Print 86 comment(s) - last by formulav8.. on Mar 19 at 10:33 PM

NVIDIA cancels its plans for the GTS 240

NVIDIA will not be going ahead with its controversial GTS 240 rebrand of the GeForce 9800 GT graphics card, according to a confidential email that DailyTech has seen. The GPU firm has been under pressure from frustrated GPU board partners.

Instead, NVIDIA is telling its customers to focus on three cards using the 9800 GT name. Besides the standard version, there is a reduced power version of the 9800 GT and the 9800 GT OC version.

The original 65nm 9800 GT used the same original G92 chip as the 8800 GT and had the exact same specifications. A 55nm die shrink resulted in a G92b chip, which NVIDIA used as well in the 9800 GTX+ -- this has also come under controversy for being rebranded as the GTX 280M despite not using a GT200 chip.

The 9800 GTX+ has also been rebranded as the GTS 250 in a last ditch effort to compete with the ATI Radeon 4850. The graphics division of AMD has been leveraging its very high yields and small die sizes of its GPUs to lower its prices very aggressively. This has forced NVIDIA to follow suit, dramatically cutting its revenues and profits.

The mainstream sales problem for NVIDIA will get worse very soon, as ATI prepares to introduce GPUs for desktop computers built on the 40nm process. These chips will be smaller and cheaper to produce, and are expected to bring new levels of performance at its projected price point of $99 USD.

The low power 9800 GT also targets this price point, with NVIDIA's reference card design consuming 75W.

The existence of the 9800 GT OC is a bit of a mystery, however. Its specifications are similar to the old GeForce 9800 GTX, but it will be a niche product that will end up competing against itself in the form of the 9800 GTX+/GTS 250.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

self competition
By talikarni on 3/12/2009 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 1
With as many partners and 3rd party companies providing nvidia GPUs, they have been effectively shooting themselves in the foot for some time now. When there is such a tight economic situation such as we are in, it would make sense to cut back on options, not create more.

RE: self competition
By TheFace on 3/12/2009 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 5
Their intention is to get joe schmoe who only knows that the GT 2xx series is newer and therefore better than the 98xx series. Also, the computer manufacturers can tout that they have the 'latest' graphics solution by nVidia.

It's all marketing.

RE: self competition
By xsilver on 3/12/2009 12:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
could this backflip decision by nvidia be due to the backlash on all the news sites?
could be!

RE: self competition
By erikejw on 3/13/2009 4:20:16 PM , Rating: 4
"NVIDIA Backs Away From GTS 240 Rebrand of 9800 GT"

They probably consider making it a 340 rebrand instead.
New exclusive technology from Nvidia, unheard of, straightly from the market department, eons ahead of the design teams.

This way they can skip the next rebrand round when the 3xx series arrive.

Stay tuned, there will be a continuation.

RE: self competition
By Motoman on 3/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: self competition
By RamarC on 3/12/2009 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 4
c'mon... most people know that the bottom end of a new series is not faster than the top end of the old series. do you really think folks were buying x2400 pros thinking they were faster than x1800xts?

RE: self competition
By ExarKun333 on 3/12/2009 12:57:09 PM , Rating: 5

RE: self competition
By b534202 on 3/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: self competition
By mezman on 3/12/2009 5:05:33 PM , Rating: 5
I don't give a rat's arse about video cards. So yeah, I think that if the number is bigger, it is faster.

That is why you fail.

RE: self competition
By msomeoneelsez on 3/13/2009 2:10:27 AM , Rating: 5
Can I hear an "Amen" here anybody??

RE: self competition
By Jellodyne on 3/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: self competition
By astrodemoniac on 3/12/2009 3:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's stupid. It's like choosing a bottom line Golf V over an R32 Golf IV because Hey! it's a 5!!!!1111

RE: self competition
By Jedi2155 on 3/12/2009 11:34:02 PM , Rating: 2

RE: self competition
By Cappadocious on 3/15/2009 5:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
The Mark IV VW R32 is a real amazing car. Limited american distribution of about 5k units. A real unknown wonder it is a 245HP AWD Golf. Priced competitively with the WRX STi and Lancer Evo it was well received and preferred with reviewers for its performance and comfort in a car in that class.

