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

[wand3r3r]

He traded his card in at best buy and couldn't use the credit to a R9 290/x because there wasn't one available in a nearby radius to him. Pretty sure he said it was full line of Nvidia, and only the bottom tier cards from AMD available at the bestbuys near him.

So it was GTX 980, or drop down massively in performance.

Like every other B&M they probably could easily ship a 290/x to the store in a day or two. Since it's BB a person may have been able to get a refund by raising a discussion with a manager. His situation is a little different, thus my point that it's hardly a good option to begin with (much less advising others it's not worth returning 970's).

The point remains, everything I stated is accurate. His solution was probably the worst possible resolution (costs $200+ for basically nothing), whereas the alternatives would offer significant performance upgrades or a considerable refund with very similar performance. Using the upgrade to a 980 as a justification to tell others not to bother is misleading unless that was their plan. There is a reason people bought the 970 instead of the 980, it had the best $/performance, and they didn't know it had potential performance problems when pushed.

 

[jackstar7]

that would be the users who trust in your integrity.

Well, that's the other hand...

You gotta have eyes on ads, and then you need to have ads to be viewed... it's a tightrope.

I think if they actively avoid industry issues like this, it's going to do more harm to their brand as a site, but we'll see, I suppose.

 

[5150Joker]

Well as I suspected, most people don't really care about this issue and will continue to purchase the 970. The sample size is big enough in the TPU poll to at least consider it applicable to most gamers: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/are-you-buying-gtx-970-after-its-controversy.209408/ An amusing reply that caught my eye:

I voted no, nvidia has been dishonest.

I'd still buy other models from them, though.

In the end NVIDIA still wins. I personally think this has been way overblown for what it represents and will be forgotten once GM200 releases with NVIDIA continuing to dominate the graphics market.

 

[Rhezuss]

At this point, i'm just waiting to see how Nvidia will react to this...they don't seem to be proactive on that side...

Anyways, I have a EVGA 970 and got a free backplate, i'm gonna keep it a look at it, she's stilll quite the beauty

I have a similar issue at work and the bosses react like Nvidia does, it's quite the amusement right now...

 

[007ELmO]

Well as I suspected, most people don't really care about this issue and will continue to purchase the 970. The sample size is big enough in the TPU poll to at least consider it applicable to most gamers: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/are-you-buying-gtx-970-after-its-controversy.209408/ An amusing reply that caught my eye:

In the end NVIDIA still wins. I personally think this has been way overblown for what it represents and will be forgotten once GM200 releases with NVIDIA continuing to dominate the graphics market.

How it way overblown? I think there are more people than you think who went SLI on the 970s because of reviews and price point vs. a single 980, and now suffer. People are being cheated over money/performance ratio. I personally don't care that much about $700-800, but I think most people do. Buying a $350 graphics card is a big investment for many.

 

[superxero044]

How it way overblown? I think there are more people than you think who went SLI on the 970s because of reviews and price point vs. a single 980, and now suffer. People are being cheated over money/performance ratio. I personally don't care that much about $700-800, but I think most people do. Buying a $350 graphics card is a big investment for many.

Couldn't describe my situation any better.

 

[HumblePie]

How it way overblown? I think there are more people than you think who went SLI on the 970s because of reviews and price point vs. a single 980, and now suffer. People are being cheated over money/performance ratio. I personally don't care that much about $700-800, but I think most people do. Buying a $350 graphics card is a big investment for many.

<--- owner of 970 SLI config. Although I spent $300 per card still annoying to have what I spent not meet the specs I thought it was and can cause issues.

At this moment I am still waiting on Nvidia, Zotac, or Sabre PC to make good on my original purchase under the consumer protection laws of my state. If they do, then not big deal about this flub in my book. If they don't, then I will never personally buy another Nvidia product for myself or any of my clients. Nor will I ever say a good word about them. I'm salty like that.

 

[senseamp]

<--- owner of 970 SLI config. Although I spent $300 per card still annoying to have what I spent not meet the specs I thought it was and can cause issues.

