Why do different brands quote memory clock differently?

[Guest]

Well after sitting thinking I had bought an incredibly underpowered GTS 250 for a while, I finally decided to do some reading and found that the memory clock rate usually stated is the 'effective clock' which is double what it actually is and shows up as.

My question is, why do some companys like Gainward quote the 'actual' memory clock rate, and some companys like BFG quote their effective clock rate?

For example :

Gainwards GTS 250 1GB Green Edition is quoted pretty much everywhere as having a 1000 MHZ memory clock in the specification

whereas the BFG GTS 250 is quoted as having around 2200MHZ memory clock

In Rivatune I am gathering from what I have read, the BFG would show up as having 1100Mhz?, and the Gainward I know shows up as having 1000Mhz as I have it ( however now overclocked to 1120Mhz )

What I dont get is why when you are buying the graphics card, why in the specification under 'Memory clock rate' (not even stated as effective or not) one of the companys states their 'effective' and one states their 'actual'?

This is incredibly confusing if you are not keyed up on these terms and I am sure some people would end up buying a 2000Mhz effective clock over a 1100Mhz actual clock because it seems to be the better one.. when infact the 1100Mhz actual would be better as that is 2200Mhz effective, right?

As an example

Gainward GTS 250 - clock stated as 1000Mhz
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/173695

Zotac GTS 250 - clock stated as 2300Mhz
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/160750

To an unexperinced person that difference looks HUGE when it is infact just 150mhz actual clock difference?

Both same store.

Is this more of a store issue or more of Gainward wanting to be different?

I have looked around and Gainward's clock is always stated as 1000 in every store i found.

However I also came across some stores that have put ( effective) in brackets next to some of the clock speeds.

Surely they should make sure to keep the clock speed advertised as a standard of actual or effective?

 

[randomizer]

This is incredibly confusing if you are not keyed up on these terms and I am sure some people would end up buying a 2000Mhz effective clock over a 1100Mhz actual clock because it seems to be the better one.. when infact the 1100Mhz actual would be better as that is 2200Mhz effective, right?

This is what marketing is for. Either outright lie or better yet tell the questionable truth but in a misleading fashion. They aren't trying to be honest, they are trying to sell you the product. As for the store listings, most places simply pull specifications from the manufacturer's website, even if it's incorrect.

 

[Guest]

Well it to me seems highley sketchy, surely some marketing standerds people should make sure all companys quote the same to avoid misleading people? or make sure they make it clear they are quoting the effective at least.

Also while on topic of overclocking.

I am rather new to overclocking but I have overclocked my Gainward Green edition Gts 250 from 1000 to 1120 and up to a 750 cpu clock , which now brings it just above the usual standard clock for a GTS 250. Will this now be just as powerful as any other non overclocked GTS 250? or will there still be other mitigating factors that will bring it down?

 

[jsc]

As for the Green Edition range, I believe they clock their bus slightly lower deliberately so the card saves energy hence the word "green". It’s marketed for users that do not mind compromising slight performance for a card that is more energy efficient.

Or you can simply underclock it yourself.Either way, I do not regard it as effective. Better to spend a little more for a truly efficient card.