That said, again we find the 7950GT outperforming the lower half of the 8000 series, and the upper 8000s easily besting the lower half of the 9000 spectrum. The GTX 200s are pretty high up there, but still fall short to one of their predecessors (9800GX2).
Memory Clock Speed (in MHz, higher is better)
7300GT 512MB: 532
7600GS 256MB: 700
7950GT 512MB: 1400
8400GS 512MB: 532
8500GT 512MB: 800
8600GT 512MB: 1400
8800GT 512MB: 1800
9500GT 512MB: 1600
9600GSO 768MB: 1600
9600GT 512MB: 1800
9800GT 512MB: 1800
9800GTX 512MB: 2200
9800GX2 1024MB: 2000
GTX 260 896MB: 2000
GTX 280 1024MB: 2214
Memory clock speed determines how quickly information can be moved into (from the game engine) and out of (to your screen) the dedicated memory on the video card. Faster is better. If the model number sequence was logical, then the 7300GT and 8400GS wouldn't be identical in this category, the 7950GT shouldn't be trouncing the bulk of the 8000 series, and the 8800GT wouldn't top or match all but the most elite 9000 series cards.
Memory Bandwidth (in GB/sec, higher is better)
7300GT 512MB: 8.51
7600GS 256MB: 12.8
7950GT 512MB: 44.8
8400GS 512MB: 4.26
8500GT 512MB: 12.8
8600GT 512MB: 22.4
8800GT 512MB: 57.6
9500GT 512MB: 25.6
9600GSO 768MB: 38.4
9600GT 512MB: 57.6
9800GT 512MB: 57.6
9800GTX 512MB: 70.4
9800GX2 1024MB: 128
GTX 260 896MB: 111.9
GTX 280 1024MB: 141.69
Memory bandwidth is a reflection of the memory speed (see above) combined with the total memory on the card. Obviously cards with more memory should perform better, but you also need to consider the memory clock speed which, as we've seen, doesn't consistently improve as the model numbers go higher. This makes for some spectacular variations in how much information the memory is capable of moving at any given second (bear in mind, more bandwidth leads to smoother framerates and performance).
The numbers speak for themselves, but particularly consider the fact that the 7600GS has half the memory of the 8400GS, yet yields three times more memory bandwidth. Again we see the 7950GT decimating the 8000 series until we get to the 8800GT, which then proceeds to pummel or equal the 9000 series up to the pricier 9800s. This is one area where the GTX 200s shine, though the first in the series falls slightly to the numbers the 9800GX2 is putting up.
A clear trend is emerging here, but it's invisible to a consumer who doesn't do their homework and check it twice; that is, if they know they need to do it in the first place. I spend about 40 hours of my life each week trying to explain to puzzled computer users why their Geforce 8400s and 8500s perform on a level inferior to the card they upgraded FROM.
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.