Petitioning for 970 Refund

[mope54]

Are you sure your TV is getting it's claimed contrast ratio? Most TVs claim millions to one contrast and fall millions short. Cars claim X amount of MPG and fall short. I can name 30 other products that claim one thing and deliver something different. Why is there so little outrage about those products but so much about this one?

Do you think this post is from someone old enough to drive a car?

Back to the car analogy. If a car is marketed at 300hp at 35mpg, but it can only do 250hp at 35mpg, or 300hp at 27mpg, would that lying?

I'm not even making a dig at him personally, just pointing out that the post doesn't even make sense in terms of how engines work *and* completely misses the reality that both HP and MPG are routinely "massaged" by car manufacturers.

He's trying to use an analogy that he doesn't even understand. My guess is he's young.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Card is advertised as having a certain bandwidth and it actually does not have that bandwidth.
The memory after 3.5GB is useless and causes frametime stuttering. The performance after 3.5GB has not increased, the stutter has not gone away.
Retailers issuing refunds is a clear indication of a problem.
Nvidia could have avoided this by correcting the specs after launch. They didnt.
Nvidia could have avoided negative PR by compensating owners in some way. They didnt.
This thread could have only been 2 pages long had they done the right thing. They didnt.
Every post that tries to spin this as "users being ungrateful" or "a non issue" is simply prolonging this topic and causing more and more people to be aware.

Also car makers have been sued (successfully I might add) for falsely advertising horsepower. Look it up.

 

[trick0502]

Look at the diagram again.
There are interconnects between all pairs of memory controllers.
(By design you do not know wich part of you die will have defects, so you design all units alike so you have flexability)
But I take it that you do not use the false claim of 3.5GB more, so we can put that part to rest?

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Maxwell’s configurability allowed NVIDIA to disable a portion of the L2 cache and ROP units while using a “buddy interface” to continue to light up and use all of the memory controller segments. Now, the SMMs use a single L2 interface to communicate with both banks of DRAM (on the far right) which does create a new concern.

To avert this, NVIDIA divided the memory into two pools, a 3.5GB pool which maps to seven of the DRAMs and a 0.5GB pool which maps to the eighth DRAM. The larger, primary pool is given priority and is then accessed in the expected 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1-2-3-4-5-6-7 pattern, with equal request rates on each crossbar port, so bandwidth is balanced and can be maximized. And since the vast majority of gaming situations occur well under the 3.5GB memory size this determination makes perfect sense. It is those instances where memory above 3.5GB needs to be accessed where things get more interesting.
Let's be blunt here: access to the 0.5GB of memory, on its own and in a vacuum, would occur at 1/7th of the speed of the 3.5GB pool of memory. If you look at the Nai benchmarks floating around, this is what you are seeing.

 

[Rav3n]

I like this attitude. It's refreshing to hear a statement like this in a sea of melodramatic posts as of late.

I thought the same thing... until I looked at it from the point of view that I am a consumer who was misled, and there are laws against that.

I do feel like it is crappy for the vendors to pick up the charge for nVidia, but that just puts more pressure on nVidia.

Performance and ram issue aside, the specs were wrong from day one. Not just a typo wrong, but completely wrong.

Anyways all that said, I had no issue asking for my partial refund.

 

[trick0502]

It has the perfomance as benched right?
Infact I think the performance since launch have improved.
So it's working better than advertised.

But do you have any real world tests to show me where this becomes an issue?

This really has nothing to do with performance, it has to with being lied to. They made claims about this gpu that have been proven to be false. They even admitted them to be false and blamed it on their marketing team.

Just a quick note on the marketing team. After making a giant "mistake" that is going to cost nvidia millions and have them take a PR hit, did anyone from marketing get fired? Hmmm, doesn't that make you question if it really was a "mistake".

 

[mope54]

Let's be blunt here: access to the 0.5GB of memory, on its own and in a vacuum, would occur at 1/7th of the speed of the 3.5GB pool of memory. If you look at the Nai benchmarks floating around, this is what you are seeing.

The big question is why people expect to have access to every last mb of VRAM when that has never been the case. Of course, that begs the question of why nVidia drivers aren't mapping the system usage into that last .5 GB...or maybe they are/will be and didn't get to it in time before people hit the wall.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

They expect every last megabyte of VRAM to perform at advertised specifications.

