Should you be compensated for the GTX 970 issues and spec changes?

[Sequences]

It's quite amazing how you've danced around answering the actual analogy.
You know the situation he is trying to portray but instead of made the issue about how all car buyers should be able to tell between a v6 and a v8 engine rather than actually just addressing the issue.

Its amusing to me that this is a hardware forum in the graphics cards section and regulars are using analogies to explain something that everyone here understands.

I think the original question is terrible. If I had already paid for a 970, I would of course want nvidia to give me something more than I'd already paid for. Buyers who feel strongly enough should sell their cards and potential buyers should avoid buying the model entirely. There are plenty of other models i the Green/Red Team worth buying.

Early adopters also take on additional risk as we've seen time and time again. It is a tough lesson for both Nvidia and consumers.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's not limited to 4k. We'll see it as games come with 4k textures for ultra settings. So far, user frame time measurements in SoM at 1080p ultra textures show very bad latency AS SOON as vram use goes above 3.5gb. The latency smooths out immediately as soon as vram drops below that amount.

It is a problem, it depends on the games, whether they allocate extra vram for dynamic purposes or whether they actually NEED that extra vram. If it needs above 3.5gb, definitely as per AT & PCPER's article, you will get gimped performance.

The shadow of mordor textures require 6GB of VRAM according to WB Games. Besides that, I tried them and couldn't tell if it was on and working or not. The difference was so small it seemed a terrible waste of resources since I couldn't tell. Even tried looking at side by side comparisons online. Can't tell. Maybe it's my eyes or my display.

 

[Spanners]

I voted no, the performance hasnt changed from that of original review. Beside which, I didnt see any polls for refunds with AMD 7xxx CF debacle that still doesnt support DX9 or 4K
If anything, buyers should be allowed to return the card for the price paid.

I respect the no vote, but the tu quoque/whataboutism makes no difference to what we are discussing here.

 

[Silverforce11]

The shadow of mordor textures require 6GB of VRAM according to WB Games. Besides that, I tried them and couldn't tell if it was on and working or not. The difference was so small it seemed a terrible waste of resources since I couldn't tell. Even tried looking at side by side comparisons online. Can't tell. Maybe it's my eyes or my display.

Normally the change from 2K to 4K texture result in less IQ improvements than the former 1k to 2k jump. As you increase it, the returns diminish. Its similar to most effects, in particular soft shadows, HDAO, HBAO+ etc etc, they hurt performance for very little IQ gains.

But enthusiasts buy expensive setups for those little IQ improvements. Otherwise we can all run GTX 960, run games at "medium" and enjoy the power savings. :/

But you don't need to defend NV. They are doing a bang job of it now, I'd imagine their lawyers are getting ready. Regardless of our opinions, this is in fact false advertisement (lack of ROPs, lower L2 cache, NOT 224gb/s bandwidth at 4GB vram etc) and if a class action was launched, it will succeed.

The best thing for them, would be a product recall and re-advertise it with the real specs and leave it at 3.5gb vram. That way their driver team won't need to worry about optimizing it for any game that pushes the vram limit, because its a known factor. The 970 with 3.5gb vram at that price is STILL A GOOD PRODUCT.

 

[96Firebird]

On one hand, I don't think it is a big deal and have no problems with the issue.

On the other hand, I want people to freak out about it and flood the used market so I can pick up another 970 on the cheap. :thumbsup:

 

[cmdrdredd]

You know that won't happen. They'll just deal with whatever it may be and move on. People will still buy the cards, they know this.

 

[SViscusi]

Maybe Nvidia should offer 9x0 owners a couple free games as a show of good faith.

 

[tg2708]

Well I was going to get this card but hesitated for awhile. Its was between this card (model was up for some debate) and r9 290 but it seems like apart from lower power consumption and a few nvidia specific features a 970 holds little above the 290.

 

[Charlie98]

On one hand, I don't think it is a big deal and have no problems with the issue.

On the other hand, I want people to freak out about it and flood the used market so I can pick up another 970 on the cheap. :thumbsup:

I'm thinking about sending my GTX970 back (it gets here tomorrow) and wait a month or so... then they will be on overstock clearance! :sneaky:

 

[Carfax83]

The GTX 970 is a great card, with great performance for the price and power draw. But the VRAM issue was one thing, and the ROP count and L2 cache size is another.

