False information in the articles: No UVD in R600

[eXceeded]

i was actually looking forward to having UVD on the R600 and was very very close ot ordering one... Looks like I'll wait til next time.........

[Sampsa]

Guru3D has more info on this with tests.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/11/

Yes because I told to Hilbert about this yesterday

[cadaveca]

Well, let's wait and see what AMD does about this horrible marketing. they better issue a statement about this, or I'll just go visit the court building and file suit. Anyone else who bought a card want to jump on this bandwagon?

[eXceeded]

Well, let's wait and see what AMD does about this horrible marketing. they better issue a statement about this, or I'll just go visit the court building and file suit. Anyone else who bought a card want to jump on this bandwagon?

Ill buy one then sue you for making me realise I didn't have the hardware I expected to have!

[cadaveca]

Unfortuantely local laws do not allow for that. But consumer protection laws do allow for filing suit with product manufacturers for sale under false pretenses. In fact, if the packaging does not accurately state the contents contained therein, the manufacturere must provide such contents, or refund amt of product plus damages(inconvenience). I was looking for some entertainment...i guess i can get it through other avenues. Might be more fun this way anyway!

I bought a few ferrari with pinto engines stuffed inside, when the packaging said ferrari all over it...I bought a ferrari, a ferrari I shall get!

[eXceeded]

you do realise I was joking

[XeRo]

Well, let's wait and see what AMD does about this horrible marketing. they better issue a statement about this, or I'll just go visit the court building and file suit. Anyone else who bought a card want to jump on this bandwagon?

Maybe they'll give you free k10 to settle this.

[cadaveca]

you do realise I was joking

You do realize the proliferation of smilies in my post?


A k10? for what? I want worknig videocard...i'd take HD2900XTX in relacement for each card(4 cards here so far, two more on order... ).

[perkam]

Wow....quite a bit of work you did there sampsa...this deserves a sticky

Perkam

[v_rr]

You're saying one of ATi/AMD's employees don't know what the R600 has?

Sorry, let me explain in other way:




Call UVD or not. The card do it´s job far away better than 8800. The rest is just spending time that can be used to do far away better things.

[DilTech]

Sorry, let me explain in other way:




Call UVD or not. The card do it´s job far away better than 8800. The rest is just spending time that can be used to do far away better things.

The question isn't whether or not AVIVO works, the problem is some R600 boxes clearly state it has UVD, and DAAMIT clearly say it doesn't.

That's false advertising.

[XeRo]

So according to EastCoastHandle, AMD can get sued? I wonder if AMD can handle a law suit.

[v_rr]

The question isn't whether or not AVIVO works, the problem is some R600 boxes clearly state it has UVD, and DAAMIT clearly say it doesn't.

That's false advertising.

It´s doing it´s job, so you can´t protest nothing.
I ask what is UVD?
As the name says is a Universal video decoder that is just what 2900XT does. It decodes al the HD video codecs even better then 8800 does. Discussing this things is just ridiculous

How the decode is done is ATI problem, not user problem. It´s working even better that 8800, so why complayning? Because lot off people don´t have nothing to do unless discussing these things.....

So according to EastCoastHandle, AMD can get sued? I wonder if AMD can handle a law suit.

Ofcourse not. UVD = Universal Video Decoder.
HD 2900 XT decodes all HD formats even better then 8800. The way it is done is ATI problem not user problem. The decoding is working very good.
Think in Law suit it´s just ridiculous.

Think when you buy a car. When it say´s that does 5 seconds in 0-100Km´h you just have to comprove that is does it. The way it is done is company problem not user problem.

Also making a siticky of a thing like this doesn´t make much sense, but ok....
At least put in the first post those slides that show that the deconding made by 2900XT is very good, and not bad as some people want that it be....

[cadaveca]

UVD= UNIFIED, not universal, VIDEO DECODER.

