Are you buying GTX 970 after its controversy?

[xfia]

Lying about what? About how stuff is being implemented deep inside the chip? Come on man, this is ridiculous. No one has ever told us about how it is, simply because we're not qualified enough to be able to make any sense even out of the most thorough explanation.

***** *****

Guys, this is why these people work at engineering positions, and we just buy their stuff. Admit it, you wish to know as much as they do, but you don't, and you never will, unless you stop being just a PC enthusiast and become a proper developer. But no, this is much harder than running your mouth on forums, trying to make a company out of people who can't even tell how much this "3.5" controversy affects them in the first place.

If you're feeling offended by the fact that somebody sold you a part that doesn't really meet the concept of "true" 4 GiB of VRAM, ask yourself a question: do you really know how this memory is being used? Where does the less needed stuff go (like GUI and read-only points of data)? How much memory does it occupy?..

Can everybody please stop trying to look like a smart PC guy and admit that you know very, very little? Just using one particular thing for a long time doesn't make you an expert; when you get a sore throat, you don't automatically become a pharmacologist after swallowing a couple of pills, god damn it.

I have probably said a few things about it that are a little over my head but the truth is any way you dice it there is just a flaw.. the speed of the small segment is not so much the issue as it is that it cant be accessed at the same time as the large segment so no matter what you do it just cant use both efficiently. it seems that its already built into the driver to handle this so testing the 980 against the 970 may not even be the best course of action.

I dont think you or anyone else should be defending them and you should certainly not underestimate what people are capable of understanding.

 

[arbiter]

You're example is not correct, it's like you are comparing apples to oranges not the same thing at all.

Just to clarify e.g. you cant compare a GTX780TI to a GTX980 with your ideology coz they are different architectures, how ever you can compare their performance directly but they do not employ the same technique to achieve those performance goals (simply put apples and oranges, not same)

Point i was going at with that from original quoted posted, specs really don't matter anymore. Just cause a gpu looks great spec wise doesn't mean its a faster gpu. Same as for cpu that has more cores and uses more power, isn't always gonna be the faster vs one that has less cores and uses less power.

BF4 VHQ
@ 1080 = 1.4 GB
@ 1600 = 1.6 GB
@ 2160 = 2.3 GB
What other way is there to reach the 3.5GB other then to use scaling.

FC4 Ultra
@ 1080 = 2.8 GB
@ 1600 = 3.4 GB
@ 2160 = 4.0 GB
You still have to add AA to surpass the 3.5GB mark under 4k

CoD:AW VHQ
@ 1080 = 3.2 GB
@ 1600 = 3.8 GB
@ 2160 = 4.0 GB

See the difference.

The "independent reviewers" are leaving out establishing a base vRam usage and are just throwing out 4k AA figures. Which confuses them when they compare a BF4 like game to a COD:AW game.

Yea most decent reviews will talk about that fact they had to use stupid high settings to get vRam usage to a point to start to show the problem. A lot of people that look to drum up story to be worse then it is, generally fans of another camp will only focus on it end result and not what it takes to get it to that result. I am sure if you did fps results of FC4 under those settings it would probably be pretty low that even with the issue, game would run pretty bad to start with anyway even if you dropped an r9 290x in or gtx980. So mocking an issue that you have to run so high settings game would probably run sub 30fps to start with on even higher end cards is pretty stupid of people.

 

[pr0fessor]

At the moment, I don't have any money left for a new card, and the next wave is around the corner. This whole story tells me, that the x70 line from NVIDIA can be badly cut stuff and I will consider it until the next generation from. Also I guess in the tech industry, these practice is widespread. Who cares about the last 5% of a dryer, when it doesn't do its best job.

I find this amazing, we have a computer hardware enthusiast website/forum.
The place where you would think people would care about what is in their PC's.

...yet 60% says Specs do not matter? what?

Like me, there are also other users that don't need the most expensive hardware for using 4K and are happy with 1080p. But yes, I do care about the specs, now even more. If you really need 4gb ram for using high end solutions, AMD is and was the way to go. At higher Pixels AMD was usually getting stronger in the performance.

