Tell me...why did they skip the gtx 800 series?
>>54804186
They didn't skip it, it was mobile/laptop only.
saged
>>54804206
it was skipped for desktop, then. Explain this.
>>54804230
They didn't have a new architecture to deploy yet, and fuck knows why else. Go ask Nvidia.
Who the fuck cares, anyway? It's not like they missed a series because of it, they just named the newer ones differently.
>>54804257
Why would you skip a major incremental number is what I'm asking?
>>54804290
Some times they release a few OEM rebrands.
For example you can't find a 320 in a retail box, buy you can find it in a prebuilt.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-340-oem
>>54804290
Because 800 series was still Kepler, you fucktard, and they released those chips for mobile only. It wouldn't make sense to name the new Maxwell chips after 800 as well, it would only cause confusion, because then you'd have mobile Kepler chips and desktop Maxwell chips, all belonging to the same 800 series.
>>54804348
That doesnt make any sense, retard. They say that they skipped 800 purposefully so they could get to 1080 1-2 years earlier for marketing purposes and this is the ONLY reason
>>54804372
That's a lot of bold statements on what Nvidia said there, care to source them? You can't, because they never fully disclosed why they did it. Neither will they do it now.
800 series is mobile chips only, and is Kepler architecture. Then, they got Maxwell ready, and they weren't going to name it 800 again, for obvious reasons, and went to 900. It's as simple as that.
>>54804441
>care to source them?
>>54804441
Isn't the 1000 series just Maxwell again, though?
>>54804534
1/3 pascal
>>54804534
Even if Pascal is Maxwell on steroids, it's still a differently named architecture. 800 series was Kepler, there was no new addition to it, neither did they rename it.
>>54804186
they skipped it because a lot of windows drivers code had 8* in it for windows 8 so they couldnt use that number
>>54804710
Thats not the reason. They already have 8800 cards. I still have one
>>54804186
Real question is whether the next cards will come out on 10nm or 7nm. Basically are we in tick tock for 14/16nm or tick tock tock like 28nm?
>>54804186
because seven and nine eight
>>54804186
AMD did it too. Its typically because the numbers '88' trigger jews. Thanks KKK.
>>54806015
You're not making any sense anon
>>54804186
Ask my GTX 850M.
>>54804230
My bet is the 8800 was such a success they didn't wanna gamble on fucking it up new hardware
They said their cards were so amazing 800 series would have been an understatement, marketing for nvidiots basically
i asked this myself the other day but who gives a shit really
>>54804186
Why did they skip the 300 series?
>>54807104
300 was too low a number they said.
Personally I think it's Linux's fault
My problem is that the 800 series is mobile and the 700 series has no mobile. Why isn't the 860M just called a 760m? We could have gotten a GTX 880 Ti (The now called GTX 980 Ti).
>>54806136
Isnt that overthinking it a little bit too much? I'll see if they skip the 14xx if it ever comes
>>54807173
Heil!
>>54807173
Wrong,My laptop has a gt750m
>>54807152
But they did 200?
Also I don't remember a 100...
>>54804441
It think 800 series was Maxwell
>>54807173
There was a 700 series for mobile. Kepler cards.
