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

[007ELmO]

NewEgg has retained a customer.

The manager I spoke with on the phone has offered me a full refund with no stocking fee or return charges for the 2 970s I bought months ago. Now mine are unopened, so I don't know if that made a difference, but I clearly explained how it shouldn't be the consumers responsibility to fix false advertising on Nvidia's part (i.e. have me contact ASUS directly instead of the distributor NewEgg handle the situation).

They said they know of this situation and need patience in getting back to everyone, so it looks like they are allowing the RMA route for each of you, get them on the phone.

-ELmO

 

[96Firebird]

Looks like within the past day or so Newegg support has been told to allow returns by management. Smart move for them, who knows how they'll handle it with Nvidia though.

 

[Eymar]

Nice, I was hoping Newegg would do something like that. They probably can't send non defective returns back to AIB (hopefully they can in this case as really no fault with Newegg) and they probably cant eat return losses like Amazon so big thumbs up from me.
It would be hard to buy video cards on day one or first week of release if I choose to stop buying from Newegg so glad they're stepping up.

 

[2is]

Nice, I was hoping Newegg would do something like that. They probably can't send non defective returns back to AIB (hopefully they can in this case as really no fault with Newegg) and they probably cant eat return losses like Amazon so big thumbs up from me.
It would be hard to buy video cards on day one or first week of release if I choose to stop buying from Newegg so glad they're stepping up.

Of course they can send them back. The 970 is nothing short of false advertising, the blame goes directly to nVidia.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I wonder if we'll ever find out if Nvidia is compensating their board partners.

 

[tential]

Considering the amount of people who I've seen on other forums pick up a GTX 980 and return their GTX 970 because of this "issue", I'd say this worked out PERFECTLY for Nvidia. This would have even turned out better if the GTX 970 had some crazy performance issue in a Gaming Evolved Title.

 

[Kenmitch]

Considering the amount of people who I've seen on other forums pick up a GTX 980 and return their GTX 970 because of this "issue", I'd say this worked out PERFECTLY for Nvidia. This would have even turned out better if the GTX 970 had some crazy performance issue in a Gaming Evolved Title.

Go figure....Undying love for NVIDIA I guess.

If I return my 970's NVIDIA will get none of my money....Forever! 1st NVIDIA purchase since bumpgate for me. Dang....Just wanting to play with new tech got me.

 

[MeldarthX]

I wonder if we'll ever find out if Nvidia is compensating their board partners.

None; nada remember bumpgate; they left their partners out to dry until they were hammered by lawsuits.

They will do the exact same thing

 

[MeldarthX]

Go figure....Undying love for NVIDIA I guess.

If I return my 970's NVIDIA will get none of my money....Forever! 1st NVIDIA purchase since bumpgate for me. Dang....Just wanting to play with new tech got me.

I was in the same boat; 970 was the first Nvidia I was considering in how long; and this came out and I remember why I don't touch their stuff.....They honestly don't give a damn about their customers; their actions speak loudly about this.

 

[UaVaj]

NewEgg has retained a customer.

The manager I spoke with on the phone has offered me a full refund with no stocking fee or return charges for the 2 970s I bought months ago. Now mine are unopened, so I don't know if that made a difference, but I clearly explained how it shouldn't be the consumers responsibility to fix false advertising on Nvidia's part (i.e. have me contact ASUS directly instead of the distributor NewEgg handle the situation).

They said they know of this situation and need patience in getting back to everyone, so it looks like they are allowing the RMA route for each of you, get them on the phone.

-ELmO

good for you and newegg.

btw do share your 1) current resolution and what 2) the replacement gpu(s) is going to be?

 

[Pneumothorax]

NewEgg has retained a customer.

The manager I spoke with on the phone has offered me a full refund with no stocking fee or return charges for the 2 970s I bought months ago. Now mine are unopened, so I don't know if that made a difference, but I clearly explained how it shouldn't be the consumers responsibility to fix false advertising on Nvidia's part (i.e. have me contact ASUS directly instead of the distributor NewEgg handle the situation).

They said they know of this situation and need patience in getting back to everyone, so it looks like they are allowing the RMA route for each of you, get them on the phone.

-ELmO

That''s good to know they're still allowing some through. I just spent my Newegg store credit on a couple of 290x AND a EVGA P2 1000 to replace my 5 year old PSU.

Go figure....Undying love for NVIDIA I guess.

If I return my 970's NVIDIA will get none of my money....Forever! 1st NVIDIA purchase since bumpgate for me. Dang....Just wanting to play with new tech got me.

Lol, total 'Battered Wife' syndrome. 'Honey I love you and I won't do it again, I PROMISE'

 

[TurtleCrusher]

There's many nVidia apologists in this thread, trying to turn mountains into molehills. It's one thing after the other that makes them so dang unappealing. "Battered Wife Syndrome" is exactly what I was thinking. All these people in uproar and furor at nVidia for lying to them to take their hard earned money, only to return their cards and get different nVidia cards that only make nVidia profit more.