 

[qubit]

I voted no, nvidia has been dishonest.

I'd still buy other models from them, though.

 

[dmitris]

Although this poll proves nothing , cause elsewhere many people are angry about the gtx 970 , there is a problem here people.
Some of you say that it is a fine card , cause you can play easily at 1080p .
That is your huge mistake , this card costs almost as much as a ps4 , in my country it costs the same , but guess what ....
Ps4 is capable of running the games at 1080p , 1080p is a console resolution , you should demand much more from such an expensive graphics card.
Gtx 970 was never bang for the buck , and don't even consider mentioning about more fps than the console , cause games are playable on ps4 .
Gtx 970 should be capable of much higher resolutions , or should be cheaper.
You have been fooled this whole time , open your eyes eventually.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Although this poll proves nothing , cause elsewhere many people are angry about the gtx 970 , there is a problem here people.
Some of you say that it is a fine card , cause you can play easily at 1080p .
That is your huge mistake , this card costs almost as much as a ps4 , in my country it costs the same , but guess what ....
Ps4 is capable of running the games at 1080p , 1080p is a console resolution , you should demand much more from such an expensive graphics card.
Gtx 970 was never bang for the buck , and don't even consider mentioning about more fps than the console , cause games are playable on ps4 .
Gtx 970 should be capable of much higher resolutions , or should be cheaper.
You have been fooled this whole time , open your eyes eventually.

What?

The point of a gaming system isn't just to push out more pixels. The debate between console gaming and PC gaming also revolves around post processing and new features. The PS4 is more than capable of playing 1080p, assuming you can deal without any AA, or advanced visual features. If you're using this argument, then all you really need for a GPU is something mid-tier from two generations ago.

The 970 is flawed for one particular usage type. If you push a ton of pixels, with huge processing, which can actually eat all the available VRAM. For the vast majority of users that isn't a problem. This makes the 970 a good product for a vast majority of users. Saying games are playable on the PS4, therefore gaming on anything more expensive is stupid, is ignorant in the extreme. If you'd like a taste of the difference play Skyrim on a console, and then switch to a PC with a good GPU. The visual difference is night and day, once you add in the processing that is only possible on a powerful GPU.




Again, I'm not going to buy a 970. Despite this, some of these arguments are face-palmingly foolish. The 970 is a very good product for everything but fringe cases. In those fringe cases, people are trying to test the limitations of the card, and surprisingly there are some. It's like complaining that your car has a speedometer that tops out at 140 mph, and the top speed of the car is 120 mph. You might be able to do 150 mph on a steep incline, but that's an exception to the rules rather than a regularity. It isn't time to carry out pitch-forks and torches, it's time to demand a new processor node so we can start seeing genuine performance leaps between card generations.

 

[Xzibit]

Again, I'm not going to buy a 970. Despite this, some of these arguments are face-palmingly foolish. The 970 is a very good product for everything but fringe cases. In those fringe cases, people are trying to test the limitations of the card, and surprisingly there are some. It's like complaining that your car has a speedometer that tops out at 140 mph, and the top speed of the car is 120 mph. You might be able to do 150 mph on a steep incline, but that's an exception to the rules rather than a regularity. It isn't time to carry out pitch-forks and torches, it's time to demand a new processor node so we can start seeing genuine performance leaps between card generations.

This is more of the car manufacturer advertising a 140mph car then come to find out that the car is toping out at 120mph because the ECU wont let you go beyond that. You then complain to the car maker and he tells your not a race car driver stick to the streets where the speed limit is 55mph.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

This is more of the car manufacturer advertising a 140mph car then come to find out that the car is toping out at 120mph because the ECU wont let you go beyond that. You then complain to the car maker and he tells your not a race car driver stick to the streets where the speed limit is 55mph.

You're making my point eloquently.

The roads are limited to 55 mph, with the occasional 75 mph thrown in for fun. That 120 speedometer limit is an artificial limit, because you can't really hit it outside of a test track. If you bought the RS/SS model (in this case the 980), you'd be able to hit the 140 mph, but the car costs an additional 66% of the base price for that 17% increase in performance. This is why most people buy the standard model and pay less for a better performance:cost ratio, despite the fact that they can't technically hit 140 mph.


