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

[Keysplayr]

The only motivation I can see for someone to defend Nvidia in this situation is a desire to stir the pot and irritate people. By taking the side that is the direct opposite of the truth, people become irritated by this because its so bizarre to see such a thing defended. Its like claiming that the sky isn't blue or that grass isn't green and then trying to convince people that they were silly for ever thinking so. Its trolling 101. That's it.

Wow. If only that is what was happening, I might agree.
I believe Nvidia should compensate those who have purchased a 970 expecting no problems when the gpu accessed more than 3.5GB of memory but experienced performance degradation. That is a no brainer. What folks here outright refuse, not cant, but refuse to acknowledge that what is being defended it the specs that have no real world difference and the ridiculous claims that people would not have purchased a 970 if it had 56 ROPs or a 224 bit effective bus or whatever. It was purchased due to its level of performance. Any claim to the contrary is just what someone said earlier in this thread. An opportunity to sling mud.
So, there you have it explained. At least from any defense I presented for the 970.
If you will not acknowledge this, it doesnt go unnoticed. Looks intentional. Just FYI.
Memory issue, for those who bought a 4GB card but experienced performance issues hitting over 3.5GB have a legit gripe.

 

[R0H1T]

Wow. If only that is what was happening, I might agree.
I believe Nvidia should compensate those who have purchased a 970 expecting no problems when the gpu accessed more than 3.5GB of memory but experienced performance degradation. That is a no brainer. What folks here outright refuse, not cant, but refuse to acknowledge that what is being defended it the specs that have no real world difference and the ridiculous claims that people would not have purchased a 970 if it had 56 ROPs or a 224 bit effective bus or whatever. It was purchased due to its level of performance. Any claim to the contrary is just what someone said earlier in this thread. An opportunity to sling mud.
So, there you have it explained. At least from any defense I presented for the 970.
If you will not acknowledge this, it doesnt go unnoticed. Looks intentional. Just FYI.
Memory issue, for those who bought a 4GB card but experienced performance issues hitting over 3.5GB have a legit gripe.

Can you even say that with a straight face? Many users in this very thread & on this forum have said that they wouldn't have bought the 970, or two, if they'd known about the 3.5GB mem issue!

Yeah because duping users & getting away with it, what thrice now, is less than repugnant or because Nvidia giving away a whole lot of chump change (30$) to end users as a "so long suckers" birthday present is to be celebrated?

 

[96Firebird]

Can you even say that with a straight face? Many users in this very thread & on this forum have said that they wouldn't have bought the 970, or two, if they'd known about the 3.5GB mem issue!

It's like you didn't even read his post. Simply amazing.

 

[R0H1T]

It's like you didn't even read his post. Simply amazing.

Why do you assume I didn't?
Also ~ I believe Nvidia should compensate those who have purchased a 970 expecting no problems when the gpu accessed more than 3.5GB of memory but experienced performance degradation.

Therefore should I assume that being lied to is an acceptable norm to you & him? What about those who didn't see a performance degradation btw what is the quantum of refund you deem fit for such an act?

 

[Keysplayr]

LOL. Like I said.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Can you even say that with a straight face? Many users in this very thread & on this forum have said that they wouldn't have bought the 970, or two, if they'd known about the 3.5GB mem issue!

Yeah because duping users & getting away with it, what thrice now, is less than repugnant or because Nvidia giving away a whole lot of chump change (30$) to end users as a "so long suckers" birthday present is to be celebrated?

Seriously, please read the post before attacking the poster. Here is the relevant bit:

I believe Nvidia should compensate those who have purchased a 970 expecting no problems when the gpu accessed more than 3.5GB of memory but experienced performance degradation. That is a no brainer.

 

[R0H1T]

Seriously, please read the post before attacking the poster. Here is the relevant bit:

Yes & I've highlighted that part in my previous reply, in case you didn't notice. But as I've stressed, like many other posters, performance degradation is not a criterion for giving refunds in this case. You're still arguing for it, like I've seen Keys do the same. IMO Nvidia should offer full refund (just like the retailers did) for anyone who bought the 4GB card, before it was revealed & officially acknowledged to be gimped. If not then how do you defend the US fining VW billions for their misdemeanor?