The ATI Radeon HD 2000 series of products introduces immersive DirectX® 10 gaming enabling the next generation of visual effects at every price point. The line-up boasts many firsts for the graphics industry, including a powerful second-generation Unified Shader Architecture (USA), a 512 Mbit memory bus designed for full performance high dynamic range (HDR) rendering, and new Unified Video Decoder (UVD) technology for high-fidelity HD multimedia playback.1

In addition to gaming, the ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 series from AMD delivers the ultimate high-definition multimedia experience on the PC with improved visual fidelity afforded by ATI Avivo™ HD technology. Innovative UVD technology handles HD multimedia with ease, allowing consumers to watch the latest HD DVD and Blu-ray™ discs with incredibly fine image quality and smooth playback, all while consuming less power. With the energy efficiency of UVD technology combined with a 65nm process, the ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 2000 series allows notebook users to view an entire HD DVD or Blu-ray™ disc on a single battery.3

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...117414,00.html

Unified video decoder, according to patents, implies

Presented herein is a unified decoder architecture. A system comprises a video decoder, instruction memory, and a host processor. The video decoder decodes the video data encoded with the particular standard. The instruction memory stores a first set of instructions and a second set of instructions. The first set of instructions are for decoding encoded video data according to a first encoding standard. The second set of instruction are for decoding encoded video data according to a second encoding standard. The host processor provides an indication to the video decoder indicating the particular encoding standard. The video decoder executes the first set of instructions if the indication indicates that the particular encoding standard is the first encoding standard and executes the second set of instructions if the indication indicates that the particular encoding standard is the second encoding standard.

http://www.freshpatents.com/Unified-...0050175106.php

you'll note that the host processor only send teh decoder the data for which stream format the decoder should use, and the decoder does the work, not the host processor. If this tech were UNIVERsAL DECODER, then you'd be on to something, ubt AMD explicitly state UNIFIED DECODER. Unified implies a decoder seperate form the host processor, and in this case, that would be R600. But r600 does not do the processing...the host processor does. This is not Unified Decoder, and hence AMD's documents says that on 65nm products carry this technology, as they are WELL AWARE as to what thier hardware can, or in this case, cannot, do.

And yes, nothing better to do..hence the smilies?

[v_rr]

UVD= UNIFIED, not universal, VIDEO DECODER.


http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...117414,00.html

Unified video decoder, according to patents, implies

http://www.freshpatents.com/Unified-...0050175106.php

you'll note that the host processor only send teh decoder the data for which stream format the decoder should use, and the decoder does the work, not the host processor. If this tech were UNIVERsAL DECODER, then you'd be on to something, ubt AMD explicitly state UNIFIED DECODER.

And yes, nothing better to do..hence the smilies?

In AMD site don´t refer in specific the HD 2900XT

At least the performance decoding HD formats is good. So you are worried about something that is working good....
As I said discussing this is purely wasting a lot of time.

Also patents are used to protect the company tecnology, not to serv as manual of instruction of the grafic card.

[LowRun]

Kind of a storm in a tea cup really.

[cadaveca]

In AMD site don´t refer in specific the HD 2900XT

At least the performance decoding HD formats is good. So you are worried about something that is working good....
As I said discussing this is purely wasting a lot of time.

Also patents are used to protect the company tecnology, not to serv as manual of instruction of the grafic card.

Um, actually, it DOES matter, because the label on the box states my card does have UVD, while the reality is that it does not..maybe not important to you, but it is important to me...You do not own cards, and I do...maybe that's the reason for concern on my parts, perhaps?

Don't try to force your opinion on me..I'm not forcing mine, jsut simply stating the truth of the matter. you are stating that my concernes are trivial, due to performance. I say I PAID MONEY FOR UVD, SO I WANT UVD, OR I WANT MY MONEY BACK. local laws agree with me, so YOUR point is..well..wasted, in this respect.

I don't buy stuff based on press releases..they don't publically distrube these nor have them on the box that the product is sold in...product packaging is meant to highlight the functionality of the product within, and this product packaaging clearly stated UVD for my card...So, going by the "agency" law posted above, AMD HAS explicitly stated that the HD2900XT has this functionality.

However, I agree, no UVD is in hd2900XT...but had I known such before i made my purchase, I would not have made the purchase of so many cards..merely the 4 needed for my gaming systems, and not the extra 2 for the HTPC's. In this regard, I have every right to call foul, whether you think so or not...Your agreeing doesn't matter, because the local law agrees.

[DilTech]

In AMD site don´t refer in specific the HD 2900XT

At least the performance decoding HD formats is good. So you are worried about something that is working good....
As I said discussing this is purely wasting a lot of time.

Also patents are used to protect the company tecnology, not to serv as manual of instruction of the grafic card.

So discussion about cards claiming a feature that they do not have is a waste of time?

Legally, if owners want to file a lawsuit, then those HD 2900XT owners would win. It wouldn't even make it to court, vendors/AMD/ATi would settle out of court asap.