Back to the original discussion, show your proof. Where did a promise from Nvidea get broken? They cherry-pick performance numbers, and rig tests so that their hardware does better. This is the case with almost every technology company. While the practice is crap, people are stupid. Instead of buying the latest cards, then complaining they don't meet your expectations, why aren't people waiting for benchmarks? Wait for the testing, and only spend your money when performance values match your expectations. The 970 does a good job of matching performance to cost, and that's why it is a good card. It isn't what I want/need, but complaining that the product is bad or worthless misses reality. Right now, if I had no GPU, the 970 beats out anything else. While the 290X is tempting, the 970 delivers the same or better performance (at 1920x1080) without requiring a jet engine to cool it down. Sometimes a 95% solution at 100% cost is better than a 100% solution at 110% cost. AMD is closing the gap with price cuts, but they realistically aren't aiming for the same market with the 290X. The 290X shines by pushing out pixels, while the 970 is a great performer with a budget minded eye. Most people can't throw money at computers, which is why the 970 is better. Sometimes you buy the geo metro for gas consumption, despite the golf being superior, because the trade-offs make it better for you.

 

[Xzibit]

You're making my point eloquently.
The roads are limited to 55 mph, with the occasional 75 mph thrown in for fun. That 120 speedometer limit is an artificial limit, because you can't really hit it outside of a test track. If you bought the RS/SS model (in this case the 980), you'd be able to hit the 140 mph, but the car costs an additional 66% of the base price for that 17% increase in performance. This is why most people buy the standard model and pay less for a better performance:cost ratio, despite the fact that they can't technically hit 140 mph.
Back to the original discussion, show your proof. Where did a promise from Nvidea get broken? They cherry-pick performance numbers, and rig tests so that their hardware does better. This is the case with almost every technology company. While the practice is crap, people are stupid. Instead of buying the latest cards, then complaining they don't meet your expectations, why aren't people waiting for benchmarks? Wait for the testing, and only spend your money when performance values match your expectations. The 970 does a good job of matching performance to cost, and that's why it is a good card. It isn't what I want/need, but complaining that the product is bad or worthless misses reality. Right now, if I had no GPU, the 970 beats out anything else. While the 290X is tempting, the 970 delivers the same or better performance (at 1920x1080) without requiring a jet engine to cool it down. Sometimes a 95% solution at 100% cost is better than a 100% solution at 110% cost. AMD is closing the gap with price cuts, but they realistically aren't aiming for the same market with the 290X. The 290X shines by pushing out pixels, while the 970 is a great performer with a budget minded eye. Most people can't throw money at computers, which is why the 970 is better. Sometimes you buy the geo metro for gas consumption, despite the golf being superior, because the trade-offs make it better for you.

Its more equivalent to a Luxury model. Where they want you to have a more comfortable experience at 1080p.

RS/SS models still have ECU limits. If your looking at RS/SS models heat/gas mileage is not a concern. Noise is prized.

 

[the54thvoid]

Stop bickering about car analogies..

 

[xfia]

car analogies always make since to me I love it when the tri-x on my 290 hits those high rpm's

 

[hat]

I wouldn't get one. Main reason being I am picky and I don't want to run into any issues with my machine... I don't want to have problems if I go over 3.5GB and get stuck on this slow secondary RAM. And I don't really go for the shady advertising, either. What's up with the ROPS? They're there, but you can't really use them. ???

I think we're making a mistake by jumping on the GTX 970 now that there's controversy and deals to be had. If this sort of trend continues, what's next? 24GB DDR4 sticks, but wait, the last 4GB of those are actually recycled leftover PC133 SDRAM... 10 core Skylake-E but the last 2 cores are a Pentium D...

 

[qubit]

I wouldn't get one. Main reason being I am picky and I don't want to run into any issues with my machine... I don't want to have problems if I go over 3.5GB and get stuck on this slow secondary RAM. And I don't really go for the shady advertising, either. What's up with the ROPS? They're there, but you can't really use them. ???

