Newegg won't be offering returns for GTX 970, as expected..

[Texhnlyze]

People keeping there card are basically giving a thumbs up to NVIDA and saying great job so they can do this all over again lol

 

As for newegg not taking returns, WOW America is pretty screwed up in the department that is clearly false advertising yet they don't have to give refunds WTF!  

 

We're not giving "thumbs up" to Nvidia, if this were to happen again, I'm sure people (including me) will retaliate. Since I'm just gaming on a 1080p monitor, it doesn't bother me that much. I'm not going to wait weeks or even months just to ship back my GPU and get a new card that would perform just like my 970 just without that .5 vram problem. 

 

We owners of 970 are basically waiting for compensation or bonus from Nvidia for keeping our GPUs. *crosses fingers*

[Lewellyn]

We're not giving "thumbs up" to Nvidia, if this were to happen again, I'm sure people (including me) will retaliate. Since I'm just gaming on a 1080p monitor, it doesn't bother me that much. I'm not going to wait weeks or even months just to ship back my GPU and get a new card that would perform just like my 970 just without that .5 vram problem. 

 

We owners of 970 are basically waiting for compensation or bonus from Nvidia for keeping our GPUs. *crosses fingers*

 

I'm still wondering about how much of the problem is linked to the severity. If this was a condition that affected 2GB out of 4GB of the card, would it be worth the return then? I think most people would say yes by that point.

[JAKEBAB]

We're not giving "thumbs up" to Nvidia, if this were to happen again, I'm sure people (including me) will retaliate. Since I'm just gaming on a 1080p monitor, it doesn't bother me that much. I'm not going to wait weeks or even months just to ship back my GPU and get a new card that would perform just like my 970 just without that .5 vram problem. 

 

We owners of 970 are basically waiting for compensation or bonus from Nvidia for keeping our GPUs. *crosses fingers*

But if you hurt them financially u basically have 100% assurance this will never happen again. Waiting on some sort of compensation? Well NVIDIA has already spoke about it and said if you aren't happy return the card. I would of thought if there was going to be some sort of compensation besides allowing you to return the card they would of said it then.

[Albatross]

The vram issues should not be the reason why people want to return their cards. It should be for the other specs that were lied about.

 

But I didn't expect Newegg to do returns.

 

Still getting a 970. Hopefully this fuss about the GPUs will mean I can get it cheaper.

[mr moose]

I'm still wondering about how much of the problem is linked to the severity. If this was a condition that affected 2GB out of 4GB of the card, would it be worth the return then? I think most people would say yes by that point.

 

I would say if the ram issue started at 2Gb the card would have performed noticeable worse and Nvidia would have released it cheaper as the 960 instead.   Who knows if the rops and cache would have been miscommunicated. 

[WolfDeville]

Good. Only the stupid fuckwits are bitching about it. Yes, I fucking said it.

[Prastupok]

The whole 970 thing needs to stop. Please. Both sides need to stop. It's all been said before. The card is fine... But the situation got blown way out of proportion.

[Lewellyn]

I would say if the ram issue started at 2Gb the card would have performed noticeable worse and Nvidia would have released it cheaper as the 960 instead.   Who knows if the rops and cache would have been miscommunicated. 

 

Barring that. Assume that the benchmarks were of games that only used up to around 1.5GB (Farcry 3, Battlefield 3) maximum, no performance would arise then, so would the argument "the benchmarks are still accurate" be used so many people?

[mr moose]

Barring that. Assume that the benchmarks were of games that only used up to around 1.5GB (Farcry 3, Battlefield 3) maximum, no performance would arise then, so would the argument "the benchmarks are still accurate" be used so many people?

 

If everything was exactly the same just on a smaller scale (price also) then I would assume everyone's opinions would be the same.

[Lewellyn]

If everything was exactly the same just on a smaller scale (price also) then I would assume everyone's opinions would be the same.

 

I'm not talking about scaling, but actually an increase or a decrease in severity. 1/8 of the VRAM is affected, so if it was 1/7, 1/6 , or 1/4 I'm thinking people would be less apt to making statements like this one:

 

Only the stupid fuckwits are bitching about it.

[jaggysnake57]

I'm still wondering about how much of the problem is linked to the severity. If this was a condition that affected 2GB out of 4GB of the card, would it be worth the return then? I think most people would say yes by that point.

Barring that. Assume that the benchmarks were of games that only used up to around 1.5GB (Farcry 3, Battlefield 3) maximum, no performance would arise then, so would the argument "the benchmarks are still accurate" be used so many people?

 

it would depend on how the performance was after the 2 gb, if it wasnt noticable then the reaction would be the same

[mr moose]

I'm not talking about scaling, but actually an increase or a decrease in severity. 1/8 of the VRAM is affected, so if it was 1/7, 1/6 , or 1/4 I'm thinking people would be less apt to making statements like this one:

 

I believe GPU makers price their products according to how they perform, the better they perform the better the model number and the more they charge.  If the memory had been sufficiently shit that it was reflected in benchmarks, then I think they would have sold it cheaper thus the reaction would probably be the same if not a little less vitriolic.

 

However as I have said before, I think half the angry banter about it is actually coming from AMD fans who would jump on any fuck up from nvidia regardless how insignificant it was.   

[Lewellyn]

I believe GPU makers price their products according to how they perform, the better they perform the better the model number and the more they charge.  If the memory had been sufficiently shit that it was reflected in benchmarks, then I think they would have sold it cheaper thus the reaction would probably be the same if not a little less vitriolic.

 

However as I have said before, I think half the angry banter about it is actually coming from AMD fans who would jump on any fuck up from nvidia regardless how insignificant it was.   

 

That's why I specifically said that the benchmarks are suppose to be considered equal. 

 

Barring that. Assume that the benchmarks were of games that only used up to around 1.5GB (Farcry 3, Battlefield 3) maximum, no performance would arise then, so would the argument "the benchmarks are still accurate" be used so many people?

 

All else equal, if the benchmarks did not run into issues because they weren't pushing the VRAM threshold, then I think people would be less dismissive of criticisms on nvidia as "AMD fans" if the problem was higher in the quantity of VRAM

[mr moose]

That's why I specifically said that the benchmarks are suppose to be considered equal. 

 

 

All else equal, if the benchmarks did not run into issues because they weren't pushing the VRAM threshold, then I think people would be less dismissive of criticisms on nvidia as "AMD fans" if the problem was higher in the quantity of VRAM

 

Well they are,  they are the only reference we have for how well a card performs before we buy it.  Most reviews don't show the ram usage, they simply give us the FPS and the quality settings.  After that any anomalies are in the write up (read stuttering or unexplained issues).  So as consumers there is no way of knowing future performance, only what we can test today. If game packs get so big they start chewing through more than 3.5G then basically every card except the 980, titan series and top end AMD stuff is going to fall in a heap.  Even if the 970s ram was perfect right through till 4GB there is no guarantee the GPU could keep up with that workload anyway.

 

So yes, if the ram shat itself at 2G and the issue was bigger than it is, then people would be angrier, however in all likely hood it would never have been marketed as being 25% (or whatever the official number is) slower than the 980.