Nvidia to Rebrand GeForce Series



+ Add a Comment


Here is a very simple idea that most people would be able to grasp and it doesn't involve changing their crazy names. On the back of the box, where they put all of that garbage that no one really cares to read, they should put a graph of a uniform benchmark and where the card falls. All they really need to list is the basic system compatibility info and which grade it falls under - enthusiast, gamer, media, economy, whatever. That way even if you pick up two boxes(fictitious names XFX 1200 A GTX B and FX 1200 B GT A) you can just look on the back of the box and see that 1. scored 1500 and 2. scored 3200. We love numbers, they just need to make sense.



 Yeah, I'm with the first guy. Wasn't it 2006 when an almost identical blurb appeared in MaxPC clamiming Nvidia was doing this exact same thing???


How about this?

GTX = best

GT = great

S = std

E = economy


Then add to that the model number 8500, 8600, etc.

Then add "A" for Gen 1, "B" for Gen 2 Gen 3.

Or better yet, emiminate the generation updates altogether and simply give the card a new number, ie. 85825, 8650

 Why is this so difficult for them???


"There's no time like the future."



Anyone who is not PC enthusiast (definitely not MPC reader) will still be confused by this naming system. They just need to simplify card names so that any casual PC user can understand.

MPC is my home page



When you have so many products, that do not CLEARLY stack in order of performance, any naming convention will be confusing.  A GS is worse than a GT for gaming, but often is paired with more memory, so on some games it might be better.  The newer GT might have more video features than the older faster GTS, appealing to still other folks.  They (and AMD and Intel) need to create a simpler line up with a monotonically increasing performance level from card to card.



I totally agree that a simple, easily comprehensible product line is generally best for consumers.  But...

You're proposing that product lines for all these parts should be clearly differentiated with strict comparisons in every spec between each component.  That would seem logical at first, but take a look at the example you cited...

The thing is, the PC community wants exactly that.  Do I want a videocard with lots of memory, but maybe lower operating frequency?  Do I really need twelve million pixel shaders or do I want a card better suited for task XZY?  My point here is that if you create this sort of Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc. lineup then if I want a videocard with lots of memory then I have to pay for the high clock and other "upper tier" features - even if I don't want them.

Remember that we (as opposed to those *other* guys) pride ourselves on the fact that we can pick and choose the things we need from our PC, both in terms of hardware and software.  Yes, we all want performance - but performance in what?  Different users have different needs.

All that said, I do agree that nVidia's lineup is in some need of some house cleaning.



9400 GT < 9500 GT < 9600 GT < 9600 GSO (basically rebadged 8800 GS) < 9800 GT (basically rebadged 8800 GT) < 9800 GTX < 9800 GTX+ (die-shrunk GTX with faster clocks) < GTX 260 < GTX 260 Core 216 (only 24 more stream processors) < GTX 280

That doesn't even include the flavors of 8XXX cards. Is that really too difficult for the average consumer...? Hah.



Didn't nVidia just try renaming their product lines?  And they honestly don't help themselves, with things like the GTX 260 Core 216 as apposed to the GTX 260.  I consider myself to keep up pretty regularly with upcoming PC tech and the nVidia lineup confuses the heck out of me.  Hopefully they stick to this one.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.