For those that are again shrilling hysterically "Charlie's got it wrong again OMG!!!
" try putting aside your stupid anti Charlie bias for once and understand what he's telling you.
Yes, he's correct here, the parts should have been called the 67xx range, it's really bloody obvious. They are mid-range for the
new generation so should have a 67xx number to fit in with the logical numbering scheme that AMD created some time back now and the detailed explanation is all in the article, so I won't repeat it here.
This is marketing bullshit from AMD and the only thing less bad here is that AMD haven't done quite such a hatchet job as nvidia or Intel.
The parts should have been called the 6700 series IF they didn't change the whole system. Except they did. More accurately, they're "going back to where they came from". the x800 series being the high end in any generation is a recent development.
In 2005 they firmly established a comprehensive naming scheme with the X1000 series. X1300 + suffix--->X1400 + suffix--->X1600 + suffix --->X1800 + suffix--->X1900 + suffix.
The next generation was the first "HD" generation, and the x300 and x800 series were skipped. HD 2400 + suffix--->HD 2600 + suffix--->HD 2900 + suffix.
The "x800 series as high end" scheme started with the HD 3000 series. HD 3400 (3450, 3470)--->HD 3600 (3650, 3690) --->HD 3800 (3850, 3870, 3870X2). This is also the generation wherein ATi opted for a dual-gpu solution as their "ultimate" card in the series, instead of focusing on making a single-gpu as the "top-of-the-series".
The HD 4000 series saw the proliferation of more cards. HD 4300 (4350)--->HD 4500 (4550)--->HD 4600 (4650, 4670)--->HD 4700 (4770)--->HD 4800 (4830, 4850, 4870, 4890, 4870X2).
The HD 5000 series followed the scheme but "spreading out" the cards even more among the "groupings" to avoid clumping (i.e. the 4800 series with 5 cards). Thus the 5700 now has more than one card (and this would only be the 2nd time there is an x700 series) while the dual-gpu solution was moved to another group (HD 5900) as the 5970.
Now this final point is what boggles me. There weren't really any "violent reactions" towards the 5970's naming. Some even says it's for the better as the "X2" gets dropped. Yet when the 6000 comes wherein the x900 series would be used more (i.e. like in the X1900 and HD 2900 series which obviously predates HD 3800 and HD 4800 series as the "high-end") it's met with downright animosity.
It's quite apparent that using the x900 series in the HD 5000 generation had more than one reason; the HD 6000 generation is already in development even in the preceding months of it's predecessor's launch. The widening of the cards through all the series numbers to avoid the clumping in the x800 series that happened with the 4800's is enough of a sign that this shouldn't have come as a surprise, or done in a whim just a few weeks before launch date.
The existence of the HD 5970 should have been a "flag" already that the top of the line would be the x900 series (again). Of course this would mean that everything else would get a "step down". But if this 6000 series' comprehensive naming scheme would also mean the elimination of a "full" series used with just one card (4500 "series", 4700 "series", 5900 "series", 5500 "series", 5600 "series") and avoiding "clusters" of numerous cards into one grouping (4800 series with 5 cards, 5800 series with 3), it would be for the better.
I would venture a guess that the 6000 generation would still be similar to the 3000/4000 series in naming, with a "wider coverage" through various series. Thus: HD 6400--->HD 6600--->HD 6700 (6750, 6770) --->HD 6800 (6850, 6870)--->HD 6900 (6950, 6970, 6990?).