Support NeoGAF

[Kysen]

So did they save money designing the card like this? They had to know they would get caught so i don't get it.

They designed the card in this way so any 980s they made that came out defective could be easily turned into 970s. A cost saving measure.

 

[MaLDo]

The benchmarks sold everyone on the card. Those benchmarks haven't changed. The .5 gb thing is a perception game and is utterly meaningless, it's the same card it was when it launched that everyone raved about. The "but I want it to be good in the future" argument doesn't hold any water if it's killing every game out right now -

**deleted gif because reasons**

Benchmarks that sold the gpu were done when 970 was released. Those games don't use or don't need 4 full GB of VRAM and that's the reason the benchs on release draw a really good product comparing 970 with 980.

Frametimes in games that full need 4 GB are a different tale. And you can't really see this problem if virtually every AAA game nowadays is forced to use only 3.5 GB of your 970 gpu.

 

[AngryPuppy]

You buy a coat. It's a state-of-the-art coat, that's advertised as having a kind of insulation that keeps you warm all the way from 50°F to -20°F. Then later, it turns out that the coat's manufacturer lied: the coat technically does have that kind of insulation, but some of the insulation is of a much crappier variety than the rest, and it doesn't trap air and keep in heat like the manufacturer obviously implied. You complain.

But your friend goes, "Hah, what's your problem? You've been wearing that coat for weeks, and it's been keeping you warm like a champ. Now you're complaining just because you heard some abstract science-y stuff that you don't even understand? All the coat's reviews say it keeps people warm just fine! Silly sheeple!"

But it's only November. Of course the coat has kept you warm so far; it hasn't gotten that cold yet! But as you get into December, the temperature is going to get much colder, and the coat isn't going to perform as advertised at the temperatures that are coming.

But when you point this out, you friend goes, "Did you seriously think a coat would always keep you warm no matter how cold it got? Permanent cold-proofing is a myth! What if it gets even colder than -20°F in January or February? Or what if we set off a new ice age? Your coat was never going to keep you cold forever, in every possible circumstance!"

You try to point out that you never expected the coat to keep you warm in every possible circumstance, forever into the future; you only expected it to perform as advertised. But your friend is too busy congratulating himself on being smarter than a sheeple like you, and he doesn't hear you.

This comparison doesn't work at all. The 970 was tested under the most extreme conditions possible and came out on top of everything at the time of release in that price range. If you want to use the coat analogy, it's like it's keeping you warm in winter and will keep you warm next winter but you're not sure if it'll keep you as warm as you want.

 

[AngryPuppy]

Benchmarks that sold the gpu were done when 970 was released. Those games don't use or don't need 4 full GB of VRAM and that's the reason the benchs on release draw a really good product comparing 970 with 980.

Frametimes in games that full need 4 GB are a different tale. And you can't really see this problem if virtually every AAA game nowadays is forced to use only 3.5 GB of your 970 gpu.

Then maybe let's come back to this when these 4 GB required games come out and the 970 starts cratering in performance. Right now it's all false outrage because it has consistently killed every game coming out.

 

[Bananajama]

It's hardly false outrage AngryPuppy

It's a valid concern

And one that customers shouldn't be having if they'd been given the information up front

Why not take a step back and understand people are annoyed even if you're not. And there is a genuine reason for it. Even if you don't see it

And stop trying to wind people up for the sake of it

 

[Norik]

They designed the card in this way so any 980s they made that came out defective could be easily turned into 970s. A cost saving measure.

Thanks for the explanation, shitty thing to do i'm still happy with my 970 but my trust in Nvidia is gone.

 

[MaLDo]

Then maybe let's come back to this when these 4 GB required games come out and the 970 starts cratering in performance. Right now it's all false outrage because it has consistently killed every game coming out.

But we have the info now. Please.

 

[Skux]

The benchmarks sold everyone on the card. Those benchmarks haven't changed.

Yeah they have. They are invalid, because they were based on the assumption of 4GB of uniformly performing VRAM.

 

[Tertullian]

This comparison doesn't work at all. The 970 was tested under the most extreme conditions possible and came out on top of everything at the time of release in that price range. If you want to use the coat analogy, it's like it's keeping you warm in winter and will keep you warm next winter but you're not sure if it'll keep you as warm as you want.

The 970 was tested at a time when most games and real-world applications do not yet target 4gb of VRAM usage for high/ultra settings at 1080p. Very soon, we will be living in a time when many games do.

