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

[XiandreX]

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.

Honestly for me as long as the performance is the same as the benchmarks listed initially it's not going to affect my gaming.
Yes they were wrong, but it's not the end of the world.

 

[exar333]

Why would you think you deserve a refund of any sorts? lol It makes zero sense considering performance is fine as before. This is the same as those people who tried to sue because of memory and hardrive manufacturers sizes are not the exact same as listed.

Think about it...

When I purchased my 5870 1GB (2GB wasn't out yet) the performance was amazing. It was a great card. After about 1.5-2 years, the VRAM because a huge limiting factor for the card. I upgraded to a 670 2GB and it was night and day. Both cards doubled VRAM over what I had previously and were advertised accurately.

Again, the 2GB 670 started to really limit me last year, and I was waiting for a card that (again) doubled the VRAM. The 780s were just 3GB so that left the 290/x and the 970/980. The 970 was the best deal when it launched and the fact I could get a cheap WB for it was another benefit...

VRAM specs have been increasing even more quickly over the past 1-1.5 years and that seems to be continuing, probably until we hit 6-8GB. The current 970 performance is great, but it will be a limiting factor sooner vs. a full 4GB card. That will happen. Same thing we saw between the 1.5GB and 2GB cards...

Looking back...you can see similar issues with CPUs from the 90s. The cache speeds differed on the slot CPUs and generally only ran at 1/2 speed for some gens. CPU makers clearly described the amount of cache and speed of cache in their SKUs. Marketing something as having a full-speed cache vs. partial speed impacts product perception. Mis-marketing as such is dishonest...

 

[therealnickdanger]

A free game code would be nice... preferably a non-Uplay, non-Origin title.

 

[Attic]

Games might, but GTX 970 almost certainly won't be fast enough to run them at playable framerates at settings which use over 3.5gb

Increasing texture resolution is typically not a performance hit. It's either something you can run at high/ultra or you can't do to your VRAM size. This is my concern with the 970 given that I believe it's likely games going forward will target a true 4gb card while the 970 is *not* a true 4gb card here. Might never matter, but it might, something folks should have been aware of before buying the card, and they weren't.

Practically it looks like the 970 is fine up to 3.5gb, and it can store non demanding stuff in the 512mb section if nvidia's driver team is doing it's job. But for 3.5gbs, after that it is going to have issues if more is needed on a demanding side of things. I thought Ryan did a good job of explaining this.

The biggest impact of this configuration is that it creates the segmented memory conditions NVIDIA outlined in their earlier statement. Due to performance issues from the unbalanced ROP/MC partition, NVIDIA segments the memory into a high-performance 3.5GB segment – what they refer to as segment 0 – and a low-performance 512MB (0.5GB) segment containing the rest of the RAM. It is this segmentation that results in some of the previously-unusual memory allocation behaviors and memory bandwidth benchmarks on the GTX 970.

....

This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once on the read side. GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. Furthermore because the 512MB segment cannot be read at the same time as the 3.5GB segment, reading this segment blocks accessing the 3.5GB segment for that cycle, further reducing the effective memory bandwidth of the card. In concept, the larger the percentage of the time the crossbar is reading the 512MB segment, the lower the effective read memory bandwidth would be from the 3.5GB segment.

GeForce GTX 970: Correcting The Specs & Exploring Memory Allocation

Emphasis mine.

This could be an issue in games going forward, not end of the world, but it's not what folks thought they were buying. You don't have a full 4gb as it was sold, you got a pretender. I believe this was nVidia's intent in not bringing this side of the card to attention of reviewers. A lie by omission at the least, certainly something nVidia knew folks would want to know, and yet they let reviewers and their readers and the buyers of the card go out without knowing this information. That strikes me as completely intentional from nVidia.


Ryan's article is worth reading again for anyone who want's more of the nuts and bolts. I disagree with Ryan's conclusion about nVidia's knowledge/explanation of this issue, though the article is first class throughout.

 

[showb1z]

It's not about the performance now, it's about the performance in the coming years. Even until last year we had people on this forum claiming 2GB was alright for 1080p. We all know how that went.
4GB RAM minimum was on the top of my list when I was deciding on my upgrade last year, just to be somewhat safe. And now I only got a 3.5GB card. A major deception like that warrants a compensation.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Games might, but GTX 970 almost certainly won't be fast enough to run them at playable framerates at settings which use over 3.5gb

There are already games that use over 3.5gb at settings the 970 can handle. So your supposition is completely incorrect.

Now let me first say that whether performance is impacted in future games or not is technically and legally irrelevant, however let us entertain a fantasy that it does. Because the Vram is broken into two sections of different speeds it is possible that driver optimization is very important for the card to stay in its current relative performance bracket. Assuming that this configuration is not continued in the next model it seems reasonable given the performance of Kepler and Fermi today that any special programming for games needed for the 970 to remain in said relative position will be phased out over time, thus potentially dropping performance in certain situations.

