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

[HumblePie]

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

Thanks

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

This was discussed way back but I'm willing to bet that most people skip everything and go right to the benchmark graphs when a review goes up. What's the first post usually look like on the forum? It's benchmarks with the latest card, even leaked and rumored performance is always a benchmark first. That's just what stands out in the minds of people better. Think about it, if a card did 60fps in every game at 4k resolution that you would care about the ROPS and cuda cores or stream cores. I doubt you would. I know I'd look at the price first and then the performance for that price. I wouldn't care how it does it, just that it does it. The only spot where I see an argument is the usable memory. I just don't believe it when people say they are cheated on ROPS and such because I doubt they even looked at that stat. That's just how I feel.

How many months were people using and recommending the cards and they owned them since launch. Now all the sudden people call foul. While you are well within your rights to do so, I find it pretty funny that the same people who would recommend them without hesitation are going for the jugular now.

 

[xthetenth]

I look at the benchmarks when determining if I'm interested at all in a card. If it doesn't hit my minimum criteria I'm not going to be interested. However, when I'm dropping multiple hundreds of dollars, I then look at the entire review and compare with relevant competitors (and likely conjectural competitors such as likely competition price cuts). Based on the comparison between them I try to figure out whether the card will give good performance at that point and in the future. The latter half is based on architectural details. Something like that memory arrangement would (and did the last time they did something similar) send up red flags about how well I'd guess the card would last in the long run. Things like ROPs can be seen in different benchmark resolutions and is important but not as important.

There's two factors now that weren't there earlier. First is that price being equal nVidia should not sell 970s, they should pay for what they did for the health of the market and discouraging tactics like this in the future. Second is the card can't be counted on to last as well.

 

[Elixer]

How many months were people using and recommending the cards and they owned them since launch. Now all the sudden people call foul. While you are well within your rights to do so, I find it pretty funny that the same people who would recommend them without hesitation are going for the jugular now.

I find it funny that you find it funny, since, normally, people don't take kindly to being lied to (whether you believe it was intentional or not).
So, why wouldn't they get PO'ed (and, as you said, they have every right to be), and bitch about it now, that all the facts are known ?

What we need here is an official statement from nvidia doing a mea culpa, and put in a policy to help their customers that feel they got wronged, and help them out.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MagickMan]

Sent my 2x 970s back last week, I was still within the 30 day return period, barely. No, I didn't like being lied to, or having sunshine blown up my a$$ by nvidia's PR people. I'm waiting for the 390, now.

 

[Cerb]

How many months were people using and recommending the cards and they owned them since launch. Now all the sudden people call foul. While you are well within your rights to do so, I find it pretty funny that the same people who would recommend them without hesitation are going for the jugular now.

Part of purchasing the card based on performance for the money is also an expectation of how well it should age, compared to its higher-end counterpart(s). Most buyers expected that, as they were to need that RAM, its bandwidth, and those ROPs, that it would act just like the GTX 980, only a bit slower. Pushing it to the edge of its VRAM and getting major stuttering spikes on the GTX 970, but not 980, shows that it could be a practical concern. Based on common benchmarks, which only occasionally utilize much more than 2GB RAM, at current, the problem didn't show up. The reasonable expectation, born of the originally stated specs, would be that it would be 10-20% slower, but have an identical frame time distribution (IE, when the 980 needs ~20ms, it should need ~23ms).

 

[RussianSensation]

I will post this again as was 100% on-topic but was removed:

"If you have an ounce of rotary blood in your veins, you already know how this story starts: Mazda said the RX-8 made 247 hp. Several owners' dynos said otherwise. Then, Mazda changed the rating to 238 hp and offered either cash and free maintenance or a buyback to the 3,000 or so people who already bought one.

Read more: http://www.superstreetonline.com/fe...rx8-miata-horsepower-dyno-test/#ixzz3RMJU53d8"

While 970 is still a good card and was a great card at launch, as consumers we need to be able to recognize when companies are in the wrong, even if the performance of the 970 is not materially affected in 99% of gaming scenarios today. Companies need to have better processes and checks in place and take full responsibility for mistakes.

Why does NV think its some special firm or something, when nearly every great firm that was caught in false advertising, intentional or not, has acted to create positive PR in the face of a negative situation? At the very least NV should have offered all GTX970 users an option for a refund. Some of those gamers would have stepped up to a GTX980, while others would feel like NV cares enough and continue to buy future NV cards. We have already seen examples of some 970 owners who defected to AMD and even if they did so temporarily, because NV is doing nothing, some of these gamers are left frustrated as if NV doesn't really care about them. If NV officially offered the option of refunds, even that would have been better than doing absolutely nothing.

