XFX Bilking the masses - replacing GDDR5 memory with DDR3

[bryanW1995]

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.

Haha, I forgot about the infamous AT 6870 review that compared a gtx 460 ftw. I'm still disappointed in AT for falling for that one, at least the OP probably isn't an industry professional with strong reason to suspect NV/AMD of dirty tactics during a new card launch.

Here it is for anybody who needs a refresher on this one.

 

[apoppin]

i think it is up to the tech site reviewers to ask the hard questions

There is a world of difference between the "halo" HD 6450-DDR5 which all of the tech sites got from AMD and was featured vs the GT 520 - and the DDR3 version which is available everywhere.
(this is only 1/3rd of the benches; the last two columns aren't even close in every benchmark.

 

[Red Hawk]

Moral of the story: pay attention to the specs at least in the title of the graphics card before paying.

Really, you have only yourself to blame. The 6670 was released in GDDR3 and GDDR5 versions, the difference over the 6570 being the higher core clock speed. There's no fraud going on here, just pay attention next time.

 

[Jionix]

i think it is up to the tech site reviewers to ask the hard questions

There is a world of difference between the "halo" HD 6450-DDR5 which all of the tech sites got from AMD and was featured vs the GT 520 - and the DDR3 version which is available everywhere.
(this is only 1/3rd of the benches; the last two columns aren't even close in every benchmark.

ABSOLUTELY.

Too many review sites are so depeserate to be validated by free hardware to put out reviews for, they will blissfully review cards and give out glowing praise.

You might say it's up to the AIBs to get our their versions of alternate reference cards, and not ATI/Nvidia to worry about whatever configurations their partners release.

The issue comes up in that AMD most likely KNEW a DDR3 version would be released, but instead chose to only "officially" launch the DDR5 version, and let their partners do the dirty work.

When you send out a reference design, it better be available. If only the lesser version is available, that's the problem.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

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.

Maybe you should have posted a thread. It would have brought more attention to this deceitful practice of companies producing and selling videocards "below" official recommended specifications.

Im not sure what your point is about taking it like a man. I haven't even received the videocard yet so I have lost nothing but a little time and frustration. When I do get the card it will be sent back immediately.

Sure, its always good to double-check what you are buying. But its amazing how many posts in this thread justify this deceptive practice to the drum beat of "well, its been this way for years", as if that makes it right. At the very least my bitching about it may save someone else some lost time and frustration. Thats worth something.

 

[dguy6789]

I should sell a slab of cardboard with 1GB of DDR3 glued on it and call it a Radeon HD 6670 1GB DDR3 CB* Edition. Someone will buy it, then post on Anandtech about it and complain that it's not actually a 6670 and then the Anandtech forum goers can say "yes it is, it doesn't matter how it performs, as long as it says it's a 6670 on the box, it is ".

 

[Termie]

Maybe you should have posted a thread. It would have brought more attention to this deceitful practice of companies producing and selling videocards "below" official recommended specifications.

Im not sure what your point is about taking it like a man. I haven't even received the videocard yet so I have lost nothing but a little time and frustration. When I do get the card it will be sent back immediately.

Sure, its always good to double-check what you are buying. But its amazing how many posts in this thread justify this deceptive practice to the drum beat of "well, its been this way for years", as if that makes it right. At the very least my bitching about it may save someone else some lost time and frustration. Thats worth something.

OP - I think this was a worthwhile post. You got fooled, and that was only partly your fault. The average consumer of <$100 cards does not know that "DDR3" and "GDDR5" are not the same thing. They look at the model number and buy based on price. When you're on Newegg or another site and you're just sorting by price, it's far too easy to forget to double-check whether you're actually looking at the card you wanted.

If this ever starts happening in >$100 cards, there will truly be an uproar. Until then, there won't be, because not enough people who buy inexpensive cards know the full story.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I should sell a slab of cardboard with 1GB of DDR3 glued on it and call it a Radeon HD 6670 1GB DDR3 CB* Edition. Someone will buy it, then post on Anandtech about it and complain that it's not actually a 6670 and then the Anandtech forum goers can say "yes it is, it doesn't matter how it performs, as long as it says it's a 6670 on the box, it is ".

Does it clearly state that you are buying a piece of cardboard?

