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. :\
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.
Who's acting like it's the apocalypse? The fact that you feel the need to exaggerate people positions to try and counter them proves they are right.
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.
So you think you are AT VC&G's savior now. lol
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.
Consumers are best served with honest representation of what they are being sold.
Why is this time different from the previous times Nvidia used segmented memory
They're lies no doubt. Or mistakes or however you want to frame it.It's not just the memory. Had it been that I don't think they would have had any issues, legally. After all the card does have 4GB of functional RAM on it. It's all of the other actual flat out falsehoods.
They're lies no doubt. Or mistakes or however you want to frame it.
I just don't think this is a massive deal everyone is trying to make it out to be. If you take out the segmented ram which Nvidia had a history of doing you are left with some random tech specs that are wrong. How much of the market actually used those specs in their purchasing decision? Maybe forum tech enthusiasts but not many.
This thread is should you be compensated. I believe you should be compensated if you used that as your defining decision.
That's not a lot of people.
But now would I collect this if I had some similar techspec fiasco with a card I owned?
You betcha!
To me the big deal isn't a wrong spec sheet. That has happened before and companies apologized and we moved on.
The big deal in this whole thing is Nvidia's very arrogant attitude. They basically said "It's a feature that its kinda 4GB and you should feel lucky because the alternative is we would have given you 3GB!" The possibility that people would have chosen a 4GB 290x over a 3.5GB 970 if they knew isn't even acknowledged.
Just like async not working is a fun fact. Just like a founders edition is somehow better than a reference card ("a rose by any other name"). Just like Gameworks was trying to help the PC gaming industry honest guys honest.
AMD has its share of screwups ("overclockers dream," pci issues) but those seem to obviously be cases of enthusiastic incompetence. Meanwhile Nvidia's gaffs the last few years all sound like arrogance. To me a guy screwing up because he is too exited about what he is doing is better than a guy who knows he is really popular and acts like you are lucky to even be able to hang out with him sometimes and if you buy the drinks.
They're lies no doubt. Or mistakes or however you want to frame it.
I just don't think this is a massive deal everyone is trying to make it out to be. If you take out the segmented ram which Nvidia had a history of doing you are left with some random tech specs that are wrong. How much of the market actually used those specs in their purchasing decision? Maybe forum tech enthusiasts but not many.
This thread is should you be compensated. I believe you should be compensated if you used that as your defining decision.
That's not a lot of people.
But now would I collect this if I had some similar techspec fiasco with a card I owned?
You betcha!
And between you and I, I think with all that Nvidia has accomplished over the decades, they are entitled to a little arrogance.
That is where you and I disagree then. Arrogance is the step before complacency, and even though Nvidia probably does have the dedicated GPU market locked down that segment is shrinking and the segments that are growing (HPC, autos, mobile, etc.) are getting very competitive.
For example Nvidia's GPU arrogance makes me less likely to recommend a Shield tablet or Shield TV even though they are unrelated products. Even the great Apple isn't entitled to arrogance, as they learns when their tv service idea died in the boardroom. Arrogance has a negative connotation for a reason.
Well, obviously he wants it framed as a lie.
It isn't the massive deal individuals are making it out to be. For some reason though, they need it to be.
If Nvidia had shown performance of a 64ROP etc. etc. GPU and sold the performance of a 56ROP GPU, then I'd raise hell. And anyone complaining would be hyper justified.
But this is pure faux outrage. I mean mind blowing how some will cling to it.
As I said before, I do NOT like the fact that there was a performance hit when that last 512MB of GDDR5 was accessed. That is an actual TANGIBLE performance difference where people actually did run into that issue and before it was handled better with drivers. But still, I did not like they way they did that. It should have been advertised as a 3.5 GB card with a 512 reserve, or a more accurate descriptor.
I will give you guys that any day of the week.
But this outrage over incorrect specs even though everyone got the performance shown in reviews is BS.
Did you purchase ROPs? Or did you purchase performance shown by reviews? I can tell you what I did base my purchase on and it wasn't shader core or ROP or texture units or flux capacitors. It was the performance.
Compensation should be offered to anyone affected by the 3.5/512 issue if it even occurs anymore. For sure.
You are confusing disgust with anger.
Who's acting like it's the apocalypse? The fact that you feel the need to exaggerate people positions to try and counter them proves they are right.
So you think you are AT VC&G's savior now. lol
Consumers are best served with honest representation of what they are being sold.
When was the last time you paid full price for a card?
