Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang Apologizes For 'Miscommunication' On GTX 970 Specs

[JackFrost860]

As a programmer I can see nothing in the API that lets me choose between normal bandwidth 3.5Gb memory on the card and the crippled bandwidth .5Gb block. So when I execute a memory allocation, it's a lottery? nvidia needs to explain in more detail how this works.

 

[SkyBill40]

"Won't let this happen again"

Translation: We've got your money and you're not getting any of it back. Thanks.

 

[Scorpionking20]

I tried to quote the quote the comment above asking me (970 sli owner) if I'd prefer my 970's had 3gb of memory.

No. I'd rather they have a fully functioning 4gb. That's what the card was sold to me as. That's what I expect. I just got a 1440 monitor (Rog Swift) last weekend, and I bought these cards in anticipation of getting this monitor. I saved some $1700 for this setup, based on these cards having 4gb of memory.

So...There's your answer. I didn't get a better than 3gb card...I BOUGHT with mine own money a fully functioning 4gb card. Except it's not functioning as it should, as I was lied to!

 

[eltoro]

I fail to see why people are so puffed up about this. Has the revelation f this inaccurate specs automatically pushed the existing benchmarks of the GTX 970 down???
But people love a good cheating story..."ohhhhhhh we cauth you cheating!!! You have betrayed us!!!! GTX 970 is crap!!! I'm not going to buy nvidia ever again!!!.

What the f**k do I care how they produce these performance results?!?! The GTX 970 is a VERY capable card at a very good price/performance level, and this story is not going to change that. So people, swallow a few valium pills and calm down!

BTW, I'm not a nvidia fanboy. Both nvidia and amd have had their share of hardware issues, and this one is very minor (it doesn't affect the card stability and the benchmark results are still the same).

 

[vmem]

and so we wait for the NEXT time something like this happens again. JHH's statement will read:

"Ops, we did it again! And we're sorry, we swear it was an acciiideeeeeent!"

 

[Onus]

I tried to quote the quote the comment above asking me (970 sli owner) if I'd prefer my 970's had 3gb of memory.

No. I'd rather they have a fully functioning 4gb. That's what the card was sold to me as. That's what I expect. I just got a 1440 monitor (Rog Swift) last weekend, and I bought these cards in anticipation of getting this monitor. I saved some $1700 for this setup, based on these cards having 4gb of memory.

So...There's your answer. I didn't get a better than 3gb card...I BOUGHT with mine own money a fully functioning 4gb card. Except it's not functioning as it should, as I was lied to!

You seem to be one of the very few (but very real; not knocking here) people for whom this is indeed a significant issue, for whom benchmarks don't tell the tale. At the very least, you should be able to get a full refund, including of any shipping charges. You're the kid in the nursery that gets stung by a wasp and so cries for good reason. There are too many others though, who have started wailing and howling just because they hear another kid doing so; maybe you're going to get some ice cream, and they want it too.
What's going to matter long term here is how nVidia treats you, not how it treats all the other whiners. Good luck.

 

[Tanquen]

Total BS. Companies always lie and go with whatever number sounds bigger. Is it even a real 4GBs or is it the BS were 1000MB makes 1GB not the real 1024MBs?

 

[Hupiscratch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZJrsssPA0

 

[Corey Carroz]

"cepheid , February 25, 2015 9:45 AM
For those who don't understand, the 512mb of slow ram Nvidia used to fluff their card is essentially useless it's so slow. Any basic user who runs benchmarks at 1080p will see the problems with stuttering caused by Nvidia's deceit. This is a terrible non-apology on their part and makes me less likely to purchase their products in the future. I've owned 6 Nvidia cards but I'm skeptical about purchasing from the company again"

I can't the quoting option to work on this site. This is completely not true. A lot of games at 4k don't need 4GBs of RAM so this RAM issue is not going to cause stuttering at 1080. Toms did a review on the 8 GB and 4GB 290x in CF VS 970 SLI and found that most games don't need more then 4GB at 4k (BF4 is one of them). This was at 4k... There is no need for more then 3gb at 1080. Why come to this thread and spread FUD? I don't own this card but I can see from reviews and benchmarks that it performs well. My current 780 is a 3GB card and will max every game including crysis 3 on ultra settings at 1080p.

