[kitguru] Return rate of GeForce GTX 970 after memory scandal is below 5%

[wand3r3r]

Although the buzz in various forums and social networks about memory allocation issues of Nvidia Corp.’s GeForce GTX 970 is fairly loud, the amount of customers wishing to return their graphics cards to stores or manufacturers is fairly low. According to various sources polled by KitGuru, the actual return rate of the GeForce GTX is below 5 per cent. The low return rate of the GTX 970 is good for Nvidia, its partners and the market
“I have heard as many as 5 per cent of the buyers are demanding a refund from the AIB suppliers,” said Jon Peddie, the principal analyst at Jon Peddie Research.

KitGuru Says: While it is unlikely that the returns of the GeForce GTX 970 graphics boards will have a significant impact on the market, it will still cause some negative effects. As a result, it is completely unclear why Nvidia decided not to react on the situation anyhow or settle with the end-users.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...0-after-memory-allocation-scandal-is-below-5/

Personally I think the next purchase may be affected, especially if new games push the 3.5 GB limit (although NV may prevent it through drivers) or if they go SLI/4k.

 

[lavaheadache]

I wonder how many gtx 970 owners actually know of the issue. I'm willing to bet the number would go up if there was a notice sent out to purchasers.

 

[Rhezuss]

I wonder how many gtx 970 owners actually know of the issue. I'm willing to bet the number would go up if there was a notice sent out to purchasers.

I was thinking about this yesterday and i'm sure a minority of owners know about this and that is why Nvidia won't do a thing.

 

[jackstar7]

I wonder how many gtx 970 owners actually know of the issue. I'm willing to bet the number would go up if there was a notice sent out to purchasers.

Yeah, a gamble on an uninformed audience can be a safe bet.

If they actively revealed it to customers... that'd probably be worse than what they're dealing with now.

The thing I find weird is how you can judge returns when so many folks were stonewalled at some point or another against making a return or exchange.

 

[sandorski]

I would suspect that though it seems small it actually has some affect on Retailers and Board makers. Won't break anyone, but could sour things.

 

[lavaheadache]

Also, you have to consider the fact that many buyers are simply unable to return due to being past their basic return period. Newegg isn't accepting returns and neither are many other companies.

I think considering the limited amount of people that know about the issue and that were actually able to return, 5% is a fairly substantial amount.

 

[Rvenger]

Most user's RMAs were rejected and if they were accepted they are probably still in the process of getting a refund. This article was released too early to get any accurate data on IMO.

I still doubt that most users will be returning the cards anyways. They may feel deceived but still a good performing card nonetheless.

 

[garagisti]

Most user's RMAs were rejected and if they were accepted they are probably still in the process of getting a refund. This article was released too early to get any accurate data on IMO.

I still doubt that most users will be returning the cards anyways. They may feel deceived but still a good performing card nonetheless.

This! 970 had been selling for more than 4 months, closer to 5, when this was acknowledge by Nvidia. Sales may slow down a bit as has been suggested, but given a lot of cards have already sold, and with most people well past their return dates, the return rate was obviously going to be low. Personally, this smacks just as a bad PR attempt, suggesting that it is not as bad to be sold something that was not as advertised.

 

[xthetenth]

Also, you have to consider the fact that many buyers are simply unable to return due to being past their basic return period. Newegg isn't accepting returns and neither are many other companies.

This is my case, and it doesn't mean that I won't be looking for AMD price/performance leadership when it comes time to buy the next one.

 

[5150Joker]

Most user's RMAs were rejected and if they were accepted they are probably still in the process of getting a refund. This article was released too early to get any accurate data on IMO.

I still doubt that most users will be returning the cards anyways. They may feel deceived but still a good performing card nonetheless.

TPU has a poll about the 970 (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/are-you-buying-gtx-970-after-its-controversy.209408/page-4) with a substantial sample size and it shows the majority just don't care and many of those that do care will still buy NVIDIA products. What's more interesting is that only 3.3% (as of this post) said they'd return it which is below the 5% figure quoted in the kitguru report.

 

[96Firebird]

Also, you have to consider the fact that many buyers are simply unable to return due to being past their basic return period. Newegg isn't accepting returns and neither are many other companies.

