The GTX 980M also has memory issues...

[Agent181]

lol

[bob345]

People need to stop dwelling on this stupid memory issue. Does suddenly knowing about this small issue cause the card to become slower? No, it doesn't. The 970 still has one of the pest price to performance ratios on the market.

[Dabombinable]

The only reason I could think of a GTX 980 having a memory bug, is that some GPUs that are supposed to be changed to 970s have gotten through (aka, the imperfect GPUs)

[Ebinlaw]

People need to stop dwelling on this stupid memory issue. Does suddenly knowing about this small issue cause the card to become slower? No, it doesn't. The 970 still has one of the pest price to performance ratios on the market.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that these cards are bad. This is just NVIDIA being a dick and lying to the customers. In EU zone retailers now have to take back used gtx 970s because the memory problem is a "defect" and NVidia/retailers needs to either fix it, give the customer a working unit or give their money back. So basicaly retailers are getting screwed over, because Nvidia is doing nothing.

 

This is by no means "Ok" to do something like this. People dont like to get screwed over and I understand people who return these cards out of principle. Personally I would be pretty mad if I had a 970, and I would think about returning it. I wont support this kind of practice even if the card it self would be good. 

[Khvarrioiren]

People need to stop dwelling on this stupid memory issue. Does suddenly knowing about this small issue cause the card to become slower? No, it doesn't. The 970 still has one of the pest price to performance ratios on the market.

 

Does it change the fact that it was falsely advertised? And being in the top 10 of price to performance isn't all that astonishing.

[zappian]

I think this was way worse than this situation:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-we-will-not-boost-geforce-gtx-970-performance-with-drivers/

[Majestic]

Why are you guys redigging up the 970 in this topic. 

 

This story is bullshit. /thread.

[mr moose]

Why are you guys redigging up the 970 in this topic. 

 

This story is bullshit. /thread.

 

Silence is better than bullshit, AMIRIGHT?

[Majestic]

Silence is better than bullshit, AMIRIGHT?

 

I sometimes wished media-outlets advocated that right. And the worst part is.. they won't even look stupid when nvidia/pcper/techreport shows them it's bullshit.

Because people enjoy this clickbait and won't hold them accountable for spreading BS.

 

What a time to be alive.

[Agosto]

Is the 970M affected too? Since it's a problem mainly related to 980M and 970 being a cutdown of the GM204, it should have the same issues

[tnlich]

Wow 970's now the 980's. I wander how much profit they are going to loose this year over this?

[Majestic]

 

Is the 970M affected too? Since it's a problem mainly related to 980M and 970 being a cutdown of the GM204, it should have the same issues

 

 

No, it uses a 192bit bus, meaning it's the entire Memory controller disabled. You can also see the multiplication of 3. Uses max 6GB GDDR5.

 

Wow 970's now the 980's. I wander how much profit they are going to loose this year over this?

 

Read my post, don't buy into this clickbait. 

[Albatross]

Getting conflicting news from OP and posts here.

 

So does the 980M share the same problem as the GTX 970 or not? When stuff gets proven as false etc it would be nice if OPs edited their titles or posts.

[Majestic]

Getting conflicting news from OP and posts here.

 

So does the 980M share the same problem as the GTX 970 or not? When stuff gets proven as false etc it would be nice if OPs edited their titles or posts.

 

It's false. In all likelyhood the 980M has 12 SMM's and 64ROP's and 256bit. It wouldn't be a "980" if it was cutdown like that. I think they only tried this with the 970, because it has to be put into a competitive market with costumers who are subject to marketing etc. Selling to OEM's isn't that hard.

 

Judging from the pictures which are circulating, the point of inflection seems to occur 384MB prior to hitting max. Which is a really odd number and does not point out an obvious number like 500MB which is an average size of a memorychip on the 970. I'm not quite sure on this but I think laptops use a different memorychip configuration due to space limitations.

[Brood]

Ohhh boyy

[SIGSEGV]

Getting conflicting news from OP and posts here.

 

So does the 980M share the same problem as the GTX 970 or not? When stuff gets proven as false etc it would be nice if OPs edited their titles or posts.

