Reseller claims Duron 1300 = AMD XP Pro 2000+

MJOMJO Denmark New
edited February 2004 in Hardware
I will sum up the whole thing now.

A guy purchases a computer.
The advert states that the computer is a "AMD XP Pro 2000+"
In my head that sounds like an abbreviation for AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Processor.

He then wanted to change his heatsink, he notices that it is a Duron that is in his motherboard.

He then calls the store, they tell him that a Duron equals a "AMD XP Pro 2000+" (their own made up description)

The advert on the companys hompage states that the pc contains a "AMD PRO 2000+ (PROCESSOR)"

As I see it there are numerous things that are wrong here.

The company misuse AMD's PR rating.
AMD doesn't use PR rating for Durons.
It seems that XP was misused as well, in the advert.
They tell the consumer a lie 2000+=Duron 1300 MHz.
«1

Comments

  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    How the hell can the store say that? I would sue their asses.
  • NecropolisNecropolis Hawarden, Wales Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    If that was me I would take the system back and demand either the xp 2000+ that was advertised or the money back. A duron 1300 is nowhere near close to an xp2000+.

    If they dont swap it then inform your equvialent of Trading Standards.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    That is correct Necropolis_UK
    But the store claims that this, AMD XP Pro 2000+, is the name of the system as a whole.
    This text was in their advert though.
    "- AMD XP PRO 2000+ (PROCESSOR)"

    But it is indeed a good way to cheat your customers.

    I have posted this at the official AMD forums as well
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    That is a load of crap. I hope you get some justice on this, MJO.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    MJO wrote:
    I have posted this at the official AMD forums as well

    Good move. I would also post full information on the store and their contact information too.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    I'm glad I am not the one being tricked here.
    But I am trying to help the guy out with some advice.

    I am preparing a lawsuit though, against another company.
    I got a (ab)used motherboard as a replacement.
    I handed in my KT7-Raid v.1.2 I received a KT7-Raid 1.1.
    But that's another story.
    I would be happy to tell you the whole story.
    My problem occured in April 2001, it takes time.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    That was a good idea, posting it in the AMD forums. Good call.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    I have exchanged a couple of mails with the company.

    I played the n00b computer user.

    They have confirmed one thing already.

    My mail:

    Subject: Compose you own custom G-OFFICE PRO 2000+ & 2500+ PC

    >I have noticed that you can compose a custom configuration.

    >What does an AMD Pro 2000+ and a 2500+ correspond to?
    >What processor is it?

    After this I enquired about their cd burners. (I wouldn't make my goal to obvious)

    They replied

    >The CPU's are: 2000+ = 1300 MHz, 2500+ = 1600 MHz
    >And then they babbled on about their warranty and their excellent burner.

    I sent this afterwards.

    >That sounds good.

    >But I want to know, is it Athlon processors or what?
    >I don't know much about AMD.

    I think they've gone home for the weekend.
    They haven't replied yet.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited January 2004
    Hell if Microsoft can sue over Mikerowsoft and Lindows (or at least think about it) this is much easier game.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited January 2004
    And your sure its a 1300? I have one of the new Duron 1800's that runs at 133fsb and i would bet it equals a 2000+ using amd's stupid pr ratings. In that scenario their add is slightly ... possibly .... misleading but not that far off base. Witha 1300 its crap. Witha true 1.8 133fsb duron its only slightly misleading really. These 1.8 Durons are some of the best deals going right now.

    You really need a full exact list of componets anytime you buy and there are a lot of pirates stretching the bounds of honesty in these configurations

    Good Luck

    Tex
    MJO wrote:
    I will sum up the whole thing now.

    A guy purchases a computer.
    The advert states that the computer is a "AMD XP Pro 2000+"
    In my head that sounds like an abbreviation for AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Processor.

    He then wanted to change his heatsink, he notices that it is a Duron that is in his motherboard.

    He then calls the store, they tell him that a Duron equals a "AMD XP Pro 2000+" (their own made up description)

    The advert on the companys hompage states that the pc contains a "AMD PRO 2000+ (PROCESSOR)"

    As I see it there are numerous things that are wrong here.

