Petitioning for 970 Refund

[PRIME1]

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

Here we go. They went past 3.5gb and could not find stuttering.

I bet I could find benchmarks where the 290x starts to crap out once the settings are turned up high enough.

Storm in a teacup.

 

[spaceace420]

So basically you want H to go out of their way to regurgitate information already available on other sites? Just to prove that if a game uses more than 3.5 but less than 4GB of VRAM, the performance is bad, when in fact that has already been established for some games?

The amd fcat issue was already tested elsewhere too, it is actually a compliment to [H] over other sites. I pay allot more attention to what is said here by them than anywhere else. Pretty sure I am not alone in thinking that way.
Chris

 

[§kynet]

So basically you want H to go out of their way to regurgitate information already available on other sites? Just to prove that if a game uses more than 3.5 but less than 4GB of VRAM, the performance is bad, when in fact that has already been established for some games?

But according to powers that be here, there is no issue beyond a PR "mistake" which is why there will not be any further testing.

 

[spaceace420]

"We slowly wonder though why certain US press is always so much prioritized and is cherry picked … Nvidia ?"
"Utilizing graphics memory after 3.5 GB can result into performance issues as the card needs to manage some really weird stuff in memory, it's nearly load-balancing. But fact remains it seems to be handling that well, it’s hard to detect and replicate oddities. If you unequivocally refuse to accept the situation at hand, you really should return your card and pick a Radeon R9 290X or GeForce GTX 980. However, if you decide to upgrade to a GTX 980, you will be spending more money and thus rewarding Nvidia for it. Until further notice our recommendation on the GeForce GTX 970 stands as it was, for the money it is an excellent performer. But it should have been called a 3.5 GB card with a 512MB L3 GDDR5 cache buffer."
Quote from prime1's linked guru 3d article, another reason I wish it was [H] testing this one. I know it won't happen and understand the stance just have differing opinion is all.

 

[rocketr2]

Kyle, some time back ago some people questioned you on the way you conducted your reviews, that in some situations you were CPU limited at higher resolutions. You went back and redid the tests and published your reevaluated conclusions. I think what people want is for you to go back and do the same thing with the 970. People just want to make sure that these limitations are actually real and hear it from you a real source that we can trust. But you just can't say we have already conducted the 970 sli review, we want you reevaluate it and either say yes the 970 has issues, and here they are, or no the 970 has no issues what so ever.

 

[polonyc2]

all the highly respected tech sites have done their analysis- AnandTech, Guru3D, Tech Report etc...and they all say that the issue is not as serious from a performance standpoint as a few keep insisting...are there any reputable sites that have said that the 970 needs to be recalled or that performance is greatly diminished?...what more do people want?...

 

[Meeho]

"We slowly wonder though why certain US press is always so much prioritized and is cherry picked … Nvidia ?"
"Utilizing graphics memory after 3.5 GB can result into performance issues as the card needs to manage some really weird stuff in memory, it's nearly load-balancing. But fact remains it seems to be handling that well, it’s hard to detect and replicate oddities. If you unequivocally refuse to accept the situation at hand, you really should return your card and pick a Radeon R9 290X or GeForce GTX 980. However, if you decide to upgrade to a GTX 980, you will be spending more money and thus rewarding Nvidia for it. Until further notice our recommendation on the GeForce GTX 970 stands as it was, for the money it is an excellent performer. But it should have been called a 3.5 GB card with a 512MB L3 GDDR5 cache buffer."
Quote from prime1's linked guru 3d article, another reason I wish it was [H] testing this one. I know it won't happen and understand the stance just have differing opinion is all.

"Our product reviews in the past few months and its conclusion are not any different opposed to everything that has happened in the past few days, the product still performans similar to what we have shown you as hey .. it is in fact the same product."
"Overall you will have a hard time pushing any card over 3.5 GB of graphics memory usage with any game unless you do some freaky stuff."
"In that situation I cannot guarantee that your overall experience will be trouble free, however we have a hard time detecting and replicating the stuttering issues some people have mentioned."
"Utilizing graphics memory after 3.5 GB can result into performance issues as the card needs to manage some really weird stuff in memory, it's nearly load-balancing. But fact remains it seems to be handling that well, it’s hard to detect and replicate oddities."

