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

[Real_PhillBert]

We are not saying we did not know there was a difference however a clear and honest explanation from Nvidia in their advertisements is something we deserve.

That I 100% agree with.

 

Nvidia does owe and explanation. The only remaining question is do you accept the explanations that Nvidia has already given?

[jerryeight]

Dammit guys, my notifications are exploding like new years eve

 

stahp

We should give Nvidia the same treatment on Twitter and Facebook.

[Doughnutnator]

If performance doesnt matter to you then why did you buy a 970...

This is a consumer graphics card. You're meant to GAME with it not read the specs every day to be satisfied.

The reason people bought the 970 is because it performs great, not because it was supposed to have 64 ROPs

Since youre a special case because you care more about a number on the box rather than fps in a game then you should have checked the numbers when you first got your 970.

My point is that *normal* people shouldnt return their 970 just because of a stupid number. You return it if you have a performance problem, not a "This number is off by 8 and I don't like it." problem.

Performance doesn't matter in this case, I said that, I care about performance.

Like I said: Yes, the card performs good, but that doesn't change the fact that Nvidia sold me something different than what I paid for. False advertising, simple.

What if I want the card for computing stuff or for folding? I think that in that cases, specs really matters.

It's a consumer product, that doesn't mean that i'm not going to know what is it, I have to know. And the fact that I paid for a 64ROPS, 2048 cache 4GB card that ended up beign an inferior product kinda bothers me, because they lied to me and I gave them my money for a certain product.

As far as I know, this can be used to sue Nvidia.

[SteveGrabowski]

So "Nvidia, f**k you!" then?

 

Yeah, pretty much

[Briggsy]

That is probably fair, but I also don't expect the average Joe to buy a 970 or if they do, pay enough attention to tech news to even know about this development.

 

I agree there. Most people aren't interested in whats under the hood of a car, just that they push the gas peddle and it goes vroom. 

[Real_PhillBert]

I agree there. Most people aren't interested in whats under the hood of a car, just that they push the gas peddle and it goes vroom. 

Bingo, the amount of valves is of very little importance to most people. As long as it goes.

[Crazda]

I have never seen nvidia advertise the number of rops or l2...

[jerryeight]

That I 100% agree with.

 

Nvidia does owe and explanation. The only remaining question is do you accept the explanations that Nvidia has already given?

The explanation seems reasonable given the results that we are seeing. If I knew of the differences I may have gone for an AMD card.

Nvidia and their integrity issues conceptually and literally. Sigh

[Doughnutnator]

I believe you could use this against them in court. Who knows someone might already be planning to sue them.

Yup, it would be a good idea. I don't have the money or even the age to sue them (i'm 17, living in the dirty Mexico wearing a sombrero and drinking tequila everyday)

But i'm pretty sure that in this case the customer would win. It's interesting anyways.

I would like that Luke & Linus talk about this on the WAN show, they know the industry and they have experience so their opinion would be pretty interesting...

[Real_PhillBert]

I have never seen nvidia advertise the number of rops or l2...

That is an interesting point, I just looked at the Nvidia 970 Specs on the Nvidia web site and neither the ROPS or L2 Cache is listed. I dont know if that has been taken down because of this or if it was never listed.

 

Newegg also does not list either stat for the 970's.

[d3sl91]

Look at this:

http://i59.tinypic.com/llbbr.png

I clearly see 64

BTW: Linus shared this thread in his FB page, this is awesome. Sadly nobody can access the site

That program does not properly read Maxwell, as explained in the pcper article. They found it using other programs. GPU-z doesn't take into account Maxwell's new method of being able to disable cores.

 

 

I have never seen nvidia advertise the number of rops or l2...

 

Neither have I. And that Is my question as well (that i have asked a couple time in this thread already . Can someone please show me where on the boxes or website they advertised to me, the end user, that it had xx ROP or L2 specs. The only place I see it, is when reviewers reveal what was told to them. 

 

I feel like, we are arguing about something that the only way someone found it, was by digging deep to look for it. 

 

Again, playing devils advocate here. But really, can we expect nvidia to do anything? because I still don't see that they "need" too, its more of, its already great that they are being open and forthcoming with explanations. And who knows what they will do next.

[Enderman]

Performance doesn't matter in this case, I said that, I care about performance.

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

 

Like I said: Yes, the card performs good, but that doesn't change the fact that Nvidia sold me something different than what I paid for. False advertising, simple.

What if I want the card for computing stuff or for folding? I think that in that cases, specs really matters.

It's a consumer product, that doesn't mean that i'm not going to know what is it, I have to know. And the fact that I paid for a 64ROPS, 2048 cache 4GB card that ended up beign an inferior product kinda bothers me, because they lied to me and I gave them my money for a certain product.

As far as I know, this can be used to sue Nvidia.

If you were planning to do computing or folding you would have looked at the benchmarks for computing or folding.

