![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Petitioning for 970 Refund
- Thread starter Nauseous
- Start date
Damar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,613
You, me and tons of others will, and NVidia knows this, which is why they aren't the least bit worried in the long run.
Ghoststalker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2001
- Messages
- 471
I contacted NeweggBusiness and told them my concerns. They offered to wave the 30 day refund period and offered me full store credit plus free return shipping. I asked them to put a note on my account and I'm debating if I should take them up on it.
It's the shadiness of the business practice that gets to me. I'm wondering how long it is till the 300 series from AMD launches...
It's the shadiness of the business practice that gets to me. I'm wondering how long it is till the 300 series from AMD launches...
Newegg gave me the same offer for both of my cards today and I'm taking them up on it. I'm more upset about DSR still not working with SLI and G-Sync and the lack of MFAA with SLI.
I'm getting closer to finishing my HT room and about to import a 4k projector. I don't ever want to worry about that last .5gb of ram and course will need faster gpus sooner than later. The full refund sits well with me.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
Update on the Strix 970 box: No mention of how many bits the 4GB of RAM is, no mention of ROPs, no clock speed listed...
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,788
Best buy has the 4 GB and 256 bit listed in their site for the card I bought (reference).
spaceace420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 276
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?N=100007709 600536049&IsNodeId=1&Submit=ENE
mine
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125684
WINDFORCE 3X cooling system
Flex Display Technology (patent-pending)
Powered by NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 GPU
Integrated with industry's best 4GB GDDR5 memory 256-bit memory interface
Features Dual-link DVI-I / DVI-D / HDMI / DisplayPort*3
BASE: 1178 MHz / BOOST: 1329 MHz
System power supply requirement: 550W (with one 6-pin and one 8-pin external power connectors)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NH5T1MS/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Windforce 3X Cooling System, Flex Display Technology, GPU Gauntlet, Sorting, Ultra Durable VGA
BASE: 1178 MHz / BOOST: 1329 MHz, 1664 CUDA Cores, 4GB GDDR5 memory, 256-Bit memory Bus, PCI-E 3.0, DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.4
Powered by Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 GPU, Integrated With Industry's Best 4GB GDDR5 Memory 256-bit Memory Interface
Features Dual-link DVI-I / DVI-D / HDMI / 3 Display Port, Digital Max Resolution 4096 x 2160, Analog Max Resolution 2048 x 1536
System Power Supply Requirement: 550W (With One 6-Pin and One 8-pin External Power Connectors)
mine
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125684
WINDFORCE 3X cooling system
Flex Display Technology (patent-pending)
Powered by NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 GPU
Integrated with industry's best 4GB GDDR5 memory 256-bit memory interface
Features Dual-link DVI-I / DVI-D / HDMI / DisplayPort*3
BASE: 1178 MHz / BOOST: 1329 MHz
System power supply requirement: 550W (with one 6-pin and one 8-pin external power connectors)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NH5T1MS/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Windforce 3X Cooling System, Flex Display Technology, GPU Gauntlet, Sorting, Ultra Durable VGA
BASE: 1178 MHz / BOOST: 1329 MHz, 1664 CUDA Cores, 4GB GDDR5 memory, 256-Bit memory Bus, PCI-E 3.0, DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.4
Powered by Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 GPU, Integrated With Industry's Best 4GB GDDR5 Memory 256-bit Memory Interface
Features Dual-link DVI-I / DVI-D / HDMI / 3 Display Port, Digital Max Resolution 4096 x 2160, Analog Max Resolution 2048 x 1536
System Power Supply Requirement: 550W (With One 6-Pin and One 8-pin External Power Connectors)
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Thanks for the update. It'll be difficult to argue that nVidia advertised incorrect specs if all the boxes of their products don't have any false information.
They will just argue that it's a mere typo in a reference document. And the thing is, the difference in the ROP / L2 is of no consequence because these cards are SMM-limited. So NVIDIA's defense will basically be, "Yeah we typed 64 instead of 56 but it doesn't matter because the performance would be no different."
And if the judge isn't an idiot (read: not Judge Koh) then he'll just dismiss the case right there.
It has a 256bit memory bus. I wish people would quit repeating the misinformation that it does not.
