Read more.Quote:
New naming scheme will be implemented starting from Volcanic Islands GPU family.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
New naming scheme will be implemented starting from Volcanic Islands GPU family.
Not hard to understand but needlessly complex IMO.
I'd have just shaved the "HD" and "0" off the of the 'old' nomenclature. e.g. Radeon HD7850 > Radeon 785, HD6450 > 645
Then add M, XT, Ultra, GT, GS, GTS, GTX, GTO & Pro as required.
EDIT: I know the old system is running out of generation numbers, the obvious solution is continue in base 11.
Base 11? That only gives a single extra generation, the Radeon Axxx, then we're back to square 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDY
Not a fan of suffixes but otherwise i think its decent. Why not just use the two digit variant, plenty of room for a full range of cards with 99 digits.
ill have 2 x R9 199 please
It's not like we weren't here about 8 years ago: the solution then was to go to X instead of 10 (X850), then jump to X1 (X1800), then drop the X.
tbh, I kind of like the idea of making the primary distinction between market segments, rather than generations. As long as we don't get some of the odd re-alignments of past generations it should work well (5870 -> 6870, anyone? ;) )...
Seriously, how hard is it just to think up a numbering where "bigger number = faster product"... they need to dump off all those stupid prefixes and suffixes and get a proper number together.
Even better if they could use combined 'power' rating using some universal low level benchmark as part of the model number, e.g.
D|M + Generation (nn) + "Non-Performance Related Market Segment Feature Set" + "-" + Benchmark
e.g.
D019-4000
Is a desktop SKU, generation 01 with market segment feature set 9 (high end) and 4000 on benchmark.
M015-2500
Is a mobile SKU, gen 01, feature set 5 (low-mid range) and 2500 on benchmark.
It would be brilliant to be able to tell from the model number than the second is 5/8 of the power of the first, without charts and graphs, and easily know if the next gen card is actually faster than the one you've got.
It'll never happen though, transparency ruins marketing bollocks when the low end card is a D011-0.0000000000000000001 but still allegedly capable of "photo-realistic mega immersive gaming that makes you feel like God".
Ati Radeon R300 ;)
Of course, the next thing to do is go to the next base, 12, and so on. That way we can stick to the simple three symbol model nomenclature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
It's not complicated at all, it's a completely intuitive system which even the most inexperienced computer buyer would understand. I'm sure AMD and eventually NV will pick it up because they're experts on consumer friendly nomenclatures.
Not that bad but I would definitely move the m definer to the end like r8 750M. Its always betterhaving it at the end because you tend to miss letters at the front IMO.
Lettering scheme does make sense though and its easy to see this can last a long time .
Yep, I'm with you on that - this system seems to be guaranteed to cause confusion -e.g. is an R8 770XT a worse card than a R8 780? Much better to have the "dog's danglies, price no object" card be R8 799... Like Hicks12, the Mobile id also makes more sense at the end, rather than in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Plus whatever AMD do, we've also got the card manufacturers rubbish to add to that - e.g. we could end up with "XFX R8 780XT DD Black" :o
Any more of this nonsense and I'm heading back to NVidia - at least you know where you are with them.
Yeah, they'd never have any nonsense with some small letters at the end donating an entirely different card, or having the same chip represented with lots of different names... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Yeah I mean they would never do that...Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
...*cough* ti *cough*...
Yeah screwed over.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
It think his point is valid in that if you start with base 36 to begin with, you don't need to 'go to the next base' - you are already there in terms of the output!Quote:
Originally Posted by DDY
It's purely an argument about the way we think about things though as the resultant names would be the same...
More on topic...
This makes NO sense whatsoever to me as it prioritises marketing segment (enthusiast, budget) over generation. Looking at cards over time, the generation *is* the most influential factor with regards speed etc. A 3 generation old 'enthusiast' card will still look fast by this scheme to the less thoughtful when it will probably get wiped by new gen mid range cards.
e.g. an R8 450 might get wiped by an R7 650 but just sound faster as most people will think the R bit is most important I reckon... I dunno, it's certainly no better to me, just a move sideways at best.
The existing naming scheme ain't broke so I really don't know why they're attempting to 'fix' it now.
Maybe they (AMD) should put more effort in trying to catch up and match Intel in the CPU stakes rather than battling Nvidia. Intel need challenging.