Nvidia is RIPPING us OFF!

satanicoo · 09-26-2003, 09:41 AM

In case you havent see this:

"-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, well, well. What have NVidia either done, or allowed to happen ?!
There is absolutely nothing positive we can say about this task. It goes
like this : you purchase an NVidia chipset card and install the drivers
– you have Windows 2000. Let’s say the card is a 64Mb graphics card.
If you install the NVidia drivers from the NVidia site, you find that
your card gets recognised as only a 32Mb card. If you then decide to
install the drivers from the CD that came with the card, you find that your
card gets recognised successfully but there is a new task running, RSCMPT,
which gobbles up CPU resources, up to 99% sometimes. So, to summarise :
without RSCMPT your card gets recognised at boot-up as the card you bought,
a 64Mb card, but when you are in Windows it gets recognised as only half that,
32Mb. On the other hand, with RSCMPT Windows recognises your card properly but
your PC slows down to a crawl.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the Rscmpt file is a software based memory emulator. It uses software
and the CPU power to emulate 32 megs of video card memory and adds it to the
video cards true memory or at least what Windows thinks is the true memory.
And that appears to be only 32 megs under W2K.

Now is this just a bug in the W2K OS and this is a bug fix OR is the public
being ripped off.

Even if this is a W2K bug and the Rscmpt file is a bug fix yes it is still a rip off.

It should be made clear to the consumer that the 64 meg MX card has to use a software
memory emulator running under the W2K os. Also what the cost in CPU power and performance
will be when using a software emulator.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On my GeForce4 MX440, i had the exact same problem, so i checked the model
number on the Video RAM, went to the manufacuters site (Samsung made the ram for my card).
Each chip was 64 Megabits (ie 8 MegaBytes), and there were only 4 chips on the card."

Comments? i would atach the .exe but it is 417 kb...

airspirit · 09-26-2003, 10:02 AM

That is ultrafscked. I would be on the hook with NVidia for clarification immediately, were I you. If that is the case and you just bought the card, then by all means: RMA THE BAWSTID!!!

jaydee · 09-26-2003, 10:22 AM

Sounds like bull shit to me from another worthless site admin/writer looking for hits. I just bought a GF-4 MX 64meg card and nothing this says is true in Windows ME or XP. It shows up as 64 megs on boot up and 64 megs in Windows and there is no RSCMPT file running.

Sounds like an incompatibility with Win2000 and the RSCMPT is a work around.

Also on the 4 chip deal, maybe check the other side of the card for the other 4 chips.

jaydee · 09-26-2003, 10:27 AM

And furthermore NVIDIA does not make the cards themselfs!!!! Maybe a worthless manufacturer is doing this on their own without NVIDIA knowing about it. My card is a Leadtek and it is what it says on the box. I wouldn't be suprised to see a half assed manufacturer trying to sell 32meg cards with a 32meg emulator and claiming 64megs. It is stupidity to try and blame the CHIPSET maker for bad practices from manufacturers that use the chipset.

satanicoo · 09-26-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaydee116
And furthermore NVIDIA does not make the cards themselfs!!!! Maybe a worthless manufacturer is doing this on their own without NVIDIA knowing about it. My card is a Leadtek and it is what it says on the box. I wouldn't be suprised to see a half assed manufacturer trying to sell 32meg cards with a 32meg emulator and claiming 64megs. It is stupidity to try and blame the CHIPSET maker for bad practices from manufacturers that use the chipset.

Correct, but i assume they should stalk those companies, since they are the ones who get the bad reputation.

My geforce 4 mx 440 is a "good" 64 mb version (MSI) , but a friend of mine didnt get that lucky.
Its has nothing writen in it.

jaydee · 09-26-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by satanicoo
Correct, but i assume they should stalk those companies, since they are the ones who get the bad reputation.

My geforce 4 mx 440 is a "good" 64 mb version (MSI) , but a friend of mine didnt get that lucky.
Its has nothing writen in it.

And NVIDIA gets a bad rap from idiots spaming this ignorant shit around with titles "NVIDIA IS RIPPING US OFF" when in FACT it is NOT NVIDIA. It is some half assed manufacturer. Buy from a quality source and you will get a quality card.

Get the name of the manufacture and PUT THAT IN THE TITLE! Inform people to NOT buy that spacific brand, and then two things will happen.1) NVIDIA will look into it and do what they need to (2 and that company will not have enough customers to support it's business and it will either have to change it's ways or go out of business.

Furthermore more PROOF is needed to make any substantial judgments on this. What is the manufacturer of the card? Pictures of the ram, what does it says exactly on the box, how much was the card, etc...

