Petitioning for 970 Refund

Astral Abyss said:
So to everyone that bought a 970 thinking it was just too good to be true... well, it was.

But honestly, as cheesy of a marketing gimmick as it is, the card does still have 4GB. I don't see anywhere where it says it will all be identically performing, or even usable (remember the days when they'd slap a ton of RAM on a pathetic card to sucker people in?.. 440mx anyone?). It's shady, but it is what it is. I'm glad they're being called out on it though, so maybe with enough bad press on the tech sites they won't try this in the future.

Concerning class action lawsuits, they keep companies honest, because this threat is always looming over them, but a class action doesn't do anything for the consumer. It's like the mob hiring a hitman to take care of someone. They're out for revenge or to make an example out of the mark, but they aren't going to recoup their loss.
Click to expand...

As bas as this is going to sound, we have to hurt nVidia's bottom line to get their attention, because they've already shown just how much they care about us. Short of everyone switching to team red overnight (and we all know that won't happen even when hell freezes over), the only other alternative is a lawsuit.

Quite frankly at this point I don't give a shit that I may never see a penny from this. As long as it costs nVidia tens of millions in legal fees and negative publicity, the lawsuit has served its purpose for me.
 
naticus said:
Are you actually having performance issues with your 970s? A good friend of mine is having zero issues and he plays a metric shit ton of games (CSS,BF4,TF2).

Or is this more of a moral objection to Nvidias practices? No one that I have actually spoken with that has a GTX 970 has any issues with it, currently. Nor do I.

Just curious.
Click to expand...

I posted about it previously, but in short, I primarily take issue with the fact that this whole fiasco has likely devalued my cards to the enthusiast community (the very community I tend to resell to). Maybe significantly, considering this basically relegates them to "previous gen" hardware since it bumps them from a barely-adequate 4GB of RAM to...something less, in the public eye. Especially at a pivotal time like this when future games are almost certainly going to use more RAM than they do now, and some people are even waiting out the >4GB hardware.

I upgrade pretty frequently, and never really considered the 970 to be much more than a stopgap, but I was counting on resale in my original purchase.

Do I suffer performance issues? Sure. I primarily game at UHD res (or 1440 @ 144hz on a RoG Swift), so I'm pretty sure this issue is, or at least could, impact me. My performance usually doesn't hit 60 fps in UHD, but I recognize that my performance hasn't exactly nosedived just based on the release of this news.
 
n=1 said:
Quite frankly at this point I don't give a shit that I may never see a penny from this. As long as it costs nVidia tens of millions in legal fees and negative publicity, the lawsuit has served its purpose for me.
Click to expand...

Whatever the outcome may be, I have a feeling they're going to go with the least expensive option and the consumers will end up getting the shaft. The attitude they've been projecting towards this whole issue has been very disconcerting.
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
The attitude they've been projecting towards this whole issue has been very disconcerting.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest gripe about this whole situation. Nvidia doesn't have a care in the world right now, they got our money (mine included) under false advertising and don't feel inclined to do a damn thing about it until a judge orders them to do so. In a market where brand loyalty and outstanding customer service means quite a lot, they sure could care less about it right now, because their bottom line isn't hurting. Yet. And honestly, that is what it's going to take for them to do anything differently.

I've been Nvidia since I was 9 y/o or so, (15 years) and I've never had a problem with any of their cards, always recommended them etc. This entire situation and how they have handled it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth, and I will be very hesitant to purchase Nvidia from now on.
 
n=1 said:
Quite frankly at this point I don't give a shit that I may never see a penny from this. As long as it costs nVidia tens of millions in legal fees and negative publicity, the lawsuit has served its purpose for me.
Click to expand...

