# NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS Rebranded to 9600 GSO



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 5, 2008)

NVIDIA's lack of marketing for the 8800 GS meant that it didn't really catch on particularly well when it was first launched. However, the company is now planning to try and rectify this by rebranding it as the GeForce 9600 GSO according to Expreview. Assuming the current price remains more or less the same, this card should sell for a little below the 9600 GT and offers similar performance levels.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 5, 2008)

At least NVidia recognise their strategy was crap.....thats something I spose.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 5, 2008)

Sounds pretty lame...  Lets rebrand our 7900gtx as a 9300gt...  OMG epic win.  (won't work no matter how you slice it, but you get the idea)


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 5, 2008)

I think thats a pretty dirty trick.. You can just rename a card because it sold like crap.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 5, 2008)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Sounds pretty lame...  Lets rebrand our 7900gtx as a 9300gt...  OMG epic win.  (won't work no matter how you slice it, but you get the idea)


No kidding. lets re badge the G80 line for epic winage! I mean why should consumers expect innovative, advancing arch. break throughs in video cards such as dual die GPUs.  It's easier to wiki re-badging old tech video cards using modern monikers as meaning the same thing?


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 5, 2008)

FX5900ULTRA will be re-branded as the 9100GS lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 5, 2008)

What does it matter what it is called, price and performance is all that matters.  But some people tend to like to think the name on the card really matters.  Sorry, but the sticker they put on the heatsink doesn't matter, it is what is under the heatsink that matters.  It isn't like it is an uncommon thing in the graphics card industry.  The x1650 was just a rebranded x1600Pro.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 5, 2008)

Some will always argue that it's AMD/ATI's fault for not pushing Nvidia.  I mean ever since they decided to concentrate on mid-range market and other merging video card markets they are no longer pushing nvidia.  Maybe that's why AMD/ATI is gaining marketshare.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 5, 2008)

The truth about the rebranding craze has been found...







I just made this in photoshop...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 5, 2008)

^^^lol


----------



## calvary1980 (Apr 5, 2008)

can we stop with the jokes they are not funny.

- Christine


----------



## csendesmark (Apr 5, 2008)

this is lame...


----------



## erocker (Apr 5, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> can we stop with the jokes they are not funny.
> 
> - Christine



For some reason, this made me laugh though.   I don't think rebadging it isn't that big of a deal, the card sold for crap and there was little to no marketing for it.  Other companies have done this as well.  The Asus Maximus Formula aka Rampage Formula comes to mind.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 5, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Some will always argue that it's AMD/ATI's fault for not pushing Nvidia.  I mean ever since they decided to concentrate on mid-range market and other merging video card markets they are no longer pushing nvidia.  Maybe that's why AMD/ATI is gaining marketshare.



Yes but sadly that was the last quarter when the excellent value 3850 had little NVidia competition, much has changed since, this quarter will be interesting tho!


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 5, 2008)

Anyone that says this is a trick by the big bad nVidia is nothing more than a fanboy.  I didn't see any of you complaining when ATi did it.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 5, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Yes but sadly that was the last quarter when the excellent value 3850 had little NVidia competition, much has changed since, this quarter will be interesting tho!



Yes, specially with all the re-branding going on with Nvidia, it's going to be a very interesting 2nd quarter. Oh, and lets see how the 780G chipset do as well since they are claiming they offer better graphics performance then Intel's counter-part.


----------



## DOM (Apr 5, 2008)

8800 to 9600
              vs
1600 to 1650 

they didnt change everything like nvidia, ATI just added the XX5X


----------



## choppy (Apr 5, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> What does it matter what it is called, price and performance is all that matters.  But some people tend to like to think the name on the card really matters.  Sorry, but the sticker they put on the heatsink doesn't matter, it is what is under the heatsink that matters.  It isn't like it is an uncommon thing in the graphics card industry.  The x1650 was just a rebranded x1600Pro.



not everyone understands whats underneath the heatsink, some will just follow whatever the highest number is and buy it, nvidia picked up on that and just exploited it, like the whole 9 series to date lol


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 6, 2008)

choppy said:


> not everyone understands whats underneath the heatsink, some will just follow whatever the highest number is and buy it, nvidia picked up on that and just exploited it, like the whole 9 series to date lol



bingo! Higher model number must mean better card


----------



## indybird (Apr 6, 2008)

I dunno this doesnt really bother me that much.  The way I see it is the 8800GS came in to the 88xx very late and wasn't advertised.  Nvidia cant just start advertising the 8800GS again, they would look like idiots.  So they simply gave it a 9xxx tag like it should've to start off with (following the trend of new G92s).

-Indybird


----------



## breakfromyou (Apr 6, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> bingo! Higher model number must mean better card



thats what the guy at CompUSA told me when i said i wanted to upgrade my 6600le. He tried to sell me a radeon 7000 

Bigger number, it's better.

