Totally. I get really screwed up keeping it straight. At one point in another thread, I was going on about a 7800GTO. Which apparently doesn't exist. But what are you going to call the cards? The Ultimate Super Duper Graphics Card of 1620p Goodness? And then the USDGC of 1620p Goodness + 1?
Totally. I get really screwed up keeping it straight. At one point in another thread, I was going on about a 7800GTO. Which apparently doesn't exist. But what are you going to call the cards? The Ultimate Super Duper Graphics Card of 1620p Goodness? And then the USDGC of 1620p Goodness + 1?
I thought that at one time, it was just a number, which didn't have meaningless letters. Am I supposed to count the number of letters to know which one is supposed to be better? All I need is a number, I don't need GT, GTX, GTP, GTO (where's SS and R/T?), Ultra (?), Pro (yeah, right), Ultimate (until the next revision, I guess), Special Edition (is that the the usage that means stripped-down or something good?). They should be running out useless designations soon, so I'm waiting for the Xylophone Edition.
I think the letters refer to what's enabled. I think GTs and GTXs are identical cards, but with GTs having a few pipelines or shaders disabled or the processors clocked lower. This keeps costs down, because if a GTX has a flawed shader, you just disable it and it's neighbor and it becomes a GT. Otherwise, they'd have to toss a lot of cards, which'd kill their yields. It's the same thing Intel and AMD do with chips.
Yeah I understand how initially the model numbers are confusing. But just go to tomshardware.com and check their latest "GPU roundup" and you'll have a pretty clear idea of how each card performs.
I'm an nVidia fan, so to me the 6-series and 7-series designation numbers make sense. GTX is the highest, GT is sort of power-and-value-for-money, and LE or SE are low-end not worth considering. 7950 GX2 is the unique card which is essentially SLI on one card. It benches somewhat less than two 7900GTX in SLI at higher resolutions.
You're all smart cookies, you'll work out the numbers. At least nVidia SLI is simple, just take 2 of the same designation and voila (with the exception of 7950, you can't SLI two 7950s to get quad-GPU at this stage). ATI I feel is more confusing with their Crossfire master- and slave- cards and what not.
nVidia numbers part 2: mainly all you need to look at is the 6-series and 7-series. The higher the 6-series number the better in general, eg. 6800 is the best and 6600 is good, 6200 is quite useless nowadays. Same for the 7-series, it has more support for latest features in the latest games, with 7900 and 7950 the best (but note earlier mention of difference between the two)
For the same number, eg. offered by the powermac g5 on apple, 6600 LE is low end, 6600 plain is okay, 6600GT is "mainstream" for games on PC now.
Okay, now with the "Ultra" and various other designations sometimes you have to look at various manufacturers, sometimes it is an official nVidia designation (refer to VGA Charts above for benchmarks), sometimes there are other words tacked on by manufacturers that ship factory-overclocked cards.
Yeah I understand how initially the model numbers are confusing. But just go to tomshardware.com and check their latest "GPU roundup" and you'll have a pretty clear idea of how each card performs.
Ah well. I'm usually not desperate enough to know more about the products to use a site like that. "Hardware enthusiast" sites are generally only slightly better in design and usability than the old Geocities sites, so I try to avoid them.
Heh. There's "hardware enthusiast" sites which yeah, give you a heart attack at first, then there's the "extreme overclocking" sites which are only for those WWAAAYY too into their frames-per-second. And not to mention the forums section on those sites, and the "special news" about overclocking achievements: "OMFG I reached XXXXXghz by liquid nitrogen cooling down to -60deg C and super Pi ran XXXXXsecs OMFG I RULZ!!!!!111oneo!!!one"
When I first started to build my PC a year ago, I looked at firstly the AMD.com page and I was, like, hmm, a bit confusing, where should i start, and then it kinda went downhill once you shop for components and try and sort through the component reviews. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Half -Life 2 makes it all worthwhile
I was looking for a clean chart of 3DMark05/06 benchmarks which include the ATI X1600 and nVidia 7900s but Tomshardware.com actually doesn't have that. And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies
Check this out, it's a chart only dealing with the 7900GT/GTX flavours you get from different manufacturers, only with a certain benchmark..