 

[Kalmado]

The GTX970 can adress 4GB on the SKU.
It cannot be said more simple.
I suggest you do some reading up:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970




back to you.

(and could you stop with the personal attacks, I don't attack you for not understanding the topic, thank you)

Are you sure your TV is getting it's claimed contrast ratio? Most TVs claim millions to one contrast and fall millions short. Cars claim X amount of MPG and fall short. I can name 30 other products that claim one thing and deliver something different. Why is there so little outrage about those products but so much about this one?

I'd love to have clients like you two for my business. I would retire 20 years early.

 

[Kalmado]

The big question is why people expect to have access to every last mb of VRAM when that has never been the case. Of course, that begs the question of why nVidia drivers aren't mapping the system usage into that last .5 GB...or maybe they are/will be and didn't get to it in time before people hit the wall.

Because that's what you pay for? Is it really that hard to understand? Again, I wish I could find more clients like you. Like taking candy from a baby.

 

[mope54]

Because that's what you pay for? Is it really that hard to understand? Again, I wish I could find more clients like you. Like taking candy from a baby.

Yes, it's hard to understand because unless you started gaming last week you would know that you have never had access to the entire VRAM.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

I am trying to understand WTH you are trying to say and so I typed in, Graphics card cannot utilize all of its ram. The funniest thing is all the results were about the GTX970 LOL!

 

[n=1]

Everytime just when I think this thread has finally run its course, somebody just has to bring up the same old tired arguments and bring us back to square one again.

This is like the 5th or 6th cycle this thread has been through already. I honestly think Kyle's keeping this one open just for the lulz at this point.

 

[trick0502]

Yes, it's hard to understand because unless you started gaming last week you would know that you have never had access to the entire VRAM.

Are you serious? I must admit you have me confused right now, I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Can you tell me two gpus that you don't have access to all of the vram? I'll even start the list for you.
1) nvidia gtx 970
2)

 

[noobferguson]

Yes, it's hard to understand because unless you started gaming last week you would know that you have never had access to the entire VRAM.

We know now because we eventually saw through the bullshit, even though they were hoping we wouldn't be the wiser... or, in many other people's cases, couldn't be bothered, and Nvidia was right about them.

 

[mope54]

I typed in, Graphics card cannot utilize all of its ram. The funniest thing is all the results were about the GTX970 LOL!

One of the best indicators of how much FUD is being spread around by the people whining about this issue that nearly none of them will even experience.

As pointed out numerous times, the full 4GB is accessible just not at the full speed.

Of course, when I pointed out pre-release that the bandwidth was significantly lower than 780's on the market a whole bunch of people chirped it was irrelevant. Now it's relevant...

How can you not understand what I'm talking about. Do you think that every single mb of VRAM is dedicated to each single frame? Do you have to google this or are you capable of reasoning that VRAM handles a variety of factors and processes them at various speeds?

Maybe it depends on how long you've been computing. Obviously the google hits are going to be for the most recent searches and results. Dig deeper and read about when we were moving from 128mb to 256mb cards and those discussions about VRAM access. Read historic data about when SLI was introduced as a concept and how VRAM is handled across cards. If you weren't around back then this is probably lost on you. VRAM hasn't been a bottleneck for a looooong time. In fact, pre-970 release it wasn't even expected to be a bottleneck but people were justifying the 4GB "necessity" by saying new/upcoming releases would be shoddily coded so they would need more VRAM than they should.

But the very fact that the only response to the question of where's the harm is pointing to Golden Tiger's tests here and less than a handful of other tests elsewhere...underscoring the fact that in order to stretch this card past the limitation is extremely edge case and a hypothetical problem, rather than a practical one, for nearly everyone complaining about it.

We know now because we eventually saw through the bullshit, even though they were hoping we wouldn't be the wiser... or, in many other people's cases, couldn't be bothered, and Nvidia was right about them.

You don't "know now," didn't "see through the bullshit," nor are you any "wiser." You simply read about a user here experiencing stuttering and are convinced that you've got a problem with your card, too.

And I'm not saying he didn't hit the wall, but that's a far cry from what's being claimed in these past few pages.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Wow you are committed to the accepting the lie.
Keep making snarky comments about computing but its not making you seem any smarter.
Where are you getting this every mb is dedicated to every frame crap? I didnt even say that?
People expect their GPU to have the bus speeds advertised. People expect a SINGLE PARTITION OF RAM THAT PERFORMS UNIFORMLY when the card is ADVERTISED AS SUCH.

