Petitioning for 970 Refund

Guess I should have ordered from Amazon...from what it sounds like, Newegg is telling us to go fuck ourselves.
 
AceCR42 said:
I highly doubt they would ever offer any sort of compensation for this issue as that would be admitting fault.
Click to expand...

throwing in a $60 game code/gift certificate or something similar would allow them to somewhat save face while not admitting fault...they could phrase it as a favor to their loyal customers or something along those lines...similar to how Ubisoft gave out free games and/or free DLC for the AC Unity release debacle
 
Amazon just did the best thing any company has done in this situation. They did what they should for their customers. This is going to win them lots of new loyal customers.
Anyone that defends consumers in this situation is going to gain more of them.
 
YES!...I was able to get a full refund from Amazon on my GTX 970 purchased in November...YES!...no hassle at all...I didn't even need to explain the technical details of the GTX 970 3.5GB VRAM issue...apparently since I ordered the card in November Amazon extended the return window for the holidays until January 31st...so I had a few hours remaining in my return window when I called

I'm still not sure about returning the card but I'm glad I have the option to do so if I choose (the return label is good for 7 days so I have 1 week to decide)...the Gigabyte G1 Gaming 980 card is now $579.99 after rebate so even though I don't think it's worth $200 more then a 970 I might bite...since Amazon has a 12 month interest free promotion on orders above $599 also helps
 
polonyc2 said:
YES!...I was able to get a full refund from Amazon on my GTX 970 purchased in November...YES!...no hassle at all...I didn't even need to explain the technical details of the GTX 970 3.5GB VRAM issue...apparently since I ordered the card in November Amazon extended the return window for the holidays until January 31st...so I had a few hours remaining in my return window when I called

I'm still not sure about returning the card but I'm glad I have the option to do so if I choose (the return label is good for 7 days so I have 1 week to decide)...the Gigabyte G1 Gaming 980 card is now $579.99 after rebate so even though I don't think it's worth $200 more then a 970 I might bite...since Amazon has a 12 month interest free promotion on orders above $599 also helps
Click to expand...

I would rather spend another $90 and get a 295x2. That to me would be way more performance then a 980.

Remember with VSR/DSR and @ higher resolutions the 290 series are smoother in mGPU configs.
 
MavericK96 said:
Guess I should have ordered from Amazon...from what it sounds like, Newegg is telling us to go fuck ourselves.
Click to expand...

Yap. I think I have only heard 1 person said they were able to get a refund. I have tried 3 times myself and no deal.

I would buy at amazon if it wasnt for Wa state tax I would pay :/
 
will Nvidia manufacturers be able to design their own custom 970 card which gives access to the full 4GB VRAM like the 980?...or is it not possible?
 
polonyc2 said:
will Nvidia manufacturers be able to design their own custom 970 card which gives access to the full 4GB VRAM like the 980?...or is it not possible?
Click to expand...

no there is no way to fix the issue. It is a hardware based issue.
 
DASHlT said:
Yap. I think I have only heard 1 person said they were able to get a refund. I have tried 3 times myself and no deal.

I would buy at amazon if it wasnt for Wa state tax I would pay :/
Click to expand...

Same here, that 9.25% CA tax is fucking ridiculous. Although given Amazon's 100% hassle free returns I've had over the years, I'm inclined to pay that tax just for peace of my mind in case something happens.

polonyc2 said:
will Nvidia manufacturers be able to design their own custom 970 card which gives access to the full 4GB VRAM like the 980?...or is it not possible?
Click to expand...

No, this is an issue within the GPU core itself. :/
 
I read a couple of 4K comments and how the GTX 970 is inadequate for 4K gaming. Problem I have is that it is inadequate right now for 1080P gaming in the latest games including (Mordor, COD AW w/ caching options, Dying Light) with all bells and whistles turned up in the in game menus.
 
KickAssCop said:
I read a couple of 4K comments and how the GTX 970 is inadequate for 4K gaming. Problem I have is that it is inadequate right now for 1080P gaming in the latest games including (Mordor, COD AW w/ caching options, Dying Light) with all bells and whistles turned up in the in game menus.
Click to expand...

I can tell you right now DA:I really tanked with DSR 4k and 4xMSAA. I complained about it in the forums, figured it was just horrible SLI drivers etc.

I have no idea it was because I was going over the 3.5gb limit. It wasn't something i wasn't looking for at the time.....

Either way. with Nvidia talking about DSR and its great feature (which it is!! I LOVE IT) It sucks that the 970 cannot do it because of its memory limitation.
 
