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

[Frankie]

You didnt buy it because it had 64 ROPs.

You didnt buy it because it had 2048MB cache.

You didnt buy it because it had 4GB of memory.

 

You bought it because it performs exceptionally well in games at a very low price.

You bought it because it works.

You bought it because thousands of others recommend it.

 

If none of these stupid articles had existed everyone would be having a great time with their new 970 unaware of any issues.

The fact that you didn't even realize that it had 3.5GB of memory, or only 56 ROPs, or whatever when you bought it shows that the specs are INSIGNIFICANT

 

What matters is the performance, and that is what you paid for. And the performance is excellent.

 

This. Big YouTubers didn't notice anything and they did synthetic benchmarks, game benchmarks and what not. Everybody was happy with the card, one article pops up and everybody is suddenly running around with pitchforks. 

[Enderman]

But I paid for 64ROPS, 2048KB of cache and 4GB of VRAM. Nvidia sold me that. Yes, good performance indeed, but I paid for "specific specifications".

This isn't lollipop, or a dirty pancake, this is a $300+ card.

Oh so you would rather have a GPU with 64ROPs and 2048 kb that performs worse than a 970?

You didn't pay for specifications, you paid for a GPU. Nobody should give a fuck about specifications because specifications does not equal performance.

 

If you actually cared about specifications then you would have tested the card when you got it to check that everything was like the exact specs, which you obviously didnt do since you only realize this when someone else tells you.

What you did do was play games and benchmarks to see how well it performs, because thats what matters.

[Whorax]

Yeah I can see that. I think the people that really care about the issue that doesn't seems to effect everyone would be a firmware update that solved the issue. And I'm just chilling out here with my  580s with 1.5GB of VRAM playing TF2 

I wouldn't be as upset about this except for the fact that I plan on using a 1440p monitor for gaming soon and using my old 1080p for other stuff that isn't gaming. And I believe VRAM kind of matters with display resolutions.

[Briggsy]

the reason people are aware of the issue is because gamers noticed hitching and stuttering in heavy vram use. this caused someone to test the vram and find the problem, which then caused nvidia to fess up.

 

if it wasn't a problem in the first place, no one would have noticed and we would all be ignorant, thinking it was a driver issue. From now on, all new nvidia graphic cards are going to be picked over with a fine tooth comb, but that in itself will likely mean Nvidia won't try monkeying around with cutting corners again for a while.

[Opask]

I feel like this is turning into a massive war. I don't own a 970 and I do feel for you guys who do.

But that being said it is an absolutely amazing card.

You paid what seems like a really small amount compared to previous generations and got something that was great.

Again I really feel for you guys but this issue isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be.

Everyone paid for it knowing it performed amazingly and it still does.

This just feels like people jumping on this new nVidia hate train for no reason.

Think about how well your PC is performing with this card before you start getting all mad about it.

[Doughnutnator]

Oh so you would rather have a GPU with 64ROPs and 2048 kb that performs worse than a 970?

You didn't pay for specifications, you paid for a GPU. Nobody should give a fuck about specifications because specifications does not equal performance.

If you actually cared about specifications then you would have tested the card when you got it to check that everything was like the exact specs, which you obviously didnt do since you only realize this when someone else tells you.

What you did do was play games and benchmarks to see how well it performs, because thats what matters.

A Maxwell GPU with 64 ROPS and 2048KB of cache will perform the same or more than a 970.

No, I didn't enjoyed the card. Take a look at geforce forums, tons of issues since launch. It took me like 1 month to make the card work properly (Changing from W7 to W8.1 and even buying an SSD)

Yes, I realized this. So? That doesn't mean that Nvidia didn't lied to me and to every 970 owner before yesterday.

This is false advertsing.

You don't care? Fine. I care, because they sold me a product with certain specifications, I want that. That's it.

