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

[EliteRetard]

Yes we did pay for the reported performance which hasn't changed, but we did also buy the card for it's reported specifications which were incorrect. This is in essence false advertising (even if accidental). Do you feel like you should be compensated in some way for this?

I myself bought one of these cards just before this issue came to light. I am somewhat disappointed. Originally I was deciding between an R9 290 series and this card, and ultimately the misreported 970 specs along with the reduced power/heat swayed me. Had I seen the real specs though there is a decent chance I may have gone the other way to the 290 with more ROPs and functional RAM for a lower price.

I could certainly return my card since I just got it, and go for the other option...but I'm still not sure if I want to do that. But what about those who purchased earlier and don't have this option. Personally I think there is just enough of an issue here that a small compensation would keep me with the green team, while ignoring me (and all the others) would push me away.

By minor compensation I'm thinking maybe another choice of free games, or maybe a $15 voucher on Steam or something like that. Doesn't have to be anything great, but enough to say "we actually care and are sorry for the mistake".

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation

 

[HurleyBird]

I have a GTX 980, but if I had bought the GTX 970 I would be demanding no less than the option to return it for what I paid. Based on Nvidia's poor history of support for legacy architectures I don't have an ounce of faith that they will support the 970's unique memory system at all well after Pascal comes to the market.

 

[Grooveriding]

Should of made it a poll. $15 is nothing and an insult. If there were to be compensation, a $50 cheque or a code for a brand new AAA game would be a minimum start point.

I bought a 970 on launch day for my wife's computer. $15 is nothing to me. It's not about compensation relative to the technical specifications differences, but compensation commensurate with the deception.

 

[EliteRetard]

I have a GTX 980, but if I had bought the GTX 970 I would be demanding no less than the option to return it for what I paid.

I'm not sure if handling a bunch of returns would be a good option...for some people returning the GTX 970 could be to much hassle as well. Some may want to keep the card but may wish to be compensated in another way.

I suppose offering a return as one option with other choices may work.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Lol... coming from people who don't even own the card.

Nvidia doesn't owe anything. You knew the performance bracket your were buying into and the card didn't get slower overnight.

 

[EliteRetard]

Should of made it a poll. $15 is nothing and an insult. If there were to be compensation, a $50 cheque or a code for a brand new AAA game would be a minimum start point.

Well I did include the choice of game option, and it is now a poll...but perhaps you have a suggestion for a more complete poll? Maybe that could be another thread entirely, for those who feel they should be compensated, which of these options/s do you think would be fair?

 

[EliteRetard]

Lol... coming from people who don't even own the card.

Nvidia doesn't owe anything. You knew the performance bracket your were buying into and the card didn't get slower overnight.

I own the card. I did know the relative performance bracket I was buying into as well, but the false specifications definitely had a play in my decision.

 

[Cerb]

Can you be a bit more specific on what the issues and misrepresented specs are?

 

[EliteRetard]

Can you be a bit more specific on what the issues and misrepresented specs are?

Anandtech just posted a good article on the front page:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation

I'll copy the spec table and put it in the first post. The card has less cache and ROP's than originally posted so we are getting less hardware than we payed for (even if the performance hasn't changed).

 

[Cerb]

Completely missed that.

 

[lavaheadache]

I voted yes... but..... I don't know what that compensation should be. People say that the card didn't magically get slower overnight and you knew you weren't buying the top card and so on and so forth.

The fact of that matter is that buyers didn't know what they were buying cause they were provided with false specs. The card was listed having 64 rops which has been revealed as false. I know there was at least one other spec that has been altered from the original spec sheet.

This is why I believe buyers should be entitled to something. Bogus specs are bogus specs. It shouldn't matter that the shown performance is the same as before. What matters is the confidence buyers have in specifications of a given product in which they base performance on, not actual performance.

Hordes of people buy random items based on specs that are important to them whether or not it is of sound decision.

For example, somebody may buy a 6GB 7970 over a 4GB GTX 980 because they believe that extra ram is important for whatever reason. They make that decision on their own based on specifications provided by the manufacturer. This is why I believe Nvidia should be held responsible to some degree. There is without a doubt, somebody on this planet that bought a GTX 970 entirely because it had 64 rops and was cheaper that the 980.

 

[Abwx]

Nvidia doesn't owe anything.

So according to you not only they had no obligation to release the true specs, but they also had the right to release fake specs like the 64 ROPs instead of the actual 56.?.

Notice that i didnt vote since i have not such a card..

 

[5150Joker]

Lol... coming from people who don't even own the card.

Nvidia doesn't owe anything. You knew the performance bracket your were buying into and the card didn't get slower overnight.

Exactly, the performance hasn't changed. People don't need or deserve $50 compensation and if they were to get some, maybe a $10-$15 coupon for Steam is all that should be given. If this significantly altered performance in most games then yes, an option to return it or get larger compensation might be warranted but not the way it is right now.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I own the card. I did know the relative performance bracket I was buying into as well, but the false specifications definitely had a play in my decision.

Yeah, the 4GB was important to me for a little future proofing.