Papaj said:
Probably a little of both to be honest once they realized the mistake - side note unrelated to your thoughts (directed at another user) - really...dismissing the [H] crew's SLi performance review because they used 'old games' like Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, and BF4?
Click to expand...

Yes, using games that aren't memory intensive to disprove a memory intensive issue tends to be not helpful in assessing a memory related problem.

God damn those bastards for using games that actually function properly and aren't terrible fucking console ports with the most unoptimized pieces of shit for drivers and coding since the pre-21st century days where swapping graphics cards could be the difference between a 2 fps slideshow and a cool 30-60fps. Fuck those guys running sideways up a hill for not picking the most artificially demanding games and using those as 'quality' test pieces for their grand graphics card experiment conspiracies.
Click to expand...

Really? This is your argument? That this is all games' fault for using 100% of the RAM available to them, instead of limiting themself to 87% of provided resources because it should have been enough for them? I don't know how to respond to that, other than it is total nonsense.
 
so what should I do [H]?...I keep reading that at my resolution (1920 x 1200) that any VRAM issues won't show itself...but won't more VRAM hungry games become the norm in 2015?...should I 1) return my GTX 970 and buy a 980 to replace it...2) return my GTX 970 and wait for the rumored new 8GB GTX 970 cards coming in April...3) return my 970 and go back to my previous GTX 580 and wait for next-gen cards...4) keep my GTX 970 as it's still an amazing card
 
polonyc2 said:
so what should I do [H]?...I keep reading that at my resolution (1920 x 1200) that any VRAM issues won't show itself...but won't more VRAM hungry games become the norm in 2015?...should I 1) return my GTX 970 and buy a 980 to replace it...2) return my GTX 970 and wait for the rumored new 8GB GTX 970 cards coming in April...3) return my 970 and go back to my previous GTX 580 and wait for next-gen cards...4) keep my GTX 970 as it's still an amazing card
Click to expand...

It depends. If you aren't having any issues, then you should be good. If you plan to future proof yourself for 3-4 years, it might be an issue with future games using more and more vram.

If you want to use DSR as well it might cause you issues.

But at your rez right now, you shouldnt see any issues right now (unless you use alot of vram like Skyrim and Fallout mods etc).
 
DASHlT said:
It depends. If you aren't having any issues, then you should be good. If you plan to future proof yourself for 3-4 years, it might be an issue with future games using more and more vram.

If you want to use DSR as well it might cause you issues.

But at your rez right now, you shouldnt see any issues right now (unless you use alot of vram like Skyrim and Fallout mods etc).
Click to expand...

I'm all about lasting value, so future-proofing would be great...then again if games start using more VRAM, will it really matter if I have 3.5GB or 4GB?...most likely at that point a new card with 6-8GB VRAM will be necessary

DASHlT said:
Americans are fucked.
Click to expand...

I thought I heard EVGA was accepting 970 Step-Ups past the normal window
 
DASHlT said:
In Europe they have no choice. IF they advertise false info on a product, people can return them. Which in this case anyone can (in Europe).

Americans are fucked.
Click to expand...

True. We are entitled to an equal or better product according to the spesifications the card was sold as, or we can return for a full refund. Its nice though to see that the noise made by consumers have given some positive results at least somewhere.
 
polonyc2 said:
I'm all about lasting value, so future-proofing would be great...then again if games start using more VRAM, will it really matter if I have 3.5GB or 4GB?...most likely at that point a new card with 6-8GB VRAM will be necessary



I thought I heard EVGA was accepting 970 Step-Ups past the normal window
Click to expand...

Yea....too bad the EVGA 970's were one of the worst, which is why I didn't buy EVGA.
 
DASHlT said:
It depends. If you aren't having any issues, then you should be good. If you plan to future proof yourself for 3-4 years, it might be an issue with future games using more and more vram.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is today's and this year's problem, not a distant 3-4 years one.



polonyc2 said:
I'm all about lasting value, so future-proofing would be great...then again if games start using more VRAM, will it really matter if I have 3.5GB or 4GB?...most likely at that point a new card with 6-8GB VRAM will be necessary
Click to expand...

It could be that some games that require 4 GB could get by with 3.5 GB too, but there is no way to tell for sure. Given how optimization is almost non-existent in today's game development, it is not likely that game developers would account for a niche non-standard memory capacity. Then there are games that don't need even close to 4 GB, but simply use what is given to them. They fall under the previous special optimization problem too. The latter could be helped if Nvidia would restrict the 970 to be a 3.5 GB card, which would be the best solution, but that doesn't seem likely as they would have to give up the "true 4GB" claim.

