Petitioning for 970 Refund

Haha I was just going To say the same thing.. prob really it's only 5 percent decided to keep the 970.
 
spaceace420 said:
that number would be higher if refunds were being approved.
Click to expand...

Yeah this article is low on sources. If everyone who purchased a GTX970 was proactively offered a refund, I suspect it would be far over 5%. Plenty of people who own these cards aren't tech savvy and won't be aware of the issue, or they have been stonewalled by retailers. Then people like me are simply waiting to see if an official return policy becomes a thing before I take any action.

Heck, most North American retailers won't even update the specifications, even though they are no longer "correct". Presumably this is because changing the specs on their pages would indicate fault with the original specs, and they would need to take returns on cards. If those retailers won't update specifications, there is no way they are going to make refunds easy.
 
Last edited:
If someone knows the % of worldwide sales for countries that allow returns, we can establish how many are being returned when it is allowed.

ie
Total worldwide returns = 5%
Europe allowing returns.

If Europe makes up 20% (1/5) of worldwide sales and 4 of that 5% of Worldwide returns are accepted returns for Europe, then the actual return rate for Europe alone will be (4% x 5) = 20% .
 
Nenu said:
If someone knows the % of worldwide sales for countries that allow returns, we can establish how many are being returned when it is allowed.

ie
Total worldwide returns = 5%
Europe allowing returns.

If Europe makes up 20% (1/5) of worldwide sales and 4 of that 5% of Worldwide returns are accepted returns for Europe, then the actual return rate for Europe alone will be (4% x 5) = 20% .
Click to expand...

It is easier to return products in Europe because of the consumer protection laws there.
 
Doubtful any return rate statistic mean anything if it's a few phone calls to a few retailers. Even if it's really bad in certain countries any stat will probably stay as "worldwide" to average it out, unless required by a court order.
 
DeadSkull said:
It is easier to return products in Europe because of the consumer protection laws there.
Click to expand...

Thats not the point.

I am looking to see...
When returns ARE allowed, how many % are being returned.

That is a better baseline to take when working out "how many would return them".
Rather than taking the worldwide figure which is made of mostly places that dont allow returns, so a lot of returns are refused.
 
The company I work for in Canada has adopted the policy of if you want to return the GTX 970 and it was purchased in the last 14 days it's no questions asked. If you're past the 14 days then you have to go through the manufacturer of the card. So far I have yet to have anyone return their 970 to me. Can't speak for other stores where I work. If I owned one I would return it on principal. I don't like the lack of customer support Nvidia has provided their customers.
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
Do you guys think the FTC will step in to get us some sort of compensation or mandatory no-hassle refunds? I hope we get to see NVIDIA on here soon: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising/protecting-consumers
Click to expand...

There was deceptive advertising to which, after 4+ months, nvidia admitted to after they were cornered and changed the 970 specifications. Then individual employee(s) offer(s) to help, later retracted by the company.

European returns may(?) also help further prove the deceptive practices nvidia employed.

There is definitely grounds, weather it gets the FTC's attention will depend on consumers I guess. One thing to be sure, nvidia will fight tooth & nail against it if it does come up. Maybe even with their "internal mistakes" story, which in theory shouldn't hold water against the FTC since there was still deception.
 
Their "internal mistake" story would only hold water if nVidia had proactively amended the incorrect specs. But clearly that was not the case, and it wasn't until this 3.5+0.5 thing was blown wide open 4 months later that they finally issued the correct specs.
 
NVIDIA engineers in conjunction with their lawyers will spin it so that it all falls in line w/the erroneous marketing. Anyone that thinks they have a shot at winning a lawsuit against them is just wasting time and money on a fools errand.
 
5150Joker said:
NVIDIA engineers in conjunction with their lawyers will spin it so that it all falls in line w/the erroneous marketing. Anyone that thinks they have a shot at winning a lawsuit against them is just wasting time and money on a fools errand.
Click to expand...

They should still be held accountable for having incorrect specifications, even if it was a mistake. Otherwise, what's to keep them from releasing newer cards under the guise that they made a mistake again?

And on an off topic, this is what I feel Nvidia's response has been like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
They should still be held accountable for having incorrect specifications, even if it was a mistake. Otherwise, what's to keep them from releasing newer cards under the guise that they made a mistake again?

And on an off topic, this is what I feel Nvidia's response has been like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, I think there should be some accountability so this doesn't set a precedent for future gpu releases being similarly crippled. Although I think the backlash NVIDIA has witnessed should deter them from taking that route--I hope.
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
Forget the VRAM, I'm talking about the L2 cache and ROP count which was flat out incorrect.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA didn't advertise L2 cache and ROP count. It's not even on their website or marketing materials or ad copy or box designs. So it's hard to argue a failure in truth of advertising when it wasn't even advertised.

Even then, you'd have to show that a person has been harmed by incorrect ROP count to get any kind of damages in a lawsuit.
 
