Nvidia *again* Renames 8500GT to 9400GS

[Yori1989]

OEM only


Nvidia cannot get enough renaming. What used to be eight will be turned to 9. This time around, they want to rename G98 / D8P its 65nm chip from eight series to nine series. We are not surprised, as we know that Nvidia has quite a lot of these chips and it doesn’t have much success in selling these huge quantities to big OEMs.

Remember, we already told you that the company plans to launch Geforce 9 series in the entry-level market around June time. The new renaming game will affect two chips, Geforce 8400GS and Geforce 8500GT.

The slower 8400GS will rename to 9300GS, while the fastest of two, Geforce 8500GT, will rename to Geforce 9400GS.

Somehow we believe that this is not the last renaming, but Nvidia is kind of running out of products that they can rename.

Source: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7062&Itemid=65


:shrug:
They keep renaming.... Its getting really annoying! :shakes:

[[XC] NetburstXE]

Very much agreed :mad: Why can't they come up with new products?

[BulldogPO]

It like pissing into customers eye

[Origin_Unknown]

OEM only so how does that effect most of us?

[xoqolatl]

Now we can make another Cheapazchips challenge this time with 9300GS :lol:

[alucasa]

OEM only so how does that effect most of us?

I guess not, but what's up with Nvidia lately?

[triple_A]

Why did they even bother naming them the 8-series first?

[bt_medic04]

woohoo! i wonder where i can get a bios to re-flash my 8500gt to a 9400gs? gotta be on top of that technology pile with the newest number scheme!


*note: sarcasm*

[loutsos]

nvidia has been doing this for a long time, not just for the 8xxx series
for example, they rebranded the 6200 --> 7100

[Genius_pt]

Well, for me it doesn't mather really if they are renaming low end cards.

It would be really worse if they for instance rename 8800ultra to 9900gs or so.

[bhavv]

But in between the Geforce 5 through to the 8 range, every new line of cards had new chips. This time around however they have gone and created a full new Geforce 9 series just from the same geforce 8 chips, they havnt done anything like this before!

The problem is that people that realise that the chips on the geforce 8 and geforce 9 are the same make up like 5% of the consumer base. Average Joe will look at the 8800 GTX, then the 9800 GTX, and think '9800 GTX is never, better and a different card' because of the name change!

Ati similarly have used the same architecture on their graphics across various generations, but made significant tweaks and improvements along the way, e.g. 2900 > 3800, same core, same architecture, but a reduced fab process, improved memory controller and clock speed, and all in all, a great successor to the previous generation.

They also literally used the same architecture throughout all fo their DX9 cards from the 9700 through to the X1950, but the made such significant changes with die shrinks, tweaked memory controller, increased pipelines and textures per pass, that each generation was a significant leap over the previous one.

But Geforce 8 > Geforce 9 on the other hand has no changes whatsoever to the actual GPU!!! Its the exact same thing, and there is virtually no difference at all in performance between the two.

[Leeghoofd]

one way of trying to sell their abundance pile of cheapo cards....

[technodanvan]

I really, really don't have a problem with this. Any one of you would do the same thing in a business. I very seriously doubt many (if any) will actually have spent money trying to upgrade from an 8500GT to a 9400GS. That market sector is with people who very clearly don't need the best, don't care about new tech, and certainly don't upgrade to the next low/mid-end card.


You'd really rather have a company make new architecture for a low end card you'd never buy anyways? Let 'em rebadge and get rid of them, it does it's job just fine the way it is. Let it go.

[bhavv]

I really, really don't have a problem with this. Any one of you would do the same thing in a business. I very seriously doubt many (if any) will actually have spent money trying to upgrade from an 8500GT to a 9400GS. That market sector is with people who very clearly don't need the best, don't care about new tech, and certainly don't upgrade to the next low/mid-end card.


You'd really rather have a company make new architecture for a low end card you'd never buy anyways? Let 'em rebadge and get rid of them, it does it's job just fine the way it is. Let it go.


I dont get your way of thinking. If you are in the market sector that doesnt require the best, then you can just buy an 8500 GT and be done with it? How would people in this sector be affected by buying an 9400GS instead of an 8500 GT? It doesnt affect the consumer in anyway whatsoever so why is a name change, indicating a new line of graphics cards when it is based on the old neccessary in any way?

