Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Graphics Software Hardware

Should a '9200' Brand Mean a 9200 GPU? 435

Posted by Cliff from the false-advertising dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should a '9200' Brand Mean a 9200 GPU? More

Should a '9200' Brand Mean a 9200 GPU?

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry... Performance != Branding... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:08PM (#7945484) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Sorry... Performance != Branding... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

      I am not disagreeing with you by the way.

      • Re:Sorry... Performance != Branding... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:30PM (#7945633)
        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.

        • Re:Sorry... Performance != Branding... (Score:4, Informative)

          by ameoba ( 173803 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:43PM (#7945726)
          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.

          • 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.

            • --Agreed. First there was the outsourcing article on Thu, and now this. HP lost my business back when my parents bought a 500MHz "desktop" system from them - POS.

              --Now if they had chosen in their initial response to say something like, "we're incredibly sorry, some intern mistyped the number and it accidentally got into the ad" that MIGHT give them some grace. But they didn't, and now the whole world knows they suck that much more.

          • Re:Sorry... Performance != Branding... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @03:58PM (#7946173)
            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.

    • Re:Sorry... Performance != Branding... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @03:39PM (#7946082) Journal
      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.
      If they are lucky they will get a settlement and get $10.

      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. [compaqqrsettlement.com]

  • another sco story!? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis@ut[ ]du ['k.e' in gap]> on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:09PM (#7945492) Homepage Journal
    SCO does the same thing, advertising operating systems that are barely UNIX93-compliant as cutting edge.
  • 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

    • Re:That depends on your point of view... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:15PM (#7945531) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:That depends on your point of view... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) * on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:23PM (#7945588)
        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.
    • 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?

      so if it's the same physical product why does the MP identify as a different processor, and why doesn't the XP work in multiprocessor applications? Try sticking 2 XP chips in a 2cpu motherboard.

      • so if it's the same physical product why does the MP identify as a different processor, and why doesn't the XP work in multiprocessor applications? Try sticking 2 XP chips in a 2cpu motherboard.

        (turns on his dual-XP box)
        (Loads up Slashdot)
        (Resumes this post)

        Okay, done. The point you meant to make?

        I realize that AMD has a slightly different jumper setting between the XP and MP, but I don't really consider that sufficient to make them "different" products. Back in the days when we needed to set the
      • Actually, there is one small physical difference. One of the configuration bridges (the same things that set the clock multiplier) is cut on the XP, to disable multiprocessing. I've seen tutorials online to fill the bridge and thus convert back to MP; however, this is unreliable as the XPs aren't necessarily tested as MPs at the factory.

    • Re:That depends on your point of view... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jmv ( 93421 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:40PM (#7945708) Homepage
      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".

  • Truth in advertising? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by carcosa30 ( 235579 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:12PM (#7945506)
    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.

    • "Companies seem to be allowed to say whatever they want and don't seem to be taken to task very often"

      You, sir, are gravely mistaken. It's just that the authorities are so busy handling real problems [slashdot.org] that they don't have time for your petty complaints!

  • The Last Apple 15" TiPB. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:12PM (#7945508) Homepage

    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.

    • You should be -happy- you've got an 8500 instead of a 9000. The 8500, even in the castrated models (which the 9100 is one of), often outperforms the 9000 by huge margins. Here's some benches [tomshardware.com].

    • Re:The Last Apple 15" TiPB. (Score:5, Informative)

      by MasterVidBoi ( 267096 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @04:42PM (#7946499)
      How did you 'bus scan' the output?

      On OS X the 8500 and 9000 share the same driver: "ATIRadeon8500.kext".

      I'm willing to bet that you saw the name of the driver loaded to support that card. Of course, as other responders to this post noted, the 8500 is actually a better card than the 9000, so this is still isn't great news for you :)

      You got the card advertised, not the better one.

    • Re:The Last Apple 15" TiPB. (Score:5, Informative)

      by GarfBond ( 565331 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @04:52PM (#7946570)
      You may indeed have an 8500 inside your PowerBook. But, here's some information that gives you just a little perspective :)

      Codenames -- Retail Brand Name
      R200 -- Radeon 8500, 8500LE, and so forth
      RV250 -- Radeon 9000
      RV280 -- Radeon 9200

      Radeon 9000s are the mainstream version of the 8500; in other words a cut-down 8500 for lower costs and bigger production quantities. In order to do this, they had to cut down on complexity, and in the same vein, this also means slightly lower performance (compared to a desktop 8500) and lower clock speeds.

