Slashdot Mirror
Should a '9200' Brand Mean a 9200 GPU?
newsdee asks: "An enormous controversy is going on at the X1000 forums over laptop parts. Some Centrino-based laptops bear a label advertising the Mobility Radeon 9200 brand, but users have found out that the laptop actually contains the 9000 chip. The list of affected machines is as follows: Compaq Presario X1000, HP Pavilion ZT3000 and the HP Compaq NX7000. ATI's and HP's response have been that the label is promising performance and not a specific chip. Yet users seem to not like this at all, apparently because most of them define 'brand' as equating to product. According to reviews, there are no differences (same scores, same clock speed) between the chips other than AGP 8x support, which the Centrino chipset does not provide. I seem to remember that this is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened in PC hardware. Can anybody share insights of whether this is right or wrong? Should I complain about my 9000 chip that delivers what the 9200 brand promises, knowing it has not been overclocked?"
If there's no difference in performance or realisable features, then what's the problem ? If there was any measurable difference, that would be a different issue.
Sounds to me like a bunch of people wanting to "upgrade" their machines at someone else's expense. I think it's shady marketing practices (marketing should reflect reality. Sigh.) but I don't see there's been any harm done....
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Can anybody share insights of whether this is right or wrong? Should I complain about my 9000 chip that delivers what the 9200 brand promises, knowing it has not been overclocked?"
That depends... Do you consider it "misleading" to label an Athlon running at 1.8GHz as a 2200?
And do you consider it misleading to label a chip "MP" vs "XP" simply based on a level of testing, rather than a different physical product?
Model numbers often reflect the underlying hardware, but we've never had that to count on. If you want to know the technical specs, look them up, don't extrapolate from the marketing BS.
I prefer that my vendors not try to deceive me, even if the deception is harmless.
I believe that TomsHardware ran a review recently of barebones laptops that are coming more and more into the mainstream. Like and self respecting geek, I would actually go after one of those as my choice; partially for the geek factor and partially because I know exactly what it is that's going into the system.
/. about many of them coming with spyware pre-installed.
Outside of a workplace environment (where the brand of system is monitored by the big-wigs), I don't think I'd ever really go after a PC or Laptop that was manufactured by the big name manufacturers. Especially after the previous discussions we've had here on
Besides, even big name Manufacturers like AMD have taken alot of flak for their numbering scheme with respect to their processors, so it could just be a case of other companies seeing that they can safely follow suit.
Just my uninformed 2 cents...
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
Ahh, so exactly how far does HP need to stretch the truth before it becomes illegal then? What if the 9200 had a different internal architecture than the 9000, then would it be wrong?
Is it such a problem for HP to put a ATI 9000 sticker on the case instead of a ATI 9200 one? Its a clear case of misleading advertising. If its a 9000 then say 9000, if its a 9200 then say 9200, don't give this "it has the same performance" BS, hell they could have stuck a Geforce4 5200Go in there and got similar performance, but I would hardly call that a 9200.
Not really, they aren't trying to sell an XP 2500+ as an XP 2600+; they just changed their naming scheme.
This type of thing irritates me, but not because I feel these laptop owners were getting less video performance than the box promised.
It's more of the principle. PC hardware makers seem like they're doing more of this in recent years. They bend the truth about exactly what's in a product, in an effort to fool those who know "just enough about computers to be dangerous".
There is a difference between a 9000 and a 9200; support for 8x AGP bus. If the laptop doesn't do 8x AGP, then it's probably using a 9000 - and it should be labeled as such. This is just an attempt to confuse. (EG. People who don't necessarily know much about what each motherboard supports may at least know that 8x AGP bus is supposed to move data faster than 4x. If they do a little video card research and see that the 9200 is 8x, they might just assume a laptop using it does 8x AGP - making it better than a competitor's laptop with similar specs, but only stating it has a 9000 in it.)
I have an 9000 card already. And my sole reason to buy that computer were to open it up and look on the circuits for fun. Then you would be mad.