And it's sexy as hell!

RE: self competition
By Mr Perfect on 3/12/2009 1:08:16 PM , Rating: 5
You have no idea...

I've come across many people who actually think video card power is measured by the size of the frame buffer.

RE: self competition
By murphyslabrat on 3/12/2009 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, I thought that. My very first build almost had a XGI Volari V3, an off-brand video card comparable with a 6200/x300. I was 14 at that time.

Part of that issue, though, is software developer's fault. Most game boxes specify a minimum frame-buffer size under the system requirements for video-card.

RE: self competition
By StevoLincolnite on 3/12/2009 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes the frame buffer used to be an important attribute, for instance when ATI released the Mobility Radeon 9700 pro with only 64mb of memory, for gaming where you would use decently high resolutions and high amounts of textures it would have been better to go with something like the Mobility Radeon 9600 128mb performance wise, as the 9700pro would just choke. (I had 2 laptops each with one of those chips, the 9600 pooped on the 9700 in high resolution, texture heavy games despite inferior clock speeds and same pipeline configurations)

RE: self competition
By SlyNine on 3/13/2009 7:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
If memory serves, The laptop version of the 9700 was not at all the desktop version of the 9700pro. Hell I don't even remember a 64meg version of the 9700pro.

The 9700pro, I wish something could come out today to create the performence increase that did back then.

RE: self competition
By just4U on 3/13/2009 9:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
Did you miss that 8800 launch two years back? :)

RE: self competition
By formulav8 on 3/19/2009 10:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
IIRC the mobile 9700 was basically the 9600XT desktop card. Mainly just higher clockspeeds and frame buffer over the regular mobile 9600 64mb card (I actually have the the mobile 9600 64MB card in my eMachine lappy. :)


RE: self competition
By BladeVenom on 3/12/2009 1:48:53 PM , Rating: 4
You want a great example. There's a radio show about computers by Kim Komando, and she recommends picking video cards by GPU clock speeds.

Anyone taking her advice seriously would think a GTX 280 is a slow card, easily beaten by an HD 4670.

RE: self competition
By HSuke on 3/12/2009 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah. I lost brain cells reading that article.

RE: self competition
By aegisofrime on 3/16/2009 4:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you. Just check out any one of the "Can I run it" threads that appear on gaming forum before a game comes out. It usually goes like this.

Joe="I have a Geforce 8400 512MB, can I play Empire Total War?"

John="The minimum requirements is 512MB so yes"


RE: self competition
By Motoman on 3/12/2009 1:48:22 PM , Rating: 5
I can absolutely, positively, guarantee that. Not a possible chance that isn't true.

Even just the other day, at a gaming center I set up with 6 new machines a few months ago, a guy came in and asked what video cards they had - I told him they were HD4850s. His next question was "is that 512Mb? Because that's what matters."

...for the vast majority of people on this planet, an X1300 with 512Mb of RAM would appear to be better than a X1650 with 256Mb. In exactly the same way that a X2400 *must* be better than an X1900.

You are presuming that people will independently research into whether or not they are buying products that are misleadingly labeled by the manufacturer...and yes, putting out an "9000" model that is slower than the "8500" model is misleading.

People don't do that research. They buy things based on what the box says. And if it's a 2400, that's clearly 500 better than a 1900, so that's got to be the better card.

RE: self competition
By RamarC on 3/12/2009 2:12:30 PM , Rating: 3
my bad. once again i overestimated the intelligence of the buying public.

RE: self competition
By rudy on 3/12/2009 3:10:37 PM , Rating: 4
But it is good in a way the ignorant people buy up old product that so companies can press forward.

Another one I love is going into the local computer shop where they are still selling 2 or 3 year old hardware at its original price. They can always dump it on some schmuck who thinks he got a good computer cause it is new.

