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

[tential]

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.

This is why Nvidia won't do ANYTHING about this at all.

The GTX 970 is a good price/performance card and the MAJORITY of users who purchased that card had ZERO alternative in their mind.
I'm sure someone read that and is going "What about the R9 290x!!!!?"
No, that's not an alternative for many users. Lots of users don't shop AMD products.

So the GTX 970 is the best price/performance card in it's bracket, and majority of users don't see their to be a viable alternative, so as far as many many GTX 970 owners are concerned, "Who cares?"
This new information doesn't change the benchmarks, or make people think "I would have purchased the R9 290x instead!"

So Nvidia is in a great spot.

 

[5150Joker]

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?

LOL well of course people would opt for that. But that still doesn't change the fact that the current 970 is a spectacular card.

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?

I don't think spec sheets should contain false information and if I saw a significant performance decrease in most games as a result, I'd be with everyone in proclaiming a full refund be in order. However, even the reviewers who have gone over this issue are unsure of how much impact it really has. Is it misleading that it was advertised with 64 ROPs? Certainly but I don't think a full refund or $50 certificates are in order either. Maybe a free steam game or something might be ok.

 

[EliteRetard]

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?

Or another car analogy:

You pay for premium tires with certain claimed features/specifications but end up getting a mid-range tire instead. Sure they're both tires, both made of a black rubber like material, both are of equal size, they even perform the same at standard speeds. But there may or may not be some performance differences when pushing the limits.

I'm pretty sure anybody who bought one thing and got something physically different than claimed does indeed have some legal right. Even if the two products perform identically.

Or heck, even paint color. You go to a dealer and buy a car in your favorite hot pink, sign all the papers etc and when they pull the car around for you its plain grey. Everything else is the same...surely you have no right to complain?

Yet I don't think any of use are asking for what customers in those situations would (replace our product with what was originally claimed/purchased, IE re-enable the ROPs, cache, and full use/full speed 4GB RAM).

 

[VirtualLarry]

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?

Trust me, some lawyers WILL get involved. I remember some handheld PC / "pocket organizer" thing that HP sold a long time ago, advertised 24-bit color, and really, used 18-bit color and dithering to achieve that, and they were class-action sued, and lost. So I wouldn't be surprised to have the same thing happen to NV.

 

[tential]

Trust me, some lawyers WILL get involved. I remember some handheld PC / "pocket organizer" thing that HP sold a long time ago, advertised 24-bit color, and really, used 18-bit color and dithering to achieve that, and they were class-action sued, and lost. So I wouldn't be surprised to have the same thing happen to NV.

Wasn't a game just sued because it touted "60 fps" everywhere and in reality there were some portions of the game below 60 fps?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

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.

Not for the Asus 290x, but for a Vapor-X 290x 4GB or Tri-X 290x 4GB probably.

 

[sandorski]

How many people use ROP and L2 cache as a Purchase criteria?

Many get excited about those data points when we are dealing with rumours and trying to predict Performance of future products. Other than that I just don't see anyone making decisions on those factors.

Nvidia should offer some explanation. Beyond that I'm rather meh on it. Everyone knows/knew the Performance and other important data. They didn't buy it cause it had sexy L2 cache or awesome ROPs.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So according to you not only they had no obligation to release the true specs

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

Selective omissions of a comment is great isn't it.

Again people bought based on performance and price. Neither has changed.

 

[DooKey]

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.

All companies only care about their profit. NV isn't special in that regard.

 

[Paul98]

Seems people are perfectly fine being lied to.

 

[EliteRetard]

*snip*
Everyone knows/knew the Performance and other important data.

The fact is we didn't. ROP, cache, and full RAM specifications are very important.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

They didn't lie, I still get the same FPS I was sold. I buy video cards for my gaming performance wants not because it has special numbers in the specs.

 

[EliteRetard]

Selective omissions of a comment is great isn't it.

Again people bought based on performance and price. Neither has changed.

Not true, specifications definitely played a role in (my) purchase.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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?

That doesn't even make sense. You can see the motor by lifting the hood.

Not true, specifications definitely played a role in purchase.

So you looked at the SMM count and number of ROPs? No I don't believe that.

 

[KaRLiToS]

All companies only care about their profit. NV isn't special in that regard.

I know that, that is why I said he shouldn't defend them.

 

[rickon66]

An honest mistake is not a lie and if it is an honest mistake-no compensation necessary.

 

[EliteRetard]

That doesn't even make sense. You can see the motor by lifting the hood.



So you looked at the SMM count and number of ROPs? No I don't believe that.

I absolutely did, as well as the total effective VRAM. Which is now 3.5GB vs 4GB. Since I just bought my card I am investigating the possibility of return.
It appears to have been a mistake and not a direct lie, which is why my card is not an instant immediate return.