I think it does not matter how it is doing in some benchmark. If they said they had that card, then I expect to get it. My reason are mine.
----
How about if I go to the Hyundai dealership, and they have this nice little car that has a 300hp V6! So I buy it, only to find that the engine inside is a dinky little 100hp. I complain, and get the answer, "well the 300hp doesn't fit in there".
Just because the Centrino doesn't support the extra feature (AGP8x, which is not just some random arbitrary feature), doesn't mean you can try and advertise having it! And using the 9200 name is doing exactly that.
(Forgive any flaws in my car analogy - I'm not really a car guy, and I'm sure it shows).
The chips perform the same, so i don't see if that's a huge problem.
Besides, Chevy now sells a car it calls "Impala" that's Front wheel drive, V-6, 4-door sedan. In 1964 it was a v-8 rear drive 2-door coupe, sedan or convertible. Does that mean the new Impala really isn't an impala at all?
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Just for you information:
Radeon 9000 = AGP 4X
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
Centrino = AGP 4X
So, HP thought they might as well stick in some Radeon 9000 and no one would tell the difference.
That actually makes it worse; HP is not only lying about the GPU, HP is passing of their laptop as a AGP 8X machine since sticking a 9200 in an AGP 4X machine is a dumb-ass configuration (it may work, but not up to spec). Since the comparative cost of a GPU is much lower than that of the rest of the laptop, that's the bigger lie.
You can't legally pass off a motor-bike as a 4 Wheel Drive last time I checked.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
But companies only do that with the un-advertised components of that product. When the describe the pickup, they don't tell you what brand the bolts are, or who made the axle, or who manufactured the circuit boards. But they tell you that the engine is a hemi. If the circuit boards are changed, you don't care, you made no purchasing decision on who/what those are. You did make a purchasing decision on the hemi though, and if they changed that on you and said, don't worry - the performance is the same. They would be facing a class-action lawsuit.
It's all about the fact that they advertised a very specific brand of video cards, and outright lied about it.
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
Always read the fine print.
I have an NX7000, and I specifically configured it on the HP website to have a 9200. Screw the fine print. They either lied, or the deliberately misled. I don't understand why we allow the fine print. Say what the hell you mean.
I agree with the parent, and I really don't know how "Caveat Emptor" got modded 5, Insightful. There was NO fine print stating that these buyers would get a Mobility Radeon 9000, instead of the promised 9200. (A note to mods: Just because someone is FP, doesn't mean they have anything valid to say.)
And for all of the people out there who say, "Well, what does it matter, they got the same thing anyway," I remind them that for the majority of consumers (including myself!) who didn't know that 9000 ~= 9200, lots of them might have bought an X1000, a ZT3000, or an NX7000 specifically because of this "better" graphics chip.
Lastly, I'm not an advocate of frivolous lawsuits, but in this case, where literally thousands of consumers have been deliberately tricked (unless HP/Compaq can somehow prove it was a mistake that these machines were being loaded with 9000s), I think that if HP/Compaq is not willing to issue a refund or replacement notebook (with a 9200!) to anyone who was fooled, they should be taken to court in class-action.
As consumers, we cannot allow companies to use deceptive marketing tactics in order to sell their products. That is, unless you want to live in a country where you need to reverse-engineer everything you buy just to see if you actually are buying what is advertised.
It is STANDARD PRACTICE in the electronics industry to treat equivalent configurations that meet advertised practice as the same model. The difference between a 2.4 GHz and 2.6 GHz CPU? More of the batch the 2.4's came from failed when clocked at 2.6 then the 2.6 batch. That's it.
