ok so are we going to get compensated for this or not
Come on, Nick. That's a 980 in that picture. D:
[QUOTE=Ylsid;47209980]ok so are we going to get compensated for this or not[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but to be fair all the benchmarks are still valid. The GTX 970 is an awesome card, I'd still recommend it, especially because of its price / performance value.
Well, strike one out of three I guess.
[QUOTE=uber.;47209990]Come on, Nick. That's a 980 in that picture. D:[/QUOTE]
Sorry about that - I was in a bit of a rush and couldn't find an official Nvidia picture of a GTX 970 (we have to be really picky about where we get our pictures). Replaced it with an actual picture of a GTX 970 now!
some people are very upset about this, but i'm really curious as to just how important that missing 500mb really is.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;47213942]some people are very upset about this, but i'm really curious as to just how important that missing 500mb really is.[/QUOTE]
it isn't missing, it's a slower portion. dipping in to it doesn't affect performance much at all.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;47213942]some people are very upset about this, but i'm really curious as to just how important that missing 500mb really is.[/QUOTE]
Betwheen 1-3% bigger of a performance decrease compared to the 980, when utilizing more then 3.5gb, according to the nvidia benchmark.
Although for a lot of games you need to go resolutions, where the 970 isn't fast enough to render at 30fps to actually use more then 3.5gb to begin with.
[QUOTE=.Lain;47213950]it isn't missing, it's a slower portion. dipping in to it doesn't affect performance much at all.[/QUOTE]
And don't forget it's still faster than not having that extra 512MB as well.
This whole thing could have been avoided if they advertised it as a 3.5GB card with and .5GB slower extra or something. People would have looked at it as a good price:performance card with weird architecture and continued on with life.
"We're sorry we got caught!"
[QUOTE=healthpoint;47214319]"We're sorry we got caught!"[/QUOTE]
Why do people keep going on about how they were just lying the entire time rather than making an honest mistake? They had absolutely nothing to gain from lying because the truth was guaranteed to get out, and quickly, once the reviewers realized that the specs they had been told for the cards obviously didn't line up with the results.
They gained buyers from lying. Maybe 4GB was the selling point to someone? False advertising is false advertising, no matter how little difference it would make.
You mean the buyers that would be turned off the company by learning they'd been lied to as well as the many other people who normally buy their stuff who are acting that exact same way regardless of whether they were in fact lying or not? Yeah, that's a great business plan. Lying would have harmed their business no matter how you look at it.
[QUOTE=.Lain;47213950]it isn't missing, it's a slower portion. dipping in to it doesn't affect performance much at all.[/QUOTE]
right, chose the wrong word, my bad.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;47214677]They gained buyers from lying. Maybe 4GB was the selling point to someone? False advertising is false advertising, no matter how little difference it would make.[/QUOTE]
But there is still a fully usable 4GB of VRAM on the card. As the resolutions required to actually hit that last 512MB are pretty damn big and would likely impact raw frame time before even touching memory access, you're not going to suffer from accesses to that 512MB during normal usage, but it will still be there if you do need it (GPGPU stuff could probably take advantage of it if you have a lot of data to crunch, the lower bandwidth there will do little to hurt it).
[QUOTE=healthpoint;47214319]"We're sorry we got caught!"[/QUOTE]
People who think this was an intentional move by NVIDIA are legitimate idiots. In what universe would NVIDIA have thought that nobody would find this out?
[editline]26th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;47214677]They gained buyers from lying. Maybe 4GB was the selling point to someone? False advertising is false advertising, no matter how little difference it would make.[/QUOTE]
No false advertising occurred here. Information given from reviews is inherently not advertising, and the card does have 4GB of VRAM.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;47214954]No false advertising occurred here. Information given from reviews is inherently not advertising, and the card does have 4GB of VRAM.[/QUOTE]
Now I think people are as idiotic with this as you do, but did nvidia really nowhere at all on a spec sheet available to consumers put the incorrect number of ROP's? The VRAM is it's own issue that people are blowing out of proportion, but there were legitimate specs that were incorrect.
I swear it's like people live in their own little world where everyone is out to get them and everyone is lying. It was merely a case of internal communication breakdown, no lies were made.
Let me reiterate with emphasis...
[B][I][U]They did not lie about how much VRAM was on the 970. There really is 4 GB, only 0.5 GB is slightly slower.[/U][/I][/B]
As the others above me have said, the benchmarks are not fudged, those really are the 970's performance benchmarks, and as such is a terrific card for the price.
