They can report what they want in terms of subjective impressions. But at least were I live they are not allowed to report factually incorrect assertions.
those are independent reviews.
reviewers are allowed to report whatever they want. good, bad, ugly.
(including being on nvidia's under the table payroll)
not exactly concrete advertising facts.
That would be my feeling too. However, I'm not a lawyer. Are you a lawyer?
ITT You show how biased you really are.
If you bought the 970 and you're not satisfied, return it and get a refund.
At this point in time I have yet to see a proper statistically correct quantitative analysis from any review site.
Not an issue of promise of performance. Misleading specs - using the same specs for a GTX 970 and a GTX 980, when there are material differences in memory speed.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
That's putting aside the fact that I would not have bought it if I had known. So my loss is the cost of the card.
I call BS.
you would not have bought the 980 no matter what the specs said on the 970.
People who buy flagship buy flagship no matter what. Generally the rest will buy the more economical GPU based on price and not specs.
Even at 20% less performance the card is still good value vs the 980 which means you would have bought it anyway.
A 980 buyer would be sitting back now thinking to himself.. this is why i dont cut corners.
You have no idea what some people might or might not have done, good grief. :thumbsdown:I call BS.
you would not have bought the 980 no matter what the specs said on the 970.
You have no idea what some people might or might not have done, good grief. :thumbsdown:
Huh?Reviewers are told they have to use the media material supplied for the review. That is nVidia's marketing material. I have no idea how it could be construed as anything else but advertising.
Huh?
To be clear here we don't have to use anything. We use whatever materials we have to present (or better highlight) the facts of the story we feel are worth covering. The ROP count is included because it is something I feel that is important, especially when talking about the resources necessary to better drive 4K displays.
AnandTech's editorial integrity is paramount to me, so I want to be exceedingly clear that NVIDIA doesn't get to dictate what's in our reviews.
Yes i do.
Its pretty simple.
Some people buy the best and the rest buy the rest.
A 970 buyer only had one thing on his mind when he pulled the trigger and that was saving money vs the 980.
There is NO other reason to buy a 970.
I call BS.
you would not have bought the 980 no matter what the specs said on the 970.
People who buy flagship buy flagship no matter what. Generally the rest will buy the more economical GPU based on price and not specs.
Even at 20% less performance the card is still good value vs the 980 which means you would have bought it anyway.
A 980 buyer would be sitting back now thinking to himself.. this is why i dont cut corners.
Yes i do.
Its pretty simple.
Some people buy the best and the rest buy the rest.
A 970 buyer only had one thing on his mind when he pulled the trigger and that was saving money vs the 980.
There is NO other reason to buy a 970.
Again as you did earlier you're trying to imply you know something you can't possibly know. People in this very forum who got refunds on their 970s from retailers went on to upgrade to 980s. How does that fit with your logic? Honestly the gall of telling people what they would have done given knowledge they didn't have, it's pretty insulting.
That aside what did the 980 have to do with this conversation anyway? He said he would have not upgraded his card at all had he known the true specs. So your whole analysis of flagship vs "the rest" is completely misdirected.
They did that because getting a refund on the 970 is basically free money at that point. They already planned to spend ~$350 and did already spend it. So they get it back, it's like getting a check you didn't expect.
Plus many people won't buy the highest end card because they can save money and overclock to similar performance levels. People feel that option is out now. They still want those performance levels though.
I'm not keen on this. Almost a waste of everyone's time and money. Maybe it's necessary for Nvidia to learn the lesson? But I suspect the backlash alone was enough.
Let me check my crystal ball. Ah yes, there it is, the vision of the future
I see a...
* 5 year court battle, followed by "settlement"
* $2.50 settlement check (without admission of guilt)
* $10 million to lawyers
Good luck with lawsuit, fellas
I don't see how it's like that in any way at all. You get back the exact amount of money you spent and you give back the same card you got for it. How is this like free money or a check you didn't expect?
I agree with the idea that some people may have purchased the 970 thinking they could get most of the performance of a 980 for much less. The specifications definitely would have reinforced that belief. I'm just arguing that Pandamonia's assertion that price is the only factor in peoples purchasing decisions and not specifications or other reasons is false. I know from personal experience it's not that simple.
Cause the money is gone, you spend ~$350 and that's that. I'm sure nobody expected to have to return the card(s) so they didn't plan to receive that money back. Once they get the refund they have ~$350 per card that you wouldn't have if you kept the cards. For many it's not that hard to just say "ok so now I can afford to go a bit above my original budget" since it has been a few weeks or months since purchase. I would hope that people who spend the money on cards like this don't do so to make themselves broke so their refund is now enabling them to pay rent again if you know what I mean.
Being about to RETURN a card you didn't expect to be able to return isn't the same as free money. Please stop pretending it is, it sounds utterly ridiculous.
I call BS.
you would not have bought the 980 no matter what the specs said on the 970.
People who buy flagship buy flagship no matter what. Generally the rest will buy the more economical GPU based on price and not specs.
Even at 20% less performance the card is still good value vs the 980 which means you would have bought it anyway.
A 980 buyer would be sitting back now thinking to himself.. this is why i dont cut corners.
Exactly. This whole lawsuit thing is ridiculous. I've owned probably 20 video cards over the years. I couldn't tell you the L2 cache amount of any of them. Never looked it up for any of them, couldn't have cared less. If Nvidia was intentionally trying to deceive buyers, I can't imagine L2 cache size is one of the specs they chose to lie about. I can't remember any review of the 970 stating what a phenomenal ROP/$ value the 970 was. They all raved about the performance/$ at unseen efficiency levels. None of that changed with the intentional or not change in specs.
Only thing I care about is price/performance, stability and more recently, noise and heat. If I opened the box of my new video card and 3 self sustaining midgets with crayons jumped out and into my PC case and performed exactly as the reviews say my card should perform, I would be fine with that.
Why would any knowledgeable PC user buy parts based on specs rather than actual measured performance? Are there really people that go to reviews, read just the spec comparison charts at the beginning and skip all the benchmarks, and then make their buying decision? That's your own fault.
The lawsuit is not ridiculous and if you want the reasons read the lawsuit and the reasons listed. The reasons listed may not affect you and most likely most 970 owners, but those reasons have affected a percentage of users who have no recourse other than legal. Now are those reasons valid? That is most likely for a jury to decide as I think the lawsuit will go to trial if not settled. I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion there is reason enough for Nvidia to be on the losing end for false advertising around the line of questioning of "would you have bought the 970 if memory was properly represented as 3.5GB full speed and 512MB 1/8 speed?"
The last 1gig shares resources. Once you get into the last .5gig it's going to adversely effect the other .5gig too. In that situation you only have 3gig of full speed RAM.