I will explain you why nvidia lied to you.

[zappian]

No, I just found it to be a natural part of being a writer.

 

Taking an AP English class next year, and an Honors course this year.

 

[R_Golden]

The card is excellent, i just put nvidia´s business ethics on question.

If you like your card keep it by all means as long you are aware what nvidia did.

Every company is screwing you over one way or another and if this is the worst nvidia is doing I'm just gonna focus on the product at hand. If you want to boycott every company for every time they lie to you, good luck finding a product to buy. Is it negative that this is the way it is, yeah. Is it a big deal, that's for each person to judge for themselves, these threads are going around potentially swaying people into a view based on biased peers rather than making opinions for themselves which in my opinion is far worse than lying.

P.S. I'm not at all tied to any company, for this build I was dead set on getting a 290 until the 970 came out.

[zappian]

Every company is screwing you over one way or another and if this is the worst nvidia is doing I'm just gonna focus on the product at hand. If you want to boycott every company for every time they lie to you, good luck finding a product to buy. Is it negative that this is the way it is, yeah. Is it a big deal, that's for each person to judge for themselves, these threads are going around potentially swaying people into a view based on biased peers rather than making opinions for themselves which in my opinion is far worse than lying.

P.S. I'm not at all tied to any company, for this build I was dead set on getting a 290 until the 970 came out.

 

Doesn't mean we should call people out when they fuck up.

 

I admit my fuck ups as should everyone.

 

NVIDIA needs to do something about their affected customers.

 

Because some people are having issues/stutter using 970 SLI at 4k for example when VRAM matters.

[Guest]

 

YOU ASKED!

[SteveGrabowski]

Hello. I am new around here. Just wanted to point out few things :

 

1) The disabled ROPs do matter. While they are right about pixel fillrate bottlenecked by SM. In the case of stuff that requires ROP only, such as Anti-Aliasing its a big deal. If anyone (like myself) bought this card expecting it to take a minimal performance hit in future titles with AA on due to having more ROP, then its not the case anymore.

 

2) The 3.5 and 0.5 memory do not only differ in bandwith. When the GPU works with 0.5, it cannot acess 3.5 during the same cycle. Its either or. Or XOR, as the folk at annandtech pointed out in their acticle. Thus, not only acessing 0.5 is helluva slower, it also means that when 0.5 is in use, your effective bandwith for the main memory partition takes a hit too.

 

3) The lack of additional L2 cache can affect GPGPU performance.

 

4) The current benchmarks tell only one half of story. GTX 970's performance is great, and its as good as it was month ago. BUT the card's longevity is now in question. I bought this card to get the great performance now, and to be able to play with AA on for at least 2 years. But what happens when the games will need all 4 GB, and they will need them all on a high bandwith? GTX 970 is only 15% slower than GTX 980. In a year, that will be 30%. In 2 years, 45%. The more memory intensive the games become - the higher the performance difference will be. The higher the scene complexity, the more load will be put on ROP by AA. That is the sad truth about unconventional asymetric GPU desings - they are good for when they designed, but their performance falls of a cliff after a certain time. While conventional symmetrical designs scale down smoothly in performance.

 

5) It is clear now that in order to card work well, high degrees of driver/API/OS optimisation is needed. What will happen when the next generation of cards comes along, and nVidia will no longer want to spend money on optimisations for the new games for GTX 970? What happens when a game comes out that will not work correctly with additional RAM, and driver improvements will need to be made for it to work properly with GTX 970. Will nVidia spend their resources optimising for that game, given the fact that the optimisation is only need for GTX 970. Do you think they will spend as much effort for GTX 970 drivers, at the expensive of their other products, seeing as that kind of optimisation is only needed for GTX 970?

 

Main problem is not the design of GTX 970. It is what it is. Main problem is despite the card's performance, I would not have bought it because I am unwilling to be a lab rat for nVidia's experiments with unconventional GPU design. If I knew about this, I would not have both GTX 970 - not because of its performance, its the same GPU either way. But because of the concerns stated above.

 

Great post. Man I hope Nvidia allows us to get refunds so I can send this back and get a 290x. Hopefully before the 290x's shoot up in price. I bought this card for the 4GB VRAM for mild future proofing just like I bought a Xeon with HT even though it's not needed now vs an i5.