RE: self competition
By SiliconDoc on 3/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: self competition
By meepstone on 3/12/2009 6:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
ya, i really hate that the do that. bring up new series but the top end is like the only one that performs better than old series. rather annoying. you would think they would be wasting money by making multiples of cards that perform the same.

RE: self competition
By Knowname on 3/14/2009 7:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
exactly, I 'upgraded' one time from a Radeon 9600xt to an x2600 pro... I sort of had to moving from agp to pcie, but there was no difference in performance!! (barring the umd er video off processing thingy)

RE: self competition
By Knowname on 3/14/2009 7:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
while not the case with a single generation, but I was sort of hoping a 9600gt would improve on my 6800gt. It doesn't really.

RE: self competition
By teldar on 3/12/2009 3:06:01 PM , Rating: 4
Are you a moron?

Or just a raving fan boi?


There is a difference between low end products of a new generation and high end products of the previous generation.

Or of "two generations" ago, when there never was a "last" generation.

This is trying to foist off a generation old product as something 2 generations newer than it is. It's an 8800 which have been sold as 9800's being REBRANDED to a 200. There's a significant difference.

No architectural improvements, no new features, just a new name. NOT the same as a low end part of a more advanced generation.

RE: self competition
By Motoman on 3/12/2009 9:50:56 PM , Rating: 1
I have no idea WTF your deal is...but if you're trying to defend naming the low-end model of a new generation as a higher number than the better performing high-end model of the previous generation, you fail.

Consumers do not have the slightest idea what a "generation" is, and they don't care, and they will never care at any point in their life. The very notion that you might try to explain to them that there was new silicon, or a die shrink, or more shaders, or whatever, is absolutely laughable. They. Do. Not. Care.

Manufacturers know this, and they exploit these consumers to the fullest. Calling a slower product of any generation a 9000 vs. a faster product called a 8500 is pure consumer exploitation, pure and simple. It is categorically misleading and deceptive marketing, and there is no excuse for it.

RE: self competition
By just4U on 3/13/2009 9:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
Consumers have a weapon against their computer ignorance.. Can't say it's so with everyone here but I'd say that weapon is a good number of those posting on this very forum. Yes, I know.. it's normally a thankless job but not totally without it's rewards if you enjoy it. They don't really need to know as long as they have someone kicking around who does.

RE: self competition
By Motoman on 3/13/2009 11:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, but try as we might we aren't actually going to make a dent in anybody's sales. We'll affect the very few people around us, but the vast, VAST majority of consumers will not change their ways.

RE: self competition
By mircea on 3/13/2009 12:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about where you live, but I am always asked about what new hardware to buy by people I don't even know, but were sent to me by someone who does. So if every one on this forum has advised only 50 people around them it adds up. And who knows how many else were cautioned by the ones we helped.

RE: self competition
By just4U on 3/14/2009 10:57:28 AM , Rating: 3
I make a dent in sales .. and I am one person who does it as a hobby. I've purchased and built systems over the last 10 years that totall upwards of half a million dollars. Plus there's alot of people that don't bother getting me to build for them (time constraint issues.. ect ect) and they just call and ask my advice.

We do make a huge difference and don't kid yourself on that.. alot of the reviews by mainy sites are tailored around people just like all of us... as you know it's not everyday that the average computer user heads on out to look at hardware reviews. (lol many would rather take a gun to their head <grin>)

RE: self competition
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: self competition
By formulav8 on 3/19/2009 10:33:02 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe its just me, but your post appears to be one of the most ignorant fanboy post i've seen in awhile??

I'm guessing your one of those fannys that would like ATI to die and customers start paying $400-$500 for a 9800 GTX again??


RE: self competition
By JAB on 3/12/2009 7:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that if the average joe hears t avoid those 250 cards they are a rip off he will avoid all of the 2XX cards. Reputation is everything if he keeps hearing that Nvidia cards are out of date then it may go for them all.

People that go by reviews will know better and rebranding is not free! There are very real costs to adding new cards.