All that from just one game and "pushing" the card to almost(!) 3.6 GB.

all the highly respected tech sites have done their analysis- AnandTech, Guru3D, Tech Report etc...and they all say that the issue is not as serious from a performance standpoint as a few keep insisting...are there any reputable sites that have said that the 970 needs to be recalled or that performance is greatly diminished?...what more do people want?...

Could you link Anandtech and TechReport's frametime analysis? Only serious examination I've seen is from German tech sites.

 

[polonyc2]

Could you link Anandtech and TechReports frametime analysis?

do you think that you and a select few are the only ones that know how to test the 970?...do you think Tech Report, AnandTech etc do not know what the issue is or how to test it?...or do you think that maybe the issue exists in extreme testing scenarios but it's not worth getting the masses into a frenzy over?

 

[§kynet]

do you think that you and a select few are the only ones that know how to test the 970?...do you think Tech Report, AnandTech etc do not know what the issue is or how to test it?...or do you think that maybe the issue exists in extreme testing scenarios but it's not worth getting the masses into a frenzy over?

These "extreme" testing scenarios only involve going past 3.5GB, that's it.

 

[Meeho]

do you think that you and a select few are the only ones that know how to test the 970?...do you think Tech Report, AnandTech etc do not know what the issue is or how to test it?...or do you think that maybe the issue exists in extreme testing scenarios but it's not worth getting the masses into a frenzy over?

No, I don't. Please, post any frametimes analysis from those two sites. Frametimes are the issue, so frametimes analysis is what is relevant.

 

[polonyc2]

No, I don't. Please, post any frametimes analysis from those two sites. Frametimes are the issue, so frametimes analysis is what is relevant.

so you don't think those sites know what is relevant or how to test the 970's performance?

 

[LurkerLito]

Technically [H] did test this but came to a different conclusion. From the 4K 970 SLI review if you look at the the Watch Dogs 4K benchmark:

What we are seeing here in this game is most like broken SLI. CrossFire is scaling very well in this game, but SLI is not based on our testing. If it were working right, that GTX 970 SLI performance would be on par with 290X CF in this game most likely.

Since no one was checking the memory usage when the tests were run, what their mem usage was during the test is unknown so it could have been both a SLI performance drop due to a bad SLI profile, or memory issue or both. I just tried nearly the exact setting in Watch Dogs a few minutes ago using DSR and mem usage was pretty much stuck at 3.5GB. But I am on the latest drivers so it's quite possible that the drivers are already set up to try their hardest not to use that 512MB patch. I maxed all the settings I could and it still never exceeded 3.5GB.

 

[Meeho]

so you don't think those sites know what is relevant or how to test the 970's performance?

Firstly, those two sites haven't tested the 970 over this issue AT ALL. Not even meaningless FPS testing. So I find your last posts quite funny.

Secondly, the whole performance controversy is about what is happening to frametimes, so I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

I just tried nearly the exact setting in Watch Dogs a few minutes ago using DSR and mem usage was pretty much stuck at 3.5GB. But I am on the latest drivers so it's quite possible that the drivers are already set up to try their hardest not to use that 512MB patch. I maxed all the settings I could and it still never exceeded 3.5GB.

They are. It is because the card, if it wants to avoid stuttering, has to behave like a 3.5 GB one.

 

[primetime]

I wonder how long before this thread gets "Closed" This is the last one if i'm not mistaken but i suspect we'll all get this article from Kyle and gang when they have the time to get it done

 

[Dayaks]

Technically [H] did test this but came to a different conclusion. From the 4K 970 SLI review if you look at the the Watch Dogs 4K benchmark:

Since no one was checking the memory usage when the tests were run, what their mem usage was during the test is unknown so it could have been both a SLI performance drop due to a bad SLI profile, or memory issue or both. I just tried nearly the exact setting in Watch Dogs a few minutes ago using DSR and mem usage was pretty much stuck at 3.5GB. But I am on the latest drivers so it's quite possible that the drivers are already set up to try their hardest not to use that 512MB patch. I maxed all the settings I could and it still never exceeded 3.5GB.