I think we're making a mistake by jumping on the GTX 970 now that there's controversy and deals to be had. If this sort of trend continues, what's next? 24GB DDR4 sticks, but wait, the last 4GB of those are actually recycled leftover PC133 SDRAM... 10 core Skylake-E but the last 2 cores are a Pentium D...

Exactly, NVIDIA must lose out where they have been dishonest and that means not buying that particular model.

 

[mouacyk]

@W1zzard What is the point of this poll, when I can vote endlessly on it?

Unless, I misunderstood that it's a joke?

 

[hat]

Exactly, NVIDIA must lose out where they have been dishonest and that means not buying that particular model.

It's not just that Nvidia must lose where they were dishonest (some may argue they weren't dishonest, I find it deceitful myself), but it's also about not setting a precedent for this sort of thing.

 

[Xzibit]

It's not just that Nvidia must lose where they were dishonest (some may argue they weren't dishonest, I find it deceitful myself), but it's also about not setting a precedent for this sort of thing.

Looks like someone is taking a look at the situation

Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Bursor & Fisher, P.A. - Notice of Investigation, Did You Purchase An NVIDIA GTX 970?

 

[mouacyk]

Even if consumers get nothing out of it now, and lawyers get everything out of a suit, hopefully, NVidia will learn not to try screwing us again.

 

[xorbe]

Stop bickering about car analogies..

It's like when you hit the blinker, but the bulb is burned out, due to low blinker fluid.

 

[Caring1]

It's like when you hit the blinker, but the bulb is burned out, due to low blinker fluid.

Lol hydraulic indicators...

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Looks like someone is taking a look at the situation

Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Bursor & Fisher, P.A. - Notice of Investigation, Did You Purchase An NVIDIA GTX 970?

Allow me to lend perspective to this bit of non-sense.

What this law firm does is initiate class action suits. They need to generate a pool of interested parties, do research into the viability of a suit, and then actually level one. What you've linked to is a fishing expedition into the waters. This firm is asking for people to tell them if they've had issues for two reasons; they are determining the number of potential clients, and the severity of the issue.

None of this means legal action is likely. They are determining whether legal action makes sense on a cost to profit basis. Step 1 of 3, prior to legal action, means even if something is to be leveled it will be years down the line. Do you really think legal action will impact Nvidea when they're on the GTX 1300 series? If, and it is a huge if, the lawyers don't bury this it'll get settled for peanuts right before it goes to trial. The law firm does this to make money, and anyone who might actually receive a reimbursement will get pennies on the dollar.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that this whole debate seems stupid. Anecdotally, the 970 owners I know are happy with their cards. The people who are moaning about this are in an extreme minority of card owners. The question posed in this thread was whether I'd buy the card considering the controversy. I don't see the controversy in practice, so I can't say it influences my purchasing decision. I wasn't looking to buy a 970 anyways, but the people stirring this up as a huge deal are not reasonable either. If you don't like the card, don't buy it. If the performance has been impacted, return it to where you've purchased it from. Moaning on a thread that Nvidea has lied, so boycott their product, is useless. Either don't purchase the card, or return it.

For perspective, EA is guilty of some atrocious crap. People scream about it every time, and suggest boycotts. In three weeks, when the next big game releases, those calling for a boycott are out buying EA product again. Boycotts can't work if nobody has the chutzpah to follow them. The people getting a 970, in large part, don't need a new GPU to run their games (as most run a 1920x1080 monitor), yet they choose to buy a 970. Getting people to boycott that choice will be a tougher sell than we can offer here. Nvidea is making money, so most people are happy. The minority that isn't may be able to level legal action, but if Nvidea has to spend 2 million to squelch a suit, while earning 10 million in profits on the cards it's still a win for them.

 

[turbo098]

i decided to wait for the next gen cards. i picked up 2 r290 for the same price as the one 970 gtx when my 7970 died.

 

[vega22]

Allow me to lend perspective to this bit of non-sense.