I see that ROPs and cache aren't listed in those specs.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Starrbuck
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,981
They should just check with you two legal experts and save themselves a lot of time.
Any sensible person would think that the specs nvidia originally put out were correct.
I don't practice civil litigation but even I can understand how ridiculous this case is. I'm sure nVidia is in good hands.
That would actually make good sense. And save a lot of money, too.
For most people running less than 3.5GB while gaming, isn't it effectively 224-bit width? AnandTech stated the access pattern was 1234567-1234567 implying not all 8 channels are actively used. The last 32-bit channel is kinda like a separate side port rather than helping the "main" vram bus.
That's on the crossbar, not the memory controllers. There are 8 32bit memory controllers and they are all fully functional. The interface is between the controllers and the vram, which is a full 256bit and not the bottleneck.
spaceace420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 276
Yep the rops and L2 are not in those specs, That is what they used the review sites for For being two people who are so pro nvidia you guys sure spend alot of time in this thread defending their honor. My card kicks ass but I still know Nvidia misrepresented the card.... period. exclamation point! The only way I even see some of these posts is when someone quotes you who isn't on my ignore list lol.
For being two people who are so pro nvidia you guys sure spend alot of time in this thread defending their honor. My card kicks ass but I still know Nvidia misrepresented the card.... period. exclamation point! The only way I even see some of these posts is when someone quotes you who isn't on my ignore list lol.I sure would like to see where nVidia misrepresented those specs because so far you haven't shown anything directly from them. The court won't hold nVidia liable for something a reviewer stated, even if nVidia provided it to them.
Starrbuck
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,981
Because nobody has ever won a ridiculous lawsuit!
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Stop. Just fucking stop. Seriously please fucking stop.
Of course the court would hold them accountable all the plaintiffs would need is the info sent to reviewers with the misinformation. Seriously i cant believe im even responding to you...
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
Wrong. Technically it comes down to whether the judge believes the material NVIDIA gave reviewers facilitates a valid form of advertising/medium and whether split memory facilitates the need for explanation.
A free review copy of hardware accompanied by a data sheet in no way shape or form rises to public advertisement for sale.
How can you possibly think that it is? The hardware provided to reviewers isn't even necessarily the hardware that will be for sale to the public.
No, you are 100% incorrect on the law.Stop. Just fucking stop. Seriously please fucking stop.
Of course the court would hold them accountable all the plaintiffs would need is the info sent to reviewers with the misinformation. Seriously i cant believe im even responding to you...
False advertising requires, among other things, that the "commercially advertised" statements be false and that the plaintiffs be materially damaged as a result.
Sending data sheets to a private reviewer is in no way shape or form a "commercial advertisement." You have to prove something directly form nVidia, in the national advertisement space, to a consumer to have a false advertising claim. I can't believe you are arguing with me over this, either, because you have zero legal training yet you think you are knowledgable enough to dispute basic legal definitions with me.
You're so desparate to prove me wrong at any chance you get you dive into any thread I'm participating in and start picking nits. You really should just stop since you clearly don't find it enjoyable.
spaceace420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 276
Stop. Just fucking stop. Seriously please fucking stop.
Of course the court would hold them accountable all the plaintiffs would need is the info sent to reviewers with the misinformation. Seriously i cant believe im even responding to you...
Just add him to your ignore list, saves a lot of time and brain cells rather than reading the crap. You can still laugh when someone else quotes him so it's all good.
he's had me on ignore a long time now but he can't help himself because he is driven to attempt to prove me wrong at every turn...so he unhides my posts just like you do when you keep responding to me simply to tell me how you have me on ignore
Maybe you should quit repeating your "the ROPs and L2 figures aren't on the box" misinformation first.
*facepalm*
Last edited:
Did you even bother reading the legal definition of "advertisement" that I posted earlier?
That is the LEGAL definition of advertisement.
"Notice given in a manner designed to attract public attention"
Nvidia gave out information to reviewers with the knowledge that any or all of it could be included in their respective published articles. Just because Jen-Hsun didn't take out a 30 second television commercial or put the specs on a billboard doesn't mean that it wasn't still a form of advertisement. It will be child's play for a lawyer to prove that website review articles are designed to attract public attention.
Honestly, if I'd embarrassed myself half as much as you have in this thread I would go hide somewhere.