    The company misuse AMD's PR rating.
    AMD doesn't use PR rating for Durons.
    It seems that XP was misused as well, in the advert.
    They tell the consumer a lie 2000+=Duron 1300 MHz.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    Well, the store has confirmed that they sell Duron 1300 as AMD Pro 2000+.
    I have it confirmed in an email from the store.
    Look at the above posts.
    I made a fake inquiry.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Tex wrote:
    And your sure its a 1300? I have one of the new Duron 1800's that runs at 133fsb and i would bet it equals a 2000+ using amd's stupid pr ratings

    I highly doubt that when an Athlon XP 1533Mhz is only rated at 1800+.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Athlon XP 2000 (1.67GHz) > Duron 1800. Period.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited January 2004
    And a 1.8 XP which is the exact same chip now as the duron 1.8 except for teh amount of seconday cache is a 2200+. Only differance is the seconday cache size. So a 2000+ rating for a true 1.8 133fsb duron is a real possibility. Sorry I disagree. But then again I have one of those chips and have used it and you haven't. Once you get away from teh stupid pr ratings to teh same chip at the same speed the secocondary cache size helps isnt that huge a differance. This isnt like the old 100fsb durons anymore.

    Tex
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    I'm not even going to bother. I can't understand what you're typing Tex, sorry.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Tex wrote:
    And a 1.8 XP which is the exact same chip now as the duron 1.8 except for teh amount of seconday cache is a 2200+. Only differance is the seconday cache size. So a 2000+ rating for a true 1.8 133fsb duron is a real possibility.

    Good for a 1.8GHz Duron, but we aren't talking about 1.8GHz, we are talking about a 1.3GHz Duron.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    I have contacted AMD Europe.
    I PM'd the mod in the AMD Forums, he provided me with an e-mail address.

    They have a similar case in North America.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    I'm not even going to bother. I can't understand what you're typing Tex, sorry.

    The Processing part of core, as opposed to the RAM or SRAM cache, is same. That is what both AMD and Intel ARE doing, what used to be top line, as far as processing circuits, they are rolling into lower level chips.

    Compared to in-production current CPUs, the ones with lesser cache should be a bit less effective. But, the inner FPU and ALU processing circuits are the same for certain steps of "lesser quality line" named chips released now as compared to higher end chips(as far as name goes) released in the past.

    Essentially, AMD and Intel are rereleasing processor part designs with less cache RAM attached in the bigger thing you think of as the core. The ones with more cache were released as higher end chips in past. It is one way to save on having to design a whole processor, now you just redesign the amount of internal cache the processign part of the CPU uses inside the bigger heat-sunk thing that is thought of as a CPU Core by most enthusiasts.

    If one were to have a microphoto of a 2 GHz Celeron, for example, the ALU and FPU processing parts would be comparable to a Willamette base processing circuit design with less or same cache than a Willamette had. Compared to a Northwood or Prescott, both the Celeron and the old Willamette limp.

    Thus, when Tex thinks of the internal circuits you think of bigger core integral thing.

    John-- who thinks as Tex does in this respect as to what is the real core of a CPU, by thinking about what is in the bigger CPU physical thing you see without the aid of a microscope.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited January 2004
    Tex wrote:
    And a 1.8 XP which is the exact same chip now as the duron 1.8 except for teh amount of seconday cache is a 2200+. Only differance is the seconday cache size. So a 2000+ rating for a true 1.8 133fsb duron is a real possibility. Sorry I disagree. But then again I have one of those chips and have used it and you haven't. Once you get away from teh stupid pr ratings to teh same chip at the same speed the secocondary cache size helps isnt that huge a differance. This isnt like the old 100fsb durons anymore.

    Tex

    (Athlon) XP 1.8 (ghz) = 2200+

    If you consider that doubling L2 Cache (+256K) add +200 PR pts, then reducing by L2 Cache by Half (or -128K) subtracts 200 PR pts (an arguable point)

    Tbred 256K 2.083ghz (FSB333) = 2600+
    Barton 512K 2.083ghz (FSB333) = 2800+

    then since... Athlon XP 256K (Palomino or Tbred) 1.80ghz (FSB266) = 2200+
    This easily could be.... Duron 128K (Morgan) 1.80ghz (FSB266?) = 2000+

    I guess the moral of the story is always find out EXACTLY What CPU (chip, cache and actual speed) is powering your computer.
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited January 2004
    Omega65 wrote:
    (Athlon) XP 1.8 (ghz) = 2200+

    If you consider that doubling L2 Cache (+256K) add +200 PR pts, then reducing by L2 Cache by Half (or -128K) subtracts 200 PR pts (an arguable point)

    Tbred 256K 2.083ghz (FSB333) = 2600+
    Barton 512K 2.083ghz (FSB333) = 2800+

    then since... Athlon XP 256K (Palomino or Tbred) 1.80ghz (FSB266) = 2200+
    This easily could be.... Duron 128K (Morgan) 1.80ghz (FSB266?) = 2000+

    I guess the moral of the story is always find out EXACTLY What CPU (chip, cache and actual speed) is powering your computer.