5150Joker said:
Oh I agree, I think there should be some accountability so this doesn't set a precedent for future gpu releases being similarly crippled.
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine that somebody could say -- with a straight face -- that the 970 is "crippled".
 
jwcalla said:
NVIDIA didn't advertise L2 cache and ROP count. It's not even on their website or marketing materials or ad copy or box designs. So it's hard to argue a failure in truth of advertising when it wasn't even advertised.

Even then, it's hard to say how a person has been harmed by incorrect ROP count.
Click to expand...

Just a question to you, who do you think told everyone what the card specs were?
Where do you think the reviewers got their specs from?
Where did the AIBs get their specs from?
They all came from Nvidia. You just want to whitewash this so hard its weird.
Nvidia also linked to the material on their official page.
I am flabbergasted by the fact that you are now trying to tell people that Nvidia did not mislead people with the specifications. I guess they just apologize about that for no reason then eh?

jwcalla said:
It's hard to imagine that somebody could say -- with a straight face -- that the 970 is "crippled".
Click to expand...

Its hard to imagine that somebody could say -- with a straight face -- that Nvidia did not mislead people with the specifications of this card.
 
jwcalla said:
NVIDIA didn't advertise L2 cache and ROP count. It's not even on their website or marketing materials or ad copy or box designs. So it's hard to argue a failure in truth of advertising when it wasn't even advertised.

Even then, you'd have to show that a person has been harmed by incorrect ROP count to get any kind of damages in a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

They didn't?
They made statements that it had the same memory subsystem as GTX980, implying ROP/L2/IMC design.
They supplied the reviewer guides that are used to create publicly available "advertisements" of their products.
 
XxDaRkReAp3rxXdOtCoM said:
Forget the VRAM, I'm talking about the L2 cache and ROP count which was flat out incorrect. If it were just the VRAM issue, I'd agree with you although I still think they misled consumers a bit.
Click to expand...

L2 and ROP count on the front of the box?
 
jwcalla said:
It's hard to imagine that somebody could say -- with a straight face -- that the 970 is "crippled".
Click to expand...

It's "crippled" if you take into context of what people thought they were buying vs what they got. Performance is of course exactly what they were expecting but not what's under the hood.
 
5150Joker said:
It's "crippled" if you take into context of what people thought they were buying vs what they got. Performance is of course exactly what they were expecting but not what's under the hood.
Click to expand...

huh?...so you're buying a card for the specs and not the performance?...lower specs with great performance somehow equals a bad thing?...
 
I am just playing Devil's Advocate here. I don't think there is a legal leg to stand on legally.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
As I said above some people do not simply buy a GPU to game. For those consumers having the correct specs is important. Less VRAM impacts them and no review would have guided them correctly. THATS DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING.
Click to expand...

so those people buy a GPU to look at spec sheets all day?...the 8 less ROP's will cripple performance?...the people that game at higher resolutions/SLI should not have purchased the 970 even with the previous specs...most reviews I read when the 970 was first released clearly stated this
 
{NG}Fidel said:
As I said above some people do not simply buy a GPU to game. For those consumers having the correct specs is important. Less VRAM impacts them and no review would have guided them correctly. THATS DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING.
Click to expand...
Really? What percent of the people buying a graphics card like this do you think are not doing so for gaming? Do you believe these people are solely buying their cards by the specifications and not reviews?
 
Relayer said:
Well, as long as people are willing to eat it nVidia will keep shoveling it I guess?
Click to expand...

Yep. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Sad to see many in the tech press so out of touch with their target audience.
 
polonyc2 said:
so those people buy a GPU to look at spec sheets all day?...the 8 less ROP's will cripple performance?...the people that game at higher resolutions/SLI should not have purchased the 970 even with the previous specs...most reviews I read when the 970 was first released clearly stated this
Click to expand...

My bad I thought you actually read what I wrote.
The GTX970 issue exists for two reasons that you seem very intent on ignoring or obfuscating.

1. Total Effective VRAM and VRAM Bandwidth.
- The card for all intents and purposes is a 3.5GB card.
- The last .5GB is so slow that its unusable and results in performance degradation/stuttering.
- Users that expected to use this powerful GPU to push enhanced settings got let down when they realized that DSR, AA, and HQ textures can ruin your gameplay experience by causing massive stuttering.
- The Memory slowdown results in a lack of 100% GPU utilization even though the user is experiencing a less than pleasant gameplay experience.
- Many of these users would have opted for different GPUs had they known beforehand (980/290X).
- For Content Creators and digital artists VRAM matters and the speed of the VRAM matters. Those artists that expected a true 4GB got ripped off plain and simple.
- The Reviews chalked the SLi performance up to lack of mature drivers and application optimization.

2. Incorrect Specifications
- Nvidia gave the wrong specifications to every other party (reviewers, AIBs)
- Nvidia never informed them of the mistake until forum users called them out, months later.
- Nvidia's incorrect specs misled people into purchasing what they believed to be a true 4GB GPU not a 3.5GB GPU with .5GB for caching.
- This led users to purchase the card expecting performance to be fixed with software updates (as per the usual with new hardware), unaware that the issue was within the hardware itself.
- While ROPs and L2 Cache might not dictate performance the fact remains that Nvidia flat out lied and didn't even care to correct their "honest mistake".

