XFX Bilking the masses - replacing GDDR5 memory with DDR3

[SlowSpyder]

AMD is allowing GDDR3 versions. This is like the GeForce GT240, you could get a GDDR3 or GDDR5 version.

 

[waffleironhead]

nvidia sells gt240's with gddr5 and gddr3 as well. I guess the only difference is that they list it on their website as official. So all amd needs to do is edit their webpage and it will be kosher?

 

[apoppin]

Actually, I feel for the OP, but what's much more concerning to me is that AMD marketed a 6570 with GDDR5, sent it out to reviewers, consumers saw it benchmarked, and then AMD never produced it!

AMD does it regularly. SAME thing with the HD 6450. ALL of the tech sites got the DDR5 version to make the GT 520 look bad - but there were none available for purchase; just the DDR3 version (which gets whipped by the GT 520). We had to get our own HD 6450-DDR3 from Newegg.

AMD needs to tighten the reins on its partners (or put them in a chokehold), as they're making AMD look terrible. NVIDIA wouldn't allow their partners to pull off these kinds of shenanigans.

AMD encourages it.

 

[notty22]

The situation with the gt240 is this. Both memory speed versions were tested here at Anands, on the launch review. Thats not the case with AMD cards. So when rated for value, AMD have gddr5 and eyefinity considered, making the card have that much higher value.
And in the end, the consumer is getting a different product.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2906/10

edit: review comment

A DDR3 GT 240 is not comparable to a GDDR5 GT 240 in most cases, and you’ll understand why when you see our benchmarks. The memory bandwidth starvation when using DDR3 means that the DDR3 GT 240 is often in its own lesser performance class, a problem when most DDR3 GT 240s are equipped with 1GB of the stuff and sell for as much as their GDDR5 brethren.

 

[Termie]

AMD does it regularly. SAME thing with the HD 6450. ALL of the tech sites got the DDR5 version to make the GT 520 look bad - but there were none available for purchase; just the DDR3 version (which gets whipped by the GT 520). We had to get our own HD 6450-DDR3 from Newegg.


AMD encourages it.

Thanks for the insights, apoppin. This is discouraging to say the least, but perhaps in this low-end market, anything goes. AMD generally seems to make the superior cards at each of the <$100 price points, but this may be a bit of a ruse. Perhaps AMD's retail cards are actually much closer to nVidia's.

 

[Chiropteran]

I just purchased this videocard:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150542


As you can see from the chart on Wikipedia it shows that "ANY" 6670 videocard sold should be outfitted with GDDR5 memory yielding a total memory bandwidth of 64GB/second.

So Wikipedia mislead you. Why are you blaming XFX? Wikipedia, while an amazing free resource, is not infallible.

 

[Jionix]

The situation with the gt240 is this. Both memory speed versions were tested here at Anands, on the launch review. Thats not the case with AMD cards. So when rated for value, AMD have gddr5 and eyefinity considered, making the card have that much higher value.
And in the end, the consumer is getting a different product.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2906/10

I think this is a practice that absolutely has to stop --- specifically, a company not providing a review sample of a certain spec of a card.

I do appreciate AIBs having freedom to offer different, less expensive choices, but by not offering a reference design of that spec, AMD is falsely creating a performance tier that people will expect. Because, lets face it, non-reference reviews are a lot less common or easily compared as the launch reviews are.

 

[john3850]

Feel free to edit the chart on Wikipedia.
Before I buy any card I check the Bus size,Core speed,Mem speed etc.
I then go and visit two review sites and also check to see if they posted any info on the memorys chip face.
The last time I didnt check the specs.I ended up with the first released non pro 9700 with slower memory that was sold as a pro.

 

[nemesismk2]

AMD needs to tighten the reins on its partners (or put them in a chokehold), as they're making AMD look terrible. NVIDIA wouldn't allow their partners to pull off these kinds of shenanigans.

AMD are just as BAD as Nvidia for doing this type of thing. A good example is the GeForce MX 440 which was all over the place, the more expensive ones had 128bit memory while the cheaper ones had 64bit memory which grossly effected performance. Then the GeForce MX 440 had a name change and became the slower GeForce MX 4000. Before you buy a video card make sure you do your research!

 

[Ghiedo27]

AMD is falsely creating a performance tier that people will expect.

I don't think it's fair to blame AMD or nVidia for the way vendors differentiate their products. How many of the cards with DDR3 or GDDR3 memory are most likely going to be part of a home theater box or just a general browsing card? Why not sell a cheaper model that has all of the chip's features but at a reduced cost?

