Shopping for a video card has never been simple. At any given time, the companies that make these gaming necessities tend to inundate the market with far more makes and models than anyone could reasonably need. This makes it tedious and confusing for consumers to sift through and find the particular one they actually need, but at least things used to move in a fairly linear fashion. A Voodoo3 was better than a Voodoo2, and the Voodoo3 3000 beat the Voodoo3 2000 across the boards.
Things have changed. Nvidia has taken to developing the best and most powerful chipset first, releasing it, then working backwards toward more budget-conscious revisions with a fraction of the capabilities that can't even match the performance of mid-grade cards from the previous generation. With the release of the 9500GT continuing this trend, I can't keep my mouth shut any longer.
Let's look at some numbers, but first bear in mind that no single specification alone will make a video card sink or swim. Differences in hardware and software configurations, as well as which drivers and operating system you use can all affect overall performance.
Note: for the sake of fair comparison, I'll be referring to basic editions of each card, like the GS, GT, or GTX, as opposed to modified AKIMBO, SSC, or SuperClocked versions. Also, all cards are in the Geforce family, but I'm only using model numbers for simplicity. (Thanks to EVGA.com and NewEgg.com for the specs!)
GPU Clock Speed (in MHz, higher is better)
7300GT 512MB: 350
7600GS 256MB: 400
7950GT 512MB: 550
8400GS 512MB: 459
8500GT 512MB: 459
8600GT 512MB: 540
8800GT 512MB: 600
9500GT 512MB: 550
9600GSO 768MB: 550
9600GT 512MB: 650
9800GT 512MB: 600
9800GTX 512MB: 675
9800GX2 1024MB: 600
GTX 260 896MB: 576
GTX 280 1024MB: 602
Based on the graphics processor speed (how fast the entire rendering process runs), the 7600GS runs almost as fast as the 8400GS and 8500GT, with the 7950GT beating the entire 8000 series save for the husky 8800GT, and equaling the two lowest entries in the 9000 series. The 8800GT, 9800GT, 9800GTX, and 9800GX2 even match or outperform both entries in the pricey GTX 200 series thus far.
Processing Cores/Pixel Pipelines (more is better)
7300GT 512MB: 8
7600GS 256MB: 12
7950GT 512MB: 24
8400GS 512MB: 16
8500GT 512MB: 16
8600GT 512MB: 32
8800GT 512MB: 112
9500GT 512MB: 32
9600GSO 768MB: 96
9600GT 512MB: 64
9800GT 512MB: 112
9800GTX 512MB: 128
9800GX2 1024MB: 256
GTX 260 896MB: 192
GTX 280 1024MB: 240
Processing cores/pipelines are similar to how primary CPUs are going multi-core now, and are analogous to roadways. You have a two-lane narrow country road, you can't get much traffic down it quickly. In this category would be the 7300GT, 8400GS, and 8500GT. Add a few lanes and you have a freeway, which can move more traffic (or process and render graphical data) more efficiently. The 7950GT, 8600GT, 9500GT, and 9600GT make up the freeways. Then come the huge, wide-open interstates that can move enormous amounts of traffic with very little effort. Here you'd be referring to the 8800GT and virtually all of the 9800s.
Article comments
1 - Joe
Every other hardware manufacturer does exactly the same thing. When Sony releases a series of video cameras they will call then something like the 110, the 120 and 130. All being similar in features but having more or less zoom etc. The next generation of those same cameras will be the 210, 220, and 230. Thing each generation may not be that different so a 130 may be better than a 210 or 220.
Companies do this because each generation they want to give a low, middle and high end card. The old high end cards will never reach the price of current middle/low end cards because retailers need to cover the initial production cost even if the current low end cards are faster.
I can sit here and explain supply and demand for you all day though and you will probably still say that the naming convention confuses you.
2 - Rob
This writer admits
'What's more, the 8000 and 9000 series cards are being touted as "Capable of running media requiring DirectX 10" (exclusive to Vista), and being "recommended" for running the more demanding OS.'
yet forgets the importance of newer features that come with newer standards and are supported only in newer cards. Just try playing DX10 games on older cards that don't support it. Hardware manufacturers need to move forward unlike this guy who thinks backwards. Its good that guys like these don't run chip companies.
