XFX Bilking the masses - replacing GDDR5 memory with DDR3

[TheDarkKnight]

The OP is completely at fault for not researching carefully. Referencing Wikipedia as fact is NOT research.

There was no fine print.

Non-standard cards are COMMON. Are you telling me that OP didn't look at ANY other cards and compare clockspeeds or any other features? If that is the case, then once again, the OP DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO PROPER RESEARCH. DDR3 has power advantages, so there could be a market for such a card.

Comments that "Joe Average" would be a "victim" are BS. Joe Average wouldn't be buying a discrete card to upgrade. Anyone that would actually make such an upgrade and have the basic skills necessary to do so should AT LEAST have the basic ability to PROPERLY research a video card.

Final point. OP has no one to be upset with but himself/herself.

*sigh* Another person who decided to comment after reading the first few messages of a 200+ post thread. Yes, for the 3rd time its my fault. *sigh*

 

[Keysplayr]

I wonder if you would be as upset and vocal if XFX was still an Nvidia partner. Somehow, I doubt that.

This is how your mind works. Not mine.

 

[Madcatatlas]

The GDDR3 6670 should have been called 6670SE (teh suk edition). Then all would be well. You know you're buying less of a card. The only thing separating 6670's that Taltimar linked to is a 3 and a 5 after GDDR. Easy to miss. But 6670SE is pretty much impossible to miss. No. You can all go home with these arguments. No doubt.

Your argument is that AMD should name its products the same as Nvidia does then...? lol.

What else do you think AMD should do? i mean theres no mention of AMD cards having or not having PhyXs. Perhaps that needs to be put in too, so as to inform the buyer.

Just like Newegg, most other hardware selling sites, have a simple product title description that you click to buy/put in your cart or whatever:
heres a link to the biggst Nordic seller of computer hardware:

http://www.komplett.no/k/kl.aspx?bn=10488

This is from the Pci-express videocard page. Notice product titles and the information provided.

For AMD cards the crucial points are: Product name (ie 6850) Ram type and amount (ie 1GB GDDR5)

Thats it.


Now for Nvidia cards: Product name, Ram amount, Cuda, PhysX.
in the second line, the type of ram is also mentioned. In FINER print.



"the suck edition" is reserved for nvidia cards. AMD puts in type of ram instead as a crucial point in product description.



Something to take home, eh?

 

[Keysplayr]

Something to take home, eh?

Oh yes. A lot of singing and dancing. A few smoke machines. All good.

 

[jvroig]

*sigh* Another person who decided to comment after reading the first few messages of a 200+ post thread. Yes, for the 3rd time its my fault. *sigh*

For what it is worth, I have been watching over this thread from the start, and reading almost every post (I may have missed a couple, who knows), but I still think it is more your fault than XFX or AMD.

It was clearly labelled. I see similar things everyday, even from my favorite brick&mortar PC store's components pricelist. They quite clearly designate which are DDR3 vs 5, and there is a noticeable price difference between similar models with differing memory specs.

I do not say you have no right to feel upset over it. Since this is your first time to discover it, and it has caused you some inconvenience, feeling upset is understandable - even normal. But that you would go ahead to say XFX is somehow ripping off consumers is going too far in my opinion. They are providing cheaper alternatives. They clearly label it. What else do you want them to do? They can't conduct a free session right at your own home to inform you, in 2011, that DDR3 will naturally be slower than DDR5 and may affect performance beyond what is an acceptable performance hit to you for the price. For marketing reasons (do you want them to fold?) they also can't put a banner saying "Warning: This is slower than DDR5 version!". So they did all they can do - they used slower memory, then labelled it as such, then sold it for less, supposedly to cater to more price sensitive buyers.

I can understand your frustration, OP, and not everyone here has been holding your hand (I would say, 50/50, so all in all, still good stats for you ), but AIB's have been providing slightly cheaper versions using slower RAM for a time now. Sometimes it gets in a review (there are reviews that specify the possible memory specs AIBs can use, like 512 or 1GB, and DDR3 or DDR5 for a certain model), sometimes it doesn't (not to mention, some reviews are more thorough than others).