 

[mope54]

Wow you are committed to the accepting the lie.
Keep making snarky comments about computing but its not making you seem any smarter.
Where are you getting this every mb is dedicated to every frame crap? I didnt even say that?
People expect their GPU to have the bus speeds advertised. People expect a SINGLE PARTITION OF RAM THAT PERFORMS UNIFORMLY when the card is ADVERTISED AS SUCH.

I'm not accepting any lie. LMFAO.

Go read my comments pre-970 release. I thought the whole thing was bullshit and knew full well there was no way nVidia was going to give you guys twice the performance of the 780 class GPU's for half the price of the 980. That's why I kept my 780 HOF

You guys are the ones who bit it hook, line, and sinker. And then when it reveals what those of us with common sense could already figure out, you come lashing out at us and amazon and newegg instead of the only place it matters-nVidia.


Guess what bud, when ATI pissed me off I swore I'd never buy another card again and I haven't from them. That was the 9800 Radeon Pro. Means I've had to miss out on some cherries but at least I put my money where my mouth is and don't whine to the wrong corps with self-entitled bullshit.


edit: and true, you didn't say that exact thing. the thing you've been saying is the same thing over and over: you feel entitled to amazon's money because nvidia lied to you. Well, guess what? some of us don't agree. but since you have a big cluster of people sniveling about it you're not likely to change your opinion on that so I changed the subject: nvidia should simply address it via drivers because you don't need every single ounce of oomph bandwidth because the VRAM handles slow process up in there, too. then no one would even notice. perhaps they were going to do that or that ball got dropped. I don't know and don't really care. was trying to have a conversation with the relatively few rational people left in this thread...not the self-entitled generation that can't be reached via reasonable concepts and resolutions.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Wow lol so now its self entitled to not want to be lied too?
Its bullshit to want corporations to adhere to the law.
You are defending this while essentially calling it bait I mean that's fucking telling right their.
Keep building up your credibility though by telling people that all GPUs are like the GTX970 in how they cannot utilize all their RAM.
Let me help you visualize the list. (No, Dual GPU setups do not count)

Cards that cannot access their full VRAM
1.GTX970
2. Nothing

 

[mope54]

Wow lol so now its self entitled to not want to be lied too?
Its bullshit to want corporations to adhere to the law.
You are defending this while essentially calling it bait I mean that's fucking telling right their.
Keep building up your credibility though by telling people that all GPUs are like the GTX970 in how they cannot utilize all their RAM.
Let me help you visualize the list. (No, Dual GPU setups do not count)

Cards that cannot access their full VRAM
1.GTX970
2. Nothing

I've been entirely consistent with my position on this: if you feel lied to then you should take it up with nVidia.

But you and a slew of other people are not doing that and instead your behavior belies your self-entitled position: you just want money back on your card. you don't care if it comes from amazon, newegg, or tiger direct.

fuck them and fuck anyone who has anything negative to say about that...that's your opinion so far. you claim you hope they take it out on nvidia but you don't care whether they do or don't.

In fact, most of you don't even care about the card's performance. you straight up say the card works fine but why would you pass up an extra "free" 40-60 bucks off your card?

Yep, that's self-entitlement. Nothing to do with the law or morals.
In fact, dollars to doughnuts if a class action suit comes through and you get even more money back on the card it's not like you're going to return the money to amazon that you extorted from them. That's proof-positive that you're just acting self-entitled.

Same level as I wrote earlier: someone comes into a burger joint, eats a burger, figures out it's pink inside, rather than going to the cook, the little scumbag eats 7/8th of the burger, *then* complains and complains so loudly the poor waitress who only delivered it on a plate ends up paying out of her tips for your new burger. One day you're going to mature out of your belief that what you are doing is ok hopefully anyway.

 

[n=1]

I've been entirely consistent with my position on this: if you feel lied to then you should take it up with nVidia.

That was the first thing many people tried, and that got them absolutely nowhere at all. If they received a response, it was a canned "the 970 is amazing card and is working as intended" and "please contact your retailer if you would like to return the card". I don't need to tell you how that one went...

