Tatty_OneShall 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.

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.

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

newtekie1Agreed, 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!

:toast:

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.

newtekie1Agreed, 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. :laugh:

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.

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

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

mdm-adphIf 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. :laugh:

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.