I understand you OP. But this isn't XFX (or AMD, or nVidia, or Sapphire, or PowerColor, or EVGA, or MSI, or Gigabyte, or Palit, or [any other AIB]) ripping people off. It's just you learning a valuable lesson, and just in time before it becomes an even bigger headache (can you imagine if you learned this after you've been using your card for 2 months?), and you still end up on top. Except for wanting to blame XFX, it sounds like an overall positive experience since it taught you something about videocards without suffering a permanent, unwanted performance hit.

 

[happy medium]

I understand you OP. But this isn't XFX (or AMD, or nVidia, or Sapphire, or PowerColor, or EVGA, or MSI, or Gigabyte, or Palit, or [any other AIB]) ripping people off.

I think the OP and his many supporters understand he made a mistake and its not just a XFX, Nvidia, AMD issue, but there is a bigger issue thats still being argued.

That bigger issue is whether this kind of business practice should still be practiced and not be scrutinized?

1. Was the OP totally at fault for his mistake?

I would say no.

2. Why review the fastest products with the same model number and change the product so drastically and not have a single review published, not change the suffix of the model # or any sort of announcement given?

I would say to make money off the uniformed, and in my eyes is bad business practice.

How far must a lower end consumer go to make sure hes getting the same model as product that was reviewed?

1.first was the more exspensive 2gb vs 1gb on low end cards you had to look out for but meant nothing for performance.
2. second it was what was the memory bit 32 bit, 64bit, 128 bit, 256 bit?
3. after that it was whats the difference between the SE,GT,OC,,LE, SOC ect.ect.ect
4. then it was the amount of cores the gpu had AMD vs Nvidia and why 1000 cores from AMD = 256 for Nvidia
5. now the noobs have to watch out for ddr2, ddr3, ddr5 memory types.

Whats next? How many passes in a cycle per core = performance. (vague example)

I'm sure they (these rip off artists) will find some way to get over on the uniformed customer in the future if 50% of there customers (like in this thread) say "its been that way for a while" and make it sound like its the right way to do business just because the word XFX was used.

Shame on you.

 

[Termie]

...

I do not say you have no right to feel upset over it. Since this is your first time to discover it, and it has caused you some inconvenience, feeling upset is understandable - even normal. But that you would go ahead to say XFX is somehow ripping off consumers is going too far in my opinion. They are providing cheaper alternatives. They clearly label it. What else do you want them to do? They can't conduct a free session right at your own home to inform you, in 2011, that DDR3 will naturally be slower than DDR5 and may affect performance beyond what is an acceptable performance hit to you for the price. For marketing reasons (do you want them to fold?) they also can't put a banner saying "Warning: This is slower than DDR5 version!". So they did all they can do - they used slower memory, then labelled it as such, then sold it for less, supposedly to cater to more price sensitive buyers.

You make some very good points here. But as Happy has pointed out, there's something bigger going on than just AIBs making changes to products to lower the price. It's AMD/Nvidia establishing product lines and not sticking to them. If the 6670 is going to be offered with GDDR5 and DDR3, then at the very least, every review site should be told that on launch day, and every reviewer should have the option of testing both products.

In my opinion, an HD6670 with DDR3 is not an HD6670. Why? Because it wasn't mentioned in the Anandtech review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4278/amds-radeon-hd-6670-radeon-hd-6570

In fact, that very review discusses GDDR5 versus DDR3, but in the context of other cards - the 5570/6570. Here's what it says:

"The original 5570 – and the one we continue to test today – launched with DDR3 memory. AMD did introduce a GDDR5 variant in the summer of 2010, but it never gained much traction. So compared to the 5570, the GDDR5 6570 with its 1GHz (4GHz data rate) GDDR5 has 222% the memory bandwidth of the DDR3 5570 and its 900MHz (1.8GHz data rate) RAM. Now there’s a catch in all of this: similar to how the 5570 ended up, AMD will be launching cards with both GDDR5 and DDR3. The GDDR5 cards like the one we’re reviewing today will come with 512MB of RAM, while the DDR3 cards will come with 1GB of RAM. The extra RAM has its advantages in some edge cases, but our advice always has been and remains to be that you should pick the GDDR5 versions of most video cards over the (G)DDR3 versions. The only notable downside to the GDDR5 card in this case is that GDDR5’s power consumption is much higher, which is why the GDDR5 6570 is a 60W card while the DDR3 6570 is 44W."

