• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Petitioning for 970 Refund

MrGuvernment said:
Or if you play Crysis at max setting on 4k which has shown to use almost 5G of VRAM with all things maxed out...
Click to expand...

At what point would then a straight 4GB instead of 3.5GB + 0.5GB make any sort of difference since you're still short over 1GB on a 980...this outcry is fucking asinine. Your card still has 4GB but just doesn't pull from it until needed - with a measured performance hit of a whopping 2% or less unless playing at 4K. And if you're playing at 4K on a single 970 you're just a fucking moron to begin with.

DeadSkull said:
This...

If you paid for a 224 HP car you paid for 224 HP car, not a 192HP or 32 HP.
Click to expand...

Except 192HP is probably what you see from the drive train as the 224HP is only to the rear differential/wheelbase. And even one better than that, the 224HP is probably about 1/4 the actual power being produced by burning the fuel due to efficiency losses. Congrats, everybody is a liar, sue the whole bloody world!
 
Last edited:
It is my understanding that the missing VRAM will only hit in specific and relatively uncommon scenarios.
A refund seems too aggressive considering the nature of the specifications error.
A free AAA game ($50-$60) seems a more appropriate compensation.

Those who absolve NVIDIA because "reviews were good bla bla" and "the card is still king of performance value ratio bla bla" are spineless and apathetic doormats. Come on guys, NVIDIA induced its customers in error by having incorrect specifications. If NVIDIA cares about its customers, a fair compensation will be offered.
 
Sprayingmango said:
Good lord you people are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

doz said:
I find it comical that people are saying just because you do not currently use 4gb and have not noticed the performance hit that its OK that NVIDIA did this.

My son paid for all his computer parts with his own money and we built it together. He purchased a GTX970 as it was a good card, at a good price that could last him a long time. While he does not push the envelope too much currently, he plans on playing some games in the near future that will require 4gb (he is running a 144hz 1080p LCD if people were wondering on that end). Is it really fair that he will be gimped in the future although he does not currently cap it out? Thats really peoples argument?

If people wanted a gimped card, they would purchase a lower end card. NV advertised a 4gb card, not a 4gb with 512mb gimp mode. There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting a refund on something that they purchased and was falsely advertised. Anyone who says different must be on Obama's payroll.
Click to expand...

^^^
 
Unless nVidia decided to allow 970 owners a discounted 980 with a return... I don't understand the logic of getting a refund and then turning around and spending more money to get a 980. Which I'm going to assume is a little better profit margin for nVidia. (I could be completely wrong here)

It's a tough situation. My thinking is everyone - including myself - that went with a 970 did it for a reason/reasons. For me personally, I think bang for the buck is still there, although it's obviously not as great as it was before. 980 is priced higher than I wanted to spend and AMD's counter uses more power and puts out more heat. And yes, power and heat are pretty important to me anymore. That literally leaves the 970 right now.
 
Last edited:
if Nvidia decides to allow refunds then expect the next generation of cards to be priced sky high
 
doz said:
I find it comical that people are saying just because you do not currently use 4gb and have not noticed the performance hit that its OK that NVIDIA did this.

My son paid for all his computer parts with his own money and we built it together. He purchased a GTX970 as it was a good card, at a good price that could last him a long time. While he does not push the envelope too much currently, he plans on playing some games in the near future that will require 4gb (he is running a 144hz 1080p LCD if people were wondering on that end). Is it really fair that he will be gimped in the future although he does not currently cap it out? Thats really peoples argument?