There is no way this was a mistake or a result in failure in communication. This was intentional, and they got caught so I want to be compensated in some manner. I'm not asking for a refund, but a discounted upgrade would be great when I decide to sell my GTX 970s for a GTX 980 Ti when it's available.

 

[tential]

This is why I started the thread, it seems that the majority of owners do indeed care about the issue and do feel slighted by it.

For me, R9 290 is very much an option and depending on Nvidia's response and the costs (if any) for me to return the card will now determine if I switch.

It seems to me that the majority of GTX 970 owners don't really care.
They're mad that they were lied to, but in terms of compensation? They "want" the compensation. I don't know if they actually believe they deserve it.
I think they'll join the class action lawsuit though if there is one, irregardless of how they feel as it should be free money.

Normally the change from 2K to 4K texture result in less IQ improvements than the former 1k to 2k jump. As you increase it, the returns diminish. Its similar to most effects, in particular soft shadows, HDAO, HBAO+ etc etc, they hurt performance for very little IQ gains.

But enthusiasts buy expensive setups for those little IQ improvements. Otherwise we can all run GTX 960, run games at "medium" and enjoy the power savings. :/

But you don't need to defend NV. They are doing a bang job of it now, I'd imagine their lawyers are getting ready. Regardless of our opinions, this is in fact false advertisement (lack of ROPs, lower L2 cache, NOT 224gb/s bandwidth at 4GB vram etc) and if a class action was launched, it will succeed.

The best thing for them, would be a product recall and re-advertise it with the real specs and leave it at 3.5gb vram. That way their driver team won't need to worry about optimizing it for any game that pushes the vram limit, because its a known factor. The 970 with 3.5gb vram at that price is STILL A GOOD PRODUCT.

How is that best again?

The GTX 970 is a great card, with great performance for the price and power draw. But the VRAM issue was one thing, and the ROP count and L2 cache size is another.

There is no way this was a mistake or a result in failure in communication. This was intentional, and they got caught so I want to be compensated in some manner. I'm not asking for a refund, but a discounted upgrade would be great when I decide to sell my GTX 970s for a GTX 980 Ti when it's available.

Surprised more people aren't in your camp. GTX 970 is a bang up card for what it does, but the fact that there was this issue that they had to "look into" only to already have all information on their end (which they had withheld/hid in the first place) is utterly ridiculous.

I think the BEST way of dealing with this would be a $30 "Voucher" card for your next Nvidia purchase for GTX 970 owners. Basically, show proof you own a GTX 970 as of 1/26/2015 to Nvidia, and they'll give you a rebate form that you can fill out on your next Nvidia card purchase.

This keeps GTX 970 owners happy, and encourages them to continue buying Nvidia cards in the future, despite this "little debacle".

Edit: If they want to be really greedy they can say the voucher is ONLY valid on purchases of $300+ ensuring that you either A) use it to upgrade to a GTX 980Ti/GTX 980 and or B) upgrade to Pascal's version of that. Even smarter they'd put an expiration date on it of about 1 month after Pascal comes out with their GTX 970 successor. Get people to make upgrades earlier than they might have made them before.

 

[lehtv]

There is no way this was a mistake or a result in failure in communication. This was intentional, and they got caught so I want to be compensated in some manner. I'm not asking for a refund, but a discounted upgrade would be great when I decide to sell my GTX 970s for a GTX 980 Ti when it's available.

You want to be compensated because it was intentional and they got caught. OK. The problem is, you don't know it was intentional, you're just going by gut feeling.

 

[tential]

You want to be compensated because it was intentional and they got caught. OK. The problem is, you don't know it was intentional, you're just going by gut feeling.

By this line of reasoning, I don't want to hear ANYONE complain about the Patriots when they win the superbowl.

 

[AnandThenMan]

You want to be compensated because it was intentional and they got caught. OK. The problem is, you don't know it was intentional, you're just going by gut feeling.

It doesn't make any difference if it was intentional. But let's assume it wasn't, how did the one department get all the specs "correct" if you go by what works out technically. If an error was made you'd think it would result in specs that were physically impossible, after all marketing doesn't know anything about the hardware according to Nvidia which is why the error was there.

 

[Silverforce11]

How is that best again?

If they just advertise it as 3.5gb vram, users would know as soon as they exceed that, performance tank or poor frame latency is to be expected.