To put this on perspective, this is similar to someone that buys a car that says "brakes can stop the car at 100km/h", the guy goes at 100km/h, tries to break, breaks doesn't work as advertised and the guy dies thanks to this. Later the company says "oops sorry, brakes can stop the card at 50km/h, not 100"

You don't say "well, you buy a car because you want to go fast and you want power, not because you want brakes"

I'm 100% sure that if this happened to AMD, everybody and their mother would be outside AMD headquarters with giant forks

[TheRetiredSlave]

To put this on perspective, this is similar to someone that buys a car that says "brakes can stop the car at 100km/h", the guy goes at 100km/h, tries to break, breaks doesn't work as advertised and the guy dies thanks to this. Later the company says "oops sorry, brakes can stop the card at 50km/h, not 100"

 

This isn't anything like that.

 

You knew exactly how the card performs when you bought it, and you received exactly the performance that you paid for. You received exactly the same performance that every single tech reviewer showed you, and you received exactly the same performance as every other GTX 970 owner did.

 

This would be more like buying a car that says "brakes can stop the car at 100 Km/h", every automotive reviewer tests the car and finds that the brakes work at 100 Km/h, the guy reads and understands the tests done by the reviewers, then the guy drives at 100 Km/h, tries to brake, the car stops, then he finds out that the brakes on the car are 1 mm smaller in diameter than the official marketing specsheet, then he complains about the manufacturer lying to him.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a bad thing for Nvidia (Edit: And Nvidia should respond), but I don't think you got ripped off. You knew how it performs; you knew it's price. You have no independent way of verifying that the specs are in fact correct or not (I mean, all I can see is that it's a silverish rectangle on a circuit board). All you can independently verify is it's performance. Does your 970 perform like a 970? Yes? Good.

[Doughnutnator]

This isn't anything like that.

You knew exactly how the card performs when you bought it, and you received exactly the performance that you paid for. You received exactly the same performance that every single tech reviewer showed you, and you received exactly the same performance as every other GTX 970 owner did.

This would be more like buying a car that says "brakes can stop the car at 100 Km/h", every automotive reviewer tests the car and finds that the brakes work at 100 Km/h, the guy reads and understands the tests done by the reviewers, then the guy drives at 100 Km/h, tries to brake, the car stops, then he finds out that the brakes on the car are 1 mm smaller in diameter than the official marketing specsheet, then he complains about the manufacturer lying to him.

Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a bad thing for Nvidia, but I don't think you got ripped off. You knew how it performs; you knew it's price. You have no independent way of verifying that the specs are in fact correct or not (I mean, all I can see is that it's a silverish rectangle on a circuit board). All you can independently verify is it's performance. Does your 970 perform like a 970? Yes? Good.

I know that, I don't want to fight with anyone, is just my opinion.

Is false advertising after all, and I don't get why you Americans are so soft about this, when a guy sued Red Bull because didn't gave him wings.

Yes, performs as a 970, it's a 970, but doesn't have what Nvidia said it has at launch. If the card performs good or not, they lied, that's a fact, and I think that they have to do something.

If you look it from certain points of view, they lied to you and you paid for a product that doesn't have what they tell you it has.

If specs don't matter, then why Nvidia puts them in their page?

I know the card has nice performance (as long as you don't go above 3.5GB) But this is more a legal issue.

[d3sl91]

And now we have people saying the 970 is a POS and not to buy it to new system builders.

 

The reality is, the 970 was and still is the exact same card that everyone loves and enjoys. Its an AMAZING card for the money, and works exactly as all the benchmarks say it does. 

 

 

In perspective, every single AMD card I have owned (I have owned way more AMD than Nvidia) has had crashing, overheating, BSOD etc issues on multiple systems/multiple cards. 

[Enderman]

A Maxwell GPU with 64 ROPS and 2048KB of cache will perform the same or more than a 970.

No, I didn't enjoyed the card. Take a look at geforce forums, tons of issues since launch. It took me like 1 month to make the card work properly (Changing from W7 to W8.1 and even buying an SSD)

Yes, I realized this. So? That doesn't mean that Nvidia didn't lied to me and to every 970 owner before yesterday.

This is false advertsing.

You don't care? Fine. I care, because they sold me a product with certain specifications, I want that. That's it.

