Petitioning for 970 Refund

No I do not own one but the results from various sources are in.
Golden Tiger, the German tech sites, and many other individual users giving the same complaints. Besides, I do not need to own a GTX 970 to be upset that companies can lie and get away with it

and yet you choose to ignore the countless tech websites which continue to state that the issue is not that big of a deal (unless you're running 4k)...GoldenTiger and the German websites?...seriously??...so you don't own the card in question yet have taken up arms in the name of justice?
 
and yet you choose to ignore the countless tech websites which continue to state that the issue is not that big of a deal (unless you're running 4k)...GoldenTiger and the German websites?...seriously??...so you don't own the card in question yet have taken up arms in the name of justice?

Why do you care?
 
I own the 970 I should care more

No, I'm wondering why you care about how he perceived the incidents and how it has affected his opinion, whether it is being deceived by Nvidia or unsatisfactory performance.

You seemingly haven't experienced it and/or don't care about your card/performance and can live with it. That's great.
 
No I do not own one but the results from various sources are in.
Golden Tiger, the German tech sites, and many other individual users giving the same complaints. Besides, I do not need to own a GTX 970 to be upset that companies can lie and get away with it.
Regardless of if I own it or not, all the points I listed remain valid. If you want to refute what I am saying based on me not owning the card then by all means do so. But I would rather you try and tackle each point with logical answers. Its outrageous to me that people are so ok with this. So willing to be lied too and ignored by a company.
If you want people with GTX970s to chime in, then I suggest you read every page of this thread. They already made their view point rather clear.

You've been flaming Nvidia like they'd stolen money out of your wallet and insulted your mother, and you don't even own an Nvidia card. You won't be refuted; you'll be disregarded as an AMD fanboy with no dog in this fight.

Seriously, what are you doing here? If Nvidia fanboys went into the AMD Flavor forum and started doing what you've been doing, what purpose would that serve?
 
You've been flaming Nvidia like they'd stolen money out of your wallet and insulted your mother, and you don't even own an Nvidia card. You won't be refuted; you'll be disregarded as an AMD fanboy with no dog in this fight.

Seriously, what are you doing here? If Nvidia fanboys went into the AMD Flavor forum and started doing what you've been doing, what purpose would that serve?

They do it all the time.
Look at how many people were quick to defend Nvidia on [H].
 
No, I'm wondering why you care about how he perceived the incidents and how it has affected his opinion, whether it is being deceived by Nvidia or unsatisfactory performance.

You seemingly haven't experienced it and/or don't care about your card/performance and can live with it. That's great.

I just did my research after the issue came to light and found that it doesn't effect my performance at 1920 x 1200...by the time it does it'll probably be time to upgrade again anyway...all this sky is falling talk is just noise and apparently a lot of people making it are people that don't even own the card in question...I guess it's the Occupy Wall Street movement of video cards
 
What's wrong with being upset at what nVidia did and the absolutely pathetic way they chose to deal (or really, not deal) with the fallout?
 
I just did my research after the issue came to light and found that it doesn't effect my performance at 1920 x 1200...by the time it does it'll probably be time to upgrade again anyway...all this sky is falling talk is just noise and apparently a lot of people making it are people that don't even own the card in question...I guess it's the Occupy Wall Street movement of video cards

Nvidia Justice Warriors? NotMyNvidiaShield?

(Not referring to you, n=1, I know you have a lot of cash invested in your 970s)
 
You've been flaming Nvidia like they'd stolen money out of your wallet and insulted your mother, and you don't even own an Nvidia card. You won't be refuted; you'll be disregarded as an AMD fanboy with no dog in this fight.

Seriously, what are you doing here? If Nvidia fanboys went into the AMD Flavor forum and started doing what you've been doing, what purpose would that serve?


You must not ever go to the AMD subforum.
 
Nvidia Justice Warriors? NotMyNvidiaShield?

(Not referring to you, n=1, I know you have a lot of cash invested in your 970s)

It's ok I think I know what/who you're talking about

And yes having spent over $1000 on the entire 970 package does not make me a happy camper :/

But I think I've mostly certainly moved past stage 2, currently somewhere between stage 4 and stage 5, but with bouts of stage 2 outbursts when provoked lol
 
@n=1
"But I think I've mostly certainly moved past stage 2, currently somewhere between stage 4 and stage 5, but with bouts of stage 2 outbursts when provoked lol "

Only if you are experiencing the Kübler-Ross model. Other models suggest 7 to as many as 14 stages! So it ain't over 'til it's over!:)
 
and yet you choose to ignore the countless tech websites which continue to state that the issue is not that big of a deal (unless you're running 4k)...GoldenTiger and the German websites?...seriously??...so you don't own the card in question yet have taken up arms in the name of justice?