If people wanted a gimped card, they would purchase a lower end card. NV advertised a 4gb card, not a 4gb with 512mb gimp mode. There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting a refund on something that they purchased and was falsely advertised. Anyone who says different must be on Obama's payroll.
Click to expand...

could not agree more, my 970 replaced a 470 to give you an idea of how long I keep video cards around! :eek::eek::eek:


I don't have a lot of money for these things, and I had to save up quite a bit to be able to buy a 970, and now this, last nvidia card for me
 
There is NOTHING wrong with people wanting a refund on something that they purchased and was falsely advertised. Anyone who says different must be on Nvidia's payroll.
Click to expand...
Fixed
 
What is wrong with being upset over buying a product that had falsely advertised specs? I really don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. I made my purchase of two 970s based on the specs provided at launch. Since I am one to sell old parts to help pay for new ones, resale value is a major factor for me. With the true specs finally coming to light, I'm probably going to take a noticeable hit when I go to sell these cards. With the resale value hit, the next best thing would be to keep the cards as long as they keep running games at the settings I like to play with. Only problem with that is, with these lower specs, that timeframe is also going to be shorter...so again I'm out some money there too since I'd have to upgrade sooner than initially expected. At this point, I will likely be going the AMD route next time out of principle.

Oh, and yes, I have seen the performance issue first hand in Shadow of Mordor @1440p w/ texture pack. I can only assume it will pop up more and more often this year alone.
 
bpizzle1 said:
What is wrong with being upset over buying a product that had falsely advertised specs? I really don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. I made my purchase of two 970s based on the specs provided at launch. Since I am one to sell old parts to help pay for new ones, resale value is a major factor for me. With the true specs finally coming to light, I'm probably going to take a noticeable hit when I go to sell these cards. With the resale value hit, the next best thing would be to keep the cards as long as they keep running games at the settings I like to play with. Only problem with that is, with these lower specs, that timeframe is also going to be shorter...so again I'm out some money there too since I'd have to upgrade sooner than initially expected. At this point, I will likely be going the AMD route next time out of principle.
Click to expand...

Very well said, and I do think more people should go AMD next time around in order to simply send a message to Nvidia. The message being that they should at least act remorseful and attempt to fix any customer complaints.
Instead they are trying to sweep this under the rug with yellow journalism and telling consumers that they should be happy anyway. With actions like that Nvidia should be shamed to some degree so they do not attempt this again.
Four months to come clean and they still had to be exposed in order to correct incorrect specifications? Get real.
 
You knew about the performance of the 970 when you bought it the reviews were out. You were down with it. Now that it came out that it actually achieves that performance and price point with hobbled memory architecture, you want your money back? What difference does it make? None NADA, NIL, ZERO. It still produces the same FPS as it did before, nothing has changed.
 
M76 said:
You knew about the performance of the 970 when you bought it the reviews were out. You were down with it. Now that it came out that it actually achieves that performance and price point with hobbled memory architecture, you want your money back? What difference does it make? None NADA, NIL, ZERO. It still produces the same FPS as it did before, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

Actually it's because they lied about the specs, and actual memory that can be used at the proper bandwidth.

They lied to all customers for 4 months, thats the issue. Sure the performance is there, until you use 4k or high texture mods, then it tanks.

Also performance is even worse when you use another monitor because it uses up another 150-300mb of vram.

Either way Nvidia failed, and lied.
 
M76 said:
You knew about the performance of the 970 when you bought it the reviews were out. You were down with it. Now that it came out that it actually achieves that performance and price point with hobbled memory architecture, you want your money back? What difference does it make? None NADA, NIL, ZERO. It still produces the same FPS as it did before, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong...for now. Once we start seeing more games consume 3.5gb+ of VRAM, then your statement no longer applies. THAT is why people are upset. They bought the cards assuming the cards would have the same performance all the way up to 4gb not 3.5gb. It was a safe assumption based on the information we were given for the past 4 months.
 
M76 said:
You knew about the performance of the 970 when you bought it the reviews were out. You were down with it. Now that it came out that it actually achieves that performance and price point with hobbled memory architecture, you want your money back? What difference does it make? None NADA, NIL, ZERO. It still produces the same FPS as it did before, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

Yeah about that...

GoldenTiger said:
Did some more testing using Shadow of Mordor, SLI enabled and disabled, sub-3500mb and over 3500mb VRAM consumption. Frametimes stay within normal variation/acceptable consistence when in single-card mode regardless of VRAM, but going to over 3500mb in SLI causes wild and rampant stutters/hitches with vastly fluctuating frametimes to match.

mhOevfQ.png


Long story short, I have to agree for single-card that while it is a big false advertisement and spec change it may not have a giant practical impact (at least from what I can see so far... unless you may want to go dual-card later for example), but in SLI it is a very real and major issue.
Click to expand...
 
n=1 said:
Yeah about that...
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you were worried about 4GB memory performance you would've looked into tests that push the memory limits.