Actually, why it took so many weeks before tests uncovered the the severe stuttering and horrible frame times that result from >3.5gb usage is sort of baffling. Why didn't they discover it until a few weeks or months after release?

 

[Pop On Arrival]

Then maybe let's come back to this when these 4 GB required games come out and the 970 starts cratering in performance. Right now it's all false outrage because it has consistently killed every game coming out.

Gee, I never looked at it like that. Maybe Nvidias blatant lie wasn't so bad after all! I guess I'll take a "wait and see" approach if Nvidias misinformation really does fuck me over in a couple of years.

or I, and hopefully a bunch of other 970 owners tell them to go fuck themselves.

 

[CyanideFuse]

What the whole point of this refers to is that the card could suffer significantly sooner rather than later due to the way the 4GB VRAM has been segmented and is addressed.

Decent performance in a game at 3.4GB that suddenly starts to suffer frame time spikes / stutters because it then creeps over 3.5GB. Isn't this what people have been discovering?

It depends on how you feel about the performance degradation. Some games might not suffer as much when this usage changes but others might suffer greatly.

Because of the configuration there is far more chance of this occurring with a 970 as has been shown.

 

[AngryPuppy]

Yeah they have. They are invalid, because they were based on the assumption of 4GB of uniformly performing VRAM.

They aren't invalid and they weren't based on any assumptions, they were based on cold hard data and the data says that they killed all the tests they were given. Nvidia could label it 2 gigajigs of video ram or whatever they want, all that matters is the performance. How does this perceived lack of VRAM actually affect you right now, and how do you think it will actually affect you in the future? Like I said, if a game comes out that gets totally fucked performance and the 980 vastly outperforms it, I'll concede. But that hasn't happened yet and I don't think it ever will.

 

[pestul]

Then maybe let's come back to this when these 4 GB required games come out and the 970 starts cratering in performance. Right now it's all false outrage because it has consistently killed every game coming out.

Did you ignore the part about the issue being discovered by gamers in recently released titles? They found a performance issue igniting the flame. It's not manufactured. And going forward we really don't know what to expect given nvidias shady past of driver/IQ modifications.

 

[LilJoka]

They aren't invalid and they weren't based on any assumptions, they were based on cold hard data and the data says that they killed all the tests they were given. Nvidia could label it 2 gigajigs of video ram or whatever they want, all that matters is the performance. How does this perceived lack of VRAM actually affect you right now, and how do you think it will actually affect you in the future? Like I said, if a game comes out that gets totally fucked performance and the 980 vastly outperforms it, I'll concede. But that hasn't happened yet and I don't think it ever will.

As someone who spent £300 on a GPU, you really think there is any point in taking that risk when we are entitled to a refund under EU Law?

 

[AngryPuppy]

Did you ignore the part about the issue being discovered by gamers in recently released titles? They found a performance issue igniting the flame. It's not manufactured. And going forward we really don't know what to expect giving nvidias shady past of driver/IQ modifications.

The tests that matter are real-world scenarios, not pushing the card into very narrow and very specific circumstances like what was done here. It's like the iPhone 6 bending thing where people basically broke the damn thing on purpose and then said it was Apple's fault. Like I said, when a game or even benchmark comes out and the 980 totally obliterates the 970 because of this .5gb issue, I'll admit there's a problem.

 

[AngryPuppy]

As someone who spent £300 on a GPU, you really think there is any point in taking that risk when we are entitled to a refund under EU Law?

If you can get a refund and find a better performing card for the money, go for it.

 

[Bananajama]

The tests that matter are real-world scenarios, not pushing the card into very narrow and very specific circumstances like what was done here. It's like the iPhone 6 bending thing where people basically broke the damn thing on purpose and then said it was Apple's fault. Like I said, when a game or even benchmark comes out and the 980 totally obliterates the 970 because of this .5gb issue, I'll admit there's a problem.

And why should the customer who wasn't given the full facts on purchase have to wait till then to find out.

You're completely missing the point

 

[AngryPuppy]

And why should the customer who wasn't given the full facts on purchase have to wait till then to find out.

You're completely missing the point

Since when was there any guarantee that a video card would still kick ass 2 or even 3 years down the road? You buy it for how it is when it's released. I don't care what the info is, the benchmarks are all that matters and that's why everyone bought them. If you've been using it for several months and now decide you want a refund, tough shit, you don't get one. The tech specs were correct (downgraded .5gb is still .5gb), you don't get to redefine what constitutes "full facts" just because you want some cash out of this.

