Should I Return My EVGA GTX 670 FTW Signature 2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
limitedaccess said:
The Geforce 4 series were no rebranded Geforce 3s.

After teh release of the Geforce 3 Nvidia later refreshed the product line with a higher clocked Ti 500 variant and lower clocked Ti 200 variant with a Geforce 2 Ti (a higher clocked GTS/Pro) as their product line.

The Geforce 4 was launched with the higher end products lines being Ti separated by numbers (eg. 4200) and a lower end product line using MX. Both were different chips then the Geforce 3s.
Click to expand...

I think the NV20 (3) was pretty similar to the NV25 (4XXX Ti) with higher clocks and memory speeds with a couple other things thrown in (as in not necessarily a full architecture change). I could be wrong though.
 
vallonen said:
And your point would be exactly what? Are you trying to infer that the amount of years as a member automatically dictates the level of knowledge?
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but in this case it seems to be true :p.

I've shown my case. You have not.

Please, do give me data on how many times nVidia has used the "Ti" nomenclature to label a "refresh" series. Now compare it to the number of times that they did not.
Then report back with your findings.

I gave you data and a link. I showed how few times they've used the Ti to label refreshes. Please show me why you think it's more typical for nVidia to use "Ti" to identify a refresh.
 
Take the argument to PM and stop crapping up the mans thread
 
kirbyrj said:
I think the NV20 (3) was pretty similar to the NV25 (4XXX Ti) with higher clocks and memory speeds with a couple other things thrown in (as in not necessarily a full architecture change). I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

This may depend on how you look at things but chip design in general is rather iterative (Kepler for instance is far from a full redesign of Fermi as well, less so than AMD moving to GCN for instance). I would think though if you have changes required at the fab level beyond process improvements and die shrinks then it should be considered beyond a rebrand at this point.

This is in contrast to The GTX 680->GTX 770, and risking entering that argument :p, whose changes the AIB partners themselves could have done in terms of end result. Or better yet the 8800gt->9800gt (65nm) :p
 
I don't know what the problem is. GTX 670 + 100 = GTX 770. Just like GTX + Titan = GTX Titan which also coincidentally explains why we didn't see a Titan from nVidia earlier.
 
A member asked me source the statement I made when I said that the GTX 770 was a rebranded GTX 670, and NOT a rebranded GTX 680, which he claimed (funnily enough he has since removed his post, I suppose he finally did his research lol) Anyways, here's for his benefit. Straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24RqCK_Rhes
 
vallonen said:
A member asked me source the statement I made when I said that the GTX 770 was a rebranded GTX 670, and NOT a rebranded GTX 680, which he claimed (funnily enough he has since removed his post, I suppose he finally did his research lol) Anyways, here's for his benefit. Straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24RqCK_Rhes
Click to expand...
you are still at it? first off that is ASUS not Nvidia. second his own words say its a refresh that is a replacement for the 670. that simply means the 770 will take the place of 670 in the 7 series just like the 670 took the place of the 570 in the 6 series. its NOT a rebrand of the 670 though. do you even know what rebrand means? it means giving a different name to the same basic gpu. the gpu that the 770 uses is from the 680 and has no disabled features like the 670 does. the 760 will be a rebrand of the 670 though. now please stop making a fool of yourself as even a mod asked you to quit.
 
The gtx 770 is a rebranded gtx 680, with improved memory chips and slightly higher clock speeds. This is a fact.

Anywhoo, if you are currently using a 670, 680, 7950, or 7970, the gtx 770 is not a worthy upgrade.
 
cannondale06 said:
now please stop making a fool of yourself as even a mod asked you to quit.
Click to expand...
The mod wasn't asking specifically me to quit, he was adressing all involved in he discussion. I, however, was the one recognizing it, and consecuently responded to him.

Perhaps you should start pay better attention?
 
Last edited:
vallonen said:
The mod wasn't asking me to quit, he was adressing all involved in he discussion. I, however, was the one recognizing it, and consecuently responded to him.

Perhaps you should start pay better attention?
Click to expand...
YOU were the one that started the nonsense in this thread that he is referring to that should be taken to PM. and funny how YOU resurrect your foolish nonsensical argument with a link that once again shows YOU are the one who cant pay attention. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top