As I did look into it, and realized that the 290x is a much better choice than the gtx970 for 4K gaming.

I'm not saying that falsifying specs is not a weasel move from nVidia, it is. But deep down we all knew that there must be some corner cutting going on somewhere, now we know where they did it. The GTX970 is still a dang good card, especially power to performance wise. Yes you might have to turn some features off to get memory usage bellow 3.5G in some cases, but it was the same story with GTX660 and 1.5G. I was in that boat.

Hopefully the SLI issue can be rectified by new drivers. But if not that still doesn't make the GTX970 useless, it's just not as good a buy as we thought it was.
 
I have 970gtx sli and i would very much like the last 0,5gb of memory.. i feel cheated.

So don't you go around telling me that i am stupid, especially when i made the purchase and you did not.

there has allways been a case of diminishing returns when buying hardware.

we where told that you can have 85% of the 980GTX performance for a lot less..

it turns out you can't - false advertising.

had we been told, that would have impacted our buying discussion!

I for one uses a 4k screen, so i expect to run into this issue alot.

my hope now, is to get a refund, or to get a driver that either makes the slow ram a L3 cache or disable it.

that way i can have a 3,5gb card that works like i expect it to.




People getting upset over owners getting upset - are huh? why do you guys defend this practise? or is it because you really wanted that 970Gtx and now feel all entitled?
 
M76 said:
I'm not saying that falsifying specs is not a weasel move from nVidia, it is. But deep down we all knew that there must be some corner cutting going on somewhere, now we know where they did it. The GTX970 is still a dang good card, especially power to performance wise. Yes you might have to turn some features off to get memory usage bellow 3.5G in some cases, but it was the same story with GTX660 and 1.5G. I was in that boat.

Hopefully the SLI issue can be rectified by new drivers. But if not that still doesn't make the GTX970 useless, it's just not as good a buy as we thought it was.
Click to expand...

All the rationalization post accepting that Nvidia's marketing was misleading is irrelevant, the onus is not on the consumer to figure out whether Nvidia or any other company is lying about the characteristics or specifications of their products.

If you live anywhere other than the US where there is decent consumer protection (i.e. the EU, UK, Australia), you can already return your gpus for a full refund no petition required. Apparently the blow back is serious....

http://www.techpowerup.com/209409/p...s-being-returned-over-memory-controversy.html

In what is a major fallout of the GeForce GTX 970 memory allocation controversy, leading retailers in the EU are reporting returns of perfectly functional GTX 970 cards citing "false advertising." Heise.de reports that NVIDIA is facing a fierce blowback from retailers and customers over incorrect specs. Heise comments that the specifications "cheating could mean the greatest damage to the reputation of the company's history."

Major German PC hardware retailer Caseking.de says that retailers don't have any explanation from NVIDIA to give to their customers. A similar sentiment is being expressed by the NVIDIA add-in card partners (AICs) we spoke to. Retailers and AIC partners are on their own, for now. One AIC partner rep told us that NVIDIA has no worldwide action plan, as of now, to deal with a potential flood of returns.

In absence of every other recourse, laws in most EU member states dictate that the retailers accept returns for a full refund, if they are not able to "repair" the defect, or exchange with another unit that works as advertised (which a retailer obviously can't, in this case). Retailers' options in the matter boil down to: 1. Taking back cards from whoever isn't happy with their GTX 970 and giving them a refund; 2. compensating with something of value (eg: game-coupons, in-game currency, etc.,) and 3. Springing up a surprise, such as exchanging GTX 970 cards purchased before a set date, with a GTX 980 (if that's your idea of a "repair."). This will come at the expense of a cascading lawsuit-chain (customers suing retailers, who in-turn sue AICs, and who in-turn sue NVIDIA).