Now what's the problem with this? The HD6570 GDDR5 was never produced. Either Ryan Smith was lying when he wrote this, or he was duped. I have a feeling it was the latter.

And that, my friends, is the fault of AMD, not Ryan Smith, not the OP, not you or me. And that gets to the heart of the problem. AMD is shifting around (or allowing others to shift around) its product lines after launch.

If I wanted to save money by buying a cheaper card than the HD6670 GDDR5, by all means I should be able to do that. I'll buy the HD6570 or HD6450. That's why there are multi-tiered product lines in this industry. It's not like a car where you can get it equipped with a V6 or V8. We're buying the darn engine here, so we better get the engine that was advertised and reviewed.

 

[badb0y]

You make some very good points here. But as Happy has pointed out, there's something bigger going on than just AIBs making changes to products to lower the price. It's AMD/Nvidia establishing product lines and not sticking to them. If the 6670 is going to be offered with GDDR5 and DDR3, then at the very least, every review site should be told that on launch day, and every reviewer should have the option of testing both products.
Pretty sure that's a non-reference card something like HD 5870 Vapor-X. So AMD doesn't control if it gets DDR3 or GDDR5, they already have their reference design and that's what got reviewed.

In my opinion, an HD6670 with DDR3 is not an HD6670. Why? Because it wasn't mentioned in the Anandtech review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4278/amds-radeon-hd-6670-radeon-hd-6570

In fact, that very review discusses GDDR5 versus DDR3, but in the context of other cards - the 5570/6570. Here's what it says:

"The original 5570 – and the one we continue to test today – launched with DDR3 memory. AMD did introduce a GDDR5 variant in the summer of 2010, but it never gained much traction. So compared to the 5570, the GDDR5 6570 with its 1GHz (4GHz data rate) GDDR5 has 222% the memory bandwidth of the DDR3 5570 and its 900MHz (1.8GHz data rate) RAM. Now there’s a catch in all of this: similar to how the 5570 ended up, AMD will be launching cards with both GDDR5 and DDR3. The GDDR5 cards like the one we’re reviewing today will come with 512MB of RAM, while the DDR3 cards will come with 1GB of RAM. The extra RAM has its advantages in some edge cases, but our advice always has been and remains to be that you should pick the GDDR5 versions of most video cards over the (G)DDR3 versions. The only notable downside to the GDDR5 card in this case is that GDDR5’s power consumption is much higher, which is why the GDDR5 6570 is a 60W card while the DDR3 6570 is 44W."

Now what's the problem with this? The HD6570 GDDR5 was never produced. Either Ryan Smith was lying when he wrote this, or he was duped. I have a feeling it was the latter.

And that, my friends, is the fault of AMD, not Ryan Smith, not the OP, not you or me. And that gets to the heart of the problem. AMD is shifting around (or allowing others to shift around) its product lines after launch.
Irrelevant to the OP but OK. As for the shifting around comment, they have been doing this for years. For example the ROG series of cards, the Lightning series by MSi etc.
If I wanted to save money by buying a cheaper card than the HD6670 GDDR5, by all means I should be able to do that. I'll buy the HD6570 or HD6450. That's why there are multi-tiered product lines in this industry. It's not like a car where you can get it equipped with a V6 or V8. We're buying the darn engine here, so we better get the engine that was advertised and reviewed.
The GPU is still a 6670. XFX can't make up a product "tier" or name for AMD.

 

[jvroig]

How far must a lower end consumer go to make sure hes getting the same model as product that was reviewed?

Far enough to see the different specs, and possibly also notice the price difference. There is no free lunch, so the price should more or less alert the consumer that this must be cheaper than a similar model for a reason. It's not really that hard, but any effort is too much for consumers who would rather not be bothered, and they aren't exactly the type who would have been reading reviews or bothering about specs anyway, so the issue raised here still doesn't affect them.

In my opinion, an HD6670 with DDR3 is not an HD6670. Why? Because it wasn't mentioned in the Anandtech review:

Your opinion is noted. In my first post in this thread, quite a few pages ago, I also expressed an opinion not too far from that, when I said I would have personally preferred they did not do such things.

But our opinion notwithstanding, it is not up to us. Not even Anandtech. It is up to AMD. And AMD, whether with or without fanfare, before or after launch, said "yep, 6670 can come with DDR3". They did not even have to be that explicit. As long as they did not strictly confine the specs to DDR5, that's a go ahead for AIBs to create lower-cost products.