I laughed and left, never returned (just like everybody else)


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 6, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Anyone that says this is a trick by the big bad nVidia is nothing more than a fanboy.  I didn't see any of you complaining when ATi did it.



difference being, is when ATI rebrand a product, they at least make _some_ changes to the card

X1600 used the RV530 GPU
X1650 used the RV535 GPU

real differences in GPU alone: difference in manufacturing process (90nm vs 80nm)

IIRC, the 1650s were also clocked slightly higher.


I'm not saying ATI isn't guilty of rebranding as well, they've done it quite a few times over the years - but they at least make some small changes to improve the card over the previous model.


----------



## csendesmark (Apr 6, 2008)

breakfromyou said:


> thats what the guy at CompUSA told me when i said i wanted to upgrade my 6600le. He tried to sell me a radeon 7000
> 
> Bigger number, it's better.
> 
> I laughed and left, never returned (just like everybody else)



What a shame


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 6, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> difference being, is when ATI rebrand a product, they at least make _some_ changes to the card
> 
> X1600 used the RV530 GPU
> X1650 used the RV535 GPU
> ...



Nvidia fanboys got owned. I'm not a fanboy but honestly KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! Yes, AMD renamed GPUs soley based off their revision. X1950PRO should be called the X1900GT-no one pointed that out! Reason? Well RV570 is a die shrunken R580. It is a valid reason for a name change. 

On the other hand Nvidia has just rebadged a GPU soley to make it sell better. That isn't really being honest, a lot of people base their descisions off product names-and its pretty stupid most of the time when they find out that they screwed themselves over.

9800GTX is a good example, why do you want a 8800GTS 512MB that costs more, runs louder (thanks to the cheap cooler), is longer, and uses more power as well as throwing in a few more uneeded features that only a person trying to chuck a world record would need???? Its similar to this. But do the consumer care? They only care how the card looks like and what its named. They THINK its a MUCH better card-when its nowhere near that. 

I don't think this card will sell too well, REGARDLESS of name. Its performance is really meh-ish and the pricing of it isnt too well compared to the easily recommendable alternatives. You got the HD38xx from the AMD camp, and the 9600GT/8800GT as well.


----------



## Gam'ster (Apr 6, 2008)

breakfromyou said:


> thats what the guy at CompUSA told me when i said i wanted to upgrade my 6600le. He tried to sell me a radeon 7000
> 
> Bigger number, it's better.
> 
> I laughed and left, never returned (just like everybody else)



, i cried when id finished reading that  ill laugh myself to sleep now, but on topic everyone re-badges, if its going to make some £$ then good on em i know i would if my  name was Mr. nvidia or amd/ati for that matter, there are plenty of joe public who will willingly fall into this one. Best market strategy wins in this case.

Cheers
Gam


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 6, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> , i cried when id finished reading that  ill laugh myself to sleep now, but on topic everyone re-badges, if its going to make some £$ then good on em i know i would if my  name was Mr. nvidia or amd/ati for that matter, there are plenty of joe public who will willingly fall into this one. Best market strategy wins in this case.
> 
> Cheers
> Gam



:shadedshu , that guy at the PC store should get fired... 
This world is full of lies anyway. Most people lie to win.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 6, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Nvidia fanboys got owned. I'm not a fanboy but honestly KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! Yes, AMD renamed GPUs soley based off their revision. X1950PRO should be called the X1900GT-no one pointed that out! Reason? Well RV570 is a die shrunken R580. It is a valid reason for a name change.
> 
> On the other hand Nvidia has just rebadged a GPU soley to make it sell better. That isn't really being honest, a lot of people base their descisions off product names-and its pretty stupid most of the time when they find out that they screwed themselves over.
> 
> ...


That's basically what most others are saying.  In light of this, there really is no defense for them to simply re-badge a video card simply because it didn't sell well under a different name


----------



## DOM (Apr 6, 2008)

they just want to get rid of there stock of the 8800GS


----------



## Gam'ster (Apr 6, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> :shadedshu
> 
> This world is full of lies anyway. Most people lie to win.





Tell me if you were on the board at nvidia and you had X amount of g80/g whatever the number is cores lying around would you want to sell them off and make money ?,  honesty don't even come into it its all strategy and planning.

Gam


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 6, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> Tell me if you were on the board at nvidia and you had X amount of g80/g whatever the number is cores lying around would you want to sell them off and make money ?,  honesty don't even come into it its all strategy and planning.
> 
> Gam




Yep. As I said, this world is full of lies. Don't you agree?  I MIGHT live in Australia but you never know.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 6, 2008)

instead of rebagging them, sell them in the price range of the 8600 and then phase the 8600 out.


----------



## Gam'ster (Apr 6, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Yep. As I said, this world is full of lies. Don't you agree?  I MIGHT live in Australia but you never know.



I agree that everyone lies of exaggerates at some point and shady practices are a part of it sometimes theres no doubting that, but its all about the £$ at the end of the day its pretty shallow but thats the way it goes, were all a slave to a wage £$ so to speak. 

