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

[3DVagabond]

allocated vram and needed vram are apples and oranges.

do any of you have any "actually" experience as to what happens when the vram ceiling is hit?

rest assure 970 is NOT hitting the VRAM limit during "practical, enjoyable and playable" gaming. even with 970 x3. it is still hard to hit that 3.5gb vram limit.



this is like complaining about the tires on your car not rated for 150mph.. when the fastest your car will ever go is 130mph. most of the time you are exceeding the speed limit going 80mph on the interstate.

only way to get those tire to even go 150mph is to roll the tires on a 150mph treadmill. not exactly practical use for a tire.

how many of you plan to roll your tires on a treadmill? or do you plan to actually use them on your car?



btw. when the vram limit is hit. the game comes to a hard significant pause. then resumes. then hard significant pause. repeat.
all the stutter being reported/blamed as vram is simply the gpu running out of steam.




to give credit where credit is due.
perhaps nvidia should not "ALLOCATE" anything into that last 500mb of slower vram. accessing that much slower vram can cause such stutter.
perhaps that is the problem. as for the 3.5gb running out. clearly not the case.

..

None of what you're saying here is correct. There are performance slowdowns that occur simply by using the last .5gig of RAM. It's been shown, so we don't have to go there and try and deny it. Even assuming any of it were true. Bottom line, if you bought Z rated tires and they didn't meet specifications you'd be entitled to compensation. If you suffered physical harm due to tire failure you'd be entitled to huge compensation, which is the only reason it doesn't happen. Making excuses and giving companies free passes only feed the machine.

The only way to stop this is to make it unprofitable. Not fairly unprofitable, either. Unprofitable to the point that it causes the company real pain and heads roll because of it.

 

[UaVaj]

That link doesn't say what your words said. You make it sound like it's almost impossible to run into the issue. PCWorld clearly points out how some setups would be more prone to the issue.

those setup which are more prone to issue are 970 x3 and 970 x4. where there is actually enough gpu power to push vram.

no way is the majority of those nearly 9000 970 owners all running 970 x3 or 970 x4. majority is running single 970. some is running 970 x2.

it is almost impossible to "practically" saturate 3.5gb with a single 970.
in very rare scenario can 3.5gb be "practically" saturated with 970 x2.

 

[UaVaj]

None of what you're saying here is correct. There are performance slowdowns that occur simply by using the last .5gig of RAM. It's been shown, so we don't have to go there and try and deny it. Even assuming any of it were true. Bottom line, if you bought Z rated tires and they didn't meet specifications you'd be entitled to compensation. If you suffered physical harm due to tire failure you'd be entitled to huge compensation, which is the only reason it doesn't happen. Making excuses and giving companies free passes only feed the machine.

The only way to stop this is to make it unprofitable. Not fairly unprofitable, either. Unprofitable to the point that it causes the company real pain and heads roll because of it.

some kind of compensation for the lie. yes. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


full refund for specs that does not affect you. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

 

[2is]

those setup which are more prone to issue are 970 x3 and 970 x4. where there is actually enough gpu power to push vram.

no way is the majority of those nearly 9000 970 owners all running 970 x3 or 970 x4. majority is running single 970. some is running 970 x2.

it is almost impossible to "practically" saturate 3.5gb with a single 970.
in very rare scenario can 3.5gb be "practically" saturated with 970 x2.

More words that don't actually have meaning when you break it down. What is very rare, what is "practically"? And what are you basing this on or did you just make it up?

You can make up anything you want, and the end of the day, you're only stating your hardly subjective opinion. What isn't made up is that this issue was brought to the forefront when people noticed a larger performance drop than what should have been experienced when >3.5GB of vram was used. You can make believe that it's "very rare" but in this case "very rare" happens often enough that people have taken notice.

 

[UaVaj]

More words that don't actually have meaning when you break it down. What is very rare, what is "practically"? And what are you basing this on or did you just make it up?

You can make up anything you want, and the end of the day, you're only stating your hardly subjective opinion. What isn't made up is that this issue was brought to the forefront when people noticed a larger performance drop than what should have been experienced when >3.5GB of vram was used. You can make believe that it's "very rare" but in this case "very rare" happens often enough that people have taken notice.

only play aaa games and only at max settings

currently running 290x x4 w/ 4gb. equivalent to 970 x4. have yet to break 4gb of vram. so go figure.

before that it was 680 x3 w/ 4gb. equivalent to 970 x2.25. could not saturate 4gb of vram.

before that it was 7970 x2 w/ 3gb. equivalent to 970 1.5x. could not saturate 3gb of vram.



then there is you. running 680 x2 w/ 2gb. equivalent to 970 1.5x. are you running to a vram wall too? seriously?



and yet majority the folks running single 970 are calling 3.5gb is not enough vram. enough said.


