Previous "2900 XT Lacks UVD" Posts

[cadaveca]

..except there is no product on the market that does as this one advertizes..and hence my purchase....I need HDMI connector, hardware decode, etc, and only the 2900XT offers these @ the level that is required for my needs.

As there is no other product with this offering, there can be no exchange, only refund, and lost time spend building pc's with parts that claimed to do what they cannot.


I've "applied" for my refund using the proper avenues. I've also filed a criminal claim against the vendor for internet sales fraud. I bet they'll like that one.

I am not suing, however I am taking all steps to ensure that myself and other consumers get what is advertized, or that advertizing is changed to reflect what the product truly offers. If i did not, the complacency could lead to worse, and I cannot accept that. I expect better out of a top-tier pc company, and so should everyone else.

Your complacency says you don't care, and good for you...I got a good quadcore here for you to buy(that's really just a dualcore with quad IHS). given your attitude, you shouldn't mind...games won't be affected!

 

[Aerows]

Simple solution, take back the product for a full refund or swap the product for one that does what is advertised.

Or jump on the American trend and sue them dry.

You ordered it through the internet. You are now without a computer because you sold your previous computer. You will lose productivity, and your money is still tied up during the time you ship it back and wait to receive a computer that does read DVDs.

But wait...the only one that reads DVDs has a Pentium D in it instead of a Core 2 .

You then mention/gripe about it and some people respond with "What are you so mad about? So what if it doesn't play DVDs? They messed up on the packaging. They can send you a different one that will play DVDs even though it is lower end. You are just picking on that computer manufacturer. What is your problem?"

 

[santiagodraco]

I wonder if the UVD is part of the theater chip or is it suppose to part of the GPU?

It's supposed to be a part of the GPU.

 

[santiagodraco]

You ordered it through the internet. You are now without a computer because you sold your previous computer. You will lose productivity, and your money is still tied up during the time you ship it back and wait to receive a computer that does read DVDs.

But wait...the only one that reads DVDs has a Pentium D in it instead of a Core 2 .

You then mention/gripe about it and some people respond with "What are you so mad about? So what if it doesn't play DVDs? They messed up on the packaging. They can send you a different one that will play DVDs even though it is lower end. You are just picking on that computer manufacturer. What is your problem?"

Exactly.

Far as I'm concerned in situations like this the manufacturer should be forced to produce the proper product with the full feature set and the consumer should have their existing, crippled product, replaced.

I've sold my old cards PLUS I ordered online from a "replace only" merchant (which is all of them).

This is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

 

[nicolasb]

communication with tech support says that UVD/Xilleon IS included on R600.

(whistles)

Wow, that really is damning.

 

[trinibwoy]

Many of those customers are fuming as that feature was a primary driver for purchase.

UVD was a primary driver for purchasers of the 2900XT? Somehow I doubt that. They probably wouldnt even notice it wasnt working if nobody pointed it out to them. Yes, it's a matter of principle etc, etc but it's really hard to care

 

[Geo]

Speaking of UVD

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/pr/30

CyberLink PowerDVD Ultra with support for AMD UVD Technology on ATI Radeonâ„¢ HD 2300, ATI Radeon HD 2400 and ATI Radeon HD 2600 series graphics cards, is available online starting from May 16, 2007.

Hmm. Why would they rush out a PR and software availability on May 16th for parts that aren't available until the end of June? The reasonable conclusion is somebody somewhere has an interest in having that software be available now.

 

[Aerows]

UVD was a primary driver for purchasers of the 2900XT? Somehow I doubt that. They probably wouldnt even notice it wasnt working if nobody pointed it out to them. Yes, it's a matter of principle etc, etc but it's really hard to care

I may not care about UVD (I'm not even sure what it does! ) and you may not care about it either, but that doesn't mean that nobody else does...why else would they put it on the box if it didn't matter?

Suppose it didn't support AA? Many people could care less about AA and don't know what it is. Is it okay that you bought it to do anti-aliasing and now that you have gotten it home you find out it doesn't really do it?

Maybe someone could clarify what it is and what it does. I know it has something to do with watching movies, and I assume they look better than regular DVD's, but honestly I'm impressed if the picture is the right size/color and sounds good.

 

[nutball]

Speaking of UVD

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/pr/30




Hmm. Why would they rush out a PR and software availability on May 16th for parts that aren't available until the end of June? The reasonable conclusion is somebody somewhere has an interest in having that software be available now.

Curious they don't mention the 2900 series What could that mean?

 

[santiagodraco]

UVD was a primary driver for purchasers of the 2900XT? Somehow I doubt that. They probably wouldnt even notice it wasnt working if nobody pointed it out to them. Yes, it's a matter of principle etc, etc but it's really hard to care

Then you don't know jack pal. I and many others have these cards in our HTPCs. What are HTPCs you might ask (since you obviously don't know) they are PCs built for use as home entertainment center use, ie playback of HD content as well as others.

Waiting to purchase the 2900 vs. an existing card was most certainly based on UVD for many people. Does that mean everyone? Of course not. It also doesn't mean no one either.

As for you not caring, well, we don't care

 

[santiagodraco]

Curious they don't mention the 2900 series What could that mean?

If you look at a couple of sites, I think Born might be one, they now have a "correction" regarding UVD.

Obviously just about everyone thought it was there until very recently...like after launch when ATI started realizing they might have a problem on their hands.

 

[dnavas]

Hmm. Why would they rush out a PR and software availability on May 16th for parts that aren't available until the end of June? The reasonable conclusion is somebody somewhere has an interest in having that software be available now.