Cheers
Gam


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 6, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> I agree that everyone lies of exaggerates at some point and shady practices are a part of it sometimes theres no doubting that, but its all about the £$ at the end of the day its pretty shallow but thats the way it goes, were all a slave to a wage £$ so to speak.
> 
> Cheers
> Gam



IMO, it's about what makes sense when someone creates a good business strategy based on current market trends that can lead to profitability.  For example, what they are doing is going to cost them more, taking a guess:
-Label replacement on any remaining stock sitting in the warehouse
-Paying twice to advertise the same product, once for the 8800gs name and again under the new name
-Additional shipping costs on old stock that already shipped, etc.  

This alone doesn't equal a good business strategy.  IMHO, you would do better by having a blue light sale and chalk up the losses.  It probably would cost less then having to rebadge old hardware hoping someone will buy it because the model number is higher.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Apr 6, 2008)

All excellent points. Frankly I dont care as I didnt buy from them anyways. It may not be the most logical choice, the the Fanbois will cry foul if you point out there is no change (see newtekie1 above ) I also agree with someone saying ATI should definitely push nvidia more. See what happens when you dont really have competition and a desire to 1 up someone?


----------



## Gam'ster (Apr 6, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> IMO, it's about what makes sense when someone creates a good business strategy based on current market trends that can lead to profitability.  For example, what they are doing is going to cost them more, taking a guess:
> -Label replacement on any remaining stock sitting in the warehouse
> -Paying twice to advertise the same product, once for the 8800gs name and again under the new name
> -Additional shipping costs on old stock that already shipped, etc.
> ...



Yeah that makes sense, all i was saying was its was better to re-market a failing product under a new name and make a smaller loss than have the product sitting in the warehouse and not making anything at all, i wasn't trying to start an argument here  just giving my opinion .

Gam


----------



## X-TeNDeR (Apr 6, 2008)

I'm not surprised, actually. this falls pretty good with the 8800 sub\renewed\revisited\ armada situation. the only good news for nVidia fans here is that they could now grab those G92 8800 at a very good price. as an AMD-ATi fanboy, i still think the 8800GTS rocks


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 6, 2008)

first, this is nothing shocking, nvidia remarked the nforce4 chipsets as nforce500 chipsets to offload them(exect same chipset, just renamed) 

and some nvidiot on the last page pointed out that ati rebadged the 1600 the 1650, well first, there was at least some CHANGE to the card, die shink, now in his eyes its ok for nvidia to totaly rename a product to sell it based on a higher number but its not ok for ati to point out that they made  a change by adding a 50 to a model.......rofl


well, truth is that this dosnt suprise me at all, i have seen many companys do this, nvidias done it befor, they will do it again, sames pretty true for ati/amd, but at least their rebadging stuff has a point, and dosnt tend to be a total model number change.


oh yall will love this, i had a geeksquad manager try and convence me a hd2600 was faster then a x1900xtx......because its newer and has a bigger number, i had to explain to him that its a mid range card where as the x1900xtx is a ultra high end card of its day(the previous gen) and that the x1900xtx is like 4x the card the 2600 is 

in the end he did some research about videocards and next time i came in he saw me and came over and told me i was correct and that he needed to keep more up on current tech so he can give good advice(hes a nice guy, just not a gamer/overclocker)  

blah, whats next, they gonna bring back the 5900ultra core with a die shrink like somebody said and call it a 9 seirse?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 6, 2008)

fx5200agp = 9050gs


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 6, 2008)

Wait is the 9600GSO gonna perform better than the 8800GS? Or is it the same thing with a new sticker.


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 6, 2008)

and for the record - redesigning the stock cooler is not a big enough change to earn a rebadge;

It wouldn't surprise me, or bother me, if nVidia had kept the rebadging within the same series, but moving it up to the new series is a bit crooked, IMO.

Just for example, look at how much flak Creative has taken over the X-Fi Xtreme Audio being a rebadged Audigy SE which was a rebadged Live! 24-bit.


----------



## Azazel (Apr 6, 2008)

nvedia...tut tut tut...they are trying to fool the (majority)public..who are computer illiterate..and make them think its a brand spanking new card...


----------



## Kursah (Apr 6, 2008)

azazel said:


> nvedia...tut tut tut...they are trying to fool the (majority)public..who are computer illiterate..and make them think its a brand spanking new card...



True, and you do have a great point az, gotta give you that. 

Yet this is not new or suprising in this industry by any means or any company/mfg...and in the end, even if the card is the exact same in specs and performance to the 8800GS, it's still not a bad card, and if it can be had around the $110-120-ish mark, it's still a pretty good deal for a budget gamer build. And if it uses the same chip, it'll even be decently overclockable...

Like newtekie said earlier...who cares what the badging or the name is...care about the performance that you're getting for your dollar...and hey if they're giving it a 9XXX series name...odds are it's gonna improve in performance and support (driver wise)...really I see no major losses or complaints to voice about. All I see is something for budget users to look forward to in better gaming performance, and NV get's to reap in some more sales, that's business and I guarentee any of us in that business would do the same damn thing...that's the nature of the beast.