Speak with your wallets people. What good is it to keep buying from people that screw you over, time and time again? I literally can't tell if it's just the marketing, the fanaticism, or the brand itself that people love so much about it. As a pc gamer, when I got a GeForce 2, 3, 5500 and 8800GTS I was voting with my wallet that I supported their products. It seems right after I got the 8800GTS 320MB that when it came to their customers all we'd get was an "eff you" when they messed up and hid things. From drivers killing cards, fudged review samples, bumpgate, and outright misrepresentation of products, it's not ok! No corporation is a saint but it seems like nVidia is taking the pages right out of Apple/Qualcomm/Samsung in their deceptive qualities.

When I get bad service at a restaurant, I don't go back in a buy one of the most expensive product on the menu the next time I'm in. I don't go back in.

 

[Valantar]

Disclosure: I am a Radeon fanboy, and have never personally owned an Nvidia GPU.
Honestly, I don't quite get the outrage this is causing. Of course, Nvidia f*cked up in a big way by distributing erroneous specs for the GTX 970. And sure, a little something to make up for this - a free game, $10 to use on Steam, or something like that - might make sense. On the other hand, the performance, which is the actual reason anybody buys a GPU, is unaffected. Seriously, every site that has been trying to make this a problem in real life has failed to do so, even in fringe cases. Unless you're gaming in UHD with everything maxed out, you're not using >3.5GB of VRAM. In which case, the 970 isn't powerful enough any way. Even SLI setups don't really need 4GB in the vast majority of titles. As the Anandtech article discussing this said, there is no real reason to believe that this was intentional (after all, there is no way they could gain anything from it). They messed up. But the net result is that you've still got an amazingly good GPU, which outperforms almost everything else, uses very little power, and initially cost less than its direct competitors. How is this worth getting up in arms about?

 

[MeldarthX]

Disclosure: I am a Radeon fanboy, and have never personally owned an Nvidia GPU.
Honestly, I don't quite get the outrage this is causing. Of course, Nvidia f*cked up in a big way by distributing erroneous specs for the GTX 970. And sure, a little something to make up for this - a free game, $10 to use on Steam, or something like that - might make sense. On the other hand, the performance, which is the actual reason anybody buys a GPU, is unaffected. Seriously, every site that has been trying to make this a problem in real life has failed to do so, even in fringe cases. Unless you're gaming in UHD with everything maxed out, you're not using >3.5GB of VRAM. In which case, the 970 isn't powerful enough any way. Even SLI setups don't really need 4GB in the vast majority of titles. As the Anandtech article discussing this said, there is no real reason to believe that this was intentional (after all, there is no way they could gain anything from it). They messed up. But the net result is that you've still got an amazingly good GPU, which outperforms almost everything else, uses very little power, and initially cost less than its direct competitors. How is this worth getting up in arms about?

Please see the post above yours; it lists several reasons; this isn't the first time Nvidia's pulled this; unless customers stand up and say no more; they will continue to abuse their customers.....

I've voted with my wallet; end of this week I'll have a 290...just have to decide which one; tri; or pcs+

There was a reason someone got banned recently for starting a sub on what he should get and then trolled it when he didn't like hearing what was said.

 

[Valantar]

this isn't the first time Nvidia's pulled this;

This is exactly what doesn't make sense to me. "Pulled [something like] this" implies that they did this intentionally, to somehow gain from it. What on earth were they supposed to gain from mislabelling the specs? As I said, the performance is the same, no matter what. There is simply no way in hell that anyone in Nvidia thought "if we distribute erroneous specs for this card, but don't affect performance in any way, we will trick people into buying it." That just doesn't make sense.

The two possible courses of action:

A:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish correct specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank

B:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish wrong specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank
4: Oh, wait, people are pissed off.
5: Lose sales.

In what kind of bizarro universe does purposefully following the second alternative make any sense?

Yes, I do absolutely believe Nvidia to be a cynical, profit-oriented corporation with little to no regard for their customers. On the other hand, even a quasi-sociopathic corporation would understand that this couldn't possibly gain them in any way.

Let's face it: most (I'd say >99%) of GPU buyers don't factor in thechnicalia like ROP count. Sure, the amount of memory does have an effect here, as most GPU buyers don't have a clue how much VRAM they need, and WANT MOAR!!!!! So saying 3.5+0.5GB RAM might sell slightly worse than saying 4GB. But given the stellar reviews of the card, even against "fully 4GB" cards, I'd say that point would go away pretty quickly.

Edit: BTW, I don't see what your last comment has to do with anything, unless you're suggesting that I'm trolling and should watch out or risk being banned. If that's the case, I'd like you to look up what having a meaningful discussion means.