[Periander6]

The G9X based stuff should have been given the 9 series names to begin with. The reason they didn't was because they didn't want to scare off people from buying the 8 series stuff since they didn't have a full new line up yet and a lot of stock of the old stuff. Now they are being named what they should have been named to begin with. It was stuff like giving a totally different product the same name (8800GTS) that was complete BS.

[GAR]

I see nothing wrong with a company doing this, people who buy those cards only watch movies and surf the web, and play some old games

[Seraphiel]

Haven't Nvdia and ATI done this before?

GeForce 4 MX = NV17/NV18 = Not really a GeForce 4 series chip
Radeon X1050 = RV370 = Not really a X1??? series chip

I am sure there are many other example
What Nvidia has done with 8k / 9k series, isn't very different from what AMD has done with the HD 2k / 3k series - there are differences, of course, and I am also sad by no real replacement for my Ultras, yet (but it'll come, if anything one hasn't been released because of AMD's lack of competition in that price range, which will change with HD 4k series).

Last, 8800 GTX/Ultra SLI really still is rather enough for most games except a very few games, at highest relevant (or near that) settings. I know, as I prefer all of my games with maxed settings, 2560 * 1600 resolution, 4 * AA / 16 * AF, TSAA, and pretty much every game released allows for that with >acceptable framerates (subjective, I know, but that is my opinion, as most feel perfectly smooth).

Aside from those few games, I really wonder why I want a faster GPU, until something with higher requirements comes out, and still, I'll have to think about if that game is "worth it".

Happy with my "old" rig that is from release day for the QX6700 (Ultras not included, but everything else is).

Still, I prefer more performance for the sake of performance and progress, but I am not so longer willing to spend >2500$ on a GPU solution anymore. I thought, I would have to upgrade this year to "keep up", but I think I'll wait for 2009 and not upgrade at all.

[Buckeye]

Most likely it's an internal system that is setup for a new process of the older chip. As they are able to make similar chips with a new process to get better yields they have to rename to new ones for book keeping, inventory, tracking and all that jazz. That way they can tell which chip they have with the swipe of a bar code reader as it’s going down an assembly line.

Or it could be they are just messing with us Ha !

[bhavv]

Yes its been done before, I remember the Geforce 4 MX cards caused a great deal of confusion due to not supporting SM 3.0. So games that required SM 3.0 would have to write - Geforce 4 (excluding MX) or something similar.

Also the Radeon 9200 was a cut down 8500 and had none of the 9000 features. Similarly this caused a lot of confusion. I remember when Oblivion was released, the forums were flooded with people unable to play the game on a 9200 as they didnt know that it wasnt supported due to not being DX9 capable.

These two expamples I never liked. Regardless of which company is doing it, it just causes confusion. The the ATI 2x and 3x cards, they are the same core, but IMO the die shrink and the amount of improvement the 3800 got as a result clarifies it as a different card.

But what is wrong with just leaving the name of the card as 8500GT? The name change on a low end part like this isnt really going to affect sales. People in the low end sector arent exactly going to rush out and buy the 9400 over an 8500 if they realise they are both the same, but likely someone considering between the two that doesnt know this will chooses the 9400 believing it to be a better card when it isnt.

With the ATI 2900 / 3800's, at least the latter are improved versions of the first, and definately make a much better purchase. Whereas in the case of 9800's, the 9800 GTX is hardly any better then the previous 8800 GTX / Ultra.

The main problem with the 9800's is though, that people were long expecting a new GPU from Nvidia with DX10.1 capabilities, not the same thing they already had just renamed. Instead, the DX10.1 part is going to be the 9900, due out later on in the year.

[saaya]

why didnt they call it 9400 to begin with?

[Nuker_]

Haven't Nvdia and ATI done this before?

GeForce 4 MX = NV17/NV18 = Not really a GeForce 4 series chip
Radeon X1050 = RV370 = Not really a X1??? series chip

I am sure there are many other example
What Nvidia has done with 8k / 9k series, isn't very different from what AMD has done with the HD 2k / 3k series - there are differences, of course, and I am also sad by no real replacement for my Ultras, yet (but it'll come, if anything one hasn't been released because of AMD's lack of competition in that price range, which will change with HD 4k series).

Last, 8800 GTX/Ultra SLI really still is rather enough for most games except a very few games, at highest relevant (or near that) settings. I know, as I prefer all of my games with maxed settings, 2560 * 1600 resolution, 4 * AA / 16 * AF, TSAA, and pretty much every game released allows for that with >acceptable framerates (subjective, I know, but that is my opinion, as most feel perfectly smooth).