What this law firm does is initiate class action suits. They need to generate a pool of interested parties, do research into the viability of a suit, and then actually level one. What you've linked to is a fishing expedition into the waters. This firm is asking for people to tell them if they've had issues for two reasons; they are determining the number of potential clients, and the severity of the issue.

None of this means legal action is likely. They are determining whether legal action makes sense on a cost to profit basis. Step 1 of 3, prior to legal action, means even if something is to be leveled it will be years down the line. Do you really think legal action will impact Nvidea when they're on the GTX 1300 series? If, and it is a huge if, the lawyers don't bury this it'll get settled for peanuts right before it goes to trial. The law firm does this to make money, and anyone who might actually receive a reimbursement will get pennies on the dollar.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that this whole debate seems stupid. Anecdotally, the 970 owners I know are happy with their cards. The people who are moaning about this are in an extreme minority of card owners. The question posed in this thread was whether I'd buy the card considering the controversy. I don't see the controversy in practice, so I can't say it influences my purchasing decision. I wasn't looking to buy a 970 anyways, but the people stirring this up as a huge deal are not reasonable either. If you don't like the card, don't buy it. If the performance has been impacted, return it to where you've purchased it from. Moaning on a thread that Nvidea has lied, so boycott their product, is useless. Either don't purchase the card, or return it.

For perspective, EA is guilty of some atrocious crap. People scream about it every time, and suggest boycotts. In three weeks, when the next big game releases, those calling for a boycott are out buying EA product again. Boycotts can't work if nobody has the chutzpah to follow them. The people getting a 970, in large part, don't need a new GPU to run their games (as most run a 1920x1080 monitor), yet they choose to buy a 970. Getting people to boycott that choice will be a tougher sell than we can offer here. Nvidea is making money, so most people are happy. The minority that isn't may be able to level legal action, but if Nvidea has to spend 2 million to squelch a suit, while earning 10 million in profits on the cards it's still a win for them.

i agree that they are just testing the waters but out of the 5 people i know with sli 970s 3 have the stuttering issue and 2 seem unable to force it to happen when they do try to force it. to me this points to something else going on which nvidia have still not come clean about. buts thats another issue. if 60% of the people with them have issues then that is a pretty large amount of people who will be unhappy with their cards and will feel the need for some kind of compensation, even if it does take a couple of years to get.

to me the fact that all the retailers i have been in contact with and all the major distribution sites across europe are accepting returns (even if they are not advertising it) on them speaks volume, as they know legal action is coming and they are trying to help alleviate that now as much as they can.

i personally have not bought a 970 for myself, but that does not lessen the fact that i am disgusted that they think they can get away with such blatant fraudulent actions. it has very little impact on me in that regard but it has tarnished my reputation some what given the fact that i like many others have talked many people into buying them for their systems. when you make a living off the industry you need to know you can trust what these people say and when things like this happen it has a knock on effect to many people down the line, not just nvidia.

as for your video games analogy. some of us have the gumption to stick to our convictions so it just goes to show how weak your back bone is. nobody elses. i personally have not bought another ea games since they lied about bf3, despite the fact they keep sending me offers on games at almost no cost. i have not given activision a penny since they started to copy paste cod games every year.

now while nvidia keep up this practice of deceit about the specs of their cards and on things like gsync i will no longer be advising people to buy their products. not out of any loyalty to amd but in disgust at nvidia.

as for your perspective, you definitely added some nonsense, i will give you that.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

i agree that they are just testing the waters but out of the 5 people i know with sli 970s 3 have the stuttering issue and 2 seem unable to force it to happen when they do try to force it. to me this points to something else going on which nvidia have still not come clean about. buts thats another issue. if 60% of the people with them have issues then that is a pretty large amount of people who will be unhappy with their cards and will feel the need for some kind of compensation, even if it does take a couple of years to get.

to me the fact that all the retailers i have been in contact with and all the major distribution sites across europe are accepting returns (even if they are not advertising it) on them speaks volume, as they know legal action is coming and they are trying to help alleviate that now as much as they can.