 

[3DVagabond]

This is exactly what doesn't make sense to me. "Pulled [something like] this" implies that they did this intentionally, to somehow gain from it. What on earth were they supposed to gain from mislabelling the specs? As I said, the performance is the same, no matter what. There is simply no way in hell that anyone in Nvidia thought "if we distribute erroneous specs for this card, but don't affect performance in any way, we will trick people into buying it." That just doesn't make sense.

The two possible courses of action:

A:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish correct specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank

B:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish wrong specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank
4: Oh, wait, people are pissed off.
5: Lose sales.

In what kind of bizarro universe does purposefully following the second alternative make any sense?

Yes, I do absolutely believe Nvidia to be a cynical, profit-oriented corporation with little to no regard for their customers. On the other hand, even a quasi-sociopathic corporation would understand that this couldn't possibly gain them in any way.

Let's face it: most (I'd say >99%) of GPU buyers don't factor in thechnicalia like ROP count. Sure, the amount of memory does have an effect here, as most GPU buyers don't have a clue how much VRAM they need, and WANT MOAR!!!!! So saying 3.5+0.5GB RAM might sell slightly worse than saying 4GB. But given the stellar reviews of the card, even against "fully 4GB" cards, I'd say that point would go away pretty quickly.

Edit: BTW, I don't see what your last comment has to do with anything, unless you're suggesting that I'm trolling and should watch out or risk being banned. If that's the case, I'd like you to look up what having a meaningful discussion means.

They lied to deceive customers. To sell more cards. They got caught. Really that simple.

 

[showb1z]

A:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish correct specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank

I wouldn't have bought it then. I consider 4GB a minimum for anyone who wants to hold on to their card for 2 years or more.
And since it's clear now Nvidia isn't going to do anything to make up for it, I'm returning my card shortly.

 

[MeldarthX]

This is exactly what doesn't make sense to me. "Pulled [something like] this" implies that they did this intentionally, to somehow gain from it. What on earth were they supposed to gain from mislabelling the specs? As I said, the performance is the same, no matter what. There is simply no way in hell that anyone in Nvidia thought "if we distribute erroneous specs for this card, but don't affect performance in any way, we will trick people into buying it." That just doesn't make sense.

The two possible courses of action:

A:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish correct specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank

B:
1: Launch the GTX 970, publish wrong specs
2: Watch the stellar reviews roll in
3: Laugh all the way to the bank
4: Oh, wait, people are pissed off.
5: Lose sales.

In what kind of bizarro universe does purposefully following the second alternative make any sense?

Yes, I do absolutely believe Nvidia to be a cynical, profit-oriented corporation with little to no regard for their customers. On the other hand, even a quasi-sociopathic corporation would understand that this couldn't possibly gain them in any way.

Let's face it: most (I'd say >99%) of GPU buyers don't factor in thechnicalia like ROP count. Sure, the amount of memory does have an effect here, as most GPU buyers don't have a clue how much VRAM they need, and WANT MOAR!!!!! So saying 3.5+0.5GB RAM might sell slightly worse than saying 4GB. But given the stellar reviews of the card, even against "fully 4GB" cards, I'd say that point would go away pretty quickly.

Edit: BTW, I don't see what your last comment has to do with anything, unless you're suggesting that I'm trolling and should watch out or risk being banned. If that's the case, I'd like you to look up what having a meaningful discussion means.

They are ISO 9000 company - every major step has to be signed off by the major management. For them to say only their engineers knew the specs and marketing didn't is a lie.

They flat out lied because they wanted the 4 GB check mark; along with the rops and bus; along with L2 cache.

They ran the numbers to see which would end up costing them more. Tell the truth with less sells over all; but happier customers; or lie; get more more sales; then deal with the fall out if it comes out.

Nvidia just didn't count on it coming out this quickly. They knew they would; that's why they tried to control how the memory interacted with games; which means their software engineers outside their hardware engineers would have to know how their gpus worked.

It was completely calculated; false advertising; along with their game playing of; oh sorry that's how its supposed to work. As I said Nvidia's has a history of lieing to their customers and leaving out to dry.

No I wasn't saying you are trolling. I was talking about another who said he was upset about nvidia lieing; the was asking about which 980 to get until the big boys come from either AMD or Nvidia. Most say why reward Nvidia for lieing and false advertising; pick up a cheap 290 to hold you over etc......he turned it into a troll fest.