Starrbuck
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,981
Creig, don't try logic on the legal experts here on [H]ard|Forum. WTH are you thinking?
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
he's had me on ignore a long time now but he can't help himself because he is driven to attempt to prove me wrong at every turn...so he unhides my posts just like you do when you keep responding to me simply to tell me how you have me on ignore
You're so full of yourself. Never had you on ignore and before this thread has no clue who you even where... The ego is real...
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
Ok so what is it that reviewers do? It isn't in house testing, it is for release to the public. And in case you aren't following, this is akin to advertising. What other purpose is Nvidia giving these GPUs to reviewers?
SIDENOTE: If you think any part of this thread is bad, go look at Overclock.net and see the banter there.
Still... After 2 weeks of using 290 from xfx that was supposed to last till new generation of Cards arrive, and after dealing with this noisy, power hungry, hot card, that has lots of drivers issues and scored much worse fps than I'm used to, I gave up on it, and with refund money I bought again 970 (MSI not Asus this time) . Screw the high horse. Despite the issue it's still best 1080p single card you can get. It will last me till Pascal, and if not, I'll just get the 2nd.
That OCN thread is hilarious, but I'm thankful it provides me with a daily dose of entertainment.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
It is quite funny how they keep dancing around. Like how some say 970 owners were expecting 980 performance because they expected 64 ROPs and 2Mb L2 cache as originally stated, but in fact was 56(?)ROPs and 1.75Mb L2cache, which apparently should have expected despite original documentation( yeah sounds pretty stupid to me too but doesn't stop them from stating it). Any way look at the 290 and 290X, the only difference is the stream processors. If we use their argument the 290 = 290X performance, which we know isn't true.
That is how it is going over there. So frustrating yet quite laughable.
Very wise choice. It is still the best 1440p card out there as well. I, unlike some of the people in this thread, bought my GTX 970 after these issues were discovered. I bought my GTX 970 based on reviews and performance. The reality is that ROP, cache, and memory issues changed nothing with how this card performs. I have had zero stuttering in any games even when I'm over 3.5gb of memory. I'm quite certain that I will not have issues moving forward into the future as well.
This thread has become quite ridiculous (but also amusing). By looking at the signatures on the vast majority of the posts here people that are posting do or did not own a GTX 970. Some of them do not even own a Nvidia card. I would also bet that most the GTX 970 owners here that bought their cards back in the fall were quite happy with the performance for many months and never had issues. It wasn't until this whole thing was exposed in January that people were complaining about these issues. I really feel sorry for these people that returned theirs cards who ended up spending a bunch more money to get 980s or ended up getting an inferior card.
I'm very happy with my GTX 970 and I have zero regrets. I still believe this was unintentional by Nvidia as well.
i decided to return one card and just run as a single gtx 970. Eventually when graphic card makers finally release some good performance per price 8Gb cards that aren't dual gpu cards I'll sell the gtx970 buy the new cards and sli them to run everything ultra on my 3440X1440 monitor
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
But you can't say because you had no issues no one else does. Also you may not see it but doesn't mean it isn't there(sounds like the same argument in CF 3years ago). Besides I think is an issue that affects SLI more than single 970s. Goldentiger in the original 970 issue thread proved it with SLI so It does exist. And saying going over 3.5Gb has no performance impact is in direct contradiction of the facts that even NVIDIA confirms. The question would be to what degree and is your case thus far it is minute/small. But that is not always the outcome as shown by other users.
Besides performance wasn't the issue many were upset about, it was the lie or omission of the facts, which that case is undeniable.
It's not even that. I mean say what you will about this thread, but apart from your usual quips and ad homs this thread has been pretty civil for the most part.
That OCN thread? It's like watching chimps pound their chests and fling shit at each other lol.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
It's funny that some dance around the obvious and how they skew each others point to the edge of distortion. I think talking about the performance is misleading to the point at hand. Most are upset that the specs they saw in reviews on release were wrong and what the used to make their purchasing decision. I feel for them. I bought my 290 alot because it had 4Gb of Vram (Skyrim modder/player here). If I found out today its memory architecture was akin to the 970 I would be very displeased even though thus far my highest Vram usage was 2.8Gb.
He wasn't just using a SLI configuration, he was gaming multi-monitor 4K.