If you can return it, maybe it would be best to do so and use your backup card till the 300 series come (some rumors say June). Then you can either buy one of them or a discounted 980.

I thought I heard EVGA was accepting 970 Step-Ups past the normal window
Click to expand...

They are. I'm not sure if it is EU only or global.
 
Meeho said:
It could be that some games that require 4 GB could get by with 3.5 GB too, but there is no way to tell for sure. Given how optimization is almost non-existent in today's game development, it is not likely that game developers would account for a niche non-standard memory capacity. Then there are games that don't need even close to 4 GB, but simply use what is given to them. They fall under the previous special optimization problem too. The latter could be helped if Nvidia would restrict the 970 to be a 3.5 GB card, which would be the best solution, but that doesn't seem likely as they would have to give up the "true 4GB" claim.
Click to expand...

I´ve been thinking along the same lines. If Nvidia were to restrict the memory available reported to the game engine as 3.5GB, the game engine might use those resources better. Game engines of today are meant to be scalable, since they often create a game for many platforms.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
I´ve been thinking along the same lines. If Nvidia were to restrict the memory available reported to the game engine as 3.5GB, the game engine might use those resources better. Game engines of today are meant to be scalable, since they often create a game for many platforms.
Click to expand...

This also makes you wonder if Nvidia is cheating or cutting corners if they have to change the profile of a game to use less Vram.

They already said they optimize the drivers for that extra 500mb, so It really does make you wonder what is really going on when they "Optimize" games to stay below 3.5gb
 
DASHlT said:
They already said they optimize the drivers for that extra 500mb, so It really does make you wonder what is really going on when they "Optimize" games to stay below 3.5gb
Click to expand...

I don't think they can optimize games specifically for that 512MB partition while at the same time not having it effect all other video cards which don't have that configuration...Titan 6GB VRAM users, 980 4GB users etc would be pissed off as well if a game is gimped to use less VRAM
 
polonyc2 said:
I don't think they can optimize games specifically for that 512MB partition while at the same time not having it effect all other video cards which don't have that configuration...Titan 6GB VRAM users, 980 4GB users etc would be pissed off as well if a game is gimped to use less VRAM
Click to expand...

If im not mistaken people have already showed games shown using 3.5gb, when the 980 GTX was using the full 4gb.
 
polonyc2 said:
so what should I do [H]?...I keep reading that at my resolution (1920 x 1200) that any VRAM issues won't show itself...but won't more VRAM hungry games become the norm in 2015?...should I 1) return my GTX 970 and buy a 980 to replace it...2) return my GTX 970 and wait for the rumored new 8GB GTX 970 cards coming in April...3) return my 970 and go back to my previous GTX 580 and wait for next-gen cards...4) keep my GTX 970 as it's still an amazing card
Click to expand...

If you are seriously asking and not looking for an argument, keep enjoying your 970, you won't have issues if you're not silly about settings and/or similarly, don't buy a 38x21 monitor(almost 4K, also known as UHD). Many don't even know what a ROP is or where the raster part of the pipeline even is. Before this was publicized, all I heard was how great a bang4buck card/s the 970 was..nothing has changed. NV made a blue but to say it was purposeful is silly - you must also then assume NV believed the tech world would never find out..also, if you go back to your 580, you may have those memory issues you fear..the 580 has 1.5GB of memory...or is it just 1???..:) Enjoy your card, sounds like you are already..GL and all the best..
 
DASHlT said:
If im not mistaken people have already showed games shown using 3.5gb, when the 980 GTX was using the full 4gb.
Click to expand...

Yes, drivers are actively trying to limit the usage to 3.5 GB. When it is no longer possible for the to limit the game, problems begin.
 
Something I was thinking about, on this topic, while I was grinding through run-throughs tonight. I think memory segmentation, and preferred lanes of memory chunks, are most likely technologies we have to look forward to as technology of GPUs in the future evolve. This is new technology in Maxwell afteral, which wasn't possible in previous generations. Think when consumer GPUs finally implement eDRAM, or another type of memory close to the GPU. Games will prefer to use the eDRAM pool of memory (or other type) first, before diving to outside or external VRAM on the board. Who knows what other implementations of memory segmentation we may see. This could be a foreshadowing of future GPU technology and the evolution of how memory is accessed. Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
DASHlT said:
This also makes you wonder if Nvidia is cheating or cutting corners if they have to change the profile of a game to use less Vram.

