NVidia CEO and President on GTX 970

[ThomasD]

duplicate

[Guest Kloaked]

Very subtle. Apparently anyone who recognized this BS for what it is, is "not smart enough". I'll give it to NVIDIA though. They sure do know how to work their audience and know they would let them get away with murder.

Nah. I don't get ants in my pants over a card that performs exceptionally well for it's price point while it has 512Mb of slow vram out of the 4Gb. Nothing about it's performance changed since it's release and everyone is still up in arms over this hoopla.

The fact that so many people are angry about this is showing that they fail to understand anything logical about the card while they're in a blind rage over their 512Mb of vram being slow. I would trust that people could have some sense of rationality about this sooner or later, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

That's cool you guys are mad you were lied to, but the fact of the matter is that the 970 is still a good card, regardless of the specs.

[79wjd]

I think it's more a case of "well we can't have a cheaper card compete with the 980...turn these things off", not that they don't function properly.

How is that a profitable business strategy? If they were capable 980s then they would've been sold for $200 more as 980s.

[Trik'Stari]

How is that a profitable business strategy? If they were capable 980s then they would've been sold for $200 more as 980s.

Because not everyone could afford the 980, so you handicap it, call it something else, sell it for less, and increase your sales and market share.

[79wjd]

Because not everyone could afford the 980, so you handicap it, call it something else, sell it for less, and increase your sales and market share.

But that's not how it works...

[ThomasD]

Because not everyone could afford the 980, so you handicap it, call it something else, sell it for less, and increase your sales and market share.

Telling people it is something that it is not also helps your sales and market share.

 

only that it is just false advertising.

[Razzaa]

Because not everyone could afford the 980, so you handicap it, call it something else, sell it for less, and increase your sales and market share.

If they were able to produce more 980's they would have been able to sell them cheaper because the yield would have been a lot higher. You dont gimp good silicone to sell at a cheaper price.

[Trik'Stari]

But that's not how it works...

-snip

You honestly believe that they don't manufacture chips intended to be 970's.

 

You're telling me, that ALL 970's, are 980's that didn't make the cut.

 

Seems like they could work on their process a little better, or just recycle those chips and try another run through.

[Guest Kloaked]

If they were able to produce more 980's they would have been able to sell them cheaper because the yield would have been a lot higher. You dont gimp good silicone to sell at a cheaper price.

Only if your name is Nvidia do you do something like that, because you are literally Satan if you use your resources wisely apparently.

[Razzaa]

You honestly believe that they don't manufacture chips intended to be 970's.

 

You're telling me, that ALL 970's, are 980's that didn't make the cut.

 

Seems like they could work on their process a little better, or just recycle those chips and try another run through.

Recycle the chips.......like make a card that doesnt perform as well......................

[79wjd]

You honestly believe that they don't manufacture chips intended to be 970's.

 

You're telling me, that ALL 970's, are 980's that didn't make the cut.

 

Seems like they could work on their process a little better, or just recycle those chips and try another run through.

Recycle chips....and how do you propose doing that without adding large costs, which easily account for the price difference between a 970 and 980.

[Alibaladin]

Well done screwing the ones that bought it.

[ivan134]

Nah. I don't get ants in my pants over a card that performs exceptionally well for it's price point while it has 512Mb of slow vram out of the 4Gb. Nothing about it's performance changed since it's release and everyone is still up in arms over this hoopla.

The fact that so many people are angry about this is showing that they fail to understand anything logical about the card while they're in a blind rage over their 512Mb of vram being slow. I would trust that people could have some sense of rationality about this sooner or later, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

That's cool you guys are mad you were lied to, but the fact of the matter is that the 970 is still a good card, regardless of the specs.

The performance is not the problem (even though people are using 1080p benchmarks to show why a 1440p card is fine), its about its longevity. There are a few games that people with 970s should be worried about at 1440p like witcher 3, star citizen and the division. If those games come out and it performs fine in those games, I will gladly go back to recommending a 970.

[hitsu1]

He wait until a lawsuit to say something? This arrogance is staggering.

 

That lawsuit is one of the worst written and researched complaints I have ever seen. The lead attorneys on the suit have zero background in this kind of technology and the actual suit includes inane and irrelevant information including a change.org petition that includes signatures people located outside of the United States (no standing).

 

Given the size and expertise of the law firms that filed this complaint it seems like they are just getting their foot in the door (and hands in the pockets of every 970 owner that joins in this lawsuit) until a larger firm with a more appropriate level of technology expertise steps in and takes over or are waiting to settle with Nvidia since it will be cheaper to get them to go away than to go through discovery.   

 

Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to advocate for or against Nvidia. I am more turned off by the blatant cash grab from lawyers trying to take advantage of some people who truly feel wronged by Nvidia.   

[ThomasD]

It is also about a price point.

 

Nvidia knew that they could not sell a "3.5 GB" card for what they wanted, so they kludged up a way to call it a 4 GB card.

[79wjd]

It is also about a price point.