----------



## devguy (Apr 6, 2008)

If I recall, the x1650 pro was just an overclocked x1600.  However, the x1650gt and x1650xt were both crippled x1950 cards with the xt running faster than the gt (kinda odd because usually AMD/ATIs scheme is gt < pro < xt).

Also, why's everyone getting upset by this?  IMHO, it makes great marketing/business sense for Nvidia to do it and how many of you all are really going to be affected by it?  So long as these are priced reasonably between the 8600GTS and the 9600GT, I see no problems, really.

Besides, if nothing else and these really are the same card, it lets Nvidia give modders the chance to feel l337 by flashing their 8800gs to a 9000 series card and be soooo cool.


----------



## jocksteeluk (Apr 6, 2008)

easy bit of marketing there, all the OEM manufacturers can now say featuring the latest geforce 9 series graphics, i think this is a low brow  move by Nvidia to shift its old stock.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 6, 2008)

devguy said:


> If I recall, the x1650 pro was just an overclocked x1600.  However, the x1650gt and x1650xt were both crippled x1950 cards with the xt running faster than the pro (kinda odd because usually AMD/ATIs scheme is gt<pro<xt).
> 
> Also, why's everyone getting upset by this?  IMHO, it makes great marketing/business sense for Nvidia to do it and how many of you all are really going to be affected by it?  So long as these are priced reasonably between the 8600GTS and the 9600GT, I see no problems, really.
> 
> Besides, if nothing else and these really are the same card, it lets Nvidia give modders the chance to feel l337 by flashing their 8800gs to a 9000 series card and be soooo cool.



nope, the 1650xt is effectivly a cut down 1900 design, less pipes and shaders, but its got more then the 1650pro and lower by a good bit, but its not using a 1900 core, that would be stupid.

as to how it effects people, we gotta deal with explaining to people that the 9600gso/gt arent better then the 8800gt just because the numbers higher, its annoing!!!!!


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 6, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> fx5200agp = 9050gs



stop giving them ideas


----------



## wolf (Apr 6, 2008)

this is dumb, all its done is given the ATi fanboys something to bitch about, good on you guys, i guess you need to pick on every little thing nvidia does since theyve been whooping ATi for over a year.

like has been already pointed out, the name on the heatsink doesn't mean dick, its whats under the heatsink that counts, and this card is a proven excellent price/performance budget gamer, so whats the problem?

business is business, gaming is gaming, nothing has changed, life goes on. 

-Wolf.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 6, 2008)

its not just ati fanboi's saying it im using an 8800gt now, and a good number of the others who have called foul on this are people who own nvidia cards, the reasion this is bs is the same reasion we all called foul on the whole g92 being called 8800 and 9600/9800......because its a crock of shit.......stick with one naming convention on the same core........its like stated above next nvidia will remark old fx line cards and use them for their ultra low end line.....


----------



## wolf (Apr 6, 2008)

i get your arguments, and i too think that it was really st00pid to move to the 9 series with a die-shrunk 8 series, but MY argument stands, IT DOESNT MATTER!

the FPS you get for your $$$ is all that matters, suck it up.


----------



## iLLz (Apr 6, 2008)

I can't wait for Intel to put an end to this crap.  Once they start selling their discreet graphics cards, which is supposed to be pretty powerful stuff, I am sure AMD/ATI and Nvidia are going to have to really come up with some great products to compete.  

Competition will help us all in the end.  GO INTEL!


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 6, 2008)

Just my thought, I'll admit (as I have before) that I'm ATI loyal, but I'll still recommend nVidia's hardware as needs be - but stuff like this . . . IMO, as long as it's out in the open, it's cool, as I don't see where the extra cost of the newer "product" justifies what will more than likely be only a software level performance increase*, and if people wish to make the purchase knowing it's a rebadge, that's their prerogative.  Now, if nVidia kept hush-hush about it, I'd say that's crooked, and they would deserve a slap on the wrist.



*and if it truly is only a software level increase, with no change to the hardware, it wouldn't surprise me if 8800GS owners notice a drop in driver performance right after this cards release; and I'd also bet my money on some 3rd party drivers surfacing for the 8800 GS


----------



## candle_86 (Apr 6, 2008)

fail i ask, you blame Nvidia solely for rebranding, lets take a tour shall we

x600 pro known as RV370 aka RV360 with an intergraded Ratio chip aka 9600XT on PCIe, that applies to the x300 and x1050 also, they are all the 9600XT amazing isnt it.

x1650 except the XT where x1600 cores shurnk and rebranded, and given a new model name not a new core amazing. 

x1250 IGP is really RV410 aka the x700, no one is blameless here, read your history


----------



## X-TeNDeR (Apr 6, 2008)

^i'm almost certain that these all had different clocks and pcb designs, while some had different core revisions and die sizes.
Here, nVidia is simply rebranding the 8800GS to the new model, thats not the same in my book.