Aside from those few games, I really wonder why I want a faster GPU, until something with higher requirements comes out, and still, I'll have to think about if that game is "worth it".

Happy with my "old" rig that is from release day for the QX6700 (Ultras not included, but everything else is).

Still, I prefer more performance for the sake of performance and progress, but I am not so longer willing to spend >2500$ on a GPU solution anymore. I thought, I would have to upgrade this year to "keep up", but I think I'll wait for 2009 and not upgrade at all.


Radeon X1050 is a slightly revided X700 IIRC. It could thus be named like that despite its lack of SM 3.0 support.

[Papu]

Sweeet new gfx.....no wait...its a trap!

[CadESin]

This is really all a side effect of everyone getting up in arms for Nvidia not releasing anything new for over a year.

The 8800 was so much better then the 2900XT that Nvidia jsut sat back and made money, and we the end users complained, we wanted new stuff, faster stuff, better stuff.

However, with the 3870 still not being faster then anything nvidia had on its release Nivida simply decided to turn 8's into 9's to give the impression they were releaseing something new, so we would shut up about them just sitting back makeing money and not comeing up with anything new.

The only new thing out of Nvidia of late is the 790i Chipset, the 780i was just a renamed 680i with a pcie bridge.

Nvidia reminds me of Intel of the years past, no competition, so no inivation.

Maybe its just me, but I would love to see the 4870 distory the 9900, and bring real inivation back to the green team.

Support AMD/ATI, or we may end up with a 10900GTX thats just a renamed 9900GTX... and that would suck.

[deathman20]

Well, for me it doesn't mather really if they are renaming low end cards.

It would be really worse if they for instance rename 8800ultra to 9900gs or so.

LOL You say that they basically rebranded the 9800GTX from a 8800GTS.

[technodanvan]

I dont get your way of thinking. If you are in the market sector that doesnt require the best, then you can just buy an 8500 GT and be done with it? How would people in this sector be affected by buying an 9400GS instead of an 8500 GT? It doesnt affect the consumer in anyway whatsoever so why is a name change, indicating a new line of graphics cards when it is based on the old neccessary in any way?

Because it wouldn't make sense to not have a complete lineup without a low card a high card and everything in between. The average person might not know how an 8500 stacks up to a 9600, this makes the difference much clearer.

Keep in mind the vast majority of people looking to buy a new video card do not currently own an 8 series card, and probably don't own a 7 series. They also don't look at reviews and they don't care about what core it's made of. Call it dumbing down if you will, but this is easier for the consumer (especially at this price point) and makes sense for the company.

[highoctane]

I would imagine for the people buying a card of this caliber in the first place that they are not really interested in performance.

I do think the name changing is kinda silly unless something has changed about the card to deserve a new model designation.

Maybe they should just adopt the automobile naming system, like 8500gt 2008 edition and next year could be the 8500gt 2009 edition. At least then the general consumer would know what is actually a newer card if it matters in this particular price range.

[bhavv]

Because it wouldn't make sense to not have a complete lineup without a low card a high card and everything in between.


The Geforce 9 cards should never have even been a new line up :p:

The cards are just renamed 8800's, the whole range never required creating in the first place.

The 9800's should have been 8900's. The 9600 should have been 8700. There is absolutely nothing new between the new and the old, and I dont think that renaming on this scale to create a whole new series from old chips has ever been done before without at least some kind of improvement to the GPU.

Nvidia are basically trying to keep up with bringing out new cards every 6 months. However, for this current cycle they didnt have anything new planned, so they just renamed things instead!

Its a case of 'Sorry guys, the DX10.1 Geforce 9 isnt ready yet, so we will rename the 8800 and put out the same stuff all over again, just with a new name'.

The only two cards in the 9 series that are really any decent and are the only ones that needed creating are the 9600 GT, and the 9800 GX2. They should have have just been an 8700 GT and 8800 GX2 all along.

[Sr7]

I dont get your way of thinking. If you are in the market sector that doesnt require the best, then you can just buy an 8500 GT and be done with it? How would people in this sector be affected by buying an 9400GS instead of an 8500 GT? It doesnt affect the consumer in anyway whatsoever so why is a name change, indicating a new line of graphics cards when it is based on the old neccessary in any way?

