Originally Posted by EightDee8D
but you do like the approach nvidia took with 970? ok
and people ask why 80/20% market share.
Did I say that I liked the approach they took with 970? No? Okay then.
Yes, they made a mistake on the spec sheet. No, they shouldn't have made it. Yes, they should have brought it up sooner, but I honestly can't fault them for not nitpicking a canned press item that probably got internally approved (mistakenly) months before publication.
But the furor around 970 is, actually, completely overblown. Had the spec sheet been correct, the reviewers would have said "Huh, that's weird, people haven't done that before in a graphics card. Let's see how it performs. Oh, hey, these benchmarks are great, guess it's no big deal." There is literally zero upside to Nvidia "lying" about 970's memory performance. People should never buy based on spec sheet numbers, particularly obscure ones like that. The translation from spec sheet number to real-world performance is murky for any of them, but it's particularly bad for that number.
So you have a year and a half worth of misleading demos, lies about capability, lies about price, lies about progress, lies about how much they're leaving to monitor OEMs, lies about parity with their competitor, and lies about their competitor's performance. And you want to compare that to a misprint that has zero upside for the company, and was only ever going to blow up in their face? Seriously?
Lying requires intent. AMD proved throughout FreeSync's development that they consider active disinformation a viable marketing tactic. 970 was a mistake, but it was not malicious.