Relayer, it seems people are more than willing to eat it. What I enjoy seeing is the people that try change the conversation. Most of them are blaming users and telling the users that they should have known better. Telling people that Nvidia never lied as if the specifications were determined by reviewers themselves (Heres a lesson Nvidia gives them the specs). The deception in this thread is strong and entertaining.
The funniest thing is that this issue would die if Nvidia admitted it actually happened.
 
FlipCody said:
Really? What percent of the people buying a graphics card like this do you think are not doing so for gaming? Do you believe these people are solely buying their cards by the specifications and not reviews?
Click to expand...

You realize most artists are not raking in the dough right? Digital artists want the best performance for the least amount of money and going with consumer grade GPUs is often the route they choose. Or are you trying to tell me that every artist is able to afford FirePro/Quadro cards?
 
So apparently since I'm not allowed to say certain things I'll just go with the flow then.

There's also the non-technical 3rd issue of nVidia's piss poor handling of the entire situation, which just caused more aggravation for the already pissed off owners.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
You realize most artists are not raking in the dough right? Digital artists want the best performance for the least amount of money and going with consumer grade GPUs is often the route they choose. Or are you trying to tell me that every artist is able to afford FirePro/Quadro cards?
Click to expand...
Are you going to answer my questions? I fully realize that there are artists that use graphics cards and also professionals. Are you telling me that an artist that is not making a lot of money is going to buy a card on specs and not reviews?
 
FlipCody said:
Are you going to answer my questions? I fully realize that there are artists that use graphics cards and also professionals. Are you telling me that an artist that is not making a lot of money is going to buy a card on specs and not reviews?
Click to expand...

Not many reviews cover the vast array of software they might use.
 
n=1 said:
There's also the non-technical 3rd issue of nVidia's piss poor handling of the entire situation, which just caused more aggravation for the already pissed off owners.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA must think that AMD's incoming 300 series is a complete steaming turd for them to act so nonchalantly.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Its hard to imagine that somebody could say -- with a straight face -- that Nvidia did not mislead people with the specifications of this card.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said. The reality is that "truth in advertising" laws apply to very specific settings... in particular, advertising. Sending incorrect details about the inner structure to reviewers is not a context of advertising under the law. And nobody cares if it's 56 ROPs or 64 ROPs. And let's be honest: nobody bought this card because it had 64 ROPs and was let down to only find 56 (or whatever the numbers are). And those who did would not be sufficient to make an FTC investigation or class action lawsuit worthwhile.

The VRAM issue is a little different though, since that was a marketing point and was all over their boxes and ad copy and everything else. And while the 4 GB part of that is technically true, the 256-bit is not.
 
More like they know that their stuff will outsell AMD's 3:1 no matter what the specs are, what the reviews say, what the price/perf ratio is, and what kind of scandal they've rocked in the past. (remember Bumpgate from a few years back?)
 
{NG}Fidel said:
My bad I thought you actually read what I wrote.
The GTX970 issue exists for two reasons that you seem very intent on ignoring or obfuscating.

1. Total Effective VRAM and VRAM Bandwidth.
- The card for all intents and purposes is a 3.5GB card.
- The last .5GB is so slow that its unusable and results in performance degradation/stuttering.
- Users that expected to use this powerful GPU to push enhanced settings got let down when they realized that DSR, AA, and HQ textures can ruin your gameplay experience by causing massive stuttering.
- The Memory slowdown results in a lack of 100% GPU utilization even though the user is experiencing a less than pleasant gameplay experience.
- Many of these users would have opted for different GPUs had they known beforehand (980/290X).
- For Content Creators and digital artists VRAM matters and the speed of the VRAM matters. Those artists that expected a true 4GB got ripped off plain and simple.
- The Reviews chalked the SLi performance up to lack of mature drivers and application optimization.

2. Incorrect Specifications
- Nvidia gave the wrong specifications to every other party (reviewers, AIBs)
- Nvidia never informed them of the mistake until forum users called them out, months later.
- Nvidia's incorrect specs misled people into purchasing what they believed to be a true 4GB GPU not a 3.5GB GPU with .5GB for caching.
- This led users to purchase the card expecting performance to be fixed with software updates (as per the usual with new hardware), unaware that the issue was within the hardware itself.
- While ROPs and L2 Cache might not dictate performance the fact remains that Nvidia flat out lied and didn't even care to correct their "honest mistake".

Relayer, it seems people are more than willing to eat it. What I enjoy seeing is the people that try change the conversation. Most of them are blaming users and telling the users that they should have known better. Telling people that Nvidia never lied as if the specifications were determined by reviewers themselves (Heres a lesson Nvidia gives them the specs). The deception in this thread is strong and entertaining.
The funniest thing is that this issue would die if Nvidia admitted it actually happened.
Click to expand...
{NG}Fidel, do you own a (or 2) GTX 970s? I asked this question back on post 626 and you never answered. Your signature does not have one but i figured you might not of updated it.
 
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.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup... The 290x lightning is running cooler than the GTX970. And I saved $60. Who cares if its higher wattage. I waste energy elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top