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

[Joepublic2]

Yes, I should be compensated. The card does have 4GB of physical RAM, but the advertised specs don't say anything about how the last 512MB is crippled. That's kind of a shady way to do business, but it's probably not outright fraud. The main issue, IMO, was advertising it as having more L2$ and a larger number of ROPs than then it actually had, which is clear cut fraud and why they didn't even attempt to go to court over it. I'm interested to see how they manage(d) this; will they put in the driver work to make sure that the last 512MB is the last memory to get filled with texture data? They could store less bandwidth sensitive information in that partition, like say shader programs (more latency sensitive) (it's still higher bandwidth/much lower latency than going over the pcie bus) or will they take the lazy way out and simply disable that partition in a driver update?

 

[moonbogg]

I wonder if Nvidia is concerned about losing mindshare as a result of their hilarious pricing which keeps climbing every generation, lying to customers outright, tricking people every generation into paying high end money for mid range cards then pulling the rug out from under them a few months later with another "flagship", then another, and another.
This 970 issue is cut and dry. Its beyond laughable to assume that Nvidia made a marketing error. Their focus is 100% on engineering the specs of these products to fall perfectly inline with the markets they are targeting. To think they didn't know exactly what was going on is beyond absurd. Hitting the right specs and performance at the right time is the game they have been playing in this industry since its inception. That's what the game is. There is only one game to be played here and they cheated and got caught.
Its an insult to the intelligence of the entire hardware enthusiast community and to every customer that Nvidia figured they wouldn't get caught doing this. Mindshare is important. The chances of me buying an AMD card have gone from zero to about 75%. That's my best estimate and its an honest one. I was a die hard Nvidia fan freak. I'm the kind of Nvidia customer who trades in a 9700 Pro for an FX 5800 Ultra just because its an NVidia card. That was the only ATI card I ever owned and I'm looking to break my Nvidia streak. All I need is a decent product that I can live with from AMD and you can consider my ass AWOL from the green camp.

 

[Keysplayr]

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.

I see. Anyone disagreeing with your opinion is an unproductive person.
I wonder what it is you're trying to produce....
Ok. I guess this has run its course. Enjoy.

 

[Joepublic2]

Another problem with this setup is that most games are engineered to fit their textures/shaders/etc. in a given size framebuffer depending on the settings (2GB for mid quality textures, 4GB for high quality textures, etc). When the game engine sees that that the card is reporting 4GB addressable, it'll treat it like every other 4GB card and set default settings accordingly. As we can see with the rise of the tomb raider linked above, that can cause serious issues with performance if not handled properly by the driver. I'm sure more popular games will get driver updates to either mask that last 512MB or shuffle the data accordingly, but what about older games or unpopular games? They'll experience severe performance issues and most users won't have the insight into what's going on to realize that cranking down texture quality, AF, AA or shadow quality for example to get everything to fit into the first 3.5GB will give them a massive performance boost. They'll just (rightly IMO) assume that their card is slow/the drivers are broken.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

This isn't court. This is all opinion. Yours and mine.

From the start I said you are usually even-handed. I also have made no certainty claims. I say "I believe" to make it clear that it is nothing more than the conclusion I have reached based on what happened and how it was handled. If you want to change my opinion with yours... you have to do a better job presenting yours.

Please don't ascribe characteristics to me. You're doing a terrible job of it.

And do tell me when you can get around to it how being permissive of this "mistake" is beneficial to consumers.

 

[Keysplayr]

This isn't court. This is all opinion. Yours and mine.

From the start I said you are usually even-handed. I also have made no certainty claims. I say "I believe" to make it clear that it is nothing more than the conclusion I have reached based on what happened and how it was handled. If you want to change my opinion with yours... you have to do a better job presenting yours.

Please don't ascribe characteristics to me. You're doing a terrible job of it.

And do tell me when you can get around to it how being permissive of this "mistake" is beneficial to consumers.

Define permissive?

 

[Keysplayr]

Define permissive?
And, of course Im doing a terrible job.I mean, why would I expect praise from someone I'm arguing with?

 

[jackstar7]

Define permissive?

In this case I define it as you telling people that they got the performance that was reviewed regardless of what it said on the box and so they have no standing to complain.

It ignores the consumers that don't read reviews and are just picking up a card at a B&M location who have every right to believe that what's on the box is reflected in the contents of the product inside.