The US sites have been strange about this whole issue. Where usually they revel in it they have been very PC. In this type of scenario I would ask someone to tell me what's wrong with GoldenTiger's/European reviews rather than sarcasm and pointing to reviews where flaws have already been found. Regardless, to me this is almost nit picking, nVidia 100% misrepresented their product and should openly accept returns. As an engineer, I think of all the design reviews this had to go through and the unethical principle of even designing a card like this. It should of been nipped in the bud before it even got to manufacture. I signed the petition. If possible I'll return my 970 for a 290x Lightning.

The overall gist for me is in 2016 when I plan to spend $1,000 - 2,500 on GPUs, if I go nVidia, there's a decent risk I'll get 80% of what I paid for and they will do jack shit to rectify it.

On a lighter note, this is still my favorite analogy, even if not the most accurate. It's addressing the 224 bit and 32 bit sections can't be addressed simultaneously, so when you access the last 0.5GB when you need your bandwidth the most it goes to hell:

This is probably the worst analogy since this discussion started. It's more like you are doing 140 and your car wants to downshift to first gear.
 
Last edited:
I'm kinda wondering right now if it's possible to lock out that last 512Meg as non-usable and not reported to prevent games from trying to use it. Not sure if that would be possible in drivers or if it would require a bios update.
 
So has anyone actually had success with this petition?

No?

What's the point of this thread again?
 
The biggest thing you that own 970 cards can do is push for returns at the etailers on those.
 
Here are videos I did at High and Ultra texture quality setting in Middle Earth: Shadows of Mordor. The path I took on these run throughs are similar to what Enjjo did over on the Geforce Forums. With the ultra texture quality settings the game is using ultra HD texture pack. Run the videos at 1080p for best quality. I continue to have no issues with this card when running over 3.5gb of memory.

A single GTX 970 was used and I was running at 2560x1440. I was using MSI Afterburner to monitor performance. All the other setting in the game are maxed out. The only difference in settings for the two run throughs was texture quality. I was only running with 8gb of ram.

At ultra texture settings the game was running over 3.5 gb (3,584 mb) for much of the run through. With the ultra texture settings it was running at over 3,700 mb for more than half the video. The most memory used was 3,811 mb.

At high settings texture settings the game was running under 3.5 gb (3,584 mb) for the whole run through. The most memory used was 3,582 mb.

Ultra textures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5wmhRbKzvE

High textures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PMsWiQnstg

Frametime graph comparison:
16301532430_2d080c364d_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Too small an issue and too niche a market to really effect NVIDIA. I'm sure their team of law firms have already come up with concrete defenses in case of a lawsuit. And maybe they buy a few 1000 cards back. Most likely not.
 
x4MGkzW.jpg


My box says it's a 256-bit card, but effectively it only has a 224-bit bus, right?

(and Gigabyte's website still states "industry's best 4GB GDDR5 memory 256-bit memory interface" for both their 970 *and* 980 cards.. seems really misleading imo).

Effectively yes, the card is running in 224-bit mode 3.5GB most of the time. Basically they left some vestigial hardware to keep the specs artificially high.
 
Too small an issue and too niche a market to really effect NVIDIA. I'm sure their team of law firms have already come up with concrete defenses in case of a lawsuit. And maybe they buy a few 1000 cards back. Most likely not.

According to this they sold over 1 million 970s and 980s, also EVGA oks returns in the UK:

http://www.legitreviews.com/gamers-...e-gtx-970-refund-evga-okays-returns-uk_158056

What do they get per a GPU, $100? I'd guesstimate at least 10% of their revenue is high end, perhaps 15%. That's not exactly niche.
 
According to this they sold over 1 million 970s and 980s, also EVGA oks returns in the UK:

http://www.legitreviews.com/gamers-...e-gtx-970-refund-evga-okays-returns-uk_158056

What do they get per a GPU, $100? I'd guesstimate at least 10% of their revenue is high end, perhaps 15%. That's not exactly niche.