This is why the OP's accusation of "marketing fraud" (right there in his OP) is way out of line. It would be marketing fraud if they gave you DDR3 but did not mention it, or had it tucked away in size 6 font along with paragraphs of other disclaimers in similarly small font.

So "complete marketing fraud" as per OP? I really don't think so. I don't have to like what they are doing to say this. In fact I don't like it, but it still is far from complete marketing fraud, and my last post was a way to encourage the OP to see this point while also pointing out the silver lining: you may have made a mistake, but it was a learning experience that had no permanent, serious repercussions.

There is no fraud here, only a learning experience that has benefited the OP and, in the long run, possibly many other members as well who were not aware of the realities touched upon here.

 

[happy medium]

I vote to change the title to "for all you noobs buying low end cards" please read!
and sticky this thread.

 

[waffleironhead]

I vote to change the title to "for all you noobs buying low end cards" please read!
and sticky this thread.

I'm with ya, if we can add in all of the OEM versions of the geforce cards that came out. WTF is a gtx560(OEM) and gtx560ti(OEM). I mean if someone buys a oem system, they may be getting a different card than is on all of the review sites.

 

[badb0y]

Also wanted to add that I too have fallen to GPU manufacturers naming games. 2ish years ago I saw a laptop that had a 9600M GT in it. So I thought "Cool a 9600 GT in a laptop! This is awesome!" After buying the laptop I found out that the desktop part and the laptop video card had nothing in common besides the name. Did it burn me? Hell yea but I knew that it was my fault for not further researching the specs of the two parts.

I suggest the OP to either return the card if the performance difference is too much for him or just learn from the experience and make sure to thoroughly review specs before purchasing next time. Also post here before purchasing so we can point you in the right direction .

 

[cusideabelincoln]

If XFX feels the need to use the same model number for such different products, in terms of performance, they could have had the courtesty to distinguish them a little better. Like NVidia did with their 8800GT, 8800GTS, 8800GTX. That would be fair play.

I heavily researched the differences between a GeForce 8800GT, 8800GTS, and 8800GTX. I figured they actually meant they were different and they were. Now, if a videocard manufacturer actually put six different versions of any of the aforementioned products on the market, I can say with all honestly, in retrospect, that I got ****ed and didnt even know it. Because I would have never thought there were major differences between EDIT: "the same" model numbers. However, I am learning that the videocard industry seems to be the exception to the rule.

If you heavily researched those cards then you would know the 8800GTS had three different versions with different performance and the only way to tell them apart was by the amount of RAM because they all used the 8800GTS model name. And there were two versions of the 8800GT. Likewise just about every single card since the 8800GTS and GT, low end or high end, has been marketed under the same model name but deviating in bus width, RAM type, RAM amount, clockspeeds, coolers, included peripherals, or basically anything else you can think of that a video card can adjust. Some deviate towards more performance, which you'll find in the mid-range and high end video cards with their overclocked variants. Some will deviate towards less performance - which you'll find in green editions and low end cards in order to either reduce MSRP or lower power consumption. For your own good you need to know your markets and know what contexts you're dealing in.

How far must a lower end consumer go to make sure hes getting the same model as product that was reviewed?

It's pretty simple: He looks at the specifications the review lists for the particular card in question and he matches those specifications up with the card he's going to buy from the retailer. The specifications of the 6670 were clearly labeled at newegg, and if we're using Anandtech's review as an example they clearly denoted the specifications of the cards they tested as well as noting variations of those specifications which they were not able to test.

The same sentiment applies to other areas. There are several different variants of the GTX 460. It is pretty much unlikely a buyer is going to get the same GTX 460 the majority of review sites have reviewed.

It's AMD/Nvidia establishing product lines and not sticking to them. If the 6670 is going to be offered with GDDR5 and DDR3, then at the very least, every review site should be told that on launch day, and every reviewer should have the option of testing both products.

You know that can't happen because the market is fickle and they need to have the flexibility to adapt. The market screamed for the 1GB HD 4870 and AMD gave it to them. Nvidia came out with the 256MB 8800GT after the 512MB had been established. So it isn't feasible for anyone to have the foresight to set things in stone at the launch date and not be able to deviate.