    I repeat myself now.
    The shop confirmed that their "AMD Pro 2000+" is a Duron 1300 MHz.
    They even sent me a mail with the information.
    That should stop some of the speculation.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited January 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    I'm not even going to bother. I can't understand what you're typing Tex, sorry.

    I know I confuse you so badly prof Thrax. You problem solving amazes me at times.

    Try this link.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20030826071248.html

    Read slow. Sure you will figure it out.

    tex
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    I really don't understand why this side-debate is taking place. This shop put a Duron 1.3 in the system and called it a 2000+... maybe if they did put a Duron 1.8 and called it a 2000+ this debate would have meaning. But it's NOT a 1.8, it's a rip-off!
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited January 2004
    I agree. I've had similar experiences in the past, for which I have personally rang shops up telling them to get their facts straight. In those particular instances I have experienced, it was a simple lack of knowledge that led to false advertising. i.e. one of new applebred (or whatever) Durons being mistakenly listed as having a 100mhz FSB, like the Morgan core and original durons. A mistake is one thing, still bad, but nothing in comparison to purposefully misleading your customers.

    Inexcusable and most certainly wrong. They may claim the name 'XP Pro 2000+' was just something they made up, but any magistrate or whatever will realise it's bull. If I discovered a shop that was doing that, I wouldn't stop till they we're exposed and punished. You're doing the right thing MJO.

    Here's the thread detailing the thing I was talking about at the start of my post: http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5158&highlight=morgan
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Tex wrote:
    I know I confuse you so badly prof Thrax. You problem solving amazes me at times.

    Try this link.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20030826071248.html

    Read slow. Sure you will figure it out.

    tex

    Take it easy, Thrax.
    --Mr. K
  • celchocelcho Tallahassee, FL Member
    edited January 2004
    chillax, both of you. it's just a forum.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited January 2004
    I dont think they were saying the CPU was something else but rather they called the system the AMD Pro 2000+ or w/e. They whole package was named 2000+ rather than the CPU inside the package was a AMD XP 2000+. Still misleading tho.
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited January 2004
    While the advertising board might not get the argument I'm pretty sure AMD will want to hang em by their balls. This sort of advertising really hurts their reputation and impacts on their brand name. In fact I'd bet the company is guilty of trademark infringement which could bring stiff fines from a court and possibly sanctions from AMD (intel has done this in the past). I think AMD is your best bet for getting those scam-artists straightened out.

    Oh and are you sure they're not really retarded and have applebred's in their but haven't upped the FSB? 13x133 = 1733 (which is getting closer).
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited February 2004
    It seems that AMD is rather passive regarding this case.
    I sent an e-mail last week and told them everything.

    I got a reply back, in danish by the way. (I'm most impressed)
    The dude from AMD European Technical Support Centre, advised to file a complaint to the danish equvialent of Trading Standards.

    I found the reaction quite odd, and it lacked some determination.
    I then replied back.
    I translate from my danish reply, I wrote in danish since I got a reply in danish.

    Reply:
    I hoped that AMD would sanction this reseller?
    I believe that he would think twice if he receives a letter from AMD.
    These resellers damage AMD's reputation by selling products as something they are not.

    I do not think the customer will contact the danish equvialent of Trading Standards.
    Maybe he will because the case is a matter of principle, a complaint takes a long time and is often quite tedious

    BTW I have found more shops doing the same thing.
    To my knowledge it might be a danish importer naming machines and processors like this.
    I also heard of a similar case in North america, this reseller sold/sells AMD Athlon Pro2800A+, I don't know what AMD's reaction was to this case?

    I recieved the reply five days ago and I replied right away.
    I haven't heard anything from AMD since.
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied? Icrontian
    edited February 2004
    Local retailer selling Duron 1200MHz as 2300+ system. Is this the same thing as you're talking about?
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited February 2004
    keto wrote:
    Local retailer selling Duron 1200MHz as 2300+ system. Is this the same thing as you're talking about?

    Sure looks like it.
    That reseller is saying that it is a Duron without trying to hide it though.
    But that reseller is screwing around with AMD's PR rating like the other resellers.

    They have interesting upgrade options as well.
    Duron 2300+ CPU To 2800+ (Athlon 1.4Ghz ) w/ECS L7VMM3 MB $39.90
Sign In or Register to comment.