Spamming the forums blaming NVIDIA for something that is not their fault is stupid and can only cause more stupid people to make more stupid comments and then all these little stupid rumors and false information gets spammed around the net and we will all loose out in the end.

This is like blaming AMD for a motherboard that doesn't work on a SIS chipset that was made by Amptron.

satanicoo · 09-26-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaydee116
This is like blaming AMD for a motherboard that doesn't work on a SIS chipset that was made by Amptron.

Not exacly. This is like blaming AMD for an AMD processor sold by , for example Litup Company LDA, wich is working at half the speed.

May not be AMD's dirty job, but they just can't alow that to happen.

THIS idiot is like 99% of the ppl, that will blame a company from what they see.

WHY dont i see this on ATI cards?

EDIT:
More and more reports apearing.
gf2 and tnts are also victims.

mfpmax · 09-26-2003, 12:24 PM

nVidia isn't ripping me off...I don't buy their products when they are new

jaydee · 09-26-2003, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by satanicoo
Not exacly. This is like blaming AMD for an AMD processor sold by , for example Litup Company LDA, wich is working at half the speed.

May not be AMD's dirty job, but they just can't alow that to happen.

THIS idiot is like 99% of the ppl, that will blame a company from what they see.

WHY dont i see this on ATI cards?

EDIT:
More and more reports apearing.
gf2 and tnts are also victims.

BS, NVIDIA sells their GPU's to these companies. All the other parts are done by the manufacturer. Even the drivers in some cases are not pure Nvidia. The memory is not sold by NVIDIA and NVIDIA does not put the memory on the board. NVIDIA does not advertize for the manufactuer of a card and NVIDIA has little control over what happens untill after it happens. BLAME THE COMPANY THAT MADE THE CARD, not one of the companies that made a part for the card. You just aswell blame SamSung aswell being it is a memory issue. Maybe SAMSUNG IS RIPPING US OFF!!!! What a load of shit.

State the manufacturers of the cards!!! 99% of the people are idiots when it comes to knowing what they are buying. It is unfortunate those idiots are allowed to dis a company not responsible for their problem. STATE THE MANUFACTURER OF THE CARDS IN QUESTION!!!! That will get far more done than blaming NVIDIA which has little control over what the dozens of manufacturers do with their chipsets.

When a part on a Ford breaks you don't go blaming all the individual manufactuers of the parts Ford used to make the car, you BLAME FORD, the manufacturer of the car.

And being you so up on the news lets here what brand these cards are.

airspirit · 09-26-2003, 12:39 PM

Man, lay off the Fords!

Anyway, I would recommend, as before, that you contact the manufacturer and ask wft is going on. If it is labelled as a 64 meg card and indeed it is not, they could be in deep sh!t. There is a definite difference between physical memory and virtual memory by industry standards, and that is what false advertising law goes off of in most states.

As for NVidia, unless this is a standard configuration based on their reference boards you can't blame them: Jaydee is right on this one. If the glove don't fit you must acquit and all that retarded nonsense.

Boli · 09-26-2003, 12:42 PM

A point on the same lines

I have a GeForce 3 ti 200 and it only works perfectly if I install the ABIT geforce 3 drivers (the manufacturer).. installing the Nvida drivers actually decrease performance (so much so that it crashes everything), at the bottom line it as an ABIT card that just hapens to use the Nvidia GPU chip.

It is like trying to blame Athlon b/c your mother board doesn't have enough RAM in.

~ Boli

drummingpariah · 10-30-2003, 05:25 PM

i started reading this, thinking "what idiots"... then i got a little further down and the analogies made more and more sense. manufacturers are to blame, like the often-dying PNY geforce cards. people come in to the store i work in, claiming that nvidia is a terrible company. true, nvidia's name is on the box... they had a hand in making it, but the gpu is working fine, it's strong. it's the rest of the card that crapped out on them. this particular instance doesn't sound like the fault of nvidia, or the manufacturer though. i'm going to point my crooked little scary-finger at microsoft . windows 2k had some serious issues with AGP compatibility. they did a lot of direct work-arounds, and sent the source to particular manufacturers who wished to be supported by microsoft. some manufacturers didnt pay the thousands of dollars (i'm assuming) to have microsoft's programmers working for them, and didn't get the product. most work-arounds are just a huge problem, and suck up valuable system resources. here's what i'd suggest, if you're decent with computers. get another operating system, and test out your drivers on that. another alternative would be to find other people who have your same video card, and find out if they all had the same problem, on other operating systems. find out if linux has decent support for your particular video card, and if it does, i might suggest that. best of luck.

Blackeagle · 10-30-2003, 06:55 PM

Nvidia has had enough problems of it's own making in the last year, they don't need the bad press this is giving them.

And I'd have to say both the individual makers of this card and M$2000 need to be looked at closely for where the fault is in this.

JD is right nvidia isn't the one to blame on this.

And I'd be interested in seeing that pic of the chips on the card and the card it's self of the original poster of this.

jaydee · 10-30-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by satanicoo

WHY dont i see this on ATI cards?

Because ATI makes most of their own retail cards. There is very few other companies making retail Radeons (if any). Most other companies only make OEM versions for ATI.

airspirit · 10-31-2003, 12:33 PM

I would disagree. While there are a number of ATi cards that are "built by ATi", there are a number of other distributors that also make their own models with varying amounts of deviation from the stock boards ... Powercolor, Sapphire, and ASUS come to mind in a pinch ....

jaydee · 10-31-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by airspirit
I would disagree. While there are a number of ATi cards that are "built by ATi", there are a number of other distributors that also make their own models with varying amounts of deviation from the stock boards ... Powercolor, Sapphire, and ASUS come to mind in a pinch ....

You appear to be correct. After a couple seconds on google there appears to be quite a few companies making them.

iroc409 · 10-31-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by airspirit
I would disagree. While there are a number of ATi cards that are "built by ATi", there are a number of other distributors that also make their own models with varying amounts of deviation from the stock boards ... Powercolor, Sapphire, and ASUS come to mind in a pinch ....

heh, yeah, there are a ton of these companies. in general, i usually buy the true ati stuff only (although i've been looking at a gigabyte ati card for a workstation).

but anyways... i've been looking around at the "knock off" 9800's... is it just me, or do pretty much all of these look identical to the ATI reference? does this mean they are very close, or are actually the same, or just made them to look the same?

airspirit · 10-31-2003, 08:08 PM

Yep ... the Built By ATi cards typically have better components (i.e. RAM chips), higher clocked chips (i.e. 8500LELELE), and better stability with the drivers ... though there have been a few times that card builders have trumped them(using better RAM and such). I'd always get a BBA card.

satanicoo · 11-03-2003, 06:34 PM

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...p=de_en&tt=url

Yes, kinda off-topic.

09-26-2003, 09:41 AM	#1
satanicoo Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: portugal Posts: 635	Nvidia is RIPPING us OFF! In case you havent see this: "----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, well, well. What have NVidia either done, or allowed to happen ?! There is absolutely nothing positive we can say about this task. It goes like this : you purchase an NVidia chipset card and install the drivers – you have Windows 2000. Let’s say the card is a 64Mb graphics card. If you install the NVidia drivers from the NVidia site, you find that your card gets recognised as only a 32Mb card. If you then decide to install the drivers from the CD that came with the card, you find that your card gets recognised successfully but there is a new task running, RSCMPT, which gobbles up CPU resources, up to 99% sometimes. So, to summarise : without RSCMPT your card gets recognised at boot-up as the card you bought, a 64Mb card, but when you are in Windows it gets recognised as only half that, 32Mb. On the other hand, with RSCMPT Windows recognises your card properly but your PC slows down to a crawl. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the Rscmpt file is a software based memory emulator. It uses software and the CPU power to emulate 32 megs of video card memory and adds it to the video cards true memory or at least what Windows thinks is the true memory. And that appears to be only 32 megs under W2K. Now is this just a bug in the W2K OS and this is a bug fix OR is the public being ripped off. Even if this is a W2K bug and the Rscmpt file is a bug fix yes it is still a rip off. It should be made clear to the consumer that the 64 meg MX card has to use a software memory emulator running under the W2K os. Also what the cost in CPU power and performance will be when using a software emulator. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my GeForce4 MX440, i had the exact same problem, so i checked the model number on the Video RAM, went to the manufacuters site (Samsung made the ram for my card). Each chip was 64 Megabits (ie 8 MegaBytes), and there were only 4 chips on the card." Comments? i would atach the .exe but it is 417 kb...