That's what GoldenTiger saw as well. A single card was a little worse, SLI went to hell.

Just read through Pcper's small review. 970 began stuttering at 3.5GB like the 980 does at 4GB, not too crazy but noticeable in the charts.

The really interesting thing was in a COD: AW for the same exact settings the 970 used 3.6GB and the 980 4GB... Really curious what's going on there.

A major flaw is all of these sites are using single cards, where SLi is where you'd more likely max out memory and in GoldenTiger's scenario is where it mattered and frame times got slaughtered. It's SLI/triSLi that should be investigated - there maxing the VRAM is a lot easier.

 

[Bladestar]

Wow Kyle & Brent, this is a PR problem ?

A major hardware manufacturer flat out lied about what their product was capable of.
It tried to pass off a 970 as a slightly undercut 980 with the specs they gave all the review sties.

It really has no bearing to the facts that this site tested "real world" performance of the card.
Even though, your "real world" performance showed something funny was going on in SLI that you couldn't account for at the time, and now we all know why.

Look at all the front page stories you have done since the launch of this site.
Look at all the times you have posted about when a company does wrong.

Comast lies, you post about that.
Something going on with Apple, be it them getting sued, exploits whatever, you post about that.
AMD/ATI doing something wrong, yep, that is a story.
Heck, lots of front page stories posted have something to do with being lied to, lied about, or a variation of that.

Let me quote this very site on the scandalous behavior of this company:

... The community certainly does not like being lied to, be it unintentional or not.

ATI now knows what is expected of them by the folks that buy their products and it will now be up to ATI to not disappoint in the same way again. Obviously, we will keep an eye our for just how the rest of their X1000 launch goes as there are quite a few products in the lineup that are yet to show.

And a quick note for all of those readers that think we are being a bit too critical of ATI as of late. Remember that all of us need ATI in this market very badly. ATI building and delivering solid products in a timely manner is critical to the overall balance when it comes to 3D gaming video cards. Good solid competition is needed in the market and without ATI in the picture, that needed competition is gone. So when you see us sternly questioning the actions of a video card company, it is because we want you the customers to lay pressure on them, in order to make them step up and deliver. ATI is a critical component in the world of computer gaming and we need them to be the best they can be, and lately they have not exhibited the level of performance we think they should.

As for what we suggest to our readers to buy, we simply suggest what we think is the best value at the time of publication. We could care less whether or not it comes in red or a green wrapper. But yes we do play "favorites" all the time. And those favorites are our readers. Thanks for listening.

Huh, so, the community doesn't like being lied to back then, nor now.
They were lied to, not by AMD/ATI this time around, it was Nvidia.
ATI's lie was that it wasn't a "hard launch".
Nvidia's lie was that they lied on the capabilities of what their card can do.

As you can see above, you (Kyle) still say "As for what we suggest to our readers to buy, we simply suggest what we think is the best value at the time of publication" which is exactly the case you say now for the 970 card.
You are consistent on ONLY that one thing.

Change the above front page story from ATI to NVIDIA, and *poof* there is no story here, doesn't matter about how the specs of the card have changed overnight, doesn't matter that they lied, this is all PR ?

There is clearly a double standard when it comes to what stories are posted on the front page.

The community just expects a site that says "We are absolutely leaders in hardware evaluation" to actually call out companies that does the tech community wrong. There can't be an argument here that Nvidia hasn't done the community wrong as your own words show that you DO call out companies when they lie (be it unintentional or not), but, only certain companies it seems.
I guess only particular readers are your favorites, as long as they don't speak of the wrong doings of team green.

 

[spaceace420]

I wonder how long before this thread gets "Closed" This is the last one if i'm not mistaken but i suspect we'll all get this article from Kyle and gang when they have the time to get it done

That would be awesome if it comes to pass, lets keep it civil and ignore the posting of the blinder wearing people. No chance of getting anything done if the thread gets closed and people banned.
Wow Blade that is a great post and alot like I was pointing out about crossfire frametimes. Thumbs up from me good sir.

 

[Meeho]

That would be awesome if it comes to pass, lets keep it civil and ignore the posting of the blinder wearing people. No chance of getting anything one if the thread gets closed and people banned.