Did you ever use a 970 in your main rig? My guess is that you did not as you've had Titans and other high-end cards for quite a while now. So based on everyone else saying if you didn't own/buy it why are you mad... if you didn't own it/buy it, why are you defending this shady behavior?
I also wonder how many people bought a 970 and then owned it long enough to see new games arrive that suffered with the 970's limits. I would expect that to be most of those people.
I could be wrong about a lot of my suppositions here. But I think being at all permissive about this case doesn't make any sense as a consumer. It's an absolutely bad practice, intentional or not, and should not be tolerated by the marketplace and should bring with it serious backlash.
Why would you trust a company that says "Hey, we are honest almost all of the time."? This is particularly troubling from a tech company because things will always be taken apart and analyzed completely to uncover all false info and data.
I don't understand what is gained by downplaying this case, unless it is personal financial and/or emotional gains. I suppose if I was a stockholder, I'd definitely want this to go away. Likewise if I was devoted to the brand, I'd have a hard time reconciling this cognitive dissonance.
Ugh....... The assumptions.
I always pay full price when I buy a card. If I get a card from Nvidia,(notice I said IF) it is only one per gen. The rest of the cards I own and have owned, I purchase myself.
Why didn't you wait for the answer to your first question before going on your tirade here?
Oh, and yes, I purchased a GTX970 with my own good old fashioned hard earned money. Used on a daily basis.
No, I'm really not.
All the AMD fans crying over cards they never bought (and never intended to buy).
As much as you do, amirite? "Oh no, he isn't on the NV hate bandwagon. Burn the heretic!" An NV omission about 500MB of slow VRAM is worth this much drama? Even the 970 owners aren't going on about it as much as you guys, and they have a legitimate reason to complain.
You mean like how AMD misled customers about the number of Bulldozer cores? That was much worse than a 500MB block of slower VRAM. How about their lies regarding the performance of the 300 series? How they purposely crippled the 980 with irrelevant tests at still-unplayable 4K settings (completely ignoring 1080p and 1440p, resolutions that players in the market for those cards actually use), in official press releases.
Moral of the story? All tech companies omit information, and it's a crappy practice. AMD isn't special, they've done their fair share of it too.
Customers are also served by competitive products, where are AMD's new GPUs to fill the upper tier markets right now? (Which was the entire point of my statement to begin with; they're allowing NV to walk all over them, completely conceding that whole market segment).
No, I'm really not.
All the AMD fans crying over cards they never bought (and never intended to buy).
As much as you do, amirite? "Oh no, he isn't on the NV hate bandwagon. Burn the heretic!" An NV omission about 500MB of slow VRAM is worth this much drama? Even the 970 owners aren't going on about it as much as you guys, and they have a legitimate reason to complain.
You mean like how AMD misled customers about the number of Bulldozer cores? That was much worse than a 500MB block of slower VRAM. How about their lies regarding the performance of the 300 series? How they purposely crippled the 980 with irrelevant tests at still-unplayable 4K settings (completely ignoring 1080p and 1440p, resolutions that players in the market for those cards actually use), in official press releases.
Moral of the story? All tech companies omit information, and it's a crappy practice. AMD isn't special, they've done their fair share of it too.
Customers are also served by competitive products, where are AMD's new GPUs to fill the upper tier markets right now? (Which was the entire point of my statement to begin with; they're allowing NV to walk all over them, completely conceding that whole market segment).
Severe by your own opinion.I called them suppositions. Meaning I am open to being corrected. And I asked about using it in your main rig. And full price. Details, they matter.
And I don't think it was a rant, it was trying to deduce your reasons for downplaying the severity of this incident and how it has played out. And I am openly fine with being wrong about things. As a fan of science I know we pretty much always get things wrong. So if I'm wrong, please correct me.
And I stand by stock owners and fanboys trying to play this down, as that makes sense. If you are neither... then why?
I called them suppositions. Meaning I am open to being corrected. And I asked about using it in your main rig. And full price. Details, they matter.
And I don't think it was a rant, it was trying to deduce your reasons for downplaying the severity of this incident and how it has played out. And I am openly fine with being wrong about things. As a fan of science I know we pretty much always get things wrong. So if I'm wrong, please correct me.
And I stand by stock owners and fanboys trying to play this down, as that makes sense. If you are neither... then why?
just askingSevere by your own opinion.
Nvidia has had segmented gpus out on the market before this. Anyone could have at any time been outraged at Nvidia for not openly stating this on the box. No one did to any large effect.
It's only now when it's people cheerleading for gpu vendors that this is brought up again and now people are more outraged than ever.