Would everyone be ok with XFX suddenly releasing 6970's with GDDR3?
Or 6950's? Or 6870's or 6850's? From the ridiculous arguments appearing in this thread about how it's "just fine" that this happens, I guess it would be "just fine"?

Those cards are in a different market and that puts them in a different context as far as sentiment goes. So, irrelevant to this argument.

Or would you want those particular cards renamed to reflect the performance reduction in each case? (SE or XL or whatever)
Plainly, I don't care who does this. XFX, eVGA, Palit, Sapphire, WHOEVER. Nvidia or AMD, this should not be allowed. It is deceptive to the unknowing customer and this is exactly how to take advantage of them.
I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering where the heck all these totally insane excuses are coming from. I'm blown away.

So, idealistically, top to bottom of the entire market would be completely distinguishable. I guess we should prepare for the GT 440 Standard Edition (SE), GT 440 Sucky Edition (SE), GT 440 Super Edition (SE), GT 240 SE, GT 240 SE, GT 220 SE, GT 220 SSE (Sucky-Suck Edition).

Suffixes are not the answer. Renaming is not necessarily the answer either. There are several different factors a card can bring to differentiate it from other cards - ranging from passive vs. active cooling to the type of video outputs on a card. There is not a good, simple naming scheme to cover all of these variables. Where do you draw the line? We're going to draw the line at memory type?

The GDDR3 6670 should have been called 6670SE (teh suk edition). Then all would be well. You know you're buying less of a card. The only thing separating 6670's that Taltimar linked to is a 3 and a 5 after GDDR. Easy to miss. But 6670SE is pretty much impossible to miss. No. You can all go home with these arguments. No doubt.

SE is not quite so easy to miss in that format, but suffixes are not in that format on newegg, amazon, or tigerdirect. There is a space, and that makes it easy to overlook. So no, it is not impossible to miss. Yes. You can go home with your argument. No doubt.

The lack thereof is equally so.

The timing more so.

 

[3DVagabond]

You should always consider the context. i always post what i believe - about either company. i have jumped to *both* AMD's defense and Nvidia's defense when i believed the situation called for it; i have also pointed out to my readers where i believe they fall short. i have been consistent here for well over 11 years.

^_^

Oh, come on apoppin. Does that mean you can never be wrong? Never be questioned? Of course not. I'm not going to think that "once in 1973 he said something good about AMD so he can't say anything wrong for ever after" (speaking figuratively, of course). I'm just calling it the way I saw it.

Both companies have confusing naming schemes. The GDDR3 was mentioned in the cards tag line. It's plain as plain can be. The OP obviously didn't look.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was reading a review of crossfired 6870's. In the comparison charts they had GTX560 SLI. The performance was really good for the 560's. I thought, a bit too good. I asked in the comment section if it was GTX560's or 560 TI's they were comparing. They said it was TI's (Even though it just said GTX560 on the chart). They had never reviewed the 560 and when they did the 560 TI review there was no 560 (non TI), which was why their chart didn't differentiate. They were actually MSI Twin Frozr models, which they freely said and didn't seem to be trying to hide. I don't believe they were purposely being misleading (Who knows for sure. You can't look inside someone's heart on the internet.). At the very least, the naming scheme of 560 and 560 TI was causing confusion.

There's the 6800 series not being the replacement models for the 5800. That could be confusing for someone wanting to upgrade their 5800 and thinking, reasonably so, that the 6800 was the replacement next gen card.

The GTX460. There's the 460SE, 460/768, and 460/1Gig. All 3 very different performing cards before you even factor in the multitude of clocks available. The 460/1Gig is the main one reviewed all over the internet. Typically O/C'd. Sometimes to pretty extreme levels. Someone who doesn't know the differences, which are many, could quite easily end up with a 460SE thinking they are buying a "GTX460" like they saw in the reviews and just getting a great deal.

Trying to say that either one company specifically encourages confusing namings, especially in a thread like this where one company's getting roasted, isn't fair. They are both playing the same naming games.

 

[Keysplayr]

SE is not quite so easy to miss in that format, but suffixes are not in that format on newegg, amazon, or tigerdirect. There is a space, and that makes it easy to overlook. So no, it is not impossible to miss. Yes. You can go home with your argument. No doubt.