----------



## moto666 (Apr 6, 2008)

I wonder how can they do that?
I mean nothing new was maked between 8000 and the 9000 series????
New HDR or special PUREVIDEO or anything! Nothing???

So they can just rename all of the 8000 cards to 9000 when they think...


----------



## xfire (Apr 6, 2008)

When can I get my 9800 IGP.
On a serious note
Trog has been saying this since the release of the 8800GT that it was mwant to be a 9x but ATI made them release it. Now Nvidia are trying to eat the cake.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 6, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> That's basically what most others are saying.  In light of this, there really is no defense for them to simply re-badge a video card simply because it didn't sell well under a different name



Agreed, and the sad thing is, it's a pretty decent card really.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 6, 2008)

8800 GS -> 9600 GSO 

X1600 XT -> X1650 Pro

How does it affect you? Does it jack up prices? Does the 9600 GSO magically perform better than 8800 GS? Does NVidia jack up prices? 

Simple answer: NO. 

But ATIncompetents like BumbRush can continue to crib. So go on, crib.


----------



## beyond_amusia (Apr 6, 2008)

that's pretty shady of them... That's be like Microsoft giving Windows ME a new GUI and calling it Windows Vista... Huh? They already did that???


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 6, 2008)

yes but in the case of the 1650 and 1950 vs the 1600/1900 cards they didnt totaly change the name to sell them as a totaly new card........*shakes head*

read the posts back over the last couple pages, insted of just ranting without understanding why ppl are bitching.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 6, 2008)

Oh, so in your description, there's a 'total change' and partial change? X1650 is a different name, alright. As long as this name change doesn't affects prices and affects only people who take fun in whining about NVidia, it's rather pointless in making it a big issue. 

If there's a business strategy you're whining about, big deal. At least there's nothing foul from NVidia. It's not rebadging the GPU's and jacking up the prices.

Besides, such stuff isn't new to the industry. If you think only NVidia plays 'foul', think again. Compare the Radeon 8500 LE to Radeon 9100 and tell me the difference. Wasn't that a similar rebadge?


----------



## webwizard (Apr 6, 2008)

I don't know who wanted the card when it was the 8800 GS let alone as 9600 GSO.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 6, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Oh, so in your description, there's a 'total change' and partial change? X1650 is a different name, alright. As long as this name change doesn't affects prices and affects only people who take fun in whining about NVidia, it's rather pointless in making it a big issue.
> 
> If there's a business strategy you're whining about, big deal. At least there's nothing foul from NVidia. It's not rebadging the GPU's and jacking up the prices.
> 
> Besides, such stuff isn't new to the industry. If you think only NVidia plays 'foul', think again. Compare the Radeon 8500 LE to Radeon 9100 and tell me the difference. Wasn't that a similar rebadge?



Please stop attempting to make some sort of comparison from 6+ years ago . Even though that comparison is not the same it's still wrong no matter who you find doing it. Also:
-9100 was marketed in the IGP more so then just a discrete GPU
-9100 offered HyperZ while the 8500LE offered HyperZ II
-9100 offered UMA (Unified Memory Architecture), the 8500LE offered High Performance Memory Support
-9100 was AGP 3.0 compliant capable of AGP 8x support with fast write, the 8500LE supported up to AGP 4x
and other options that differentiated it from the 8500LE.  It was not simply a re-badged GPU simply because it didn't sell well as a 8500LE.




-


----------



## btarunr (Apr 6, 2008)

Regardless of it being marketed as an IGP, it was a discrete GPU alright, which was based on the R200. Right, HyperZ II was a mucho better feature, and whoa, the R200 really needed the bandwidth of AGP 3.0 

Regardless of the facts, face it. Both companies be it NVidia or St. ATi have done such a rebadge in the past and will continue to do so in their commercial interests. As long as by doing so they're not making the consumers pay more, complaining about it is pointless.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 6, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Regardless of it being marketed as an IGP, it was a discrete GPU alright, which was based on the R200. Right, HyperZ II was a mucho better feature, and whoa, the R200 really needed the bandwidth of AGP 3.0
> 
> Regardless of the facts, face it. Both companies be it NVidia or St. ATi have done such a rebadge in the past and will continue to do so in their commercial interests. As long as by doing so they're not making the consumers pay more, complaining about it is pointless.



After showing you the differences between both they are clearly not the same arch. rebadge.  The only company in the discrete GPU market in 2008 that has done this is Nvidia.  No excuse found in some other company years ago justify this practice.  Wrong is still wrong and just because a few think wrong is right doesn't make it right.


