[GeForce] NV flip flops position on OC ban.(Possibly locking the bios now!)

[wand3r3r]

Well apparently somebody complained to NVidia about their recent attempt to ban overclocking the GTX 9xx mobile gpus. It was worth complaining about, thanks to those who did! While I don't have a gaming laptop it still strikes close since I potentially will someday.

A small victory for consumers (or more likely OEMs as pointed out?).

Our recent driver update disabled overclocking on some GTX notebooks. We heard from many of you that you would like this feature enabled again. So, we will again be enabling overclocking in our upcoming driver release next month for those affected notebooks.

If you are eager to regain this capability right away, you can also revert back to 344.75.

https://forums.geforce.com/default/...king-with-347-09-347-25/post/4466443/#4466443

 

[boozzer]

I am 100% sure it wasn't the consumers, more like their oem partners telling the green to eff off. If consumers has any affect at all, the 970 3.5gb vram would have been a way bigger news splash.

 

[garagisti]

I am 100% sure it wasn't the consumers, more like their oem partners telling the green to eff off. If consumers has any affect at all, the 970 3.5gb vram would have been a way bigger news splash.

As unlikely as it may have been, there was a lot of stink about the 970 by customers, and there was some stink from the same lot again. I was about to buy a laptop for my wife, but i didn't, and wouldn't buy one with Nvidia graphics more likely whenever i make my next purchase. For now i'm simply going to build her an external GPU for her macbook pro, and that will be powered by an AMD of course.

 

[EliteRetard]

But they wont even say sorry about the 970...let alone allow returns. Clearly Nvidia doesn't care about it's customers, this must have been pushed by the OEMs. Still, that's better than nothing.

 

[wand3r3r]

Yeah it could have been oems, they probably have the most clout. I may have been naive in assuming it was public backlash.

I think the bad publicity on many issues may have also contributed, since they have been in several quite big publicity fails like the 970 lately.

 

[Gloomy]

At least it shows that grumbling does get through to Nvidia somehow.

Question: did this driver also disable power target modification? For reducing power use/underclocking.

 

[Alatar]

the 970 3.5gb vram would have been a way bigger news splash.

How much bigger can a hardware news splash get? I don't think I've ever seen a bigger PR disaster and story when it comes to PC hardware...

 

[Creig]

How much bigger can a hardware news splash get? I don't think I've ever seen a bigger PR disaster and story when it comes to PC hardware...

I'd say Nvidia's "Bumpgate" fiasco four years ago was worse than this. That one cost them over $300 million.

 

[tviceman]

Wow I'm amazed. Overclocking on laptops (with maxwell) is limited to +135 offset, but it's still equals a big bump on my GTX 860m notebook without adversely affecting temps (1097mhz to 1222mhz).

 

[Rvenger]

Guys, let's get on topic. This is not the 970 discussion.

-Rvenger

 

[Creig]

So when Nvidia removes laptop overclocking, it's because it's a "bug":

There was a bug introduced into our drivers which enabled some systems to overclock. This was fixed in a recent update.

But when they reverse their decision, it suddenly becomes a "feature":

We heard from many of you that you would like this feature enabled again. So, we will again be enabling overclocking in our upcoming driver release next month for those affected notebooks.

Let's hear it for PR marketing spin!

 

[PPB]

Yeah, was about to post the same. When you take out something, its a bug, when you re-introduce it, it is a feature.

 

[EliteRetard]

Of course, Nvidia would never remove a function or feature...

 

[Shmee]

Well, good news I suppose. I would consider getting a GTX 9xx laptop again.

 

[exar333]

Yeah it could have been oems, they probably have the most clout. I may have been naive in assuming it was public backlash.

I think the bad publicity on many issues may have also contributed, since they have been in several quite big publicity fails like the 970 lately.

This.

Here is the US, we don't have a lot of consumer protection laws like the EU, for example, and I think that (with the associated OEM pressure) certainly played a part here. Just looking at the original 9xxM lock-down thread, you could see a number of examples where people posted to links from OEMs specifically advertising the capability of the laptop to OC the GPU. I wouldn't doubt that consumers would have had a leg to stand on to return many of those purchases with this feature removed.

The public backlash was also pretty bad, and right on the heels of the 970 fiasco, brought this probably even more to a head.

Kudos to NV for adding this feature back in, but I still think it is a 'net negative PR' move for the debacle. They should have not done this in the first place.

 

[Phynaz]

So when Nvidia removes laptop overclocking, it's because it's a "bug":



But when they reverse their decision, it suddenly becomes a "feature":



Let's hear it for PR marketing spin!

Nice catch!

 

[waffleironhead]

This was 100% pressure from system builders. The idea that consumers swayed nvidia is quite laughable.

 

[exar333]

This was 100% pressure from system builders. The idea that consumers swayed nvidia is quite laughable.

Why are the system builders concerned? It is the customer (both existing and potential) that drives their feedback. Whether it be direct or indirectly, it is due to customer reaction.

 

[Erenhardt]

Well, good news I suppose. I would consider getting a GTX 9xx laptop again.

Why anyone would want to buy a laptop with limited 30 days overclocking program is beyond me. Maybe they will have micro-transactions to unlock overclocking for 60 days - a'la WoW pre-paids.

 

[exar333]

Why anyone would want to buy a laptop with limited 30 days overclocking program is beyond me. Maybe they will have micro-transactions to unlock overclocking for 60 days - a'la WoW pre-paids.

True.

Maybe something like $0.25/mhz? With a top-tier special of 'only' $25 to OC the full 135mhz?

 

[Shmee]

I am confused, are they charging to allow OC?

 

[tviceman]

No, people are just making jokes.

 

[Aikouka]

Yeah, was about to post the same. When you take out something, its a bug, when you re-introduce it, it is a feature.

Ugh... I get the feeling that people making remarks like this don't work in software. Yes, if a feature should not exist in the software, its existence would be elevated as a bug/issue in the software. The fix would need to go through all the proper channels including development and QC. Yes, I realize that it seems kind of silly, but that's just how it works.

 

[exar333]

Ugh... I get the feeling that people making remarks like this don't work in software. Yes, if a feature should not exist in the software, its existence would be elevated as a bug/issue in the software. The fix would need to go through all the proper channels including development and QC. Yes, I realize that it seems kind of silly, but that's just how it works.

I might buy the argument if the 'bug' was simply that, a loophole that allowed OCing. The fact it was specifically limiting the OC to 135mhz is highly suspect to me.

Overclocking is a feature
Limiting the OC to 135mhz above stock is a feature
Removing the ability to OC was removing a feature

Just my opinion, but I would like to know more on why NV classified it as a 'bug'.

 

[RussianSensation]

Interesting how at first some people actually defended NV's actions or said it didn't matter at all. Now we have some users saying that NV didn't do it for the consumers and that they reversed their decision only because of OEMs, not making a connection whatsoever that better cooling designs, OC software tweaks allow OEMs to differentiate their enthusiast products -- which is what we the customers desire. Glad to see this industry still has gamers who think their voices count and that someone at NV actually listens. Good move NV!