Maybe you guys have missed it, but they are not getting into it. [1][2]

 

[FrgMstr]

OK, handing out infractions now. You will address the discussion, not each other.

 

[Despotes]

I'll take another 970 for SLI! We'll call it even.
I'm not really bothered too much by all this, but...I'll take a $50 coupon to buy another 970! lol
3.5 vs 4. I was expecting a full speed 4Gb card. Not full speed 3.5 and .5 slow down.
Still a great card.

 

[Creepin_D]

Wow Kyle & Brent, this is a PR problem ?

A major hardware manufacturer flat out lied about what their product was capable of.
It tried to pass off a 970 as a slightly undercut 980 with the specs they gave all the review sties.

It really has no bearing to the facts that this site tested "real world" performance of the card.
Even though, your "real world" performance showed something funny was going on in SLI that you couldn't account for at the time, and now we all know why.

Look at all the front page stories you have done since the launch of this site.
Look at all the times you have posted about when a company does wrong.

Comast lies, you post about that.
Something going on with Apple, be it them getting sued, exploits whatever, you post about that.
AMD/ATI doing something wrong, yep, that is a story.
Heck, lots of front page stories posted have something to do with being lied to, lied about, or a variation of that.

Let me quote this very site on the scandalous behavior of this company:


Huh, so, the community doesn't like being lied to back then, nor now.
They were lied to, not by AMD/ATI this time around, it was Nvidia.
ATI's lie was that it wasn't a "hard launch".
Nvidia's lie was that they lied on the capabilities of what their card can do.

As you can see above, you (Kyle) still say "As for what we suggest to our readers to buy, we simply suggest what we think is the best value at the time of publication" which is exactly the case you say now for the 970 card.
You are consistent on ONLY that one thing.

Change the above front page story from ATI to NVIDIA, and *poof* there is no story here, doesn't matter about how the specs of the card have changed overnight, doesn't matter that they lied, this is all PR ?

There is clearly a double standard when it comes to what stories are posted on the front page.

The community just expects a site that says "We are absolutely leaders in hardware evaluation" to actually call out companies that does the tech community wrong. There can't be an argument here that Nvidia hasn't done the community wrong as your own words show that you DO call out companies when they lie (be it unintentional or not), but, only certain companies it seems.
I guess only particular readers are your favorites, as long as they don't speak of the wrong doings of team green.

I remember way back when, maybe over ten years ago Kyle called ATI "lying canucks". I cannot remeber the issue, just remeber the lieing canucks part.

So do this make Nvidia lying yankees?

 

[MavericK]

I remember way back when, maybe over ten years ago Kyle called ATI "lying canucks". I cannot remeber the issue, just remeber the lieing canucks part.

So do this make Nvidia lying yankees?

Wait, what happened to that post by Bladestar that you quoted? I don't even see that a post was made...nothing deleted, just completely non-existent.

WTF is going on here?

 

[Nicholars]

I was going to get a refund and buy a 290, but the AMD game offer has finished now so I don't see much point in swapping the 970 for another card until probably the new 380x comes out or if you want a 980. But buying a 980 is giving nvidia even more money just for .5gb ram and 10% performance.

 

[FrgMstr]

Wait, what happened to that post by Bladestar that you quoted? I don't even see that a post was made...nothing deleted, just completely non-existent.

WTF is going on here?

He will not be heard from for a while. I do not take kindly to people making up stories and telling LIES about what HardOCP as done. You want to criticize me or HardOCP? I do not have a problem with that, but when you are just making shit up and throwing it around like a monkey? I am not going to allow that here.

As for what he said it boils down to the same old, "HardOCP hates NVIDIA" or "HardOCP hates AMD" attack. Take your pick.

 

[spaceace420]

Wait, what happened to that post by Bladestar that you quoted? I don't even see that a post was made...nothing deleted, just completely non-existent.

WTF is going on here?

Looks like he hit the nail on the head, I was worried as soon as soon as i seen it. Guess we know what is really up around these parts now. Was the best post on the other issue this thread brought to light. [N] whoops did I mistype

 

[p3sty]

Just quite fighting with each other andgett a lawyer and class action them and see where it goes......simple I think don't you?