.

 

[2is]

only play aaa games and only at max settings

currently running 290x x4 w/ 4gb. equivalent to 970 x4. have yet to break 4gb of vram. so go figure.

before that it was 680 x3 w/ 4gb. equivalent to 970 x2.25. could not saturate 4gb of vram.

before that it was 7970 x2 w/ 3gb. equivalent to 970 1.5x. could not saturate 3gb of vram.



then there is you. running 680 x2 w/ 2gb. equivalent to 970 1.5x. are you running to a vram wall too? seriously?



and yet majority the folks running single 970 are calling 3.5gb is not enough vram. enough said.


.

I agree, enough said, since you haven't said anything except conjecture and rhetoric. This isn't about my 2GB 680's or about you specifically. How much ram you personally saturated is not relevant. People noticed abnormal performance characteristics, and sure enough, there was a reason for it. You can talk all you want, you can't talk your way out of that fact. Period. Using random words that have no real meaning like "practical gaming" and "very rare" and misrepresenting what other websites are saying isn't helping your case.

 

[SlowSpyder]

the problem does exist. never said it never existed.

just that the problem exist in unpractical scenarios.





DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD ALONE. see link.

"The specification revelations didn’t change the fact that the GTX 970 was still a beast of a card for the price, and subsequent testing by PC Perspective, Guru3D, and Hardware Canucks showed that negative effects are difficult to produce in the real world, at least in single card setups. To use more than 3.5GB in most games requires playing at very high resolutions (typically 4K or multi-monitor situations) at dismally low frame rates, with anti-aliasing settings cranked.
But multi-card SLI setups could theoretically be more affected, as further PC Perspective testing suggested."

The GTX970 is pretty much tied with the R9 290X as the second fastest single GPU money can buy, but the GTX970 is a good deal more efficient. It isn't unlikely to see GTX970 level GPU's in higher end setups with high resolution monitors.

I bought my 7970 over three years ago now, it was the fastest card when it launched and the 3GB of ram made it attractive to me even at the initial ~$550 price (a lot on a video card for me). It's longevity for some people certainly could be affected if it only actually had ~2.6GB (12.5% less) vam.

I can see why some people want a refund.

 

[HumblePie]

I seem to get the significant pauses when playing warframe with everything maxed out. Just ugh when it happens.

 

[Techhog]

I just saw an apology where Nvidia explains that nothing's wrong by telling us that what they did is "a good design". Well, that clears up everything!

I really wonder if this whole fiasco was worth the extra couple of thousand of sales they got versus what they would have ended up selling had they been upfront from the start. I seriously doubt that telling the truth would have cost them a significant amount of sales. Heck, the lie cost them my sale.

 

[kasakka]

Today I unhooked my G-Sync display to try 4K DSR on my GTX 970 SLI with my HDTV.

• Far Cry 4 at 4K DSR + 4xMSAA stuttered and was hitting max VRAM limit. 2xMSAA on the other hand was perfectly fine at around 3.7-3.8 GB VRAM use.
• Crysis 3 stuttered and had low fps with pretty much any AA settings on 4K DSR and this was without hitting even the 3.5 GB limit! Just ran out of horsepower.
• BioShock Infinite was smooth with everything cranked to max.

Shadow of Mordor is still the only game that stutters on my system with Ultra textures.

Compared to my usual 1440p + SMAA settings 4K DSR was rather punishing but since I'm not all that likely to use except for games that run very fast already (like MGS Ground Zeroes and possibly the upcoming MGS V) I doubt I'll be hitting the issue before the graphics cards simply runs out of horsepower.

Sure, for 4K gaming you are probably better off with AMD's best efforts or the GTX 980 in SLI but for 1440p, 970 SLI should do just fine.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Considering many games I own hit the 2GB limit while at 1680x1050, 3.5GB is not enough for 1080/1440/4k.
StarCraft 2 hits 1.45GB Vram without AA at 1680x1050 in many custom games. That game is from 2010. I'd be furious to drop $700 on a 970 SLI setup knowing that even at 1440 many games would tank with high settings. Spending $700 on a GPU setup and not being able to max out games is absurd. The nVidia apologists/defenders cannot change that fact.