It's looking confirmed now, another news source just made an article on it:

http://www.3dnews.ru/908894

Edit:

And another: https://www.kaldata.com/Хардуер/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980M-също-има-проблеми-с-паметта-97616.html

[Majestic]

It's looking confirmed now, another news source just made an article on it:

http://www.3dnews.ru/908894

Edit:

And another: https://www.kaldata.com/Хардуер/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980M-също-има-проблеми-с-паметта-97616.html

That's a confirmation to you? Clickbaiting newspages that copy the same screenshot? Regardless whether it's valid or not, which I want to bet money on it isn't, that's a really poor argument to judge validity.

 

Does anybody have any objectivity left? Or are we really so desperate to jump on a hate-bandwagon that we stop asking questions or scrutinizing whatever is put forward.

[Syntaxvgm]

It's false. In all likelyhood the 980M has 12 SMM's and 64ROP's and 256bit. It wouldn't be a "980" if it was cutdown like that. I think they only tried this with the 970, because it has to be put into a competitive market with costumers who are subject to marketing etc. Selling to OEM's isn't that hard.

 

Judging from the pictures which are circulating, the point of inflection seems to occur 384MB prior to hitting max. Which is a really odd number and does not point out an obvious number like 500MB which is an average size of a memorychip on the 970. I'm not quite sure on this but I think laptops use a different memorychip configuration due to space limitations.

mine happens around 800MB vs the 500MB everyone claims. I'ma run the synthetic test a few time and see what I find

[colonel_mortis]

At time of posting, this thread isn't as bad as I initially expected it to be, and isn't as bad as the other similar threads about the 970. I'm not going to lock the thread at the present time, but this is just a reminder that the thread will be locked if it it gets out of hand, and it is still pretty close to being locked.

Remember to follow the Code of Conduct - any personal attacks in this thread will result in warning points.

 

I will be monitoring this thread.

[Majestic]

mine happens around 800MB vs the 500MB everyone claims. I'ma run the synthetic test a few time and see what I find

Read my earlier post. The amount of desktop memory you use determines the point where it drops. Because the programm can't use that memory and uses system memory instead.

Which is exactly what happens here, as you can see from the 16GB/s, which is PCI-E bandwidth limit. It's using the system memory in the test.

 

Wait, I'll show you.

[Hulk]

To everyone stating that "Oh, you will never use more than 3.5GB anyways"; I cannot state how much I disagree with that statement. There are quite a few reasons why, the most prominent being-

1. False advertising- Nvidia is blatantly wrong here and have misadvertised their cards as being 4GB when they can effectively use only 3.5GB effectively. It's like me being sold an i7 processor with only 3 out of the 4 cores working. This is anti-consumerism and is in fact illegal in many countries
2. Propping the stage for other companies to do the same- Other hardware companies may look to the support you're giving Nvidia and think that it's alright if they misrepresent their products as well. We DON'T want this to happen and need to STOP this train before it reaches that state.
3. Some people like me will output to a 4K display while having a mechanical keyboard + mouse + cooling pad connected. While I don't have a notebook with the 980M, I can imagine the frustration people may be feeling when being unable to game with a card having the horsepower, but not the VRAM. Remember that the folks dropping over 1.5K on notebooks with these most likely are running these kinds of setups, so this DOES impact them.

[Majestic]

To everyone stating that "Oh, you will never use more than 3.5GB anyways"; I cannot state how much I disagree with that statement. There are quite a few reasons why, the most prominent being-

1> False advertising- Nvidia is blatantly wrong here and have misadvertised their cards as being 4GB when they can effectively use only 3.5GB effectively. It's like me being sold an i7 processor with only 3 out of the 4 cores working. This is anti-consumerism and is in fact illegal in many countries

2> Propping the stage for other companies to do the same- Other hardware companies may look to the support you're giving Nvidia and think that it's alright if they misrepresent their products as well. We DON'T want this to happen and need to STOP this train before it reaches that state.

3> Some people like me will output to a 4K display while having a mechanical keyboard + mouse + cooling pad connected. While I don't have a notebook with the 980M, I can imagine the frustration people may be feeling when being unable to game with a card having the horsepower, but not the VRAM. Remember that the folks dropping over 1.5K on notebooks with these most likely are running these kinds of setups, so this DOES impact them.

Don't know the relevance of this, since this isn't about the 970.

 

Anyone still have that benchmark? The megaupload link everyone posts is dead.

[cesrai]

Becarefull men/girls a mod is watching.

[Brainless906]

Becarefull men/girls a mod is watching.

 

men/women* or boys*/girls

[cesrai]

men/women* or boys*/girls

males/females happy ???????//