 

[{NG}Fidel]

At this point this matter has been proven to be a negative.
Customers and review sites were lied to for months, and the card gets stutter above 3.5GB.
I still cannot grasp why Nvidia did not just create a 3.5GB GTX970.
It would have been cheaper for everyone and it still would have sold like hotcakes.
No one here thinks the card is a bad card, its just not what we were sold on in the first place, the 4GBs it had and lower power were the only reasons I was looking at it versus the 290X. Now I have simply decided on the cheaper card that actually has 4GB. I choose the 290X for the fact that I can actually use multiple cards to there full potential as well. I guess if sites want to say this is a non-issue they can go ahead but its not a positive thing in my opinion.

 

[aldamon]

Signed the petition and tweeted it out. Hope it helps guys.

 

[Rizen]

As someone who has read this page and posted here for close to 15 years, the comments about bias are pretty unfounded. HardOCP has always have reviewed honestly and I've never felt misled by any purchases I've made based on the [H] reviews.

I think the 970 issues are pretty well documented at this point. What else do you want review sites to be doing? If you aren't happy with your 970s and the memory configuration, you can swap to 290X CrossFire for less money and have greater performance to boot, especially at 1440p+, assuming you don't mind the heat. Otherwise, sounds like it's time to pony up $1100 for 980s.

 

[§kynet]

I think the 970 issues are pretty well documented at this point.

Not on this site, in fact there is no problem beyond a PR one apparently.

What else do you want review sites to be doing? If you aren't happy with your 970s and the memory configuration, you can swap to 290X CrossFire for less money and have greater performance to boot, especially at 1440p+, assuming you don't mind the heat. Otherwise, sounds like it's time to pony up $1100 for 980s.

How are people supposed to swap out their 970's without losing money?

 

[Rizen]

Not on this site, in fact there is no problem beyond a PR one apparently.

How are people supposed to swap out their 970's without losing money?

Return them? Sell them? Does it matter? That issue is separate from the concerns people have about the validity of the review on this website.

I think some of you are missing Kyle's point. Their reviews highlight the best playable settings for each card. If the 970 was limited by the memory configuration, this would already be reflected in the [H] reviews, because they test the cards at the highest possible settings that are playable. If they ran into stuttering or issues with pageswapping VRAM, it would be felt in the actual gameplay, and it would have been noted in the review. In fact they did note just that, read the comments on the Watch Dogs benchmarks in their 970 SLI article. Obviously at the time it was written no one realized how the memory on the 970 was configured, but they did note the stuttering in their experiences. Their conclusion in the 970 SLI article - if anyone bothered to read it - even says for 4K or other large resolution configurations, go with 290X CrossFire or 980 SLI.

I'm not condoning NVIDIA's misrepresenting the card, not at all. But if you think that the articles here did not reflect the actual performance of the card, I'm thinking you didn't read them closely.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

I have thought of the [H] as unbiased for some time but this issue does confuse me. They covered many other things from the past that dealt the problems a card may have in the future as well as lies companies have told. This issue fits both categories, also can we quit saying that sites REVIEWED the card...
Honestly with the new known limitations of the card its obvious that no site really got down to the harder issues that affect this card. Testing this card in situations where 4GB usage ruins the gameplay should have been a consideration. Why? Because Nvidia sold this card to millions of people on the fact that it had 4GB of usable VRAM. If you do not think that 4GB impacted buying decisions (which the [H] always has cared about) then why did companies market that fact so prominently.

Someone go ask GoldenTiger if this is really a non-issue. Someone tell him that he shouldn't complain because the reviews are still positive.

 

[MavericK]

If they ran into stuttering or issues with pageswapping VRAM, it would be felt in the actual gameplay, and it would have been noted in the review. In fact they did note just that, read the comments on the Watch Dogs benchmarks in their 970 SLI article. Obviously at the time it was written no one realized how the memory on the 970 was configured, but they did note the stuttering in their experiences. Their conclusion in the 970 SLI article - if anyone bothered to read it - even says for 4K or other large resolution configurations, go with 290X CrossFire or 980 SLI.

