Regarding this, that describes peak theoretical bandwidth which part of the infrastructure does support anyway. Further complicated by its effective bandwidth which can be shown to be higher depending on the data.
-
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
Regarding this, that describes peak theoretical bandwidth which part of the infrastructure does support anyway. Further complicated by its effective bandwidth which can be shown to be higher depending on the data.
Is he not allowed to debate the issue, Kaap?
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 161
- Location
- Kent
Surely, from a non legal brain and going by what nvidia have themselves admitted a mistake was made in the marketing material. If that is the case, which it surely is, as the company admitted it, then everyone has been mis-sold a 970?
No need, to speculate?
No need, to speculate?
Nvidia have made the underpinnings of the card. All OCUK, EVGA, ASUS etc. have done is take said card and modify it slightly. Your contract of sale is with OCUK etc. of course, but ultimately responsibility for the product lies with Nvidia. I thought someone else explained that already?
You do realise Nvidia just said so right?
Where did I say I had NO CLUE? Please direct me to this post. I said it was not my area of expertise, but you obviously have NO CLUE yourself about my experience or knowledge.
Last edited:
NVidia follow good solid business guidelines, below is the first one
And here are the rest.
http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/
And this is what it will boil down to.
Retailer denies your SOGA claim and leaves you with only 1 option - Take them to court.
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. Try even finding a court which would entertain a claim on such technical and insignificant details.
Last edited:
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.
ok
not that i can be bothered to understand this either, but you've definitely had it..............esp the last two sentances.
they will only RMA your card if it fails to work under normal circumstances, consider yourself lucky if they RMA it due to it being OCd too far ... because it looks like they dont have to..................WOW !!
ok
not that i can be bothered to understand this either, but you've definitely had it..............esp the last two sentances.they will only RMA your card if it fails to work under normal circumstances, consider yourself lucky if they RMA it due to it being OCd too far ... because it looks like they dont have to..................WOW !!
Last edited:
Yes, but They still have their disclaimer to fall back on, which basically states they do not claim any information they put out to be correct.
How can you be so ignorant.
Nobody cares what nVidia has on thier product pages when it comes to a SOGA claim. nvidia.com is not the retailer, so jog on.
Did you even read the article you linked? The CORRECTED peak bandwidth description remains exactly the same at 224GB/sec.
*To those wondering how peak bandwidth would remain at 224 GB/s despite the division of memory controllers on the GTX 970, Alben stated that it can reach that speed only when memory is being accessed in both pools.
So, peak bandwidth remains unchanged.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 161
- Location
- Kent
Well, I'm sure within EU law there is a limit to that claim. I sold you a cooker and you got a toaster. I'm sure that wouldn't hold up at all!!
EDIT>> Just to add, I'm sure that no company would ever get away with such a braizen statement on their license agreement if an EU lawyer actually took it apart, and I'm sure it would not hold any substance in a court either. Its like Coca Cola saying, oh we put heroin in your drink and not mention it in their ingredience but our T&C's on the back of the can say: The Coca Cola corp do not claim any information they put out to be correct.
Last edited:
Debate it
He has annihilated it.
With a good debate it is useful to move forward and not go over the same ground for the last 3 days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
I think if it was up to OCuK they would refund, but that depends on Nvidia or the Vendor honouring that refund, ultimately the retailer would have to claim it back from Nvidia.
If the retailer chooses to honour your dispute but Nvidia don't then your fight is with Nvidia.
It's a sticky balancing act on Nvidia's part, if they chose to honour their users disputes it could cost them a lot of money, if they chose to tell those with disputes "Though!" it may tarnish the brand and confidence in it.
what is for sure is that they will do everything they can to keep a publicity lid on it, brush it under the carpet as much as they can.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,206
I think Nvidia will get away with this but all those that feel they got bent over and violated should vote with there wallets on there next purchase. This is very dodgy from Nvidia.
At the end of the day, NONE of us here are SOGA lawyers... and you would need one to weigh in on this to actually understand how and why in more detail if there is a case here or not... and it could be that all the evidence hasn't come to light yet. Even Nvidia aren't able to comment on the real-world performance penalty of this issue, and are encouraging users to do more testing. This is by no means done and dusted yet, and I'm will rumble on for another 50 or so pages at least before anything is resolved.
Yeah, that's exactly what they will do. There is no way they would get senior members of staff publicly talking about it, detailing the architecture further and explaining what has actually happened.....oh wait
You don't need to be a SOGA Lawyer to identify you have no case. It's as simple as reviewing the product page on the retailer with the product that you have.
As far as OCuK product pages go:
Retailer Product Page states 224GB/s Memory Bandwidth - The 970 has this.
Retailer Product Page makes no mention of # of ROPS
Retailer Product Page makes no mention of amount of L2 Cache
There is no other detail about the 970 that is being questioned.
Stop talking tosh like this is some high level complicated and complex SOGA issue. It's really not.
Also, do us a favour and keep your boardroom meeting talk to....your boardroom meetings. After our SOGA lawyer has weighed in on the issue, perhaps you are going to tell us to take this offline?
Last edited:
Yeah, that's exactly what they will do. There is no way they would get senior members of staff publicly talking about it, detailing the architecture further and explaining what has actually happened.....oh wait
All they have done is explain their architecture, they have not addressed any of the issues some people have had with it.
All they did was confirm an architectural rumour.
They ignored the complaints that brought the architectural difference to light in the first place.
It's actually a pretty clever thing to do it, admit what they have to (they can't deny what is a physical existence), but ignore the underlying issue.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 161
- Location
- Kent
Thanks for the decent reply, I have no intention of requesting an RMA from OCUK or nvidia. I am just interested in the ongoing drama, which as it happens, from a law point of view is turning out to be quite entertaining
Thanks for the decent reply, I have no intention of requesting an RMA from OCUK or nvidia. I am just interested in the ongoing drama, which as it happens, from a law point of view is turning out to be quite entertaining
It's a good debate
You mean some ridiculous specific benchmarking tool? Yeah, I'd dismiss that as absolute nonsense as well. Just like I dismiss wattage usage claims under Furmark stress testing.
Where are the real-world complaints? And by that I do not mean VRAM jacked settings that would have never have run the game smoothly with the afforded GPU power anyway.
- Status