Do you think that Nvidia should recall 970's? (and Nvidia's response)

[sTITh]

I honestly think, NVIDIA shouldn´t recall or rebate!

Everyone who bought it intentionally did it because of reviews from sources like LTT, and just because a few numbers in the datasheet are wrong, doesn´t change a anything!

The benchmark results will not change just because we now know that the numbers are wrong!

 

And everyone who "just bought a PC" that has an GTX970 built into it, will not care anyways... maybe, never even know that this happened!

 

Everyone who bought the GTX970 just because it had written on it "64 ROPS, 2048 L2 cache", and didn´t do the homework to check how the card performs, is dumb anyways!

 

KR sTITh
 

[leoprozczinski]

I've been following this on Overclock.net, and in the 80+ pages of the thread I've read, I haven't seen any actual proof that this causes stuttering or any real issues. Some guy posted a bunch of videos showing shadow of mordor running, using 3.8GB of memory, without stuttering.

 

If you can't tell that there's an actual problem in games, you're basically just complaining that some numbers aren't high enough.

 

Yes, but this is today. Imagine the drop in about 6 months. Or 1 year. There are people who bought this card to last over 3 years. 

[eisenklad]

thread is TLDR

 

imo

recalls for these many cards would be insane,

 

nvidia logical step would be to give free games for current users

as for current shop stocks, price cut or bundle even more games (some brands already have free games)

[maizenblue]

Nvidia should offer an upgrade for 970 owners to a 980 with its non neutered vram, sort of like evgas step up program, that would be a reasonable compromise.

I agree a recall is not likely to happen.

This is like a car company advertising an engine having 300 horsepower then people finding out it only has 250, then the company saying well your never going to drive fast enough to see the difference anyway, so who cares. You think car owners would accept that logic?

[JustCallMeVlad]

Yes, but this is today. Imagine the drop in about 6 months. Or 1 year. There are people who bought this card to last over 3 years.

Love how you can predict the future

[leoprozczinski]

People need to realize that a free game is not enough, since there are tons of users who don't even game on this cards (video/3D editing). 

[leoprozczinski]

Love how you can predict the future

 

Love how you can't look to 3 years ago and see the video cards from that year and how they work today. Now take half GB of VRAM out of them. 

[Heydan83]

I'm surprised to see how well nvidia has indoctrinated too many people that they don´t see the problem with this...

[eisenklad]

Nvidia should offer an upgrade for 970 owners to a 980 with its non neutered vram, sort of like evgas step up program, that would be a reasonable compromise.

I agree a recall is not likely to happen.

This is like a car company advertising an engine having 300 horsepower then people finding out it only has 250, then the company saying well your never going to drive fast enough to see the difference anyway, so who cares. You think car owners would accept that logic?

 

 

offer a free upgrade... :huh:

 

free games are the only viable options...or worse NVIDIA credits for the next gpu purchase(limited to nvidia cards)

 

 

sure, they shouldnt have released the cards without proper testing as in all scenarios... to make sure they got all the details

now, its just a case of jumped the gun

 

and im sure the marketing/pricing ppl didnt consult the development/production team

thus this whole fiasco

it probably went down like this

 

dev/prod leader: here's the specs on the 980 and 970 and the production costs

market/pricing:   woah, that's some nice figures... and holy sh-it thats a very low cost on a 970

dev:                   yeah, we cut down some stuff from the card.... it may affect some....**interrupted**

market: **interrupts dev guy** sure..sure... these 970 cards will sell like hotcakes

 

and so on and so  forth

[JustCallMeVlad]

Love how you can't look to 3 years ago and see the video cards from that year and how they work today. Now take half GB of VRAM out of them.

Go back 3 generations. Can a 570 play today's games very well? Then who cares how a 970 will play games in 2018

[gijoe50000]

Si is it just the reference cards? or every card ? Evga, GB etc...

[Bill Murray]

Offer gtx 980 upgrade for $100 plus return of your 970. Solved.

[Doughnutnator]

Si is it just the reference cards? or every card ? Evga, GB etc...

Every 970

[Bill Murray]

Whether it's does or doesn't pose an immediate impact on most games currently, the fact still remains, the marketing information for the ROPS and L2 cache is false information.

I actually base my decision to by things using all available and reliable information.

I'm sure there were similar cases off this happening before. I'm love to know what the legal end results were.

[Wintyr]

Just wanted to know your opinion guys.

I paid more than $380 USD for a "64 ROPS, 2048 L2 cache" device.

Now Nvidia is saying "oops, sorry, it's actually 56ROPS and 1792KB of cache".

(Article: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970)

What you guys think

I find it similar to the Intel Pentium stuff where they lied to customers.

   this is an example of what happens when you go over 3.5 gigs someone eles made this video not me. i assume its accurate not 100% sure

[Razzaa]

   this is an example of what happens when you go over 3.5 gigs someone eles made this video not me. i assume its accurate not 100% sure

Lol wat? That isnt caused by Vram usage. That looks like unstable OC to me.

[eisenklad]

if they did not disable that L2 cache chip, they would have no issues

but it probably would have push its retail prices even higher...

 

which would have made their 960 desirable...

 

oh well, 4 more days till i buy a msi 970 its still a worthy upgrade from 560ti which i barely max out at times

[jkraghify]

I dont have a 970, I have a GTX770

 

If someone told me it only had 4 cuda cores instead of the advertised 1536 I wouldn't give a fuck because it performs like I want it to, just like the benchmarks showed before I bought it.