It would be best because its:

A) Honest.
B) Less man-hours on the driver team to try and optimize vram for specifically for the 970 due to its special "feature". If its just 3.5gb, they wouldn't need to give it special treatment. Users would just turn down settings, knowing the limitations of the card at >3.5gb. No extra work from NV is required.

 

[popobearr]

You want to be compensated because it was intentional and they got caught. OK. The problem is, you don't know it was intentional, you're just going by gut feeling.

Do you really think a big corporation like Nvidia would not notice this prior to launch?

To me, it looks more like Nvidia decided that saying 3.5 GB + .5 was rather risky and therefore chose 4GB as the norm was.

 

[lehtv]

Do you really think a big corporation like Nvidia would not notice this prior to launch?

I'm undecided

 

[Silverforce11]

Do you really think a big corporation like Nvidia would not notice this prior to launch?

To me, it looks more like Nvidia decided that saying 3.5 GB + .5 was rather risky and therefore chose 4GB as the norm was.

I don't know why they didn't just come out and say its 3.5gb in the first place, it would lessen the burden on their driver team who now has to look at each game to ensure if it exceeds 3.5gb, they have to optimize the way they load assets into the remaining 0.5gb. Add mods on top of default games, you have a nightmare situation for the driver team.

At its price and performance, 3.5gb 970 is still a great product. Not sure why they went full stupid mode.

 

[Vesku]

Considering it wouldn't cost more than reprinting retail boxes with correct specs and shipping them to all current GTX 970 owners, I think at least a game code would be in order.

 

[monstercameron]

If they just advertise it as 3.5gb vram, users would know as soon as they exceed that, performance tank or poor frame latency is to be expected.

It would be best because its:

A) Honest.
B) Less man-hours on the driver team to try and optimize vram for specifically for the 970 due to its special "feature". If its just 3.5gb, they wouldn't need to give it special treatment. Users would just turn down settings, knowing the limitations of the card at >3.5gb. No extra work from NV is required.

risk/reward, which direction would have made them the most sales?

 

[AnandThenMan]

Most people that know very little about hardware know what memory is, or at least use the number to compare to other products. So having 4GB on the box is very important to Nvidia.

 

[Charlie98]

There is no way this was a mistake or a result in failure in communication. This was intentional...

And, of course, you have evidence of this?

 

[AnandThenMan]

And, of course, you have evidence of this?

Common sense, logic, what is likely, what is believable, what Nvidia stands to gain. That's a lot more "evidence" than you have that Nvidia didn't know about the error.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I don't know why they didn't just come out and say its 3.5gb in the first place, it would lessen the burden on their driver team who now has to look at each game to ensure if it exceeds 3.5gb, they have to optimize the way they load assets into the remaining 0.5gb. Add mods on top of default games, you have a nightmare situation for the driver team.

Right, this could explain why Kepler parts tank so badly in recent games. Every single engineer has been working on 970, making sure, it won't run out of RAM, lmfao. With such advanced "engineering", sure as hell, Maxwell needs all the support it can get.

This is priceless :thumbsup:

 

[tential]

If they just advertise it as 3.5gb vram, users would know as soon as they exceed that, performance tank or poor frame latency is to be expected.

It would be best because its:

A) Honest.
B) Less man-hours on the driver team to try and optimize vram for specifically for the 970 due to its special "feature". If its just 3.5gb, they wouldn't need to give it special treatment. Users would just turn down settings, knowing the limitations of the card at >3.5gb. No extra work from NV is required.

Did you seriously forget where you mentioned this plan requires a RECALL!?
Like do you know how damaging that is to the brand? Not to mention the cost? Not to mention what your share holders think ( and a company is RUN for the shareholders, not for your the customers, or for being honest, or whatever insane reason the public thinks companies run for today is).

Just LOL at point A) Honest. Are you kidding me? This is the business world, Honesty can go to die in a corner.
As for Point B). Again, do you seriously think Nvidia cares? The same Nvidia that dumped Kepler away? They'll optimize for the 3.5/.5 VRAM for as long as they "need" to. Do you seriously think a Recall is cheaper than spending a couple extra hours on this optimization?

Man, I'm not sure if you're serious, kidding, or just extremely naive as to how the business world works, but there is 0 way Nvidia is thinking about a recall. If you were in the room and you pitched that, I guarantee that the Nvidia PR team would not only fire you on the spot, but make a mockery of you for years to come. Sorry, that PR team is golden and they'll handle this the smart way.