 

[Tweak155]

Wow. If only that is what was happening, I might agree.
I believe Nvidia should compensate those who have purchased a 970 expecting no problems when the gpu accessed more than 3.5GB of memory but experienced performance degradation. That is a no brainer. What folks here outright refuse, not cant, but refuse to acknowledge that what is being defended it the specs that have no real world difference and the ridiculous claims that people would not have purchased a 970 if it had 56 ROPs or a 224 bit effective bus or whatever. It was purchased due to its level of performance. Any claim to the contrary is just what someone said earlier in this thread. An opportunity to sling mud.
So, there you have it explained. At least from any defense I presented for the 970.
If you will not acknowledge this, it doesnt go unnoticed. Looks intentional. Just FYI.
Memory issue, for those who bought a 4GB card but experienced performance issues hitting over 3.5GB have a legit gripe.

I find this reasoning ridiculous. If I bought a card advertised as 8gb and it only had 4gb, would you find THAT acceptable, as long as I never used past 4gb? How about a 16gb card that only really had 4gb? You assuming the reasons people buying the card is JUST for performance is absurd. What if I bought it for resell value? What if I keep the card and *eventually* need the 4gb, but just not before NVidia's payout... so I shouldn't get a cent?

They don't get a pass because the gap is small and users may or may not have experienced an issue.

Being an owner of the GTX 970, the gap did not bother me. However the false claim of being 4gb, intentional or not, should not go unpunished because it would only encourage other companies to do the same otherwise. And, if the company is going to be "punished", the money should go back to those that invested in the product.

 

[moonbogg]

Wow. If only that is what was happening, I might agree.
I believe Nvidia should compensate those who have purchased a 970 expecting no problems when the gpu accessed more than 3.5GB of memory but experienced performance degradation. That is a no brainer. What folks here outright refuse, not cant, but refuse to acknowledge that what is being defended it the specs that have no real world difference and the ridiculous claims that people would not have purchased a 970 if it had 56 ROPs or a 224 bit effective bus or whatever. It was purchased due to its level of performance. Any claim to the contrary is just what someone said earlier in this thread. An opportunity to sling mud.
So, there you have it explained. At least from any defense I presented for the 970.
If you will not acknowledge this, it doesnt go unnoticed. Looks intentional. Just FYI.
Memory issue, for those who bought a 4GB card but experienced performance issues hitting over 3.5GB have a legit gripe.

I was speaking specifically to the memory issue and you mentioned that as being the main problem relating to performance, and I agree. But just because the memory issue is the main problem relating to performance doesn't take away from the fact that they lied about related specs such as ROP's etc. This cannot be defended.
If I bought a gold ring and they claimed 24 carat gold, but I had the ring inspected and other metals were discovered resulting in an actual purity of 18 carats, do I get to complain if the ring doesn't malfunction and fall off my finger? Of course I do. It also doesn't matter that the value is less for 18 carats vs 24 either, although of course the side effect of this lie is a reduction in value, the same as with the gold hypothetical situation. The issue of value is beside the point. The heart of the problem is that Nvidia TRICKED their customers by LYING to us all and falsely advertised their half assed product as being full assed.

 

[krumme]

With DX12/Vulcan comming we can see games easily takes over 3.5GB. Ram usage is accelerating with the new thin api.
And as we have seen already with Mantle its difficult for developers to control leaking memory already seen 2½ years ago in eg bf4, with 1GB 7850 stuttering unlike the 3GB 7970 part. Then thin api makes use of more memory and its not so simple to control it as dx11 was.

The problem of segmented ram will go from very unimportant to a potential trainwreck. 970 with hundred thousands of users is going full steam into dx12 with a card where they will experience weird and very fundamental slowdown. And its not always easy to fix for normal users as they will neither be able to know the origin of the problem nor how to fix it. Those cards is still out there, and will be resold and used for years to come. Its a trainwreck at full steam. Its the same problem as bumbgate, at one time it will go wrong, you just dont know when. And most people will not even know what hit them.

As a former 970 user and consumer i find it hard to accept the usual 6 people working overtime downplaying this situation for hundred thousands consumers. NV and JHH behaves like a bull in a china shop. JHH even have the audacity to call it a feature when called out for lying ! But we all know examples of people who because of their position can say the most crazy things, and their supporters still support them. Its apparently quite modern to be political incorrect, and instead its whatever it takes.