Most user's RMAs were rejected and if they were accepted they are probably still in the process of getting a refund. This article was released too early to get any accurate data on IMO.

The Jon Peddie quote says as much as 5% are demanding refund, which I am guessing includes those who are denied a refund.

But yes, I also think it is too early to get actual numbers.

 

[garagisti]

TPU has a poll about the 970 (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/are-you-buying-gtx-970-after-its-controversy.209408/page-4) with a substantial sample size and it shows the majority just don't care and many of those that do care will still buy NVIDIA products. What's more interesting is that only 3.3% (as of this post) said they'd return it which is below the 5% figure quoted in the kitguru report.

What about Geforce forums where people are complaining that they're beyond return dates? What about hardforums? What about forums at guru3d where people are complaining the same? For what it is worth, i've seen more people wanting to return the card, than to keep it. Yes, there are undeniably some of those who want to keep it, but if you go to each forum, it is clear that a good number of people who're aware want to return/ get a free or paid upgrade.

By the way, a lot of those posts where people are mulling to keep it, were before the price reduction on 290x. At one time, i was still recommending 970. Now though, one would have to be mostly playing Gameworks titles, rather flush with funds and not care about future games, or ahem, of questionable levels of intelligence to buy a 970 over a custom 290x which you can find cheaper. I recommended a card yesterday in another thread, and it was $310 before $20 discount and $30 mail in rebate (for a total of $260, great gaming card really).

 

[Pneumothorax]

What about in comparison in return rate for other GPU's? If 980's had a hypothetical return rate of 0.5%, then the 970 would have 10 times the return rate...

 

[blastingcap]

The 970 has a lot of shelf life left, what about the sales GOING FORWARD? Damage to brand reputation? The analysis presented is woefully inadequate.

 

[Rvenger]

TPU has a poll about the 970 (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/are-you-buying-gtx-970-after-its-controversy.209408/page-4) with a substantial sample size and it shows the majority just don't care and many of those that do care will still buy NVIDIA products. What's more interesting is that only 3.3% (as of this post) said they'd return it which is below the 5% figure quoted in the kitguru report.

That poll was after the issue, not when people bought the cards then found out they have less VRAM. I actually owned 2 in SLI. Didn't work out in 4k so I returned my 4k monitor. :\

 

[Vesku]

Sounds like it's 1 in 20 GTX 970 owners asking specifically for a refund due to the 3.5GB VRAM + less ROPS + less L2 issue. While not a disaster that's a pretty significant hit to their brand, imo. Considering the coverage of the issue has been mainly hardware review sites and forums with many of the official site write ups saying some variation of "I guess I might be angry as a consumer, maybe, but it's still a great card and you didn't really need that last 512MB anyway."

 

[tential]

TPU has a poll about the 970 (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/are-you-buying-gtx-970-after-its-controversy.209408/page-4) with a substantial sample size and it shows the majority just don't care and many of those that do care will still buy NVIDIA products. What's more interesting is that only 3.3% (as of this post) said they'd return it which is below the 5% figure quoted in the kitguru report.

The Techpowerup Poll lets anyone answer including people who were planning to purchase a GTX 970 and never did. That 3.3% figure is not the return percentage of people who purchased a GTX 970. It has mostly nothing to do with GTX 970 owners except for that one option in it's poll. Everything else is dedicated to potential GTX 970 purchasers.

Techpowerup's 3.3% poll has no relevance to this conversation.

 

[RussianSensation]

The 970 has a lot of shelf life left, what about the sales GOING FORWARD? Damage to brand reputation? The analysis presented is woefully inadequate.

This!

The TPU poll shows 24% of PC gamers aren't considering buying a 970 because NV has been dishonest. While not scientific, it shows that some gamers are not happy with how NV treated the situation overall. That's bound to impact their next purchasing decision.

Also, if almost no retailer allows for returns and NV won't take returns directly, how are people supposed to return their cards? 5% sounds incredibly high since it's coming from a small fraction of voluntary retailer offers made by places like OverclockersUK. If all major online and retail stores accepted returns, the number would have been completely different.