Possibly, world wide. A lawsuit here in the U.S. will not effect any other country. A lawsuit in EU will not effect the U.S. A lawsuit in Russia will only effect Russia. See where I'm going with that? I doubt they sold over 1 million in the U.S. alone. Maybe a couple hundred thousand at most. Of those, maybe a few thousand will choose to return their cards. Hell, on this forum alone there are a lot of people with a 970 and only a handful have sand in the vags.

Also, 1 million units also includes OEM's moving these cards with a full PC.
 
The US sites have been strange about this whole issue. Where usually they revel in it they have been very PC. In this type of scenario I would ask someone to tell me what's wrong with GoldenTiger's/European reviews rather than sarcasm and pointing to reviews where flaws have already been found. Regardless, to me this is almost nit picking, nVidia 100% misrepresented their product and should openly accept returns. As an engineer, I think of all the design reviews this had to go through and the unethical principle of even designing a card like this. It should of been nipped in the bud before it even got to manufacture. I signed the petition. If possible I'll return my 970 for a 290x Lightning.

The overall gist for me is in 2016 when I plan to spend $1,000 - 2,500 on GPUs, if I go nVidia, there's a decent risk I'll get 80% of what I paid for and they will do jack shit to rectify it.

can anyone explain why no one seems to want to believe the most trusted hardware sites about this issue (AnandTech, Tech Report, [H], Hardware Canucks etc)?...every one of them admitted that Nvidia lied about the specs but that performance is not affected for the vast majority of users...like 98% of users...the 970 is still an excellent performer even with 3.5GB VRAM...instead there are a handful who seek out German websites to back up their argument...what's next, the Mongolian tech sites?

it would have been a much bigger issue if performance tanked or the cards over-heated or something along those lines...this just seems like something to get people riled up...I played BF: Hardline, Lords of the Fallen, Evolve, Dark Souls 2 with MSI Afterburner enabled and my VRAM usage is fine with everything maxed out and AA at 4X (1920 x 1200)

the 970 still has more ROPS then the 780 Ti...more VRAM as well
 
can anyone explain why no one seems to want to believe the most trusted hardware sites about this issue (AnandTech, Tech Report, [H], Hardware Canucks etc)?...every one of them admitted that Nvidia lied about the specs but that performance is not affected for the vast majority of users...like 98% of users...the 970 is still an excellent performer even with 3.5GB VRAM...instead there are a handful who seek out German websites to back up their argument...what's next, the Mongolian tech sites?

it would have been a much bigger issue if performance tanked or the cards over-heated or something along those lines...this just seems like something to get people riled up...I played BF: Hardline, Lords of the Fallen, Evolve, Dark Souls 2 with MSI Afterburner enabled and my VRAM usage is fine with everything maxed out and AA at 4X (1920 x 1200)

the 970 still has more ROPS then the 780 Ti...more VRAM as well

I don't think single card users are as affected IMO. But if I go tri-SLI (say 980ti) and nVidia pulls this again I get to look forward to being bent over a barrel on the railroad tracks while the nVidia locomotive rams me from behind. Afterwards I get to look forward to the tech community telling me "shhhh be quiet, it's not so bad, just enjoy it"? Seems like a raw deal.
 
Will that change the results?.

Well, since accuracy obviously doesn't matter to you, let's change the listed 970 specs to 12GB VRAM, 2.3GHz GPU speed, 128 ROPs and 8MB of L2 cache. After all, it won't change the results. :rolleyes:
 
Well, since accuracy obviously doesn't matter to you, let's change the listed 970 specs to 12GB VRAM, 2.3GHz GPU speed, 128 ROPs and 8MB of L2 cache. After all, it won't change the results. :rolleyes:

That still won't change the results. I could tell you a Ford Pinto has a 700HP V12 engine in it, but it still does 0-60 in 15 seconds.

The results will be the same regardless of what the spec sheet has on it.
 
That still won't change the results. I could tell you a Ford Pinto has a 700HP V12 engine in it, but it still does 0-60 in 15 seconds.

The results will be the same regardless of what the spec sheet has on it.

Your argument has already happened many times on this thread (and responded to).

§kynet;1041398391 said:
No, because the SLI problems were chalked up to either bugs, driver issues or whatever not a hardware limitation of the 970. Now that we know there is one, going forward this limitation is not going away and won't be fixed by any driver update. What we would see if the 970 was the cut down part Nvidia claimed it was for 3-4 months was a card that performed as the 980 but just overall slower.