PC Gaming is a wierd, wonderful world.
Right Placebo?
I don't know about you but the "XFX 7900 GTX XXX Edition" sounds pretty badass and would go nice in a Mac Pro.
Or maybe I'm hanging out for the "VFXGX 7900.999 GTX HARD OC ULTRA OVERCLOCK SUPER DUPER XXXX LIMITED SERIES"
Ah well. I'm usually not desperate enough to know more about the products to use a site like that....
Just to be snarky, that's why most of you all with MacBook Pros think your factory-underclocked ati x1600 is really fast and new and really worth all that money for the laptop
Well, interesting times ahead. With the new edu iMac (dual core), one would obviously say that the Power Mac replacement is going to be a 3/3 or at least 2/3 quad line.
And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies
It's not that, I disliked them well before I touched a Mac. My problem is that those sites are usually pretty brain-damaged. Especially when any given page only has 10% "content", sometimes only one or two paragraphs per page, and the rest of any given page are ads and massive tables of contents.
It's not that, it's that those sites are usually pretty brain-damaged. Especially when any given page only has 10% "content".
Yeah, sometimes I wonder about those sites and it can be perplexing to read through them. I suppose for people who deal with Windows in general and are into the scene, they take it as it comes. I for one do NOT get any mobile phone review if it is a phone that does anything more than just being a phone. 3G Wallpaper Smartphone this-that is just, well, rubbish to me. I hate phone gadget reviews.
I guess I'm playing both sides of the coin in my comments here. I guess it just depends if I am in a PC-enthusiast mood or in an WebDesign-Apple-esque-Aesthetics mood.
HotHardware, TomsHardware, and pretty much every major site is well-organized, pleasing to look at, and comprehensive.
I disagree. It is unnecessary to have five navigation bars on every page of every article. It is unnecessary for every page of every article to have a table of contents for the entire site. Motion ads showing computer parts flying around are unnecessary when the actual content is just static text and images. Most of this type of site has had a tendency to have twenty five page articles with not much information on any given page.
Comments
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
I think we'll see it play out as a low-end 7800GT to start, followed by a 7900GT or a 7800GTX (they're the same price on newegg). And BTO in a 7900GTX
Is it just me, or is nVidia (and I suppose ATI too) just becoming a digit barf company with respect to model numbers?
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Totally. I get really screwed up keeping it straight. At one point in another thread, I was going on about a 7800GTO. Which apparently doesn't exist. But what are you going to call the cards? The Ultimate Super Duper Graphics Card of 1620p Goodness? And then the USDGC of 1620p Goodness + 1?
I thought that at one time, it was just a number, which didn't have meaningless letters. Am I supposed to count the number of letters to know which one is supposed to be better? All I need is a number, I don't need GT, GTX, GTP, GTO (where's SS and R/T?), Ultra (?), Pro (yeah, right), Ultimate (until the next revision, I guess), Special Edition (is that the the usage that means stripped-down or something good?). They should be running out useless designations soon, so I'm waiting for the Xylophone Edition.
I'm an nVidia fan, so to me the 6-series and 7-series designation numbers make sense. GTX is the highest, GT is sort of power-and-value-for-money, and LE or SE are low-end not worth considering. 7950 GX2 is the unique card which is essentially SLI on one card. It benches somewhat less than two 7900GTX in SLI at higher resolutions.
You're all smart cookies, you'll work out the numbers. At least nVidia SLI is simple, just take 2 of the same designation and voila (with the exception of 7950, you can't SLI two 7950s to get quad-GPU at this stage). ATI I feel is more confusing with their Crossfire master- and slave- cards and what not.