NVIDIA, on the other hand, plans to issue a driver update that will "improve" the way the chip allocates resources, but there's no word on whether it re-enables disabled components that NVIDIA wasn't honest about, the first time around. They're counting on the issue to simply blow over, because at $329, there really isn't much you can complain about the GTX 970, given how it's positioned in comparison to the GTX 980.
Click to expand...
 
It's funny I haven't seen any of this same raging anger at ANY review site for not exposing this issue over the past four months. I guess because you have to actively go looking for the problem under very specific conditions in the first place.
 
melk said:
It's funny I haven't seen any of this same raging anger at ANY review site for not exposing this issue over the past four months. I guess because you have to actively go looking for the problem under very specific conditions in the first place.
Click to expand...

Or you dont play at 4k res, where you can easily spot it.

The 970 GTX is a great 1080 card, but 1440/1600p (to some extent) and 4k can all show the issue.
 
wow, you guys sure make me feel good for picking the 980 over the 970
 
Sucks for having such pitiful consumer laws, that you need to petition such things. In Europe, it goes without saying, that if manufacturer cannot return product to the advertised specs, you have to get your money back.

Though, been told by some "squirells", that Asus EU is doing some good offer for the 970 owners, and it should be ready by Tuesday. I'll wait with returning. If it's free stepup to 980, I'll take it, and ebay it, while getting some cheapo used 290 to last till 390 :)
 
DASHlT said:
Or you dont play at 4k res, where you can easily spot it.

The 970 GTX is a great 1080 card, but 1440/1600p (to some extent) and 4k can all show the issue.
Click to expand...

how many people are actually gaming at 4k today (around .03% according to the latest Steam hardware survey)...seems like the issue is more about the principle for most (which is valid)...as a home theater videophile/audiophile it somewhat reminds me of people nitpicking every Blu-ray for flaws...if you really want to dig into every minute, miniscule detail then you're bound to find some (green color tint on the Fellowship of the Ring Blu-ray comes to mind even though the director approved the new color timings)
 
i find it funny that the people calling us ridiculous, does not own the hardware in quetion..

i smell envy manifested as an oppinion.

this reminds me of people not owning the swift calling it a crap monitor due to it being TN.

Just sad really.
 
polonyc2 said:
how many people are actually gaming at 4k today (around .03% according to the latest Steam hardware survey)...seems like the issue is more about the principle for most (which is valid)...as a home theater videophile/audiophile it somewhat reminds me of people nitpicking every Blu-ray for flaws...if you really want to dig into every minute, miniscule detail then you're bound to find some (green color tint on the Fellowship of the Ring Blu-ray comes to mind even though the director approved the new color timings)
Click to expand...

Except its not some miniscule trivial flaw, its an advertised feature which is wrongly described. Whether or not a given consumer takes advantage of that feature or benefits from it is wholly and utterly irrelevant.There is some real bizarre logic permeating in this thread trying to excuse nvidia when in reality it should be taken to task over this type of advertising, irrespective of whether it was deliberate or a result of carelessness.
 
M76 said:
Yeah, if you were worried about 4GB memory performance you would've looked into tests that push the memory limits.

As I did look into it, and realized that the 290x is a much better choice than the gtx970 for 4K gaming.

I'm not saying that falsifying specs is not a weasel move from nVidia, it is. But deep down we all knew that there must be some corner cutting going on somewhere, now we know where they did it. The GTX970 is still a dang good card, especially power to performance wise. Yes you might have to turn some features off to get memory usage bellow 3.5G in some cases, but it was the same story with GTX660 and 1.5G. I was in that boat.

Hopefully the SLI issue can be rectified by new drivers. But if not that still doesn't make the GTX970 useless, it's just not as good a buy as we thought it was.
Click to expand...

Yep, and they did. Base clock, Cuda Cores etc... I don't know all the details of everything that was cut down in the 970 but I never read anywhere before this week about the VRAM being crippled.

polonyc2 said:
how many people are actually gaming at 4k today (around .03% according to the latest Steam hardware survey)...seems like the issue is more about the principle for most (which is valid)...as a home theater videophile/audiophile it somewhat reminds me of people nitpicking every Blu-ray for flaws...if you really want to dig into every minute, miniscule detail then you're bound to find some (green color tint on the Fellowship of the Ring Blu-ray comes to mind even though the director approved the new color timings)
Click to expand...