They already said they optimize the drivers for that extra 500mb, so It really does make you wonder what is really going on when they "Optimize" games to stay below 3.5gb
Click to expand...

I think Scott Wasson from Techreport was right on the mark when he speculated if the 500mb "value" was more as a marketing value to sell cards as 4GB, since many buy cards according to the amount of memory.

Some have defended the usage of the 500MB, since its faster then using system memory. Sure, it might be in some cases, unless it stalls the rest of the 3.5GB of memory creating stuttering. As you insinuate, I don´t believe either that Nvidia "optimized" games to stay below 3.5GB if it wouldnt be better then having 4GB available for the game engine to use.

Until the memory issue, the difference between a 4GB 980 and a 4GB 970 was that the 970 had some less raw power. By buying two, you could get the raw power back and then some. That has obviously never been the case with the 970. :mad:
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
I think Scott Wasson from Techreport was right on the mark when he speculated if the 500mb "value" was more as a marketing value to sell cards as 4GB, since many buy cards according to the amount of memory.

Some have defended the usage of the 500MB, since its faster then using system memory. Sure, it might be in some cases, unless it stalls the rest of the 3.5GB of memory creating stuttering. As you insinuate, I don´t believe either that Nvidia "optimized" games to stay below 3.5GB if it wouldnt be better then having 4GB available for the game engine to use.

Until the memory issue, the difference between a 4GB 980 and a 4GB 970 was that the 970 had some less raw power. By buying two, you could get the raw power back and then some. That has obviously never been the case with the 970. :mad:
Click to expand...

Yep, and that's exactly how nvidia advertised it and provided press copy to reviewers to post up: "the same memory subsystem as the GTX 980" and simply less shaders/TMU as a result of a few SMM units being disabled. As we all well know by now... that was false advertising (in fact having lower L2 cache, ROP units enabled, and effective memory bandwidth), as was the "4GB" which is actually 3.5GB with a slow pool of 0.5GB in addition accessible but not of practical use in the majority of situations.

I've sent off an email to newegg, unsure what will happen as there have been very mixed results I'm hearing on various forums and nvidia still hasn't released a global policy to take responsibility for their problems. :(

Brent_Justice said:
Something I was thinking about, on this topic, while I was grinding through run-throughs tonight. I think memory segmentation, and preferred lanes of memory chunks, are most likely technologies we have to look forward to as technology of GPUs in the future evolve. This is new technology in Maxwell afteral, which wasn't possible in previous generations. Think when consumer GPUs finally implement eDRAM, or another type of memory close to the GPU. Games will prefer to use the eDRAM pool of memory (or other type) first, before diving to outside or external VRAM on the board. Who knows what other implementations of memory segmentation we may see. This could be a foreshadowing of future GPU technology and the evolution of how memory is accessed. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Could be... an interesting aside, but that's not how these cards were sold to us.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Something I was thinking about, on this topic, while I was grinding through run-throughs tonight. I think memory segmentation, and preferred lanes of memory chunks, are most likely technologies we have to look forward to as technology of GPUs in the future evolve. This is new technology in Maxwell afteral, which wasn't possible in previous generations. Think when consumer GPUs finally implement eDRAM, or another type of memory close to the GPU. Games will prefer to use the eDRAM pool of memory (or other type) first, before diving to outside or external VRAM on the board. Who knows what other implementations of memory segmentation we may see. This could be a foreshadowing of future GPU technology and the evolution of how memory is accessed. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

God help us if that is the case, given the awful state game development and optimization are in now. But I don't think GPU will have a need for that, given HBA and its big bandwidth benefits.

Also, this was done for binning/salvaging and marketing purposes, not as a performance improvement, and eDRAM was used to compensate for the slow DDR3.
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
Yep, and that's exactly how nvidia advertised it and provided press copy to reviewers to post up: "the same memory subsystem as the GTX 980" and simply less shaders/TMU as a result of a few SMM units being disabled. As we all well know by now... that was false advertising (in fact having lower L2 cache, ROP units enabled, and effective memory bandwidth), as was the "4GB" which is actually 3.5GB with a slow pool of 0.5GB in addition accessible but not of practical use in the majority of situations.

I've sent off an email to newegg, unsure what will happen as there have been very mixed results I'm hearing on various forums and nvidia still hasn't released a global policy to take responsibility for their problems. :(
Click to expand...

Hope it works out for you!