At this moment I am still waiting on Nvidia, Zotac, or Sabre PC to make good on my original purchase under the consumer protection laws of my state. If they do, then not big deal about this flub in my book. If they don't, then I will never personally buy another Nvidia product for myself or any of my clients. Nor will I ever say a good word about them. I'm salty like that.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm

(b) In a suit filed under this section, each consumer who prevails may obtain:
(1) the amount of economic damages found by the trier of fact. If the trier of fact finds that the conduct of the defendant was committed knowingly, the consumer may also recover damages for mental anguish, as found by the trier of fact, and the trier of fact may award not more than three times the amount of economic damages; or if the trier of fact finds the conduct was committed intentionally, the consumer may recover damages for mental anguish, as found by the trier of fact, and the trier of fact may award not more than three times the amount of damages for mental anguish and economic damages;
(2) an order enjoining such acts or failure to act;
(3) orders necessary to restore to any party to the suit any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired in violation of this subchapter; and
(4) any other relief which the court deems proper, including the appointment of a receiver or the revocation of a license or certificate authorizing a person to engage in business in this state if the judgment has not been satisfied within three months of the date of the final judgment. The court may not revoke or suspend a license to do business in this state or appoint a receiver to take over the affairs of a person who has failed to satisfy a judgment if the person is a licensee of or regulated by a state agency which has statutory authority to revoke or suspend a license or to appoint a receiver or trustee. Costs and fees of such receivership or other relief shall be assessed against the defendant.

 

[Cerb]

Since there's still not a good replacement, and most of us are well beyond our return periods, at the least, driver improvement for partitioning the RAM, or just being able to get it as 3.5GB and ignore the other 512MB, should be a minimum.

 

[garagisti]

Since there's still not a good replacement, and most of us are well beyond our return periods, at the least, driver improvement for partitioning the RAM, or just being able to get it as 3.5GB and ignore the other 512MB, should be a minimum.

The drivers have already been working busily to avoid that extra bit of memory. Nvidia has come and even mentioned that there won't be any special driver as was being suggested by a "poorly worded" comment by an employee if theirs.

Still some are facing a problem at 3.2gb some around 3.5gb. Those who have a problem around 3.2gb, well they're gimped aren't they? I thought i read a few users who "upgraded" (in their words and yes, they used quotation marks themselves) elsewhere who upgraded from a 3gb card, and they were beyond furious, or just laughing at the irony of it all.

My advice, sell if and while you can for around 90% or more of your costs. Buy another card which may meet your requirement. In such a case where you were looking for Nvidia cards only, then my recommendation will be to sell and wait till GM 200.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That is not true and is only relevant for one of the alternatives (probably the worse choice in that situation imo).

The obvious elephant in the room, 970 -> 980 = basically imperceptible. Why not go 970 -> 290 and pocket ~$100? It would be a small downgrade, but hardly noticeable.

Another alternative, go 290 crossfire for the price of the 980. It would be a huge upgrade from the 980.

The 290's are so cheap and quite close in performance, going for a 980 is an odd choice. Even a 290x is almost half the price.

There would be a lot to gain from switching if the buyer is brand agnostic. Either financially, or in performance.

Why? Cause people probably don't want a downgrade or simply prefer Nvidia's drivers.

 

[taltamir]

Why? Cause people probably don't want a downgrade or simply prefer Nvidia's drivers.

nvidia drivers are a huge selling point in their favor

 

[dguy6789]

Lol... coming from people who don't even own the card.

Nvidia doesn't owe anything. You knew the performance bracket your were buying into and the card didn't get slower overnight.

If someone bought a car advertised with a V8 engine and then got home and saw it had a V6 under the hood you better believe they'd be pissed even if it was just as fast as advertised.

 

[taltamir]

If someone bought a car advertised with a V8 engine and then got home and saw it had a V6 under the hood you better believe they'd be pissed even if it was just as fast as advertised.

but the car is just as shiny and beautiful as it was before!

ok getting serious now. Actually it doesn't perform exactly as fast as advertised. Since there are several percent drop of performance compared to the 980 when going above 3.5 GB of vram. nvidia admits its there, but claims its really small drop so that makes it ok.

