Wouldn't make one iota of difference if there was a naked women on the box eating a banana and a speech bubble saying "I love bananas." I didn't buy a naked women eating a banana so I have no expectation of that inside the box. I bought a 970 with 4GB of 224GBs RAM. Do I have THAT? No I don't.
-
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's having performance issues using 4GB Vram - Nvidia investigating
- Thread starter kitch9
- Start date
- Status
You have not got a chance.
I do. I have a Galax with coil whine so I'll be using the coil whine guarrentee to bail on this mess.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
yes
As advertised and as described are two very different things.
Quite frankly the bottom line of the product description is the retail box in which it was bought.
I think it could quite easily be argued that very minor specification differences would not entitle a buyer to a refund.
Your analogy of buying a car with a V6 engine described as V8 is ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of a GPU being advertised as PCI-E 3.0 and actually being PCI.
It's as Described and Advertised, they are the same thing. ^^^^^^ it was described as 4GB - 64 ROP's - 2MB of Cache. that's not what it is at all. it can't be polished out, it is not what they said it was,.
Well, the very reason this whole thing was brought to light is precisely because 970 users ran into significant performance issues once going over the 3.5GB mark.
Nvidia have not addressed that.
Well, the very reason this whole thing was brought to light is precisely because 970 users ran into significant performance issues once going over the 3.5GB mark.
Nvidia have not addressed that.
Last edited:
I'm not saying I DO want a refund... I'm just laying it all out. And it would be quite illegal indeed for future purchases to be affected if you went down that route! That's a million kinds of wrong on many legal levels. The CARD itself affecting future PERFORMANCE though...? That's the big question and SHOULD be the concern here.
No, you bought a boxed retail product. On said box is a description of the item contained within. Does the box describe 224GB/sec of VRAM bandwidth?
Stop being so damn ridiculous. The speed of the memory did not influence your buying decision IN ANY CAPACITY. The only reason you are whining about it now and calling foul is because there is an 'issue' surrounding the make-up of the card.
An issue that has yet to really be demonstrated as a show stopper. At most people have found highly specific situations while intentionally forcing high VRAM usage that highlight said 'issue'.
So you're telling us you know exactly what kind of performance 4GB of 224GB/s RAM will give you, and that you bought the card for precisely these specs because you know what it'll give?
I agree it's not exactly as advertised, but the exact specs are really not the issue, are they?
Show me a retail box which describes this.
It was on Nvidia official description page ^^^^^ the box is irrelevant. internet buyers do not see the box, what they see is what Nvidia and the retailer tell them. what they told them was wrong.
It does not matter, you are twisting the facts, Nvidia said it had 64 ROP's, it does not, they said it had 2MB of L2 Cache. it does not.
It does not matter, you are twisting the facts, Nvidia said it had 64 ROP's, it does not, they said it had 2MB of L2 Cache. it does not.
Nope, but I think much of that is people assessing memory usage with tools which do not accurately represent the amount of memory in use, going way over the actual 4GB, and suffering most of the performance loss from that.
Seriously- If the box says that, you have a strong case. Because that's the product you bought.
The box is more relevant than the nVidia product page is, by a damn long margin. In most situations the product you bought was not even a nVidia product per-se. It was an EVGA one, an ASUS one or otherwise.
So so so so wrong. You really think this??
How a product is ADVERTISED doesn't matter?!?
The case is Strong because the Manufacturer themselves put out incorrect information.
As i said, the buyer does not see the box, what they see is what Nvidia and the retailer tells them, what Nvidia told the retailer and the customer was false.
It's simply about paying for something you didn't get as advertised.
I'm copying the analogy of a previous poster:
Imagine you bought a new car, which was described as having a 340 horsepower 3 litre engine. You've owned the car for a few months and had no issues with it.
Then you discover in the news that it's actually a 300 horsepower engine, since the company made a mistake when advertising/marketing the engine.
You'd sure as hell want some compensation, either a replacement car of the correct specification or a refund, regardless of if you ever fully utilized the full power of the engine.
Obviously a GPU is far less expensive, though you've still payed for something you didn't get.
I understand some people won't give a damn, though I bet tens of thousands of people will give a damn.
Time will tell I guess.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 161
- Location
- Kent
That's your stance, and its ok, just contact OCUK or whoever you bought your card from and get an RMA. Then go buy something better for the same price... Judging by your conviction the performance of the 970 due to these announcements is obviously sub par to you and having a detrimental effect in the games you play.
Go buy something better, no need to argue on the forums. Your mind is made up. And I say this to everyone who is adamant they need a refund because of the bad performance they are getting, get an RMA.
Last edited:
Just checked a GTX 980 and GTX 960 box and there is no mention on them about how many ROPs or even the size of the bus. Or putting it another way NVidia are not making any inaccurate claims on the boxes I have anyway.
Except they were not truly sold based on the number of ROP's or L2 cache but their gaming performance. That it is has become an industry standard to describe some generic technical aspects of the underlying silicon for the interest of enthusiasts may not be reason enough especially considering most have no clue what it refers to and how it impacts them and therefore why the item is not as described and not fit for purpose.
If you purchased a jet and their was a error in the brochure on the number of fan blades in the turbine would you expect a refund?
The only way to I see to argue a refund is on the basis that under use, access to the slower 512MB partition prevents it performing as intended and being fit for purpose. Tricky and good luck with that proving that.
I do find it strange defending a company that I actually dislike due to some of their other business practices.
Last edited:
no, because the card still works perfectly well within its tolerances and yes it does indeed have 4GB RAM
all that ROP, RAP and Krap stuff means sod all to the likes of me and i bet you didn't worry about that stuff either when you brought the card.
you brought it at the time because it was basically IRRESTIBLE.....just like the SOC-force and the Phanteks etc....you dont need to know any of that technical stuff to build a really good rig do you, you just need the basic knowledge that you get from this forum.
if it wasn't for this thread, you wouldn't have known that there was any fault in this card at all.
Last edited:
- Status