Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[spartaman64]

Just want to reiterate that you don't need 4 gb of VRAM for 4K.  3-3.5 is plenty.  The only games that use a full 4 GB are those that have game engines which utilize all available VRAM.  (So, anything that came out this November.)

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4HpnFBkAjlIUGdpNEpBcm9MOFE/view?usp=sharing

 

I didn't run anything with anti-aliasing, so you could expect an extra 500-1000 MB tops to do that.  

 

Stop panicing over nothing.  Worst case scenario is that you slightly reduce texture quality from SUPERULTRADELUXE to High.  

 

(That said, a pair of 290x's will perform better in 4K, but that was already the case.)

im not concerned about the performance effects the 970 is still a great card i just dont like how nvidia lied and misled 

[zappian]

this is common for dual gpus so people already know this the titan z and 690 and 7990 are the same while here there is no way for people to tell

 

Nvidia does this as well , so we have to sue nvidia as well because of the titan Z lol.

[Victorious Secret]

The fact is the card NVIDIA promised does NOT exist.

 

They engaged in false advertisement plain and simple.

 

And they have done anything to appease the situation.

 

I would suggest you would read my sig.

The card is the same but only recently we have learned its true handicaps , which happen after 3,5 GB .

 

After that threshold the performance drops like a bag of nails.

 

You are engaging in so many straw man arguments and logical fallacies that I'm shocked you even have the capacity to make comments in the first place. 

I said, with feeling this time:

1. We know Nvidia lied about the ROPs and how the VRAM is laid out. It might still be 4GB, but its not how we believed it to be. We don't agree with that, at all. 

2. The product that Nvidia falsely marketed never existed. There was no "lets demo 64 ROPs and 2MB L2 and then switch it". The 970s at launch were all 56 ROP, under 2MB L2 cards. That hasn't changed. Linus benched one of those cards. The entire internet did. Those benchmarks and reviews were based off the cut down GM204 that is still being sold today. 

 

Your "sig" just proves how biased and childish you are being about this. You are making shitposts upon shitposts across this entire forum that amount to petulant spam from a belligerent moron who keeps saying words as if he knows what they mean. I'm glad your social justice warrior crusade against the atrocities of Nvidia has shown your real colours to the members of this forum. 

All people like me are asking for is rational thinking and being calm. You are the kind of person who is happy to engage in a witchhunt for no fucking reason at all. God, this place is pathetic for encouraging one track thinking and shitposts. 

 

[sgloux3470]

The fact is the card NVIDIA promised does NOT exist.

 

They engaged in false advertisement plain and simple.

 

And they have done anything to appease the situation.

 

I would suggest you would read my sig.

 

The card is the same but only recently we have learned its true handicaps , which happen after 3,5 GB .

 

After that threshold the performance drops like a bag of nails.

 

You bought the card based on framerate, not the technical specs.  

 

At best, this is a fuck up from someone who made up the specs sent out to reviewers and wasn't caught until people placed the card under a microscope.

[spartaman64]

Nvidia does this as well , so we have to sue nvidia as well because of the titan Z lol.

everybody knows the ram is mirrored in sli and crossfire so its intuitive but the .5GB of slower ram is not

[zappian]

You are engaging in so many straw man arguments and logical fallacies that I'm shocked you even have the capacity to make comments in the first place. 

I said, with feeling this time:

1. We know Nvidia lied about the ROPs and how the VRAM is laid out. It might still be 4GB, but its not how we believed it to be. We don't agree with that, at all. 

2. The product that Nvidia falsely marketed never existed. There was no "lets demo 64 ROPs and 2MB L2 and then switch it". The 970s at launch were all 56 ROP, under 2MB L2 cards. That hasn't changed. Linus benched one of those cards. The entire internet did. Those benchmarks and reviews were based off the cut down GM204 that is still being sold today. 

 

Your "sig" just proves how biased and childish you are being about this. You are making shitposts upon shitposts across this entire forum that amount to petulant spam from a belligerent moron who keeps saying words as if he knows what they mean. I'm glad your social justice warrior crusade against the atrocities of Nvidia has shown your real colours to the members of this forum. 

All people like me are asking for is rational thinking and being calm. You are the kind of person who is happy to engage in a witchhunt for no fucking reason at all. God, this place is pathetic for encouraging one track thinking and shitposts. 