 

[rgallant]

Disclosure: I am a Radeon fanboy, and have never personally owned an Nvidia GPU.
Honestly, I don't quite get the outrage this is causing. Of course, Nvidia f*cked up in a big way by distributing erroneous specs for the GTX 970. And sure, a little something to make up for this - a free game, $10 to use on Steam, or something like that - might make sense. On the other hand, the performance, which is the actual reason anybody buys a GPU, is unaffected. Seriously, every site that has been trying to make this a problem in real life has failed to do so, even in fringe cases. Unless you're gaming in UHD with everything maxed out, you're not using >3.5GB of VRAM. In which case, the 970 isn't powerful enough any way. Even SLI setups don't really need 4GB in the vast majority of titles. As the Anandtech article discussing this said, there is no real reason to believe that this was intentional (after all, there is no way they could gain anything from it). They messed up. But the net result is that you've still got an amazingly good GPU, which outperforms almost everything else, uses very little power, and initially cost less than its direct competitors. How is this worth getting up in arms about?

just saying

if you never have run nv sli you would not know high end nv sli always run out of vram before oc horse power in all cases imo
8800gts 512 sli did
285 1gb sli did
580 sli 1.5 did [gtx 570sli on release I sent back when vram was maxed in metro]
780 sli 3gb had turned down setting in ACU to keep under 3gb [at 1440]

I run 780sli instead of the +$400.00 for 780ti knowing both will hit the nv vram wall at the same time so why waste another $.5k.

so @ 4gb 970 petty sure will run out of vram in sli at some point, so yea peeps finding out that there might be issues over 3.5 gb might be pissed. for the REAL money they have spent or will.[any one getting 970 sli after this ???]
btw net opinions cost peeps no REAL money from their pockets.

 

[ejohanss69]

As a relatively new MSI 4G Gaming 970 owner purchased from NewEgg, I've been pondering this situation for several weeks now.

Clearly, while performance in today's benchmarks are what they are, it's the future proofing aspect of the misrepresentation that bothers me.

290X is not an option for me, as again, I'm looking for future-proofing, which would include DirectX 12 support.

While some have made the leap to the 980, I'm reluctant to reward Nvidia for their dishonest business practices (not to mention spending the additional $200).

I think where we this *could* become more of an issue is with the release of the price-comparable AMD 3xx card. Not sure which one that would be, perhaps the 380X.

I believe if given the option to return the 970 for AMD's 3xx generation equivalent (assuming DirectX 12, etc.), many would jump on the opportunity.

While it's never a good idea to rush a release, if AMD could advance the release and strike while the iron is hot, they may be able to pick up some major market share.

Just my thoughts.

 

[dacostafilipe]

290X is not an option for me, as again, I'm looking for future-proofing, which would include DirectX 12 support.

...

Not sure which one that would be, perhaps the 380X.

The 290X is, like the 970, DX12 compatible. Both cards are equal in "future proof" terms, with maybe a small advantage for the 290X on high res and compute heavy games.

That said, if you are happy with the performance, I don't think you should return your 970.

 

[EliteRetard]

Actually I don't think either card is or will be "fully" compatible with DX12...since none of its features or specifications have been made yet. Sure they'll take advantage of the improved CPU loading, but that's not really being DX12 compatible.

Perhaps it will be like some of the other DX versions, where all the important features are "revisions". Sure my card is DX12 compatible, but doesn't support 12.1c.

 

[CRA5HMAN]

Lol, total 'Battered Wife' syndrome. 'Honey I love you and I won't do it again, I PROMISE'

This has to be one of the most idiotic analogies I have seen on these forums. Yeah, its pretty funny:thumbsdown:

 

[dacostafilipe]

Actually I don't think either card is or will be "fully" compatible with DX12...since none of its features or specifications have been made yet. Sure they'll take advantage of the improved CPU loading, but that's not really being DX12 compatible.

Perhaps it will be like some of the other DX versions, where all the important features are "revisions". Sure my card is DX12 compatible, but doesn't support 12.1c.

As of today, AMD and Nvidia told us the card are DX12 compatible. Now, you are right about possible DX12 features that where not announced yet.

That said, with the flexibility that modern GPUs have, less special/dedicated hardware is needed for new features. Take the "new" DX12 features that where announced where most of them are software algorithms that don't require new hardware.

 

[bzb_Elder]

there is no real reason to believe that this was intentional

I agree with this. Don't most enthusiasts purchase mid/high end cards based upon real world performance, not specs? You know, based upon benchmarks from the sites that we all know and trust - specifically for the games we play, or will play?

They ran the numbers to see which would end up costing them more. Tell the truth with less sells over all; but happier customers; or lie; get more more sales; then deal with the fall out if it comes out.

Unless officially posting in these forums on behalf of NVidia, I'd be careful about claiming they did a cost analysis and determined that lying would be more profitable. (libel)

I swear, if I read another post telling me that I need 4 GB for 1080 gaming, I may just start to believe it. I'm starting to feel like I need to get rid of my 2 GB GTX670 as soon as possible. And I surely need to tell my son to stop using his 1.25 GB GTX570 because it won't run the games he's currently playing -- it's strange though because he'll have to stop playing so I can take the card out of his system...