Yeah, but wasn't the conclusion that it was a game issue, or an SLI profile issue? You know, items that could actually be fixed. This issue is not fixable. I think that's where the major distinction lies.

 

[Rizen]

I have thought of the [H] as unbiased for some time but this issue does confuse me. They covered many other things from the past that dealt the problems a card may have in the future as well as lies companies have told. This issue fits both categories, also can we quit saying that sites REVIEWED the card...
Honestly with the new known limitations of the card its obvious that no site really got down to the harder issues that affect this card. Testing this card in situations where 4GB usage ruins the gameplay should have been a consideration. Why? Because Nvidia sold this card to millions of people on the fact that it had 4GB of usable VRAM. If you do not think that 4GB impacted buying decisions (which the [H] always has cared about) then why did companies market that fact so prominently.

Someone go ask GoldenTiger if this is really a non-issue. Someone tell him that he shouldn't complain because the reviews are still positive.

I'm not saying it's a non-issue. I'm saying that blaming review sites - who themselves were misinformed by NVIDIA - is pointless. If you are unhappy with NVIDIA, return the cards, do a chargeback, sell them and buy something else, or if you have a lot of time, file a class-action.

 

[Rizen]

Yeah, but wasn't the conclusion that it was a game issue, or an SLI profile issue? You know, items that could actually be fixed. This issue is not fixable. I think that's where the major distinction lies.

Sure, but prior to the reveal of how the memory is configured on the 970, what other conclusion would anyone have come to? The 970 memory configuration is a first, as far as I can remember, so it would have seemed the logical conclusion at the time.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Sure, but prior to the reveal of how the memory is configured on the 970, what other conclusion would anyone have come to? The 970 memory configuration is a first, as far as I can remember, so it would have seemed the logical conclusion at the time.

Someone go ask GoldenTiger if this is really a non-issue. Someone tell him that he shouldn't complain because the reviews are still positive.

I refer to my previous post because it is in reference to a 970 SLi early adopter that most likely would have invested in 980s had he known. A conclusion that was based on the reality of the card (bus speed, rops, cache, 3.5GB memory) would have most likely pointed him in the right direction. The reviews out simply were not comprehensive. Not redoing them just seems fishy and I think everyone can agree.
Also the conclusion would be that this is a great single card for 1080p but its pointless to SLi and that its going to have memory issues in the next year or two.Thats the other conclusion sites would come to. Sounds a lot more negative and thats because this situation is a negative one in general.

 

[MavericK]

Sure, but prior to the reveal of how the memory is configured on the 970, what other conclusion would anyone have come to? The 970 memory configuration is a first, as far as I can remember, so it would have seemed the logical conclusion at the time.

I know, I'm not saying [H] should have known at that time exactly what the issue was. I'm just saying that it's a significant issue now that we know what the problem is, and brushing it off as a "PR issue" is kind of a slap in the face, IMHO. Like you say, the memory configuration is unprecedented...and yet nVidia basically just hid that fact by "accidentally" misrepresenting the hardware specs, and then only explaining the configuration AFTER this issue was found. The whole thing is extremely shady.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point, but you make it seem like it should be easy to get a refund/return, when in reality nVidia is passing the buck to retailers/manufacturers who are in turn passing the buck back to nVidia. If there was an easy, no questions asked way to get a return, a credit, or something, it would be much less of an issue. As it stands, as a 970 owner your options are to a) live with it or b) sell it at a loss...probably even more of a loss now that this whole debacle has been exposed.

Would I, personally, go for a refund? I don't know...I only game at 1920x1080, though I may want to jump to 2560x1440 in the future. I would like to at least have the option for a return, though, as after this whole ordeal I would strongly consider either going for a 980, or (more likely) switching over and grabbing a 290x.

 

[Rizen]

I refer to my previous post because it is in reference to a 970 SLi early adopter that most likely would have invested in 980s had he known. A conclusion that was based on the reality of the card (bus speed, rops, cache, 3.5GB memory) would have most likely pointed him in the right direction. The reviews out simply were not comprehensive. Not redoing them just seems fishy and I think everyone can agree.
Also the conclusion would be that this is a great single card for 1080p but its pointless to SLi and that its going to have memory issues in the next year or two.Thats the other conclusion sites would come to. Sounds a lot more negative and thats because this situation is a negative one in general.

