970's having performance issues using 4GB Vram - Nvidia investigating

[eddyr]

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.

.

Except in that analogy I would say its more the diameter of the fuel line than the horsepower of the engine.

 

[humbug]

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.

And many will given that they are having performance and stuttering issues past the 3.5GB Buffer.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Removed post.

You are blinded by bias and the fact you are looking for fault because you want a refund/RMA/other compensation.

Does your retail box describe 64ROPS and 2MB of L2 Cache? Yes or No - Simple question really.

Where have you been described/advertised 64ROPS and 2MB of L2 Cache? OCuK product page perhaps. Where is it on nVidias page?

Even if it is on nVidias page. You will most likely find plenty of small print that absolves them from publishing errors.

As for memory bandwidth. Good luck arguing this. There will be no recognised standard testing methodology. nVidia can measure it however they damn please and advertise it as such.

You want to argue the point. Then argue it. Present some facts other than your mindless insults. Maybe when you can address the above you could start building a case to answer under the SOGA.

 

[Kaapstad]

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.

The 290X was launched on the back of a shedload of claims and expectations about Mantle.

Here we are 14 months later and Mantle world domination is not going so well, do I demand my money back from AMD ?

Of course not.

 

[Tonester0011]

Thought i'd take the liberty.

Spoiler

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[dyonisis007]

And many will given that they are having performance and stuttering issues past the 3.5GB Buffer.

Well that's fine then, if they feel they are experiencing issues related to nvidias recent announcement then why not. I'm sure, these 1080p people are being hit hard with the 2.5GB MAX RAM they may use, but its ok, the 970 has been shown to be defect, so why not ask for an RMA. CHOO! CHOO!

 

[Tonester0011]

Have you been missold PPI all over again, hate it.
Quick, get onboard.

 

[Dave2150]

The 290X was launched on the back of a shedload of claims and expectations about Mantle.

Here we are 14 months later and Mantle world domination is not going so well, do I demand my money back from AMD ?

Of course not.

There are several mantle enabled games that have been available for many months, possibly almost a year at this point.

There are also many more planned.

How you can even compare mantle to missing hardware is beyond me.

 

[humbug]

You are blinded by bias and the fact you are looking for fault because you want a refund/RMA/other compensation.

Does your retail box describe 64ROPS and 2MB of L2 Cache? Yes or No - Simple question really.

Where have you been described/advertised 64ROPS and 2MB of L2 Cache? OCuK product page perhaps. Where is it on nVidias page?

Even if it is on nVidias page. You will most likely find plenty of small print that absolves them from publishing errors.

As for memory bandwidth. Good luck arguing this. There will be no recognised standard testing methodology. nVidia can measure it however they damn please and advertise it as such.

You want to argue the point. Then argue it. Present some facts other than your mindless insults. Maybe when you can address the above you could start building a case to answer under the SOGA.

You keep hammering on about the box, it is utterly irrelevant as it say's nothing about what the card has and does not.

The Box is not the be all and end all, it is not the get out of jail free card.

What matters is what Nvidia tell the customer and the retailer at the place of said information, given that the place of said information is not the box but their marketing channels. Where Nvidia put up information about the card that is incorrect.

 

[Surveyor]

What's point in arguing about it?

If anyone believes the card was mis-sold then make your claim for a refund or compensation and see what happens.

 

[Tonester0011]

Good call, Bug.

Where is the bit stating 64rops?

 

[Sin_Chase]

What matters is what Nvidia tell the customer and the retailer at the place of said information, given that the place of said information is not the box but their marketing channels. Where Nvidia put up information about the card that is incorrect.

The fact you keep saying it does not make it any truer. How about some examples?

I have checked nVidias page and they make zero mention of the amount of ROPS or L2 cache on their product pages.

A launch of a product at a trade show or a slide show presentation of the new architecture often makes reference to very technical details such as # of ROPS and amount of L2 Cache. But this is not a retail advertisement.

A reviewers guide is NOT a retail advertisement or a description of the product.

What someone states in a product review is NOT a retail advertisement or description of the product.

Retail advertisement is at point of sale, or displayed from whomever/wherever you are buying the product. Your contract is with the seller, not with nVidia.

The issue people seem to be glossing over is that nVidia do not sell the product themselves to the general public. They are not a retailer. They wholesale their product to others who then go on to sell them. Despite nVidia messing up on ROPS/L2 chace your contract is with the retailer - not nVidia.


If people want to make a claim under the SOGA then they are going to have to CLEARLY demonstrate that the product they bought was described as being X and is in-fact Y. Show me where you have been sold 64 ROPS and L2 Cache. If you cannot even show an internet forum, good luck pursuing a case under SOGA.

 

[tommybhoy]

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.

Boxed product bought over the counter, this isn't where the vast majority of these cards are purchased.

Bought boxed 970 over the counter, a refund may/may not be successful.

However, a product bought online with declared Nvidia official papers, when you read x970 review with those declared Nvidia official papers/specs and it links you to purchase from here/other e-tailer, you have purchased a gpu based on original official Nvidia specs

There will be refunds given etailer dependant, shall wait and see what transpires here.

 

[Kaapstad]

There are several mantle enabled games that have been available for many months, possibly almost a year at this point.

There are also many more planned.

How you can even compare mantle to missing hardware is beyond me.

A few games is hardly global domination is it.

The point I am making is the above does not bother me even though others could argue that AMD were misleading.

In the same way people are splitting hairs about this problem.

Looking at this logically

You RMA a 970

You need a replacement card

You want the best card available for what you were using the 970 for

I think most experts would recommend a 970

End result zero gain.

 

[dyonisis007]

OK!

PEACE ALL!!

I think someone should make a poll - we all agree nvidia is liable for at least false advertising of their product(970)

I know This isn't the biggest tech forum on the net by any means but I know we have members that are linked to various others.

What do we, as 970 owners want nvidia to do?

PS. Please someone make a non biased poll and link below!!

 

[Surveyor]

we all agree nvidia is liable for at least false advertising of their product(970)

Did you miss the last part of the discussion?

 

[MOOGLEYS]

The card could come in a plain brown box and you would still have the same rights under Soga. Any claim would be against the retailer not Nvidia or the manufacturer of the card. It would then be up to the retailer to claim losses from the manufacturers or Nvidia.

If the product was miss sold and not as described then you will be entitled to make a claim against the retailer. Being able to prove the retailer failed to describe the card correctly would be how the claim would be won. The outcome would depend on how it is deemed the item not being as described affects the expected usage of the item.

Good luck.

 

[Sin_Chase]

However, a product bought online with declared Nvidia official papers, when you read x970 review with those declared Nvidia official papers/specs and it links you to purchase from here/other e-tailer, you have purchased a gpu based on original official Nvidia specs

A nVidia paper means absolutely sweet nothing. A review means nothing.

Show us where you have been sold a 970 describing 64ROPS and 2MB of L2 Cache.

What is listed in a nVidia technical paper for thier GPU architecture has absolutely no relevance to your actual purchased product at an e-tailer. Your contract is with the RETAILER. It is the RETAILER who describes the product you are actually buying.


It can be easily argued that the nVidia information on the 970 architecture is not even the boxed retail product you are buying. Your boxed retail purchase is put together by another company, who then goes on to describe the scope of that boxed product. Included cables, hardware, software, value-adds etc etc.

 

[humbug]

The fact you keep saying it does not make it any truer. How about some examples?

I have checked nVidias page and they make zero mention of the amount of ROPS or L2 cache on their product pages.

A launch of a product at a trade show or a slide show presentation of the new architecture often makes reference to very technical details such as # of ROPS and amount of L2 Cache. But this is not a retail advertisement.

A reviewers guide is NOT a retail advertisement or a description of the product.

What someone states in a product review is NOT a retail advertisement or description of the product.

Retail advertisement is at point of sale, or displayed from whomever/wherever you are buying the product. Your contract is with the seller, not with nVidia.

The issue people seem to be glossing over is that nVidia do not sell the product themselves to the general public. They are not a retailer. They wholesale their product to others who then go on to sell them. Despite nVidia messing up on ROPS/L2 chace your contract is with the retailer - not nVidia.


If people want to make a claim under the SOGA then they are going to have to CLEARLY demonstrate that the product they bought was described as being X and is in-fact Y. Show me where you have been sold 64 ROPS and L2 Cache. If you cannot even show an internet forum, good luck pursuing a case under SOGA.