3 - Mike
I find this a bit amusing. Of course this is how it works. I wouldn't expect otherwise. Honestly, if that first number in a video card's model designation wasn't there, or was somewhere else, I'd have less of an idea of what tech level the product was at, at first glance. That first number isn't really supposed to represent power at all- it represents technology. More recent generations represent more advanced electronics; more energy- and heat-efficient chips, better support for programming libraries (DirectX and OpenGL)... (and there's plenty of arguments I'd have lined up in favor of the current general trend in numbering, but I'd be ranting for multiple paragraphs. All I've had a complaint with has been the 'GT' and 'GTX' and 'GS' and 'GSO' or whatever the myriad of suffixes are, and both ATI and Nvidia seem to have dropped them thankfully)
Really, I'd most expect an enthusiast to upgrade every generation than an average consumer, and the enthusiast is going to know the model numbers inside and out. The consumer shouldn't need an upgrade any more frequent than every other generation (every three generations would be ideal), and at that point the difference in generations should be significant enough to not have any problems of 'why is my new card worse than my old card?'
4 - Adam
Nvidia has already admitted that they created confusion with the naming scheme, and they are switching to a new one. Hence the GTX 260/280.
5 - Mark Buckingham
@Joe...It doesn't confuse ME, it just makes less sense than the older method of linear progression did. It confuses average customers who would expect such a progression, and can't understand (as I said) why their new video card underperforms the one they upgraded from.
@Rob...I didn't forget anything. I've known for a long time that the 8000 series was a step forward (DX10) but also a step back (half the processing cores, 128-bit as opposed to 256-bit, etc.). But saying both the 8400 and 8800 are DX10 cards sort of implies comparable performance to the novice user. Then go try running Crysis on both of them and see how huge the gap really is. Speaking of, as a DX10 game, I ran Crysis pretty well on a Geforce 7950GT, start to finish. I didn't turn on all the DX10 crap, but then again, I knew it wouldn't have worked anyway, so why bother. Amusingly, Crysis Warhead is rumored to be able to achieve similar visual luster, but with lower specs and not even relying on DX10 this time around (though I'm sure it will be there in some form or another). I also don't see the point of saying "Its [sic] good that guys like these don't run chip companies." I'm suggesting a more linear, less confusing, more consumer-friendly numbering sequence. How would that screw up a chip company? By getting them better sales from more informed purchases? Yeah, god forbid.
@Mike...the people I deal with day in and day out are not enthusiasts, they're casual gamers, and it's clear that the average consumer has no idea what they're getting in this realm. Is that partially their fault? Of course; do some research before you drop $100 on something. But in the interest of doing better business, making a little more sense right on the box would help both Nvidia and their consumer base. Given the volume of people I deal with who simply can't grasp the idea that a higher number doesn't mean better performance, it's not my imagination. People aren't getting it.
@Adam...agreed, the GTX series should help, and so far it makes sense. We'll see what they do with it from here. Personally, I'm glad they didn't go into the 10k series instead.
6 - doug
"Memory bandwidth is a reflection of the memory speed (see above) combined with the total memory on the card."
Ummm... no. Memory bandwidth (actually you mean memory throughput, bandwidth is something else) is determined by memory speed, bus size, and memory type (e.g. ddr2 samples twice as many times per clock cycle as ddr hence the higher "bandwidth"). Please correct your article, Thanks.
7 - King
generation 9 is just an upgrade of generation 8 in terms of every single model. We can not say that every single 9000 chip is better than any 8000 chip. Moreover, the price for 8800 is obviously much higher than 9200, right? In car industry, we can just see "xxx" model 2008 or "yyy" model 2007. Generally, we can tell which one is better by the model name rather than the year because folks are familiar with vehicles!
8 - Mark Buckingham
@doug...yes, DDR2 vs DDR3 makes some difference, but we're working solely with the specs available here, and these specs and headers are taken straight from the sites I credited. If there's a discrepancy in terminology, talk to them. But as far as "performace" differences, it seems like a moot point; the numbers speak for themselves.