 

[Cerb]

My advice, sell if and while you can for around 90% or more of your costs. Buy another card which may meet your requirement. In such a case where you were looking for Nvidia cards only, then my recommendation will be to sell and wait till GM 200.

Ah, but there's the rub: no other card meets my requirements, save for the GTX 980, which is why I waited a year before upgrading video card in the first place. I don't care about nV v. AMD, but AMD does not offer (yet?) anything remotely comparable in terms of perf/W, and thus noise, especially when not fully loaded (which is the usual case). I could probably do with an Asus GTX 960, but I would feel the downgrade for sure.

 

[96Firebird]

Ah, but there's the rub: no other card meets my requirements, save for the GTX 980, which is why I waited a year before upgrading video card in the first place. I don't care about nV v. AMD, but AMD does not offer (yet?) anything remotely comparable in terms of perf/W, and thus noise, especially when not fully loaded (which is the usual case). I could probably do with an Asus GTX 960, but I would feel the downgrade for sure.

Have you ran into any trouble playing games with your current card?

 

[Melted Rabbit]

<--- owner of 970 SLI config. Although I spent $300 per card still annoying to have what I spent not meet the specs I thought it was and can cause issues.

At this moment I am still waiting on Nvidia, Zotac, or Sabre PC to make good on my original purchase under the consumer protection laws of my state. If they do, then not big deal about this flub in my book. If they don't, then I will never personally buy another Nvidia product for myself or any of my clients. Nor will I ever say a good word about them. I'm salty like that.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm

The FTC has a statement, written in plain English with examples, regarding deceptive acts:
http://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception

I. SUMMARY

Certain elements undergird all deception cases. First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer. Practices that have been found misleading or deceptive in specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations.

Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. If the representation or practice affects or is directed primarily to a particular group, the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group.

Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception. In many instances, materiality, and hence injury, can be presumed from the nature of the practice. In other instances, evidence of materiality may be necessary.

Thus, the Commission will find deception if there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment...

(Footnotes removed, original formatting preserved.)

 

[guskline]

Hang tough HumblePie. Hope you get your refund. BTW, was in San Antone over Christmas visiting family GREAT town!

 

[Pneumothorax]

Like every other B&M they probably could easily ship a 290/x to the store in a day or two. Since it's BB a person may have been able to get a refund by raising a discussion with a manager. His situation is a little different, thus my point that it's hardly a good option to begin with (much less advising others it's not worth returning 970's).

The point remains, everything I stated is accurate. His solution was probably the worst possible resolution (costs $200+ for basically nothing), whereas the alternatives would offer significant performance upgrades or a considerable refund with very similar performance. Using the upgrade to a 980 as a justification to tell others not to bother is misleading unless that was their plan. There is a reason people bought the 970 instead of the 980, it had the best $/performance, and they didn't know it had potential performance problems when pushed.

Maybe for Fry's or Microcenter B&M, but check out BB website. Not a single 290x/290 in stock for sale/shipping to home/store... There's a bunch of 3rd party 'marketplace' sellers though that are charging early 2014 prices.

 

[senseamp]

Hang tough HumblePie. Hope you get your refund. BTW, was in San Antone over Christmas visiting family GREAT town!

He doesn't want a refund though, he wants a free upgrade to a product that's 60% more expensive, because he thinks that's what his state law entitles him to.
That's why I posted the actual remedy section of his state consumer law.

 

[guskline]

He doesn't want a refund though, he wants a free upgrade to a product that's 60% more expensive, because he thinks that's what his state law entitles him to.
That's why I posted the actual remedy section of his state consumer law.

Just glad to get a refund!:thumbsup:

 

[waffleironhead]

He doesn't want a refund though, he wants a free upgrade to a product that's 60% more expensive, because he thinks that's what his state law entitles him to.
That's why I posted the actual remedy section of his state consumer law.

So you post the law saying he may be eligible for 300%, then scoff at his offer to settle for 60%?

 

[2is]

Lol... coming from people who don't even own the card.