NOW FROM NVIDIA 2GB VRAM VIDEOCARD ULTRA FAST PERFORMANCE AND EASY ON BUDGET!*
*2gb ddr1 ram
[QUOTE=Map in a box;47215119]NOW FROM NVIDIA 2GB VRAM VIDEOCARD ULTRA FAST PERFORMANCE AND EASY ON BUDGET!*
*2gb ddr1 ram[/QUOTE]
See, the funny thing about that is you can claim ultra fast all you want and it's not false advertising. The moment you actually compare it to a real product is when you can run into false advertising. It's why products can get away with "50% more powerful than the competition!", because they never state who or what.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47215044]Now I think people are as idiotic with this as you do, but did nvidia really nowhere at all on a spec sheet available to consumers put the incorrect number of ROP's?[/QUOTE]
As people repeatedly have pointed out in these threads it was a matter of miscommunication between nVidia's tech department and their marketing department. The marketing department deals with publicizing the specs and they were unaware of a new feature the card supports. According to their knowledge of nVidia's lineup at the time the ROP amount they stated was correct.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;47215165]As people repeatedly have pointed out in these threads it was a matter of miscommunication between nVidia's tech department and their marketing department. The marketing department deals with publicizing the specs and they were unaware of a new feature the card supports. According to their knowledge of nVidia's lineup at the time the ROP amount they stated was correct.[/QUOTE]
Miscommunication or not, if it was advertised as such, it still is false advertising. I'm just curious if people trying to sue them have a leg to stand on with this, because they really don't with the VRAM part.
It's still not false advertising because the tech sheets aren't a part of the advertising. They're supplemental information released entirely separately. Now if the boxes had said 64 ROPs I think the number was, then it would be a valid claim. But the boxes don't advertise that stuff.
Seems less like they "let" it happen and more like they [I]made[/I] it happen.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;47215316]It's still not false advertising because the tech sheets aren't a part of the advertising. They're supplemental information released entirely separately. Now if the boxes had said 64 ROPs I think the number was, then it would be a valid claim. But the boxes don't advertise that stuff.[/QUOTE]
It's this simple, if you buy something, regardless of whether or not all the specs are on the box, you still can claim a refund for false advertising, the specification sheet is available from Nvidia, and it is wrong, it is an advertised specification list. You are entitled to a refund, the ROPs are plainly lied about.
[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47216694]It's this simple, if you buy something, regardless of whether or not all the specs are on the box, you still can claim a refund for false advertising, the specification sheet is available from Nvidia, and it is wrong, it is an advertised specification list. You are entitled to a refund, the ROPs are plainly lied about.[/QUOTE]
I dunno what world you live in but in the US (where nVidia operates from) this is flat out wrong. The tech sheets are provided as supplemental information to reviewers (or anyone who goes searching for them after they've been publicly released) and have exactly nothing to do with any advertisement of the cards from nVidia in any way.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;47218546]I dunno what world you live in but in the US (where nVidia operates from) this is flat out wrong. The tech sheets are provided as supplemental information to reviewers (or anyone who goes searching for them after they've been publicly released) and have exactly nothing to do with any advertisement of the cards from nVidia in any way.[/QUOTE]
Yeah US doesn't exactly have the best customer rights.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47215183]Miscommunication or not, if it was advertised as such, it still is false advertising. I'm just curious if people trying to sue them have a leg to stand on with this, because they really don't with the VRAM part.[/QUOTE]
it wasn't advertised as such on any buyers page, an incorrect spec sheet was sent to reviewers. those are significantly different things
[editline]27th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47216694]It's this simple, if you buy something, regardless of whether or not all the specs are on the box, you still can claim a refund for false advertising, the specification sheet is available from Nvidia, and it is wrong, it is an advertised specification list. You are entitled to a refund, the ROPs are plainly lied about.[/QUOTE]
this is what you might think if you're a consumer whom thinks they are automatically entitled to a refund on any basis
First off, I'd just like to say that I own an MSI 970, and it's an awesome piece of tech that will run literally anything I run at it, no questions asked. It's a beast. However...
The only thing that annoys me about all of this is the fact that because of the architecture and the way they can deactivate ROP's and L2 cache, the only reason they have done this is to essentially gimp the 970 and make you pay an extortionate amount more for them to be activated in the 980 (Almost twice the price).
It's like making you buy a car with the back seats missing and then saying "Oh, you wanted those? That's another £6,000" even though the capability for them to be there already exists. There's something about it that just feels really cheap.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