 

[Pneumothorax]

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 already done it, I bought a 3rd 970 to use on my son's computer to replace the 280 as he's playing DAI on a regular basis. I've already set up the RMA with bhphotovideo. I already have Tri-x 290x on order. I'm sorry, but this crap really makes me angry as I use my 970SLI setup on 1600p and it will be gimped more so than a 290xCF configuration in the future. I would return my 970 SLI configuration in a heartbeat, but stupid newegg doesn't allow returns on vid cards other than exchange for the same model. Selling my SLI 970 cards isn't too palatable either as I will eat over $150 in lost taxes, shipping, and paypal fees.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Or another car analogy:

You pay for premium tires with certain claimed features/specifications but end up getting a mid-range tire instead. Sure they're both tires, both made of a black rubber like material, both are of equal size, they even perform the same at standard speeds. But there may or may not be some performance differences when pushing the limits.

I'm pretty sure anybody who bought one thing and got something physically different than claimed does indeed have some legal right. Even if the two products perform identically.

Or heck, even paint color. You go to a dealer and buy a car in your favorite hot pink, sign all the papers etc and when they pull the car around for you its plain grey. Everything else is the same...surely you have no right to complain?

Yet I don't think any of use are asking for what customers in those situations would (replace our product with what was originally claimed/purchased, IE re-enable the ROPs, cache, and full use/full speed 4GB RAM).

That's not even the same at all. You can visually inspect both of those and see it's not correct. A tire is rated by the DOT and clearly marked. No company would ever mark an H tire as a Z rated tire. As for the color...you are buying something based on visual appearance. That's not even the same at all...not even close. You are not buying a 970 based on visual appearance and complaining because the PCB is purple.

 

[lavaheadache]

5150Joker, What did you vote?

You seem to agree that spec sheets with false info is wrong. You also seem to have come up with a compensation amount. That stuff aside, I'm almost inclined to think you were one of the few voters that voted "no".

I've yet to decide what I believe to be the appropriate compensation for this garbage but I certainly think that Nvidia has done "us" wrong here.

It is not about the performance received it's about how the consumer was convinced to buy it.

I only buy 4 button fly jeans, yet was tricked into buying a 3 button pair by the label on the jeans. Sure, ultimately, a 3 button pair holds the fly together all the way to the top just as good as the 4 button pair but I believe 4 button pairs will provide me the security I need to get through years of faithful service. Am I entitled a compensation of any kind?

I'm willing to bet a there isn't a Macy's or Walmart out there that wouldn't let me exchanged the culprit pair on jeans and I believe GTX 970 owners should be entitled to something if they pursue it.

 

[WelshBloke]

That doesn't even make sense. You can see the motor by lifting the hood.

As a car analogy it works quite well.

You're saying that as long as the performance matches what was advertised, whats under the hood doesn't matter; hes saying that he wants what was advertised to be under the hood to actually be there regardless of performance.

 

[Vesku]

The number of ROPs and amount of L2 being misrepresented may be enough in some countries to get a refund or some sort of compensation. Most of the EU has strong customer protection rules.

 

[cmdrdredd]

As a car analogy it works quite well.

You're saying that as long as the performance matches what was advertised, whats under the hood doesn't matter; hes saying that he wants what was advertised to be under the hood to actually be there regardless of performance.

No, I'm saying you can look under the hood and see a V6 so they can't say it's a V8...you'll know. This isn't the same at all, not even remotely in the same category. That analogy only works if they told you that you were getting a GTX 980 on the box and shipped you a 970.

I absolutely did, as well as the total effective VRAM. Which is now 3.5GB vs 4GB. Since I just bought my card I am investigating the possibility of return.

Lol you guys keep saying you only have 3.5GB, do I need to provice screenshots of 3.7+GB in use again? Sheesh

 

[lavaheadache]

That doesn't even make sense. You can see the motor by lifting the hood.



So you looked at the SMM count and number of ROPs? No I don't believe that.

- What the heck does being able to see the engine mean? Most people wouldn't know squat about an engine just by looking at it. Now a days they are mostly covered by plastic anyhow and need to dive in and see for yourself or rely on the spec sheet, which in this case would have been false.

You can take the cooler off a gtx 970 and see the core. How does that help you? You rely on the spec sheet to tell you what you are looking at.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, I'm saying you can look under the hood and see a V6 so they can't say it's a V8...you'll know. This isn't the same at all, not even remotely in the same category. That analogy only works if they told you that you were getting a GTX 980 on the box and shipped you a 970.

So you're more reliant on NV telling the truth in its marketing then?

As there's no way for you to know that the video card isn't as advertised until you get it home then that's even more of an argument to be able to return it surely?