 

[raghu78]

This thread has run its course. When Nvidia itself agrees the GTX 970 buyer should be compensated why are few people here arguing it. We are also seeing performance repercussions of segmented memory vs uniform memory in titles like RoTR which ironically is a Gameworks title.

 

[Tweak155]

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.

Ultimately the cause of the mislabeling is not really relevant. In the best case scenario where NVidia made a mistake, then the settlement is an incentive to be more thorough when marketing your product.

At the end of the day, whether I accidentally killed someone or intentionally killed someone, they're still dead. I.E the end result is the same - they did something that should not have happened and now need to compensate for that action. The only real debate is whether $30 per customer is the appropriate amount. That might warrant a look at intentions.

 

[Tweak155]

This thread has run its course. When Nvidia itself agrees the GTX 970 buyer should be compensated why are few people here arguing it. We are also seeing performance repercussions of segmented memory vs uniform memory in titles like RoTR which ironically is a Gameworks title.

To be fair, agreeing to settle is not always an indication of guilt. It may simply make sense from a PR (while damaging) and cost perspective to be cheaper over time. They may have decided that the PR hit and payout will not cost as much as going to court and fighting - especially if they end up losing. Not every lost court battle means the defendant was guilty unfortunately.

That said, it seems likely they WOULD have lost from my perspective and most likely this is a way to get it out of the media earlier and agree on a compensation amount that would make customers happy. However, my speculation is no better than anyone else's, so take your own whack at it!

 

[Keysplayr]

Ultimately the cause of the mislabeling is not really relevant. In the best case scenario where NVidia made a mistake, then the settlement is an incentive to be more thorough when marketing your product.

At the end of the day, whether I accidentally killed someone or intentionally killed someone, they're still dead. I.E the end result is the same - they did something that should not have happened and now need to compensate for that action. The only real debate is whether $30 per customer is the appropriate amount. That might warrant a look at intentions.

LMAOOO WOW. I think you should take a step back and just no. Killed someone? Really?
But since you brought it up, there are varying degrees of murder or homicide. With or without intent. The punishment varies along with the degree of intent or lack thereof.

 

[Tweak155]

LMAOOO WOW. I think you should take a step back and just no. Killed someone? Really?
But since you brought it up, there are varying degrees of murder or homicide. With or without intent. The punishment varies along with the degree of intent or lack thereof.

While the example may be extreme, it's just to make a point. And yes, all that intention dictates (if guilty) is the severity of the punishment, but there will be a punishment if guilty. You may have understood my point.

There is no debate that they're guilty in this scenario.

 

[SPBHM]

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?

oh yes, but the thing is, that test is outdated, specially for DX12, it's from March. since then they have improved the game and drivers for DX12, and the problem is that for that test in particular all cards have terrible minimums Including the 980 ti, so I think it's hiding any odd behavior specific to the 970, while the DX11 run shows believable minimums for the Maxwell cards, and the 970 is half of the 980.

as I said you can't really compare different tests without considering settings and test cases, I played this game and there are a few bad spots for vram, but not the entire game, so there is that and some people will not be testing those spots, but more than one source shows abnormal behavior from the 970 specifically compared to the 980, so I definitely think there is something to it, caused by the vram configuration (which is the only thing as far as I know that could also require special attention from drivers/game support for the 970 vs 980), in the end I think having 3.5GB+slow0.5GB can lead to worse results than a pure 3.5GB if the software doesn't treat it accordingly, based on how the 780 ti 3GB is faster than the 970 on the TPU result, but, who knows, I don't have the cards to test, and I don't see anyone testing this to the extent it should be, I just found the odd results by accident looking at the 480 reviews.

 

[jackstar7]

Define permissive?

In this case I define it as you telling people that they got the performance that was reviewed regardless of what it said on the box and so they have no standing to complain.

It ignores the consumers that don't read reviews and are just picking up a card at a B&M location who have every right to believe that what's on the box is reflected in the contents of the product inside.

So, how is your permissive response good for consumers in general?

