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

[IllogicalGlory]

Did performance decline after it was discovered that the specs were incorrect? You know, because Quantum physics says things change when they are observed and all.
The ONLY thing Nvidia should be held accountable for is the performance hit one gets when accessing that last 512MB of memory. And even that has been virtually iradicated via driver improvements.
You guys are just too rabid.
Romans in an ancient coliseum. Bring on the lions and such.

what is any of this. for real

 

[MagickMan]

What I find humorous are the people angry by proxy, they never even bought a 970 but they're "mad as hell and aren't going to take it", out for social justice, etc.. Internet outrage mobs are the best, and by best I mean really awful. :\

 

[Maverick177]

What I find humorous are the people angry by proxy, they never even bought a 970 but they're "mad as hell and aren't going to take it", out for social justice, etc.. Internet outrage mobs are the best, and by best I mean really awful. :\

Wrong place for politics pals. While I do agree with you about the social justice stuff. Lying to customer is not cool.

From 2 eVGA GTX 970 FTW+, GTX 960SC owner.

 

[3DVagabond]

All good questions. My take is since the GTX 970 is one of NVIDIA's most popular cards, I would think they would continue to alleviate the memory issue with drivers fixes for quite some time. Obviously GTX 970 owners are rather unhappy (lawsuit), so it wouldn't make sense to further damage their brand reputation by neglecting users with the 3.5GB issue. If they drop all support in less from a year from now, then shame of them, as the GTX 970 still performs quite well in today's games and I think still has some fight left in it.

I think the driver support will end when the 980 ti gets replaced. There will be no current Maxwell sku's to optimize for and I don't believe they'll be bothered to continue.

 

[3DVagabond]

My take is different. The card has 4gb of VRAM. Segmented or it's still there.

The card didn't have the rops, or whatever else it was supposed to have. Unless a person purchased based on that specification (a small handful of people) they really got what they thought they were getting.

The people hurt by this misinformation are mostly forum users and tech spec geeks.

Nvidia lied, I just highly doubt the truth would have changed things more than a couple of percent. The main reasons the gtx 970 did well are all still there.

This thread is bumped up just for people to gloat that Nvidia has to pay out the don't care at all about the fact that I'd be willing to be that the majority of people who get this payout would have still bought the card at the same price if the real specs were there and detailed. People wanted the performance not the tech specs

What you are saying might be accurate. None of that justifies nVidia publishing false specifications.

 

[Erenhardt]

Maybe the judge was an AMD stockholder... who knows

Do you have, or know of any evidence as you suggest?.

He definitely wasn't nvidia focus group member.

I bet you can take your accusation to the court and grab millions of $ from amd. Go for it.

 

[f2bnp]

What I find humorous are the people angry by proxy, they never even bought a 970 but they're "mad as hell and aren't going to take it", out for social justice, etc.. Internet outrage mobs are the best, and by best I mean really awful. :\

Yeah, I guess I should totally ignore what happened with the GTX 970 and buy a card from Nvidia in the future that pulls off something similar. I definitely shouldn't be weary, right?
If a company doesn't respect me as a customer, of course I'll get angry and I'll vote with my wallet by not supporting them. It pisses me off even more that people have no issue with such shady tactics.

 

[Sable]

Are you really going to defend nvidia lying to customers?

It's illegal, immoral, scummy, and many more things. Can't believe anyone would defend this.

Of course he is. He works for them. Durr. Damage control and all that.

 

[redvapor]

Anyway all the customers outside US dont get any compensation. Therefore NV cozld not care less about this silly 30$ fee they have to pay to some people that get actually through the process and registering for a refund. Selling their data afterwards will lower the cost even more. So everything was fine. Looking forward to what they pull off next.

 

[wahdangun]

All good questions. My take is since the GTX 970 is one of NVIDIA's most popular cards, I would think they would continue to alleviate the memory issue with drivers fixes for quite some time. Obviously GTX 970 owners are rather unhappy (lawsuit), so it wouldn't make sense to further damage their brand reputation by neglecting users with the 3.5GB issue. If they drop all support in less from a year from now, then shame of them, as the GTX 970 still performs quite well in today's games and I think still has some fight left in it.

but it was in legacy status now.

 

[Cookie Monster]

but it was in legacy status now.

Which means they don't manufacture them anymore probably because of the GTX1060.