I'm sure the company planned to use 9200 chips eventually, especially when the 9000 chips ran out. How it probably happened is that the laptop companies designed in a 9200, found out 9000 would save some money without costing anything feature wise (due to the AGP bus width), then did a chip swap, as they were identical as far as this configuration was concerned. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that "9000's" are actually the same die as 9200's, but if the AGP 8X bus fails tests (or if it doesen't and the chip manufactuer just wants to have a price differential), then the chip manufacturer screens the 9000 number on the chip and ships it out. This is economical for the chip company because they then only have to gear up their production line for the 9200 layout, while they can sell them as both 9000's and 9200's.
Its not false advertising, its an error at worse, and doesn't hurt ANYONE in ANY WAY. There is NO damages here for anyone.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
Uhh... In reality there's almost no difference between AGP 4x and 8x with current hardware. It's kinda like how SATA is faster than ATA133; it's capable of higher speeds but under current conditions you'll never see the difference.
That's not the point - HP lied.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
In Court Reporting Services, Inc. Court Reporting Services, Inc.; Darwyne Dianne McVey; and Benjamin S. Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Compaq Computer Corp the settlement gave the buyers of the Compaq PC's a $10 refund.
The lawyers recived fees "not to exceed $1,000,000"
The case was about Compaq selling home-computers with (surprise!)non-working backup/restore/partitioning software.
Compaq Presario QR Class Action Settlement Website.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
I've always thought that we made a rather serious mistake back in the 1830's when Caveat Emptor was allowed to become the legal standard. Prior to that it was assumed that there would be "Fair Dealing". Obviously there are flaws with the fair dealing standard (who defines "fair" just to begin with), but in the nearly 200 years we've been operating with Cateat Emptor it hasn't worked out too well for Joe Average.
The main problem is the double standard, if Joe Average messes up (fails to read fine print, actually expects a product to behave as advertised, etc) he not only gets reamed, he's expected to bring his own vasaline. When Foo Corp messes up (prints "incorrect" prices, etc) they don't get reamed; usually they're allowed to get away with saying "oops, we made a mistake, you really can't buy a computer for $50". And that's a serious problem. Personally I'd rather we went to a standard that *didn't* encourage corporations (and people) to look for tiny mistakes that can be used to ream someone, but if that's the way we want to play it the system needs to work in reverse too.
On a more on topic note, I'm pretty sure that Caveat Emptor doesn't apply anyway, it sounds more like a case of false advertising to me. The ads and the box say "Now includes *FOO*", but the fine print defines "foo" to mean "bar". If that's legal, it shouldn't be.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Sure, but HP would have honestly called it a 9000, not a 9200, unless they thought they'd gain something by lying. If they wanted to say, "Yeah, it's a 9000, but you don't really need the 9200," they should have said so.
Its a clear case of misleading advertising. If its a 9000 then say 9000, if its a 9200 then say 9200, don't give this "it has the same performance" BS, hell they could have stuck a Geforce4 5200Go in there and got similar performance, but I would hardly call that a 9200.
...) Identical quality of fit and finish, identical paint, identical seats, etc.
Damn right.
Back in '67 or so GM was trying to cost-cut and consolidate. The Odlsmobile and one of the Buick models were by then built on the same chassis and were virtually the same car, with three differences:
- The brand-name/model-designation trim.
- The shape of a couple body panels.
- The engine.
They were built on the same production lines by the same workers. (Indeed, they were literally intermixed on the lines. Olds, Buick, Buick, Olds, Buick, something else, Olds,
But Oldsmobile engines were built at an engine plant in Lansing Michigan - one of the few holdovers from the original Oldsmobile company. They were a descendant of the "Rocket '88" V8 engine - which was VERY powerful. It was said that it could pass anything on the road but a gas station. (At one time the stock design was tuned so it had no "top end", i.e. you could literally go out on the highway, floor it, and it would accellerate until the engine blew.) Despite its mass and strength, the Olds was one of the peppiest cars on the road.
GM was in an ongoing cost crunch, and decided to close the engine plant - gradually, weaning the customers of their perceived "love affair with the Oldsmobile", which they believed to be purely a product of advertising and status games.