Kit-Guru reports:

"Nvidia will not admit guilt of the GeForce GTX 970 scandal

Although Nvidia Corp.’s partners will clearly suffer financial losses because of the scandal with incorrect specifications of the GeForce GTX 970, the designer of graphics processing units does not plan to admit its mistake at all costs, according to a media report.

Even though return rates of the GeForce GTX 970 are very low, Nvidia does not want to take responsibility for incorrect specifications and memory allocation issues. The company officially claims that the GeForce GTX 970 was designed this way and that its performance is rather high despite of the fact that it has 56 raster operations pipelines, 224-bit memory bus and 3.5GB of memory.

Nvidia has not apologized to its customers for incorrect specifications and does not want to admit any guilt because this will give its partners an opportunity to ask for material compensation, reports Heise.de. Profit margins of graphics cards makers are pretty low, which means that for them even 1 – 5 per cent return rate could result in losses.

Since Nvidia does not want to admit its guilt, it is now illogical to expect any kind of compensation to the end-users."
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...t-admit-guilt-of-the-geforce-gtx-970-scandal/

Part of purchasing the card based on performance for the money is also an expectation of how well it should age, compared to its higher-end counterpart(s). Most buyers expected that, as they were to need that RAM, its bandwidth, and those ROPs, that it would act just like the GTX 980, only a bit slower. Pushing it to the edge of its VRAM and getting major stuttering spikes on the GTX 970, but not 980, shows that it could be a practical concern. Based on common benchmarks, which only occasionally utilize much more than 2GB RAM, at current, the problem didn't show up. The reasonable expectation, born of the originally stated specs, would be that it would be 10-20% slower, but have an identical frame time distribution (IE, when the 980 needs ~20ms, it should need ~23ms).

1. There are a lot of games that use > 2GB of VRAM. Titanfall, Watch Dogs, SoM, Dead Rising 3, Evolve, Wolfenstein NWO, AC Unity, etc.

2. When 970's 3.5GB of VRAM is exceeded, the difference in frame times is much worse than what you have described even if the average fps is just 15-18% slower. You can see in videos online the stuttering experienced by a 970 at 1080P in SoM. I don't think using Ultra textures in SoM is a rare example for a modern PC gamer but of course not everyone will care to use Ultra vs. High or play this game. However, what about games in the next 2-3 years?

3. The problem isn't going to go away because sooner or later 970 owners will upgrade to 14nm GPUs and beyond. What will happen is that they will pass on the 3.5GB issue to 2nd hand owners. Even though the card can access the full 4GB of VRAM, the remaining 512MB is accessed at such slow rates that it results in stuttering in games. However, NV refuses to officially call the card a 3.5GB card. How many less informed gamers picking up a used 970 2-3 years from now will remember that it's really just a 3.5GB card? That's why NV needs to take ownership of the situation imo.

This isn't about AMD or NV as some seem to think. It's more about business ethics and corporate responsibility. Anyone who went to a modern business school would not agree with NV's current course of action. Certainly JHH is one of the most successful CEOs, but how NV has acted today is not what's taught in Ivy League or modern business school ethics curriculum.
​

 

[Rhezuss]

I will post this again as was 100% on-topic but was removed:

"If you have an ounce of rotary blood in your veins, you already know how this story starts: Mazda said the RX-8 made 247 hp. Several owners' dynos said otherwise. Then, Mazda changed the rating to 238 hp and offered either cash and free maintenance or a buyback to the 3,000 or so people who already bought one.

Read more: http://www.superstreetonline.com/fe...rx8-miata-horsepower-dyno-test/#ixzz3RMJU53d8"

While 970 is still a good card and was a great card at launch, as consumers we need to be able to recognize when companies are in the wrong, even if the performance of the 970 is not materially affected in 99% of gaming scenarios today. Companies need to have better processes and checks in place and take full responsibility for mistakes.

Why does NV think its some special firm or something, when nearly every great firm that was caught in false advertising, intentional or not, has acted to create positive PR in the face of a negative situation? At the very least NV should have offered all GTX970 users an option for a refund. Some of those gamers would have stepped up to a GTX980, while others would feel like NV cares enough and continue to buy future NV cards. We have already seen examples of some 970 owners who defected to AMD and even if they did so temporarily, because NV is doing nothing, some of these gamers are left frustrated as if NV doesn't really care about them. If NV officially offered the option of refunds, even that would have been better than doing absolutely nothing.