 

[MagickMan]

Yeah, I guess I should totally ignore what happened with the GTX 970 and buy a card from Nvidia in the future that pulls off something similar.

Yeah, `cause I totally said that.

I definitely shouldn't be weary, right?

Are you tired? Take a nap if you're "weary".

If a company doesn't respect me as a customer, of course I'll get angry and I'll vote with my wallet by not supporting them. It pisses me off even more that people have no issue with such shady tactics.

You weren't the person NV was "disrespecting", that was my point. However, you are, right now, acting like they've ripped you off, personally. That's ridiculous, but all too common in cases of internet dog-piling.

 

[MagickMan]

Oh, and if you bought a GTX 970 from Amazon, contact Amazon CS. They're offering partial refunds, as much as 50% of the original purchase price, if you complain to them (the typical amount appears to be ~20%).

 

[jackstar7]

You weren't the person NV was "disrespecting", that was my point. However, you are, right now, acting like they've ripped you off, personally. That's ridiculous, but all too common in cases of internet dog-piling.

Except they misrepresented to the public. All of us. Not just those who purchased it, but everyone who was trying to make an informed decision about a purchase during the time of its release up to when the reality was revealed.

Yes, only those who purchased it deserve financial compensation, but the public as a whole deserves facts from a company selling a product based on its specs.

This is not an internet dogpile, this is reasonable disgust with a company that lied to its customers and the public in general, even giving bad info to review sites.

Everyone should take notice as we are all potential nV customers here. In fact, I am one. And I am grateful that the 980ti doesn't also suffer from hardware misrepresentation, as it suited my needs and I got it for a price I was comfortable with.

I am now looking much harder at AMD products and Freesync monitors when it comes time to upgrade again.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Poor NVIDIA. Getting dogpiled by tech forum users. Who will come to their aid?

Lying is bad. NVIDIA lied/was incompetent, NVIDIA didn't apologize. They deserve all the criticism they get.

NVIDIA should have taken these steps:
-Update specs of Geforce.com to reflect that it has a 224-bit memory bus and 3.5GB + 0.5GB of VRAM, while sending out updated spec sheets to all major tech sites.
-Issue an apology to all 970 owners, and offer them all a refund/some credit towards a future purchase, something of that nature.
-Force all partners to put 3.5GB on the boxes from then on, and do the same to NVIDIA branded 970s being sold at Best Buy and Geforce.com. This is the what they did with the 570, and the most complete truth.

If they had done any of that or even done something as simple as offer an apology, I think many would be very willing to forget the issue. Instead they've done literally nothing. It's an insult to anyone who's purchased a 970. They simply made no effort to make things right with their customers, and that's the real problem. They offloaded all the responsibility to retailers and partners, some of whom stepped up to the plate and compensated 970 owners for a mistake that wasn't even theirs. That's kind of pathetic on NV's part, isn't it? Letting other companies take the hit for your mistake?

 

[zinfamous]

What I find humorous are the people angry by proxy, they never even bought a 970 but they're "mad as hell and aren't going to take it", out for social justice, etc.. Internet outrage mobs are the best, and by best I mean really awful. :\

It really doesn't serve you well to confuse what you call "social justice" with an actual case of consumer protection.

You know, many people call this fraud.

It doesn't help anyone, including yourself, to pretend that you don't care about honest advertising and sales practices from any company. When you think you bought a 911 Turbo, get home and discover a regular-old V6 without the turbo package in the engine compartment, do you just ignore it and write it off as a case of "social justice" that you would rather not have attached to your disappointment of having been sold a lie?

 

[zinfamous]

You weren't the person NV was "disrespecting", that was my point. However, you are, right now, acting like they've ripped you off, personally. That's ridiculous, but all too common in cases of internet dog-piling.

Right, it isn't important to me in any way that a company remain honest if their dishonestly didn't affect me this one exact time.

 

[zinfamous]

Nvidia's brand is invincible. Gameworks, 3.5GB ram, and async lies should have "damaged" the brand but they didn't.

Its kinda like the hot girl who is crazy but you ignore she is crazy because she is hot. Nvidia is greedy but they have the fastest cards so everyone ignores it.

excellent post.

 

[amenx]

Lying is bad. NVIDIA lied/was incompetent, NVIDIA didn't apologize. They deserve all the criticism they get.