For the same number, eg. offered by the powermac g5 on apple, 6600 LE is low end, 6600 plain is okay, 6600GT is "mainstream" for games on PC now.
Tomshardware VGA Charts, very useful:
http://www.tomshardware.com/site/vgacharts/index.html
Okay, now with the "Ultra" and various other designations sometimes you have to look at various manufacturers, sometimes it is an official nVidia designation (refer to VGA Charts above for benchmarks), sometimes there are other words tacked on by manufacturers that ship factory-overclocked cards.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Yeah I understand how initially the model numbers are confusing. But just go to tomshardware.com and check their latest "GPU roundup" and you'll have a pretty clear idea of how each card performs.
Ah well. I'm usually not desperate enough to know more about the products to use a site like that. "Hardware enthusiast" sites are generally only slightly better in design and usability than the old Geocities sites, so I try to avoid them.
When I first started to build my PC a year ago, I looked at firstly the AMD.com page and I was, like, hmm, a bit confusing, where should i start, and then it kinda went downhill once you shop for components and try and sort through the component reviews. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Half -Life 2 makes it all worthwhile
I was looking for a clean chart of 3DMark05/06 benchmarks which include the ATI X1600 and nVidia 7900s but Tomshardware.com actually doesn't have that. And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies
Check this out, it's a chart only dealing with the 7900GT/GTX flavours you get from different manufacturers, only with a certain benchmark..
PC Gaming is a wierd, wonderful world.
Right Placebo?
I don't know about you but the "XFX 7900 GTX XXX Edition" sounds pretty badass and would go nice in a Mac Pro.
Or maybe I'm hanging out for the "VFXGX 7900.999 GTX HARD OC ULTRA OVERCLOCK SUPER DUPER XXXX LIMITED SERIES"
Originally posted by JeffDM
"Hardware enthusiast" sites are generally only slightly better in design and usability than the old Geocities sites, so I try to avoid them.
Eh, I guess you're wrong, really.
Ah well. I'm usually not desperate enough to know more about the products to use a site like that....
Just to be snarky, that's why most of you all with MacBook Pros think your factory-underclocked ati x1600 is really fast and new and really worth all that money for the laptop
Originally posted by sunilraman
And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies
It's not that, I disliked them well before I touched a Mac. My problem is that those sites are usually pretty brain-damaged. Especially when any given page only has 10% "content", sometimes only one or two paragraphs per page, and the rest of any given page are ads and massive tables of contents.
It's not that, it's that those sites are usually pretty brain-damaged. Especially when any given page only has 10% "content".
Yeah, sometimes I wonder about those sites and it can be perplexing to read through them. I suppose for people who deal with Windows in general and are into the scene, they take it as it comes. I for one do NOT get any mobile phone review if it is a phone that does anything more than just being a phone. 3G Wallpaper Smartphone this-that is just, well, rubbish to me. I hate phone gadget reviews.
HotHardware, TomsHardware, and pretty much every major site is well-organized, pleasing to look at, and comprehensive.
Tomshardware and Anandtech are alright. Tomshardware is comprehensive alright, they have 20-page articles on some stuff.
Originally posted by Placebo
HotHardware, TomsHardware, and pretty much every major site is well-organized, pleasing to look at, and comprehensive.
I disagree. It is unnecessary to have five navigation bars on every page of every article. It is unnecessary for every page of every article to have a table of contents for the entire site. Motion ads showing computer parts flying around are unnecessary when the actual content is just static text and images. Most of this type of site has had a tendency to have twenty five page articles with not much information on any given page.
Motion ads showing computer parts flying around are unnecessary .....
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
.....Most of this type of site has had a tendency to have twenty five page articles with not much information on any given page....
Well, usually each page has 5 images of various sets of benchmarks of 5-20 cards/ products.
How informative it is, depends on the "research" you are doing