The timing more so.

"but suffixes are not in that format on newegg"
From Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130591

You understand that I am only using "SE" as an example.

Not quite so easy?

XFX HD-667X-ZHF3 Radeon HD 6670 1GB
128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

XFX HD-667X-ZAF3 Radeon HD 6670 1GB
128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

XFX HD-667X-ZHF3 Radeon HD 6670 SE 1GB
128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

Even at a very quick glance, it is EASY to discern the SE variant, yes even with a space. The only other difference would be the 3 or the 5 after GDDR.

And please don't copy my words to try to belittle them or try to gain traction in your argument. It is quite Romper Roomish. TY.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Holy Cr*p...

Because............?

The lack thereof is equally so.

This is how your mind works. Not mine.

Oh yes. A lot of singing and dancing. A few smoke machines. All good.

Posting 5 separate times, adding no value or anything at all to the topic with oneliners that serve no other purpose but to provoke and irritate other members into taking some type of bait.

Please rethink what you are actually posting.

 

[apoppin]

Oh, come on apoppin. Does that mean you can never be wrong? Never be questioned? Of course not. I'm not going to think that "once in 1973 he said something good about AMD so he can't say anything wrong for ever after" (speaking figuratively, of course). I'm just calling it the way I saw it.

Both companies have confusing naming schemes. The GDDR3 was mentioned in the cards tag line. It's plain as plain can be. The OP obviously didn't look.
. . .
Trying to say that either one company specifically encourages confusing namings, especially in a thread like this where one company's getting roasted, isn't fair. They are both playing the same naming games.

Damn - i am really busy writing now and i really don't want to keep getting called out to respond to STRAWMAN arguments.

Last time. i never said i cannot be wrong. i am glad (and have been glad) to admit when i am wrong - it is a learning process that goes on for an entire life here.

All you are seeing is a single topic and attempting to formulate something about me - yet you are seeing one dimension and one tiny part of my universe - at this moment and on a single point of contention.

Look, i REALLY LIKE AMD. i continually say good things about Nvidia and AMD on my own forum. My company is a *media partner* with them. i review their products under NDA. The exact same thing with Nvidia.

However, when any company does something that is out of line with their own established policies, i do not hide it or gloss over it or sweep it under the rug. It becomes a *topic* on my own forum and i usually give my opinion to Nvidia/AMD for their comment; they even follow our forum posts. i *always* give them a fair hearing - listen carefully to what they say, post it on our forum - and if i don't agree with what they say, i will still say so.

i didn't say the OP was blameless. However, it appears to me that AMD *neglected* to update the official specs on HD 6670 on their site to include DDR3 versions - clearly they did not plan originally for a DDR3 version (as they did DDR5 for 6570; but that one didn't come out as they planned in that case).

Shall i send a link to this thread to AMD? i would have thought with all their fans here, they would already be aware of it. It might be a good idea for them to update their site,

 

[cusideabelincoln]

From Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130591

You understand that I am only using "SE" as an example.

Not quite so easy?

XFX HD-667X-ZHF3 Radeon HD 6670 1GB
128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

XFX HD-667X-ZAF3 Radeon HD 6670 1GB
128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

XFX HD-667X-ZHF3 Radeon HD 6670 SE 1GB
128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

Even at a very quick glance, it is EASY to discern the SE variant, yes even with a space. The only other difference would be the 3 or the 5 after GDDR.

You understand I covered alternatives to the situation (and suffixes) in the rest of my post and SE, SE, SSE examples were humor, don't you?

It's just as easy to miss the SE variant; it's dangling out there amidst the rest of the typically elongated and descriptive titles at newegg. And actually it's "DDR3" and "GDDR5" in Newegg's title listings. That is a bigger difference than you are leading us to believe with just "3" and "5". One modifier is longer than the other. There's a new letter, "G."

And please don't copy my words to try to belittle them or try to gain traction in your argument. It is quite Romper Roomish. TY

You missed the boat here. It's unnecessary and unrelated to the discussion to actually use the words - "You can all go home with these arguments. No doubt." - in the first place. You belittled yourself, but I wasn't sure if you realized it, so I took the liberty of pointing it out because it was very incongruent to several preconceptions.

 

[Arg Clin]

I feel for the OP - not getting the part you expected is a hard slap in the face.

