Here is a thought

Nvidia has just launched the 9 series but its really the 8 series with a few small changes so nothing new. Its a slight of hand to generate more sales from the eight series before the true next generation GPU is released. When will Nvidia launch the true next generation GPU.

Whats the point of buying a 9 series card which is a tinkered with 8 series when the true next generation GPU is just around the corner. I have read Nvidia will have do something or fall behind AMD/ATI because AMD next GPU will be a advance on what AMD supply now and it will be the first true AMD GPU since the take over. It will be interesting to see AMD can take over from Nvidia or will Nvidia pull a rabbit out of the hat spoil AMD hopes.


Pot

 

Not entirely true on the "tinkering". Most products like these are still considered major improvements despite being a true "next gen" architecture or not. ATi/AMD has done this in the past as well with their 9500 -> 9600, x600 -> x1600, x700 ->x1700 where it was just a simple "tinkering" in your terms but proved to be major part of the evolution of their mobile solutions.

The 9500 series is a die-shrink reduction of the GPU core, which concentrates on TDP/Power usage and heat issues. These are considered major improvement in notebook/mobile graphic architecture. Infact, in general, notebooks released with the 8600 GPU lineup were generally poor battery results compared to integrated solutions despite being on max battery saving settings. The 9500 was released to address those issues more or less.

In comparison to CPU architecture, the latest Intel Penryn processors were mainly a die-shrink on the core as well. Which allowed to yield higher clockspeeds and lower power usage. Despite the small change, it's being heralded as a major change in mobile computing and pretty much desired by users who are purchasing today.

EDIT: added CPU comment...

 

Here is quote on the 9500GS form this forum.

The Nvidia 9500M-GS and the 9650M-GS are the newest additions to this chart. They are not actually anything new, merely die shrinks of the current 8600M-GT and 8700M-GT respectively; everything else down to the clocks themselves are the exact same. They are nothing to get excited about and offer basically no performance increase over the existing cards. Why Nvidia is passing them off as a new generation is unknown.

 

In terms of performance, there might not be any difference between the Geforce 9m series and the Geforce 8m series. However, a die shrink is a pretty big change in terms of architecture, so that might be why the engineers at nVidia decided to release it as a new range. Of course, you could argue using the example of the G92 8800GTS, but who knows what's going on in the minds of those at nVidia.
I might be able to get more info about this after the 22nd, but I suppose that no one would know unless they had some connection with nVidia.

 

The die shrinks should of allowed clock speeds increase boosting performance. What nvidia has done is fool the consumers into thinking they are getting something better than before in terms of performance and trying to pass off the GPU's as a next genration processor. How many sales people will say this is a new processor and is better than the 8600GT and 8700GT. I have already read in sales adverts the new 9500GS, 9650GS.

What we might see is a GT version of the 9650m made possible by the die shrinks and then a performance boost. but it will be pushed as a class 1 mobile GPU which is still not the step in the right direction for most users.


I believe nvidia are probably at their limits with the architecture but say a clock increase from the die shrink.

Does anybody know what nvidia's product pipeline is. I haven't read anything when to expect a replacement for the 9 series.

 

But pot I would argue they are improvements. How much well OK but are improvements. As has been said smaller and less heat, also is that SSE4 and GPU handles some functions CPU must w/8XXX's. Are you arguing they should of released as say the 8600m GT and created more confusion as to is it GDDR3 or DDR2, is it 65nm or 45? That would be more devious in my opinion. I think they have let enough time pass and used the technology that is available so that there naming convention is fine with me. I don't think an 8625m GT is any less confusing. Sometimes bigger steps sometimes smaller steps, it varies.