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

Legend · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:48

Sin_Chase said:
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.

I do not see a reason for you to be so angrily convinced of this. As far as I can see, it is far from the open and shut case as you describe, and although I'm not saying you will end up wrong, I see no grounds for your unwavering conviction at this moment in time. But time will tell...

humbug · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:48

Sin_Chase said:
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.

No, the game stuttering / slowdowns at and over 3.5GB

Tonester0011 · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:50

Legend, want to make it interesting. Put some money on your claim being accepted, lol.

humbug · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:52

Tonester0011 said:
Legend, want to make it interesting. Put some money on your claim being accepted, lol.

What?

Legend · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:52

Tonester0011 said:
Legend, want to make it interesting. Put some money on your claim being accepted, lol.

Who said I was going to claim? Direct me to my post saying this. Instead I can direct you to the numerous posts I have made stating that I have no current intention of doing so, and that my second 970 pre-order remains un-cancelled.

Danny75 · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:53

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not sure why Nvidia needed to hide things. Both the GTX660 and GTX660TI did something with a similar effect as they had 192 bit memory controllers with 2GB of VRAM.

Because there's some **** in a high position there who ought to be sacked, that told those under him/her, to keep quiet about it, against their own advice. Probably.

Tonester0011 · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:54

humbug said:
What?

What?

dyonisis007 · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:54

Sin_Chase said:
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.

100% this guy!

I can run furmark 1440p 8xMSAA 24/7 no issue

I run all games I play max at 1440p SLI 970, no issue. This whole thing is because someone decided to run some unrealistic benchmarks and it became viral!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq1zvycFKUs

Tonester0011 · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:55

3rd time i've seen that hideous picture. Put it behind spoilers, yuck

Sin_Chase · 27 Jan 2015 at 02:55

Legend said:
I do not see a reason for you to be so angrily convinced of this. As far as I can see, it is far from the open and shut case as you describe, and although I'm not saying you will end up wrong, I see no grounds for your unwavering conviction at this moment in time. But time will tell...

Time for what?! Nothing that happens in the future is going to affect the basis for a SOGA claim now.

The retailer product pages accurately reflect the product that was bought.

Unless some other huge detail about the 970 is incorrect then what exactly are you expecting to happen? Even if some other detail was wrong, it would have to have been detailed on the retailer product page to attract a SOGA claim.

Legend · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:00

Sin_Chase said:
Time for what?! Nothing that happens in the future is going to affect the basis for a SOGA claim now.

The retailer product pages accurately reflect the product that was bought.

Unless some other huge detail about the 970 is incorrect then what exactly are you expecting to happen? Even if some other detail was wrong, it would have to have been detailed on the retailer product page to attract a SOGA claim.

All I'm saying is this has very clearly become a BIG deal now... the discussion elsewhere makes this thread all hugs and kisses in comparison. There is significant momentum behind this that will take a lot more than you just saying 'shut up and go home, nothing to see here' to slow down. Nvidia are in full damage control mode, and I doubt it's the last we'll hear from them. This will rumble on for some time, and I have little doubt it has nowhere near peaked yet. You say nothing will happen and no claim will be considered... I am not so sure... and it will only take one, then all hell breaks loose.

Sin_Chase · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:03

Only takes one? One what?

For anyone who has a SOGA claim denied, they will have to pursue it in a court as a civil matter. Nobody is going to do this for a GPU that costs nothing compared to the court costs you are going to attract.

Some more money than sense nutter might try test it in court but it will still be THEIR claim based on THEIR purchase from the retailer THEY used. It's not going to set any kind of precedent.

bru · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:09

The disclaimer at the bottom of the MSI webpage has this.

1. The specifications may differ from areas and we keep the right to change without notice. Please check the specific Specification with your local dealers.
2. The color of the product might be affected by photography and the monitor's setting, which might be different from the real product.

So no help at all

And OCUK's terms and conditions

2. Description and price of the goods
2.1 The description and price of the goods you order will be as shown on the Supplier's website at the time you place your order.
2.2 The goods are subject to availability. If on receipt of your order the goods you have ordered are not available in stock, the Supplier will inform you as soon as possible and refund or re-credit you for any sum that has been paid by you or debited from your credit card for the goods.
2.3 Every effort is made to ensure that prices shown on the Supplier's website are accurate at the time you place your order. If an error is found, the Supplier will inform you as soon as possible and offer you the option of reconfirming your order at the correct price, or cancelling your order. If the Supplier does not receive an order confirmation within 14 days of informing you of the error, the order will be cancelled automatically. If you cancel, the Supplier will refund or re-credit you for any sum that has been paid by you or debited from your credit card for the goods.
2.4 In addition to the price, you may be required to pay a delivery charge for the goods.
2.5 The Supplier warrants that the goods will at the time of delivery correspond to the description given by the Supplier. It is your responsibility to check the compatibility and suitability of goods for any particular purpose before ordering. The Supplier reserves the right to make without notice such minor modifications in specifications, designs or materials as it may deem necessary or desirable by experience.

In OCUK's favour they do not list the ROP count or L2 Cache on their product descriptions.

Right or wrong it is going to be very hard to force a refund. Unless Nvidia authorize one.

bru · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:13

dyonisis007 said:
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?

This could be the thing that settles it, all we need to do is find Nvidia actually saying this, rather than it being repeated by a reviewer.

deuse · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:13

Instead of unhappy concentrating on what NV did say. They should concentrate on what they didn't.

"Warning" Games may slow down after using 3.5GB of memory" would people of bought the product if that was stated on the box? NO.

So false\hidden information by NV for their own gains.

triss · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:14

While i think it was underhanded and should have been explained at launch it wouldn't stop me buying one now if i was wanting one or recommending them to others.

bru · 27 Jan 2015 at 03:41

Hold on is it 56 ROPs or 52 ROPS, it seems that the text from PCperspective and the chart from PCperspetive don't match.

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 04:54

bru said:
Hold on is it 56 ROPs or 52 ROPS, it seems that the text from PCperspective and the chart from PCperspetive don't match.

56

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 05:13

Legend said:
Who said I was going to claim? Direct me to my post saying this. Instead I can direct you to the numerous posts I have made stating that I have no current intention of doing so, and that my second 970 pre-order remains un-cancelled.

And so your problem is ?

Also if you work for a law firm they would advise you that it would seriously weaken your case having a second 970 on order and broadcasting it to the world.

If you have no intention of sending your existing card back why the anger rage insults and endless posts about the same thing. A good lawyer would rip you to pieces in a court of law.

What do you want from NVidia ?

james.miller · 27 Jan 2015 at 06:24

Aahhh legend works in law, now i get it. Now in understand why he's been peddling the law angle right from the start of the thread.