From a professional perspective what NV does is stupid. Instead of doing what eg. Toyota and VW is doing in similar situation and laying down and doing what they can to give better service and correct it, and that way actually strenghtening their brand, NV just work PR overtime to say the world is wrong / its a feature.

 

[Arachnotronic]

With DX12/Vulcan comming we can see games easily takes over 3.5GB. Ram usage is accelerating with the new thin api.
And as we have seen already with Mantle its difficult for developers to control leaking memory already seen 2½ years ago in eg bf4, with 1GB 7850 stuttering unlike the 3GB 7970 part. Then thin api makes use of more memory and its not so simple to control it as dx11 was.

The problem of segmented ram will go from very unimportant to a potential trainwreck. 970 with hundred thousands of users is going full steam into dx12 with a card where they will experience weird and very fundamental slowdown. And its not always easy to fix for normal users as they will neither be able to know the origin of the problem nor how to fix it. Those cards is still out there, and will be resold and used for years to come. Its a trainwreck at full steam. Its the same problem as bumbgate, at one time it will go wrong, you just dont know when. And most people will not even know what hit them.

As a former 970 user and consumer i find it hard to accept the usual 6 people working overtime downplaying this situation for hundred thousands consumers. NV and JHH behaves like a bull in a china shop. JHH even have the audacity to call it a feature when called out for lying ! But we all know examples of people who because of their position can say the most crazy things, and their supporters still support them. Its apparently quite modern to be political incorrect, and instead its whatever it takes.

From a professional perspective what NV does is stupid. Instead of doing what eg. Toyota and VW is doing in similar situation and laying down and doing what they can to give better service and correct it, and that way actually strenghtening their brand, NV just work PR overtime to say the world is wrong / its a feature.

NVIDIA is so "stupid" that they are raking in record revenue at record margins, practically own the gaming GPU market, and are pumping out new GPUs at a breakneck pace.

 

[sandorski]

NVIDIA is so "stupid" that they are raking in record revenue at record margins, practically own the gaming GPU market, and are pumping out new GPUs at a breakneck pace.

moot

 

[Keysplayr]

Perhaps NV needed to be the underdog. I need that "what if device" from Futurama.

 

[Arachnotronic]

moot

Hardly.

 

[krumme]

NVIDIA is so "stupid" that they are raking in record revenue at record margins, practically own the gaming GPU market, and are pumping out new GPUs at a breakneck pace.

They would do even better without "woodscreews", bumpgate and lying about segmented ram. They might eg. even get closer to the Sony/MS console deals.

 

[sandorski]

Hardly.

Entirely. You are just excusing the inexcusable here, because they made a Profit? Come on.

 

[raghu78]

Entirely. You are just excusing the inexcusable here, because they made a Profit? Come on.

He is looking at it from the point of view of a Nvidia shareholder (which he is btw). Nvidia got away easy on this one as out of court settlements are far cheaper than jury verdict and payouts.

 

[jackstar7]

So listed specs on packaging should not relate to the contents because they're a big company doing great business and the product performed exactly the way it always performed... until it didn't.

I'm really glad you guys don't work at the FDA.

I stand by my earlier assertion that only stockholders and those fanboys ego-connected to nV would try to deflect the awfulness of this. Rather than be glad that nV seems to have not perpetrated this kind of fraud again since, we should welcome it, because their performance is what it is.

 

[Arachnotronic]

He is looking at it from the point of view of a Nvidia shareholder (which he is btw). Nvidia got away easy on this one as out of court settlements are far cheaper than jury verdict and payouts.

I am not an NVIDIA shareholder.

 

[Keysplayr]

With DX12/Vulcan comming we can see games easily takes over 3.5GB. Ram usage is accelerating with the new thin api.
And as we have seen already with Mantle its difficult for developers to control leaking memory already seen 2½ years ago in eg bf4, with 1GB 7850 stuttering unlike the 3GB 7970 part. Then thin api makes use of more memory and its not so simple to control it as dx11 was.