I will agree on one thing though: people who feel they received a defective product should be (hell I'd even say ARE) entitled to return their product for a full refund. On the premise that a full refund option was available, and yet people still elect to take a partial refund instead, then yes there might be something to be said about entitlement or what not.

 

[Relayer]

But he is making a false claim, because he didn't follow up on this.
Hence why I posted a more updated link from the same site as he posted.

One would expect people that complain about a topic at least have the basic understading of the topic, this does not seem to be the case here.

There are 4GB usable RAM, not 3.5GB.

Is the full 4gig as "usable" as the first 3.5? Is the bandwidth the same as the 980 as claimed?

 

[MavericK]

Same level as I wrote earlier: someone comes into a burger joint, eats a burger, figures out it's pink inside, rather than going to the cook, the little scumbag eats 7/8th of the burger, *then* complains and complains so loudly the poor waitress who only delivered it on a plate ends up paying out of her tips for your new burger. One day you're going to mature out of your belief that what you are doing is ok hopefully anyway.

What the fuck are you even talking about? This "analogy" has nothing in common with this situation at all.

 

[Disposed]

Same level as I wrote earlier: someone comes into a burger joint, eats a burger, figures out it's pink inside, rather than going to the cook, the little scumbag eats 7/8th of the burger, *then* complains and complains so loudly the poor waitress who only delivered it on a plate ends up paying out of her tips for your new burger. One day you're going to mature out of your belief that what you are doing is ok hopefully anyway.

What in the hell did i just read? Thats probably the worst analogy in the history of the internet...

Also FYI its pretty common practice in the food service industry to try and give a partial refund on food thats cooked wrong but still good enough to eat. Happens every single day so even though your analogy is so bad it really kind of goes against the point you where making...

 

[n=1]

The main problem with the analogy is that the cook in this situation is hiding in the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker, so you basically have no way of reaching the cook.

That aside, I kind of see what he's trying to get at. If I'm not reading it wrong, he's saying if you order a well done burger but figure out 1/8 is still rare, you toss the whole thing and ask for a refund. What you don't do is eat 7/8 of the well done part, then bitch and bitch and bitch until you get a full refund, even though you were quite happy with eating just 7/8 of the well done part and tossing 1/8 of the part you didn't want.

The analogy here is if you really feel THAT strongly, you should return the 970 for a full refund, and on that point he agrees with everyone else. He however disapproves of people taking a partial refund and then saying everything is suddenly peachy. Because if you were experiencing issues, they won't just magically go away with a 20% refund. And if that 20% refund suddenly made you a happy camper again, well...

At least that's my interpretation of what he's trying to say, so I could be talking out of my ass here.

 

[mope54]

At least that's my interpretation of what he's trying to say, so I could be talking out of my ass here.

No, that's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[lee0539]

car analogy is perfect example of needing compensation. If a car maker says it has 300 hp but it only has 270 hp you would get compensation. If they say it can hold 18 gallons but only holds 14 gallons same thing. Why would something being electronic not fall into the same category. It is a false advertisement on both volume (3.5 vs 4gb) and speed (1/7th speed for the last 0.5gb)

 

[{NG}Fidel]

I never said anything negative about Amazon. I've only praised them.
Amazon taking a hit is nvidias fault, not any gtx970 owners.
I also enjoyed that you made up random opinions for me that I never said. Really working for that credibility of yours.

 

[noobferguson]

This is why people are so on edge on this thread since we've already established the refund vs. partial refund issue repeatedly, yet they're forced to explain it again for someone that may or may not have read it.

People know they shouldn't be asking to be made whole by Amazon and not Nvidia, but Nvidia didn't listen. This partial refund strategy, in the hope that the buck is passed to Nvidia, is the only way they can both send some sort of message (since people on forums seem committed to defending Nvidia's behaviour as long as it doesn't affect them) as well as personally feel like they got something back.

Seriously, why do you think that abstract and indirect losses (Amazon losing money because Nvidia stonewalls them too) should be more important than current owners taking a more direct, tangible loss (a gimped feature on their product that becomes more pronounced the more time passes)?

If it's because you're affected in one scenario and not the other, then that's selfish. And if it's because you think the principle is important, then you're as high-minded as the people that started these threads (some would have been happy if Nvidia just owned up to it and worked on some soft of workaround, instead of refusing to acknowledge their sneaky actions).

In any case, I can't see why we're making excuses for the company instead of the customers.