I think you're going to be very disappointed with the end result
 
Neon01 said:
I posted about it previously, but in short, I primarily take issue with the fact that this whole fiasco has likely devalued my cards to the enthusiast community (the very community I tend to resell to). Maybe significantly, considering this basically relegates them to "previous gen" hardware since it bumps them from a barely-adequate 4GB of RAM to...something less, in the public eye. Especially at a pivotal time like this when future games are almost certainly going to use more RAM than they do now, and some people are even waiting out the >4GB hardware.

I upgrade pretty frequently, and never really considered the 970 to be much more than a stopgap, but I was counting on resale in my original purchase.

Do I suffer performance issues? Sure. I primarily game at UHD res (or 1440 @ 144hz on a RoG Swift), so I'm pretty sure this issue is, or at least could, impact me. My performance usually doesn't hit 60 fps in UHD, but I recognize that my performance hasn't exactly nosedived just based on the release of this news.
Click to expand...

Got it. So your issues are mostly from a perceived value standpoint. But to be fair, and I think it goes without saying, that expecting even 4GB to be enough for 1440p and higher resolutions going forward seems to be a bad call. But you knew that already as you stated the 970 being a stopgap.

The issue I have is; when 3.5GB isn't enough, 4GB won't be either. If we are going solely by recent game VRAM requirements in actual games for 1080p/1440p+ resolutions then 6GB should be the bare minimum that any gamer in that market should be on the look out for.

And this is where Nvidia pisses me off, because they know this. That said the 970 GTX is still great and card a fantastic buy -- but maybe not so by 2017.
 
Neon01 said:
I'm awaiting a call back from them too. Very curious to see what you hear.

As for a replacement, I had too many issues with AMD hardware last year when I bought a pair of 290s. I'm sure the drivers have improved leaps and bounds since then, but I'm still gun shy. I'll probably go for the 980s instead, even though the change will cost me $400. Really wish there were an alternative, but with the 390x seemingly always on the horizon, taking the hit for the top dog 980s is a little more palatable.
Click to expand...

So he replied to my email telling me that he has been very busy and will call me when he has a minute. Their internal team still has no decision on how they are going to handle this. So what a crock of BS at this point. I think I'm just going to ebay this card and then buy something else off of Amazon once I hear back from him later today.

Like you, this was a stop gap card for me too since all the reviews seemed that the 980 wasn't worth the extra $200 at the time based on what we new in the fall. It irritates me with this game of deception that Nvidia played with us and that we are losing out on 512GB of RAM that makes a difference as more power hungry games release.
 
captainzombie said:
So he replied to my email telling me that he has been very busy and will call me when he has a minute. Their internal team still has no decision on how they are going to handle this. So what a crock of BS at this point. I think I'm just going to ebay this card and then buy something else off of Amazon once I hear back from him later today.

Like you, this was a stop gap card for me too since all the reviews seemed that the 980 wasn't worth the extra $200 at the time based on what we new in the fall. It irritates me with this game of deception that Nvidia played with us and that we are losing out on 512GB of RAM that makes a difference as more power hungry games release.
Click to expand...

Oh stop being a drama queen by exaggerating. We all know it's 512MB.:rolleyes:
 
naticus said:
The issue I have is; when 3.5GB isn't enough, 4GB won't be either. If we are going solely by recent game VRAM requirements in actual games for 1080p/1440p+ resolutions then 6GB should be the bare minimum that any gamer in that market should be on the look out for.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? The statement doesn't really make sense. That is, unless there are literally NO games that require anywhere between 3.5 and 4GB of RAM. Actually, I find it pretty interesting that all of this came to light, because it certainly clears up an issue I was having with my cards on Crysis 3 before I was aware of the RAM configuration. Here's where I posted about it:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1846926

Note that Crysis 3 is using ~3.9GB of RAM, and look at my frametimes. They're all over the place. This is consistent with several other articles I've read, including this one (though that one is looking at very high resolutions), and a post from earlier in this thread, seen here.

Would a performance difference come up often? Probably not, but I don't think that an objective performance issue is as easy to hand waive as you're saying.
 
Crosshairs said:
I think you're going to be very disappointed with the end result
Click to expand...

If it leaves a bitter taste, NVidia will also be disappointed.

Even if they completely fix this situation, what they have done will lose them business because it will have taken a concerted worldwide demonstration of disdain for them to become bothered.
When future problems occur, we have little faith they will be resolved amicably.
If enough support cant be drummed up we end up in the lurch after spending serious money.

Thats assuming they fix this issue.
If they dont, we cant have any faith in them to resolve problems they cause.

My fun using GPUs has dropped tremendously over the last year and a bit, firstly due to driver issues and now because of lack of trust.
Instead of raising the bar its being lowered.
 
Neon01 said:
Why would you say that? The statement doesn't really make sense. That is, unless there are literally NO games that require anywhere between 3.5 and 4GB of RAM. Actually, I find it pretty interesting that all of this came to light, because it certainly clears up an issue I was having with my cards on Crysis 3 before I was aware of the RAM configuration. Here's where I posted about it:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1846926

Note that Crysis 3 is using ~3.9GB of RAM, and look at my frametimes. They're all over the place. This is consistent with several other articles I've read, including this one (though that one is looking at very high resolutions), and a post from earlier in this thread, seen here.

Would a performance difference come up often? Probably not, but I don't think that an objective performance issue is as easy to hand waive as you're saying.
Click to expand...

How does it not make sense? For those of us actually playing games with our 970s, especially single card users, that are going over the 3.5GB VRAM ''threshold'' we are getting no stutter, no difference in smoothness. As I stated earlier.

That looks like your average frame-time issues that occur in SLI -- the perceived stutter that comes and goes in any SLI/multi-gpu config.

Is this your first SLI rig?


Wow I almost sound like an Nv apologist, really I am not.
 
the PC Perspective article says it all...

conclusion: So the question sits before us: does the ROP count / L2 cache size difference that was revealed last week by NVIDIA account for the frame variance differences between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980 cards in SLI? More than likely: yes. And that may end the discussion for many of you but consider this last point. The largest difference in variance on BF4, the primary example of this showing up for me in data, was run at 3840x2160 and 150% pixel scaling. That is essentially running BF4 at 6K!

My takeaway from today's testing is that users with or looking at an SLI setup of GeForce GTX 970 cards appear to be more likely to run into cases where the memory pools of 3.5GB and 0.5GB will matter. Because you are able to reach higher playable frame rates with two GTX 970s than just a single one, stretching out and increasing image quality settings is more common. If you are that type of gamer, looking to stretch the boundaries what settings are playable, then it is worth a warning about the differences between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980.

For the others out there, the GeForce GTX 970 remains in the same performance window it was at prior to this memory issue and specification revelation. For $329 it offers a tremendous level of performance, some amazing capabilities courtesy of the Maxwell GPU and runs incredibly efficient at the same time

can we put this issue to bed now...pretty much every reputable tech website has re-tested the 970 and published benchmarks and come to the same conclusion
 
can we put this issue to bed now...
Click to expand...


not really, I have two 970s for SLI

from now on its AMD for me, if other costumers can tolerate this, well thy deserve it when thy get the short end of the stick
 
naticus said:
That looks like your average frame-time issues that occur in SLI -- the perceived stutter that comes and goes in any SLI/multi-gpu config.

Is this your first SLI rig?
Click to expand...

I've been using CFX and SLI since the AMD HD 6950 about 4 years ago. It's got its ups and downs, but both sides have largely fixed this issue. Microstutter just isn't much of a thing anymore. Just look at the articles I posted to see that SLI works largely without any microstutter at all. Across the board, virtually all reviews show very little microstutter with SLI anymore, and even CFX is pretty much fixed as of the R9 series of cards.
 
FLECOM said:
Sorry but is it really so wrong to believe that companies should be held accountable for lying to customers???
Click to expand...