09-26-2003, 10:02 AM	#2
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	That is ultrafscked. I would be on the hook with NVidia for clarification immediately, were I you. If that is the case and you just bought the card, then by all means: RMA THE BAWSTID!!! __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

09-26-2003, 12:24 PM	#8
mfpmax Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Rockledge,FL,US Posts: 731	nVidia isn't ripping me off...I don't buy their products when they are new __________________ My old and retired watercooling setup. Watercooled K6-2 450 at 600 Also Retired - Watercooling an XP1800@1782MHz

09-26-2003, 12:39 PM	#10
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	Man, lay off the Fords! Anyway, I would recommend, as before, that you contact the manufacturer and ask wft is going on. If it is labelled as a 64 meg card and indeed it is not, they could be in deep sh!t. There is a definite difference between physical memory and virtual memory by industry standards, and that is what false advertising law goes off of in most states. As for NVidia, unless this is a standard configuration based on their reference boards you can't blame them: Jaydee is right on this one. If the glove don't fit you must acquit and all that retarded nonsense. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

09-26-2003, 12:42 PM	#11
Boli Cooling Savant Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Blackburn / Dundee Posts: 451	A point on the same lines I have a GeForce 3 ti 200 and it only works perfectly if I install the ABIT geforce 3 drivers (the manufacturer).. installing the Nvida drivers actually decrease performance (so much so that it crashes everything), at the bottom line it as an ABIT card that just hapens to use the Nvidia GPU chip. It is like trying to blame Athlon b/c your mother board doesn't have enough RAM in. ~ Boli __________________ 1800+ @ 2247 (214x10.5) - STABLE, 512MB PC3700 TwinX Cosair RAM, NF7-S v2.0, GeForce3 Ti200 Parallel BIM, 120.1 Thermochill, Eheim 1048, Maze 3, Maze4 GPU, "Z" chipset, 1/2" tubing, PC-70: 5x120mm & 9x80mm fans. Internet Server & second machine (folding 24/7): 512MB DDR RAM, XP2000+

09-26-2003, 10:22 AM	#3
jaydee Put up or Shut Up Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 6,506	Sounds like bull shit to me from another worthless site admin/writer looking for hits. I just bought a GF-4 MX 64meg card and nothing this says is true in Windows ME or XP. It shows up as 64 megs on boot up and 64 megs in Windows and there is no RSCMPT file running. Sounds like an incompatibility with Win2000 and the RSCMPT is a work around. Also on the 4 chip deal, maybe check the other side of the card for the other 4 chips.

09-26-2003, 10:27 AM	#4
jaydee Put up or Shut Up Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 6,506	And furthermore NVIDIA does not make the cards themselfs!!!! Maybe a worthless manufacturer is doing this on their own without NVIDIA knowing about it. My card is a Leadtek and it is what it says on the box. I wouldn't be suprised to see a half assed manufacturer trying to sell 32meg cards with a 32meg emulator and claiming 64megs. It is stupidity to try and blame the CHIPSET maker for bad practices from manufacturers that use the chipset.

10-30-2003, 05:25 PM	#12
drummingpariah Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Oakland, CA Posts: 45	i started reading this, thinking "what idiots"... then i got a little further down and the analogies made more and more sense. manufacturers are to blame, like the often-dying PNY geforce cards. people come in to the store i work in, claiming that nvidia is a terrible company. true, nvidia's name is on the box... they had a hand in making it, but the gpu is working fine, it's strong. it's the rest of the card that crapped out on them. this particular instance doesn't sound like the fault of nvidia, or the manufacturer though. i'm going to point my crooked little scary-finger at microsoft . windows 2k had some serious issues with AGP compatibility. they did a lot of direct work-arounds, and sent the source to particular manufacturers who wished to be supported by microsoft. some manufacturers didnt pay the thousands of dollars (i'm assuming) to have microsoft's programmers working for them, and didn't get the product. most work-arounds are just a huge problem, and suck up valuable system resources. here's what i'd suggest, if you're decent with computers. get another operating system, and test out your drivers on that. another alternative would be to find other people who have your same video card, and find out if they all had the same problem, on other operating systems. find out if linux has decent support for your particular video card, and if it does, i might suggest that. best of luck.

10-30-2003, 06:55 PM	#13
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	Nvidia has had enough problems of it's own making in the last year, they don't need the bad press this is giving them. And I'd have to say both the individual makers of this card and M$2000 need to be looked at closely for where the fault is in this. JD is right nvidia isn't the one to blame on this. And I'd be interested in seeing that pic of the chips on the card and the card it's self of the original poster of this.

10-31-2003, 12:33 PM	#15
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	I would disagree. While there are a number of ATi cards that are "built by ATi", there are a number of other distributors that also make their own models with varying amounts of deviation from the stock boards ... Powercolor, Sapphire, and ASUS come to mind in a pinch .... __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

10-31-2003, 08:08 PM	#18
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	Yep ... the Built By ATi cards typically have better components (i.e. RAM chips), higher clocked chips (i.e. 8500LELELE), and better stability with the drivers ... though there have been a few times that card builders have trumped them(using better RAM and such). I'd always get a BBA card. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

11-03-2003, 06:34 PM	#19
satanicoo Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: portugal Posts: 635	http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...p=de_en&tt=url Yes, kinda off-topic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)