• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Do you feel you're owed compensation for the misrepresented GTX 970?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Undecided

Results are only viewable after voting.
I can only say Holy Crap !!

And everyone thought I was nuts about this issue...

Two weeks ago....... I got stood down here for saying this....


Advice for the ages... Manufacturers make mistakes..

Grand Nagus Huang.

Has made a few.

Not sure what to think...A Card Per the Spec is what is only fair...How many levels of NVIDIA and Partners managers saw the spec sheet and never said a thing? A BIOS flash would be the best bet but that would make entirely too much sense.
I'm sure that there have to be 3rd party BIOS avail. They are not that hard to create.

There needs to be pain to wake them up... I have always liked Nv sadly they are poorly managed.
 
cmdrdredd said:
I think it's going to be based on each individual case. I don't know if they will offer something universal to all purchasers.
Click to expand...

Was thinking about this on the way home.

Is it possible for Nvidia to "disable" some cores on a GTX 980 chip, and pass it off as say a GTX 975 SKU with the "as originally advertised" GTX 970 specs?

Either way, I don't see them satisfying everyone without paying a pretty penny to someone.

People who are demanding more are in their right. Call them greedy, but if they are acting within their rights, it comes off more as you hating/jelly because they are in a position to get something more out of their ordeal.

I'm pretty sure no one here would refuse Amazon's offer simply because "I'm perfectly happy with my card." If I had bought this card, and it was through Amazon, I could be cashing in that 20% refund. I'm a consumer first!
 
senseamp said:
Are reviews advertisements?
Click to expand...


GTX 980 Memory Specs:
7.0 GbpsMemory Clock
4 GBStandard Memory Config
GDDR5Memory Interface
256-bitMemory Interface Width
224


GTX 970 Memory Specs:
7.0 GbpsMemory Clock
4 GBStandard Memory Config
GDDR5Memory Interface
256-bitMemory Interface Width
224Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)

taken from nv web site last weekend
3.5 + .5 as it is ,was first used in the 970 for the first time and is different we now know from the 980
10 out of 10 people if asked would say 4gb of vram is in one block and would be the standard imo.
 
railven said:
Was thinking about this on the way home.
Is it possible for Nvidia to "disable" some cores on a GTX 980 chip, and pass it off as say a GTX 975 SKU with the "as originally advertised" GTX 970 specs?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I wonder what the actual performance would be like in that case. Memory bandwidth is one part, but cutting cores may limit something else.
 
railven said:
People who are demanding more are in their right. Call them greedy, but if they are acting within their rights, it comes off more as you hating/jelly because they are in a position to get something more out of their ordeal.
Click to expand...

The latter is probably true, but's that why I'm thankful people like your and humblepie's posts as the posts may help educate some. Sometimes people just don't know better or don't realize what is best for everyone including themselves. I know I was like so I don't get mad at people who still have that view. Anyways after reading humblepie's post, I wish I made a bigger stink when I had 3x 970 SLI issues back at release and was able to return to Newegg without restock fee. The 970s was a stutter fest and I know how decent performance should look coming from 3x titans so spent a few days trying to fix the issue prior to returning for 980s. Haha, I'm totally the consumer in that youtube spoof. Compensation in form of free upgrade to 980s would of defintely made me happy 🙂
 
Eymar said:
The latter is probably true, but's that why I'm thankful people like your and humblepie's posts as the posts may help educate some. Sometimes people just don't know better or don't realize what is best for everyone including themselves. I know I was like so I don't get mad at people who still have that view. Anyways after reading humblepie's post, I wish I made a bigger stink when I had 3x 970 SLI issues back at release and was able to return to Newegg without restock fee. The 970s was a stutter fest and I know how decent performance should look coming from 3x titans so spent a few days trying to fix the issue prior to returning for 980s. Haha, I'm totally the consumer in that youtube spoof. Compensation in form of free upgrade to 980s would of defintely made me happy 🙂
Click to expand...

A bit OT but why would you go from 3 x Titans to 3 X 970? That's a downgrade right there. That's why I chose 980s because it was the only viable "upgrade" path from the Titans and even then I miss the 2 GB.
 
rgallant said:
GTX 980 Memory Specs:
7.0 GbpsMemory Clock
4 GBStandard Memory Config
GDDR5Memory Interface
256-bitMemory Interface Width
224


GTX 970 Memory Specs:
7.0 GbpsMemory Clock
4 GBStandard Memory Config
GDDR5Memory Interface
256-bitMemory Interface Width
224Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)

taken from nv web site last weekend
3.5 + .5 as it is ,was first used in the 970 for the first time and is different we now know from the 980
10 out of 10 people if asked would say 4gb of vram is in one block and would be the standard imo.
Click to expand...

I think standard here means reference config is 4GB, and OEM manufacturer is free to offer 8GB. Not what you think it means.
 
5150Joker said:
A bit OT but why would you go from 3 x Titans to 3 X 970? That's a downgrade right there. That's why I chose 980s because it was the only viable "upgrade" path from the Titans and even then I miss the 2 GB.
Click to expand...