[zappian]

Great post. Man I hope Nvidia allows us to get refunds so I can send this back and get a 290x. Hopefully before the 290x's shoot up in price. I bought this card for the 4GB VRAM for future proofing just like I bought a Xeon with HT even though it's not needed now vs an i5.

 

Nvidia needs to man up and do right by their costumers.

[R_Golden]

People are already ignoring this already.

When people say AMD gpus are shit because there drivers are crap i will throw this into their face if you don't mind.

It's a shame that one of the biggest reasons I switched from console to PC was to get away from fanboys just to find I went from consoles wars to GPU wars. It makes almost no sense to me considering its all unified in that AMD and Nvidia users are gaming on the same platform together yet still need some kind of dick measuring contest to feel like they're better than someone else. Anyways, that's it for me (probably) gonna play some CS GO

[Guest]

-snip-

Terrible because I'm gay, or because there's a grammar error there?

[JustCallMeVlad]

Love how the thread is started by the king of the amd fanboys. Way to start a flame war dude.

As for the rest of you upset. I have one thing to say to you... GET OVER IT. You're not getting a refund and no recall is going to happen. Think of it this way. A flawed card is still faster than anything amd currently offers. Yeah it might have an issue with shadows or mordor at 4K with everything turned on but you're seriously going to complain over a 300 dollar card?

[zappian]

Love how the thread is started by the king of the amd fanboys. Way to start a flame war dude.

As for the rest of you upset. I have one thing to say to you... GET OVER IT. You're not getting a refund and no recall is going to happen. Think of it this way. A flawed card is still faster than anything amd currently offers. Yeah it might have an issue with shadows or mordor at 4K with everything turned on but you're seriously going to complain over a 300 dollar card?

 

330 to 350 AFAIK.

Costs 370 euros in portugal.

Sorry if i expose the FACTS and a credible article from a credible publication.

Such a fanboy thing to do man , when @SteveGrabowski has already confirmed the ROP claims.

[I/O]

Terrible because I'm gay, or because there's a grammar error there?

Apple Fanboy, Grammar Nazi and self proclaimed LTT resident homosexual ... that's three for three peace I am out.

[Trik'Stari]

Bottom line : 

 

-reluctant snip

So basically, the only actual LAW that applies to the internet.

 

I am kinda mad, up until now, I thought of my strix 970 as a complete tank (it has been compared to my old evga 660 that I gave away for free to my uncle) and now I find out I got fucked

[Guest]

Apple Fanboy, Grammar Nazi and self proclaimed LTT resident homosexual ... that's three for three peace I am out.

You didn't answer the question.

[zappian]

So basically, the only actual LAW that applies to the internet.

 

It has proven itself until now , you cant lie to the internet.

They will fuck you up.

[Trik'Stari]

It has proven itself until now , you cant lie to the internet.

They will fuck you up.

Yerp.

 

I'm hoping for a recall. While this 970 hasn't missed a step for what I have used it for (1080p 60hz gaming, can't afford one of them fancy ass 144hz monitors), I still feel like I got ripped off for $340, or at least my parents did, was an xmas gift. and to think, I would have gone with the sapphire 280x if it hadn't sold out when I was ordering.

[zappian]

So basically, the only actual LAW that applies to the internet.

 

I am kinda mad, up until now, I thought of my strix 970 as a complete tank (it has been compared to my old evga 660 that I gave away for free to my uncle) and now I find out I got fucked

 

Man thats rough , i hope nvidia does something since it has been proved beyond the shadow of doubt they lied about their specs.

[chopdok]

Love how the thread is started by the king of the amd fanboys. Way to start a flame war dude.

As for the rest of you upset. I have one thing to say to you... GET OVER IT. You're not getting a refund and no recall is going to happen. Think of it this way. A flawed card is still faster than anything amd currently offers. Yeah it might have an issue with shadows or mordor at 4K with everything turned on but you're seriously going to complain over a 300 dollar card?