That's pretty much the conclusion that HardOCP already came to:

There is something we need to discuss, and that is what cards are more appropriate for what resolutions of gaming. After this evaluation, we strongly feel that if you are going to be gaming on a 4K display you should spend the extra cash and spring for GeForce GTX 980 SLI. While GeForce GTX 970 SLI can deliver an "OK" 4K gaming experience, we did have to make image quality sacrifices in every game. GeForce GTX 970 SLI cannot "max out" 4K gaming. You will simply have a much better gameplay experience going with GeForce GTX 980 SLI.

Now, if you don't want to spend the extra money for two GTX 980 GPUs, or just don't have the cash, then at least AMD Radeon R9 290X CrossFire would be the better alternative at 4K for the same money. Since R9 290X CF is the same price as GTX 970 SLI, all things being equal we'd go for R9 290X CF for 4K. Performance was faster, we were able to have higher in-game settings, and you'll just have a better experience. However, if you do have the extra cash and go for GTX 980 SLI, then that will definitely be faster and better than R9 290X CF. Basically, for 4K, go with 980 SLI if you can first, if you can't due to money, then go with R9 290X CF. We would not go below that for a 4K experience.

What do you expect to gain from having them re-review the cards? Unless you are specifically FORCING >3.5GB usage, the results would be the same. They already reviewed the cards with the highest playable settings. They aren't using canned benchmarks which can hide the VRAM issue.

 

[Rizen]

I know, I'm not saying [H] should have known at that time exactly what the issue was. I'm just saying that it's a significant issue now that we know what the problem is, and brushing it off as a "PR issue" is kind of a slap in the face, IMHO. Like you say, the memory configuration is unprecedented...and yet nVidia basically just hid that fact by "accidentally" misrepresenting the hardware specs, and then only explaining the configuration AFTER this issue was found. The whole thing is extremely shady.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point, but you make it seem like it should be easy to get a refund/return, when in reality nVidia is passing the buck to retailers/manufacturers who are in turn passing the buck back to nVidia. If there was an easy, no questions asked way to get a return, a credit, or something, it would be much less of an issue. As it stands, as a 970 owner your options are to a) live with it or b) sell it at a loss...probably even more of a loss now that this whole debacle has been exposed.

Would I, personally, go for a refund? I don't know...I only game at 1920x1080, though I may want to jump to 2560x1440 in the future. I would like to at least have the option for a return, though, as after this whole ordeal I would strongly consider either going for a 980, or (more likely) switching over and grabbing a 290x.

I agree, NVIDIA is handling this situation very poorly. I'm sorry for those of you who really want to switch cards, but can't. I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to put the blame on the reviewers who were simply doing their job with the information that was given to them, rather than placing it on NVIDIA where it belongs.

 

[MavericK]

I agree, NVIDIA is handling this situation very poorly. I'm sorry for those of you who really want to switch cards, but can't. I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to put the blame on the reviewers who were simply doing their job with the information that was given to them, rather than placing it on NVIDIA where it belongs.

I think the main issue stems from those who are pointing at framerates in reviews and saying "See, there's no issue", when in reality the issue only comes out in the form of frametime stutter, and only when VRAM exceeds 3.5 GB. But now it appears some sites are going back and revealing that there is, in fact, an issue, as are several users.

I think a lot of us were expecting [H] to comment/provide some sort of post-release testing as well, but it sounds like that is not going to happen. I think someone said they didn't have the hardware to do frametime testing so maybe that's part of it.

It's just disingenuous to say there's no issue and then point to framerates, when that has no bearing on "playable" gameplay if there is massive stutter.

I don't blame reviewers here...it seems that no one noticed this issue, let alone knew that it was a hardware problem that was unfixable. I think everyone just assumed that 4 GB meant 4 GB usable at full bandwidth, and rightly so since that is the case with every other card out there. The blame is fully on nVidia for not disclosing this information in the first place, and obscuring the specs until the issue was exposed.