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

[krumme]

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

Excactly Keys. And what happens then?
The game engine thinks the 970 have 4 gigs and allocated 4 gigs to the memory. Because of the segmented ram the card will stutter and give a very bad experience. Unlike the 980 where the game engine is correct.
It seems to me you havnt quite grasped the depth of the problem here. Its a damn serious issue with DX12 and all the new thin api games in 2017.

 

[Keysplayr]

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?

You....... "believe"... Eww Key.

 

[Keysplayr]

T

Excactly Keys. And what happens then?
The game engine thinks the 970 have 4 gigs and allocated 4 gigs to the memory. Because of the segmented ram the card will stutter and give a very bad experience. Unlike the 980 where the game engine is correct.
It seems to me you havnt quite grasped the depth of the problem here. Its a damn serious issue with DX12 and all the new thin api games in 2017.

Then you upgrade, Krumme.

 

[Keysplayr]

T

Then you upgrade, Krumme.

Even from your FuryX or 980.

 

[Tweak155]

Guys it's a lost cause. In Keysplayr's scenarios, NVidia simply made a mistake and every buyer is a fully informed one at all times (read reviews, were aware of the refund period, etc). You can't logically argue these statements because the statements are not logical to begin with, they're ideal assumptions.

What cannot be argued is that the box said one thing and what you got was another. He won't argue this point because it cannot be argued. Rather focus on performance and make assumptions as to what the buyer was thinking. It will just go in circles.

I've seen other posters do this by the way, it's not just Keysplayr don't get me wrong. But you can't make a solid argument using assumptions that cannot be proven.

 

[Keysplayr]

Thanks for the callout bud.

 

[krumme]

T

Then you upgrade, Krumme.

Well you dont have to upgrade if you had a 980, 7970 or even 2 gigs 960 We could even see situations where a 960 gives better experience than a 970 if the driver for 970 is not specifically updated on a specific game level. And its not excactly what dx12/vulcan was about that. So is a dangerous position.

 

[SPBHM]

T

Then you upgrade, Krumme.

good idea, he could upgrade from a fake 4GB card to a real 4GB card

perhaps sell the 970 + the $30 from Nvidia (forget the $30 if you are not in the right country, obviously)?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well you dont have to upgrade if you had a 980, 7970 or even 2 gigs 960 We could even see situations where a 960 gives better experience than a 970 if the driver for 970 is not specifically updated on a specific game level. And its not excactly what dx12/vulcan was about that. So is a dangerous position.

I think this is FUD.

 

[Keysplayr]

Thanks for the callout bud.
And yes. It is a lost cause. We agree to disagree then? Or are you determined to change my thoughts?

Well you dont have to upgrade if you had a 980, 7970 or even 2 gigs 960 We could even see situations where a 960 gives better experience than a 970 if the driver for 970 is not specifically updated on a specific game level. And its not excactly what dx12/vulcan was about that. So is a dangerous position.

I think this is FUD.

Yes it is. Good eye.
In his world, 3.5GB is a magic threshold.

 

[Bacon1]

Now pretend that the 3.5/512 didnt exist but the mislabeling marketing was present.
Any compensation needed? Nope.

Then they shouldn't include specs in the first place. Their whole reason for including them is to promote the product to sell better. If the specs are wrong it is misleading and false advertisement.

How are people still defending this? Even Nvidia ran the numbers and found it was cheaper to pay out now than spend time in court because they know what they did was wrong and misleading to customers.

 

[Keysplayr]

good idea, he could upgrade from a fake 4GB card to a real 4GB card

perhaps sell the 970 + the $30 from Nvidia (forget the $30 if you are not in the right country, obviously)?

Source please. Want to see what context you grabbed this from.

 

[Keysplayr]

Then they shouldn't include specs in the first place. Their whole reason for including them is to promote the product to sell better. If the specs are wrong it is misleading and false advertisement.

How are people still defending this? Even Nvidia ran the numbers and found it was cheaper to pay out now than spend time in court because they know what they did was wrong and misleading to customers.

