Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
I didn't like it when Nvidia renamed their cards. I didn't like it when ATI re-branded their cards. And I won't like it if Nvidia does the same thing again.
Well, yeah, AMD did reshuffle their naming convention with NI gen cards. I guess since they're now back into the highend performing chip game again with Cayman (for 40 nm process node), and the advent of Fusion based products, the old naming convention is just not adequate for its purpose & AMD's interest.

That might not be in the best interest of consumers, but far far less malicious compared to rebranding a G92 65 nm chip with exact specs from 8800 GT to 9800 GT, from 8800 GS to 9600 GSO (early version), or a G92 classified into new gen GTX 280M for mobile segment.

Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
This is wrong. A new generation can happen on the same node.
Yep. I expect members of this respected site could atleast smart enough to use the web & check their facts before making certain claims & assertions, but my expectation seems rather too optimist.

Quote Originally Posted by Sam_oslo View Post
Yeah, "evolution" is a good and covering name.

My point was that, we are not getting a new generation, or re-brands in upcoming round from neither AMD or nVidia. As Sn0wm@n has been trying to speculate on. But per definition, you need a shrink to call it new generation.

Lets call it "evolution"
Who's definition ? YOURS ?

Well, G80 and G71 were both built using TSMC 90 nm process, clearly going by your standard, those two are the same generation, right ?

Or from the red corner, R300 and R200 both disagree with your notion.