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm not being permissive. I am not giving anyone permission to do anything. As if I could. You're interpreting the data you're receiving differently than I am. So it's nothing special that we don't agree. Leave it at that. It was a mistake according to Nvidia. You all cannot, nay... will not, accept that. It's your prerogative. The penalties some of you call for are merciless, harsh and unforgiving for this mistake, because you think it wasn't a mistake. I'm speaking of the specs being incorrect on the box, not about the 3.5/512 memory, of course. It's what you want it to be, for yourselves. As I guess it is, for anyone.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm not being permissive. I am not giving anyone permission to do anything. As if I could. You're interpreting the data you're receiving differently than I am. So it's nothing special that we don't agree. Leave it at that. It was a mistake according to Nvidia. You all cannot, nay... will not, accept that. It's your prerogative. The penalties some of you call for are merciless, harsh and unforgiving for this mistake, because you think it wasn't a mistake. I'm speaking of the specs being incorrect on the box, not about the 3.5/512 memory, of course. It's what you want it to be, for yourselves. As I guess it is, for anyone.

I'm not seeing an answer in here. But that's fine. You can be done in this thread.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm not seeing an answer in here. But that's fine. You can be done in this thread.

I do not answer rigged questions. sorry. I'll be done with the thread when I'm ready. Put your ego away.

 

[Pantalaimon]

I'm not being permissive. I am not giving anyone permission to do anything. As if I could. You're interpreting the data you're receiving differently than I am. So it's nothing special that we don't agree. Leave it at that. It was a mistake according to Nvidia. You all cannot, nay... will not, accept that. It's your prerogative. The penalties some of you call for are merciless, harsh and unforgiving for this mistake, because you think it wasn't a mistake. I'm speaking of the specs being incorrect on the box, not about the 3.5/512 memory, of course. It's what you want it to be, for yourselves. As I guess it is, for anyone.

Based on your replies here, am I correct in interpreting that in your opinion, it is ok for a company to state incorrect specifications in ads and on the box as long as a perceived performance is there?

 

[Keysplayr]

Based on your replies here, am I correct in interpreting that in your opinion, it is ok for a company to state incorrect specifications in ads and on the box as long as a perceived performance is there?

You are incorrect. What I think I'm trying to say is, it's weird that a mistake is treated and regarded as a crime.
Nobody is being "permissive" or "ok" with deception as your question is framed out to make it to be. I'd say if this was a continued practice, then I would have a serious problem with it. So they got the specs incorrect in the marketing slides and on the boxes.
I see pitchforks. Torches. Class action suits from hungry attorneys. "Burn them Burn them" chanting in the night.
Just...... over the top for something that was likely an error as Nvidia stated.

 

[Pantalaimon]

You are incorrect. What I think I'm trying to say is, it's weird that a mistake is treated and regarded as a crime.
Nobody is being "permissive" or "ok" with deception as your question is framed out to make it to be. I'd say if this was a continued practice, then I would have a serious problem with it. So they got the specs incorrect in the marketing slides and on the boxes.
I see pitchforks. Torches. Class action suits from hungry attorneys. "Burn them Burn them" chanting in the night.
Just...... over the top for something that was likely an error as Nvidia stated.

And we are supposed to trust the company that it was just a mistake why? Have they changed the specs on the boxes and ads since this was discovered?

Edited:
A quick check as of the writing of this post on geforce.com where it still says the GTX970 has a memory bandwidth of 224 GB/sec. and there's no mention of the unconventional configuration of the VRAM.

 

[Keysplayr]

And we are supposed to trust the company that it was just a mistake why? Have they changed the specs on the boxes and ads since this was discovered?

Edited:
A quick check as of the writing of this post on geforce.com where it still says the GTX970 has a memory bandwidth of 224 GB/sec. and there's no mention of the unconventional configuration of the VRAM.

Why do you think there wouldn't be an opposite line of your thinking that exists? Do you believe yourself to be completely infallible and right all the time? I don't understand the rigidity of some posters here. Or I do.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Why do you think there wouldn't be an opposite line of your thinking that exists? Do you believe yourself to be completely infallible and right all the time? I don't understand the rigidity of some posters here. Or I do.

No, I don't believe that people don't make mistakes. It's a question of trust, and NVIDIA has not earned my trust. For example why NVIDIA still have not corrected the specs on geforce.com, nor mentioned the special VRAM configuration. It's these not correct specs and complete disclosure when it comes to the special configuration of the GTX970 that lead to the class action suit, and they still have not corrected it. A good example of why I don't trust them that this was just a mistake.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Do you believe yourself to be completely infallible and right all the time?

No, but if you screw up apologize and fix it (see: 480 PCIE issues).

I don't think the problem is Nvidia screws up sometimes. The problem is their mistakes are a "fun fact" or "feature."

If they would have offered 970 owners some money without having to be sued that would have made it right.

 

[Keysplayr]

Yet another high and mighty response.