 

[lavaheadache]

Exactly, the performance hasn't changed. People don't need or deserve any compensation.

I disagree.

Performance may not have changed but people are entitled to make educated purchases.

What if you bought a car that was sold as a V8 that performed 0-60 m.p.h. in 4.9 seconds while what you actually received was the car with a V6 that performed at the same 0-60 at 4.9 seconds?

 

[lehtv]

Agreed with cmdrdredd and 5150Joker. Yes, some people may feel angry or betrayed, but that doesn't mean NVIDIA should do anything about it. It's entirely up to NVIDIA if they want to do something to retain customer loyalty, but they aren't obligated, legally or morally or otherwise, to compensate anything. If they come up with some sort of material apology, only naive customers will view it as the sort of apology you might get from an actual person. The only reason they'd do it would be to increase future profits by means of customer retention.

 

[EliteRetard]

*snip*
For example, somebody may buy a 6GB 7970 over a 4GB GTX 980 because they believe that extra ram is important for whatever reason. They make that decision on their own based on specifications provided by the manufacturer. This is why I believe Nvidia should be held responsible to some degree. There is without a doubt, somebody on this planet that bought a GTX 970 entirely because it had 64 rops and was cheaper that the 980.

In my case I was comparing to the 290. Assuming I was getting the false specs I decided to pay a bit extra for the lower power consumption as well. Had I known I was not actually getting the full ROPs and effective memory I'm not sure I would have still decided to buy the card. And indeed since I just bought the card I do have the option to return it and have been considering such.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Lol... coming from people who don't even own the card.

Nvidia doesn't owe anything. You knew the performance bracket your were buying into and the card didn't get slower overnight.

You should demand compensation for your GTX 970 SLI. (Two times scammed)

YOU SHOULD NEVER, never defend a company that lied in your face and doesn't actually give a crap about you but only care about their profit.

 

[Jaskalas]

Isn't the 970 a great price / performance card? They cut a corner to achieve that, and it only shows up in edge cases that can be resolved by driver support.

I'm undecided if I would feel slighted by that.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I disagree.

Performance may not have changed but people are entitled to make educated purchases.

What if you bought a car that was sold as a V8 that performed 0-60 m.p.h. in 4.9 seconds while what you actually received was the car with a V6 that performed at the same 0-60 at 4.9 seconds?

This.

Who knows what else Nvidia has been "hiding"... Either way, lies shouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[EliteRetard]

Agreed with cmdrdredd and 5150Joker. Yes, some people may feel angry or betrayed, but that doesn't mean NVIDIA should do anything about it. It's entirely up to NVIDIA if they want to do something to retain customer loyalty, but they aren't obligated, legally or morally or otherwise, to compensate anything.

That's why I made it a personal question. I'm not asking if Nvidia is obligated to do anything, I'm asking if people feel like they are owed. If a large majority of the 970 owners feel like they deserve some compensation then perhaps there is reason for Nvidia to do so. Since I own one of these cards I'm interested in seeing what other people think about the issue.

 

[5150Joker]

Here's a hypothetical that would never happen but I'm curious anyway: Those of you who feel angry about the 970 ROP count and slower 0.5 GB ram, would you agree to mail your 970 back to NVIDIA and in exchange they have Asus send you an AMD 290X? Say this model: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-840-_-Product

If they offered this to all 970 owners as a compromise I bet we'd hear crickets. Maybe a few here and there would bite but not most. So at the end of the day, they'd still purchase the 970 because it is a damn fine card for the price and that hasn't changed.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's entirely up to NVIDIA if they want to do something to retain customer loyalty, but they aren't obligated, legally or morally or otherwise, to compensate anything. If they come up with some sort of material apology, only naive customers will view it as the sort of apology you might get from an actual person. The only reason they'd do it would be to increase future profits by means of customer retention.

I'd imagine, legally, that there'd be a good case for demanding a refund if the product sold isn't as advertised. At least in the EU where consumer protection laws are actually a thing.

I dont think that NV should have to give out partial compensation though. Either youre happy with the product (in which case stop whining) or youre unhappy with it (and you should be able to return it for a refund).

 

[lavaheadache]

5150Joker, Why are you defending this finding? Do you believe in false advertising? Do you believe that spec sheets should contain false information? What is the purpose of listing specs if they aren't true?

 

[etrigan420]

Here's a hypothetical that would never happen but I'm curious anyway: Those of you who feel angry about the 970 ROP count and slower 0.5 GB ram, would you agree to mail your 970 back to NVIDIA and in exchange they have Asus send you an AMD 290X? Say this model: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-840-_-Product

If they offered this to all 970 owners as a compromise I bet we'd hear crickets. Maybe a few here and there would bite but not most. So at the end of the day, they'd still purchase the 970 because it is a damn fine card for the price and that hasn't changed.

I've got a better scenario...Nvidia releases a 970 with the correct ROP count and 4GB of full speed RAM, how many do you think would bite on an exchange then? If it's a "damn fine card and that hasn't changed" then the number of requested exchanges should be low...right?