Kit-Guru reports:

"Nvidia will not admit guilt of the GeForce GTX 970 scandal

Although Nvidia Corp.’s partners will clearly suffer financial losses because of the scandal with incorrect specifications of the GeForce GTX 970, the designer of graphics processing units does not plan to admit its mistake at all costs, according to a media report.

Even though return rates of the GeForce GTX 970 are very low, Nvidia does not want to take responsibility for incorrect specifications and memory allocation issues. The company officially claims that the GeForce GTX 970 was designed this way and that its performance is rather high despite of the fact that it has 56 raster operations pipelines, 224-bit memory bus and 3.5GB of memory.

Nvidia has not apologized to its customers for incorrect specifications and does not want to admit any guilt because this will give its partners an opportunity to ask for material compensation, reports Heise.de. Profit margins of graphics cards makers are pretty low, which means that for them even 1 – 5 per cent return rate could result in losses.

Since Nvidia does not want to admit its guilt, it is now illogical to expect any kind of compensation to the end-users."
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...t-admit-guilt-of-the-geforce-gtx-970-scandal/
​

Great post Russian. I don't get the denial attitude Nvidia is showing it's customers...it's pathetic.

 

[nurturedhate]

Even with having ample rotary blood coursing through my veins the RX-8 issue was over exaggerated BUT Mazda still did the right thing for the customer. Short version on the RX-8 issue for clarification. The car knows if it is moving or not. Sitting on a dyno means not moving. Not moving means no air flow over the cooling system and the cats. Heat is bad. The car will then run slightly rich to keep itself cool. Slightly rich means less power being produced.

Back to Nvidia and this supposed refusal to admit wrong.. This is ridiculous. They claimed a set of "component" specs and clearly lied about it. They now refuse to acknowledge it. That is far worse than the lie. It is my choice who I give my money to. I currently own a 580 and a 780ti. That will probably be my last Nvidia purchase for a long while.

You do something wrong and get caught? Fine, we all mess up. You refuse to acknowledge the issue and turn your back on people? Fine, but we are done.

 

[Pneumothorax]

That's customer service, if an automaker like Mazda (who BTW had nowhere near the profitability of Nvidia during the bleak 2009-2011 years - in fact was losing tons of money) is willing to buy back their $26,000+ cars for a measly 9 HP, Nvidia could easily buy back these cards for customers who want to exchange them. Besides, only 5% of us wants a refund, right?

 

[Cerb]

1. There are a lot of games that use > 2GB of VRAM. Titanfall, Watch Dogs, SoM, Dead Rising 3, Evolve, Wolfenstein NWO, AC Unity, etc.

Most games still use 2GB or under at common test settings, though, regardless of what they may be able to, since the point of the tests is to compare different cards' GPU performance (the same tests for $100 cards gets used for $400 cards). Extreme settings can and do cause weird issues with a variety of cards, especially when drivers are fresh. If the drivers try to keep addresses used low (IE, are aware of that partitioning), the difference between 3.49GB used 3.51GB is what it will take to exhibit symptoms (that could well happen with lower visible RAM usage, depending on how they actually manage the RAM). In common benchmarks, and the settings used in them, that doesn't happen. So, most reviews got min FPS that weren't off from expectations, leaving us oblivious. Super high settings were also causing performance issues for the 980s, and any SLI config, with early drivers, so there were other likely places to put the blame, for ultra settings + unrealistically high AA.

2. When 970's 3.5GB of VRAM is exceeded, the difference in frame times is much worse than what you have described even if the average fps is just 15-18% slower.

That's my point. The difference should be about the same as the average, with originally stated specs, and in most reviews, that was the case. We now know that it may not be, and those few aberrant results from prior reviews were not driver bugs.

Whether drivers can fix it remains to be seen. An active attempt at that, with 3rd-party testing of said newer drivers, needs to be a minimum performance, though with them feeding the stereotype of Asian companies being willing to piss on their customers once they've made the sale, by not admitting an obvious process problem, at a minimum, I'm not even sure we'll get that.

Were I within a return window, I would return mine on principle, but that's not the case. It's also not the card maker's fault, nor the reseller's, were I to try some other avenue. If lawyers get involved, may be can all get craptops or U-Play codes in a couple years from it .

