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?"
Even if it performs like a 9200, if it does not have a 9200, it's False and Misleading advertising- and that is quite illegal. Even if it's a mistake, the companies guilty of this typically end up on the end of a class-action suit and pay out some small rebate or similar.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
SCO does the same thing, advertising operating systems that are barely UNIX93-compliant as cutting edge.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Why is it that truth in advertising doesn't seem to matter in computer hardware and software?
Companies seem to be allowed to say whatever they want and don't seem to be taken to task very often by the Federal Trade Commission. It seems that regulation of corporate activities is a thing of the past.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
My 15" Titanium PowerBook, the last round of the series before they became the 15" AlPB, was advertised to contain a Radeon 9000. Nevertheless, bus scanning output from in shows I actually have an 8500. What's the difference? I really don't know. Nevertheless, seems a bit deceptive to me.
Join Tor today!
...would someone explain me why one wants a laptop with a highest performance 3D accelerated card that makes sense only in newest games - where you miss half or more the experience without a 5+1 sound system all around you, a decent quality, at least 17" monitor, a good heavyweight manipulator or at least a normal keyboard plus mouse... definitely not a laptop hardware...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I prefer that my vendors not try to deceive me, even if the deception is harmless.
In reality, AMD is not representing the 2200+ as anything other than a CPU that performs comparably to thier competitor's chip running at 2.2GHz. In no way is their product literature representing anything otherwise.
This is in contrast to what is apparently going on here with the Radeons in the laptops. They're claiming that they're 9200's, when in fact, they're 9000's. Different to different isn't bogus- same to same is and the 9000 to the 9200 is same basic product with enhancements.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.)
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).
Right, if ATI changed their marketing and claimed that "9200" was not a specific product, but rather a performance indicator like AMD's processor ratings, then this would be a different case entirely. The problem is you can't set expectations one way, change your definitions once a product is being sold on the market, and claim that the purchasers just didn't know that you had changed your definition. That's definitely false labeling and misleading advertising, no way around it.
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
The problem here is that you can't look up the technical specs because they aren't available.
Alright, I'll agree that counts as a problem, if potential buyers can't verify what they actually get. I don't know that I'd say that problem lies in the model numbers, or complain about them (Personally, in that situation, I would just speak with my wallet and buy a competing product that does provide a reasonably detailed hardware description), but yes, definitely not quite kosher.
Incidentally, I couldn't find this from a quick check of the linked material - Does a product called a "Mobile Radeon 9200" exist that actually does have a 9200 chip in it? In that case, I'd agree with you that Dell et al should take the heat for this one for false advertising. If not (which I currently suspect as true), then I would still just consider it a matter of marketing. And even going so far as to defend these companies (quite unusual for me, considering my strong anti-corporate beliefs), if it literally has the same level of performance (again, under the assumption that no such product actually has a 9200 in it), what difference does it make in a hardwired environment lacking AGP-8x? The end user can't remove it and stick it in a machine with a faster bus, so they haven't "lost" anything. In the given environment, it performs the same, so why would anyone use or even want the more expensive chip?
Do you consider it "misleading" to label an Athlon running at 1.8GHz as a 2200?
Actually, the equivalent would be AMD selling an Athlon 1.8 labeled as "2.2 GHz". The 2200 is just a model number. You may say that (or the MP/XP) is misleading, but saying 9200 when it's 9000 is simply false. Then, the MP/XP is still fine with me. All the "MP" means is that "we guaranty that it'll work in a multi-processor machine".
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
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.
Even with high-end hardware (think Radeon 9800s) you'll get less than a 5% performance difference by 'doubling' the AGP bus speed.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
This is not unlike digital still cameras.
Have you been to Best Buy lately? You can purchase a 5 MP camera for $300. How can that be?! Because the camera delivers an effective rating of only 2.0 MP. Somehow the manufacturers are able to tout their product as a 5 MP camera.
What's going on here is the manufacturers recognize that consumers of electronics are sensitive to product numbers. When was the last time you heard of someone walking into Sears and purchasing a dishwasher because it has an R52JU actuator servo? Never. But, how many times have you heard of someone walking into Best Buy and purchase PC133 or PC2100 memory? All the time.
HP and Toshiba know that laptop purchases are sensitive to owning a Radeon 9200 (just like how digital camera makers know that purchasers are sensitive to owning a 5MP camera). It's not surprising at all the manufacturer is willing to futz with the model number to deceive the consumer.
The real question is: what are you going to do about it?
Do it for da shorties
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
If it says Impala with a V8, it had better be a V8, not a V-6 that performs the same as a V8.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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.
Copied from the forum:
f am.ht m?iid=ipp_browse+chpsts_fe
Subject: ATI Mobility(tm) Radeon(tm) 9200 graphics solution used in select HP notebooks.
Effected models:
Compaq Presario X1000 family
HP pavilion zt3000 family
HP compaq nx7000 family
Statement:
It has come to the attention of HP that there is some confusion regarding the graphics solution in certain HP notebooks that are sold with ATI MOBILITY(tm) RADEON(tm) 9200 graphics.
The effected notebooks, when advertised and sold with MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics do correctly include the graphics solution specified.
The particular brand applied to a graphics solution is based on several elements, including the silicon, video memory, electrical implementation on the system board including clock frequencies, the drivers, and the video graphics BIOS. The brand is determined by a number of factors and is not solely limited to the silicon or ASIC used.
In the case of the notebooks in question, HP and ATI designed a solution inclusive of all of the above elements that are branded and sold as MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics in the selected notebooks. This solution was created for supply flexibility, and it has been fully tested by HP and certified by ATI to ensure that performance consistency and parity of the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand are achieved with these models.
The ATI chip itself contains the MOBILITY RADEON 9000 family designator, which is only one factor in determining the graphics controller brand in a notebook computer.
We apologize for any inconvenience this confusion may have caused.
-----------
Q&A
Q: Doesn't the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution include AGP8X? Why isn't this enabled on the Presario X1000?
A: HP never advertised or made any claims the notebook or graphics controller supports AGP 8X. In the case of the Presario X1000, 8X AGP operating mode is not supported due to the feature not being present on the Intel(r) 855pm chipset which is used on the Compaq Presario X1000 notebook PC. Also, AGP 8X mode operation is not a requirement for the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand. More information on the Intel 855 Chipset family can be found at:
http://intel.com/design/chipsets/mobile/855_
Q: How does the graphics performance of HP's MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution compare with other ATI 9200-based graphics solutions?
A: The MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution provided on the Compaq Presario X1000 provides equivalent features and performance to other notebooks with MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solutions.
Q: Is the practice of using a graphics ASIC physically marked or identified differently than the brand name for the graphics solution commonplace, or is this a unique case?
A: While not extremely common, this practice is not unusual or unique. The graphics ASIC or chip alone does not determine the final brand for the part.
Q: Why is the ATI graphics ASIC marked, "9000", if the solution is branded "9200"?
A: The "ATI MOBILITY(tm) RADEON(tm) 9200" brand comprises a complete graphics solution, including graphics ASIC, video bios, video driver, and system board implementation. The actual label on the chip doesn't in this case communicate specific features to customers.
-------------
WW Escalations Engineering
HP Mobile Computing Global Business Unit
The ENIAC Demo Competition
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.
Imagine playing cooperative Counterstrike with a few people who are also on the plane, and then talking to your teammate...
"Alright, let's go, you got the bomb?"
"I got it. You cover the hostages."
fun fun.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!