I'd say its unrealistic in this day and age is all. No harm in hoping, but dont expect.

Short of no one buying their products, NV is pretty well insulated from what they likely perceive as "rioting peasants" at the moment based on how they are responding (or not responding) to this.
 
^^^^^^

n=1 said:
As bas as this is going to sound, we have to hurt nVidia's bottom line to get their attention, because they've already shown just how much they care about us. Short of everyone switching to team red overnight (and we all know that won't happen even when hell freezes over), the only other alternative is a lawsuit.

Quite frankly at this point I don't give a shit that I may never see a penny from this. As long as it costs nVidia tens of millions in legal fees and negative publicity, the lawsuit has served its purpose for me.
Click to expand...
 
FLECOM said:
so then NVidia has a pass to lie to it's customers and continue to screw them over forever? since they can just add 100 to a model number put it out there and the sheep will buy it in droves?

Sorry but is it really so wrong to believe that companies should be held accountable for lying to customers???
Click to expand...

I didn't say they got a pass , I said no one will do shit about it...that's the reality of it....you may not like it, but that does not change it
 
Crosshairs said:
are you honestly never going to buy another Nvidia product?..odds are that you will.
Click to expand...

Hi my name is Yakk,

I've been nvidia free since my 9600GT SLI cards.

I can say I feel better now, less backstabbing and boxed-in proprietary stuff. Sometimes I still get urges when a shiny new card comes out, but I remember how is was before and that helps. As does having support people and forums to bring me back when I'm being tempted into going back green.

Events like the 970 and g-sync remind me the type of company this is and it helps.
 
just wanted to say, I will never buy a NVidia product. but even without this debacle, I still wouldn't
 
polonyc2 said:
the PC Perspective article says it all...

conclusion: So the question sits before us: does the ROP count / L2 cache size difference that was revealed last week by NVIDIA account for the frame variance differences between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980 cards in SLI? More than likely: yes. And that may end the discussion for many of you but consider this last point. The largest difference in variance on BF4, the primary example of this showing up for me in data, was run at 3840x2160 and 150% pixel scaling. That is essentially running BF4 at 6K!

My takeaway from today's testing is that users with or looking at an SLI setup of GeForce GTX 970 cards appear to be more likely to run into cases where the memory pools of 3.5GB and 0.5GB will matter. Because you are able to reach higher playable frame rates with two GTX 970s than just a single one, stretching out and increasing image quality settings is more common. If you are that type of gamer, looking to stretch the boundaries what settings are playable, then it is worth a warning about the differences between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980.

For the others out there, the GeForce GTX 970 remains in the same performance window it was at prior to this memory issue and specification revelation. For $329 it offers a tremendous level of performance, some amazing capabilities courtesy of the Maxwell GPU and runs incredibly efficient at the same time

can we put this issue to bed now...pretty much every reputable tech website has re-tested the 970 and published benchmarks and come to the same conclusion
Click to expand...
Very well said! I couldn't agree with you more.

I bought a GTX 970 yesterday and I'm very happy with the choice. I bought it knowing about the ROP count / L2 cache size difference. In my mind at this point in time the GTX 970 is the best choice at the $330 price point. To me it is clearly a better choice than the R9 290X when it comes to running a single card at 1440p (it running quieter and cooler is an added plus).

I don't buy video cards based on specs. I buy them based on performance. I can honestly say that when I read video card reviews I don't look at ROP count, L2 caches size, etc. I understand that people are upset by I tend to agree with Ryan Smith that this was unintentional by Nvidia.
 
FlipCody said:
I understand that people are upset by I tend to agree with Ryan Smith that this was unintentional by Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But what was intentional was the offer to help get refunds, then backtracking, the assurances 970 owners would be getting new drivers, then backtracking, and admission of faults in the 970, then saying they are fine and the best card at that price point. It's low-down and dirty what they've done since the news broke.
 
just read on another forum that Newegg is offering refunds through their internal department (whatever that means)...so at least 1 person is getting an RMA through them
 
Disregarding the fact that Nvidia misrepresented the specification, does it really seem that unreasonable that the card only has 3.5 GB of VRAM to you guys?

GTX 480: 1.50 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 470: 1.25 GB @ $349 launch price

GTX 580: 1.50 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 570: 1.25 GB @ $349 launch price

GTX 680: 2.00 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 670: 2.00 GB @ $399 launch price

GTX 780: 3.00 GB @ $649 launch price
GTX 770: 2.00 GB @ $399 launch price

GTX 980: 4.00 GB @ $550 launch price
GTX 970: 3.50 GB @ $330 launch price

To me it seems very competitively priced and not out of line given that it's a "runner up" card.
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
Disregarding the fact that Nvidia misrepresented the specification, does it really seem that unreasonable that the card only has 3.5 GB of VRAM to you guys?

GTX 480: 1.50 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 470: 1.25 GB @ $349 launch price

GTX 580: 1.50 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 570: 1.25 GB @ $349 launch price

GTX 680: 2.00 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 670: 2.00 GB @ $399 launch price

GTX 780: 3.00 GB @ $649 launch price
GTX 770: 2.00 GB @ $399 launch price

GTX 980: 4.00 GB @ $550 launch price
GTX 970: 3.50 GB @ $330 launch price

To me it seems very competitively priced and not out of line given that it's a "runner up" card.
Click to expand...

It's fine and that's why I'm keeping it, but selling it as a 4Gb card and having those retarded extra slow 512Mb is a major fuck up by nvidia.
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
Disregarding the fact that Nvidia misrepresented the specification, does it really seem that unreasonable that the card only has 3.5 GB of VRAM to you guys?

GTX 480: 1.50 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 470: 1.25 GB @ $349 launch price

GTX 580: 1.50 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 570: 1.25 GB @ $349 launch price

GTX 680: 2.00 GB @ $499 launch price
GTX 670: 2.00 GB @ $399 launch price

GTX 780: 3.00 GB @ $649 launch price
GTX 770: 2.00 GB @ $399 launch price

GTX 980: 4.00 GB @ $550 launch price
GTX 970: 3.50 GB @ $330 launch price

To me it seems very competitively priced and not out of line given that it's a "runner up" card.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously asking that question? If NV sold a card that had 3.5gb of RAM (just disable that extra 512mb), people would have questioned it and said WTF, then saw the benchmarks and moved on and purchased one happily.

They are not selling a card with only 3.5gb of ram. They are selling a 4gb card that starts stuttering and causing performance issues once that 512mb is accessed. It isnt just a 3.5gb card. Do you really not understand the issue here?

As far as never purchasing NV products again, I personally never said that. Every company makes mistakes and its foolish to cut out competition as that is what drives more performance for less money. My issue here is strictly with this card. I can assure you that if this was a published issue, I would have never considered the card. Why do I want to buy a card that will potentially be an issue later? Why do I want to buy a card in which the value of it could potentially be less due to this issue (in a couple years when people want to purchase these used, they will think twice due to this issue and Ill bet the resale is lower than the typical)? What if I want to go SLI w/ a used 970 in 2 years to support a higher resolution and cant now? I wouldnt. I would have purchased either a GTX980 or a 290x. Its crazy to me the amount of people who feel that this is a non-issue due to not being able to currently push the card.
 
Last edited:
doz said:
They are not selling a card with only 3.5gb of ram. They are selling a 4gb card that starts stuttering and causing performance issues once that 512mb is accessed. It isnt just a 3.5gb card. Do you really not understand the issue here?
Click to expand...

Amazing considered this explanation has been repeated ad nauseum and yet people are still ignorant.
 
Crosshairs has been addressed and will no longer be posting in this thread.

Please stay on topic.
 
jwcalla said:
The "performance issues" seem to be beyond insignificant, that's what makes this whole brouhaha ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Let me guess. You own a NV GTX680 2gb card running 1080p @ 60hz for life.
 
jwcalla said:
The "performance issues" seem to be beyond insignificant, that's what makes this whole brouhaha ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Do you have a 970 SLI setup and game at 1440p or above or at the very least make significant use of DSR?
 
jwcalla said:
The "performance issues" seem to be beyond insignificant, that's what makes this whole brouhaha ridiculous.
Click to expand...

it's amazing that on a tech forum like [H] that this actually needs to be said...people here should know better...even though PC Perspective, Hardware Canucks, Tech Report, AnandTech, Guru3D and [H] all say that this is not a big deal (performance wise) that people still don't get it and want it to be one...4k users have a legitimate gripe but other then that even SLI/1440p users are stretching it
 
It isn't a 3.5GB vs 4GB that is at issue with 970 (frankly that argument will go absolutely nowhere, if 3.5GB is truly not enough, 4GB is unlikely going to last much longer at all),

The actual issue is, 970, at a drivers level, is being seen as a 4GB card, not a 3.5GB card, which means games will allocate resources to the VRAM as if it were a 4GB card, this means that if the game decides to allocate more than 3.5GB VRAM for itself, then the stuttering occurs. Some of the issues would be eliminated if 970 was limited to being a 3.5GB card, so games wouldn't try to allocate as much VRAM that it would start to use the last slower 0.5GB. It would not help if the game actually required more than 3.5GB VRAM either way.

Put it down to bad optimization? Well I don't think games using whats available is 'bad' optimization, and can't blame games for seeing 970 has 4GB when it does technically and physically have 4GB VRAM.
 
polonyc2 said:
it's amazing that on a tech forum like [H] that this actually needs to be said...people here should know better...even though PC Perspective, Hardware Canucks, Tech Report, AnandTech, Guru3D and [H] all say that this is not a big deal (performance wise) that people still don't get it and want it to be one...4k users have a legitimate gripe but other then that even SLI/1440p users are stretching it
Click to expand...

So this many people are all on here complaining even though there is no issue at hand? Right...
You can keep giving Nvidia the pass on this if you want but I do believe that most consumers enjoy not being lied to.
 
To update this thread for Canadians who purchased a GTX 970 from Memory Express.

Received a confirmation on Twitter and from the store that as of today (February 4) EVGA and Asus cards are eligible for a full cash refund. MSI cards are different - something about needing to return the card to MSI first.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
So this many people are all on here complaining even though there is no issue at hand? Right...
You can keep giving Nvidia the pass on this if you want but I do believe that most consumers enjoy not being lied to.
Click to expand...

complaining because they are actually experiencing issues themselves or complaining to join this crusade for the principle of it?...Nvidia purposely lied about the specs...OK...I've moved past that...they would be incredibly dumb to ever try that again because they know people will be paying even more close attention to every small detail on their future cards...seems like most people got their feelings hurt because they lied but don't really have anything else to show how this is effecting them...I looked at the benchmarks after they re-tested...made my decision to keep the 970 easy

* I have a return label setup with Amazon which expires on March 2nd...so technically I'm keeping my options open...I have a few weeks to make a 'final' decision if some new facts come to light
 
This is what we had to say about 970 SLI and 4K performance on Nov. 19, 2014.

Gaming at 4K vs. NV Surround 5760x1200

There is something we need to discuss, and that is what cards are more appropriate for what resolutions of gaming. After this evaluation, we strongly feel that if you are going to be gaming on a 4K display you should spend the extra cash and spring for GeForce GTX 980 SLI. While GeForce GTX 970 SLI can deliver an "OK" 4K gaming experience, we did have to make image quality sacrifices in every game. GeForce GTX 970 SLI cannot "max out" 4K gaming. You will simply have a much better gameplay experience going with GeForce GTX 980 SLI.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top