With that said - it's up to the consumer to do ones homework. I learned the hard way that 386SX < 386DX.

It's important that we have as broad a variety of products availible as possible, to ensure that there is something for everyones needs.

I've been building for a good 15+ years now, and I still spend oceans of time researching before I order any new part. That's also how you learn tons of stuff -if I couldn't be bothered to do the research myself I'd just ask the sales person, who I'm sure would eagerly explain to me why a GDDR5 is better than the GDDR3 (he/her would want to sell me the faster card = higher price = better commission).

Less experienced enthusiats should probably seek the guidance of friends, proffessionals or at least just forums, to ensure that they are getting the right part.

Understand and accept your lack of knowledge! Whenever I order a car part for my old Audi I ask around and search the web/books a lot - I'm a noob at reparing cars, and there's only one way to change that!

As for the AMD specs debate - if I were AMD I'd be spectical if this isn't hurting the AMD brand in some way, and might consider being more restrictive. But ultimately AMD just sells chips and recommends a spec on how to use them. The last thing we want is another Apple trying to control every aspect of how products should be used. (ok overexaggeration I know - to illustrate the point )

 

[bryanW1995]

Whats with taking it personal apoppin? "lifer" was a direct comment at your posting record and that you have been here for a long time, there was nothing you should have taken personally in that. And i never said YOUR reviews were worthless, infact i appreciate the work you and BFG put down and also your presence on this forum. I think its sad and downright childish that you took that personally AND trew me an insult. Thanks.




Is this what your here for now? to make snide comments at posters all the while trowing us bones about your next reviews/previews, in hopes of luring some of us over to your site?, this coupled with your insult..well i just dont know what to make of it.

Don't take it personally, apoppin can be a bit abrasive at times. And he had exactly the same posting style 5 years ago that he does today, only back in the old days his reviews were here instead of at ABT.

and again its just a mistake. I already said they will have to track down where the original mistake in information started. they are not going to put a 6450 gpu on 128 bit board and give it to for the 64 bit price.

and if you read the FIRST review there you will see that the card the user received was 64 bit NOT 128 bit as advertised.

plus someone that is knowledgeable can probably just look right at the pics and see its 64 bit.

I just finished reading "Forever Free". Toyota, somehow I have a feeling that you would have asked scientist at the end of the book to PROVE that he really controls everything. You know, because making 10 billion people take a nap in carlsbad caverns isn't enough proof...

 

[bryanW1995]

If your 5870 card performed 50&#37; slower and came out 4 months after the the original REAL 5870 reviews and had no updated reviews for your slower card, yes you would have evey right to complain and I would be right behind you ! .

If it was someone like Toyota or Apoppin , I would say you knew better but there are tens of thousands of other people that will not and do not know better, this is where it makes it wrong.

Again we are the minority, people (noobs) like the OP deserve better treatment than this is what I'm saying.

Its not about which vendor,company, sales person does it or how long it has been going on, or what segment of cards is affected, its about bad business practice that needs to be changed.

You still haven't commented on my "if this were nvidia you wouldn't care" statement. Why are you agitating in this thread? If it gets locked then nobody will get to read the anti-XFX title. Come on, Rollo, you need to think more clearly when you're spreadin' the gospel!


Personal attacks are not acceptable. Surely you didn't think this was going to fly...

Come on, Rollo, you need to think more clearly when you're spreadin' the gospel!

Idontcare
Super Mod

 

[bryanW1995]

Would everyone be ok with XFX suddenly releasing 6970's with GDDR3?
Or 6950's? Or 6870's or 6850's? From the ridiculous arguments appearing in this thread about how it's "just fine" that this happens, I guess it would be "just fine"?
Or would you want those particular cards renamed to reflect the performance reduction in each case? (SE or XL or whatever)
Plainly, I don't care who does this. XFX, eVGA, Palit, Sapphire, WHOEVER. Nvidia or AMD, this should not be allowed. It is deceptive to the unknowing customer and this is exactly how to take advantage of them.
I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering where the heck all these totally insane excuses are coming from. I'm blown away.