I got "lucky". I had a MSI 780 Gaming OC card, which I was very pleased with the sound profile on (I prefer quiet cards over performance). That one I put in a SFF case and gave to my nephews. Bought an Asus Matrix 290X Platinum on "black friday" for cheap that I hate the sound profile on (great card otherwise). I´ve managed to make it more quiet with some tweaks and repaste, and its now "acceptable" for shorter period of gaming or for headset gaming. Probably a great card for those less sensitive to noise.

Was finished with my research (especially coil whine) on the 970´s and had decided to buy two of those (also MSI gaming) to hold me over until the aftermarked HBM cards are available. The reason I wanted the extra GPU power, is because I am going to buy a curved 34" 3440 x 1440 display and I am uncertain if to just buy one now or get one with G-SYNC or Freesync capabilities for some "future proofing" (I change vendor often and have several computers, so I can use either).

Because of the memory issue, I´m unsure if I should buy one or two 980´s instead or wait to see if the upcoming 380X or 980TI are quiet enough. The memory issue spoiled my upgrade plans, but luckily I don´t have to deal with returns. Lots of time waisted on research though. :mad:
 
Assuming this design is nVidia's modus operandi from this point forward, won't the theoretical Titan II/X and 980Ti have the same issues?

The Titan II/X will likely be the M6000 with some ROPs disabled and a theoretical 980Ti would be a Titan II/X with more disabled and less memory.
 
bpizzle1 said:
I just got done chatting with Amazon. I showed the rep several links with the details of the issue as well as pointed them to the most recent customer reviews. They issued a refund without much hesitation, and this was from a purchase from Oct. 2014. If you guys purchased from Amazon, you should be good to go if you really want to return the cards.
Click to expand...

{NG}Fidel said:
Amazon just did the best thing any company has done in this situation. They did what they should for their customers. This is going to win them lots of new loyal customers.
Anyone that defends consumers in this situation is going to gain more of them.
Click to expand...

I applaud Amazon for doing what every US retailer should be doing.
 
I'll have to contact EVGA if they are extending the step up. So glad now that I bought EVGA if it is true :).

I have been on the fence about sticking to the 970 or going to a 980. While it still feels kind of wrong to step up to a 980 because I do feel bad with giving Nvidia more money at the moment, there is no better card coming out that has been announced as of yet.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Something I was thinking about, on this topic, while I was grinding through run-throughs tonight. I think memory segmentation, and preferred lanes of memory chunks, are most likely technologies we have to look forward to as technology of GPUs in the future evolve. This is new technology in Maxwell afteral, which wasn't possible in previous generations. Think when consumer GPUs finally implement eDRAM, or another type of memory close to the GPU. Games will prefer to use the eDRAM pool of memory (or other type) first, before diving to outside or external VRAM on the board. Who knows what other implementations of memory segmentation we may see. This could be a foreshadowing of future GPU technology and the evolution of how memory is accessed. Food for thought.
Click to expand...
I doubt this will happen. But if it does, the eDRAM or ESRAM or whatever is used will be built into the GPU or at least on the same substrate, see the Xbox One as an example. Microsoft did this to try and make up for the slow DDR3 memory, no such issue exists for discrete GPUs. The PS4 doesn't have eDRAM because it doesn't need it.

The next level is HBM 3D stacked memory which has something like 8x the speed per module as GDDR5.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Most likely the reseller. Consumer laws are stronger in EU and false/misleading specs can give reason to full refund.
Click to expand...

Surely they must have had guidance from NVidia though to ensure that this new description was legally correct.

Admission of guilt from NVidia?
 
Brent_Justice said:
Something I was thinking about, on this topic, while I was grinding through run-throughs tonight. I think memory segmentation, and preferred lanes of memory chunks, are most likely technologies we have to look forward to as technology of GPUs in the future evolve. This is new technology in Maxwell afteral, which wasn't possible in previous generations. Think when consumer GPUs finally implement eDRAM, or another type of memory close to the GPU. Games will prefer to use the eDRAM pool of memory (or other type) first, before diving to outside or external VRAM on the board. Who knows what other implementations of memory segmentation we may see. This could be a foreshadowing of future GPU technology and the evolution of how memory is accessed. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

I think this discussion started with the current gen of consoles.
One of the interesting things about them for me was that the xb1 and ps4 are basically PCs, but a key area where they diverge from regular PCs is how they handle system RAM.

On the pure PC side obviously Pascals headline features are new memory technologies that open up even more diverse memory configuration options.

I'm pretty confident that in a few short years we won't be talking about xGB of system RAM running at N, and yGB of GPU RAM running at N, its going to be a far less straightforward picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top