 

 

And you are a pathetic yes man and a nvidia fanatic.

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

Far cry 4 and other games also use more than 3 GB VRAM At 4k.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/

 

Look buddy its not a matter of the performance , its a matter of nvidia faking the specs and thats shady as fuck.

Its a moral issue at the end of the day.

 

I think most people are mad because they were scammed and their card dies after 3.5 GB VRAM as ilustrated on the link i shared.

 

There is no principle for a class action lawsuit?

What about false advertisement , faking specs.

 

 

 

Did you even look at the settings they are running at to achieve those VRAM numbers? LOL

 

If you think it's not a matter of performance, then there's no point in even reasoning with you because you sound completely bonkers.

 

Good, go for a class action lawsuit. Enjoy your $10 thirteen years from now. 

 

Just insane.

[spartaman64]

You bought the card based on framerate, not the technical specs.  

 

At best, this is a fuck up from someone who made up the specs sent out to reviewers and wasn't caught until people placed the card under a microscope.

we still want nvidia is advertise the correct technical specs not lie about it

[Ex14]

@zappian, unless you're going to launch a class action lawsuit today (and provide proof that you did) then please stop trying to be a social justice warrior and being so outraged for everyone on this forum. Put your balls where you claim they are and do something beyond signing some bullshit petitions that mean nothing. 

Oh wait, you won't. Cause you and most people here are just kids with little grasp on how the world works and think its a nice sentiment to scream "SUE THEM SUE THEM LIARS LIARS PANTS ON FIRES". God, since when did society encourage their youth to be such self obsessed do-gooders who care only to ACT like they know whats important but instead have no fucking idea what actually is. 

@jaggysnake57 is right. Title 2, Net neutrality, tax reform, education reform; you clowns don't know a thing about things that actually affect your lives but you're all good to go to make a fucking Mt. Everest out of this. 

Sorry I had to reply to this, Unfortunately, I think that is the attitude that has gotten the world in to this current sad state. That attitude of just accepting whatever crap is thrown your way, by companies or governments. 

Sure this is being blown out of proportion by some, but when I saw this response I just had to. They might feel entitled and thats wrong, but I think taking shit silently , accepting what is wrong is as great as a sin too. 

If that's not your true intent (internet and all) then just treat this as me venting my thoughts not directed at you specifically.

 

Yes, that is a shady move, but the case scenario you are illustrating makes no sense. You do not buy a 970 for 4K, you buy a 980 or 290X for that. SLI 970s is actually more expensive than a single 980, and comes with it's own problems. In that situation, you got what you paid for. It is a mid-tiered card for a reason.

 

 

I do feel bad for people that I and everyone else had been recommending SLI GTX 970's. I hope they are reading the tech sites.

This. I personally know of people who wanted to SLI them for higher resolutions so People have actually been recommending them for 4K/higher  Now SOME people have gone back and said "But you know the benchmarks yadayada/THEY'RE NOT FOR 4K" I don't get it. Now there are people even saying it ISN'T GOOD for 4K  like !??!? 

 

But one can argue that: isn't it the reviewer fault for not noticing? It is their duty to give us all the information. Some sites write large articles on new architectures, yet they don't know when they do reviews?

 

Playing devil advocate here.

Reviewers typically only have what they are given to say to their audience. heck even GPUZ reported it at 64 ROPS (If I'm not mistaken)

 

To those defending Nvidia. I don;t know I said my piece up there So far only ONE person has come out saying he recommended SLI-ing 970s. And Unless you;re telling me you are gonna change your card in a year, don;t hide behind "you can';t future proof" mantra (while true) People do look at certain things like ram (prime example me) when it comes to determining the supposed longevity of a card. To know that it MIGHT/CAN slow down after 3.5GB is used really is a big deal, sure games now don;t, but they might in the future?  I mean VRAM only was 1GB back in the day! /looks at 5850.  I have since advised a friend AGAINST picking the 970 even tho that was MY initial choice after learning about this debacle. To me it just seem like you guys, most of whom have 970s, are just looking for some sort of comfort they you guys have the card now, and have gone on this "it performs the same yadayada" well SOME people might have a (legit) issue with some of the things misrepresented (mainly the ones that have been advised to SLI or renders etcetc) . and As much as you are entitled to your opinions, they too are entitled to theirs. So while these legit users are a niche, please don't go off this holy crusade of yours (or at least to me) to justify your purchase, some people feel cheated. I know I would if i had bought it /recommended it to a friend.

To those that have been attacking Nvidia. Guys give it a break. Like what some people have said, you;re probably not going to use more than 3.5GB of VRAM and the perf of the card without the possible memory thing  is as reviewed. Yes Nvidia Lied. that is something to stand up for, but you know. Lets give nvidia some more time to properly get their act together instead of demanding stuff from them first. And please be reasonable, a FULL refund? really? even the EU thing stated a PARTIAL refund. So Hold your horses guys and let it rage WHEN it's apparent that nvidia is not gonna do shit about this. Then well bring hell upon them

TL;DR I've been as far as I can Pretty neutral about this whole debacle. And while entertaining as it is It is clear that BOTH sides are mostly just fanbois on both sides running their mouths and calling each other fan bois. While entertaining, It's also become slightly annoying to see two sides that REFUSE tio even give in and see things from the other's perspective and think they are the ABSOLUTE truth.

Did Nvidia lie yes. Intentionally. MAYBE. but whatever the case both sides need to calm the heck down.

 

[spartaman64]

 

 

 

If you think it's not a matter of performance, then there's no point in even reasoning with you because you sound completely bonkers.

 

Good, go for a class action lawsuit. Enjoy your $10 thirteen years from now. 

 

Just insane.

 

yes we want to make sure nvidia doesnt do this sort of thing again

[silberdrachi]

Why are mods letting this flame war continue... Its clear after 31 pages that this isnt going to be agreed upon ever.

[sgloux3470]

we still want nvidia is advertise the correct technical specs not lie about it

 

Never assume malice before stupidity.

 

If they did this frequently, sure pull out the pitchforks.  But chances are they're being honest when they say it was a miscommunication between two departments.  I'm not a Nvidia fan by any means, but I think they should atleast be given the benefit of the doubt here.

[Pomfinator]

Why are mods letting this flame war continue... Its clear after 31 pages that this isnt going to be agreed upon ever.

It's also tearing the community apart, this issue is getting dangerous.

 

And on this page alone, none of the people replying have a 970, unless zappian does.

[spartaman64]

Never assume malice before stupidity.

 

If they did this frequently, sure pull out the pitchforks.  But chances are they're being honest when they say it was a miscommunication between two departments.  I'm not a Nvidia fan by any means, but I think they should atleast be given the benefit of the doubt here.

i would understand if they made a mistake at launch then fixed it but really miscommunication for months thats streching it. and even now nvidia still hasnt updated the specs you would expect them to do this immediately and also issue a disclaimer about the ram

[Victorious Secret]

Never assume malice before stupidity.

 

If they did this frequently, sure pull out the pitchforks.  But chances are they're being honest when they say it was a miscommunication between two departments.  I'm not a Nvidia fan by any means, but I think they should atleast be given the benefit of the doubt here.

 

This is the same "pitchfork internet expert investigation skills" that led to the whole Boston Bomber screwups with Reddit and how they engaged in a witchhunt for the "suspect". You can't trust the internet with anything. 

But hey, its a large corporation so they must be evil and lets automatically assume they are evil because fuck innocent till proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I think people forget that last part, a lot. 

[Pomfinator]

i would understand if they made a mistake at launch then fixed it but really miscommunication for months thats streching it. and even now nvidia still hasnt updated the specs you would expect them to do this immediately and also issue a disclaimer about the ram

Benefit of the doubt wouldn't hurt would it? r/KiA has a slogan "Trust but verify"  We can trust that Nvidia wasn't lying, but until we know the whole truth we have to be able to distance ourselves from the situation and not react so bullheadedly.  If Nvidia lied, they lied, that fucking sucks, just note that snake-oil audio companies are far worse at lying to customers than Nvidia are, which is no excuse, just a reminder that all companies dress up their shit.  Just be lucky we buy GPUs by benchmark performance rather than on-paper specs.

[mr moose]

It's also tearing the community apart, this issue is getting dangerous.

 

And on this page alone, none of the people replying have a 970, unless zappian does.

it's no different from the mantle/dx12 threads or the original r9 290 threads when the reference cards hit the market.