      The Radeon 9200 is a modified radeon9000 to include support for AGP8x (and 4x too, of course) and slightly higher clock speeds.

      The Radeon9600s found in highend laptops now are actually a completely new chip, based off of the RV350 cores and as such have more relationship to the Radeon 9700s than the 8500s. In fact, there is almost no relationship between a 9600 and an 8500.

      Actually, I can tell you for a fact that you do not have a Radeon 8500 in your PowerBook. Know why I can say this? Because ATI *never* produced a mobility version of the 8500 :) Their recent mobility line went like this: 7500, 9000, 9200, 9600.

  • First off... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:12PM (#7945510) Homepage Journal
    ...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...
    • Because with most laptops (at least, every one I've ever owned), you can plug in a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Sound of course depends on what built in sound card they have, but I don't find 5.1 sound to be a necessity when I game.
    • A lot of it is bragging rights.

      When I got my first laptop recently, I figured everyone would ask about the meaningful features on it. Screen size, hard drive size, does it have a burner, battery life, weight, hell, even "how much RAM?".

      Instead, most people ask me what kind of video hardware it has. When I tell them it uses shared video RAM I am almost always told "you got ripped off". Riiiiiiiight.

    • Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Slowping ( 63788 )
      ...would someone explain me why one wants a laptop with a highest performance 3D accelerated card that makes sense only in newest games

      Because people are stupid. Personally, for my laptop, I want Intel to use their latest & greatest mobile technology, and then UNDERCLOCK that processor down to 700MHz, buying me more compute time on the road.

      • Re:First off... (Score:3, Informative)

        by snarkh ( 118018 )

        Personally, for my laptop, I want Intel to use their latest & greatest mobile technology, and then UNDERCLOCK that processor down to 700MHz, buying me more compute time on the road.


        That is exactly what happens when you run on batteries, except it underclocks to 600mhz, didn't you know?

    • Re:First off... (Score:2, Informative)

      by CaptBubba ( 696284 )
      Also something to remember is that the highest preformance cards often contains the newest technology. This is especially true for power-saving features in laptops. A new 90nm process chip with variable voltage and memory/core clock speed will use less power than an older 130nm process chip with only core clock speed throttling. Every little bit helps.

    • Re:First off... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Trick ( 3648 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @03:13PM (#7945941)
      Since you're asking...

      I just bought a laptop ( the Sager 4780: http://pctorque.com/pre-notebook.php#4780 ) with the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro -- with AGPx8, so I'm assuming it's the "real" one. Why? By day, I'm a consultant, which means I need to lug *something* around with me, so a notebook is an obvious choice.

      However, I like to play around a bit at home. That's why I keep a 24" monitor, surround sound system, and all that good stuff there. With nothing more than a simple port replicator, I've got everything a destop machine would have. I've also got the added benefit that all my work-related stuff is on the same machine, so don't have to maintain two separate systems.

      Granted, I'm sacrificing a bit as far as upgradability goes, and my new laptop's a bit more expensive than a desktop machine would have been. However, since I need a laptop for work either way, I'd much rather keep everything I need one one easy-to-lug-around system.
  • If a laptop box says it is "powered by 1000 midget hamsters" in big red letters you can be sure that it is. Or you could read the specifications. Now if the specifications say it is powered by a 1000 midget hamsters, make sure you pick up plenty of hamster food before you leave the store.

  • Just pay them... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...using the same amount of $20 bills as you would use $100 bills instead, and explain them the $20 bills you give them are of the $100 brand quality.

  • Bad car analogy from a non-car buff... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:20PM (#7945567) Journal
    If anyone doesn't see a problem with this....

    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).

    • It's EXACTLY what's going on, expressed in something that most everyone else would understand.
  • It's definitely misleading, and probably wouldn't stand up in court. They can't say that a lesser product, since it has no disadvantage in the current configuration, is the same as a superior product. They sold you a 9200, and what you got was a 9000. It doesn't matter if they function the same, what matters is you didn't get what you ordered. End of story.
  • If your purchased product comes with a different feature, and it is better than what it should have been, then you are lucky. If it is the opposite, then this is a simple violation of truth in advertising laws. You are owed either a refund or an exchange so you can have the actual product for which you paid for.

