TheBoneyKing

The thread necromancy is strong in you

Firing it up next week eh? Hopefully on April 1st.

rest in peace in peace?

rest in peace in peace?

rest in peace in peace?

rest in peace in peace?

rest in peace in peace?

rest in peace in peace?

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
 
 
from article:
 
"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
 
I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though
 
Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:
 
"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 
Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.
Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 
The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"
 
Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"
 
This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon
 
Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now
 
Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970