GPU-Z 0.4 doesn't show correct bandwidth for GTX 275!

[Thrackan]

I'd grab popcorn, but my co-workers would get suspicious of my activities

 

[3dc_member]

i do disagree with 1 GB = 1024*1024*1024 being labeled as "GiB".. this whole GiB discussion is a complete waste of time. everybody serious uses it as "GB"

We are talking about bandwidths, GB/s. It is common sense to prepend SI (decimal) prefixes to units of bandwidths. If you are interpreting the unit with binary prefixes you should also display the binary prefix (GiB/s) because using binary prefixes with bandwidths is neither common sense nor feasible.

/EDIT:

Information transfer and clock rates

Like the hard drive, there is nothing in a computer clock circuit or data transfer path that demands or even encourages that things happen at rates easily expressed using powers of 1024, or even using powers of 2.

Computer clock frequencies are always quoted using SI prefixes in their decimal sense. For example, the internal clock frequency of the original IBM PC was 4.77 MHz, that is, 4770000 Hz.

Similarly, digital information transfer rates are quoted using SI prefixes:[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

 

[aCid888*]

Duker got his ass handed to him and now he doesn't want to post any more???


Usual for a person who cant even read the change log of a programme hes bitching about. :shadedshu

 

[3dc_member]

Thank you for reverting to SI prefixes in version v0.42. But you didn't mention the calculation error from v0.40 in the changelog. "It introduces too much confusion" .. wrong things confuses people.

 

[Duker5]

The only flaw is the person using the program, its been known for years that companys use dodgy ways to rate there products to, i for one never trusted nvidia that much anyway. Also not every card is the same, they have diffrent revisions, My ati has lower memory bandwidth than most cards that are the same because it has slower ram.

No the only flaw is version 0.40 displayed the bandwidth INCORRECTLY, ALL 39 versions of the program before version 0.4.0 it displayed the bandwidth of the GTX 275 CORRECTLY as being 127.0 GB/s Not 124.0 GB/s, hell even the NVIDIA site here http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_275_us.html shows it as being 127.0 GB/s! I've ran a bandwidth test on the GTX 275 and guess what it's 127.0 GB/s NOT 124.0 GB/s oh and take a look at this you th*ck fuckers, isn't it funny how I've been proven right, take a look at this screenshot of versions 0.39 0.40 and 0.42 of GPU-Z, notice it's been put right in version 0.42 AS IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS 39 versions BEFORE version 0.4.0.

You lot can f*ck off because you've all been OWNED

Duker got his ass handed to him and now he doesn't want to post any more???

I'm glad you made that a question you f*ckwit! No one could hand my ass to me because it's currently sat on your face so sh*t the f*ck up!

 

[v12dock]

Relax bro... If you don't like the program don't use it.

 

[aCid888*]

You lot can f*ck off because you've all been OWNED



I'm glad you made that a question you f*ckwit! No one could hand my ass to me because it's currently sat on your face so sh*t the f*ck up!

If you read W1zzards reasoning then he is 100% correct and nVidia use the common market ploy of using 1000 not the true 1024.

You, my little angry friend, are wrong.

GPU-z reported the bandwidth correct and if you'd learn to read you'd know why it was reported this why but I guess your here to bitch and not learn, right??


GTX275 - $254.99

GPU-z - Free

Ignorance on the internet? Priceless.

 

[Mussels]

as has been said, 0.40 showed the bandwidth correctly. nvidia lies about the bandwidth (oh the surprise there), using dodgy math to make it appear correct.


regardless of who is right and who is wrong, such childish behaviour is not tolerated - he's already received an infraction for it, and will receive more if this behavior continues.

 

[aCid888*]

as has been said, 0.40 showed the bandwidth correctly. nvidia lies about the bandwidth (oh the surprise there), using dodgy math to make it appear correct.

Mussels may be an Aussie be he can in fact read.



Therefor, he gets a very, very nice looking cookie for his time.

 

[Duker5]

as has been said, 0.40 showed the bandwidth correctly. nvidia lies about the bandwidth (oh the surprise there), using dodgy math to make it appear correct.


regardless of who is right and who is wrong, such childish behaviour is not tolerated - he's already received an infraction for it, and will receive more if this behavior continues.

Bullsh*t,

If it was correct in version 0.4.0 then why would Wizzywig change it back again? to show the CORRECT 127.0 GB/s in version 0.4.2.

And for the record IF it was correct in version 0.4.0 then you MUST be saying ALL the previous 39 versions were all reporting it wrongly? Again I tell you bullsh*t.

I ran a bandwidth test on the GTX 275 and it is without a doubt 100% FACT the bandwidth is exactly 127.0 GB/s NOT 124.0 GB/s.

End of.

 

[Mussels]

Bullsh*t,

If it was correct in version 0.4.0 then why would Wizzywig change it back again? to show the CORRECT 127.0 GB/s in version 0.4.2.