[v_rr]

Um, actually, it DOES matter, because the label on the box states my card does have UVD, while the reality is that it does not..maybe not important to you, but it is important to me...You do not own cards, and I do...maybe that's the reason for concern on my parts, perhaps?

You should only be concerned to see if the performance watching HD videos is good or not.
You atitude only show that you are concerd about everithing except know how does the card performe on those movies.

Don't try to force your opinion on me..I'm not forcing mine, jsut simply stating the truth of the matter. you are stating that my concernes are trivial, due to performance. I say I PAID MONEY FOR UVD, SO I WANT UVD, OR I WANT MY MONEY BACK. local laws agree with me, so YOUR point is..well..wasted, in this respect.

Go ahed and good luck. When you finish you lawsuit come here tell how it whent

You are using patents as the manual of of grafic card. That don´t make any sense....

AMD HAS explicitly stated that the HD2900XT has this functionality.

I don´t see it anyware in the site....

[DilTech]

No, he's using the box as a measure of what should be there on the card. According to his box the card has UVD. According the everything else, including the manufacturer of the Core on the card, it doesn't.

That simple really, that IS against the law. It's called false advertising.

[v_rr]

No, he's using the box as a measure of what should be there on the card. According to his box the card has UVD. According the everything else, including the manufacturer of the Core on the card, it doesn't.

That simple really, that IS against the law. It's called false advertising.

ATI just have to say:
- UVD functionality are integrated in the grafic core. User will get all the funtionality and performance and beneficts of UVD.

There are many many examples of functionalitys that were in a separeted chip and that in a revison of the card those funtionlatys whent to the GPU core. They only have to unsure that there is no lost in quality or performance to the user, and this is the case, so this is nothing more than a storm in a tea cup.

[cadaveca]

I don´t see it anyware in the site....

you don't buy cards on the AMD site, you buy them in the store. In the store, the only thing representing the product is the product packaging. this packaging states "UVD" on it..thereby implying this card has this functionality.

We are not talking patents, websites, or anything else..consumer protection does not care aobut those things either. they care what is put on the box, and what is inside.


You buy a box of cereal, it has cereal in it. If it has ketchup in it, instead of the cereal, you take it back. Maybe packaging error, maybe store error, who knows, but in the end, the consumer is not at fault...box said cereal, they bought cereal, and in the end, they get cereal, or a refund.

My box, it says UVD, but no UVD inside box. Law says I can take it back, with no penalty, exchange, or refund, or I can file suit for mislabelling. And yes, there is a section in local code for this...

I don't see where you are coming from...you are trying to explain away the problem. It's like buying a quadcore, and only getting a dualcore...sure, gmaes don't notice the lack of the thrid and forth core...but you'd notice wouldn't you?

Once again, don't force your opinion on me. i heard it, it's yours, I don't have to agree with it. In fact, I choose not to...becaseu it has no revelance to what I am talking about, nor to what the box for my product states. Dunno why it's so important for you to "win me over" with your argument, but I'll tell ya right now it won't work.

Law says..AMD is wrong. I like the law...I don't break it. AMD, via it's partner's, has. In the end, those @ fault are not my concern, that's the concern of AMD and it's partner's only, becasue you can bet that the court would not listen to what you have to say...doesn't matter how it performs..it matters what guise the product was sold under.

[v_rr]

you don't buy cards on the AMD site, you buy them in the store. In the store, the only thing representing the product is the product packaging. this packaging states "UVD" on it..thereby implying this card has this functionality.

And it does. It has full HD decode. It has good image quality. It has everything that UVD was created for.

The only diference is that it is integrated in the grafic core, and is not in an external chip.
The external chip was created for chips (HD 2600/HD 2400) that doesn´t have suficient raw power to do that kind off work.

You only have to ensure that all the funcionality´s of UVD are present in the product. In reality they are.
The card get 128 points out of 130 point in quality tests and it´s performance in HD decoding is even better then an 8800.

[Starscream]

y would it be AMDs fault?
AMD isnt responsible for the packaging of its partners.

IF and only IF AMD releases any 2900 cards by itself like build by ATI and mentions on its packaging that UVD is init then AMD can be held responsible for the cards that they sold but not over the cards its partners are selling.

[mascaras]

dont have UVD but also do same job and better than 8800GTS 640mb








regards