Yes I will complain. I do not wish to be dependant on the good will of nVidia as a requirement to get the full performance of the card. What if a game comes out, that will need full 4 GB, but will fail to use the last 0.5 properly? Will nVidia allocate resources to fix that issue quickly at the expense of working on optimisations that benefit all their GPU, not just 970? What happens when new games, with much more complex scene geometry come out, and the AA will require far bigger chunk of ROP performance than it requires now? I bought the card with 64 ROP, because I wanted a card with excessive ROP to decrease the performance hit of AA in future titles. Now, I am discovering that the card has only has 54, which means the performance hit will be bigger, and I might not be able to play with AA settings I expected to have. And last but not least - the peak memory bandwith of GTX 970 is 196 GB/s when using only 3.5 GB/s, but when it uses the additional 0.5, the peak bandwith of 3.5 decreases, worst case scenario by a factor of 2 - to the 1/2 of 196 GB/s, and the 0.5 has peak bandwith of only 24 GB/s. And more so, nVidia claims still that the peak bandwith of GTX 970 is 224 GB/s - which is impossible to achieve technically due to design, since you cannto acess 3.5 and 0.5 at the same time.

 

The whole point is not the GTX 970 current performance. It is what it is, and its quite good. But some people, myself included, would not have bought it regardless, opting maybe for a lesser GPU, but the one that can deliver reliable performance, so they wont have to be in a situation when due to the card's acrchitecture, it fails to deliver the performance reliably. Its not a question of how it will perform. Its a question of the much higher chance of getting unacceptable performance in games due to issues. I am not a lab rat for nVidia, and I do not wish to be in a situation where I am stuck with a card that cannot use its full potential because nVidia moved on their driver development efforts to their next GPUs.

[zappian]

REVISED SPECS after this debacle

 

Original specs:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-geforce-gtx-970-strix-review,5.html

 

Thanks @SteveGrabowski 

[I/O]

So basically, the only actual LAW that applies to the internet.

 

I am kinda mad, up until now, I thought of my strix 970 as a complete tank (it has been compared to my old evga 660 that I gave away for free to my uncle) and now I find out I got fucked

To the 970s credit really @ 1080P no games that I know of will use even close to 3.5gb Vram. The real issue is the fact that you will be forced into an upgrade sooner when games down the road are pushing the 970 beyond it's 3.5gb of good ram.

[Trik'Stari]

REVISED SPECS after this debacle

 

-snip

Original specs:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-geforce-gtx-970-strix-review,5.html

 

Thanks @SteveGrabowski 

I mean... I didn't expect it to be on par with a 980.....what is an ROP anyways? lol (I am a newb to hardware still, never heard of ROP before)

[zappian]

I mean... I didn't expect it to be on par with a 980.....what is an ROP anyways? lol (I am a newb to hardware still, never heard of ROP before)

 

ROP stands for Raster Operator; "Raster Operators (ROPs) handle several chores near the end of the of the pixel pipeline. ROPs handle anti-aliasing, Z and color compression, and the actual writing of the pixel to the output buffer.

[Suika]

[sarcasm]The GTX 970 is now the worst possible card to have for the money and now, ever so suddenly, it probably performs worse than an R9 280X because the 970 is bottlenecking from lies.[/sarcasm]

 

Gotta admit, guys, what you are all spotting is bullshit. It was an error that they even clarified.

 

The GTX 970 would perform the same regardless of ROPs, they even mentioned how it's not the bottleneck.

[zappian]

[sarcasm]The GTX 970 is now the worst possible card to have for the money and now, ever so suddenly, it probably performs worse than an R9 280X because the 970 is bottlenecking from lies.[/sarcasm]

 

Gotta admit, guys, what you are all spotting is bullshit. It was an error that they even clarified.

 

They clarified after they were pushed against a brick wall.

 

They kept their mouths shut until people started complaining and then revealed it was a "marketing issue"

 

Coincidence..

 

They faked their specs in the beginning to sell cards to early adopters.

 

The point of the matter is NVIDIA lied , weather you think thats ok or not its your own personal prerogative.

[chopdok]

[sarcasm]The GTX 970 is now the worst possible card to have for the money and now, ever so suddenly, it probably performs worse than an R9 280X because the 970 is bottlenecking from lies.[/sarcasm]

 

Gotta admit, guys, what you are all spotting is bullshit. It was an error that they even clarified.

 

The GTX 970 would perform the same regardless of ROPs, they even mentioned how it's not the bottleneck.

It is absolute bottleneck when you use AA. It will take a far greater performance hit from AA than if it had full 64 ROP.

[I/O]

Gotta admit, guys, what you are all spotting is bullshit. It was an error that they even clarified.

Are you denying that the 970 has a gimped Vram subsystem ?