 

[jordyn11]

The tests that matter are real-world scenarios, not pushing the card into very narrow and very specific circumstances like what was done here. Like I said, when a game or even benchmark comes out and the 980 totally obliterates the 970 because of this .5gb issue, I'll admit there's a problem.

What does any other model's performance comparison have to do with misinformation around product specs which may or may not influence a purchasing decision? The problem here has nothing to do with performance in the real world, isolated benchmarks or comparisons to other cards. It is simply around consumer rights and breaches of those rights in this case. But hey please let us know when you admit there is a problem so we can all rest easier.

 

[Bananajama]

Since when was there any guarantee that a video card would still kick ass 2 or even 3 years down the road? You buy it for how it is when it's released. I don't care what the info is, the benchmarks are all that matters and that's why everyone bought them. If you've been using it for several months and now decide you want a refund, tough shit, you don't get one.

Still missing the point

Shills gonna shill

 

[HT UK]

Overclockers are accepting returns - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=27557332&postcount=5028

 

[LilJoka]

Overclockers are accepting returns - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=27557332&postcount=5028

- Gigabyte: Will not accept returns, but have not come to a final decision. As such OcUK shall still take them back and cover all the cost ourselves.
- MSI: Want to still think about it and decide next week. OcUK is fed up of waiting and as such will take back cards now and we shall cover the cost ourselves.
- Palit: Refuse to take returns, so OcUK shall cover the cost ourselves.

Love it how they think they are doing a good deed, but its UK law for them to do this.

 

[LilJoka]

I understand, but at least it's not hitting the system RAM, no?



"Suffered" is perhaps a strange choice in word if practical performance differences are likely to be minimal and any benchmarks done when the card is released is still likely to be valid today.

The video RAM segmentation is disappointing, yes, but I think I only care about what a card can do for me right now, and the card certainly satisfies that judging from what I have seen.

Just my two cents.

Look, 2 weeks ago, here are the posts that led to NVIDIA admitting a "problem".
http://www.overclock.net/t/1535502/gtx-970s-can-only-use-3-5gb-of-4gb-vram-issue

If the anecdotal evidence listed here doesnt align with the word "suffered" then there is no more discussion to be had.

 

[ISee]

Since when was there any guarantee that a video card would still kick ass 2 or even 3 years down the road? You buy it for how it is when it's released. I don't care what the info is, the benchmarks are all that matters and that's why everyone bought them. If you've been using it for several months and now decide you want a refund, tough shit, you don't get one. The tech specs were correct (downgraded .5gb is still .5gb), you don't get to redefine what constitutes "full facts" just because you want some cash out of this.

Nobody is complaining because the gtx 970 won't kick ass in 3 years. Most of us are long enough in PC gaming to know that already. The problem is that you are wrong with one very important point, the tech specs were not correct in the first place.

-The actual number of ROPs is 56 , not 64 this was corrected on the 26th of january 2015 by Nvidia . The same applies to the L2 cache, which does not hold the first reported 2 MiByte but 'only' about 1,792 MiByte . Considering effective pixel fill rate , this corresponds to even only 52 ROPs.

-NVIDIA implemented a memmory managment system that tries to take full advantage of the first 3,5gb VRAM and then later on add another 0,5 gb VRAM when absolutely necessary.In this mode, two memory controllers must share the same block L2 cache , performance is correspondingly lower. NVIDIA tries to proofe that the loose is not even worth mentioning but that is at least questionable.

Thech specs were wrong and costumers were given false Informations before buying the card.

 

[derExperte]

The tech specs were correct

They weren't. See ROPs.

Also comments like

The people bitching about this have no life, seriously.

are just embarrassing. What are you trying to do? And why? Would be a ban in any console thread btw.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

They weren't. See ROPs.

As an SLI G1 970 owner, reading that post annoys me. It's an issue. It might not be world changing but we are here to discuss it and some need to understand that as an enthusiast, performance is king.

 

[AngryPuppy]

As an SLI G1 970 owner, reading that post annoys me. It's an issue. It might not be world changing but we are here to discuss it and some need to understand that as an enthusiast, performance is king.

And the performance is great. End of story. Even if you can get a refund you won't find a card as good for the price.