 

Nvidia knew that they could not sell a "3.5 GB" card for what they wanted, so they kludged up a way to make call it a 4 GB card.

Considering how well 780s were selling at $450-500 with only 3gb of VRAM, I disagree with that statement.

[Trik'Stari]

Recycle chips....and how do you propose doing that without adding large costs, which easily account for the price difference between a 970 and 980.

As opposed to selling a broken product (which is essentially what you're saying they are doing), lying about it, and pissing off a good portion of the customer base.

[79wjd]

As opposed to selling a broken product (which is essentially what you're saying they are doing), lying about it, and pissing off a good portion of the customer base.

Yes, they lied about it -- or at least did a piss poor job at communicating things.

A broken product? No. Is an i5 broken? I mean, it is technically just a cut down i7...

How about a 4690? It is technically a locked 4690k...

[LAwLz]

It's not a good design, it's crap market segmentation.

 

You didn't need it to increase the limit from 3 to 4, you just put 4 on there and don't cut the bandwidth in half.

 

That's it, I'm switching to AMD when 300 series comes out, driver problems and heat be damned.

I hope you realize that:

1) All PC component manufacturers has "market segmentation". That's how binning works. AMD does it, Intel does it, Nvidia does it, Samsung does it and so on.

2) By saying "I'm switching to AMD when 300 series comes out" you are saying "I care more about the logo on the box than performance, price, quality and everything else", because all of those things are currently unknown. Only a fanboy does that.

[Guest Kloaked]

The performance is not the problem (even though people are using 1080p benchmarks to show why a 1440p card is fine), its about its longevity. There are a few games that people with 970s should be worried about at 1440p like witcher 3, star citizen and the division. If those games come out and it performs fine in those games, I will gladly go back to recommending a 970.

It solely depends on the game engine and how the game is being made. I tested a couple games with a 970 while it was in my possession: Metro Last Light and Watch Dogs.

Out of the two demanding titles, only Watch Dogs got up to 3.2Gb, sometimes 3.5Gb of Vram usage at 1080p. I don't think Metro even got into 3Gb at all.

I tested one game at the single step up DSR resolution (not 4k) that I can't remember off the top of my head, which was Watch Dogs. In my experience, the vram would go up to 3.6 and touch 3.8Gb of vram. Stutters were introduced for about 5 to 10 seconds and went away as the vram usage continued like it was. I would have liked to test that more, but the 970 was going in a system I was building for someone else.

So in my opinion based on the small tests that I did, the 970 shouldn't be giving any issues in those games at 1080p. At 1440p I am personally unsure.

[ThomasD]

Considering how well 780s were selling at $450-500 with only 3gb of VRAM, I disagree with that statement.

You don't think that maybe, just maybe  Nvidia was looking for ways to not be in direct competition with itself?

[ivan134]

That lawsuit is one of the worst written and researched complaints I have ever seen. The lead attorneys on the suit have zero background in this kind of technology and the actual suit includes inane and irrelevant information including a change.org petition that includes signatures people located outside of the United States (no standing).

 

Given the size and expertise of the law firms that filed this complaint it seems like they are just getting their foot in the door (and hands in the pockets of every 970 owner that joins in this lawsuit) until a larger firm with a more appropriate level of technology expertise steps in and takes over or are waiting to settle with Nvidia since it will be cheaper to get them to go away than to go through discovery.   

 

Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to advocate for or against Nvidia. I am more turned off by the blatant cash grab from lawyers trying to take advantage of some people who truly feel wronged by Nvidia.

This still took way too long to address. I still find it hard yo believe that even after 4 months that the card was released, not even the janitor there noticed that websites were showing the wrong specs. I also find it hard to believe that it took 4 months to notice that they hadn't given the marketing department the right info on how the bram works to communicate to the public. And still after it was discovered what they were doing, a whole month to issue a proper apology. You know how fickle people are general and how everyone likes a good apology (even though we all know people apologize only because they got caught) and they couldn't even so that. If that isnt arrogance, I don't know what is.

[79wjd]

You don't think that maybe, just maybe  Nvidia was looking for ways to not be in direct competition with itself?

Because that would matter anyway?

See the entire R7/9 200 series (excluding the 290/x) and HD7xxx series.

No, I don't believe that to be the case.

[Suika]

Why not just....not...do that?

Because the GTX 980 and 970 are the same GM204 core, with the GTX 970 having disabled SMMs, ROPs, and chunk of L2. To save on waste, Maxwell was designed with the ability to individually disable broken/unusable SMMs and ROPs. So technically, every GTX 970 was designed to be a 980, but had broken components. This is why the 970 is cheap (in comparison).

[ThomasD]

Because that would matter anyway?

 

...

Um, yeah. 

 

What you believe is irrelevant.  What Nvidia believed, and did, is the issue.

 

They knew they needed to sell a lot more 970s than 980s.  They also knew that 3 GB wasn't going to attract the amount of business as 4 GB, and for proof look no further than their very public marketing claims that the 970 had the same memory as the 980.

 

They said that because they needed to say that.