    There is no middle ground here, if the difference in the product does not make it better (like for example, if by mistake they give you a computer with a faster CPU or GPU than what you intended on
    • There *IS* a middle ground, that you overstepped.

      If the product is switched, and provides nothing more OR less than the advertised product, then they're perfectly within their rights.

      Now the question comes when you take away a feature that can't be used in the product anyways (i.e. 8x AGP).

  • By any other name... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnixRevolution ( 597440 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:26PM (#7945609) Homepage Journal
    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?

    • Re:By any other name... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:58PM (#7945826) Homepage Journal
      If it says Impala with a V8, it had better be a V8, not a V-6 that performs the same as a V8.

      • Re:By any other name... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by topham ( 32406 )
        Na, if it had a V6, performed like a V8 they would call it a V8+

        Thankfully the auto industry doesn't take marketing tricks from the tech industry.... yet.

    • Re:By any other name... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zin ( 7049 )
      When you buy a car it has a sticker on they tag telling you the features of the car. If the features said it had a 240 HP V8 and it really had a 240 HP V6 that would be wrong. A V8 is one thing and a V6 is another thing. If the dealer said oh it has the same proformance tough luck, I would tell them to shoove it where the sun don't shine.

      Rob

    • 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're comparing apples and oranges here. If Chevy told you the car you're purchasing has a 230 HP V8 and they actually deliver a 230HP V6, then that is misleading. Whether or not they perform the same. The customer is purchasing one thing and receiving a different thing.


  • They killed my beloved Compaq

    They dumped Perens

    See what's coming :

    "Starting this year, we'll strive to build every one of our consumer devices to respect digital rights." [theregister.co.uk]

    "This may sound personal," Iovine said. "It is personal."

    They want it to be personal, let us make it so.

  • HP did this many years ago. Back in 1992 or 1993, they had a desktop model "HP 686." It was just a 286 CPU (probably an AMD, not sure), and at the time, very few people even knew the processor numbers, let alone associate models with it.

    But the few people who did follow such things felt the desktop's model number was very misleading. Then again, the people who were in the know knew there was no 686 CPU...so it was a wash.

  • Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aufecht ( 163961 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:37PM (#7945681) Homepage Journal
    Seems like HP is notorius for this type of misleading labeling. When I was shopping for a laptop we looked at the HP Pavillion ze4430us (this laptop is crap for Linux by the way, stay far away). It was advertised as 2.0Ghz. We were told it was a 2.0Ghz, but when the box came to the register it said 1.8Ghz. We were then told it operated at the same level as a 2.0Ghz. Go figure
  • If a company misrepresented the hardware they sold me. As a side effect of running an OS no hardware companies particularly support, I have got to know exactly what's in my machine. Case in point, the wireless adaptor in my laptop has a Linux driver. I'm led to understand that the newer wireless adaptor from the same company doesn't. If I'd ordered the older one and they shipped me a newer one, I wouldn't be able to use the hardware.

    If a company pulled that shit with me, I'd return the hardware, demand a

  • size (Score:2)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 )
    An enormous controversy is going on at the X1000 forums over laptop parts

    You and I have very different ideas about what is `an enormous controversy'

    -Colin Gregory Palmer [colingregorypalmer.net]

    --
    American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
  • Sorry but this is relevant to such a small segment of the population as to be unimportant. I'm sure there are people who know the impedance of every type of gold Monster Cable that Radio Shack sells and can tell you chapter and verse of which part no's are the REAL Monster Cable too.

  • WTF? (Score:2)

    by ameoba ( 173803 )
    Great... All of the 'articles' linked in the story are forum posts to a forum that doesn't allow annonymous viewers. While this may be a reaction being /.ed, it doesn't help us any. Would somebody be so kind as to be a karma whore & post them?
  • Our corporate masters want to own their markets. They want to patent ideas and business models, keeping anyone else from adopting innovations, and substitute anything they want under a brand. The attitude is "when we want your opinion on choices, we'll give it to you".
  • Leaving aside all their claims...

    Why not label it with what it actually contains?

    Is there some reason for them to label it that way?

    I can see how people would be upset when what they purchased does NOT contain what it seems to have claimed on the package.

    Is there some reason to risk annoying your customers when you could just label your product so that they CLEARLY understand what it contains?

  • Ask yourself why (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @03:05PM (#7945887) Journal
    Many here have commented that it is no big deal that the machines are labeled 9200 when, in fact, they contain a 9000.