----------



## rangerone766 (Apr 6, 2008)

i suppose i'm in the minority here, but i agree with nvidia on this move.

first off the g9x core should have been labeled as a geforce 9xxx to begin with. it is different enough from the 8800gts/gtx/ultra to deserve its own name.

second i own  a 8800gs and 8800gt and also a 9600gt. the gs doesnt perform good enough to deserve the 8800 title. dont get me wrong for the price it is a very good card. but not in the same league as a 8800gt. its performance when overclocked is almost identical to a 9600gt. 

on my backup rig with a e2180@3.5 and 2gigs of ram both the 9600gt @stock and 8800gs@740/950 score 11.5k in 3dmark06.

1 last thing. if nvidia are able to sell the rest of thier stock, it means more profit. more profit means more money for R&D. more money for R&D mean better,faster and possibly cheaper cards in the future.

if you dont like the new naming strategy, dont buy one. if your worried uninformed consumers will buy it because it has a higher model number, they could certainly do worse than a re badged 8800gs. what about the 1gig 8400/8500. more sales, more profit is always better.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 6, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> After showing you the differences between both they are clearly not the same arch. rebadge.  The only company in the discrete GPU market in 2008 that has done this is Nvidia.  No excuse found in some other company years ago justify this practice.  Wrong is still wrong and just because a few think wrong is right doesn't make it right.





Come off it. HyperZ II and AGP 3.0 were merely marketing instruments to sell the same old wine (R200) with the same elementary specifications (and GPU parameters) in a new bottle (Radeon 9100) So it pretty much was a rebadge. 

Bite on the logic, rebadging GPU's is something both companies have done in the past. I'm sure there's a better example than the R200, I just have to look. 

And saying "the only company that did it in 2008" is bad logic. So, lets say this year if ATI does something similar, I must use your logic and say "no no, the only company that did it in September 2008 was ATI".    But the fact remains none of the companies wear angels' gowns.

And yes, there still is no contest for this statement: "So what, if they rebadged it as long as they're not cheating the consumers by asking them to pay more" ?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 6, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> can we stop with the jokes they are not funny.
> 
> - Christine



that photoshop pic was pretty amusing.


More or less, its somewhat dirty - but they already did it with the 8800GT -> 9600GT (with a few minor changes) and ATI did it with the x38x0 cards (again with minor changes)

I guess its just how things are.

You have to agree tho, the 8800GS was a great value card that really failed due to no one knowing about it. - and its only $30 more for the 9600GT now. needs a relaunch and a price drop.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 6, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Come off it. HyperZ II and AGP 3.0 were merely marketing instruments to sell the same old wine (R200) with the same elementary specifications (and GPU parameters) in a new bottle (Radeon 9100) So it pretty much was a rebadge.
> 
> Bite on the logic, rebadging GPU's is something both companies have done in the past. I'm sure there's a better example than the R200, I just have to look.
> 
> ...



That entire post is flawed.  Truth remains that both 8500LE and 9100 were different.  However, we will agree to disagree on the fact that such practices are wrong.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 6, 2008)

Oh, and the GeForce 4 MX 4000 (which essentially had AGP 3.0 compliancy) wasn't a rebadge . 8500 LE and 9100 were identical to the point where they were the same R200 core with the same clocks, same GPU / memory parameters. With maybe just the HyperZ II and AGP 3.0 thrown in...so the 9100 is a rebadge of the 8500 LE. And yes it did exist as a discrete GPU though it was used as an IGP. 

Agree that such practices are wrong (if they're rebadging something and asking you and me to pay more). Disagree that ATI have stayed clean and never rebadged their GPU's. That's not a double negative, neither companies have stayed clean on this issue.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 6, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> difference being, is when ATI rebrand a product, they at least make _some_ changes to the card
> 
> X1600 used the RV530 GPU
> X1650 used the RV535 GPU
> ...




No they didn't change anything.  The x1600Pro and x1650 both use the RV530.  The only difference between the two was that ATi upped the memory clock on the x1650 by a whole 10MHz.  It is 100% exactly like what nVidia is doing now.  The x1600Pro was never going to sell as the x1600Pro with the x1650 series out, so they just renamed it so it would sell.  The rest of the x1650 series used RV535, but the basic x1650 used RV530 still, they didn't even change the PCB design.  I wasn't talking about entire series of cards, I named two specific cards, do your research.  Also, the DDR2 x1650Pro's were rebanded DDR2 x1600XT's both using the RV530.



choppy said:


> not everyone understands whats underneath the heatsink, some will just follow whatever the highest number is and buy it, nvidia picked up on that and just exploited it, like the whole 9 series to date lol



And the whole 3800 series to date, again I didn't see you complain when ATi did it and I don't see you making the same comments about ATi.  Why?  My guess: Fanboy.

Anyone that buys computer parts based entirely on the number printed on it deserves to get ripped off.  There is no excuse for not doing your research before buying computer parts.