Then you would have realized that it performs worse than a 780ti because it has less cores, and you would have bought a 780 or 780ti.

 

But if you actually knew you wanted to do computing or folding, you would have bought something other than a cheap consumer graphics card.

 

And just fyi a lawsuit will cost you thousands of times more than any money you will get out of a false advertising claim.

[R_Golden]

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, so much this.

[Crazda]

That program does not properly read Maxwell, as explained in the pcper article. They found it using other programs. GPU-z doesn't take into account Maxwell's new method of being able to disable cores.

 

 

 

Neither have I. And that Is my question as well (that i have asked a couple time in this thread already . Can someone please show me where on the boxes or website they advertised to me, the end user, that it had xx ROP or L2 specs. The only place I see it, is when reviewers reveal what was told to them. 

 

Again, playing devils advocate here. But really, can we expect nvidia to do anything? because I still don't see that they "need" too, its more of, its already great that they are being open and forthcoming with explanations. And who knows what they will do next.

If they haven't advertised it, it isn't false advertising and they don't have to anything. you still get your 4gb of vram, some of it is just slower.

[dredded_one]

I have SLI 970s, the MSI Gaming versions. I don't regret it. I'd never know about this is nobody said something. Besides, I have had games use more than 3.5GB and it didn't have any problems. Far Cry 4 for example.

 

I bought my cards based on the price and expected performance as noted in reviews and by actual users. My cards did not get slower overnight.

[d3sl91]

Yes but it says 4GB of VRAM when it really means "3.5GB of direct memory with 0.5GB of Sub/Indirect-memory"

 

Again, devils advocate here, but it does have 4GB of memory, and it does perform exactly as everyone reviewed it says it does. Nvidia did not lie about 3.5vs 4, they never said "on this game at XX resolution the game will do xx fps. Nope, thats all the reviewers. 

 

Nvidia made a card, sold it. You bought it. and it performs exactly as its expected to and designed to.

[SteveGrabowski]

With the level of Nvidia fanboyism in this thread it's no wonder they outsell AMD despite having weaker cards at most price brackets.

[TaBandit87]

When I read all the different forums and posts in said forums all I can think of is.

[d3sl91]

Didn't buy it.

 

Sorry, "You" doesnt mean You, just means an individual in general.

[Crazda]

Nvidia says it has 4GB of VRAM when they really mean "3.5GB of direct memory with 0.5GB of Sub/Indirect-memory" So it's not necessarily false-advertising but still misleading.

Well it is not giving the full picture, but i wouldn't call it misleading.

[Opask]

When I read all the different forums and posts in said forums all I can think of is.

~snip~

And for no reason other than people jumping on all these claims.

[Doughnutnator]

That program does not properly read Maxwell, as explained in the pcper article. They found it using other programs. GPU-z doesn't take into account Maxwell's new method of being able to disable cores.

Neither have I. And that Is my question as well (that i have asked a couple time in this thread already . Can someone please show me where on the boxes or website they advertised to me, the end user, that it had xx ROP or L2 specs. The only place I see it, is when reviewers reveal what was told to them.

I feel like, we are arguing about something that the only way someone found it, was by digging deep to look for it.

Again, playing devils advocate here. But really, can we expect nvidia to do anything? because I still don't see that they "need" too, its more of, its already great that they are being open and forthcoming with explanations. And who knows what they will do next.

EDIT: Link with original specs got down /:

Today Nvidia said "sorry, wrong specs" so they actually advertised the 970 as a 64ROPS, 2048KB cache gpu.

[Doughnutnator]

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

If you were planning to do computing or folding you would have looked at the benchmarks for computing or folding.

Then you would have realized that it performs worse than a 780ti because it has less cores, and you would have bought a 780 or 780ti.

But if you actually knew you wanted to do computing or folding, you would have bought something other than a cheap consumer graphics card.

And just fyi a lawsuit will cost you thousands of times more than any money you will get out of a false advertising claim.

I can use the card for basically anything I want. That's not the point.

I just asked if Nvidia should recall the 970's because the false advertising

About original specs

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation

That's it. If you want to fight and defend Nvidia that's fine, it's your opinion that doesn't change the fact they lied to customers.

[d3sl91]

Original specs:

http://webcache.goog...x-review,5.html

Thanks @SteveGrabowski

Sorry for the copy/paste response.

I don't want to fight with anyone, it's my opnion.

Today Nvidia said "sorry, wrong specs" so they actually advertised the 970 as a 64ROPS, 2048KB cache gpu.

::sadface::

 

External link doesn't work. 

[Opask]

Original specs:

http://webcache.goog...x-review,5.html

Thanks @SteveGrabowski

Sorry for the copy/paste response.

I don't want to fight with anyone, it's my opnion.

Today Nvidia said "sorry, wrong specs" so they actually advertised the 970 as a 64ROPS, 2048KB cache gpu.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to link. For me at least it isn't working.