 

[rhysiam]

There's one aspect to all this that I really don't think has been adequately explained. Nvidia is trying to pass this off as an accident, based on a breakdown in communication and in their writeups on the matter both Anandtech and Toms seem to accept Nvidia's explanation.
Anandtech -> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation
Tom's -> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

My issue with this explanation comes from the fact that this "feature" of the 970 is entirely new and actually pretty complex. In fact, from a purely technical point of view, it's a pretty impressive accomplishment from Nvidia and a really efficient way of harvesting failed 980 chips with minimal compromise (but not NO compromise!)... again, I just said, "from a purely technical point of view". From Anandtech's deep dive, it involves reasonably complex hardware and software design, and a huge amount of firmware tweaking to try and manage a two-segment memory system by keeping high-frequency data in the faster memory segment. Presumable the whole new system would have required a huge amount of testing and optimising.

In other words, there were lots of lots of people spending lots and lots of time developing a new and pretty innovative memory management system.

If that's all true then, how is it possible that not one single person thought to discuss this brand new, innovative feature with their marketing department for the first ever card to launch with the fruits of their labour? Sure, if this was recycled tech or a minor change, I could see that happening... but significant debut... no one said anything? AND, did not one of those techs/devs/testers read the launch articles to see how reviewers responded to their feature, which many would surely have realised sounds pretty bad if it's not explained properly?

That I find extremely hard to believe. While I agree that the benchmarks are 'true' and some of this hype is overblown, I just can't buy Nvidia's explanation even if the editors of Toms and Anandtech can. Happy to discuss this further (sensibly) if others see things differently.

 

[littleleo]

"If intel released some beast cpu with 1 core and it performed astoundingly well in all tasks but they advertised it as a quad core, we would be mad. Yes it still works but why lie? Especially when it is a good products."

This is like AMD and their FX CPUs the Quad Core is really a Dual core, and so on, but they keep calling it a quad core and eventually people believe it and go along with it. They have still never really come clean about that.

I've seen companies where the tech dept and the marketing dept have a misunderstanding like this but after the card specs was listed all over the place why didn't someone speak-up and say "oops, that is wrong"? Nvidia should offer anyone that wants to return the card a full refund and cover all shipping plus offer them a discount on an upgrade to a 980. They should also drop the price on the 970. Despite all this it is a good card and still gives AMD's top model a good run for the money.

 

[Outlander_04]

I fail to see how anyone can be upset .
The card uses 4 gig of RAM as claimed . Sure it uses a portion of that differently to previous generations but frankly who cares . People bought the card for its known performance .
To whine about a technical architecture detail afterwards is a bit pathetic

 

[tomfreak]

So there is no word for official channel for refund?

lets be flexible Nvidia, Those who are happy with 970 they can keep their card, but at least let customer who are not happy have "an easier" time to do refund even against smaller retailer who are less likely to honor a refund.

 

[Gurg]

So there is no word for official channel for refund?

lets be flexible Nvidia, Those who are happy with 970 they can keep their card, but at least let customer who are not happy have "an easier" time to do refund even against smaller retailer who are less likely to honor a refund.

Evidently lots of retailers are aware of this and giving refunds. I returned my two 970s to Microcenter for a complete refund and purchased one 980 and will see how that works before buying another for SLI. The Microcenter return associate that answered my phone call asking about a refund was well aware of this issue.

 

[Mark Boss]

Miscommunication? I fail to see how engineering and marketing can not be in sync over the course of the 12-18 MONTH cycle of product development. Publishing deflection only makes it worse. How about a live polygraph interview? No regret over how you have tarnished your product line with inept management or collusion to defraud? Unfortunately, having you publish the words "We won’t let this happen again" does nothing to allay the fear that your company or frankly any company will twist facts and outright lie if it gets those quarterly earnings up. It was bonus season afterall. I had a GTX 970. I was satisfied with its performance. I sent it back in protest of your fraud. I filed a complaint with the FTC and the BBB. I plan to join the class actions. Heck, I even wrote Elizabeth Warren a letter. Your product came into my space and on its label was a lie. That can not stand. There should be consequences for lying, for screwing up. If you get away with it others will try to as well. You should just be happy you don't make faulty ignition switches for automobiles!

Do you think this is a unique experience? This is part of business for anyone, literally everyone that sells anything for a living. Get in line at the courthouse, bring a snack. You bought a great card from a loved OEM and aftermarket company. The problem with a traditional system development life cycle is that you have no clue when the "mad men" bothered to read an emailed spec sheet.

