No, I'm really not.
This is even a rebuttal. "Yes they are." "No they aren't". Doesn't qualify as an intelligent discussion. Pure childish banter.
All the AMD fans crying over cards they never bought (and never intended to buy).
This is a baseless claim in an attempt to deflect the topic and somehow make this someone else's fault besides nVidia. This isn't about AMD. This isn't about the people who are discussing it. It's about nVidia and their proven slimy business practices.
Now, give me one example of someone making it out to be any sort of an "apocalyptic" occurrence.
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.
This is what you said, "This is trying to head-off the pitchfork-swinging mob at the pass, AT doesn't need that crap." Find where I said I'm trying to do anything for the sake of AT? I'll wait.
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).
This isn't about AMD This also isn't any kind of a rebuttal about the topic at hand. It's pure childish deflection. "But mommy, Jonny does it too."
Man, you really only have one trick in your bag.
Your reply isn't even a discussion.
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.
It's not faux outrage. It is completely misleading to advertise it how they did. For it to be advertised as having the same number of ROPS and the the same memory configuration only at slightly slower speeds, that is pure deception what they did. The 970 should be 81% or faster in comparison to the 980 when it comes to gaming while using over 3.5GB of ram. While using a 32-bit bus, that is impossible.
Do you not realize what kind of misrepresentation that is? It'd be like a truck company releasing another edition of an already established truck and releasing spec sheets not indicating that one of the eight cylinders are barely functioning. By barely functioning, when the truck needs to utilize the advertised torque specification the engine sputters and the drive-train grinds to a halt, while the other fully functional (and identically advertised) truck can still keep functioning. It'd be like Ford advertising their cheaper 2.7L V6 engine(375lb Torque) having the same torque as their 3.7L V6 engine (420lb Torque).
One shouldn't have to read reviews if they already know the specifications and performance of part in the same architecture. The only tangible change was shader count, and by having such a clear advertised indication that it is the sole independent variable, data should be able to be extrapolated from the 980 to the 970. It is now known the specifications were wholly misleading. It is not a 4GB, 64-rop, 256-bit card.
I wonder what focus group members would parrot if AMD was caught grossly misleading customers. As a supposed enthusiast it is despicable that one would consider the valid customer and consumer complaints as "pure faux outrage." Myself and many others started reading and posting on PC forums (especially here on Anandtech) to better understand the specifications and performance of components to get our moneys worth as consumers and enthusiasts alike. This is exactly what we were here originally fighting against; being misled and taken for our money. To have a member of the very company here playing damage control, downplaying and belittling the valid concerns of consumers is everything actual enthusiasts are against.
The proof is that anybody who works on a long-term project that is put out for public review is going to want to see how well it is received.What proof do you have that Nvidia employees are looking through review sites?
Well, I have an understanding of GPU architecture and I don't even work in the semiconductor business. I'm sure that many, many people within Nvidia know what a ROP and L2 cache are and also frequent enthusiast websites like AnandTech. Therefore, they would have known immediately that the posted specs were higher what the hardware actually contained.What proof do you have that Nvidia employees who did see reviews have an understanding of gpu architectures?
The proof is that anybody who works on a long-term project that is put out for public review is going to want to see how well it is received.
Well, I have an understanding of GPU architecture and I don't even work in the semiconductor business. I'm sure that many, many people within Nvidia know what a ROP and L2 cache are and also frequent enthusiast websites like AnandTech. Therefore, they would have known immediately that the posted specs were higher what the hardware actually contained.
The proof is that anybody who works on a long-term project that is put out for public review is going to want to see how well it is received.
Well, I have an understanding of GPU architecture and I don't even work in the semiconductor business. I'm sure that many, many people within Nvidia know what a ROP and L2 cache are and also frequent enthusiast websites like AnandTech. Therefore, they would have known immediately that the posted specs were higher what the hardware actually contained.
I dont believe its 'faux outrage'. The outrage is real but again mostly expressed by AMD owners. Some 970 owners may have been pissed but not as vocal about it as non-owners. They have had various options to return the card or get some sort of compensation since over a year ago from major etailers like Amazon or Newegg. But what happened? The majority of 970 sales occurred after the vram issue surfaced. Card released: 9/2014. Vram issue discovered: 1/2015.
Newegg top selling cards for 2015: https://blog.neweggbusiness.com/news/best-selling-video-cards-of-2015/
Anyway, bought mine from Amazon 11/2014. Had a chance to refund it when the the controversy erupted. Since was enjoying the card with everything I threw at it, didnt do a damn thing. Still would have bought it anyway after the issue came out (like the majority in 2015 did).