i personally have not bought a 970 for myself, but that does not lessen the fact that i am disgusted that they think they can get away with such blatant fraudulent actions. it has very little impact on me in that regard but it has tarnished my reputation some what given the fact that i like many others have talked many people into buying them for their systems. when you make a living off the industry you need to know you can trust what these people say and when things like this happen it has a knock on effect to many people down the line, not just nvidia.

as for your video games analogy. some of us have the gumption to stick to our convictions so it just goes to show how weak your back bone is. nobody elses. i personally have not bought another ea games since they lied about bf3, despite the fact they keep sending me offers on games at almost no cost. i have not given activision a penny since they started to copy paste cod games every year.

now while nvidia keep up this practice of deceit about the specs of their cards and on things like gsync i will no longer be advising people to buy their products. not out of any loyalty to amd but in disgust at nvidia.

as for your perspective, you definitely added some nonsense, i will give you that.

You seem to want to be angry with any conflicting point of view, as per our usual discourse. You also seem to be either itching for a fight, or not metering your words.

To your comments about having no spine, please check your facts before waving your ignorance about. After Crysis 2 I said I was boycotting EA, and I still don't have Origin anywhere near any of my computers. Implying I didn't have a spine was foolish in the extreme, and you seem to have no grounds for accusations.

Claiming that this is somehow a breaking point, and you should be uniquely disgusted with Nvidea, is unreasonable. Perhaps history has slipped your grasp, but AMD, Nvidea, and Intel are all guilty of dishonest business practices. Intel has been forced to pay out for their anti-competitive business practices. AMD has been guilty of cherry-picking performance numbers, and Nvidea is guilty of half representing the truth. Despite this, you seem to not have an issue with either AMD or Intel. Seems like you either forgot the past, or it's impossible for you to recommend any hardware. So, are you guilty of ignorance, hypocrisy, or over-reaction? With reasonable perspective, I need to know which it is.

Waving the banner of trust is an absolute failure of logic. I trust that my 100 Mbit connection actually provides about 70 useable, because I see it. I trust that my cell phone works, only when I can make a call on it. I trust that the computer parts I buy are the best, because independent reviewers provide performance statistics. If you take for granted that AMD, Nvidea, and Intel are all 100% honest you're in for some rather severe disappointment. Suggesting otherwise implies you've either got no life experience, or you've got a boundless ability to overlook demonstrable track records. Every tech company embelishes the truth, and the questions is whether what you are seeing is an outright lie or just a partial truth. If that isn't entirely reasonable, I've got a 90 acre chunk of land on the moon I'll sell you for $10,000 per acre. If you forward me the money, I'll send you the deed once the check clears.


Finally, let's agree to be reasonable here. A very, very, very small percent of people use SLI. A vast majority of people have monitors that are 1920x1080 or smaller. The overlap area, where higher pixel counts and SLI setups intersect is where Nvidea is demonstrating design flaws. People experiencing this should return their cards, but be real about the impact. If you own a huge monitor, AMD is the performance and price winner. If you have the money for SLI, you've got enough to just buy a 980. Making this a problem that requires legal action is using Niagra falls to put out one match; extreme over-kill. Arguing that the product is a lie is foolish. There is 4 GB of VRAM on the card, which is what Nvidea promised. The inability to use all 4 GB at the same speed is less than an honest assessment of performance, but isn't demonstrably a lie. There is no valid avenue for an accusation of an outright lie.



All of this said, get back to the thread topic. This isn't about recommending Nvidea hardware, AMD being more honest, or even corporate honesty policies. This is whether or not the "controversy" will influence a purchasing decision. I stick by my response, that it will not. The 970 is a good, if flawed, product. It isn't right for some, but there's very little reason that someone building a PC today couldn't put one into a four year build for someone and not be reasonably assured that they'd be happy with it. I know of many people still running a 6570 today, that rarely complain about the visuals. Comparing a 6570 to the 970 is a joke, yet there's still life left in it.

 

[taks]

I would still go for Nvidia no matter what you throw at 'em.

 

[Keullo-e]

I rather buy another used GTX680 since they are pretty cheap. Bought mine with 150 euros and still has over an year and a half of its warranty remaining.