There is absolutly no positive spin to the whole thout of buy a "Nvidia you are too stupid to know better"

RE: self competition
By Knowname on 3/14/2009 8:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
what I don't understand is what's so wrong about rebranding ie in this case your moving a previously elite chip (gtx+) into the ~$100 mainstream. There's really no confusion, ESPECIALLY for the consumer who doesn't CARE that the underlying technology is last year's top chip... it's all about what they see in the bottom line.

In a sence I applaud this move! If ATI went and renamed the 2800xtx as a x3300 and REPRICED IT AS SUCH I'd be all over it!! What was bad was Nv moving the 8800gts to 9800gts, die shrunk and called a +. From the companies standpoint all video generations are in tiers, ie x(number)800s all act similar as do x(number)600s and so on. How long did it take me to figure this out?? too long and a couple hundred dollars lol.

Anyway there it is, it's not perfect, it kinda' sucks. But that's how it goes. No clue what Nv is doing with Geforce 2xx naming scheme but I'm sure it will fall in line some way.

RE: self competition
By FaceMaster on 3/13/2009 4:43:43 AM , Rating: 4
8800 GT
9800 GT
240 GTS

Yes, I know the Geforce 8800 series was ahead of its time. Yes, it still performs well in games. But rebranding it so many times is silly.

RE: self competition
By Pryde on 3/14/2009 3:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot 8800GTX. Yeah there was a slight change but hey its was basically the same performance wise.

RE: self competition
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: self competition
By FaceMaster on 3/15/2009 5:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
There's always one who HAS to try and pick holes in things that people say. I'd have to include all of the pointless details and versions ever made to stop such people.

Geforce 8800 GTS 320 MB 96 pipelines, 65 nm
Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB 96 pipelines, 65 nm
Geforce 8800 GTS 512 MB 128 pipelines, 55 nm
Geforce 8800 GTX 768 MB 128 pipelines, 65 nm
Geforce 8800 GT 512 MB 112 pipelines, 55 nm
Geforce 9800 GT 512 MB 128 pipelines, 55 nm
Geforce 9800 GTX 512 MB 128 pipelines, 55 nm

...ahh. I cba. Trying to make a fault-proof post will simply lead to more noobs trying to score points off me for getting the wrong nm size or length of the die in mm or some other TOTALLY pointless point.

I'm simply saying that the 8800 chip was overdone. *Expects some one to reply, telling me that I missed out the Nvidia Geforce prefix to prevent it from being confused with an 8800 series of CPU or what ever*

RE: self competition
By Lightnix on 3/16/2009 3:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
The GTS 320 and 8800 GTX were based on a 90nm G80 core by the way.

Just so you know.

RE: self competition
By FaceMaster on 3/17/2009 6:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Care [ ] Don't Care [X]

RE: self competition
By nRollo on 3/13/2009 4:58:49 PM , Rating: 1
I don't get what all the controversy over re-named GPUs is these days.

Presumably people don't buy video cards by the number on the box, that's never been possible. High end of last gen often beats low end of current, etc..

Both remaining graphics companies do this, so it's not like it isn't industry standard practice.

Last, the packaging is labelled clearly with all you need to know. I bought a GTX260 Core 216 this week, on the box it says "216 Stream Processors", 2nd Generation Unified Architecture", "Full DX10", "896MB GDDR3", etc- there's not left to the imagination.

If I was in a store looking at the shelf, the GT240 would say "128 Stream Processors", "512MB RAM" etc. and that, plus the lower "X-less" designation would show me where the GT240 fit in the current lineup.

If I already owned a 9800GT or 9800GTX, presumably I'd know the specs of the card and see the GT240 wasn't higher, and it's sub $150 prioce tag might tip me off it's not the new high end card as well.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

RE: self competition
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
40nm Cards from ATI
By Goty on 3/12/2009 12:31:32 PM , Rating: 4
There are rumblings that TSMC's 40nm process isn't all that great. Supposedly they provided an optical shrink but no change in materials, so current leakage is a big problem. This means that ATI might decide to skip on high-performance cards based on 40nm designs for the near future and hold off until TSMC gets things worked out, so I don't think NVIDIA will have to worry about much beyond the 4890 (which could be awesome or mildly underwhelming, depending on which rumors you believe), at least at the high end.