Didn't plan to until the 970s came out. I was like sell the titans for $600-700 each, buy 3 970s for a grand and get a Rog Swift. The reviews made it seem like performance was similar and with G-Sync you can get by with less performance. Nvidia's marketing totally works on me, but in most cases it's true (G-Sync is a game-changer feature for me). I also messed up in not calculating how much extra memory is needed from 1080p surround to 1440p surround which was always around 3GB with 4xAA on most titles so thought 4GB was enough. Now that I'm paying attention I see 3.4-3.8 GB in most games. 1440p surround is such a niche setup so kind of expect things not to work.
 
Last edited:
railven said:
Was thinking about this on the way home.

Is it possible for Nvidia to "disable" some cores on a GTX 980 chip, and pass it off as say a GTX 975 SKU with the "as originally advertised" GTX 970 specs?

Either way, I don't see them satisfying everyone without paying a pretty penny to someone.

People who are demanding more are in their right. Call them greedy, but if they are acting within their rights, it comes off more as you hating/jelly because they are in a position to get something more out of their ordeal.

I'm pretty sure no one here would refuse Amazon's offer simply because "I'm perfectly happy with my card." If I had bought this card, and it was through Amazon, I could be cashing in that 20% refund. I'm a consumer first!
Click to expand...
you could do this with binning

the cost be the same for the 3 chips , same die

just bin the chips with full L2 = 970ti using the full 4gb of vram , no new chips to make - only drivers.
no doubt they cut working L2's to deal with the 970 volume.

keep the 970 at a cheaper price. [not good for amd ]
 
Subyman said:
Nah, I don't buy that. What they say is on the chip should be what is on the chip regardless of performance. Push back is great for this type of thing otherwise Nvidia would keep doing this in the future. We should be able to trust the technical documents and specs the tech industry publishes, this instills doubt. If specs don't matter, then you'd be okay with nvidia simply not releasing any specs in the future?
Click to expand...

Unless its incorrectly states the spec on the packaging, I dont see any comeback TBH, the hit will come from goodwill, not from disgruntled customers with law suits.
 
.vodka said:
Posted in another thread. Thought it'd be relevant here. So, they've lied TWICE now? Keep digging, nvidia, keep digging
Click to expand...

Not necessarily a lie, but you can think whatever you want. Reps on forums aren't exactly top tier reps who know everything going on. It would be easy to believe they misspoke or simply said too much.
 
Last edited:
senseamp said:
Are reviews advertisements?
Click to expand...

I just read over at the H that they are required to publish the hardware specifications.

The way it seems to work is, Nvidia has a press kit that is shipped with the card.
They tell the 'reviewers' some information, and they have included specs/docs/graphs/pics.
Reviewers then take that material, and they must use(?) all that content for their "review".

Any additional stuff that the reviewer does outside the scope of the press kit is unknown. By that I mean, we don't know what is, and what isn't allowed.

We do know that Nvidia people do fact check the article in question.

So, yes, everything they send out to the public is official correspondence.
If that official correspondence is false / misleading, as is the case here, then they have violated SEC rules for a public company.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Not necessarily a lie, but you can think whatever you want. Reps on forums aren't exactly top tier reps who know everything going on. It would be easy to believe they misspoke or simply said too much.
Click to expand...

But why defend them? If I say something publicly on my company's forum I certainly better have my story straight or I would expect to get fired for being reckless. As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is the internet. Everyone got the screencaps of the original statements before they were rescinded.
 
I have a 980 right now, but I almost purchased a 970 due to it being priced significantly lower and the specs being almost identical on paper. The lower ROP count is a big deal to me and there's no way I would have gotten the 970 knowing that. I'd be ticked off as a 970 owner right now, glad I purchased the 980 instead.

If Nvidia doesn't make things right for the people that want refunds (asking for a 980 is too much, but a refund is fair given the wrongly publicized specs), I will think twice before buying one of their products again.
 
jackstar7 said:
But why defend them? If I say something publicly on my company's forum I certainly better have my story straight or I would expect to get fired for being reckless. As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is the internet. Everyone got the screencaps of the original statements before they were rescinded.
Click to expand...

People say things out of place all the time. It happens and some just about calling for their head is a bit too much.
 
Elixer said:
I just read over at the H that they are required to publish the hardware specifications.

The way it seems to work is, Nvidia has a press kit that is shipped with the card.
They tell the 'reviewers' some information, and they have included specs/docs/graphs/pics.
Reviewers then take that material, and they must use(?) all that content for their "review".

Any additional stuff that the reviewer does outside the scope of the press kit is unknown. By that I mean, we don't know what is, and what isn't allowed.

We do know that Nvidia people do fact check the article in question.

So, yes, everything they send out to the public is official correspondence.
If that official correspondence is false / misleading, as is the case here, then they have violated SEC rules for a public company.
Click to expand...






NVIDIA has total responsibility for the advertizing collateral is supplied by the MFG to the partners.

There are also UCC(Uniform Commercial Code)that governs every commercial transaction. As well as local state consumer law of the buyer.

That material should have had many levels of management review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top