What's amazing is that NV is doing absolutely nothing which suggests they feel no remorse to their customers whatsoever and no responsibility as a corporation. That to me will be remembered by a lot of gamers who follow the industry. This is almost blatant arrogance by NV and that type of thinking that "well we don't care since you'll only buy our cards anyway" will hurt NV's brand far more than the adverse performance and marketing spec errors of the 970. Even when GM200 releases and even if it performs well, the fact that NV did absolutely nothing to show their fault will still be remembered.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm shocked that many people actually DID return it. What do they get, pay extra for a 980? That's a damn win for NV.

If I had bought a 970, I'd be pissed at being lied to, but I wouldn't return it since its wasted time waiting for RMAs.

 

[imaheadcase]

Because most educated people know its a non-issue.

 

[garagisti]

Because most educated people know its a non-issue.

If you and some others think 970 was a non issue, well then I ask you lot this simple question. How many bridges do you "own" by now? If I had to guess I'd say you must have bought a few, no?

 

[RussianSensation]

Because most educated people know its a non-issue.

Ironic considering:

1) It's the educated people who found out about this issue based on adverse performance in real world gaming scenarios, not synthetic benchmarks. They proceeded to use synthetics as a secondary check to prove their initial findings.

2) Some educated people don't like it when companies to whom they have been loyal to first lie to them, and then proceed to feel no remorse and do absolutely nothing to show their loyal customer that they actually care beyond one sale.

Maybe some educated consumers and CEOs (Elon Musk) actually understand that the customer relationship begins and continues beyond the initial sale of the product. With the way NV has treated bumpgate, Kepler driver optimizations (or lack thereof) now the 970 spec fiasco, NV continues to show that they don't share these core values.

 

[5150Joker]

Ironic considering:

1) It's the educated people who found out about this issue based on adverse performance in real world gaming scenarios, not synthetic benchmarks. They proceeded to use synthetics as a secondary check to prove their initial findings.

2) Some educated people don't like it when companies to whom they have been loyal to first lie to them, and then proceed to feel no remorse and do absolutely nothing to show their loyal customer that they actually care beyond one sale.

Maybe some educated consumers and CEOs (Elon Musk) actually understand that the customer relationship begins and continues beyond the initial sale of the product. With the way NV has treated bumpgate, Kepler driver optimizations (or lack thereof) now the 970 spec fiasco, NV continues to show that they don't share these core values.

So given what an evil company NVIDIA is based on your assertions, will you ever buy a product from them or recommend them to others?

 

[RussianSensation]

So given what an evil company NVIDIA is based on your assertions, will you ever buy a product from them or recommend them to others?

Evil is the not the correct way to describe the actions here since NV does not purposely want to impose personal hardship on you. It's more like unethical business practices. I will still recommend NV cards if they offer something that meets that consumer's particular needs (i.e., he/she wants the fastest single GPU card at all costs, wants 3D vision or PhysX or Linux at all costs, etc.), but since I value price/performance above those metrics and NV has lagged in this regard since HD4000 series, I don't need to talk about NV's business ethics when comparing cards. To me the choice between a $260 R9 290X and a 10-15% faster $550 980 is not even a choice. I would take $290 and put it towards a 14nm GPU upgrade, thank you very much. :thumbsup: Maybe if $550 was "identical" to me as $260 or if I was making $1000 a day, then I'd choose a 980.

 

[5150Joker]

Evil is the not the correct way to describe the actions here since NV does not purposely want to impose personal hard on you. It's more like unethical business practices. I will still recommend NV cards if they offer something that meets that consumer's particular needs (i.e., he/she wants the fastest single GPU card at all costs, wants 3D vision or PhysX or Linux at all costs, etc.), but since I value price/performance above those metrics and NV has lagged in this regard since HD4000 series, I don't need to talk about NV's business ethics when comparing cards. To me the choice between a $260 R9 290X and a 10-15% faster $550 980 is not even a choice. I would take $290 and put it towards a 14nm GPU upgrade, thank you very much. :thumbsup:

So if you are a champion of ethics, then morally you should never recommend NVIDIA to anyone. Secondly, that 10-15% figure is misleading because you selectively cherry pick results. It's not hard to find benchmarks out there that show the 980 blowing away the 290x.