 

[potam]

And the performance is great. End of story. Even if you can get a refund you won't find a card as good for the price.

And you're either dumb as fuck or trolling. End of story.

 

[gogogow]

And you're either dumb as fuck or trolling. End of story.

Eh....no need to talk like that to him. I can understand it from both sides. I have a G1 970 too. Bought it for €380. I'm not sure what to do, but I wish Nvidia would come out and make another statement. It's like they are just shrugging it off. I'm not too fond of their "here are some benchmarrks, now deal with it" statement.

 

[Naked Snake]

Retailers and AIC partners are taking all the heat right now. NV really needs to come up with a plan.

Perfectly Functional GTX 970 Cards Being Returned Over Memory Controversy

In what is a major fallout of the GeForce GTX 970 memory allocation controversy, leading retailers in the EU are reporting returns of perfectly functional GTX 970 cards citing "false advertising." Heise.de reports that NVIDIA is facing a fierce blowback from retailers and customers over incorrect specs. Heise comments that the specifications "cheating could mean the greatest damage to the reputation of the company's history."

I hope this hurts Nvidia real good. It's like companies don't learn that bad PR in the social media age can cause massive damage (see: Xbone reveal/launch and the fallout that followed).

Hitler reacts to 970 issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNGi06cq_pQ

"nVidia: The way it's meant to be gimped."

LOL LOL LOL.

Sharing this on Facebook/Twitter with the status "Fuck you #Nvidia"

Any reaction besides blatant outrage and dragging nvidia through the goddamn mud is unacceptable. These fucks blatantly lied and were dishonest up until they very end when they got caught. Just disgusting shit all around. Fuck Nvidias CEO and his stupid leather jacket. How about you develop some actual integrity, you fuck.

I'm living/working in a 3rd world shithole right now and I bought a 970 here for the price of a 980, pretty much. So yeah, I'm fumin'

I know that feel bro, same here. Except that I'm NOT working anymore, I saved up the money to buy the card from little jobs I did here and there, and it was the first GPU I bought in over a decade. What a way to sour me on PC gaming just when I decided to get back into it after a long ass hiatus.

Nvidia apologists can fuck off.

 

[potam]

Eh....no need to talk like that to him. I can understand it from both sides. I have a G1 970 too. Bought it for €380. I'm not sure what to do, but I wish Nvidia would come out and make another statement. It's like they are just shrugging it off. I'm not too fond of their "here are some benchmarrks, now deal with it" statement.

He's obviously ignoring valid points people are making, evidence that has been posted here and on other forums, and just overall downplaying people's valid concerns and complaints.

But above all: he's defending a corporation who willingly lied to their customers in order to sell more product. That makes no fucking sense and deserves no respect.

 

[nowarning]

I don't get it, did they lie intentionally or what? I mean surely there as no way on earth they could expect to get away with it? Makes me think it's more likely to "just" be a fuck up on their part and not a blatant lie?

Like I said before I'm 100% happy with my 970 anyway, I will be upgrading this year regardless, but it is still a great card. For me playing @ 1080 it is spot on.

 

[pahamrick]

I don't get it, did they lie intentionally or what? I mean surely there as no way on earth they could expect to get away with it? Makes me think it's more likely to "just" be a fuck up on their part and not a blatant lie?

It seems they pulled this once before and it didn't blow up as badly, but I'm guessing because the 970 just blew up in terms of popularity once it came to light too many people weren't willing to be quiet about the issues.

 

[LilJoka]

It seems they pulled this once before and it didn't blow up as badly, but I'm guessing because the 970 just blew up in terms of popularity once it came to light too many people weren't willing to be quiet about the issues.

Not just that, the 970 has been bought by a lot of the higher end community compared to the 660.

 

[Parhelion69]

The 970 performs fine, for now, in a year, when games with hq texture packs will need 4GB, then we're screwed, since we won't have good performance in this scenario. So I'll have to run the game with lower quality textures, that's what I'm afraid of. Now my card doesn't seem that future proof...

And Nvidia lying about the specs IS false advertising, doesn't EU punish this kind of behaviour?

 

[Gruso]

Then maybe let's come back to this when these 4 GB required games come out and the 970 starts cratering in performance. Right now it's all false outrage because it has consistently killed every game coming out.

Like I said, if a game comes out that gets totally fucked performance and the 980 vastly outperforms it, I'll concede. But that hasn't happened yet and I don't think it ever will.