How many people are looking ahead to game at 4k? I think that's a more pertinent question. I'm one of them, and that's precisely why the 970 was the lowest card I was looking at getting. Really it was between the 970 and the 980.

Probably my biggest problem with those arguing over this not being a big deal, benchmarks said this and you bought the card according to etc, etc... We're not talking about consumers looking to run games that aren't that demanding. The 970 is not a full blown budget card, imo. The card costs ~$350 new. Your average PC user isn't going to drop that much money on a GPU. No, we're in the enthusiasts bracket with this card. If people buying this card are gaming at 1080p there's a damn good chance they're trying to future proof themselves for more demanding games to come. Or, they're like me trying to position themselves for 4k.

And believe it or not, 512MB of 4GB is a pretty sizable chunk.

Note - I've already given my piece on how I feel about the card in another thread and stated I probably would have still bought it. But that doesn't change the deception from nVidia and the problems I or anyone has or could run in to with this development.
 
TheHobbyist said:
Maybe I am missing something that you can fill me in on. My understanding is that what you really have with the 970 is 3.5GB of memory, with a 512GB red-headed-stepchild.

However, this wasn't put in place after the performance reviews were done. The card still performs the same as it always has.

What specific scenarios are we even seeing a performance hit vs the traditional 4GB of memory setup?
Click to expand...

Please stop throwing the words "performs the same". The issue with the card isn't it's raw FPS performance. It's the fucking microstuttering at playable framerates when microstuttering shouldn't be occurring.
 
xTrident said:
If people buying this card are gaming at 1080p there's a damn good chance they're trying to future proof themselves for more demanding games to come
Click to expand...

agreed...that's one of the reasons I bought the Gigabyte G1 Gaming 970 card...I'm not into upgrading every year so I was thinking the 970 would last me at least as long as my previous GTX 580 (3 years)
 
polonyc2 said:
agreed...that's one of the reasons I bought the Gigabyte G1 Gaming 970 card...I'm not into upgrading every year so I was thinking the 970 would last me at least as long as my previous GTX 580 (3 years)
Click to expand...

Two to three years is about what I go for as well. I got my 680 around February 2013. And that was after it had been out longer than the 970 now.
 
Iklos said:
i find it funny that the people calling us ridiculous, does not own the hardware in quetion..

i smell envy manifested as an oppinion.

this reminds me of people not owning the swift calling it a crap monitor due to it being TN.

Just sad really.
Click to expand...

Yeah it sure is ridiculous pushing a mid range range with settings that are FAR beyond what it was designed for and calling for a refund... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I really thought the hard forums was better than this, but the sheep are just following the herd.

Oh look!! At 150% resolution scale and DSR and 4XMSAA my card stutters!!!! I want a refund!! nvidia sucks!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Sprayingmango said:
Yeah it sure is ridiculous pushing a mid range range with settings that are FAR beyond what it was designed for and calling for a refund... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I really thought the hard forums was better than this, but the sheep are just following the herd.

Oh look!! At 150% resolution scale and DSR and 4XMSAA my card stutters!!!! I want a refund!! nvidia sucks!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Differing opinions of mid-range. I don't consider the 970 "mid-range".

And the problem I've seen isn't pushing the card beyond it's limits. It's running specifically within the specified amount of VRAM and not having problems using less than 3.5GB, and then having stuttering problems greater than 3.5GB.

"I really thought the hard forums was better than this" I'll go ahead and give the people running into stuttering problems the benefit of the doubt. I mean, they have video, graphs and corresponding stats to show such....
 
I don't care for a refund at this point but for those that bought this card believing it to have more memory and in turn can be a bit more future proof for new games deserve a refund in the least. I don't care if the performance is still good, Nvidia still advertised false specifications and if you are okay with being lied to as a consumer, you are the real sheep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top