 

[96Firebird]

i think it is up to the tech site reviewers to ask the hard questions

There is a world of difference between the "halo" HD 6450-DDR5 which all of the tech sites got from AMD and was featured vs the GT 520 - and the DDR3 version which is available everywhere.
(this is only 1/3rd of the benches; the last two columns aren't even close in every benchmark.

That is very sad indeed, after looking at the benches it is clear to see they used this tactic to score higher than the Nvidia counter-part. Very low that they would send out a card that never got sold...

 

[apoppin]

That is very sad indeed, after looking at the benches it is clear to see they used this tactic to score higher than the Nvidia counter-part. Very low that they would send out a card that never got sold...

To be technically fair, Sapphire did produce a GDDR5 version of the HD 6450. And for the months that i followed it, it was always out of stock and in very limited supply (and more expensive).

AFaiK, no OEMs use the halo card and it is not available in quantity even now, many months after launch.

 

[Red Storm]

That is very sad indeed, after looking at the benches it is clear to see they used this tactic to score higher than the Nvidia counter-part. Very low that they would send out a card that never got sold...

Maybe it's just me but I think it's the reviewer's responsibility to tell the readers what's what. From the few 6450 reviews I looked at, the card is marketed towards the HTPC crowd, and the few reviews I looked at all recommend the slower DDR3 version due to it being passively cooled. I also find no mention in these reviews of a given release date or availability from AMD.

Anyhow, from what I can see the 6450 was marketed to the HTPC crowd, not gamers, and the DDR3 looks like the much more popular version, maybe that's why we don't see any GDDR5s for sale? I dunno, I'm sure apoppin knows more about it then me.

Regardless, it isn't really similar to the OP's issue. He didn't fully read/recognize the title of the item he bought. It sucks, but it's not AMD's fault, or XFX's fault, or anyone but your own self.

 

[waffleironhead]

To be technically fair, Sapphire did produce a GDDR5 version of the HD 6450. And for the months that i followed it, it was always out of stock and in very limited supply (and more expensive).

AFaiK, no OEMs use the halo card and it is not available in quantity even now, many months after launch.

hmm, its in stock at the egg now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102947

 

[smackababy]

Why are people in this thread trying to imply that, as a consumer, I should be held accountable for not knowing the product I was purchasing, regardless of its "title"? I can't be expected to be a responsible consumer who researches things or reads product titles...

 

[Jionix]

No, obviously the OP is being a bit disingenuous --- You can't blame AMD/XFX for his hopeful ignorance. He bought a cheaper version of the card thinking it was simply wrongly described, but he should have know if it says "DDR3" in the title of the item, that's what he's getting..

But, to me, there is a bigger issue here.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Why are people in this thread trying to imply that, as a consumer, I should be held accountable for not knowing the product I was purchasing, regardless of its "title"? I can't be expected to be a responsible consumer who researches things or reads product titles...

Exactly, I was purchasing a Radeon 6670 videocard. "Radeon 6670" was in the title. For those who missed it, here's the official "minimum" specifications for a videocard to be considered a "RADEON 6670" on AMDs website:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2

So the consumer should be responsible and not the videocard manufacturers. I love it.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

No, obviously the OP is being a bit disingenuous --- You can't blame AMD/XFX for his hopeful ignorance. He bought a cheaper version of the card thinking it was simply wrongly described, but he should have know if it says "DDR3" in the title of the item, that's what he's getting..

But, to me, there is a bigger issue here.

Hopeful ignorance? LOL. Yeah, I guess after reading this page:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2
that describes what a 6670 videocard should be capable of and purchasing a "Radeon 6670" videocard on another website that I was hopeful it would perform according to the official specifications.
You genius computer nerds gotta stop assuming everybody is an expert on all the different memory types like you are. I didn't give the type of memory being used a second thought. I matched the "Radeon 6670" in the products description to the official specifications provided in the link above and the rest is history. Yeah, I guess Im just hopefully ignorant.

Anyway, my only point in writing this thread was to bring some attention to the deceptive selling practices. Did I ultimately make a mistake? Yes. Should I have researched it more? Well, yes. Because ultimately the only person that loses is me if I don't. I've made my last point in this thread. Im tired now. Peace out.

 

[apoppin]

hmm, its in stock at the egg now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102947

It's about time. It was not in stock for many months after the reviews of it. I got the DDR5 version of HD 6450 in early May - weeks after Anandtech and the other major reviewers reviewed it against the GTX 520. None of the halo cards were in stock at the time but i had a choice of dozens of DDR3 versions at NE. i settled on the passive PowerColor HD 6450.