Additionally, they use the numbers to advertise the card itself. Some members are saying it does not matter because people do not generally take consideration of the technical specifications. However this is not true of one very important demographic, which in fact happens to be us, users who read professional reviews to be informed of their purchase. Certainly if this had been advertised properly from day one reviewers would have taken a different approach to their tests, which may or may not have shown issues. I do believe that sales would have been impacted by this knowledge, although the extent of that impact is pure speculation.

There is really only one significant way to view this which is legally.

Did Nvidia misrepresent their product? Yes, they directly misrepresented their product.

Is it against the law to misrepresent your product? Yes, it is against the law in America to misrepresent your product in this way.

If owners file suit Nvidia will lose/settle. I suspect the option of a refund is very viable as well.

 

[exar333]

It's not about the performance now, it's about the performance in the coming years. Even until last year we had people on this forum claiming 2GB was alright for 1080p. We all know how that went.
4GB RAM minimum was on the top of my list when I was deciding on my upgrade last year, just to be somewhat safe. And now I only got a 3.5GB card. A major deception like that warrants a compensation.

This...

I do think this a bigger impact for NV reputation-wise vs. the 970 itself. As a performance buyer (not a fanboy of either company; yes, we do still exist...) I will remember this when deciding on my next card this year.

 

[TeknoBug]

Hmmm maybe free game vouchers? Or returning it, but the 970 is still a good card regardless (780Ti-like performance for the price of a GTX760 when it launched). Most games won't go past 3.5GB except Skyrim with those insane mods.

 

[utahraptor]

I just hope there is enough negative reaction to prevent this type of thing happening next time around. If things continue like this they will start selling 10 TB hard drives and you open the package to find a 2TB HD and a spindle of DVD-RWs.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Poeple planning to have or have 970 SLI are the one who should be concerned the most since they most likely have higher than 1080p monitors and might even be thinking in getting 4k soon. Those folks will most likely feel cheated in a year from now. Remember that 2GB cards were being defended here last year, we're already seeing 780 and 780ti getting hit pretty hard in the latest games, soon will be the 3.5GB card.

Nvidia could perhaps give a game key for free. That would be much cheaper and would show that they care about their customers. GTX 980 owners now understand why they paid 200 extra

 

[WelshBloke]

Why would you think you deserve a refund of any sorts? lol It makes zero sense considering performance is fine as before. This is the same as those people who tried to sue because of memory and hardrive manufacturers sizes are not the exact same as listed.

Legally the performance isnt going to come into it.

The card wasnt advertised to score X in benchmark Y, it was advertised to have certain hardware characteristics.

Now to users the X in benchmark Y is more important but its something any manufacturer would be insane to advertise on a box without so many qualifiers as to make it meaningless, what they do state is what hardware makes up the card.

 

[happy medium]

I dont buy cards for the specs, I check game reviews in my resolution and buy the card for its performance. I dont care how many rop's ,cuda cores or how much memory bandwidth it has , as long as it performs like the reviews.

 

[hawtdawg]

Absolutely. It was false advertizement whether it was intentional or not. There will definitely be a class-action lawsuit come from this.

 

[WelshBloke]

I dont buy cards for the specs, I check game reviews in my resolution and buy the card for its performance. I dont care how many rop's ,cuda cores or how much memory bandwidth it has , as long as it performs like the reviews.

Thats fine, its what I do (unless theres any funky hacks that can be done to improve performance, those are nice to know about), but is has nothing to do with whether 970 owners should get any recompence.

 

[lehtv]

Increasing texture resolution is typically not a performance hit. It's either something you can run at high/ultra or you can't do to your VRAM size. This is my concern with the 970 given that I believe it's likely games going forward will target a true 4gb card while the 970 is *not* a true 4gb card here.

1080p image quality doesn't benefit noticeably from textures of over 2K resolution. Which game with 2K textures requires 3.5GB of VRAM (not just allocates it, but actually uses it)?

1440p or higher will have more use for bigger texture resolutions. However, which game remains smoothly playable at 1440p with just a single GTX 970 while using over 3.5GB of VRAM?

There are already games that use over 3.5gb at settings the 970 can handle. So your supposition is completely incorrect.

Such as?

 

[spinejam]

Imo, it sets a bad precedent if no sanctions are levied against Nvidia. Other companies might be compelled to follow suit and "fudge specs" if they feel there is no threat of enforcement. Just looking out for my fellow consumer!

 

[Attic]

1080p image quality doesn't benefit noticeably from textures of over 2K resolution. Which game with 2K textures requires 3.5GB of VRAM (not just allocates it, but actually uses it)?

1440p or higher will have more use for bigger texture resolutions. However, which game remains smoothly playable at 1440p with just a single GTX 970 while using over 3.5GB of VRAM?



Such as?

It's not up for you to decide what is smoothly playable at a defined setting. Up to the buyer.