I don't really care that ATi does it, and I don't care that nVidia does it.  I'm just pointing out that both of them have done it, do do it, and will continue to do it.  If you are going to bash one for doing it, bash the other, otherwise you are a hypocrit and a fanboy.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 6, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> No they didn't change anything.  The x1600Pro and x1650 both use the RV530.  The only difference between the two was that ATi upped the memory clock on the x1650 by a whole 10MHz.  It is 100% exactly like what nVidia is doing now.  The x1600Pro was never going to sell as the x1600Pro with the x1650 series out, so they just renamed it so it would sell.  The rest of the x1650 series used RV535, but the basic x1650 used RV530 still.



he is correct, it was the XT model that had the different core.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 6, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> After showing you the differences between both they are clearly not the same arch. rebadge.  The only company in the discrete GPU market in 2008 that has done this is Nvidia.  No excuse found in some other company years ago justify this practice.  Wrong is still wrong and just because a few think wrong is right doesn't make it right.



Yep, lets just limit it to 2008, it doesn't matter that it has happened in the past, ignore that, just focus on 2008.  If you just look at 2008 a lot of things look a lot better.

We aren't talking years ago, we are talking one generation of cards ago.  ATi just did it the last generation.  The x1650 came out Feb of 07, just just over a year ago ATi did exactly the same thing nVidia is doing today.  We aren't talking ancient history here like you seem to want to make everything think.

And what about ATi's move with the RV370.  It is best known as the core used in the x300.  However, what did they do, they also used it in the x1K series in the x1050.  Doesn't seem like that big of a deal, right?  In fact the x1050 probably seemed like a great buy to the avarage consumer, the people you guys seem to want to say nVidia is trying to trick here.  The x1050 had a 400MHz core clock, just like the x300, but the memory clock was 333MHz vs. the 250MHz clock of the x300.  Seems like a great improvement for the consumer, right?  Except they slashed the memory bus to 64-bit effectively making the x1050 perform a lot worse than the x300 despite the higher clock speeds.  Now that is a shady trick to try and fool the consumer if I have ever seen one, or at least one that is far worse than what nVidia is doing now.


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 6, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> No they didn't change anything.  The x1600Pro and x1650 both use the RV530.  The only difference between the two was that ATi upped the memory clock on the x1650 by a whole 10MHz.  It is 100% exactly like what nVidia is doing now.  The x1600Pro was never going to sell as the x1600Pro with the x1650 series out, so they just renamed it so it would sell.  The rest of the x1650 series used RV535, but the basic x1650 used RV530 still, they didn't even change the PCB design.  I wasn't talking about entire series of cards, I named two specific cards, do your research.  Also, the DDR2 x1650Pro's were rebanded DDR2 x1600XT's both using the RV530.



Sorry, but it was a little hard to discern from your initial post if you were talking about the series as a whole, or two specific cards - you mentioned the X1650, and without a suffix we all tend to assume that would be the whole 1650 series;

But, like I stated before - the X1600 PRO used the RV530 core, the X1650 might have run the RV530 right off the back, but it wasn't long after release that they changed to the RV535.  Besdides, the release of the X1650 XT was very shortly after the initial release of the X1650, and considering those cards were running the RV560, the series was in need of a change, hence X1600 -> X1650.

Is there a major difference between the two cores?  No, not at all.  It's a ide shrink and a slight boost to the MEM clocks.

And how could the X1650 PROs be rebranded as the X1600XTs?  The X1600 XT was released before the introduction of the X1650 PRO.   Asides from, IIRC, the X1600 XT used GDDR3 whereas the X1650 PRO used GDDR2.





Anyhow, I'm not saying ATI isn't guilty of rebadging stuff down the line - but they make slight changes to the card itself, or have something new in the works when they do it.  nVidia typically doesn't.

But the fact of the matter - nVidia decided to rebrand the card.  It's out in the open, there's nothing shady about it.  That's their deal.  It's up to the customer to decide if the rebadge bothers them or not.  Personally, I could care less - I don't think it's crooked or shady of nVidia.  Now, if they had done the rebadge and kept secretive about it, that'd be a different story; but they didn't . . .


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 6, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> Sorry, but it was a little hard to discern from your initial post if you were talking about the series as a whole, or two specific cards - you mentioned the X1650, and without a suffix we all tend to assume that would be the whole 1650 series;
> 
> But, like I stated before - the X1600 PRO used the RV530 core, the X1650 might have run the RV530 right off the back, but it wasn't long after release that they changed to the RV535.  Besdides, the release of the X1650 XT was very shortly after the initial release of the X1650, and considering those cards were running the RV560, the series was in need of a change, hence X1600 -> X1650.
> 
> ...



The standard x1650 always used the RV530, AFAIK it never switched to the RV535.  The x1650XT was a completely different beast and has nothing to do with it.  The series was in need of a change, but that has nothing to do with it either, the fact is that the rebadged the x1600Pro as the x1650.  Nothing was changed with the cards, they even used the same PCBs.  As for the x1600 series to x1650 series, yeah for the most part there was a die shrink and the renaming was justified, I agree with that.  However, rebading the old RV530 x1600Pro's as an x1650 was exactly what nVidia is doing now, and most likely for the same reasons.

