92.

Does it really matter?
No, since he's probably going to be paying the same price (or less) for the GTS 250 when compared to the 9800GTX, but he might be under the illusion that the GTS 250 is "new". And that's where the problem is, some people will think the GTS 250 is a new card.

 

[DeadSkull]

To be fair GTS 250 stock memory speeds are going to be faster vs 9800GTX+.

 

[RustedAngel]

I'm with Nissan and Utopia. Does your average consumer care about the technical details underlying a product he buys, or whether it performs in line with the price he pays (value)? I would argue that the vast majority don't carehow something works, as long as they can play their games and have it look pretty and run well.

To use a different industry example, let's think about cars. If Audi switches from their current turbo 4 cylinder entry level and naturally aspirated V6 higher end line up on the A4s to naturally aspirated 5 cylinders for base and a turbo 5 for the high end, and both engine pairs make the same amount of power and torque, with similar torque bands, and get similar mileage, cost similar amounts to maintain, weigh similar amounts and have similar weight distribution/car balance, and have similar engine longevity, will anyone but enthusiasts really care? Even if the previous engines are technically more advanced with features like Fuel Stratified Injection (direct injection) and the new ones omit that technology to save money? I would argue that people care about results, how well something works, and not the underlying tech.

And if you agree that people care about results more than underlying tech, I am OK with including the G92 core in the same product family/branding with the GT200. Yes, it is an older core design, but for the price it provides great performance for that low/midrange budget section. To contrast, the 8800GTS (G80) and 8600GTS were both based on the same core (to my understanding) but the 8600GTS was a huge step down performance wise, and had pretty crappy performance for the price? Would you prefer that, as long as it's the same core? I would rather have the performance.