 

[osirus35]

But he is making a false claim, because he didn't follow up on this.
Hence why I posted a more updated link from the same site as he posted.

One would expect people that complain about a topic at least have the basic understading of the topic, this does not seem to be the case here.

There are 4GB usable RAM, not 3.5GB.

I cheered when I saw this. Does not matter that the 512mb is slower or not in the end there is still 4GB of usable ram. Was it dishonest not to disclose the full truth? Sure, and its perfectly understandable that people are angry over it but saying that it only has 3.5GB of ram is flat out false.

 

[Parja]

Are you serious? I must admit you have me confused right now, I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Can you tell me two gpus that you don't have access to all of the vram? I'll even start the list for you.
1) nvidia gtx 970
2)

I like what you did there.

car analogy is perfect example of needing compensation. If a car maker says it has 300 hp but it only has 270 hp you would get compensation. If they say it can hold 18 gallons but only holds 14 gallons same thing. Why would something being electronic not fall into the same category. It is a false advertisement on both volume (3.5 vs 4gb) and speed (1/7th speed for the last 0.5gb)

Ooh, yeah, it has an engine capable of 300hp, but you can only really use 263 of that. And it's got an 18 gallon tank, but you're only going to be able to fill it to 15.75. Ok, so yeah, it does seat 8 people, but you'll only be able to go 20 MPH with 8 people in the vehicle.

 

[Starrbuck]

I am trying to understand WTH you are trying to say and so I typed in, Graphics card cannot utilize all of its ram. The funniest thing is all the results were about the GTX970 LOL!

This is great!

Everytime just when I think this thread has finally run its course, somebody just has to bring up the same old tired arguments and bring us back to square one again.

This is like the 5th or 6th cycle this thread has been through already. I honestly think Kyle's keeping this one open just for the lulz at this point.

It's insane. Best message thread in the history of [H]ard|Forum!!!

 

[Tgrove]

Everytime just when I think this thread has finally run its course, somebody just has to bring up the same old tired arguments and bring us back to square one again.

This is like the 5th or 6th cycle this thread has been through already. I honestly think Kyle's keeping this one open just for the lulz at this point.

This. I don't understand how there is still any rebuttal. False advertisement is false advertisement, who gives a flying fuck if the card perform the same as advertised (it does not). They lied about the specifications and later changed them.

I guess I forget our economy wouldn't be fucked like this if we didn't have so many sheeple like those arguing against this in this thread. People that don't push back or vote with their wallet. People that will tell a major company like nvidia it's ok to lie to us about your products and do nothing to make it right

 

[mope54]

This is why people are so on edge on this thread since we've already established the refund vs. partial refund issue repeatedly, yet they're forced to explain it again for someone that may or may not have read it.

People know they shouldn't be asking to be made whole by Amazon and not Nvidia, but Nvidia didn't listen. This partial refund strategy, in the hope that the buck is passed to Nvidia, is the only way they can both send some sort of message (since people on forums seem committed to defending Nvidia's behaviour as long as it doesn't affect them) as well as personally feel like they got something back.

The people posting in this thread about the issue the most have already demonstrated that the basis for their agitation is because they want something for nothing and not at all for any of the reasons you listed: they aren't trying to send a message to nVidia, they didn't actually want full refunds, they weren't even affected by performance issues. Pretty much takes the wind out of anyone's sails claiming they are on any sort of high road here:

I dont consider my card defective at all, it still works and performs well.

Yes it's true, we are all pleased with the GTX970's performance, and have been since launch. But at the end of the day, I don't like buying products based on false specifications, and this is just simply compensation for that.

Honestly, the card performs quite well, and was a great step up from my 660Ti. I still would have bought it even. Amazon gave me 30% back, which is more than sufficient. I'm still very much enjoying the 970.

Newegg would not refund me a % of sale instead they offered a full store credit.

Newegg, you lost a customer.

Though communicating with Newegg was indeed a pain they did offer me a full refund. I should have bought my 980 from Amazon

Just got off live chat with Newegg. At first they only offered a full refund. They said they wouldn't do a discount if I had wanted to go with a 980 or something.

Should have bought from Amazon, I guess. Newegg CS is a joke.

 

[xorbe]

Pretty much takes the wind out of anyone's sails claiming they are on any sort of high road here:

Broad generalization takes the wind out of your sails too. Just sayin'.