You also to my post confused.  The x1650 Pro was not rebranded as x1600XT.  The GDDR2 x1600XT's were renamed to x1650 Pros.  The x1650Pro's that had GDDR2 were originally x1600XT's that had GDDR2.  Yes, both used GDDR2, and both used the RV530.  The x1600XT again wouldn't sell as the x1600XT once the x1650 series was out, and the rebranded the x1600XT.  The x1600XT became the x1650Pro.


----------



## vampire622003 (Apr 6, 2008)

wolf said:


> this is dumb, all its done is given the ATi fanboys something to bitch about, good on you guys, i guess you need to pick on every little thing nvidia does since theyve been whooping ATi for over a year.
> 
> like has been already pointed out, the name on the heatsink doesn't mean dick, its whats under the heatsink that counts, and this card is a proven excellent price/performance budget gamer, so whats the problem?
> 
> ...


Wow. You have Nvidia printed all over you don't you? OWNED.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 6, 2008)

Shall we just say........ both have done it????....whoever it is, most of us think it's wrong and misleading,  At least on this one occasion, the culprit actually made a statement about their intent, still does not make it right though!


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 6, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Shall we just say........ both have done it????....whoever it is, most of us think it's wrong and misleading,  At least on this one occasion, the culprit actually made a statement about their intent, still does not make it right though!



I completely agree - both have done it before.  Most manufacturers do it.  I don't know anyone that doesn't do it . . . It's good to be the king.


Anyhow, the info is out in the open - let the consumers decide.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 6, 2008)

Agreed, both have done it, both with most likely continue to do it.  At least the info is out in the open, it is up to the customer to do their research before buying, just like with all products these days.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 6, 2008)

and its not like the cards crap either, price depending its actually quite good.


----------



## Kursah (Apr 6, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Agreed, both have done it, both with most likely continue to do it.  At least the info is out in the open, it is up to the customer to do their research before buying, just like with all products these days.



Exactly right man...and you know most of the pissing and moaning could be resolved if people would spend a little more time researching and understanding what products have what features, abilities and such. Sure things could be easier with fewer models and such for gaming, but that's why there's consoles...for those that don't want to research...or $5-$10k pre-built gaming rigs...

I could care less about the name change here...move some product, improve support and performance via newer driver releases in the future, have consumers in forums like this show it's oc-able and does a great job for the price, and happens to be close to the top, if not on top of W1Z's Price/Performance Chart (8800GS)...so now it's a 9600GSO, maybe it should've been that in the first place (if the GT was released a tad earlier or something)...it's pricing should prove it's a great value and it should get the job done. The corporate naming end I could care less about, like you said Newtekie...it's about what's under the cooler, what it's capable of...names are meaningless, if they think it's gonna help em' sell the rest of their stock..they might as well do it!


----------



## candle_86 (Apr 7, 2008)

thank god yall finally stopped arguing about it.

As for who would want the 8800GS to that fellow a page back, many people do, also it can tie an 8800GTS 320 so it does deserve the name of 8800. That would be like saying the 7900GS didnt deserve to be called a 7900GS beause it wasnt as fast as the other cards. Or the 1950pro wasnt a 1900 card because it was slower. It is 100% faster than the 8600GTS, can be oced to god awful levels if you know what your doing, and is a fair match for the 9600GT. At 119 on newegg compared to 149 for the 9600GT ill take the 8800GS. Never before has so much power been so cheap.


----------



## mdm-adph (Apr 7, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Agreed, both have done it, both with most likely continue to do it.  At least the info is out in the open, it is up to the customer to do their research before buying, just like with all products these days.


If it was that easy for consumers to do their own research, a magazine like Consumer Reports wouldn't be so successful.  Companies sometimes bury this information deeper than any normal consumer can even find out.

That being said, this card should've been in the 9000 series to begin with.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 7, 2008)

It is easy for consumers to do their own research, and Consumer Reports is one of the resources that makes it easy, the internet is another.  There are review sites for practically every bit electronic item out there.  There are review sites for TVs, DVD players, laptops, Desktops, computer components, etc.


----------



## webwizard (Apr 7, 2008)

Seems like the 384 version is easier to find than the 768. Here is a review of the Palit versions.

http://en.expreview.com/2008/01/21/review-palit-8800gs-384mb-768mb/


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 7, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> If it was that easy for consumers to do their own research, a magazine like Consumer Reports wouldn't be so successful.  Companies sometimes bury this information deeper than any normal consumer can even find out.
> 
> That being said, this card should've been in the 9000 series to begin with.



Consumer Reports, while for the masses can be a great tool - all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt . . . especially if they're basing their feedback on what consumers actually have said.  I have seen quite a few different reviews of things that are so far off as to not even be right; especially with the automotive guides (i.e. giving an overall rating of a 1999 Grand Am as being "poor", and then rating a 2000 Grand Am as "above average" when there is no mechanical, electrical or any major differences between the two years).

Then again, anyone that's wise in doing research on consumer goods should take all points of view with an aire of skepticism.


----------