But the Olds was both significantly higher status and significantly more expensive than the Buick. And there were TWO reasons to pay the premium:
- The high-status brand name.
- The engine.
GM did a run of Olds Cutlasses with the Buick engine in them. And they didn't mark it on the paperwork. A few months later (after a LOT of Olds customers were driving new cars with Buick engines and cursing the emission regulations that they believed had robbed them of their expected performance), GM got caught. And they got sued, BIG time, for consumer fraud.
They had laid off enough workers that they couldn't ramp the engine plant up enough to put genuine Olds engines in all the Oldsmobiles until the model year AFTER the one where they pulled the boner. So for the next year's model they built some with each engine type, and clearly marked it on the sticker. Something like this:
"This car has a high quality GM engine manufactured in {an Oldsmobile plant in Lansing, Michigan / a Buick plant in Pontiac, Michigan}.
It was a VERY expensive lesson. (I think they ended up shelling out refunds for the FULL cost of an Olds engine to each of the customers.)
(So of course the NEXT year the suckers pulled ANOTHER switch: They substituted a 200 (Chevette) transmission for the 350! Hanging an extra ton of car on one end and an extra hundred horses on the other caused it to melt a seal and fail after about 25,000 miles. Oops! But substitute a rebuilt 350 and it would run like a bat unti it finally started the one-horse shay number at about 200,000 or so - a very long life for cars of that vintage.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The fact remains that the two chips offer identical performance in their present configuration. Remember that the 9200 is merely a 9000 with 8x AGP support, which you won't be getting on the i855 chipset. If we were talking about a notebook that utilizes the i865 chipset then this would really be an issue, but if someone is suing for damages, then that's absolutely silly. At most, the best HP could do is issue a public apology and send Mobility Radeon 9000 stickers to users affected. They should also change their sites, and any related marketing collateral to state that their chips will contain either the Mobility Radeon 9000 or the Mobility Radeon 9200. Suing for damages would be wrong in this case as no damage has been done other than to HP's credibility.
Personally, the controversy over the 15.4" WSXGA+ screens on the Dell Inspiron 8600 should be garnering more attention as there is a noticable inferiority in the quality of LCDs provided by Hitachi in the current crop of 8600s as opposed to the superb Samsung screens on the earlier machines produced.
unless you want to live in a country where you need to reverse-engineer everything you buy just to see if you actually are buying what is advertised.
Say hello to DRM.
I totally agree that this is cheap and dishonest and bait-n-switch and whatever way it can be declared awful.
Too bad you can't truly buy off-the-shelf components and build your own laptop.
My parents once asked if a particular Gateway would suit them, I looked at the specs and said "sure, whatever". What a mistake! The 3 PCI slots were only two, because the huge slot-1 assembly completely blocked access to one slot. Bah, whatever, I'll spare you the long list of frustrations with that thing. Worse yet, I knew better. I had been through sucky Gateways at work.
Oh, in another case, the Matrox video card was specifically described as "Millenium". But, it was an OEM version which lacked the daughter-card attachment, had a DAC half the speed, and some other differences. That's just to show an example quite similar to your problem, but one from like 1994.
This type of thing is routine. Typical. Standard business practice. Always been the case. The only surprise is that you were caught off-guard. I'm sorry about that. I've been caught off-guard as well, and it sucks!
Consider the old CRT display size issue of a many years back. Or, the Nintendo Gameboy Advance... they had TV commercials and print material that demonstrated a bright and clear screen. It was a total lie.
Probably... every single product that has, or ever will be, marketed... should result in a class action lawsuit. Voting with your wallet makes only the tiniest dent... but it's all we have.
Except an RV280 is simply an RV250 that supports AGP 8x.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
I can't view the upgrade instructions you posted without registering, but I assume they're probably complicated, void the warrenty, and are only valid for these particular laptops (so you'd have to find other instructions to upgrade the hypothetical two-years-from-now laptop). It's usually quite difficult and risky to mess with laptop internals, which is why almost no one does it.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.