Yeah, not sure about those partial refunds people are haggling for. That seems like a dangerous strategy for making sure this doesn't happen again. It's like, "We'll look the other way for a small refund." They should be excluded from any class action lawsuit.

 

[n=1]

On that I completely agree.

If you're experiencing performance issues, you should be entitled to a full refund period.

If you're not experiencing performance issues but feel wronged about this, I'd still argue you should be entitled to a full refund since one could argue "opportunity cost" or whatever the hell "potentially lost things" covers. But you should only be allowed to return your 970 for a full refund and nothing more. This whole "if you give me 20% refund I'll be happy" deal is just bullocks.

That being said, if you're taking a partial refund because there is simply no way in hell you'd be able to obtain a full refund without ending up behind bars, that's fine too.

 

[Disposed]

If you truly care about where the money is coming from Kyle has gone on record here saying it will NOT be the retailers or AIBs

Nothing you say will ever reach him way up on that high horse hes riding.

 

[MavericK]

IMO partial refund makes sense because A) you did not receive the card with the specs advertised for the price set and B) there is no real equivalent card to switch to if you do a refund/return. You either buy a 980 and reward nVidia for shenanigans (and are out another $200), or switch to AMD which is not ideal either.

I only spoke of my experience with Newegg CS as a comparison point with others on here, and it seems clear that Amazon is far more willing to satisfy customers than Newegg is.

At this point I haven't returned or taken any sort of refund.

 

[mope54]

If you truly care about where the money is coming from Kyle has gone on record here saying it will NOT be the retailers or AIBs

Kyle's statement that you quoted claims they'll be reimbursed for returned cards, which I've always supported if the customer feels wronged.

But the quotes I posted are people specifically refusing to return the card, even for a full refund, and instead arguing for a partial refund while still happily using the card.

The fact that Amazon is refunding anywhere from 10% to 35%, Newegg 10% store credit, and TigerDirect 0% (but all of them willing to accept 100% returns), is in line with Kyle's statement that retailers won't be on the hook for returns, nVidia's statement that they were going to work it out so dissatisfied customers could return past the normal window, and my concerns the retailers are simply handling this as a customer service issue out of their own pockets when the customer refuses to return the card.

Amazon's variable "compensation" should be evidence enough that the amount they are giving to customers is dependent upon the customer service agent, how irate the customer is behaving, and not some pre-planned amount of reimbursement from nVidia. For one thing, Amazon would simply issue a statement and do a flat partial refund to all 970 purchases without anyone calling in if nVidia gave them a percentage based allotment. They wouldn't force every single disgruntled customer to call in and "haggle" with their service reps. Aside from the fact that Amazon hasn't acted like that in the past, it's costing them a ton of money to field these calls.

IAt this point I haven't returned or taken any sort of refund.

Of course you didn't--Newegg offered to take the card back with a full refund or give you 10% store credit, but you're happy with the card and simply want cash in your pocket out of theirs so neither suffices.

Nothing you say will ever reach him way up on that high horse hes riding.

oh, boo hoo, I don't agree with thieves or people extorting from 3rd parties that didn't do anything wrong. I'm so high in the sky there, bud

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Now consumers that got lied too and demand something to make it right are thieves.
Wow man I am sure every CEO just about loves you right now.

And Obviously Amazon and Newegg have the leverage to get Nvidia to reimburse them, unlike the consumers that got screwed over. Also you can post quotes by consumers that are happy with their purchase and I could post quotes from consumers that are incredibly upset. We can do that all day but that isnt really important in such a cut and dry situation.
If you have PROOF that these companies are paying for it on their own without reimbursement from Nvidia I would love to see it.


Frame times are all over the place in situations that no one would have ever imagined. This affects DSR users, HQ texture pack users, High Res Users.
I love your posts though, really keeping this thread alive lol!

 

[mope54]

Also you can post quotes by consumers that are happy with their purchase and I could post quotes from consumers that are incredibly upset.

Interesting way to misread the quotes. They are the same people you claim to be standing up for...people claiming they are happy with their cards while *simultaneously* demand partial refunds from Amazon and Newegg :roll eyes:

And yes, when you go and take money from someone who isn't responsible for the damage done to you, and justify it because the person responsible is hard to reach or the person you steal from is in a better position to get back at the person responsible, it doesn't get you off the hook from your immoral behavior.