Nvidia doesn't owe anything. You knew the performance bracket your were buying into and the card didn't get slower overnight.

How do you know who bought the card based on "performance bracket" and who bought it based off specs? Plenty of people look at specs to determine how well the card will hold up to future titles. The answer is, you don't know, you just decided to post before thinking.

 

[stahlhart]

Reopening thread, at Humble Pie's request. If I have to come back in here again to clean out more off-topic AMD marketing pitches, there will be consequences for the perpetrators.

This thread is for discussing customer recourse for the GTX 970 memory issue only. Stay on topic.

-- stahlhart

 

[HumblePie]

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm

Did you not read that set of statues properly? Because it encompasses far more than that line you quoted. Speaking of which, that line pertains to what I've already explained in previous posts.

I'll explain it to you as it was explained to me by several lawyers including the one I last hired for when I had to start legal proceedings over consumer protection laws.


1) It is illegal, criminally speaking, with a fine involved is a company misrepresents an item with the intent to fraud customers over that misrepresentation. However, the criminal part is hard to prove sometimes.

2) The possible criminal actions in no way have bearing on consumer protections which, by decree of the law, must by liberally interpreted in favor of the consumer.

3) As a consumer, if I bring suit against a company based off those statutes in good faith, meaning I have given the company the chance to make proper restitution that I accepted, which that last part is key, then the laws are to be liberally applied in my favor.

4) As per the section you quoted, the ones I am bringing suit against can be punished up to 3 times the amount of the damages I have incurred as part of their offenses towards me from the standpoint of the deceptive trade practice act.

5) The damages are what is needed to make me whole as part of the misrepresentation from the company. What are those damages? To provide me with an item that equals or exceeds the advertised item I purchased. If they are unable or unwilling to do that, then the company will be found liable up to 3 times the amount of what it would cost me to get that item elsewhere plus my legal fees and court costs.

So what does all that mean? Nvidia and partners along the chain have to either provide me with a card that equals or exceeds the specs as promised of the original item I bought at the time of purchase. They can either make a new card that matches those specs, or re-engineer my current card to meet those specs with a recall, or provide another card that equals/exceeds those specs. It does not have to be a 980 gtx card used to make me whole, but providing that card WOULD make me whole. It's an option, but not the only option.

The damages would be if I had to find another card that equals or exceeds the specs of the 970 GTX at the time of purchase to what I can purchase at the time of the restitution. As of now, there is only 1 card out on the market that meets or exceeds the original 970 advertised specs which is a GTX 980 card. However, if I have to take Nvidia or Zotac to court, the card on the market that meets or exceeds my card may be something else. At which the court would rule that Nvidia or Zotac (whomever the defendant ends up being), then owes me the cost of the card currently on the market at that time which meets the advertised specs of my product PLUS up to three times that value as punitive damages per that exact line you quoted.

Look I'm doing everything at this point to be reasonable with Nvidia, Zotac, and Saber PC. All one of them has to do is what meets the legal definition under my states laws of making me whole. That is the good faith on my part first at restitution to done by the parties involved. A refund is nothing something that I have to accept as restitution unless there is an identical product on the market I can purchase at the same or lesser price that meets or exceeds the advertised specs of the GTX 970 at the time of my original purchase.

Also I must point out, that the laws specifically state that they are not mutually exclusive with any other consumer protection laws, including federal laws, that also protect me in this case. Nor would any rewards in dealing with those laws change the rewards of the Texas laws should a court ruling be found in my favor.

So I am not claiming that Nvidia owes me a 980 GTX card. I am saying they owe me a card that equals or exceeds the specifications of the gtx 970 as it was advertised to be at the time of my purchase of the card. Or they owe me monetary compensation to purchase a card that equals the advertised specs of the gtx 970 at the time of my purchase. It's a very simple concept. I will be going with what is needed to find legal restitution in this case even if I have to take it to court. Of which this one is easy because I already have a lawyer willing to take this on pro bono at this point because of the ease of winning this case as the evidence for my side is self evident. I just have to do my good faith part first, which I'm doing, before my lawyer can start legal fillings.