To put this on perspective, this is similar to someone that buys a car that says "brakes can stop the car at 100km/h", the guy goes at 100km/h, tries to break, breaks doesn't work as advertised and the guy dies thanks to this. Later the company says "oops sorry, brakes can stop the card at 50km/h, not 100"

You don't say "well, you buy a car because you want to go fast and you want power, not because you want brakes"

I'm 100% sure that if this happened to AMD, everybody and their mother would be outside AMD headquarters with giant forks

That's not how it works and your analogy is completely incorrect.

 

You basically bought a car that is advertised to go 100km/h with a v6 engine.

What you got is a car that goes 100km/h with a v4 engine.

 

Did you pay for a v6 engine? No, you paid for the performance of a v6 engine.

Would you pay for a v6 engine that does 20km/h? Nope.

Would you pay for a v4 engine that does 200km/h? Sure.

[DeViLzzz]

I loved Nvidia but sorry people should be able to get refunds. There are cards that do not use the 4 GB of memory even when they should. 

[flibberdipper]

I think they should give people their money back.

[Darkman]

I think they should give people their money back.

Same.. I now somewhat wish I went after a 290x even though this 970 overclocks like no tomorrow.

[Bkomnimon]

I did in part go for the 970 due to the 4GB. I admit I did go a coupon hound round to knock a lock of price off hehe. But if I could keep it or something I would take a game or something .

[Trik'Stari]

YES, ABSOLUTELY

 

Recall and give me a free 980 for the trouble...goddamnit

[Doughnutnator]

That's not how it works and your analogy is completely incorrect.

You basically bought a car that is advertised to go 100km/h with a v6 engine.

What you got is a car that goes 100km/h with a v4 engine.

Did you pay for a v6 engine? No, you paid for the performance of a v6 engine.

Would you pay for a v6 engine that does 20km/h? Nope.

Would you pay for a v4 engine that does 200km/h? Sure.

I want the 100Km/h V6 that I paid for, that's it. Not other stuff, Nvidia offered a specific product with specific stuff with specific performance. Not a "GM204 chip with random specifications that performs kinda well in certain conditions"

It's my opinion, it's your opinion. If you're fine with companies like Nvidia lying you on expensive products, fine, your opinion.

As far as I know the extra ROPS, cache and other stuff that it's disabled on the 970 is what it makes the 980 more powerful, because it's the same GPU (GM204, and the same architecture).

Read this from @chopdok

1) The disabled ROPs do matter. While they are right about pixel fillrate bottlenecked by SM. In the case of stuff that requires ROP only, such as Anti-Aliasing its a big deal. If anyone (like myself) bought this card expecting it to take a minimal performance hit in future titles with AA on due to having more ROP, then its not the case anymore.

2) The 3.5 and 0.5 memory do not only differ in bandwith. When the GPU works with 0.5, it cannot acess 3.5 during the same cycle. Its either or. Or XOR, as the folk at annandtech pointed out in their acticle. Thus, not only acessing 0.5 is helluva slower, it also means that when 0.5 is in use, your effective bandwith for the main memory partition takes a hit too.

3) The lack of additional L2 cache can affect GPGPU performance.

4) The current benchmarks tell only one half of story. GTX 970's performance is great, and its as good as it was month ago. BUT the card's longevity is now in question. I bought this card to get the great performance now, and to be able to play with AA on for at least 2 years. But what happens when the games will need all 4 GB, and they will need them all on a high bandwith? GTX 970 is only 15% slower than GTX 980. In a year, that will be 30%. In 2 years, 45%. The more memory intensive the games become - the higher the performance difference will be. The higher the scene complexity, the more load will be put on ROP by AA. That is the sad truth about unconventional asymetric GPU desings - they are good for when they designed, but their performance falls of a cliff after a certain time. While conventional symmetrical designs scale down smoothly in performance.

5) It is clear now that in order to card work well, high degrees of driver/API/OS optimisation is needed. What will happen when the next generation of cards comes along, and nVidia will no longer want to spend money on optimisations for the new games for GTX 970? What happens when a game comes out that will not work correctly with additional RAM, and driver improvements will need to be made for it to work properly with GTX 970. Will nVidia spend their resources optimising for that game, given the fact that the optimisation is only need for GTX 970. Do you think they will spend as much effort for GTX 970 drivers, at the expensive of their other products, seeing as that kind of optimisation is only needed for GTX 970?