[/me looks around at responses thus far and prods] you mean, like, certification processes?

 

[Aerows]

[/me looks around at responses thus far and prods] you mean, like, certification processes?

For OEMs wondering whether they will market UVD as a feature for new PCs containing the new Radeon 2300, 2400 and 2600's?

Since the R600 is called the HD2900XT, one would assume that it has full HD capabilities. It has the sound card to as part of the HDMI. So does the lack of UVD mean that it is unable to do HD capabilities in hardware? Or can it just not do it at all?

 

[Geo]

Since the UVD thing has become a controversy for some, I thought it would be useful to post the AMD slide regarding it as given to the press at the editor's day.

Here it is.

What do I think of it? Well, looking around at reviews, I'll tell you. If one guy gets what you're telling him wrong, then you have some justification in saying he wasn't paying enough attention. If several misunderstand, then probably you need to look in the mirror a little bit and ask how you could have been more clear.

What I see as the likely cause here is a fundamental mismatch of perceptions. Some people would look at "across the entire range of graphics products" and think that means it's in 2900 too, even tho the rest of the page says in two different spots that it's 2400 and 2600 that includes it. Further, AMD says regarding 2900 that "it's huge processing capability still ensures. . . ". Still ensures? That's pretty clearly saying that 2900 gets to the same place. . .but by different means.

And it's that "same place by different means" that I think was driving AMD's own context on this point.

Let's go back to the R5xx family launch. Yay, Avivo, you rock, etc. Well, early on there was a good deal of disappointment when it was discovered that while ATI was certifying X1800 for h.264 1080p. . . .X1300 was only certified to 480p and X1600 was only certified to 720p. Some enterprising types discovered that pairing those low/mid cards with high-end cpus could do better than that in some instances, but obviously ATI was trying not to overpromise without knowing who was running what with their X1300 and X1600.

Enter UVD. The whole point was to address the disappointment that the low and mid parts couldn't deal reliably with 1080p, even tho the high-end X1800 (at that time) could do so. And thus you see the genesis of the "huge processing capability" line in the slide. R600 doesn't need UVD, as the high-end Radeons have been able to bring the h.264 1080p bacon home for 18 months now without it.

 

[cadaveca]

R600 doesn't need UVD, as the high-end Radeons have been able to bring the h.264 1080p bacon home for 18 months now without it.

Then the box doesn't need that UVD logo on it, either. Nor should the box allude to these capabilities, which, given what's really happening in the processing pipeline, is far different, given the lack of hardware decoding in the r600, and it's addition in the lesser models. Given all marketing points, it's very hard for the consumer to think anything is different between these cards while processing HD content.

Decoding acceleration is far different than hardware decoding...one uses a cpu attached to an external pcb, the other happens completely within the unit's own PCB. This then requires additional hardware, and as such, it should be stipulated as a requirement.

I'll be blunt...HIS has this covered with a disclaimer on the box, however Sapphire has no such disclaimer nor is there a listing for specific cpu requirements as there is for the rest of the hardware(dvd-rom, Windows OS, etc, etc.)

Had I known these were requirements for HD playback, I would have waited for the cheaper unit with better functionality. You'd figure the extra cost involved counted for something.

 

[Geo]

The box certainly doesn't need the logo on it. If an AIB box has the logo on it when "BBA" box (Built By ATI) doesn't, who's fault is that?

 

[cadaveca]

I'm not placing blame for this issue. Just a little pissed I bought 6 cards instead of 4. This problem lays on the heads of all those review websites that had it wrong, and the board partners that improperly labelled thier products. In this instance, I call foul for AMD, as they were very quick to issue statements about DX10 capabilities, but nothing about HD. This provides them with ample opportunity to respond to improper reviews, as they have already responded to part of said reviews, and points a big fat finger at where thier priorities lay...and it's quite obviously not with providing accurate reports about product functionality to the consumer, if you want me to place blame.

 

[santiagodraco]

I'm not placing blame for this issue. Just a little pissed I bought 6 cards instead of 4. This problem lays on the heads of all those review websites that had it wrong, and the board partners that improperly labelled thier products. In this instance, I call foul for AMD, as they were very quick to issue statements about DX10 capabilities, but nothing about HD. This provides them with ample opportunity to respond to improper reviews, as they have already responded to part of said reviews, and points a big fat finger at where thier priorities lay...and it's quite obviously not with providing accurate reports about product functionality to the consumer, if you want me to place blame.

You're close. It actually lays on the heads of ATI since they supplied those sites with the slides and data they used for the reviews. They certainly didn't make that stuff up. And considering that they ALL made the same mistake (except for one retraction that I know of so far) I point the finger squarely at ATI.

But you are correct overall.

I wonder if Dave is on vacation as this thread has gone interestingly silent in respect to replies from the "ATI" representative.

 

[Geo]

Did you see many Nvidia employees addressing their Vista issues on forums under their own names? Not so much that I can recall. Most IHV employees participate on forums, including ours, giving their own views on matters rather than as "official spokespersons" for their companies. Can you imagine how many posts an IHV employee could get to make if corporate Legal had to vet each one first? Not too many.

 

[trinibwoy]

I may not care about UVD (I'm not even sure what it does! ) and you may not care about it either, but that doesn't mean that nobody else does...why else would they put it on the box if it didn't matter?

Yeah, I'm sure somebody would care. But I can't help but mock any notions of outrage for something silly like this. Just return the card if you feel wronged. Or keep your cool, play your games and deal with your 70% CPU utilization....