Besides, if you're savvy enough to browse reviews you should be able to take a minute to match specs and make sure you're comparing apples to apples. If you were out shopping for a truck you would make sure it had a nice v8 in it if that's what you needed. I'm just saying you should be looking at the options too and not just rely on the nameplate.

 

[apoppin]

Thanks for the insights, apoppin. This is discouraging to say the least, but perhaps in this low-end market, anything goes. AMD generally seems to make the superior cards at each of the <$100 price points, but this may be a bit of a ruse. Perhaps AMD's retail cards are actually much closer to nVidia's.

You're welcome. It's something tech sites need to be watchful for.

It's strategy and marketing. The low-end brings in the most amount of money. Consider OEM orders. They also look at the tech site reviews.

This year, Nvidia has been crying "foul" more than usual and with perhaps some justification as several low-end AMD "halo" cards with DDR5 were produced for review that never made it into widespread distribution.

It happens on both ends. Galaxy offered me a GT 520 with 2GB of DDR3 for review and i turned them down since i have the GT 520-1GB and the differences would be "marketing". It is far too expensive to put DDR5 on a low end card and that is why they are in short supply - if they are ever produced at all.

 

[Jionix]

Besides, if you're savvy enough to browse reviews you should be able to take a minute to match specs and make sure you're comparing apples to apples. If you were out shopping for a truck you would make sure it had a nice v8 in it if that's what you needed. I'm just saying you should be looking at the options too and not just rely on the nameplate.

Ok, caaaaars. Lets go with that example of the truck. Imagine Ford only providing the Eco-boost V6 to all the reviewers, but only the natually-aspired V6 was made available to the public.

Sure, people should be smart enough to see through the veil. But, it's a pretty dirty tactic. I expect that from Nvidia. But I'm a cynic, and business is business, and really, I should know that no company is above dirty marketing.

AMD could of course feign responsibility and praise their AIBs for offering more choices, BUT, they should stop this, make sure that they are informing their customers of what could be available and get that information out with the launch.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

You bought a card clearly advertised as DDR3. You then come to complain that the card you got is DDR3. You should be happy you got what you ordered. Read better next time.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

"Bilking the masses" - I love it.

Considering that the masses are mouth-breathing retards, this is exactly why all hardware manufacturers obfuscate their products' capabilities behind obscure model numbers. That's why sites like Anandtech even exist - to help people who aren't retards wade through the marketing morass.

Sorry OP, you're either new to computer hardware or a retard for not doing your research and reading product descriptions. Let me guess, the DDR3 model was 20&#37;+ less expensive and you thought you were getting a deal?

 

[bryanW1995]

The only reason Im attacking XFX is because their card is the one I purchased on newegg. All the companies should be ashamed of themselves. Anyway, Im getting an RMA number from newegg before this piece of worthless crap even hits my doorstep. I guess I should be happy I caught this so soon, even before I received the package. My incessant research pays off sometimes. I research my purchases before, during, and after purchasing. Still pissed that I have to go through the hassle of an RMA but thats what it is I guess.

Good move, way to keep UPS in business. An even more astute move would have been to spend 1.73 seconds before hitting the "buy" button on newegg and recognize that the ddr3 model listed is different from the wikipedia link. Sorry, but board partners have been doing this for many years. 9500gt, 8600gt, gt 240, 3650, 7300gt, etc etc etc. It never happens (that I have seen) on high end cards, but everything else is fair game. And if nothing else you should have noticed the discrepancy between wikipedia and newegg and done a bit more research.

 

[dguy6789]

just because its a mid range card does no excuse it. a 6670 is supposed to have 4.0 Gbps GDDR5 and that's the bottom line. there is no official gddr3 model so if a company equips it with that then it technically is no longer a 6670 since it will be quite a bit slower.

yes it does at least say in the description but really they should not be calling it a 6670 in the first place. plus all a consumer will have to go by is 6670 gddr5 benchmarks.

This. /thread

 

[bryanW1995]

sorry but you are wrong. every card has a official specifications to be called whatever it is. if a 5850 has gddr3 or just 512mb then it is NOT a 5850 based on the official specifications. the gpu itself is only part of the equation. now plenty of cards can have varying specs but you will see those listed if they are offcial. for instance the 4670 officially had either 1800mhz ddr3 or 2000mhz gddr3. if some company stuck ddr2 on there then it is not really a 4670 anymore. same goes for the 6670 as the official specs call for 4000mhz gddr5. its performance in all current reviews will be that model because there is NO official gddr3 model according to AMD.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The specs are recommended for most models, not required. Apparently from looking at the gpu landscape over the years, mid/high end cards don't allow the gpu switcharoo and low/lower mid cards do allow it. So i can take a 4670 and put ddr1 on it if I want to, it will still be a 4670. I might only sell it to people who fail to read the item description at newegg, however.