Actually, my dear Bacon, that is what you call an extraordinary assumption on your part. You assume the payout was an admission of guilt, and I can see how you might feel that way especially if you wanted it to be true. But.... perhaps Nvidia simply crunched their numbers and decided a settlement now would cost them less than fighting it on for possibly years.
It's not an admission of guilt automatically. There are other factors to consider as I have pointed out.

 

[krumme]

I think this is FUD.

Whoops. Missed the prior post by 30 sec...lol

 

[SPBHM]

Source please. Want to see what context you grabbed this from.

context? is part of their regular reviews, the source is clear on the graph (pclab.pl 480 4GB review)

and it looks like other reviews are also showing what to me can only be explained by the 3.5GB+512MB problem (because of the gap to the 980)

and others testing the same game didn't, because it's probably dependent on settings and test scenario (basically part of the map I guess, I noticed while playing the game that there are some bad spots for vram, but not the entire game)

 

[Headfoot]

Source please. Want to see what context you grabbed this from.

Pclab.pl, top right corner

 

[krumme]

Yes it is. Good eye.
In his world, 3.5GB is a magic threshold.

Yeaa. He missed the post with pclab pl and so did you.
Good eye.
You still present this as its about 3.5 but its not about it but the segmentation. I guess you should know by now.

 

[Keysplayr]

good idea, he could upgrade from a fake 4GB card to a real 4GB card

perhaps sell the 970 + the $30 from Nvidia (forget the $30 if you are not in the right country, obviously)?

By the way

http://techbuyersguru.com/first-look-dx12-performance-rise-tomb-raider?page=1

 

[Keysplayr]

Yeaa. He missed the post with pclab pl and so did you.
Good eye.
You still present this as its about 3.5 but its not about it but the segmentation. I guess you should know by now.

Doesn't lessen my statement. He saw FUD and called it out. Bravo.

 

[Keysplayr]

Pclab.pl, top right corner

Ty. Very small on my phone.

 

[jackstar7]

You....... "believe"... Eww Key.

Are you doing something different? Do you have evidence that this was carelessness? Sounds like you are just going on belief as well.

Also, this settlement supports my belief. What supports yours?

 

[SPBHM]

By the way

http://techbuyersguru.com/first-look-dx12-performance-rise-tomb-raider?page=1

thanks for the results, I thought the problem was only in DX12, but the link you posted shows the 970 with half the minimum from the 980 even on a DX11 test

the AMD results are kind of bad, but I think they have greatly improved drivers for this game since March...

also as I said, different tests will show different things unless they run the same settings and test scene, but this game clearly shows that there is something going on with the 970 that can probably be only explained by the bad vram setup.

 

[Keysplayr]

Are you doing something different? Do you have evidence that this was carelessness? Sounds like you are just going on belief as well.

Actually the burden is on you, as the accuser, to prove guilt. Youd be laughed out of court with "i believe" as your prosecution.
Im simply saying that you guys are so, so damn sure of yourselves. And it might behoove you all to keep your minds open about things. You have no proof it wasnt a mistake. But you keep railing that it wasnt as if you knew it for a fact and you had emails stacked floor to ceiling filled with correspondence fron Nvidia on how they plan to lie about specs to their customers just for the (expletive) of it.

 

[Keysplayr]

thanks for the results, I thought the problem was only in DX12, but the link you posted shows the 970 with half the minimum from the 980 even on a DX11 test

the AMD results are kind of bad, but I think they have greatly improved drivers for this game since March...

also as I said, different tests will show different things unless they run the same settings and test scene, but this game clearly shows that there is something going on with the 970 that can probably be only explained by the bad vram setup.

It could be. It may need driver improvements to include RoTR.
Also, did you notice the minimum on the 980 was lower than the 970 in dx12?

 

[Bacon1]

Thread title:

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

Obviously the answer is "YES" as Nvidia is paying out $30 for the misleading marketing.

Anyone trying to defend this, please spend your time doing something productive.