Return rates less than 5% after GeForce GTX 970 VRAM Exposure

Problem is, that not all stores are accepting return of GTX 970 due to vram exposure, so it could be higher.

 

There's hardly any real alternatives available for the same price. There's no way in hell I would pay more to get 290X and 980 is just overpriced.

 

Most retailers are not accepting returns or refunding. Especially some small shops. Most of them are not informed by Nvidia or any other manufacturer about a return policy because of the vram fiasco or any upgrade/return program. Nvidia gonna lose sales to AMD really soon.

 

Yeah there's no good alternative if you do return your 970. You either need to downgrade, save up and get a 980 which is probably overkill or deal with getting a 290X which performs near to the 970 at extreme power consumption, noise and temperature. I don't know about you lot but I don't like having a furnace in my PC.

If AMD had their 300 series out by now and one of them competes with the 970 on all levels that return number would be a lot more IMO. But on the other hand there's hardly any retailers letting you return

 

I bought my SLI setup from NewEgg. I won't be buying from them again due to a huge decrease over the last 3 years in customer service. They have a no return policy on both VGA cards and Motherboards. That's crap IMO. If you get a bad MoBo and want to return it to purchase a different one you're screwed, they will only exchange it in the first 30 days for the original board.

My last build I had a 7950. I loved that card and had the Eyefinity setup that it ran will all the current games at that time perfectly. I contacted Nvidia and they could care less about this issue even though I have proof of this stuttering and frame drops occuring on SOM, AC:U, and FC4. They said the card works perfectly fine. I plan to throw these in the trash when the 3xx series from AMD comes along. Nvidia will not get my money again.

 

Honestly GTX970 is a good card for the price and its users no need to switch. But nVidia must face legal actions for consumer Fraud.

 

Exactly

 

The cards are operating as designed, thus, not defective. Why should retailers risk losses on a product that is not defective?

 

Yet not operating as advetised. Fail.

 

My card operates exactly as advertised but I'm also not trying to run games maxed at 4K like an idiot....

 

Apparently not otherwise Dying Light would have never had to accommodate a Frankenstein spec

 

It doesn't matter how you feel the card performs for you. GPU specs, like any other PC part, are black and white. It either is or is not, and if it isn't then that is simply false advertising.
In the end it's a good thing there is at least a negative backlash about this. If everyone reacted so nonchalant about this it would easily turn into a slippery slope where specs are constantly reported higher then what they actually are under the guise of "you can't notice the difference anyway".

 

I don't play Dying Light, so don't really care about it. I guess it is easier to blame NVidia than developers that refuse to write proper code....

GTX460 768MB, GTX550Ti, GTX660.....all had similar memory configurations to the 970 where a portion of the memory was slower than the rest. NVidia just used a different method this time.

I bought my card based on it's performance. Not it's specs. Most of us learned years ago that specs are misleading unless you have indepth knowledge of exactly how the architecture works. (which 99.9% of consumers don't).

 

Right because let's blame a developer who takes 2-5 years to develop a game, while testing lots of configs, to not accommodate misleading specs at their time of arrival, which could be just a few months before release of aforementioned game.

LOL

 

That's so cute. You think taking 2-5 years to develop a game means it was actually coded properly.

Dying Light sounds like a video game adaptation of the movie "I am Legend" ....

I love seeing specs like these that prove my point...

If coded properly, there's no reason at all that mobile graphics chips wouldn't be supported.

 

290 is a great alternative heating solution for the winter tho. No Nvidia solution can beat that.

 

Facepalm, yes, they should have known that a card with 4GB vRAM was only going to be using 3.5GB vRAM because the driver is the sole controller of how much vRAM can be distributed. Honestly, you're hilarious.

There are a few games that work just fine and have that message. "Codded properly" as you say. Black Flag was the last that I recall.

In addition, they also work just fine on notebook cards.

Dying Light plays perfectly fine on my GTX 880M SLI, using/allocating up to 4.1GB of vRAM without stutters or frame latency issues.

Anyway, back on topic, as mentioned the return rate of the GTX 970 is low because vendors and nVIDIA kept routing service to each other, not wanting to take the dollar hit.

 

You don't need to run games maxed at 4K to run into the 970 memory issue