    Ask yourself this:

    If the performance and end result are the same then why claim a 9200 is present when a 9000 really is? If "everyone" knows that 9000 has the same performance as the 9200 on those particular mobos then why claim a 9200?

    I can only conclude that the reason these machines are labeled 9200 is to confuse those that know just enough to perceive a performance difference that does not exist.

  • Same thing with USB 2 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @03:14PM (#7945952)
    Companies were calling USB 1.1 USB 2. Their justification was that well USB 1.0 was the first, so 1.1 must be the second. The problem was they did this when the real USB 2 was comming out.

    Face it, computer companies have doing this for a while. Cyrix did and AMD does with the performance rating. You can argue that the Athlon 2400+ is as fast as a 2.4 ghz P4, but it's still misleading.

    CD-Rom drives did this with their fast speeds that were only obtainable a fraction of the time. 56k? Try 40k when I was using dialup. 200 gb hard drive where suddenly giga means billion bytes and not 2^30. Firewire and USB transfer speeds are almost never reached.

  • This is the silliest thing ever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gte910h ( 239582 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @03:29PM (#7946026) Homepage
    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.

  • HP's response (Score:4, Informative)

    by newsdee ( 629448 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @04:30PM (#7946423) Homepage Journal
    Copied from the forum [x1000forums.com]:

    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_f am.ht m?iid=ipp_browse+chpsts_fe

    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

  • some facts (from the X1000 forum posts) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by newsdee ( 629448 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @04:46PM (#7946526) Homepage Journal
    IMHO this really depends in what's covered by a brand. If it's just a product (a commodity), then there has been misdirection. But not if there's more than that.

    This is what tipped everybody at first:
    T1 - The MR9000 and MR9200 present different Chip IDs to the system. The ones in the HP/C laptops are the same as the MR9000.
    T2 - some users opened their laptops and found a MR 9000 chip on the graphics card.

    ATI-related facts:
    A1 - There are two distinct GPU chips.
    A1.1 - The MR9000 has a rv250 core.
    A1.2 - The MR9200 has a rv280 core.
    A1.3 - Both chips have same specifications except for AGP 8x.
    A1.4 - AGP 8x is actually an optional feature for the 9200 (small print in ATI's product comparison matrix).
    A1.5 - a graphics card is made putting together these GPU chips with more hardware.
    A2 - There is apparently a difference between the "Mobility Radeon 9200 brand" and the actual chip (which is only a part of the brand, according to ATI and HP).
    A3 - The companies don't seem to be denying that there is a 9000 chip inside.
    A4 - ATI's product portfolio quotes that the 9200 is slightly faster than the 9000 (10x vs. 9x, when compared to the slowest Mobility Radeon [1x]).
    A5 - Apparently (reviews) the only difference between cores is that the 280 is cheaper to manufacture, everything else being equal.
    A6 - Most claims on the web regarding the 9200 as a better product are copies from a press release available around March 13th 2003. All of these do not contain benchmarks. The reviews that have benchmarks show no difference in performance.
    A7 - ATI's disclaimer on their terms of sales:
    "Performance tests and ratings of ATI products as presented on this Site are measured using specific computer systems and/or components and reflect the approximate performance of ATI products as measured by those tests. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance. Buyers should consult other sources of information to evaluate the performance of systems or components they are considering purchasing."

    HP-related facts:
    H1 - HP's Terms of sale
    "Some newly manufactured HP Products may contain and HP Support may use remanufactured parts which are equivalent to new in performance."
    H2 - They also seem to acknoledge there's a 9000 inside (see other post for their official response).

    Software-related facts:
    S1 - HP/C is using the same drivers for the "9200" as with the MR9000 with just a .inf change
    S2 - Most users' (non-review) benchmarks show no performance difference of a 9200 over a 9000 clocked at the same speed. The X1000 have higher Futuremark.com scores than every other latpop though, but that's probably because of the hardware environment, not the chip itself.

    The two crowds on the forums divided by this issue have two opposing views of brand: one claim it is only a physical product (the chip) regardless of everything else, so they claim misdirection. The other side claims that the brand entails more than just the chip and so the actual part is irrelevant. It all depends on a single definition... Google defines brand as "the name of a product or service".

  • Nothing new. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spazoid12 ( 525450 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:48PM (#7946916)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 Sagan = Billions & Billions

Close