The problem of segmented ram will go from very unimportant to a potential trainwreck. 970 with hundred thousands of users is going full steam into dx12 with a card where they will experience weird and very fundamental slowdown. And its not always easy to fix for normal users as they will neither be able to know the origin of the problem nor how to fix it. Those cards is still out there, and will be resold and used for years to come. Its a trainwreck at full steam. Its the same problem as bumbgate, at one time it will go wrong, you just dont know when. And most people will not even know what hit them.

As a former 970 user and consumer i find it hard to accept the usual 6 people working overtime downplaying this situation for hundred thousands consumers. NV and JHH behaves like a bull in a china shop. JHH even have the audacity to call it a feature when called out for lying ! But we all know examples of people who because of their position can say the most crazy things, and their supporters still support them. Its apparently quite modern to be political incorrect, and instead its whatever it takes.

From a professional perspective what NV does is stupid. Instead of doing what eg. Toyota and VW is doing in similar situation and laying down and doing what they can to give better service and correct it, and that way actually strenghtening their brand, NV just work PR overtime to say the world is wrong / its a feature.

We can easily see games taking over 4GB as well. Even 5 or higher.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So listed specs on packaging should not relate to the contents because they're a big company doing great business and the product performed exactly the way it always performed... until it didn't.

I'm really glad you guys don't work at the FDA.

I stand by my earlier assertion that only stockholders and those fanboys ego-connected to nV would try to deflect the awfulness of this. Rather than be glad that nV seems to have not perpetrated this kind of fraud again since, we should welcome it, because their performance is what it is.

It was a blunder, no doubt about it and I agree with compensating those who purchased the card thinking it had a full 4GB of high speed memory. It's the right thing to do.

That being said, in the larger scheme of things, by the time a 3.5GB card is no longer adequate, a 4GB one isn't going to fare much better. From a technical/user experience POV that extra 512MB would not have made a big difference longer term.

 

[Keysplayr]

Good Lord. I guess I have to break it down.
Pretend for a moment that the specs mislabeling marketing didnt exist but only the 3.5/512 issue was present. Yes Nvidia should compensate for it because it affected performance (or used to).
Ok end scene.

Now pretend that the 3.5/512 didnt exist but the mislabeling marketing was present.
Any compensation needed? Nope.
You get the same reviewed performance and it is perfectly reasonable thst a company can make errors in this fashion because these companies are run by humans.

Break down over. And out.

 

[jackstar7]

It was a blunder, no doubt about it and I agree with compensating those who purchased the card thinking it had a full 4GB of high speed memory. It's the right thing to do.

That being said, in the larger scheme of things, by the time a 3.5GB card is no longer adequate, a 4GB one isn't going to fare much better. From a technical/user experience POV that extra 512MB would not have made a big difference longer term.

Blunder implies a careless error. I do not believe this was a blunder. This was a fraud.

Suggesting that this doesn't matter under any circumstances is permissive of this behavior.

Why would you permit this again? How is it a positive for consumers?

 

[jackstar7]

Good Lord. I guess I have to break it down.
Pretend for a moment that the specs mislabeling marketing didnt exist but only the 3.5/512 issue was present. Yes Nvidia should compensate for it because it affected performance (or used to).
Ok end scene.

Now pretend that the 3.5/512 didnt exist but the mislabeling marketing was present.
Any compensation needed? Nope.
You get the same reviewed performance and it is perfectly reasonable thst a company can make errors in this fashion because these companies are run by humans.

Break down over. And out.

Except a casual retail buyer at a b&m store gets the packaging, not a review.

Again, why do you want this to happen again? How does it benefit consumers?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Blunder implies a careless error. I do not believe this was a blunder. This was a fraud.

Suggesting that this doesn't matter under any circumstances is permissive of this behavior.

Why would you permit this again? How is it a positive for consumers?

I have zero control over what NVIDIA does, so it's not within my power to "permit" or "deny" them the ability to do things.

If NV creates products that are worth buying, they'll get my money. If they don't, or the competition builds something superior for my needs, I will go with the competition or if the competition has nothing I want, nothing at all.

970 was a great value when it came out in terms of perf/$ and was quite efficient and overclockable -- all good things. It remained so until AMD and NV released the RX 480 and GTX 1060s, respectively, at which point it became a poor deal.