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



## Duker5 (Mar 30, 2010)

Version 0.39 shows the correct bandwidth as being 127.0 gb/s







Version 0.40 shows incorrect bandwidth as being 124.0 gb/s






Is this a known bug?


----------



## erocker (Mar 30, 2010)

Previous versions were wrong. It is now listed correctly.


----------



## dark2099 (Mar 30, 2010)

W1zzard re-did how the bandwidth is read out, from GiB/s to GB/s, so it is reading it correctly, just since it is a different unit is the reason for change.


----------



## Duker5 (Mar 30, 2010)

How do you mean previous versions were wrong? I've only just downloaded version 0.40 and I can tell you for sure that the bandwidth of the gtx 275 is and always has been 127.0 gb/s so what are you on about dark?

It hasn't changed from GiB/s to Gb/s as you can quite clearly see in the screenshots it's always been Gb/s and it doesn't change the fact that the gtx 275's bandwidth is definitely 127.0 gigabytes a second NOT 124.0 gigabytes a second! So version 0.40 is definitely showing incorrect information because it's widely known gtx 275 gfx cards have a bandwidth of 127.0 gb/s.


----------



## Solaris17 (Mar 30, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> How do you mean previous versions were wrong? I've only just downloaded version 0.40 and I can tell you for sure that the bandwidth of the gtx 275 is and always has been 127.0 gb/s so what are you on about dark?
> 
> It hasn't changed from GiB/s to Gb/s as you can quite clearly see in the screenshots it's always been Gb/s and it doesn't change the fact that the gtx 275's bandwidth is definitely 127.0 gigabytes a second NOT 124.0 gigabytes a second! So version 0.40 is definitely showing incorrect information because it's widely known gtx 275 gfx cards have a bandwidth of 127.0 gb/s.



is it widely known because everyone was using an older GPU-z?


----------



## dark2099 (Mar 30, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> How do you mean previous versions were wrong? I've only just downloaded version 0.40 and I can tell you for sure that the bandwidth of the gtx 275 is and always has been 127.0 gb/s so what are you on about dark?
> 
> It hasn't changed from GiB/s to Gb/s as you can quite clearly see in the screenshots it's always been Gb/s and it doesn't change the fact that the gtx 275's bandwidth is definitely 127.0 gigabytes a second NOT 124.0 gigabytes a second! So version 0.40 is definitely showing incorrect information because it's widely known gtx 275 gfx cards have a bandwidth of 127.0 gb/s.



Don't mean to sound argumentative, but check the change log and forums, here is a quote from the change log



> Memory bandwidth calculation uses GB now instead of GiB



and link to W1zz explaining what I said http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1825929&postcount=6


----------



## Duker5 (Mar 30, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> is it widely known because everyone was using an older GPU-z?



Are you actually stupid? It has nothing to with people running an older version of GPU-Z, so here are some cold hard facts to ram down your throat!

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_275_us.html

Which says without a shadow of a doubt that the GTX 275 gfx cards have a bandwidth of 127gigabytes a second! Do you or the creator of this program really no more about graphics cards than NVIDIA do about the cards they make! No I don't think so.

*"And as for Wizzard saying it has labeled it GB/s but calculated GiB/s .. now it calculates what it claims"*

What a load of rubbish it's always listed it as GB/s in the program so what the bloody hell is everyone waffling on about GiB/s? WHen it's NEVER been that.

Enjoy the cold hard facts once again see here http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_275_us.html

Their is no way you can dispute that the gtx 275 has a memory bandwidth of 127.0 Gb/s! Because it always has!


----------



## jellyrole (Mar 30, 2010)

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the tea and crumpets...

It has been calculating GiB's up until this version, however, it has been labeled as GB's. If you'd learn how to read and listen to what other people are saying you would have gathered that by now and wouldn't have gone off on your little pissy fit..


----------



## francis511 (Mar 30, 2010)

Imma stir this up a bit.


----------



## human_error (Mar 30, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> Are you actually stupid? It has nothing to with people running an older version of GPU-Z, so here are some cold hard facts to ram down your throat!
> 
> http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_275_us.html
> 
> ...



Calm that tone down, no need to call people names. W1zzard has said that gpuz before 0.4.0 always calculated in GiB, i think he would know how his own program calculated the bandwidth, and now 0.4.0 results in a GB/s bandwidth reading. Yes it was always marked as GB/s but that's the same as HDD manufacturers marking their hard drive capacities with GB when they format to a lower volume due to the gigabyte vs gigabit readings - nvidia are probably doing the same on their spec page showing the GiB value but marking it GB.

Hell if you don't believe us calculate the bandwidth yourself and see what number you get.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 30, 2010)

please watch your language.

let me do the math again for you with data from nvidia's page:

1134 mhz memory clock * 1,000,000 (to hz) = 1,134,000 hz

1,134,000 hz * 448 bit bus width = 508,032,000 bits per second * 2 (gddr3) = 1,016,064,000 bits per second

1016064000 / 8 (to convert to bytes) = 127008000 bytes per second

to convert from bytes to gigabytes you divide by 1024*1024*1024

--> 121.124267578125 GB/s

when you divide by 1000/1000/1000 you get: 127.008000 

feel free to point out flaws in my math.

in your opinion, what is the correct way to calculate gigabytes?


----------



## Duker5 (Mar 30, 2010)

jellyrole said:


> Someone woke up on the wrong side of the tea and crumpets...
> 
> It has been calculating GiB's up until this version, however, it has been labeled as GB's. If you'd learn how to read and listen to what other people are saying you would have gathered that by now and wouldn't have gone off on your little pissy fit..



Hard to admit your wrong and have been backed into a corner and that the newest version of the program is actually flawed, i'm not having a pissy fit at all love, i'm right and i've proved it, you gonna tell me the facts on Nvidias own website are wrong!

Oh not to mention the screenshot just given by francis511 showing the bandwidth as 126.0 gb/s! Now tell me the program isn't f*cked so clearly it's you who cannot read.

And human_error do not tell me to calm down who really gives a flack if it's GiB/s or GB/s, fact is the bandwidth of the Gtx 275 is 127.0 gigabytes a second and that's a fact, like I said is Nvidias very own website lying?


----------



## human_error (Mar 30, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> Hard to admit your wrong and have been backed into a corner and that the newest version of the program is actually flawed, i'm not having a pissy fit at all love, i'm right and i've proved it, you gonna tell me the facts on Nvidias own website are wrong!
> 
> Oh not to mention the screenshot just given by francis511 showing the bandwidth as 126.0 gb/s! Now tell me the program isn't f*cked so clearly it's you who cannot read.
> 
> And human_error do not tell me to calm down who really gives a flack if it's GiB/s or GB/s, fact is the bandwidth of the Gtx 275 is 127.0 gigabytes a second and that's a fact,* like I said is Nvidias very own website lying?*



Yep. W1zzards' math above proves it, as i explained nvidia are putting the GiB value with the GB designation, so yes they are lying. As for your attitute i'll refer you to teh forum rules to be polite and courtious to other users.

I have a feeling you're going on a vacation over you refusing to acknowledge that a reading has correctly been changed, making you have a terrible attitude.


----------



## Duker5 (Mar 30, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> in your opinion, what is the correct way to calculate gigabytes?



The flaw in your math is that it's taken you up to 40 versions of the program to suddenly change how you calculate by apparently using GiB/s instead of GB/s and explain to me why the screenshot given by Francis511 clearly shows in version 0.40 the bandwidth is 126.0 GB/s.

Somethings wrong somewhere clearly, maybe you should go and work on your program a bit more? And iron out all the bugs my dear friend :shadedshu

EDIT: Human_error I'm not on any vacation at all sweetie, I'm going to eat my tea now thank you, and will be back later.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 30, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> Somethings wrong somewhere clearly, maybe you should go and work on your program a bit more? And iron out all the bugs my dear friend




```
double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem/8./1024.;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR5"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;

	m_result.Set(_T("MemBandwidth"), Format(_T("%.1f"), memBw));
```

my program code, please advise


----------



## human_error (Mar 31, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> ```
> double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem/8./1024.;
> if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
> memBw*=2;
> ...




```
if(user=="Duker5")
                multi=1000
                //this gives a GiB reading, but some people just don't trust what they are told
        else multi=1024
	double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem/8./multi.;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR5"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;

	m_result.Set(_T("MemBandwidth"), Format(_T("%.1f"), memBw));
```

seems that would remove the complaint.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2010)

there are countless of lawsuits where hdd makers represented their gigabytes as 1,000,000,000 bytes to make the drives seem bigger, and they all lost


----------



## ml2517 (Mar 31, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> Somethings wrong somewhere clearly, maybe you should go and work on your program a bit more? And iron out all the bugs my dear friend :shadedshu



... or you could stop whining about a tool that you've paid *NOTHING* for and suggesting that the maker of said tool do things how YOU want them to.

Thanks for all of the effort thus far W1zzard!


----------



## xrealm20 (Mar 31, 2010)

Yep -- 
1 gigabyte = 1024 megabytes
1 megabyte = 1024 kilobytes
1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes.

Wiz, as you already know, your math and code are accurate - nVidia is misrepresenting the bandwidth on their cards ... suprise suprise ---


----------



## Molignar (Mar 31, 2010)

After busting a gut laughing, I thought I'd throw in my inconsequential two cents. The fact Wiz even responded to such idiocy should tell you at the very least it's a stand up thing to do even though not required. If you have a problem with the program, code it yourself if it's that important. Mod's need an auto-close button for this kind of crap. Someone close this thread please...there has to be better things we can talk about than bashing someone who brings us software we use for free. Thanks Wiz, some of us actually appreciate the program from what it is.


----------



## Solaris17 (Mar 31, 2010)

Molignar said:


> After busting a gut laughing, I thought I'd throw in my inconsequential two cents. The fact Wiz even responded to such idiocy should tell you at the very least it's a stand up thing to do even though not required. If you have a problem with the program, code it yourself if it's that important. Mod's need an auto-close button for this kind of crap. Someone close this thread please...there has to be better things we can talk about than bashing someone who brings us software we use for free. Thanks Wiz, some of us actually appreciate the program from what it is.



what killed it for me is when he was like omg francis511s gb/s is higher than mine!!! then i saw that francis511s memory was clocked higher and lold


----------



## 3dc_member (Mar 31, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> ```
> double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem/8./1024.;
> if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
> memBw*=2;
> ...



Use

```
double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem/8./1000.;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR5"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;

	m_result.Set(_T("MemBandwidth"), Format(_T("%.1f"), memBw));
```
and display it as GB/s (which is what i prefer).
Or use

```
double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem*1000^2/8./1024^3.;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;
	if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR5"))!=-1)
		memBw*=2;

	m_result.Set(_T("MemBandwidth"), Format(_T("%.1f"), memBw));
```
and display it as GiB/s.
The current implementation is sheer nonsense.


----------



## option350z (Mar 31, 2010)

Can a mod please close this thread because their is countless ones like it plus I think it should be posted in the thread W1zzard posted.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2010)

3dc_member said:


> ```
> double memBw=c->m_busWidth*mem*1000^2/8./1024^3.;
> if (c->GetMemType().Find(_T("DDR"))!=-1)
> memBw*=2;
> ...



that's the first useful feedback in this whole discussion, i will implement the quoted method, thanks for pointing out my error .. now people will cry some more for losing more bandwidth

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"


----------



## animal007uk (Mar 31, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> The flaw in your math is that it's taken you up to 40 versions of the program to suddenly change how you calculate by apparently using GiB/s instead of GB/s and explain to me why the screenshot given by Francis511 clearly shows in version 0.40 the bandwidth is 126.0 GB/s.
> 
> Somethings wrong somewhere clearly, maybe you should go and work on your program a bit more? And iron out all the bugs my dear friend :shadedshu
> 
> EDIT: Human_error I'm not on any vacation at all sweetie, I'm going to eat my tea now thank you, and will be back later.



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.


----------



## Thrackan (Mar 31, 2010)

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


----------



## 3dc_member (Mar 31, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> 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 (G*i*B/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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## aCid888* (Mar 31, 2010)

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 (Apr 7, 2010)

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 (Apr 9, 2010)

animal007uk said:


> 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 



aCid888* said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2010)

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


----------



## aCid888* (Apr 9, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2010)

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* (Apr 9, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 9, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Because people like you wont shut up about it.

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


----------



## aCid888* (Apr 9, 2010)

Wile E said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2010)

aCid888* said:


> 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.
> ...



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* (Apr 9, 2010)

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 (Apr 9, 2010)

Duker5 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 9, 2010)

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 (Apr 9, 2010)

3dc_member said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2010)

The *G*B/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 (Apr 9, 2010)

3dc_member said:


> The *G*B/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 (Apr 9, 2010)

A bandwidth is a physical quantity not a binary one.


----------



## Thrackan (Apr 9, 2010)

3dc_member said:


> 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.


----------