This is August.
- it's not only in stock, it has a rebate now.

Any of these are really nice cards for HTPC.

On AMD's site, both kinds of vRAM are listed for the HD 6450
http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESK...6450/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6450-overview.aspx#2

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Exactly, I was purchasing a Radeon 6670 videocard. "Radeon 6670" was in the title.

This has been going on in the budget video card sector forever. For people in-the-know, you have to do more than simply check the title of the card. The specifications matter as well. AIBs have made DDR2 and 64 bit versions of past cards that did not have either of those features as "reference" listed by AMD/Nvidia. I've seen 64-bit version of the 9500GT, but but Nvidia lists 128-bit on the site. There have been DDR2 versions of the GT220 but Nvidia only lists DDR3. There have been DDR2 versions of the 4670 but reference is DDR3. Likewise I believe there have been DDR3 versions of the 4650 even though reference is DDR2. For these budget cards it's up to you to know exactly what you're buying.

Anyhow, from what I can see the 6450 was marketed to the HTPC crowd, not gamers, and the DDR3 looks like the much more popular version, maybe that's why we don't see any GDDR5s for sale? I dunno, I'm sure apoppin knows more about it then me.

These cards are targeting a difference market, where performance is not entirely a priority. It's the same concept with overclocked variants of midrange and high end cards, like the 6870 and 570. Performance is the target feature, so just because "HD 6870" is in the title doesn't make all 6870s the same. In contrast, power consumption, heat, and cost are given more weight in low end cards than in high end cards, and as such swappable features like DDR3/DDR5 are used to bring a card to its targeted goal.

 

[Termie]

...

There have been DDR2 versions of the 4670 but reference is DDR3.

Actually, reference 4670 was GDDR3, not DDR3: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2616.

Technically, I don't know if there's a difference in the technology, but the DDR3 cards all had much slower memory than the GDDR3 cards.

Why do I point this out? Because I got burned by this last year. I bought an HD4670 expecting performance equivalent to what I'd seen in reviews, choosing the DDR3 model, thinking it was identical to the tested models. But no, it had a memory speed of 1600, not 2000, which was reference.

So yeah, maybe I'm a tech noob. But I don't think so. Should we really be forced to check the memory speed of products before we buy them, to make sure it's not underclocked versus reference? Some store sites don't even list memory speed.

And nVidia does this too...take for instance this GTS 250 "E-Green" card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ts_250_us.html

There's a surprise awaiting the uninitiated...it's way underclocked versus nVidia's spec: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_250_us.html, to the tune of 38 MHz on the core and 200 MHz on the memory.

Yes I know it's marketed as "green," but it's not marketed as "underclocked." How is this not a major disservice to consumers? Should we as tech enthusiasts really be saying to the OP "too bad, you're fault, you're a noob"? That's not how we're going to keep manufacturers in check. I do think there's some borderline deceptive marketing going on, and I for one don't believe we should just turn a blind eye to it.

In the good old days, a few MHz separated the "xt" from the "xtx", or the "gt" from the "ultra." And getting those few extra MHz cost a lot of money. Today we take for granted that we might actually get some free MHz in a factory overclocked card (which is usually heavily marketed as overclocked even if it only has an extra 10 MHz). That's fine, as long as we don't also get the opposite, which is exactly what we have in the budget market. Underclocked cards that are not marketed as such.

 

[toyota]

4670 officially offered 1000mhz (2000mhz) GDDR3 on 512mb cards or 900mhz (1800mhz) DDR3 on 1gb cards. I seriously doubt you could tell the effective 200mhz difference between those two options.

 

[Termie]

4670 officially offered 1000mhz (2000mhz) GDDR3 on 512mb cards or 900mhz (1800mhz) DDR3 on 1gb cards. I seriously doubt you could tell the effective 200mhz difference between those two options.

Fair enough - but my 1GB card had 1600MHz memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125277

At 80% of the bandwidth, I think that would hurt performance. And the bigger point here is that it was underclocked versus reference.

 

[frostedflakes]

Actually, reference 4670 was GDDR3, not DDR3: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2616.

Technically, I don't know if there's a difference in the technology, but the DDR3 cards all had much slower memory than the GDDR3 cards.