NOW one year later, I think I may have been better off with a 290x/390x. Not due to the vram issue, but rather to the resiliency of GCN cards and their ability to perform better in latest games. But maybe not. The 970 was too cool, quiet and about as perfect running in my experience as not to have been bothered by switching to something that might not be for a few extra FPS.
I hope you are equally sure that many many do not.
You do not know the inner workings of Nvidia as a corporation. I dont either. What you are spouting is supposition. Guesses. Your first sentence isnt proof of anything. Not even a little.
Nvidia has nearly 10,000 employees. SOMEBODY who knew the real specs of the GTX970 would have read a review and known that the specs being printed were false. The possibility that the entire Nvidia employee base knew nothing about this prior to Jen-Hsun's "apology" is zero.
YlConsidering how many people bought the you after all of this was well known, people simply didn't care and they wanted gtx 970s which I think still upsets the population of people who had been saying the 290/x was/is a better deal.
Still just guessing dude. Saying it different ways doesnt make it any truer.
You could just as easily be saying that the engineers knew, but failed to update and inform marketing. We really dont know. You can swear up and down that tou do, but you dont. Sorry.
Fine. What proof do you have that they didn't know?Still just guessing dude. Saying it different ways doesnt make it any truer.
You could just as easily be saying that the engineers knew, but failed to update and inform marketing. We really dont know. You can swear up and down that tou do, but you dont. Sorry.
The thread is should you be compensated....Fine. What proof do you have that they didn't know?
We can go 'round and 'round like this all day long. But you know and I know that they knew. Unless you're publicly saying Nvidia could possibly be that clueless to not double-check the specs of their own hardware.
I don't know which is worse. That Nvidia knew and covered up the truth for over four months hoping that we wouldn't notice or that not one Engineer, Technician, Manager, Administrator, Coordinator, Architect, Developer, Specialist or even Intern at Nvidia could be bothered enough to check the reviews versus the actual specs of the card.
Lying cheats or lazy incompetents. Neither one paints a very flattering picture of Nvidia, does it?
Fine. What proof do you have that they didn't know?
We can go 'round and 'round like this all day long. But you know and I know that they knew. Unless you're publicly saying Nvidia could possibly be that clueless to not double-check the specs of their own hardware.
I don't know which is worse. That Nvidia knew and covered up the truth for over four months hoping that we wouldn't notice or that not one Engineer, Technician, Manager, Administrator, Coordinator, Architect, Developer, Specialist or even Intern at Nvidia could be bothered enough to check the reviews versus the actual specs of the card.
Lying cheats or lazy incompetents. Neither one paints a very flattering picture of Nvidia, does it?
Most of this "i would have bought xyz card if I had only known about the 970 memory configuration (insert other excuse here) are just hindsight excuses. Of course you would make different decisions looking back knowing how these gpus will age.
Fine. What proof do you have that they didn't know?
We can go 'round and 'round like this all day long. But you know and I know that they knew. Unless you're publicly saying Nvidia could possibly be that clueless to not double-check the specs of their own hardware.
I don't know which is worse. That Nvidia knew and covered up the truth for over four months hoping that we wouldn't notice or that not one Engineer, Technician, Manager, Administrator, Coordinator, Architect, Developer, Specialist or even Intern at Nvidia could be bothered enough to check the reviews versus the actual specs of the card.
Lying cheats or lazy incompetents. Neither one paints a very flattering picture of Nvidia, does it?
because 290 was 4gb and 970 had to be 4gb :twisted:This. If its even 1 out of 50,000 an employee without a doubt in my mind one had to check out a review from a reputable site. A company this huge can not be filled with people of such incompetence. Also most people are not the same so saying no one bothered to check out at least one review to see why the card was well received is "grasping for straws" at best. Nvidia just decided to keep its mouth closed until said issue came to light. Also like I said before the card performed well despite its limitations but what was the reason they lied to paying customers?
This. If its even 1 out of 50,000 an employee without a doubt in my mind one had to check out a review from a reputable site. A company this huge can not be filled with people of such incompetence. Also most people are not the same so saying no one bothered to check out at least one review to see why the card was well received is "grasping for straws" at best. Nvidia just decided to keep its mouth closed until said issue came to light. Also like I said before the card performed well despite its limitations but what was the reason they lied to paying customers?
because 290 was 4gb and 970 had to be 4gb :twisted:
This isn't a court of law. Common sense and logic work just fine here. Sorry.I know we can go round and round. Actually, no we can't.
Your accusations towards Nvidia are pointless without evidence. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Sorry.