RE: 40nm Cards from ATI
By teldar on 3/12/2009 3:11:05 PM , Rating: 4
I read something that says they've tried several material changes and things havn't worked that well. It's not that they're not trying, it's more that things aren't working as well as they would like them to.

And it's old news that AMD's holding off on the performance 40nm part. That's why the RV740 was launched as mobile and will come out at desktop after and the rv790 will be 55nm. Something AMD said they would not do was launch a new performance part on 55nm. They didn't want to spend the money on the masks.

As far as 4890 performance, all I've heard is approximately 20% better performance in a similar power envelope.

RE: 40nm Cards from ATI
By TheFace on 3/12/2009 8:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I've read that nVidia's yields were terrible on die shrinks of their 2xx series chips, which is why they don't have a low power/mobile version of the chip. The mobile version that they have come out with is again the 9800 (G92) chip. I'm not really going to complain much about that one though, as it is a pretty powerful chip for a laptop.

Trying to see why Nvidia are doing this
By Aloonatic on 3/12/2009 3:37:37 PM , Rating: 1
Are Nvidia not just trying to actually make things simpler for the consumer?

If their range of cards were all GTX 2?? and the numbering increased in-line with performance then it's not such a big deal.

It would be completely unforgivable if we are talking about the re-branding of a card car that was DirectX 9 only to sound as if it was a directX 10 or something, but that isn't what is going on here.

RE: Trying to see why Nvidia are doing this
By Uncle on 3/12/2009 8:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
The point is Joe Sixpack hasn't read or heard about the rebranding and ends up buying the same card thinking its new technology. Most Joe Sixpacks don't understand the tech jargon.

RE: Trying to see why Nvidia are doing this
By Aloonatic on 3/13/2009 6:25:29 AM , Rating: 1
I get the point that is being made.

In the end though, what does Joe sixpack care?

If hey named the card GTX 299 or something, then clearly that would be misleading.

The average man on the street just cares about performance, not what specific chip is being used. As long as the card is compatible with Dx10, like the other GTX2?? then really, what does it matter? There is no implication that the card is faster than the other GTX??? cards after all.

If anything, Nvida are making it harder for the average Joes to understand what is going on by having 2 naming conventions for their cards. An unscrupulous salesman (or woman) could easily dupe poor joe into believing that 98?? GT? is a better card the GTX??? if the consumer is that poorly informed. If they are all named GTX??? then it's pretty clear where it stands in teh pecking order.

I'm not really sure why everyone is getting their knickers into such a twist over this. The 98?? GT? cards are not that bad and perform pretty well when stacked up against the current gen, they still have all the DX10 compatibility (as much as the GTX??? anyway, if not 10.1), and they are being supported by Nvida still, so what does it matter?

By Aloonatic on 3/17/2009 7:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
Egads, I can be a moron sometimes.

I completely misread your comment. It isn't exactly unforeseeable that someone may mistakenly buy the same card again after the third re-branding.

Power consumption
By crimson117 on 3/13/2009 5:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
Power consumption is actually an important factor for me in choosing a GPU... I'm sticking with my 8800 GT and not going to a 4850 or 4870 because I don't want to have to add more cooling or a bigger PSU to my system.

It's not the primary factor for me for a GPU, but it's up there.

RE: Power consumption
By Belard on 3/13/2009 8:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Most 4870s have dual slot cooling. Many 4850s do as well. I'd take a dual-slot over a single slot because it helps reduce heat-build up in the case. This means everything in the case gets warmer.

Most 8800GT cards are single slot. But the 8800GT is a very good card so unless you're having a performance issue - I don't see why you'd need to upgrade anytime soon.