From your post I think we are clear on one thing, the 3.5gb limitation. You don't see it as an "all that bad of thing", which I respect. But I don't believe you can make the case that others don't have a right to or legitimate reason to be very concerned about the issue simply do to your desire to control what is "smooth" or not at certain gameplay settings. That's up to the owners of the 970 who thought they were getting a true 4gb card, but instead got a card that is something else. We don't know what future games will bring, it's likely they will push VRAM requirements, this should be concerning to 970 buyers who thought they were getting a true 4gb card but instead got something different. This is something I get.

970 still great, yea, it's just not as great now when revealed as a 3.5gb card with 512mb tacked on to make it look like a 4gb card. Something done and kept under wraps by nvidia until folks figured out what nVidia had done.

Folks were NOT buying the "not as great" part, they should have been aware of this going in. I believe nVidia knew better, I think folks should be angry for being intentionally mislead. Sets bad precedent if this issue is something that gets catered to through forum members following nVidia's marketing line on the thing ("it's all very confusing in a big building you know, we didn't know" = BS), I hope enthusiasts don't toe the line nVidia has drawn and now stands behind.


What I hope happens is a price drop to $299 and a game voucher to current owners. I'd like to buy one (Asus DC Mini) for <$299 with a TW3 game voucher in a few months. I'd also like to see more exploration of the memory configuration and it's limitations and non limitations for 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, 2160P WITH frame time analysis. Stuttering is my biggest concern when the VRAM setup on the 970 is stressed.

 

[lehtv]

It's not up for you to decide what is smoothly playable at a defined setting. Up to the buyer.

What do you mean? I decide what is playable for me.

From your post I think we are clear on one thing, the 3.5gb limitation. You don't see it as an "all that bad of thing", which I respect. But I don't believe you can make the case that others don't have a right to or legitimate reason to be very concerned about the issue

That's not my intention at all. I'm not sure why you think it is.

 

[xthetenth]

I've got a 970, and if I could get a refund for it I'd have a 290x inbound this very second. The card I'm playing games with today is the same card I bought, because the benchmarks are the same. The card I'd be playing games with two or so years down the road, a span which I purchased the card to last is not the same card I was sanguine would last that long. Between Kepler performance tanking compared to AMD now the new hotness is out and an architecture that seems to really demand good driver support to live up to its potential, the future performance outlook isn't nearly as rosy as when I bought it.

 

[Black Octagon]

The issue is not that they quote 4GB VRAM. It's that they quote this ALONGSIDE a single memory bandwidth spec, as if all 4GB benefited from this same bandwidth.

 

[exar333]

It's really simple. NV should have marketed this as a '3.5GB + 512MB' card with full-speed 3.5GB VRAM and 'enhanced' 512MB VRAM' and let users decide. That would have been the honest and accurate angle. By not doing this, they risked reputational and monetary loss. They threw the dice and thought no one would find out, which is pretty amazing, honestly.

Saying it was a 64ROP 4GB card with a full 256-bit bus is not true. It's false advertising...

 

[dn7309]

If NV decide to give out a free game voucher make I hope they don't give out games like Watch Dogs, Shadow or Mordor or AV Unity which eat up VRAM due to their Ultra Texture.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If NV decide to give out a free game voucher make I hope they don't give out games like Watch Dogs, Shadow or Mordor or AV Unity which eat up VRAM due to their Ultra Texture.

I played both of those at 1080p with everything except textures maxed on 2GB 670s in sli. It was fine and ultra textures don't offer a noticeable improvement, not enough to take the performance hit even on a 980 I wouldn't run them.

 

[Lepton87]

1080p image quality doesn't benefit noticeably from textures of over 2K resolution. Which game with 2K textures requires 3.5GB of VRAM (not just allocates it, but actually uses it)?

1440p or higher will have more use for bigger texture resolutions. However, which game remains smoothly playable at 1440p with just a single GTX 970 while using over 3.5GB of VRAM?



Such as?

As if 970 didn't support SLI...There are people who even buy 3 cards. I could change my cards for 970s but I decided it wasn't worth the hassle but if I did I would feel cheated right now. 6GB to 3.5GB would be a big downgrade. I'm glad I stayed with the titans

 

[Kenmitch]

I voted yes....Debated the option for a while.

Dang....1st NVidia purchase after getting burnt by bumpgate!...Ugh!

I do feel somewhat cheated by the misrepresentation of the specs.

My e-peen took the blunt of it loosing it's girth!

I don't really see returning the cards as an option at this time. 1st off the full overpriced retail value of the free game would be deducted off the return value. Bought my cards at BestBuy using the movers coupons, and reward zone $'s to offset the price. Pretty sure reward zone $'s are non returnable. Sure I could maybe bitch and complain and possibly return/exchange the cards towards GTX 980(s) but I don't really see throwing more $'s at NVidia the solution.

It is what it is....No performance loss currently but what the future holds is unknown at this time.

I value raw fps more than eye candy. I figured the 970's would have enough grunt to last a couple of years...Hmm not sure now.