[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]One thing I wonder is if nVidia finally pushes forward with this architecture, does this mean developers will finally start utilizing some of the tech ATI has had in its cards for generations? For instance, will they utilize more efficient poly rendering effectively making ATI cards perform 300% faster in drawing polies and make every consumer nVidia card before the GF100 moot?Also will they adopt a naming convention that finally makes sense? Up to 9000, reset, skip double digits and 100, go straight to 200. Now go back to 100. I mean seriously who comes up with these names?G80, G92, G200, GF100..[/citation]
You're mixing up code names for gpu architectures (g80, g92, gt200, gf100) with product naming such as geforce 8800gtx or gtx280. Nvidia has not anounced the product naming scheme for their gf100 gpu architecture yet. I'm not exactly sure what the complaint is in this regard, but I think it may stem from this confusion. I've never had a problem following the naming conventions of graphics card products, and with the exception of the latest generation it seems to be a pretty logical progression in product numbering (geforce 6800 ultra, 7900gtx, 8800gtx, 9800gtx, gtx285). As a matter of fact I would say that over the long term ATI's product naming convention has been more confusing then Nvidia's, though still very manageable (radeon 9800xt, x850xt, x1950xtx, hd2900xt, hd3870, hd4870).
The numbering used for gpu architectures on the other hand have been a bit unpredictable, but i don't have much of a problem with this as they were never meant to be used commercially and shouldn't really have to make sense outside of Nvidia's engineering and design teams.