Both of these examples have been demonstrated. In this thread.

 

[vandalhearts]

Eh....no need to talk like that to him. I can understand it from both sides. I have a G1 970 too. Bought it for €380. I'm not sure what to do, but I wish Nvidia would come out and make another statement. It's like they are just shrugging it off. I'm not too fond of their "here are some benchmarrks, now deal with it" statement.

i have the same card, bought at the same price, and i agree with you. I decided to stuck with it, even though i feel deceived.

 

[Candescence]

While the degree of how much Nvidia 'lied' is up to debate, I'd honestly say unless a better card with a similar price point comes up, the 970 is still a fantastic card for that kind of price for me to upgrade to. I have a GTX 560 (and it has served me quite well, to be fair). for pete's sake. A 970, warts and all, would be a phenomenal upgrade right now by comparison.

 

[Salaadin]

I'm not sure what to do either. If I had a clear idea of when AMDs next offering will release, id probably jump ship but right now I feel stuck with nvidia.

I want the card that was advertised to me back in September. I can try to return the 970 and get a 980 but that is giving nvidia more money and I don't want to do that. I can wait for AMD but the longer I wait, the less chance I have of getting a full refund on my 970.

Fucking sucks

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'll upgrade sooner than expected but gotta wait for something big. Maybe even Titan 2, who knows. Second hanf 970s will be amazing value in over the next year, heh.

 

[pahamrick]

Not just that, the 970 has been bought by a lot of the higher end community compared to the 660.

Yeah, that definitely helped as well. Some of the methodology/testing used by people have been better than most of the hardware reviewers.

 

[GHG]

It seems they pulled this once before and it didn't blow up as badly, but I'm guessing because the 970 just blew up in terms of popularity once it came to light too many people weren't willing to be quiet about the issues.

They were 100% transparent about it with the 660 and 660ti though.

Therefore people were able to make informed decisions on their purchases.

 

[James1o1o]

As someone who spent £300 on a GPU, you really think there is any point in taking that risk when we are entitled to a refund under EU Law?

Get the refund. Then ask yourself, "what is the best card I can get for under £300"

Oh...that's right... the GTX 970.

 

[nowarning]

It seems they pulled this once before and it didn't blow up as badly, but I'm guessing because the 970 just blew up in terms of popularity once it came to light too many people weren't willing to be quiet about the issues.

Ah OK, which card was that with? I mean is there any proof that it was an intentional lie, it was a genuine cock-up or is it all a bit up in the air still?

 

[pahamrick]

They were 100% transparent about it with the 660 and 660ti though.

Therefore people were able to make informed decisions on their purchases.

Interesting. Wonder why they bothered lying about it with the 970, then.

 

[AngryPuppy]

Get the refund. Then ask yourself, "what is the best card I can get for under £300"

Oh...it's STILL the GTX 970 across all resolutions and game settings.

Yep. All this whining is so pointless.

 

[gai_shain]

Get the refund. Then ask yourself, "what is the best card I can get for under £300"

Oh...it's STILL the GTX 970 across all resolutions and game settings.

That is not the point, not sure why some people dont understand that

 

[dumbo]

I don't get it, did they lie intentionally or what? I mean surely there as no way on earth they could expect to get away with it? Makes me think it's more likely to "just" be a fuck up on their part and not a blatant lie?

IMHO, kindof.

If you ask group 1 to make a card, and group 2 to document the card - it's possible for something to go wrong. "Bad stuff happens" /shrug.

However, this was a major launch of a new card, and this feature appears somewhat key to how the 970 was going to be received by customers - if it didn't work, then the card would be a turkey. (and I assume "suits" were watching the reception to determine if this technique should be used in future cards)

So, whilst it's entirely plausible that the documentation group made an innocent mistake, it seems rather implausible that NVIDIA didn't realise this when the reviews appeared...

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

Look, 2 weeks ago, here are the posts that led to NVIDIA admitting a "problem".
http://www.overclock.net/t/1535502/gtx-970s-can-only-use-3-5gb-of-4gb-vram-issue

If the anecdotal evidence listed here doesnt align with the word "suffered" then there is no more discussion to be had.

Interesting, though, I suspect a bunch of things that were in the past will still stand today.

Still, the card is still great when within parameters, no?

 

[HT UK]

Will be returning both of my 970s and just getting a single 980