Main problem is not the design of GTX 970. It is what it is. Main problem is despite the card's performance, I would not have bought it because I am unwilling to be a lab rat for nVidia's experiments with unconventional GPU design. If I knew about this, I would not have both GTX 970 - not because of its performance, its the same GPU either way. But because of the concerns stated above.

[cloclo8003]

If they don't offer a recall or a compensation that makes sense, I'm not buying Nvidia GPU's anymore.

[papeles]

Wile i agree that some compensation would be the best thing here, what i don't understand is why alot (most) people are complaining about performance issues. Tbh, the game that uses that much ram is rare. No, i'm not saying that nvidia deserves to be excused, i really don't, but people still have a beast of a performer for a good price. You will recall and then what? get a 290x instead (assuming u don't wanna pay more for a 980)? 

In real life apps/games, the 970 is still worth.

[Teemslo]

You didnt buy it because it had 64 ROPs.

You didnt buy it because it had 2048MB cache.

You didnt buy it because it had 4GB of memory.

 

You bought it because it performs exceptionally well in games at a very low price.

You bought it because it works.

You bought it because thousands of others recommend it

 

If none of these stupid articles had existed everyone would be having a great time with their new 970 unaware of any issues.

The fact that you didn't even realize that it had 3.5GB of memory, or only 56 ROPs, or whatever when you bought it shows that the specs are INSIGNIFICANT

 

What matters is the performance, and that is what you paid for. And the performance is excellent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer protection laws doe not function in this manner in most US states. If you purchased a product that said it contained "x" and in reality it contained "y" then you are entitled to a full refund and should get one. 

 

[d3sl91]

Not picking on anyone in this thread, but just throwing this thought out there:

 

Do I want nvidia to fix it? Yes. 

 

Do I think they need to fix it by doing a recall? No. 

 

You got what you paid for. Does it say anywhere on the box, in the box, on the card "this unit has XX ROPs and XX L2"? 

Nope. (does it? if it does, my apologies, but i cant find that info on any of my card's boxes)

 

If someone can find official nvidia Consumer Advertising that says the specs, please link me, because Id like to see if they did say it has XX ROPs etc. 

 

You do realise that the vast majority of consumer electronics you buy, you have no idea what is inside? You do realize that many manufacturers change small details on the products without letting you know? You know that $2k+ Macbook pros come with multiple different retina panels? That one guy may get one panel and another guy get another panel? And the reality is, is that theres not much you can do about it?

 

The only way anyone really knows what anything has, is when someone digs deep into the units and lets everyone know. 

 

I don't know, maybe I am playing devil's advocate here. My gut tells me they should pay up, but then a sense of reality comes to mind of what we can expect a company to do or what they should do. ::shrugs::

[Razzaa]

I loved Nvidia but sorry people should be able to get refunds. There are cards that do not use the 4 GB of memory even when they should.

Thats not the issue at all. They do use the 4gb of vram. The last 500mb is slower.

[sylarspock]

IMO, I would have gone for the 980s instead of 970 SLI, if I knew about the RAM Limitations.
Using a 3440x1440 and planning to upgrade to 4k soon, I can asssure you my no1 pet peeve while gaming is vram.

 

So now I technically only get 3.5gb of fully functional vram and would probably have to upgrade a few months down the road when I go 4k.

[MadManMarsBar]

As an early 970 adopter ( got mine in october ) i feel deceived and lied too , they should give out a free AAA game code or refund some money back to everyone who bought one  

 

but what you have to keep in mind guys , is that both of these options are a pain in the bum to do .....

[DeViLzzz]

Thats not the issue at all. They do use the 4gb of vram. The last 500mb is slower.

Uh no there were cards pushed to the max and 4 GB of vram was not used.  I saw this posted on other sites.

[Nathan]

As someone who was planning on purchasing a 970, ill be holding onto my money until this gets sorted