[citation][nom]mousemonkey[/nom]So what was the 4770 then? What was it based on? Where is the GT230 and GT215? and a GTS250 and 9800GT are so identical what with one having 112SP's and the other having 128SP's.[/citation]
The 4770 was a 40nm die shrink of RV770, and ATI makes this perfectly obvious. The name is not misleading. If they were to rename the 4770 as the 5650 and sell it as that, we'd be all over them for it.
The 9800 GTX+ and the GTS 250 are practically the same card. The differences between RV770 and Evergreen/RV870 are larger than the difference between those cards. NVidia's rebadging seems designed to mislead their customers. The GTS 250 moniker should mean it has the same architecture as the rest of the 2xx series (GT200 derivatives), which it doesn't. Throw in the fact that the mobile GTX 260/280/285 cards are also G92 derivatives and it's no wonder we don't trust them.
TL;DR, NVidia has a history of less-than-fully-transparent naming schemes. ATI less so.
The 4770 was a 40nm die shrink of RV770, and ATI makes this perfectly obvious. The name is not misleading. If they were to rename the 4770 as the 5650 and sell it as that, we'd be all over them for it.
The 9800 GTX+ and the GTS 250 are practically the same card. The differences between RV770 and Evergreen/RV870 are larger than the difference between those cards. NVidia's rebadging seems designed to mislead their customers. The GTS 250 moniker should mean it has the same architecture as the rest of the 2xx series (GT200 derivatives), which it doesn't. Throw in the fact that the mobile GTX 260/280/285 cards are also G92 derivatives and it's no wonder we don't trust them.
TL;DR, NVidia has a history of less-than-fully-transparent naming schemes. ATI less so.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram