ASUS cheating consumers on RX 560 product description?

[nimb777]

The website product description of the RX 560 models CU count, with 1024 Stream Processors, changes for 896 Stream processors only after registering the product.
It constitutes misleading advertisement if Asus took the time to create a product description exclusive for the registered product and didn´t upload the specs for the non-registered users .
I hope someone reads this and buy one pretending not knowing about it just for suing the company.

 

[Gam3r01]

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/112853-amd-adjusts-radeon-rx-560-stream-processor-spec/

 

[nimb777]

Major retailers can weight in on manufacturers to disclose true product specs and update their customers.
My retailer didn´t have this information so I based my choice on Asus website.
I was a big fan of Asus, but my recent purchases indicate that their products have become cheap and valueless.
It kind of makes sense to me now the nonsensical bad customer reviews these cards are getting on a top US retailer.

 

[Gam3r01]

Asus has nothing to do with the stream processor mixup, the GPU itself was supplied by AMD, they just built the PCB and cooler.
Get in contact with ASUS, see what they have to say on the issue.

 

[nimb777]

Asus upheld that information from its prospecting customers and chose to disclose the true specs of their products only after the purchase and registration.
Even though I didn´t purchase anything directly from Asus, it still is false advertisement since the company advertises a product quality and delivers another.

 

[Gam3r01]

OR, the listing you are referencing is for the 1024 stream processor model.
You said you didnt buy from ASUS, meaning the one you bought isnt the one referenced on their product page, they didnt advertise anything.

 

[nimb777]

Nice try jumbling things up.
By reference instead of advertisement you mean Asus isn´t making a profit selling those cards or that it is just a website for direct sales of electronics products like ebay?
If the latter is the case, you assume Asus had no knowledge of the missing CU´s on AMD chips, which can be disproved since they actually disclosed it, only that they chose to do it after they had conned their victims.
If the prior is your choice of argument, It also can be disproved.
There is no other model advertised on their webpage other than the 1024 stream processor. Its the exact same model advertised by the reseller, only that the reseller omits the stream processor count information while the manufacturer states it is higher than the actual product they manufacture.
Why would a customer assume there is another model other than whatever is advertised on the manufacturer´s page? The fact that the error happened on a higher level of the sales chain does not exempt Asus from liability since the company is making a profit and some more from selling what they don´t have.
The fact that Asus chose to disclose the downgrade only after the purchase indicates that the company acted with intent to mislead customers in choosing their products, yet still be able to claim that it acted in good faith since the information is available.
I´m not saying you are trying to derail this post, what I´m saying is that Asus gets a poor record and it only gets worse once errors like this become common and interfere with the quality, value and customer satisfaction of their products and clients.
Apparently this has been a common fact that happens every few years or so, with the major manufacturers exchanging the kindness of sending their opponents their consumer base when they rip them off $50 for a higher number on a cardboard box.

 

[Gam3r01]

Asus most likely only lists the 1024 count one because thats the only card they still sell.
The retailer omits the stream processor count because they have both models sitting on the shelves with no way to differentiate them, at no fault to the manufacturer.

When the card gets registered it takes you to a different, hidden listing. They still have it for continuity sake, but dont list it publicly because they themselves no longer offer that card.

All else aside, get in contact with them, see what they have to say. Instead of speculating on grounds of false advertising and lawsuits.

 

[nimb777]

So now Asus is back on the seller camp?
That is if they still sell anything at all.
Asus never had any public listings with a lower quality version.
Asus can identify the cheat chips after registration they can also do it before registration.
The vendor could have done what Amazon did and contact Asus requesting batch information, and then update their listings.
That is the honest thing to do. Amazon took their losses and kept their heads up.
Asus has a bunch of legacy video card descriptions on their site.
Why would they choose just that one to take down?
That is obviously because they are trying to do a quick dump on unaware customers.
Manufacturers got in with AMD on this scheme and AMD was the first one to jump off the boat after they all shot themselves on their own foot.
Asus reply was that I was having trouble finding the correct CU count part on their website. It is not there and never was... at least not before conned into purchase.
They also requested a 48/72h to come back with a solution and hit me with a survey.
Eventually replacing a graphics card for another with whatever specification it was supposed to have is hardly a solution for taking part in their dirt.
I don´t want an Asus or AMD video card or product on any of my systems anymore. Video cards were the only part of my builds I wouldn´t go Asus and AMD.
I have a couple reasonably recent Asus MB´s with AMD CPUs and I can´t say I´m overly happy with them, but that was the last penny AMD and Asus saw from me.

 

[dontlistentome]

This is an interesting question. My view is that who you buy it from is who is responsible for the falseness of the advertisement.

If I make a widget, then my friend tells me he can sell it and share the money with me and I agree, my friend is responsible to the customer, not me. I supplied the widget, but the customer did not get it from me. If my friend misrepresented the widget's capabilities, I had nothing to do with that. If I then supply my friend with a modified widget that doesn't work as well as the first one, and my friend sells it as if it's the same as the first one, that still has nothing to do with me. I still have no connection to what the customer was told about the widget.

 

[nimb777]

The reseller took the same approach Powercolor and most others did. It totally omitted the information. So I went to Asus website, and that is where the misrepresentation happened. It promoted direct advertisement for the product. the seller is responsible for the return, but not for the product specifications. Even if the seller had advertised it as a 1024 SP unit, that would still be in agreement with the item description on the manufacturer´s page.
The fact that Asus is not the direct seller does not impugn her from commercial liability. As far as I know, Asus opened themselves to a class lawsuit and that could even include small and even large resellers that felt cheated and had their profits cut and ended up with unsellable products.
Asus seems to be the one if not the biggest victim on the current stock market volatility, they have lost 10 digits on their market capitalization value just on this day.
Corporate decisions that make their average customers avoid their brand can be that expensive. It doesn´t help to have overpriced items selling a brand when the same quality can be acquired for much less from one or more of the many quality manufacturers there are nowadays. Asus seems to be the only manufacturer that chose to lower the value of their products for a profit and come up with a second line of premium products expecting to remain with an image of a quality manufacturer. Asus lost its chance to aggressively dominate the market years ago when it was less competitive choosing profit over market share, and now its being defeated by the market share it gave up.
Corporate decisions proven that expensive could include one lawsuit or two, why not?