RE: Power consumption
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: 0
Everyone is overlooking the most important number
By ipay on 3/13/2009 7:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
Cost . That is how all consumers, regardless of segment, group prospective cards. As far as nomenclature, the same rules apply, namely Caveat Emptor. Ultimately, it is the buyer's responsiblity to educate themselves in a free market. If they get burned for their ignorance and lack of preparation it's their own damned fault.

By Pryde on 3/14/2009 3:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree it is the consumers fault if they buy a rebrand I still believe that the company should do all it can so mix ups do not happen.

TBH I think that nvidia and ati need to make clear the specs of the card better.

By someguy123 on 3/12/2009 4:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
I laughed way too hard at that picture of a chicken.

Fix the sub-heading...
By CZroe on 3/12/2009 1:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
"NVIDIA shuffles its plans for the GTS 240"

I'm sure the intention was:
"NVIDIA shelves its plans for the GTS 240"

To "shuffle" implies that they simply reordered their plan or the step within it and not that they scrapped that part altogether (as they did).

By Uncle on 3/12/2009 2:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well I have made up my mind, that I can not and will not buy Nvidia cards untill this mess is cleared up, I will not take a chance that I will end up with a rebranded card, period. I want to read about new technology, not an old card with a die shrink unless the price of the card shrinks at the same percentage rate as the shrinkage.

Why does this matter?
By lwright84 on 3/12/2009 6:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
With the severe and definitive trouncing that ATI has handed nVidia over the last year, why does anyone still care about what nVidia is doing with the mid-range cards of their current gen (or last gen, in this case)? Everything nVidia offers right now is matched - and in most scenarios, beaten - by it's lower priced, more energy efficient, and OC-friendly AMD\ATI opponent. I've been a die-hard nVidia customer since the Vanta (even when ATI showed a glimmer of true competition during a few gens here and there), but the 'unseating of the battle-hardened king' is as obvious and absolute here as it was when Intel released the C2D and hit AMD the same way.

RE: Why does this matter?
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
Not exactly a rebrand
By hemmy on 3/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By monomer on 3/12/2009 11:36:34 AM , Rating: 5
The 512 MB GTS 250 is exactly the same card as the 9800 GTX+ down to the PCB layout, an has the same core, memory, and shader speeds. Basically all that was changed was the sticker and the box. The only saving grace with the GTS 250 launch was a price reduction.

The 1GB GTS 250, on the other hand, is a slightly modified card, but it still uses the exact same GPU.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By UNCjigga on 3/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Lightnix on 3/12/2009 6:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
It also appears as though the core is running at a lower voltage - this is indicated by the fact that it runs with lower power consumption (which some have attributed to PCB efficiency improvements), and also overclocks more poorly: : 9800 GTX+, overclockersclub, core overclock: 863MHz. : 9800 GTX+, Guru3D, core overclock: 860MHz. : 9800 GTX+, legit reviews, core overclock: 840MHz : 9800 GTX+, techpowerup, core overclock: 832MHz : GTS 250 1GB, Overclockersclub, core overclock: 802MHz : GTS 250, Techpowerup, core overclock: 778MHz : GTS 250 (2GB), Guru3D, core overclock: 777MHz

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By munky on 3/12/2009 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 4
Because it is the same card, with the same gpu, same clocks, same memory configuration. But the name suggests it's gt200 derivative card from a whole generation ahead of the 9-series, which are really just re-branded 8-series to begin with.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By TheFace on 3/12/2009 11:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
The problem that people have with the situation is that nVidia took the 8800GT, overclocked it a bit and came out with the 8800GTS 512mb (NOT the 640 that was a previous gen chip). Then they die shrunk that and called it the 9800GTX+. Now they're going ahead and redoing the thing again for the new series in the GTx 2xx.

This isn't just a different pairing of RAM (GDDR3 vs. GDDR5), this is the 3rd generation rebrand of the same thing. The RAM gives the ATi cards the difference in performance. These nVidia cards perform essentially the same.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Radnor on 3/12/2009 11:52:59 AM , Rating: 5
I really don't get how everyone is screaming rebrand at the GTS250. What does it have in common with the 9800GTX+ ??? The gpu core ? Thats it.

Don't the 4870 and 4850 have the same amt of SP(800)?

The cards don't look the same, don't have the same power consumption, don't have the same performance, they aren't the same card.

Stop Drinking the Nvidia Cool Aid.

4800 Series are in the R700 Line. RV670 had 320 Stream cores. Nvidia is re branding the G92 Chip since the 8800 if memory doesn't fail me.

Nvidia just re branded the previously re branded that already have been re branded a year ago.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By LorKha on 3/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By spread on 3/12/2009 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 5
He's saying the GTS 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX which is a rebranded 8800GTX.

Go back to your hole.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By erple2 on 3/12/2009 2:02:38 PM , Rating: 4
He's saying the GTS 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX which is a rebranded 8800GTX.

It didn't quite get that impression. In fact, the 8800GTX is based off the G80 core, which is different enough from the G92 series as to be a completely different chip. However, the 8800 GT (and the 8800GTS 512MB editions) are all based on the G92, which is what the 9800 GT/GTX/GTX+ and now the GTS250 is.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By spread on 3/12/2009 9:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Either way, these cards are using the ancient G80 architecture. Same junk, better manufacturing process.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Danish1 on 3/14/2009 9:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
You're asking all the wrong questions.

What you should be asking yourself is why is the 48xx series so successful ?

As for the rebrand itself then I don't really care, chances are you're going to get screwed if you don't do your research, regardless of product names.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By spread on 3/14/2009 9:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Chill out, its just a videocard. No need to pop a blood vessel.

I have yet to see electromigration happen with a GPU, even with the voltmodded ones. You want to know why the ATi core is so hot? Because of a el-cheapo cooler bundled with the card optimized for noise, not cooling.

If you want to compare ATi to nVidia with GDDR3, the HD4850 destroys anything G92 from nVidia. The HD4830 is not a fair comparison because it has a broken core. It's a lower binned HD48xx core that has shaders disabled .

CCC is bloated, there are free alternatives. You don't need to install it you can use just the driver with Rivatuner or Tray Tools.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Lightnix on 3/12/2009 6:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, not quite, it's a rebranded 8800 GTS 512MB.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Dark Legion on 3/12/2009 10:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, that is what I've been thinking since the GTS 250 was announced. You got the looks and the 1 6-pin PCIe power connector. Then you got almost everything else from the 9800GTX+ (clock speeds, 2x SLI bridge, 55nm, 512mb/1gb gddr3, etc). Basically, if the 8800GTS 512 and the 9800GTX+ had a baby, out comes the GTS 250.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By SiliconDoc on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Belard on 3/14/2009 6:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Uh no... the 8800GTS-512 is a faster version of the 8800GT, both are G92 GPUs.

See the confusion?! I guess we couldn't see how stupid Nvidia was getting with their names. First the jump from G80 to G92 (rather than 82 - but the G84/86s were lame anyways)... so they could have gone with 9600 to begin with...

Never before has a single GPU been reused so many times.

8800GTs-512 (because the 320/640 are G80 cards)
9600GT (slower bin version of G92)
GTX 250

Total = 7.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By Lightnix on 3/14/2009 3:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
The 9800 GTX is an 8800 GTS 512MB. The 8800 GTS 512MB has 128 shaders, a 256-bit memory controller, a G92 core, 64 TMUs, 16 ROPs, basically it's exactly the same card as the 9800 GTX - the clock speeds are slightly different, though. The 8800 GT had some of the shaders and TMUs disabled.

There's a comparison in specifications here:

Sorry if you weren't actually replying to my post, but it seems like you are.

That aside, you missed the 8800 GS and 9600 GSO, which are also based on G92 (except the newer 9600 GSO's which are based on G94 and only have 48 shaders). The 9600 GT is not a G92 based product, it's based on G94 which is a physically different core, in that it only has 64 shaders.

RE: Not exactly a rebrand
By ninjaquick on 3/12/2009 9:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
GG @ not reading /sarcasm

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki