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

[Surveyor]

Don't manufacturers reserve the right to change the specification of a product at a later date anyway.

I am not sure on the above so if someone could clarify please.

As the discussion is continuing this is what Nvidia say on their website:

THE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ANY KIND INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, TITLE, NONINFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL NVIDIA OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF INFORMATION) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE MATERIALS, EVEN IF NVIDIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. BECAUSE SOME JURISDICTIONS PROHIBIT THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. NVIDIA does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. NVIDIA may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice, but makes no commitment to update the Materials.

 

[Sin_Chase]

If you think you have a claim under SOGA - Pursue it, with your evidence, for your purchase at the retailer which you bought it at.

What is utterly ridiculous is this crusade that everyone who bought a 970 is entitled to a refund "just because" and it should be honoured by every retailer and outlet that sold a 970.

 

[humbug]

As the discussion is continuing this is what Nvidia say on their website:

That ^^^ might be Nvidia's, and in turn the retailers get out of jail free card, it would need to be tested.

Disclaimers.

 

[Dave2150]

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.

Your suggesting AMD promised 'world domination' with mantle? All I remember is several games being promised as having future mantle support, BF4 being the main big one.

Terrible comparison and you know it.

 

[Tonester0011]

Hey, a Victim does not call the portraiture out on his behaviour

K, brah.
You seem really peed off though, buddy. Going to return your 970 then?

 

[Legend]

You may have to show and explain how 64 rops and 2048KB influenced your decision to buy.

Actually you wouldn't. The law VERY much favours the consumer in this area. I work in the legal profession myself, although not in this field, so my knowledge is somewhat sketchy, but I do know that consumer rights are VERY heavily biased towards the consumer... surprisingly enough being called 'consumer rights' lol... but they were established to help and not hinder. Can you imagine a situation where it was that easy to just say to a customer, "prove this, prove that", with the bottomless pits of money that a multi-national corporation could support a phalanx of lawyers with? No one would stand a chance. The consumer rights laws are specifically designed to prevent that. Most people are quite surprised to learn what their actual rights are I find, in many areas of law.

 

[triss]

While i dont agree with how Nvidia conviently forgot to mention how the .5 worked at launch i do have some questions for this lets all get refunds crew
Who exactly reads a cards rops l2 chace description and base's there purchase on it?
Personally i go off reviews of how a card preforms in games not of its technical makeup.
From Ryan Shrout article

NVIDIA has come clean; all that remains is the response from consumers to take hold. For those of you that read this and remain affronted by NVIDIA calling the GeForce GTX 970 a 4GB card without equivocation: I get it. But I also respectfully disagree. Should NVIDIA have been more upfront about the changes this GPU brought compared to the GTX 980? Absolutely and emphatically. But does this change the stance or position of the GTX 970 in the world of discrete PC graphics? I don’t think it does.

I do happen to agree with Kaap on this aswell you get a RMA and want a nvidia card best card atm for most users atm is the gtx 970

 

[Kaapstad]

Like Kaap earlier... why the attack on people who do want to return thier GPU's because of this, why this aggression?

If people want to return their 970s that is their choice and none of my business, if they have a good claim I wish them well.

 

[humbug]

K, brah.
You seem really peed off though, buddy. Going to return your 970 then?

You mistake my enthusiasm for something it is not.

 

[dyonisis007]

If people want to return their 970s that is their choice and none of my business, if they have a good claim I wish them well.

I agree, and get the next best thing... ermmm a 970 lol they are great cards!

Maybe a 290x? Well why not, heat, power heat. Why didn't they get one before. Maybe buy a 980 for more money, nvidia are laughing, lol, suckers, spend more to buy our more expensive card when they didn't need to. LOL. Sheeple make me laugh!!

 

[Kaapstad]

Your suggesting AMD promised 'world domination' with mantle? All I remember is several games being promised as having future mantle support, BF4 being the main big one.

Terrible comparison and you know it.

So you are telling me we can only expect a few Mantle games.

If this is true it really is time for me to leave the thread as it could get quite lively.

And while we are on the subject of Mantle and this is related and very relevant.

After all the promises about how much better Mantle would run games why did it become an absolute memory hog and even make said games unplayable. This is something that is far worse than anything applicable to the 970.

 

[Sin_Chase]

The law VERY much favours the consumer in this area.

I work in the legal profession myself, although not in this field

so my knowledge is somewhat sketchy

Enough said, to be honest.

Can you imagine a situation where it was that easy to just say to a customer, "prove this, prove that"

Yes, I can. It's called being reasonable and the very minimum expectation is that the claimer can prove/demonstrate that they are entitled to a refund based on the criteria set out by the SOGA.

Or are you advocating that anyone can claim under SOGA with zero evidence?

Are you sure you work in the legal profession? You seem a little bit lost. If you do work in the legal profession, it seems probable that it's in an admin role in a legal firm with no actual legal based work.

 

[Mal X]

Good call, Bug.

.

Where is the bit stating 64rops?

you dont think i'm going to read all that lot do you............

but yes, none of that mumbo jumbo stuff is mentioned and as such you dont have a case, because obviously the lack of that information had no bearing on your purchasing decision.

the packaging ?............. no, because you had no idea what was on the packaging when you ordered it from here.

 

[Legend]

nVidia's information is entirely inadmissible unless it forms part of the description at the POINT OF SALE. This includes:

The product described on the RETAILERS product information
The physical box in which it is presented
Any advertisement placed at the RETAILERS point of sale

I was referring to the memory bandwidth, which is CLEARLY given on the Nvidia production information page as 4GB and 224GBs, when it isn't.

No, it quite clearly states a point blank DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT.

Not - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT UNTIL THIS DATE.

Even if it was permissible to distribute. It is a REVIEWERS GUIDE. It is NOT a product description or an advertisement. The only time it would EVER matter under SOGA is if that exact image was put on the RETAILERS product information. THEN it would form part of the description of the product you actually bought. Otherwise, go fish.

You will likely think this is ridiculously pedantic (and it may be), but there is no full stop or break in the sentence. They use a '-' which is no different than a comma or semi-colon... i.e it relates to the information preceding it. You may say this doesn't matter, but it does, legally speaking... and the definition of that sentence grammatically and legally is that the card is embargoed until Sept 18th, do not distribute until then. Plus, it says a the top of the page, it's a reviewers guide, so it would obviously be released at SOME POINT after the 18th, otherwise it would have 'for internal use only' or some such wording on it.

 

[humbug]

The alternative is Nvidia Disclaimers hold up in court. a claimant has no case despite buying the product based on incorrectly published information.

Result = We got your money, tough!

That may well happen, but it's not a good thing. is it?

Deleted post.

@ dyonisis007, They are sorting it out, so just leave them to it. Don't like it, Red X top right of your screen.

 

[Legend]

Enough said, to be honest.

Yes, I can. It's called being reasonable and the very minimum expectation is that the claimer can prove/demonstrate that they are entitled to a refund based on the criteria set out by the SOGA.

Or are you advocating that anyone can claim under SOGA with zero evidence?

Are you sure you work in the legal profession? You seem a little bit lost. If you do work in the legal profession, it seems probable that it's in an admin role in a legal firm with no actual legal based work.

I know enough to comment and make statements I know to be fact. I am not an armchair pundit, put it that way.

I didn't say you wouldn't need evidence, don't be absurd. The evidence is plain to see for everyone in the description of the card at the point of sale. Simple as that. You don't need to prove you bought it specifically because you thought it had 224GBs RAM. How would anyone prove that exactly?

You need to read up on the law in regards to the description of products at the point of sale. I am not saying definitively the Nvidia case is a slam dunk... it may very well not be... but based on the evidence I've seen, it's not without merit by any stretch, as you and others seem to be suggesting.

 

[Sin_Chase]

I was referring to the memory bandwidth, which is CLEARLY given on the Nvidia production information page as 4GB and 224GBs, when it isn't.

Your. Contract. Of. Sale. Is. With. The. Retailer. Not. nVidia's. Product. pages.

You also ignored the fact about there being no established standard testing method for VRAM memory bandwidth. So...how are you going to PROVE or DEMONSTRATE that you do not have 4Gb of 224GBs memory? You cannot.

You will likely think this is ridiculously pedantic (and it may be), but there is no full stop or break in the sentence. They use a '-' which is no different than a comma or semi-colon... i.e it relates to the information preceding it. You may say this doesn't matter, but it does, legally speaking... and the definition of that sentence grammatically and legally is that the card is embargoed until Sept 18th, do not distribute until then. Plus, it says a the top of the page, it's a reviewers guide, so it would obviously be released at SOME POINT after the 18th, otherwise it would have 'for internal use only' or some such wording on it.

Wow, just wow.

Even if the - was substituted with a ',' it reads in exactly the same way.

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT

Is a hard statement that means EXACTLY what it states. It does not say:

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT PRIOR
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT UNTIL SAID DATE
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT UNTIL EMBARGO IS PASSED

It states DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT. End of.

It does not need to be labelled as an internal document. It would have been sent directly from nVidia to a reviewer registered with nVidia for review products.

I know enough to comment and make statements I know to be fact. I am not an armchair pundit, put it that way.

Well no, by your own admission you have no clue about Consumer Rights laws. So yes, you very much are an armchair pundit with no formal experience or knowledge that would enable you to label yourself as anything but such.

The evidence is plain to see for everyone in the description of the card at the point of sale. Simple as that. You don't need to prove you bought it specifically because you thought it had 224GBs RAM. How would anyone prove that exactly?

You need to read up on the law in regards to the description of products at the point of sale. I am not saying definitively the Nvidia case is a slam dunk... it may very well not be... but based on the evidence I've seen, it's not without merit by any stretch, as you and others seem to be suggesting.

What evidence? Where? Nobody has posted any. OCuK did not sell it as a 64ROP 2MB l2 cache card, it;s not on the product box. It's absolutely nowhere except in nVidia technical documents. So WHERE is this evidence that is plain to see? There is no evidence of inaccurate descriptions on the retailer pages. REMEMBER - The contract is with the retailer, not with the manufacturer.

As for memory bandwidth claims. You STILL are putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA". Show us the recognised standard for the measurement of memory bandwidth. Then demonstrate how the description of 224GBs is inaccurate to fulfil the criteria of the SOGA.

 

[eddyr]

Actually you wouldn't. The law VERY much favours the consumer in this area. I work in the legal profession myself, although not in this field, so my knowledge is somewhat sketchy, but I do know that consumer rights are VERY heavily biased towards the consumer... surprisingly enough being called 'consumer rights' lol... but they were established to help and not hinder. Can you imagine a situation where it was that easy to just say to a customer, "prove this, prove that", with the bottomless pits of money that a multi-national corporation could support a phalanx of lawyers with? No one would stand a chance. The consumer rights laws are specifically designed to prevent that. Most people are quite surprised to learn what their actual rights are I find, in many areas of law.

Well good luck to them. I don't think it will be quite so straight forward in practice.

 

[Kaapstad]

I know enough to comment and make statements I know to be fact. I am not an armchair pundit, put it that way.

I didn't say you wouldn't need evidence, don't be absurd. The evidence is plain to see for everyone in the description of the card at the point of sale. Simple as that. You don't need to prove you bought it specifically because you thought it had 224GBs RAM. How would anyone prove that exactly?

You really should refrain from all this legal waffle as it is pointless unless you intend to start a claim.

What you should be doing is considering your practical options.

Do you want to RMA the card

Keep the card

Sit tight and wait for a fix from NVidia

Sell the card

Or anything else that is a realistic plan of action.

If you are really in the legal profession you would know that going to court is not a serious option.

 

[humbug]

@ Sin_Chase, whats your point?