Doesn't change the results but changes why the results were they what they were and the perceived future potential of the cards.
 
Your argument has already happened many times on this thread (and responded to).



Doesn't change the results but changes why the results were they what they were and the perceived future potential of the cards.

I don't recall [H] mentioning any "perceived future potential". Those are user assumptions. What [H] reported still stands today. The results are as valid today as they were 4 months ago. What's your point again?
 
I don't recall [H] mentioning any "perceived future potential". Those are user assumptions. What [H] reported still stands today. The results are as valid today as they were 4 months ago. What's your point again?

I never said anything about [H]. Yes they are user assumptions, users that actually buy these cards, based on the information they were given. The point is if customers were informed correctly the bus width was lower, the band width was lower, and the last half gig it's an 1/8th of what they were told the conclusion many of us would of arrived at for the increased stuttering likely would of been hardware related (unfixable), not software (fixable), ect.
 
Will that change the results?.
The answer is YES. The actual specs are the reason the 970 has issues under certain memory load scenarios, if the proper specs were published from the get go then we would have known up front the memory controller has limitations. Just because some games/setting don't show the problem doesn't mean there is no problem.

You'd think it would be bloody obvious by now that going forward games get more and more demanding, so having a gimped memory setup it not exactly ideal. Magnify that if you plan on running SLI. But If you think the specs don't matter then fine, let's have AMD and Nvidia make up whatever they want and sent that out to reviewers, is that okay with you? Remember Nvidia admitted the specs were wrong and issued the correct ones, why bother doing that if the specs don't matter? In fact let's not even publish ANY specs, not even the memory amount we will all just go by the game benches.
 
§kynet;1041417842 said:
Do you plan on correcting the specs listed in the review here?
There isn't anything to correct as far as the stated width of the memory bus. There are 8 active memory controllers on the GTX 970, creating a physical 256-bit bus between the GPU and the RAM.

The first, second, and third groups of 2 memory controllers have 2 L2 caches each, and 2 connections to the crossbar each.

The fourth group of 2 memory controllers has 1 L2 cache and 1 connection to the crossbar. THAT's where the bottleneck is.
 
The specs are wrong, end of. Nvidia issues the correct ones, I asked if these will replace what is up there.
 
§kynet;1041417842 said:
Do you plan on correcting the specs listed in the review here?

Please give me a list of all specific pages that you have found incorrect specifications on and I will review all of those personally. Please be SPECIFIC.

Why exactly would it matter if it were on the front of the box?

Because that is exactly what is advertised as specifications on the products.
 
§kynet;1041418073 said:
Here
Here
Here

The slides supplied by Nvidia are wrong, 64 ROPs etc. The GPU-Z shot is wrong as well although I don't blame GPU-Z for that.

Here are the SPECIFIC links

1
2
3

There could be other reviews as well but those are the ones I've read.

Thank you sir. I see if we have access to official corrected specs from NVIDIA on this issue.
 
Not so sure about that. Technically yes they did deliver a card with 4GB of DDR5 RAM, but it was also undisclosed as being 2 separate pools of memory which differ and interfere with each other, making it essentially a fast and slow pool of memory.
Point being? Intel could quite safely advertise their processors as having X MB of cache, where X is the sum of L1 + L2. In their spec sheets, they draw a useful but genuinely unnecessary distinction between L1 and L2 cache.

This situation is somewhat different, as there are some unexpected performance ramifications in some limited scenarios as a consequence of the segmentation, but (good) reviews speak well of the card's perf.

Whether ROP counts varying between what the press was told and what's physically working on the card constitutes false advertising I don't know, but I think it would be a pretty large stretch.
 
§kynet;1041418092 said:
Thanks. :) If Nvidia doesn't supply them to you, then at least you did your due diligence. On the GPU-z shot I don't know if that has been corrected someone with a 970 could quickly verify. I don't consider that big deal though I never take that info as the gospel anyway plus that is not official Nvidia info.

GPUZ doesn't show correct amount either and if I recall, I don' think there is anything TECH REPORT can do about it via software
 
Thank you for updating your review. I prefer to know the actual specs of the hardware I may either be purchasing for myself or recommending to friends/family.
 
Back
Top