Competition genius. Even if you only want to spend $30, who wants to buy last years card when ATI just renamed their card to a new series number?

[freeloader]

Just wait until some moron sues Nvidia because the 9400GS isn't faster than an 8800GT/GTS/Ultra. We all know higher model numbers must mean higher performance, right? :ROTF:

[perkam]

No need to get angry. If only ppl knew about the X1600xt from ATI and how many iterations it has gone through without a significant performance increase.

Heck the X1650Xt had 120 shaders, the HD 2600 XT had 120 shaders and the HD 3650 STILL has 120 shaders.

GPU companies love recycling.

Perkam

[[cTx]Raptor22]

No need to get angry. If only ppl knew about the X1600xt from ATI and how many iterations it has gone through without a significant performance increase.

Heck the X1650Xt had 120 shaders, the HD 2600 XT had 120 shaders and the HD 3650 STILL has 120 shaders.

GPU companies love recycling.

Perkam

And you also realize that the 7600GT and 8600GT had a 128bit bus because the 6600GT PCBs they were reusing weren't capable of more bandwidth... :shakes:

[Swatrecon_]

Raptor22;2954360']And you also realize that the 7600GT and 8600GT had a 128bit bus because the 6600GT PCBs they were reusing weren't capable of more bandwidth... :shakes:

seriously? i didn't know this.

[Spawne32]

this is like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, ATI sucks, and Nvidia i refuse to buy a product from because of stuff like this.

[SparkyJJO]

this is like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, ATI sucks, and Nvidia i refuse to buy a product from because of stuff like this.

Wouldn't say ATI sucks, just they aren't on top. That 3870 is a pretty good card, fastest on the block no but still pretty darn fast.

I'm still running my X1950XT.

[SoulsCollective]

Sweeet new gfx.....no wait...its a trap!
http://static.velvetcache.org/pages/2007/5/25/its-a-trap/tarp-30198.jpg

In other news, boo nVidia.

[[cTx]Raptor22]

seriously? i didn't know this.

Competely, Im trying to find an old source... I read this long ago bear with me. :yepp:

Aha... the 7600GT pcb in this photo matches up perfectly with the one on my old MSI 6600GT:

8600GT: http://c1.neweggimages.com/NeweggImage/productimage/14-127-286-22.jpg

7600GT: http://www.pcstats.com/articleimages/200607/msiNX7600GT_rear.jpg

6600GT:

[Spawne32]

Wouldn't say ATI sucks, just they aren't on top. That 3870 is a pretty good card, fastest on the block no but still pretty darn fast.

I'm still running my X1950XT.

for the price range yeh, but this is XS, we dont deal in the mediocre here ;)

[SparkyJJO]

for the price range yeh, but this is XS, we dont deal in the mediocre here ;)

mediocre? I wouldn't say that.

Guess I must be worse than that since I have a couple generations old gfx card and not a top of the line CPU huh? :rolleyes:

;)

[oohms]

Raptor22;2954515']Competely, Im trying to find an old source... I read this long ago bear with me. :yepp:

Aha... the 7600GT pcb in this photo matches up perfectly with the one on my old MSI 6600GT:

8600GT:

7600GT:

6600GT:

I dont think its really a conspiracy... its not like they were going to make the 7600GT or 8600GT 256 bit.

Since they are pretty much pin compatible there is nothing wrong with using the same pcb :p:

[[cTx]Raptor22]

I dont think its really a conspiracy... its not like they were going to make the 7600GT or 8600GT 256 bit.

Since they are pretty much pin compatible there is nothing wrong with using the same pcb :p:

If they didn't decide to do so much cost cutting, they wouldn't have had a reason to not go 256bit... :(

[Yori1989]

This is really all a side effect of everyone getting =
Support AMD/ATI, or we may end up with a 10900GTX thats just a renamed 9900GTX... and that would suck.


Yeah, wich was basicly a renamed 9800GTS, wich is a renamed 8800GTS.
:rofl:
:rofl:

[regenade]

Drag them to consumer court :rofl:

[Seraphiel]

Radeon X1050 is a slightly revided X700 IIRC. It could thus be named like that despite its lack of SM 3.0 support.

The X1050 appears to more a R9600 XT / Pro, than a revided X700.

Using a new process tech to improve an older architecture, doesn't mean it is a part of the new architecture that already uses the process tech. Meaning, if Nvidia made a NV45 core now using 65nm process tech, then it still wouldn't be a G92 part, right? ... It would have way more in common with the old NV45 or 6800 GT / Ultra , than any G80 / G92 card, right?

[Kasparz]

x1050 is x550.

[Richard Dower]

x1050 is x550.

It's also X300 :rolleyes:

[Spectrobozo]

It's also X300 :rolleyes:

x300 = 9600XT PCIe...

[[XC] NetburstXE]

It seems like the graphics card industry contains nothing new anymore.

[Shintai]

It seems like the graphics card industry contains nothing new anymore.

Precisely my thought. Its very sad to see how much both nVidia and AMD/ATI did in the lowend rename scheme. Not even to talk about nVidias current highend rename game.

I had hopes when we got the 8800GTS512. But then they failed all the way after that.

I think the IT industry is the only consumer segment where things like this wont be stopped by goverment consumer agencies.

[Seraphiel]

Radeon X1050 = RV370, but spec wise, especially if we totally ignore the mem bus width (as most seem to do when comparing G80 vs G92, and the improvements all together), then the X1050 = alot of graphics solutions:

(R = Radeon ; MR = Mobility Radeon; AIW = All In Wonder)

RV351: R 9650
RV350: R 9550 SE, R 9550, R 9600 SE, R 9600, R 9600 Pro EZ, AIW 9600 Pro, R 9600 Pro, R 9600 XT, MR 9600, MR 9600 Pro, MR 9600 Pro Turbo
RV360: MR 9500, MR 9550, MR 9700
RV370: R X1050, R X300 SE, R X300, R X550 SE, R X550, MR X300, MR X600
RV380: R X600 Pro, R X600 XT
RV515: R X1300, X1300 Pro, MR X1300, MR X1350, MR X1400, MR X1450,
RV516: R X1550 SE, X1550
RV535: MR X2300, HD 2300

According to wikipedia, they ALL share the same specs (except for the MCB):
2:4:4:4

Anyone wanna make the count of solutions, and then still claim Nvidia is somehow worse than ATI/AMD, when they (ATI) ruled back then?

So... Can Nvidia be any worse than ATI / AMD, when one regards the past across four different generations: R3?? (9??? series), R4?? (X???? series), R5?? (X1??? series), and the R6?? (HD 2??? series)?

It is all perfectly understandable, and is more related to competition (or lack thereof (?)), then anything else... ? company will do what they can to extend a current line of products, so long their image of performance allows for it.

Replace ? 'company' with ATI, AMD, or Nvidia ... it should still make sense.

I don't blame nVIDIA, just like I don't blame ATI/AMD... this is business, and I understand and accept that.

[n91htmare]

I'm still on a 7800GTX with no plans to move up.

[Seraphiel]

I'm still on a 7800GTX with no plans to move up.

I am still using the 'Go' version of that for my laptop, and it is powerful enough for most/many games : )

7800 GTX variations:

G70: 7800 GTX, 7800 GTX 512
G71: 7900 GT, 7900 GTO, 7900 GTX, 7900 GX2, 7950 GX2
G70M: Go 7800 GTX,
G71M: Go 7900 GTX, Go 7950 GTX

All have 8:24:24:16 config according wikipedia. Another successful architecture, especially performance wise for mobile DTR graphics solutions, even to this day, I think.


I think, peoples problem with the G8? -> G9? is the 8800 GTX and the 8800 Ultra... They are simply still 'too powerful' and can even sometime outperform their replacements (8800 GTS 512, 9800 GTX, 9800 GX2), especially at >4 MP resolutions and with high sample AA/AF.

[Quest_7F]

I really, really don't have a problem with this. Any one of you would do the same thing in a business. I very seriously doubt many (if any) will actually have spent money trying to upgrade from an 8500GT to a 9400GS. That market sector is with people who very clearly don't need the best, don't care about new tech, and certainly don't upgrade to the next low/mid-end card.


You'd really rather have a company make new architecture for a low end card you'd never buy anyways? Let 'em rebadge and get rid of them, it does it's job just fine the way it is. Let it go.

HELLLOOO fellow DMerr

I agree, most of the consumers receiving this card in a setup will not even know what the hell they received, they will only be looking at the memory, because someone told them Vista needs 2gb, and looking at the HD. But...the low end cards don't change much and don't offer many new features so why not rename them and keep them around.