• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

970 3.5GB 'Ramgate' - NVIDIA ordered to pay $30 to each owner

Geck0 said:
Maybe my wedding tackle is a bit sub par, but i add 4 units because I reckon i utilise it better than the missus ex that had a much bigger unit, all of a sudden i have a much bigger unit when measured from my Jen (fundament).

It's all good because she said her ex was **** in that department anyway.

Just as well I never bought one or my nethers may have shrunk.
Click to expand...

It's never too early for SuperT, right?!
 
A good day for the consumer. Customers were yet again treated with contempt by a large company and this time the customers fought back i'm pleased to say.

I didn't buy one btw. I was about to just before all this broke. Planned purchase cancelled. I didn't buy any NVidia card I just stuck with what I had.
 
According to Reddit thread, a certain retailer; which obviously I cannot mention, is providing refunds, and in some cases, 100% money back.

Quote:
"I caught wind of this from our friends over at (removed) and tried it out for myself tonight. I bought my 970 a couple months ago and was eligible for the 20% to be refunded to my credit card no questions asked. If you have purchased through (retailer removed) take a minute to do this for yourself.

I've also heard that if you ask for a return, (retailer removed) will refund you 100% of your purchase price, but I'm happy with my card and won't be taking advantage of that."
 
My opinion, NVidia were wrong, they misrepresented the card to the press.

I don't think they did it deliberately at all, I mean only a idiot would do such a thing deliberately, it could have backfired massively causing a massive recall of all the products, hitting their share price and severely damaging the company, nobody takes that chance deliberately.

It does make me laugh a bit that the lawsuit says about people not getting the performance they expected, when it actually made no difference to the performance demonstrated by the press because even the review samples were the same, every 970 ever tested has had this configuration, so what were people expecting.

We here that shop at OCUK were very fortunate that OCUK took it upon themselves to offer refunds to any who wanted it at the time, so anyone who bought from here didn't take advantage of that only has themselves to blame.

On a completely unrelated humorous note, maybe we should start a lawsuit against AMD for miss advertising the RX480 4GB, because it didn't actually have 4GB on board, it had 8GB. :D:p:D
 
bru said:
My opinion, NVidia were wrong, they misrepresented the card to the press.

I don't think they did it deliberately at all, I mean only a idiot would do such a thing deliberately, it could have backfired massively causing a massive recall of all the products, hitting their share price and severely damaging the company, nobody takes that chance deliberately.

It does make me laugh a bit that the lawsuit says about people not getting the performance they expected, when it actually made no difference to the performance demonstrated by the press because even the review samples were the same, every 970 ever tested has had this configuration, so what were people expecting.

We here that shop at OCUK were very fortunate that OCUK took it upon themselves to offer refunds to any who wanted it at the time, so anyone who bought from here didn't take advantage of that only has themselves to blame.

On a completely unrelated humorous note, maybe we should start a lawsuit against AMD for miss advertising the RX480 4GB, because it didn't actually have 4GB on board, it had 8GB. :D:p:D
Click to expand...

No difference at time of launch maybe but what about a couple of years down the line. Don't be so short-sighted.

And if it wasn't deliberate it shows embarrassing unprofessionalism on NVidia's part which is also 'damaging' to the company.
 
bru said:
My opinion, NVidia were wrong, they misrepresented the card to the press.

I don't think they did it deliberately at all, I mean only a idiot would do such a thing deliberately, it could have backfired massively causing a massive recall of all the products, hitting their share price and severely damaging the company, nobody takes that chance deliberately.

It does make me laugh a bit that the lawsuit says about people not getting the performance they expected, when it actually made no difference to the performance demonstrated by the press because even the review samples were the same, every 970 ever tested has had this configuration, so what were people expecting.

We here that shop at OCUK were very fortunate that OCUK took it upon themselves to offer refunds to any who wanted it at the time, so anyone who bought from here didn't take advantage of that only has themselves to blame.

On a completely unrelated humorous note, maybe we should start a lawsuit against AMD for miss advertising the RX480 4GB, because it didn't actually have 4GB on board, it had 8GB. :D:p:D
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure they did it deliberately. They knew exactly how the 970 was cut and engineered and what the implications were. They are leading experts on this stuff, after all.

I think they just didn't expect it to get uncovered or for a big deal to be made out of it given it was still capable. As for why they didn't just label it 3.5GB, probably because it'd be a bit weird sounding, and would also put it less than the 290/290X, which might have changed perception on it a bit.

It was lousy of them to do, in the end. It was dishonest. I dont think it's the most vile thing ever and even as a 970 owner I was never necessarily upset about it, though. I fully expect big companies to try and get away with little things like this when they can. Big corporations are not your friend. But as far as I was concerned, it performed just as reviewers said it would and it was the right price, and that's what was most important to me. That said, had it been another 0.5GB less, it probably would have got me looking for a refund and me being more angry about it. So I do have limits. 3.5GB I could deal with, though. And I still haven't run into any issues where it bottlenecked me or my settings where 4GB wouldn't have.
 
Just bought one for my brother and his brand new Asus 1080p HD monitor. Runs all his games fine (he is a BIG gamer) and no issues whatsoever.

Runs cool, low power, quiet, as we all know.
 
varkanoid said:
Just bought one for my brother and his brand new Asus 1080p HD monitor. Runs all his games fine (he is a BIG gamer) and no issues whatsoever.

Runs cool, low power, quiet, as we all know.
Click to expand...
People had a right to criticize, but I think anybody who was trying to take the angle that it in anyway noticeably gimped the card performance-wise had very little room to stand. It was still great value for the money, 3.5GB or not.

And still is if you can find a cheaper one.
 
Relentless81 said:
I sent it back because it wasn't as advertised
Click to expand...

The performance never suddenly changed though. its not like the review cards and release cards where different. Sure it sucks a little but your card was the same it ever was.

Its about as evil as the Rage Pro Turbo of the 90's.
 
Last edited:
For me it is not the 3.5/4GB that is the issue, as it does physically have 4GB on board, but the ROP count and the L2 cache, is another matter entirely. And as for they didn't expect people to find out, There are a lot of very clever people out there, that NVidia knew only too well they would look very closely at every new card released, of course it would be found out.

Also what reason did they have to lie deliberately? and before you say 3.5GB looks worse against the competition at the time, yes it does, but the card does have 4GB of ram on board so they didn't lie about that, it was the ROP's and L2 cache that they lied about and then only to the press, not the public because those details don't get printed on the boxes. they had no reason to do it deliberately, it could only do them harm, there is no upside to hiding the truth deliberately.


Of course this is only my opinion, which is no more or less valid than anyone else's. :)
 
KillBoY_UK said:
The performance never suddenly changed though. its not like the review cards and release cards where different. Sure it sucks a little but your card was the same it ever was.
Click to expand...

Obviously it wasn't as if it didn't exhibit problems, nobody would have uncovered it in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom