Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[ACatWithThumbs]

it is the same....it couldnt do 4k before and it still cant now. thatpile of turd you linked even showed in battlefield 4 @ 4k average fps was 30fps...not playable regardless of memory issues. things really went to shit though when he used watch dogs and farcry 4 as testing scenarios, both of which are known to have all sorts of issues to do with optimisation. the facts remain the same that the 970 was never a 4k card 1440p is it max and TBH its ok @ that nothing mind blowing.  seriously its getting embarrassing how badly this is being blown out of all proportion. yes information has been misrepresented but you lot are acting like they advertised a 980 and sold you a 750ti 

It's a massive issue because the card stutters which it wouldn't if it had actual 4GB Vram.

4K should be playable on the card but with the Vram it simply won't because it starts to stutter even if you want to play with a 30fps lock.

And with textures it's even worse because the game could be running at 60+ fps but stutter due to the Vram bottleneck.

 

[Guest Kloaked]

I'd accept that argument if the performance didn't fall to shit after hitting 3.5gb+ on the card. From most of the content I've seen the gpu starts to stutter and glitch when pushing over 3.5gb of VRAM usage even though when its not stuttering and glitching the game would be completely playable 30+fps.

Take a look at this thread: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/1/

I realize there's over 100 pages there, but there are reports of users with 970's there that have reported all 4GB of VRAM being used in games such as AC: Unity, Far Cry 4 and so on. According to those reports, this is a driver/firmware issue since that .5 VRAM being 'unused' is an unintended result from how they designed the card.

I'm not saying, in that instance, what is or what isn't since I'm not well versed in what all of this means. However, from what I can tell, the card is for the most part functioning as it was intended to be, minus the .5 GB VRAM issue that I think would be fixed soon for those with the issue.

Benchmarks from the release of the card have not changed.

 

My argument is they lied. It doesn't actually work as intended, you push the card to its limits to play your favorite games and it breaks. You seem to believe its ok just because most games are playable at 1080p? I call some mad bullshit yo.

Yes, they lied. They had a miscommunication with the PR department on how specs were to be released, but there is 4GB on the card, so the box isn't lying.

The issue that I have, like a few others, is that people are blowing this issue up bigger than it actually is, just like Corsair's tramp stamp logo. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

[mr moose]

I'd accept that argument if the performance didn't fall to shit after hitting 3.5gb+ on the card. From most of the content I've seen the gpu starts to stutter and glitch when pushing over 3.5gb of VRAM usage even though when its not stuttering and glitching the game would be completely playable 30+fps.

 

My argument is they lied. It doesn't actually work as intended, you push the card to its limits to play your favorite games and it breaks. You seem to believe its ok just because most games are playable at 1080p? I call some mad bullshit yo.

 

You push any card to it's limits and it won't play the games without stuttering.  The 970 always started to fall apart after 1440, the only difference is now we know why.  You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day that's why it's cheaper. no one, not even Nvidia, claimed it could perform better than what it did.

 

 

It's a massive issue because the card stutters which it wouldn't if it had actual 4GB Vram.

4K should be playable on the card but with the Vram it simply won't because it starts to stutter even if you want to play with a 30fps lock.

And with textures it's even worse because the game could be running at 60+ fps but stutter due to the Vram bottleneck.

 

 

It shouldn't play 4K, it was never going to, and all the reviews said it couldn't.  Why would anyone think it should?

 

but considering the fact that GTX 970 is a $329 card I don’t seriously expect it to be used for 4K gaming, so the 1440p and 1080p comparisons are going to be the most appropriate comparisons here.

 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga

 

The GTX 970 offers amazing performance that peaks at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/

 

 

A quick search reveals two reviews that state quite clearly it runs out of steam before it gets to 4k.  Be this because of the ram issue or not is moot.  This card was proven not to be able to do it before this info was revealed so why does anyone think it should have been able to after?

[Trik'Stari]

I'm about to start taking bets on how long this thread will go.

 

What everyone needs to do right now:

[Dabombinable]

Damn, I get on LTT, and over 400 more posts in this thread, repeating the same thing over and over. I'm out.

[Lotus]

This has nothing to do with some arbitrary ROPS number. This has to do with what it means. The original, false ROPS and L2 Cache numbers signified that the 4 GB of VRAM was NOT segmented, but in fact fully usable at the advertised memory bus bandwidth and speeds. It's not an arbitrary number. The specs showed that the GTX 970 and the GTX 980 had identical memory systems, which WAS very important for people when deciding their purchases. This was very important for people's decision making process. This was not some arbitrary number. The benchmarks are important, and that has not changed, but now that we understand that there is an outlier case (between 3.5 and 4.0 GB VRam usage) that most benchmark tests did NOT test for, that affects people's decision making process.

 

In short, this is not as simple as "some number that no one cared about was wrong on the spec sheet" but rather "some number was wrong on the spec sheet, and that number changes the understood performance of the card in notable ways."

 

The card is not as advertised, and yes, even though it's a small detail that wasn't as advertised, that small detail clearly has large repercussions. I mean, if it didn't, the memory wouldn't be segmented. This is not a trivial thing.

[BiG StroOnZ]

TroubleKlef, on 27 Jan 2015 - 4:30 PM, said:

I think many of us here are trying to say that this is an Nvidia problem not a 970 problem. You may link as many benchmarks and performance figures as you'd like but that still doesn't rectify the problem of misleading information. 

 

 

 

No but it does prove what the card is capable of, which is the only thing people should care about. Not that there's a 8 ROP count difference than what people originally thought or a 256 KB cache difference or .5 GB of memory is segmented differently. 

[jaggysnake57]

It's a massive issue because the card stutters which it wouldn't if it had actual 4GB Vram.

4K should be playable on the card but with the Vram it simply won't because it starts to stutter even if you want to play with a 30fps lock.

And with textures it's even worse because the game could be running at 60+ fps but stutter due to the Vram bottleneck.

 

its not a massive issue BECAUSE ITS NOT A 4K CARD 

[The Benjamins]

its not a massive issue BECAUSE ITS NOT A 4K CARD 

but you can't even get 2 for SLI for 4k now. too me it looks like bad engineering, it looks broken to me.

[s3ns3]

when the f*ck a dude goes and buy a gpu based on how many rops or cache it has?

 

i donno about you but i look at benchmarks

[Guest Kloaked]

but you can't even get 2 for SLI for 4k now. too me it looks like bad engineering, it looks broken to me.

Yes you can.

when the f*ck a dude goes and buy a gpu based on how many rops or cache it has?

 

i donno about you but i look at benchmarks

Exactly.

[Brainless906]

Take a look at this thread: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/1/

I realize there's over 100 pages there, but there are reports of users with 970's there that have reported all 4GB of VRAM being used in games such as AC: Unity, Far Cry 4 and so on. According to those reports, this is a driver/firmware issue since that .5 VRAM being 'unused' is an unintended result from how they designed the card.

I'm not saying, in that instance, what is or what isn't since I'm not well versed in what all of this means. However, from what I can tell, the card is for the most part functioning as it was intended to be, minus the .5 GB VRAM issue that I think would be fixed soon for those with the issue.

Benchmarks from the release of the card have not changed.

 

Yes, they lied. They had a miscommunication with the PR department on how specs were to be released, but there is 4GB on the card, so the box isn't lying.

The issue that I have, like a few others, is that people are blowing this issue up bigger than it actually is, just like Corsair's tramp stamp logo. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

 

The new i7-7670k quad core processor running at a cool 6.0ghz on all cores!

Then we notice in the bios its actually only tri-core....the new 3nm manufacturing processes is pretty rough and most of the 4rth cores didnt make it through so they just cut the leads...

i mean technically the 4rth core is still there so they're not lying then they say quad core....and i mean it only effects performances in SOME situations where the extra core would be really useful...

 

 

I dont like this. At all. 

[Pomfinator]

when the f*ck a dude goes and buy a gpu based on how many rops or cache it has?

 

i donno about you but i look at benchmarks

Exactly, it sucks they lied, miscommunicated, whatever you wanna call it.  But this issue is not about the performance of the card, it's changed how we understand the performance.  Reviewers noted that this card didn't do the best in 4K benchmarks, now we know that one of the reasons is the segmented VRAM, along with the fact that it is about 80% of a 980.

[Guest Kloaked]

The new i7-7670k quad core processor running at a cool 6.0ghz on all cores!

Then we notice in the bios its actually only tri-core....the new 3nm manufacturing processes is pretty rough and most of the 4rth cores didnt make it through so they just cut the leads...

i mean technically the 4rth core is still there so they're not lying then they say quad core....and i mean it only effects performances in SOME situations where the extra core would be really useful...

 

 

I dont like this. At all.

That is a very poor analogy and you know it.

[The Benjamins]

Yes you can.

Exactly.

But the cards start having issues over 3.5 GB of ram right? would that not be a issues for some games at 4k. or am I wrong, I see reports of issues.

[Brainless906]

That is a very poor analogy and you know it.

 

Obviously a bit of a stretch but I think the point still stands. It is a big deal, and if we dont make it a big deal it'll slowly become the norm.

[jaggysnake57]

but you can't even get 2 for SLI for 4k now. too me it looks like bad engineering, it looks broken to me.

Yeah but those benchs that were posted were from sli 970s 30 fps from bf4 not exactly high performance

[BiG StroOnZ]

But the cards start having issues over 3.5 GB of ram right? would that not be a issues for some games at 4k. or am I wrong, I see reports of issues.

 

In order for you to be able to play at 4K, even with SLI cards. You are going to have to disable certain settings to achieve anywhere close to 60fps (Like AA). Therefore, because of disabling these settings you will never see over 3.5GB of VRAM usage. 

 

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

But the cards start having issues over 3.5 GB of ram right? would that not be a issues for some games at 4k. or am I wrong, I see reports of issues.

 

When you put them in SLI, they will beat a 980 in 4k. Look at the benchmarks posted in this very thread. 

Obviously a bit of a stretch but I think the point still stands. It is a big deal, and if we dont make it a big deal it'll slowly become the norm.

Again, I don't know what all of the specs actually mean - I doubt most people on this forum do, but I'm going off of the reports from everyone and from the benchmarks being published. So far, it seems like a firmware/driver issue from my perspective that could possibly be fixed with an update (again, I don't know if if can or can't be, just guessing). If not, it still doesn't change benchmarks and it still doesn't change what some people are reporting from their experiences with the card, having no issues at all.

[zappian]

BECAUSE ITS NOT A 4K CARD

 

Fucking shocker. Stop peddling that tired post as evidence that Nvidia is plotting to nuke the Earth. 

 

Are you a professional moron?

 

People use 970 SLI all the time for 4k and it would have been fine it nvidia werent liars.

And if the card actually HAD 4 GB OF FAST RAM.

Two 290x will wipe the floor with two 970 at 4k for a much lower price WHY? 

Because they have 4GB OF FAST RAM  unlike the 970.

[kpreg]

So Nvidia lies. The bench marking sites/review sites are a joke and get advertising money and sponsorships to cherrycoat BS or not run a story at all. Tom's Hardware has nothing on this. PC Gamer has nothing on this. IGN? Nope. They have a article on the GTX 960 though, just like PC Gamer (where was that r9 285 article PC Gamer). I posted a link on PC Gamer and it was immediately removed and modded.

Yet people in here want to blame the consumer for not knowing what the media would not tell them, when we had several media sites selling SLI GTX 970 as the ultimate 4k solution and better than R9 290/x's and those articles were linked repeatedly in this very news section?

L O L.

Oh and you also want to tell people as consumers what they can and can't be mad over, and then attack them like Faa did, to the point where they prob just said screw this forum.

I used a min itx Gigabyte GTX 970 in a build for my sister. I posted screenshots, pictures etc. I am not doing cartwheels over this news and I am very disappointed in Nvidia, MORE disapointed in our laughable benchmark/tech review sites (there are some exceptions but not many) who have shown repeated bias and I am laughing my butt off over people telling consumers what they can and can't be upset over.

LTT forums has resorted more and more to fanboyism/blind bias and favoritism and it is becoming more of a joke.

PC Master Race my ass. More like fanboys, salesman and idiots.

You said it very well, I completely agree. I guess I'm not going 4k anytime soon.

[Gnator]

So Nvidia lies. The bench marking sites/review sites are a joke and get advertising money and sponsorships to cherrycoat BS or not run a story at all. Tom's Hardware has nothing on this. PC Gamer has nothing on this. IGN? Nope. They have a article on the GTX 960 though, just like PC Gamer (where was that r9 285 article PC Gamer). I posted a link on PC Gamer and it was immediately removed and modded.

 

Yet people in here want to blame the consumer for not knowing what the media would not tell them, when we had several media sites selling SLI GTX 970 as the ultimate 4k solution and better than R9 290/x's and those articles were linked repeatedly in this very news section?