Unless there is a free 970->980 tradeup program for early adopters, us consumers get boned again.

 

[rgallant]

well gtx 970 owners can now collect their $30.00 nv lost the case

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...graphics-card-false-advertising-class-action/

 

[railven]

well gtx 970 owners can now collect their $30.00 nv lost the case

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...graphics-card-false-advertising-class-action/

Oh, thanks for this update. I got a few people who might be interested in this info.

Some of those rat bastards not only got to upgrade to a GTX 980 for basically free, but now they can claim $30 on top of it too. Haha.

 

[Bacon1]

Wow $30 back is a score. Wonder how many people will actually file claims. Usually the payout for this kinda stuff is pennies on the dollar.

 

[moonbogg]

Everyone who bought anything from the 600 series and beyond should be refunded 50% of the cost, immediately. That's what the lawsuit should be based on. The sudden 100% increase in prices for the same old class of products. Nvidia tricked people into thinking the 680 was a high end card, but it was mid range. That's deception full blown. And they repeated it ever since.

"...against Nvidia was filed in February 2015 and alleged that the company engaged in false advertising, deceptive business practice, unlawful is practices and violated California’s business law for unfair business practices."


Sounds about right to me. That's the Nvidia I know. I hope EVERYONE who owns a 970 gets their $30. I do mean absolutely everyone.

 

[RockinZ28]

Sounds good to me.

I noticed poor performance before this was even officially found out. Couldn't figure out why the hell I was getting massive stutters even though my VRAM usage was under 4gb. Then once it was, had to turn down settings in order to keep vram under ~3.2gb average to avoid piss poor performance. Didn't intend to pay $700 so I could turn settings down due to deceptive specs.

Definitely feel it impacted me, and reduced the longevity of the cards as more and more games have easily surpassed 3.5gb vram usage.

 

[moonbogg]

Sounds good to me.

I noticed poor performance before this was even officially found out. Couldn't figure out why the hell I was getting massive stutters even though my VRAM usage was under 4gb. Then once it was, had to turn down settings in order to keep vram under ~3.2gb average to avoid piss poor performance. Didn't intend to pay $700 so I could turn settings down due to deceptive specs.

Definitely feel it impacted me, and reduced the longevity of the cards as more and more games have easily surpassed 3.5gb vram usage.

Get your $60. Stop at nothing.

 

[Lyfer]

I wonder how long it takes to mail the check..6-12 months? Lol

 

[krumme]

This is why Nvidia won't do ANYTHING about this at all.

The GTX 970 is a good price/performance card and the MAJORITY of users who purchased that card had ZERO alternative in their mind.
I'm sure someone read that and is going "What about the R9 290x!!!!?"
No, that's not an alternative for many users. Lots of users don't shop AMD products.

So the GTX 970 is the best price/performance card in it's bracket, and majority of users don't see their to be a viable alternative, so as far as many many GTX 970 owners are concerned, "Who cares?"
This new information doesn't change the benchmarks, or make people think "I would have purchased the R9 290x instead!"

So Nvidia is in a great spot.

This is what beeing wrong all over looks like looking back. But that was the sentiment of many in january 2015 where this post was made in this thread.

 

[96Firebird]

This is what beeing wrong all over looks like looking back. But that was the sentiment of many in january 2015 where this post was made in this thread.

What's wrong with the post?

 

[krumme]

What's wrong with the post?

Why do you ask?
The answer to that question is the answer to yours.

 

[96Firebird]

What a pointless post.

 

[nerp]

What a pointless post.

He's not executing what he's trying to say.

He's trying to say: See, look how people defended NVIDIA when this first began and suggested those upset about it were being unrealistic or off base. In the end, the company is paying up, which is essentially an admission of guilt without directly admitting it. This is why we must always be careful when making assertions before all the facts and details are out.

.... At least, that's pretty much what I think he's trying to say. Which is a fair point, IMHO.

 

[Silverforce11]

Yeah it's quite sad to see the amount of apologists and defenders, why do you guys defend false advertisement? You are a consumer. You don't work for NV.

 

[kagui]

so it will be off limits if i made a thread whit the title "30 bucks for 970 user´s because NVIDIA scam"