Oh, come on. This is just like the paper launch issue, it is done constantly by both camps but there are rules. For a paper launch you have to sell at least a few in retail and actually give cards to reviewers so that everyone knows that you will at some point actually be able to sell in volume. With altered memory configs/cheaper cards, you are (wink wink) allowed to do it on lower end cards, but nothing mid/high. So on a gtx 460 you have to put an se badge on it, but on a 6450 you just kinda follow general guidelines and disclose the changes in the item description.

1. So there ARE reviews of this card after all. There goes the claim of "no reviews".
2. the 6450 GDDR5 is available for sale, in fact I linked it. Both versions are available. Both versions were reviewed. The GDDR5 version got reviewed MORE. I would place the blame for that on the review sites who failed to review the lower end models.
3. Performance: wow that is terribad. I concede it is worse then I thought, its actually closer to 40&#37; of performance with the DDR3 version.
4. Please include a link to the source: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/the-...alaxys-gt-520-vs-hd-5450-gddr5-vs-gddr3/all/1

Nice job there, you just disproved 2 of your own points and 1 one of mine.

He's not allowed to link to his site iirc, but the rest of us can do it all we want. I think that's a good rule, lots of people here over the years abused it so much that it was probably necessary.

 

[bryanW1995]

You make some very good points here. But as Happy has pointed out, there's something bigger going on than just AIBs making changes to products to lower the price. It's AMD/Nvidia establishing product lines and not sticking to them. If the 6670 is going to be offered with GDDR5 and DDR3, then at the very least, every review site should be told that on launch day, and every reviewer should have the option of testing both products.

In my opinion, an HD6670 with DDR3 is not an HD6670. Why? Because it wasn't mentioned in the Anandtech review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4278/amds-radeon-hd-6670-radeon-hd-6570

In fact, that very review discusses GDDR5 versus DDR3, but in the context of other cards - the 5570/6570. Here's what it says:

"The original 5570 – and the one we continue to test today – launched with DDR3 memory. AMD did introduce a GDDR5 variant in the summer of 2010, but it never gained much traction. So compared to the 5570, the GDDR5 6570 with its 1GHz (4GHz data rate) GDDR5 has 222% the memory bandwidth of the DDR3 5570 and its 900MHz (1.8GHz data rate) RAM. Now there’s a catch in all of this: similar to how the 5570 ended up, AMD will be launching cards with both GDDR5 and DDR3. The GDDR5 cards like the one we’re reviewing today will come with 512MB of RAM, while the DDR3 cards will come with 1GB of RAM. The extra RAM has its advantages in some edge cases, but our advice always has been and remains to be that you should pick the GDDR5 versions of most video cards over the (G)DDR3 versions. The only notable downside to the GDDR5 card in this case is that GDDR5’s power consumption is much higher, which is why the GDDR5 6570 is a 60W card while the DDR3 6570 is 44W."

Now what's the problem with this? The HD6570 GDDR5 was never produced. Either Ryan Smith was lying when he wrote this, or he was duped. I have a feeling it was the latter.

And that, my friends, is the fault of AMD, not Ryan Smith, not the OP, not you or me. And that gets to the heart of the problem. AMD is shifting around (or allowing others to shift around) its product lines after launch.

If I wanted to save money by buying a cheaper card than the HD6670 GDDR5, by all means I should be able to do that. I'll buy the HD6570 or HD6450. That's why there are multi-tiered product lines in this industry. It's not like a car where you can get it equipped with a V6 or V8. We're buying the darn engine here, so we better get the engine that was advertised and reviewed.

I love this site, but AT isn't the be all end all of reviews. How many other sites decided that a gtx 460 ftw was its own model?

 

[Phynaz]

I vote to change the title to "for all you noobs buying low end cards" please read!
and sticky this thread.

Only noobs buy low end cards?

 

[Vesku]

It's known as information disparity. In the case of retail, the seller will want to create distinctions in quality and variety if for no other reason than to make the market seem livelier. This leads to there being a lot more information, some of it BS, for a consumer to sift through in order to come to a purchase decision. This leads to the branding we are all familiar with and even explains luxury brands and fanboy behavior. At some point we want to take some shortcuts in decision making because not many people want purchasing a product to feel like cramming for an exam.

It's fine to be mad about buying or almost buying something that was not the best product for you. But it's not one company's fault and your post would have done other consumers more good if you had said something along the lines of "XFX has confusing products, watch out for DDR3 cards".