 

So you buy cards based ONLY on the performance and benchmarks? If NVidia made the GTX 990 with only 512 KB of vram but played BF4 at 1000 FPS you would buy it? I wouldn't, but that's because I want to have confidence my nearly $400 card will last me more than 3 years. With how games are using Vram today, the 3.5 gig problem isn't an issue. I invested in a 4 gig card because SLI and multimonitor works well with 4 Gigs (rather than 3 Gig 780)

 

3.5 GB is still better than 3 GB, but I paid for 4 GB. You paid for a 770, I don't see why you can tell me I shouldn't ask NVidia to give me what I bought.

 

You bought X, you got X.

 

I bought Y, I got Z. You are telling me that I should be happy with Z, even though I paid for Y.

 

This makes no sense.

[CthulDude]

*Newsflash* Everyone using the "automobile horsepower" analogy, is wrong. Say a sedan has 300 claimed HP. That is at flywheel, not wheels. Once you factor in FWD, RWD or AWD it creates a drivetrain drag on the initial horse power. FWD is usually a loss of up to 10% HP and it can go all the way up to a 30% HP loss with AWD vehicles. So your analogy, if anything, would be a good defense for Nvidia's dishonesty. 

 

 

I guess i will put in my 2 cents. The only practical way I see the 970 problem affecting someone is if they're playing AAA titles at higher resolutions or with max AA settings. I feel for them on that level, but at the same time the 970 is a fantastic card for its price. 

[jkraghify]

*Newsflash* Everyone using the "automobile horsepower" analogy, is wrong. Say a sedan has 300 claimed HP. That is at flywheel, not wheels. Once you factor in FWD, RWD or AWD it creates a drivetrain drag on the initial horse power. FWD is usually a loss of up to 10% HP and it can go all the way up to a 30% HP loss with AWD vehicles. So your analogy, if anything, would be a good defense for Nvidia's dishonesty. 

 

 

I guess i will put in my 2 cents. The only practical way I see the 970 problem affecting someone is if they're playing AAA titles at higher resolutions or with max AA settings. I feel for them on that level, but at the same time the 970 is a fantastic card for its price. 

 

very true, the 970 is a fantastic card for the price; however, I bought it thinking it was actually better than it is. Now I am stuck with a $700 mistake. Had I known of this issue beforehand, I might not have gone multi-monitor.

[ResonantPixel]

They could just give everyone with a 970 a ~£10~ gift certificate for steam?

[Enderman]

So you buy cards based ONLY on the performance and benchmarks? If NVidia made the GTX 990 with only 512 KB of vram but played BF4 at 1000 FPS you would buy it? I wouldn't, but that's because I want to have confidence my nearly $400 card will last me more than 3 years. With how games are using Vram today, the 3.5 gig problem isn't an issue. I invested in a 4 gig card because SLI and multimonitor works well with 4 Gigs (rather than 3 Gig 780)

 

3.5 GB is still better than 3 GB, but I paid for 4 GB. You paid for a 770, I don't see why you can tell me I shouldn't ask NVidia to give me what I bought.

 

You bought X, you got X.

 

I bought Y, I got Z. You are telling me that I should be happy with Z, even though I paid for Y.

 

This makes no sense.

It does make sense.

If the gtx990 gets 1000fps with only 512kb of vram that means that the vram is not a bottleneck.

 

In this case the 512kb would be enough for ultra textures, which means it will be enough for several years because games dont suddenly jump from using 2GB vram to 8GB in a single year.

So if it had 512kb and used half then I would buy it, but if it uses all 512 and was on the verge of bottlenecking then I would not.

[Peter_5]

I think that they should refund 50 dollars or one AAA game to everyone who purchased one and make sure that all retailers show it as a 3.5 + 0.5 GB card. Some people bought the card because they wanted to upgrade from their 780s 3GB buffer, so they are really pissed off right now. False advertising and misleading the customer has never been cool. I'm not saying the 970 doesn't perform well for its price, but I think they should have made that clear, instead of wait and see if someone notices. This is going to be a big hit for  their smug ego and I think it's their own fault. Intel doesn't sell you a 4 GHz quad-core processor ,wait months after release for someone else to discover that if you put the CPU under load the fourth core only reaches 2 GHz, and say "but look it still performs great!" - I know it still performs great, but that's because you haven't changed anything since you launched it. It would have performed better if everything was running at its advertised speeds. Saving on manufacturing costs and trying to get away with misleading the customer is not right and will never be. All manufacturers should know this by now.  I'm saying all this as someone who hasn't bought their products, just from an outside perspective.

[jkraghify]

It does make sense.

If the gtx990 gets 1000fps with only 512kb of vram that means that the vram is not a bottleneck.

 

In this case the 512kb would be enough for ultra textures, which means it will be enough for several years because games dont suddenly jump from using 2GB vram to 8GB in a single year.

So if it had 512kb and used half then I would buy it, but if it uses all 512 and was on the verge of bottlenecking then I would not.

 

Now, what if because you thought you had 512 kb Vram, you thought it was ok to go multi monitor and now you use 400KB Vram, then Nvidia tells you "oops, it actually can only use 450 kb at normal speeds"?

 

Wouldn't you be mad?

 

I guess not.

 

Well guess what: I am.

[Enderman]

Now, what if because you thought you had 512 kb Vram, you thought it was ok to go multi monitor and now you use 400KB Vram, then Nvidia tells you "oops, it actually can only use 450 kb at normal speeds"?

 

Wouldn't you be mad?

 

I guess not.

 

Well guess what: I am.

did you not read what I said earlier?

we are talking about the false specs, not the vram issue.

There is too much misinformation on the vram which will eventually get sorted out.

 

My poaint is that tehre is no need to recall a GPU just for a mistake in the advertised specifications.