Fully agree. But seeing that I got my moneys worth and enjoyed everything I threw at the card, its kind of hard for me to be as incensed as others. And I doubt very much this will sway me in the slightest in future GPU purchases. Will still buy what I perceive as the better card for my needs regardless of a companys shenanigans, unless I find what I bought failed to deliver upon my expectations.

If I was a morally principled buyer I probably wouldnt have bought my Intel CPU. I say this with fresh memory of how many used the ethics argument when justifying why they stuck to AMD CPUs (from as far back as 2007-2008). And over the years witnessed these same people eventually shift to Intel. Amazing how one can set their ideals aside, and over something so petty: lust for better hardware.

 

[iiiankiii]

What I find humorous are the people angry by proxy, they never even bought a 970 but they're "mad as hell and aren't going to take it", out for social justice, etc.. Internet outrage mobs are the best, and by best I mean really awful. :\

What!? Considering that the GTX 970 was the best selling card for its generation, it affected A LOT of people. So what if it didn't affect me personally, they still did a crummy thing. Nvidia was caught with false advertising; they were punished for it. What's not to get? If people didn't get outraged by this, Nvidia would be more inclined to repeat this again. I don't even understand why you're even on the other side of the fence. It blows my mind.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

This thread is bumped up just for people to gloat that Nvidia has to pay out the don't care at all about the fact that I'd be willing to be that the majority of people who get this payout would have still bought the card at the same price if the real specs were there and detailed. People wanted the performance not the tech specs

On one hand I have really enjoyed my 970, it has been the best gpu I have owned and everything I have plays great on it. On the other I suspect I would have bought an R9 290x instead had I known about the segmented memory architecture and the fact that a lot more was cut off from the 980 than what Nvidia told everyone when the 970 launched. The cards were so close in performance at the time and 4GB vs 3.5GB would have tipped the scale in favor of the 290x for me I think. I main reason I went with the 970 over the 290x was the Far Cry 4 bundle but had I known about the slower 512MB of video ram I think I would have gone 290x. So I'm going to claim my $30, I think they owe it to me for telling me a lie that made me choose them instead of their competitor who it turned out had the better card for the money.

 

[96Firebird]

When did you buy the 970 SteveGrabowski? When I bought it (launch day), 290X was going for $450+, so not even an option. Hell, the 290 was going for $370...

 

[MagickMan]

Except they misrepresented to the public. All of us. Not just those who purchased it, but everyone who was trying to make an informed decision about a purchase during the time of its release up to when the reality was revealed.

Yes, only those who purchased it deserve financial compensation, but the public as a whole deserves facts from a company selling a product based on its specs.

So? Facts? They misrepresented a product, if you bought one you should be pissed, but getting PO'd by proxy is just silly. Some people have been acting like it's the apocalypse, when it's just a relatively minor sin of omission. If the owners are really pissed they can just take their settlement, take a partial refund from the retailer, and not buy an NV card anymore.

This is not an internet dogpile

You don't visit reddit, do you? They're acting like it's the VW diesel scandal, when it's really just 500MB of slow VRAM. This is trying to head-off the pitchfork-swinging mob at the pass, AT doesn't need that crap.

I am now looking much harder at AMD products and Freesync monitors when it comes time to upgrade again.

Good, choice is always best, consumers are best served with multiple options. It's simply been a shame that there are only 2 options now, and AMD has been such a poor competitor and allowed NV to walk all over them.

 

[MagickMan]

What!? Considering that the GTX 970 was the best selling card for its generation, it affected A LOT of people. So what if it didn't affect me personally, they still did a crummy thing. Nvidia was caught with false advertising; they were punished for it. What's not to get? If people didn't get outraged by this, Nvidia would be more inclined to repeat this again. I don't even understand why you're even on the other side of the fence. It blows my mind.

500MB of slow VRAM "blows your mind"? "People need to be outraged over this"? Really? Are you that bored and in need of drama? :\ Hell, I didn't get this PO'd over the Porsche PDK debacle regarding my 911, and it's a $110k car. Perspective, people.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

When did you buy the 970 SteveGrabowski? When I bought it (launch day), 290X was going for $450+, so not even an option. Hell, the 290 was going for $370...

December 2014. The 290x was going for $330-$350 and the 290 for $250-$270 (up from the $220-$250 it was going for in November).