 

[Pope DaHammer]

if you are an Nvidiot... u will say this means nothing ..get over it... if u are an ATidroid... then your will call Nvidia evil and corrupt.... if your niether... u will not really care

 

[Bloob]

My issue is not whether or not the card performs as benchmarked, it is the misdirection. I can not trust a company that is dishonest in a minor matter like this, to not also be dishonest in other things. Had they come forth before the whole thing, and actually apologized, they'd have my respect. And don't tell me no one noticed, that's bs.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

So there is no word for official channel for refund?

lets be flexible Nvidia, Those who are happy with 970 they can keep their card, but at least let customer who are not happy have "an easier" time to do refund even against smaller retailer who are less likely to honor a refund.

Evidently lots of retailers are aware of this and giving refunds. I returned my two 970s to Microcenter for a complete refund and purchased one 980 and will see how that works before buying another for SLI. The Microcenter return associate that answered my phone call asking about a refund was well aware of this issue.

Wow, Nvidia's smart, make people refund their 970s and spend more on their 980 lol

 

[Jimmy_DA]

to those saying it has 4gb get over, yes it does but it's split RAM. The issue is the first 3.5gb of RAM runs at A speed and the other .5gb at B speed. Now A speed is faster than B speed which is the issue. Whenever there is more than one module of RAM utilise the memory architecture will always run it at the slowest modules speed. Herin lies the problem - once the first 3.5gb is fully utilised the remaining .5gb kicks in and a vast performance decrease as the first 3.5gb of RAM matches the slowest RAM module speed. This is what customers are complaing about, yes the specs/benchmarks are impressive but these are taking at optimal values (the deceit) whilst only utilising up to 3.5gb. There saying it has 4gb get over it is quite an unintelligent statement. As while true it does but if you are to utilise over 75% of its ram you will do so at a dramatically vast decrease in rendering performance. It's like a V12 with 2 blown cylinders - yes it's a V12 but it can only run at the capacity of a V10

 

[db188]

words like "misspoke" or "miscommunication" are the current vogue for when people get caught telling tall tales or misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Onus]

...how is it possible that not one single person thought to discuss this brand new, innovative feature with their marketing department for the first ever card to launch with the fruits of their labour? Sure, if this was recycled tech or a minor change, I could see that happening... but significant debut... no one said anything?

I don't doubt that Engineering (or even Product Management) briefed some m a r k e t i n g d r o i d s on this. It was well beyond the understanding of those droids, so they just fell back on what they [think they] know to describe the cards.

 

[Gurg]

So there is no word for official channel for refund?

lets be flexible Nvidia, Those who are happy with 970 they can keep their card, but at least let customer who are not happy have "an easier" time to do refund even against smaller retailer who are less likely to honor a refund.

Evidently lots of retailers are aware of this and giving refunds. I returned my two 970s to Microcenter for a complete refund and purchased one 980 and will see how that works before buying another for SLI. The Microcenter return associate that answered my phone call asking about a refund was well aware of this issue.

Wow, Nvidia's smart, make people refund their 970s and spend more on their 980 lol

The options are a 980 or a 290x with the ever shaky AMD drivers and roughly 7% lower performance or a 295 that reviews say doesn't work well in many programs. I tried to go cheap with 970 in sli based on the reviews and was lucky to get out of a problem product whole. All it cost me was a 40 mile round trip and the frustration of the 970s in sli freezing and stuttering in my games. As for now I have a net refund of around $200 and will decide later if I buy another 980 to sli.

 

[king solomon]

IT WILL MATTER, not NOW, BUT WHEN WE SEE GAMES dat use 4gb Vram, after 3.5gb filling up, ur game will be sloooooooooooooow down to crap, better disable dat portion of vram in future drivers and make future cards with only 3.5gb..
coz games/os dose not see a slow 512 mb, they see 4gb of vram, ..

 

[cwolf78]

No, Nvidia. You were afraid the card would not sell with less than 4GB. So you lied about the card really having only 3.5GB of usable memory. In any case, Why not just put 4GB on the card? What's wrong with the architecture that does not allow it?

This is why: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation

 

[cwolf78]

For those who don't understand, the 512mb of slow ram Nvidia used to fluff their card is essentially useless it's so slow. Any basic user who runs benchmarks at 1080p will see the problems with stuttering caused by Nvidia's deceit. This is a terrible non-apology on their part and makes me less likely to purchase their products in the future. I've owned 6 Nvidia cards but I'm skeptical about purchasing from the company again.

As an owner of a 970, I call BS. There is no "stuttering" of any kind at 1080 in any benchmark or any game, regardless of how high the settings are cranked. I cannot verify resolutions above this, however. I got this card so I can make better use of my 144 Hz monitor. And for that, it delivers.