 

[garagisti]

This was discussed way back but I'm willing to bet that most people skip everything and go right to the benchmark graphs when a review goes up. What's the first post usually look like on the forum? It's benchmarks with the latest card, even leaked and rumored performance is always a benchmark first. That's just what stands out in the minds of people better. Think about it, if a card did 60fps in every game at 4k resolution that you would care about the ROPS and cuda cores or stream cores. I doubt you would. I know I'd look at the price first and then the performance for that price. I wouldn't care how it does it, just that it does it. The only spot where I see an argument is the usable memory. I just don't believe it when people say they are cheated on ROPS and such because I doubt they even looked at that stat. That's just how I feel.

How many months were people using and recommending the cards and they owned them since launch. Now all the sudden people call foul. While you are well within your rights to do so, I find it pretty funny that the same people who would recommend them without hesitation are going for the jugular now.

<sarcasm>smh... mumbles some line from Forest Gump... </sarcasm>

Sarcasm aside, when the issue wasn't known, most people wrote it off to immature drivers. A lot of people were expecting their stutters to go away post updates. Then it became clear later on that there was no fix by a software, to what was clearly a hardware problem. It is so simple to understand. Well, most of the complaints that i've read that is, not just on AT but elsewhere too. Some of them dared to use the card in SLI on superhigh resolution like 1440p, i mean how dare they with a product that was advertised for higher resolutions?

I think it is not too hard to understand why who were recommending the cards are angry. This whole episode made them look very good did it?

 

[superxero044]

We would like to begin by thanking you for your patience while we investigated your inquiry regarding your NVIDIA product concerns. It is likely your product is under a replacement only return policy making the product ineligible for a refund return. Because of this, we want you to know that we have spent significant time speaking with NVIDIA to better understand the confusion regarding the specs associated with the video card. NVIDIA has worked with the manufacturers and recommended that you contact the manufacturer directly to discuss this further. The manufacturers are aware of this recommendation and willing to take your call to discuss your concerns. Please see the manufacturer phone numbers below.

Additionally, we are including some information provided to us by NVIDIA that might be helpful. We are also including a couple of links to technical publications that you may trust that further discuss this topic.

Information Provided by NVIDIA
The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory. However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.

We understand there have been some questions about how the GTX 970 will perform when it accesses the 0.5GB memory segment. The best way to test that is to look at game performance. Compare a GTX 980 to a 970 on a game that uses less than 3.5GB. Then turn up the settings so the game needs more than 3.5GB and compare 980 and 970 performance again.

===============CHARTS=======================

On GTX 980, Shadows of Mordor drops about 24% on GTX 980 and 25% on GTX 970, a 1% difference. On Battlefield 4, the drop is 47% on GTX 980 and 50% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. On CoD: AW, the drop is 41% on GTX 980 and 44% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. As you can see, there is very little change in the performance of the GTX 970 relative to GTX 980 on these games when it is using the 0.5GB segment.

Trusted Technical Publications
PC Perspective
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

Product Manufacturers
EVGA
Product Warranty Support
http://www.evga.com/support/warranty/
Support Phone Number:1-888-880-3842

ASUS
Online Customer Service
http://support.asus.com/ServiceHome.aspx?SLanguage=en
Support Phone Number:1-510-739-3777

Gidabyte
services@gigabyteusa.com
Support Phone Number:1-626-854-9338, #4 at the Menu

MSI
Online Customer Service
http://service.msicomputer.com/msi_user/support/customerservice.aspx
Support Phone Number:1-626-271-1004, Press 1

Zotac
support@zotacusa.com
Support Phone Number:1-909-594-4300

PNY
tsupport@pny.com
Support Phone Number:1-800-234-4597

We appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding the information provided in this email, please do not hesitate to contact Newegg Customer service through one of the convenient contact methods provided here.

So glad it took them almost 2 weeks to make this response.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Roughly translated, not Nvidia's problem everything is fine go complain to someone else.

 

[jackstar7]

Curious to know what people's results are with those AIBs.

Good luck.

 

[Black Octagon]

Great, so the answer is 'go through the AIBs'...hardly encouraging for anyone who has ever hazarded the RMA 'process' of ASUS.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Curious to know what people's results are with those AIBs.

Good luck.

So far only EVGA seems to be willing to deal with the end-user and allow an upgrade to the 980 outside the 90 day window. No refunds that I know of have been given. The rest: MSI, Gigabyte, and ASUS are busy pointing their fingers at Nvidia or the retailer.

I saw the handwriting on the wall early and kept pestering Newegg for a refund, they offered me store credit as a compromise which I took. By the poster above it looks like Newegg is now digging in their heels and no longer offering refunds or store credit even.

