64MB Graphics card "Up to 256MB" - Any recourse?

DrScotsman

I bought a graphics card from CCL in 2007; an "XFX GeForce 6200 Turbo Cache" that cost £25. Before I go on, yes that is a small amount of money, so if you're looking to help someone who genuinely needs it then go look at the other consumer rights threads

When I bought it I was given the impression that it was a 256MB graphics card. This link demonstrates how wrong I was:

TurboCache (“TC”) is a technology that simulates a 128 MB or 256 MB video card by using part of the system’s RAM memory as video memory. So, even though this card from XFX is labeled as “256 MB TurboCache” it actually has only 64 MB of video memory. The rest – 192 MB – is stolen from the main RAM memory. HyperMemory technology from ATI uses the same idea. Read our tutorial on TurboCache for more information on this subject.

I haven't been able to pull up the full description of the card on CCL's website from the web archive, but I've found it listed on this page, with the description: XFX GeForce 6200 Turbo Cache, PCI-Express / 400MHz, Turbocache - Up to 256MB. I know that we consumers should know to be wary of "Up to", but I think that this was misleading.

My main problem is that this graphics card is pants, and now I heavily suspect that I was misled into believing it was 256MB and hence would perform something like other 256MB cards (looks like I'm not the only one!!). By "suspect", I mean that I definitely was misled into believing it was 256MB, but I don't know if I stand much chance proving my point under SOGA without the exact wording on the description page, which I think since it's past 6 months CCL are under no obligation to show.

Any suggestions how to go around this? (Besides "Give up" that is, I'm aware that's probably the most likely outcome of this thread )

rsykes2000

Personally, I think you've already spent more than enough time fretting over something that you won't be able to take any further. I expect CCL will have had 'up to' on their webpage, covering their backs sufficiently.
Are you still using the card now ? If so, for 25 quid you've had 3 years use which I would suggest isn't too bad a result for the money.

DrScotsman

rsykes2000 wrote: »

I expect CCL will have had 'up to' on their webpage, covering their backs sufficiently.

I know they might have covered their backs, but saying "up to" probably isn't sufficient for this. If Tesco's Value sausages said "Up to 98% pork" I think trading standards would have a good laugh

Are you still using the card now ? If so, for 25 quid you've had 3 years use which I would suggest isn't too bad a result for the money.

Not too bad in the sense that I can shrug off £25, but I'd expect a lot more use out of a graphics card than 3 years, especially a fanless one.

rsykes2000

DrScotsman wrote: »

Not too bad in the sense that I can shrug off £25, but I'd expect a lot more use out of a graphics card than 3 years, especially a fanless one.

I think 'up to' will cover it, epecially if, as on other webpages you've found, it tells you that it will take system memory to provide the extra part.
Also, if the card is still working then you'll get more use out of it and if you've upgraded your memory in the last 3 years, use some of that for the VGA memory as well
I would still see 8 quid / year as good value - there won't be many cards that are 3 years old capable of playing new games, and this one wouldnt have been capable of playing games of the time at top resolutions etc anyway.

DrScotsman

rsykes2000 wrote: »

I think 'up to' will cover it, epecially if, as on other webpages you've found, it tells you that it will take system memory to provide the extra part.

I meant that 'up to' on its own wouldn't cover it. I'm doubting that their product description explained that it "borrows" some of the RAM, I would have noticed it.

Also, if the card is still working then you'll get more use out of it and if you've upgraded your memory in the last 3 years, use some of that for the VGA memory as well

1GB now, I'm waiting for 3GB to arrive from dabs, it didn't arrive today ;_;

I would still see 8 quid / year as good value - there won't be many cards that are 3 years old capable of playing new games, and this one wouldnt have been capable of playing games of the time at top resolutions etc anyway.

Ah right, my fault, I didn't clarify what I meant by "pants" . You assumed I meant working-but-rubbish, I don't even play PC games.

I've noticed when using it to play videos (NOT high definition ones) that you can notice tiny little red dots flickering all over the place. I've experienced something like this before with an older card and it seemed this was caused by overheating (in that when I used better cooling it solved itself), but my tower is hardly a mess inside.

Whenever I have dual monitor mode using this card and my integrated graphics (Geforce 6100, so a sister model), playing videos very often causes the screen to blacken for half a minute, and then Windows comes back saying it's had to restart the graphics card to prevent a system crash. Less occasionally this happens in single monitor mode as well.

I'll of course admit I was daft to not raise these issues when I first bought the card and that any chances are slim now, however I wasn't very knowledgeable about consumer rights then (I was 17 at the time and my parents STILL don't believe that SOGA exists)

xocbc

Sorry but those cards were junk when they came out, barely enough guts to one one monitor successfully, and you bought one for dual monitor? You get what you pay for with graphics card (within reason) and £25 doesn't buy a decent cooling fan...

fozzeh

The OP was 21 days late. An "ok" gpx card is £80 minimum. Should try looking at some of the top costing ones on eBuyer etc.

DrScotsman

fozzeh wrote: »

The OP was 21 days late. An "ok" gpx card is £80 minimum. Should try looking at some of the top costing ones on eBuyer etc.

You're having a laugh, you're telling me to go look at £80 card on eBuyer now but equivalent cards to those were once worth probably over £200 in 2007. Meanwhile a £25 card from 2007 which is probably worth only £4 now (if hypothetically new) has a few faults, but performs well enough to conclude a card that's worth £25 now would probably work fairly well, am I wrong?

For what it's worth, my integrated Geforce 6100 graphics perform flawlessly. You're not telling me a PCI-E equivalent would cost more than £25 today, are you?

CHR15

Bought in 2007
Questions the specs in 2010??

I had to double check the date of this post. Pointelss crusade.

I don't see how you were led to believe anything when you clearly have a grasp of turbocache, which was clearly stated, and you were free to research beforehand.

How many Digital Cameras are advertised with massive megapixel superzooms??

The resolutions are interpolated and are in reality, MUCH less than advertised, and the digital zoom is completely pointless, it'sthe same as zooming into a picture already on the PC.

DrScotsman

CHR15 wrote: »

Bought in 2007
Questions the specs in 2010??

I shelved my PC for a few years when I got a laptop. When my laptop's hard drive started dying I went back to my PC, with 2 years of consumer knowledge I didn't have previously.

CHR15 wrote: »

I don't see how you were led to believe anything when you clearly have a grasp of turbocache, which was clearly stated, and you were free to research beforehand.

I didn't have a grasp of turbocache back then, and whilst doing the research is a very sensible thing to do for a consumer, I don't think I'm under obligation to do so in this scenario. Obviously it's not the retailer's fault if I make some daft mistake that the reasonable man buying a graphics card should know (e.g. what a graphics card is, do I have a PCI-E slot), but the reasonable man buying a graphics card is not a super-techie and this was hiding behind buzzwords. If you bought a hard drive that said "Up to 100GB Turboshrinking", then it turned out it was 60GB and told you to enable full filesystem compression, would you say that's fit for purpose or as described?

fozzeh

I bought a 6800GT 256mb in 2006 for £80. Back then was deemed ok...now it looks silly. Hence why I used that figure as it's from example. You can't and work back todays figures to 2007 as things don't regress. An £80 then will be the industry same as one back in 2007 taking into considering advances in technology and game progression.

You got what you paid for. I'd let it lie.