 

L O L. 

 

Oh and you also want to tell people as consumers what they can and can't be mad over, and then attack them like Faa did, to the point where they prob just said screw this forum.

 

I used a min itx Gigabyte GTX 970 in a build for my sister. I posted screenshots, pictures etc. I am not doing cartwheels over this news and I am very disappointed in Nvidia, MORE disapointed in our laughable benchmark/tech review sites (there are some exceptions but not many) who have shown repeated bias and I am laughing my butt off over people telling consumers what they can and can't be upset over. 

 

LTT forums has resorted more and more to fanboyism/blind bias and favoritism and it is becoming more of a joke.

 

PC Master Race my ass. More like fanboys, salesman and idiots.

Absolutely agree. It doesn't matter if you are "smart" and are not influenced by spec sheets and only by benchmarks, the simple truth is Nvidia messed up on official documents that have influence on people when they are purchasing hardware. If Intel or any other company decided to say their tri-core processors has quad-core it is not okay no matter what the benchmarks says. We as the consumers needs to push back against Nvidia because this should not be taken so lightly. I am unsure what type of action we should take but we can't let this slide.

[79wjd]

Are you a professional moron?

 

People use 970 SLI all the time for 4k and it would have been fine it nvidia werent liars.

And if the card actually HAD 4 GB OF FAST RAM.

Two 290x will wipe the floor with two 970 at 4k for a much lower price WHY? 

Because they have 4GB OF FAST RAM  unlike the 970.

Anyone whos going 4k on two 970s is also play at lower settings as 970s can't do 4k 60fps at high settings -- the place where 4gb of VRAM would even matter. 

[mr moose]

This has nothing to do with some arbitrary ROPS number. This has to do with what it means. The original, false ROPS and L2 Cache numbers signified that the 4 GB of VRAM was NOT segmented, but in fact fully usable at the advertised memory bus bandwidth and speeds. It's not an arbitrary number. The specs showed that the GTX 970 and the GTX 980 had identical memory systems, which WAS very important for people when deciding their purchases. This was very important for people's decision making process. This was not some arbitrary number. The benchmarks are important, and that has not changed, but now that we understand that there is an outlier case (between 3.5 and 4.0 GB VRam usage) that most benchmark tests did NOT test for, that affects people's decision making process.

 

In short, this is not as simple as "some number that no one cared about was wrong on the spec sheet" but rather "some number was wrong on the spec sheet, and that number changes the understood performance of the card in notable ways."

 

The card is not as advertised, and yes, even though it's a small detail that wasn't as advertised, that small detail clearly has large repercussions. I mean, if it didn't, the memory wouldn't be segmented. This is not a trivial thing.

 

No one is saying they are arbitrary numbers, nor is anyone saying they should be ignored.  However very few people use the specs when deciding what card to buy and less still try to work out a performance mark from them. which makes the false information moot as far as performance based decisions go.

 

but you can't even get 2 for SLI for 4k now. too me it looks like bad engineering, it looks broken to me.

 

In SLI you can expect about 50FPS for 4k, however if you throw some intense textures at them like in SoM they will struggle even at 1440.  Hopefully we'll see some optimization in SoM for the 1440 stuff because in most reviews SLI 970 does extremely well at 1440. 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_970_sli_review,21.html

 

Are you a professional moron?

 

People use 970 SLI all the time for 4k and it would have been fine it nvidia werent liars.

And if the card actually HAD 4 GB OF FAST RAM.

Two 290x will wipe the floor with two 970 at 4k for a much lower price WHY? 

Because they have 4GB OF FAST RAM  unlike the 970.

 

Yep, how to validate your argument, insult the person you disagree with. :rolleyes:

You have missed the point completely, I know it's a big thread but at least try and read some of it and find out whats happening before making assumptions.

 

Check the link above, this is the information people had at purchase,  knowing if the ram was dodgy or not doesn't change the performance information at hand at the time of purchase.

 

AND before you go on, no one is excusing Nvidia, we all think its dodgy.

[zappian]

Anyone whos going 4k on two 970s is also play at lower settings as 970s can't do 4k 60fps at high settings -- the place where 4gb of VRAM would even matter. 

 

But you can go 4k with two 290x because AMD inst full of shit.

And they are cheaper.