NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS Rebranded to 9600 GSO

[imperialreign]

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]

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]

^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]

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]

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_Two]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[EastCoasthandle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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" ?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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