 

[alkemyst]

OP please change your title. This is 100&#37; your fault. Not all resellers follow the reference model. This card was advertised correctly.

I am not sure what you did for research: pre, during, post as you claim...but I'd recommend posting what you are looking at here first next time.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I might only sell it to people who fail to read the item description at newegg, however.

No way dude, you could add 2GB and sell it for $100 at Best Buy - it has moar GEE BEEs!

 

[SlowSpyder]

You guys that think somehow AMD is to blame for this, what do you think of the 9800 Green edition? Lower clocks and lower performance, not a reference spec'd 9800. This is board makers offering other options. It is very clearly labeled. The OP has no one but himself to be angry with here.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Good move, way to keep UPS in business. An even more astute move would have been to spend 1.73 seconds before hitting the "buy" button on newegg and recognize that the ddr3 model listed is different from the wikipedia link. Sorry, but board partners have been doing this for many years. 9500gt, 8600gt, gt 240, 3650, 7300gt, etc etc etc. It never happens (that I have seen) on high end cards, but everything else is fair game. And if nothing else you should have noticed the discrepancy between wikipedia and newegg and done a bit more research.

I guess Im not as cunning and as wiley as you are. The average person doesn't read the 6670 specifications on this page:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2
and then immediately begin the thought process of "Okay, Im buying a 6670 videocard but let me double check all the specifications on NewEggs product page because maybe the videocard manufacturer is out to *** me.". Thats just not what the average consumer does. Sorry for being average. I guess since you have known this has been going on for years I should have too. My bad.

 

[bryanW1995]

"Everyone else is doing it" is not a defense. The OP is right: XFX is a lousy company for doing it, just as the rest are.

It's a bait & switch on the part of these companies. Memory bandwidth massively affects GPU performance. A DDR3 6670 wouldn't be anywhere close to a GDDR5 card as a result. The kicker is that since they did this months after the product launches and reviews, all the reviews are for the GDDR5 cards (making no distinction about memory types because there weren't any DDR3 cards), meaning all the product reviews grossly overstate the performance of the series when the DDR3 cards are factored in. So buyers have every right in the world to be incensed when they go to get a product and have to play spec-hunter because the product was reformulated to allow a much lower performing product.

AMD needs to tighten the reins on its partners (or put them in a chokehold), as they're making AMD look terrible. NVIDIA wouldn't allow their partners to pull off these kinds of shenanigans.

As several posts after yours point out, this sort of thing is done regularly by both camps. In fact, overall NV probably has a worse track record of deception with customers in marketing their video cards. At least in this particular case the OP bought on newegg so he was clearly able to see that 4 of the cards were ddr3 and 8 were ddr5. If he had exhibited any sort of curiosity/reading comprehension/etc then he would have quickly learned the difference and either purchased a different card or, perhaps, been happy with the purchase that he made. When Rollo was running roughshod over VC forums I think that it took a bit more than reading comprehension to see through that scam.

 

[Jionix]

This issue I have with this is, is not the availability of a lesser configed model, but the non-review of said model as a reference design.

Both companys are doing this, but it should stop. Unfortunately, there is not enough reviews of the alternate-configurations to give customers an idea of what to expect performance wise. All they have to go by is the higher specs models.

Certainly, when Nvidia releases a "super-clock" version, they make damn sure that the reviewers include them. The same should be true for the cheapo versions.

AMD/Nvidia, both guilty. It should stop.

 

[bryanW1995]

I guess Im not as cunning and as wiley as you are. The average person doesn't read the 6670 specifications on this page:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2
and then immediately begin the thought process of "Okay, Im buying a 6670 videocard but let me double check all the specifications on NewEggs product page because maybe the videocard manufacturer is out to *** me.". Thats just not what the average consumer does. Sorry for being average. I guess since you have known this has been going on for years I should have too. My bad.

Oh, I've made the same mistake in the past, but I didn't go post a thread on a tech wedsite trashing the board partner after I did it. As others here have stated, I simply became more cautious when buying video cards (and other items in general of course) and learned from my mistake. I suggest that you do the same, take it like a man, move on, and remember another page from wikipedia that appears to be a bit more accurate than the 6670 page.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I guess Im not as cunning and as wiley as you are. The average person doesn't read the 6670 specifications on this page:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2
and then immediately begin the thought process of "Okay, Im buying a 6670 videocard but let me double check all the specifications on NewEggs product page because maybe the videocard manufacturer is out to *** me.". Thats just not what the average consumer does. Sorry for being average. I guess since you have known this has been going on for years I should have too. My bad.

That is YOUR fault for not reading. YOUR FAULT AND NOBODY ELSE.