And for the record IF it was correct in version 0.4.0 then you MUST be saying ALL the previous 39 versions were all reporting it wrongly? Again I tell you bullsh*t.

I ran a bandwidth test on the GTX 275 and it is without a doubt 100% FACT the bandwidth is exactly 127.0 GB/s NOT 124.0 GB/s.

End of.

yes, all previous versions were reporting it wrong. they followed nvidias BS math of 1KB = 1000 bytes (and so on with MB and GB), instead of reporting it correctly (1024 bytes to the KB).

w1zz got sick of it and decided to post it showing the REAL numbers - and then people like you came along crying because heavens no, MARKETING people would NEVER lie.

 

[Wile E]

Bullsh*t,

If it was correct in version 0.4.0 then why would Wizzywig change it back again? to show the CORRECT 127.0 GB/s in version 0.4.2.

And for the record IF it was correct in version 0.4.0 then you MUST be saying ALL the previous 39 versions were all reporting it wrongly? Again I tell you bullsh*t.

I ran a bandwidth test on the GTX 275 and it is without a doubt 100% FACT the bandwidth is exactly 127.0 GB/s NOT 124.0 GB/s.

End of.

Because people like you wont shut up about it.

And as for your last sentence about testing bandwidth, I call bullshit.

 

[aCid888*]

And as for your last sentence about testing bandwidth, I call bullshit.

I was going to ask how he ran his so called "test".....I guess I wont bother and will resort to the same logic as you on this subject.


Can this guy be banned already??? All he does is bitch about an app he downloaded that some, kind, intelligent person happened to give away for FREE and yet hes still not happy.

Troll, anyone??

 

[Mussels]

I was going to ask how he ran his so called "test".....I guess I wont bother and will resort to the same logic as you on this subject.


Can this guy be banned already??? All he does is bitch about an app he downloaded that some, kind, intelligent person happened to give away for FREE and yet hes still not happy.

Troll, anyone??

http://bookreviewsbybobbie.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/troll.jpg

if we banned people for being poorly educated, we might as well block all AOL users in the USA, and all telstra users in australia.

 

[aCid888*]

Its not even a matter of poorly educated, its simply the fact that all the proof/evidence/facts are all in this thread above his bullshit last 2 posts.

What more can be said??

At the very least this thread needs to be closed.

 

[Thrackan]

Bullsh*t,

If it was correct in version 0.4.0 then why would Wizzywig change it back again? to show the CORRECT 127.0 GB/s in version 0.4.2.

And for the record IF it was correct in version 0.4.0 then you MUST be saying ALL the previous 39 versions were all reporting it wrongly? Again I tell you bullsh*t.

I ran a bandwidth test on the GTX 275 and it is without a doubt 100% FACT the bandwidth is exactly 127.0 GB/s NOT 124.0 GB/s.

End of.

Read the changelog. It's mentioned in there.

In fact, if you had read the changelog in the first place, you wouldn't have been bitching about it in the first place.

 

[3dc_member]

I am dealing with bandwidths in a scientific way. It is not dodgy to use bandwidths with decimal prefixes. In fact it is the absolutely common way. The usage of binary prefixes on bandwidths should be accentuated by writing down GiB/s instead of GB/s. Every examiner would agree to that.
Btw.: The bandwidth calculation in v0.40 IS wrong.

 

[Thrackan]

I am dealing with bandwidths in a scientific way. It is not dodgy to use bandwidths with decimal prefixes. In fact it is the absolutely common way. The usage of binary prefixes on bandwidths should be accentuated by writing down GiB/s instead of GB/s. Every examiner would agree to that.
Btw.: The bandwidth calculation in v0.40 IS wrong.

It is common for internet providers to advertise their speeds in megabits, while it is common for browsers and download programs to show the speed in megabytes.
Dodgy, and confusing.

Conclusion: Common and Correct are not the same by definition.

Let me add to that that GiB vs GB is absolutely unidentifiable for a layman.

 

[3dc_member]

The GB/s in v0.40 is neither a decimal prefix nor a binary prefix. It is more like a W1zzard prefix. Some people also call it a bug.

 

[Thrackan]

The GB/s in v0.40 is neither a decimal prefix nor a binary prefix. It is more like a W1zzard prefix. Some people also call it a bug.

Which takes nothing away from (and actually adds to) the simple fact that GiB vs GB is weird and indiscernible, just as MB vs Mb.

Decimal terms for these units have been made up simply to inflate advertising sizes. You simply don't make a decimal prefix for a binary unit and get it correct. What if we started making Octal prefixes? Or Hexadecimal?

 

[3dc_member]

A bandwidth is a physical quantity not a binary one.

 

[Thrackan]

A bandwidth is a physical quantity not a binary one.

Bandwith is measured in bits per time unit.

Bits are binary.

Time units are not.

The time unit is represented without a doubt of it's correct representation, hence we leave the time unit for what it is.

So what is left is the binary unit. How do you present it? Exactly, with a worthy prefix. A binary one.