Why do I point this out? Because I got burned by this last year. I bought an HD4670 expecting performance equivalent to what I'd seen in reviews, choosing the DDR3 model, thinking it was identical to the tested models. But no, it had a memory speed of 1600, not 2000, which was reference.

So yeah, maybe I'm a tech noob. But I don't think so. Should we really be forced to check the memory speed of products before we buy them, to make sure it's not underclocked versus reference? Some store sites don't even list memory speed.

And nVidia does this too...take for instance this GTS 250 "E-Green" card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ts_250_us.html

There's a surprise awaiting the uninitiated...it's way underclocked versus nVidia's spec: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_250_us.html, to the tune of 38 MHz on the core and 200 MHz on the memory.

Yes I know it's marketed as "green," but it's not marketed as "underclocked." How is this not a major disservice to consumers? Should we as tech enthusiasts really be saying to the OP "too bad, you're fault, you're a noob"? That's not how we're going to keep manufacturers in check. I do think there's some borderline deceptive marketing going on, and I for one don't believe we should just turn a blind eye to it.

In the good old days, a few MHz separated the "xt" from the "xtx", or the "gt" from the "ultra." And getting those few extra MHz cost a lot of money. Today we take for granted that we might actually get some free MHz in a factory overclocked card (which is usually heavily marketed as overclocked even if it only has an extra 10 MHz). That's fine, as long as we don't also get the opposite, which is exactly what we have in the budget market. Underclocked cards that are not marketed as such.

toyota is right, even the official 1GB 4670s came with slower memory, although it looks like 1800MHz GDDR3 was used on the reference card instead of the slower 1600MHz DDR3 some manufacturers chose. As mentioned you really have to pay attention and do your research with video cards, a lot of little details like this that can be overlooked. NewEgg also tends to be very good about listing core frequency, memory technology and frequency, etc. (although it's always a good idea to check the manufacturer's website as well to verify them), so it's easy to check that and compare it to the specs of review units you're basing your purchasing decisions on. I don't see the problem with offering consumers more choices ("green" cards that offer lower power consumption, cheaper versions of cards with DDR2 or DDR3, etc.) as long as the clock speeds and other specs are clearly stated up front.

 

[ImDonly1]

I already don't buy XFX. They cut corners on everything. Last time I bought a 8800GT which was supposed to be "upgraded" to a Zalman cooler. Well, it was, but they cheaped out on it and made it only 2 pin. This means you can't control the fan speed and its on 100% the whole time. They did this with regular 8800GT's too. It is also not listed anywhere on the website.

 

[bryanW1995]

Hopeful ignorance? LOL. Yeah, I guess after reading this page:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2
that describes what a 6670 videocard should be capable of and purchasing a "Radeon 6670" videocard on another website that I was hopeful it would perform according to the official specifications.
You genius computer nerds gotta stop assuming everybody is an expert on all the different memory types like you are. I didn't give the type of memory being used a second thought. I matched the "Radeon 6670" in the products description to the official specifications provided in the link above and the rest is history. Yeah, I guess Im just hopefully ignorant.

Anyway, my only point in writing this thread was to bring some attention to the deceptive selling practices. Did I ultimately make a mistake? Yes. Should I have researched it more? Well, yes. Because ultimately the only person that loses is me if I don't. I've made my last point in this thread. Im tired now. Peace out.

I'm glad you made this thread, and it is possible, maybe even likely, that somebody will not fall for this trap now thanks to your experience. I also think that we can agree, however, that the "target market" of this sort of behavior is rather small. How many people will take the time to research a 6670 on amd's site but not read the item description on newegg when they buy it? If it had happened on a less reputable site or if the item description had been off I'd be more concerned. But in this case it's just a nice reminder for all of us to take off our red or green-tinted glasses and recognize that these corporations (plus their myraid board partners) are out to get as much of our money for as little cost to themselves as possible. And it's up to us to ensure that our hard-earned money gets us as much performance as possible.

 

[taltamir]

I just purchased this videocard:

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

assuming it had a total memory bandwidth of 64GB/second according to this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Islands_(GPU_family)

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.

XFX HD-667X-ZHF3 Radeon HD 6670 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

They aren't bilking anyone, every company sells budget versions with regular DDR rather then GDDR and XFX is no exception. It CLEARLY says so in the title and it is your fault for assuming information on wikipedia is correct.
You "researched it for hours" on wikipedia and yet managed to not even read the title of the product you are buying.