 

[NickelPlate]

If there's one thing to be learned from all of this is that Nvidia can no longer be trusted when it comes to published technical specs. That and they clearly don't care about their so called "marketing mistake", hoping that everyone will just forget about it in time and continue to remain loyal NV customers based on their good name.

I can almost say for certain that my next card will be an ATI unless something changes very drastically in the competitive marketplace over the next 2 years.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I don't blame Newegg, they should not have to take a financial hit for something Nvidia did. Same with the board partners, but Nvidia is also throwing them under the bus.

 

[007ELmO]

Newegg gave me the same canned reply, I'm calling NewEgg now and say if they don't take my full refund they have lost a customer. Too bad this is Nvidia's fault and NewEgg will eat the loss.

Totally didn't address SLI. Nvidia is done for me, whether NewEgg takes my return or not. It's one thing to lie (or make a mistake), it's another to lie about your mistake/lie.

 

[007ELmO]

They're having a supervisor call me back. They asked me to call the manufacturer, I said no. They said they researched this "a great amount" and Nvidia recommends the customer work with the manufacturers.

I said no, why do I have to waste time for Nvidia's problem? I used the car analogy from here on them: If I bought a V8 from the dealership, and was delivered an inline-4, would the dealership handle the problem for me - or ask me to contact the manufacturer?

Silence on the phone.

I then asked why the manufacturer would accept a return with full refund from me, vs. not accepting it from you (the distributor). They didn't give any explanation, they said their supervisor will call me back ASAP. I said I don't want to waste any more time on this, so they need to resolve it immediately - if I go back to the manufacturer they will have lost a customer and any potential profit over a minuscule amount of profit they made over this product (what, did they make $20-30 on us tops from each card?)

I will not touch NVidia again, not because they made a mistake, but because they tried to throw dirt over their mistake.

 

[superxero044]

Newegg gave me the same canned reply, I'm calling NewEgg now and say if they don't take my full refund they have lost a customer. Too bad this is Nvidia's fault and NewEgg will eat the loss.

Totally didn't address SLI. Nvidia is done for me, whether NewEgg takes my return or not. It's one thing to lie (or make a mistake), it's another to lie about your mistake/lie.

Yeah I am super sad about the whole situation. I don't really know what to do at this point. I am so disappointed with NVIDIA. Honestly I wouldn't have been nearly as upset if they would've accepted their mistake. The fact that they haven't apologized at all is what hurts the most.

 

[2is]

This was discussed way back but I'm willing to bet that most people skip everything and go right to the benchmark graphs when a review goes up. What's the first post usually look like on the forum? It's benchmarks with the latest card, even leaked and rumored performance is always a benchmark first. That's just what stands out in the minds of people better. Think about it, if a card did 60fps in every game at 4k resolution that you would care about the ROPS and cuda cores or stream cores. I doubt you would. I know I'd look at the price first and then the performance for that price. I wouldn't care how it does it, just that it does it. The only spot where I see an argument is the usable memory. I just don't believe it when people say they are cheated on ROPS and such because I doubt they even looked at that stat. That's just how I feel.

How many months were people using and recommending the cards and they owned them since launch. Now all the sudden people call foul. While you are well within your rights to do so, I find it pretty funny that the same people who would recommend them without hesitation are going for the jugular now.

So you don't know who bought on performance bracket and who bought off specs... That's all you had to say instead of talking your way around the question. True enough, people were recommending the 970 for months. Those same months that it had specs that were largely the same as a 980...

 

[Jhatfie]

I have purged the last of my Nvidia cards from my home, just sold my Strix GTX 980 (for what I bought it for) and replaced it with my MSI 290X Gaming that I got for $235 (After rebate, GC and what not). Nvidia has lost me as a customer for a while and hopefully my selling my used card keeps them from a new card sale.

I was actually a little surprised that the 290x overclocked to 1135/6000 was on average only 8.5% slower than my 980 at 1480/7800 @ 2560x1600 over the 8 games I tested against. FC4, Bioshock Infinite and AC:Unity of course being 12-14% faster on the 980.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So you don't know who bought on performance bracket and who bought off specs... That's all you had to say instead of talking your way around the question. True enough, people were recommending the 970 for months. Those same months that it had specs that were largely the same as a 980...

People recommended it on performance. Go look at the posts, I did that's why I own 970s. Not one person said "It has the same number of ROPS" no...it was "It's $200 less and performs so close the 980 doesn't present a good enough value for the difference"