 

The problem is people are unwilling to educate themselves before jumping on the hate wagon.  Anyone seriously suggesting a class action should probably have a good hard look at how those things end.  Also if they seriously want to change the way companies market then they need to look at something a little deeper than just lawsuits. The reality is that ALL companies have bent the truth, lied or misrepresented a product or two at some point in their life. If anyone thinks AMD haven't done the same then they are simply fooling themselves and reason why threads like this get so long.

[Victorious Secret]

Benefit of the doubt wouldn't hurt would it? r/KiA has a slogan "Trust but verify"  We can trust that Nvidia wasn't lying, but until we know the whole truth we have to be able to distance ourselves from the situation and not react so bullheadedly.  If Nvidia lied, they lied, that fucking sucks, just note that snake-oil audio companies are far worse at lying to customers than Nvidia are, which is no excuse, just a reminder that all companies dress up their shit.  Just be lucky we buy GPUs by benchmark performance rather than on-paper specs.

 

Most of us, at any rate. Even though it should be everyone. 

All thats changed today is our PERCEPTION of the 970. The 970 itself is the same card we had at launch, same specs and benchmarks and all. 

[Suika]

And you are a pathetic yes man and a nvidia fanatic.

You are a genuinely lost cause. I have no words to explain just how ignorant you are to reason.

 

NVIDIA should have released correct information from the start. You are right, however, nobody is arguing otherwise. At least, that I've seen. Yet, you're arguing as if the GTX 970 is the worst possible card to be purchasing at this moment. Victorious is arguing how you're wrong about that, nothing else. The 970 is still a better performer than an R9 290X in most situations, and where it's not, the GTX 970 still has the advantage of efficiency, something AMD hasn't seem to have touched. The GTX 970 performs the exact way it has performed since day one, any and all benchmarks will tell you the same story: the GTX 970 is a beast of a card. Argue that all you want, but benchmarks don't lie.

 

To comment on your signature, those are two completely different situations. Watch Dogs was released and ended up being a poor excuse of a AAA title, and still is. The GTX 970 was released, and it was a monster of a card, and still is.

 

Call me a fanboy or no, but I'll be sure to get back to you, and everybody else, when I have my R9 390X (so long as it actually is within a 40-55% upgrade of a GTX 780 as leaks have shown).

 

It's also tearing the community apart, this issue is getting dangerous.

 

And on this page alone, none of the people replying have a 970, unless zappian does.

The problem then comes to spreading untruths. People are going to avoid recommending a GTX 970, a very good enthusiast level card that I know most people don't regret purchasing, because of a mistake on NVIDIA's part.

 

I have a GTX 780, that's pretty close to a 970, except the 970 always benchmarks slightly better. If the 970 is shit, I'd like to know what kind of a fantasy world I've been living in with my GTX 780.

[Zulkkis]

 

 

 

The only test I found, for 4K UItra Preset Shadow of Mordor said the following about attempting 4K Ultra on Shadow of Mordor:

 

"At 4K with the Ultra HD pack  the 4GB cards don’t seem to be enough. We see full utilization of our video memory and swapping occurs with system resources. We see a system memory usage of above 6GB as well as a pagefile of over 11GB bringing all our setups to their knees."

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/shadow-mordor-benchmark/

 

So while it did use more than 3.5GB of VRAM, playing at those settings was a problem for all of their cards including Crossfire R9 290. Which means, even with Crossfire R9 290, as I said before, even though having access to a full 4GB of memory at full bandwidth. You are still limited by the cards power and the VRAM at that level. 4GB just doesn't cut it. Which means you have to lower settings to achieve playable framerates because you are hitting the video memory buffer regardless; whether you are using 970 SLI or R9 290 Crossfire. 

 

 

There is no AMD or NVIDIA mentality, if you perceived being given simple examples as that then I don't know what to tell you. Vendors can't blindly jack up the prices of products, without hearing from their manufacturer that it is okay to do that. Nobody knows if they had enough cards produced to meet demand, it could have been a ploy. Jacking up prices gives a representation of whether they have enough cards produced to meet demand, it doesn't mean it's a fact or that is the case. The whole thing could have been faked to allow AMD to make more money. Nobody knows. The 5800 series supply demand was different. They produced the cards, and two months later demand went up. The mining craze started quite a bit of time after launch. And you would think a company of that level would learn from their previous mistake if that was actually the problem. I don't know about you, with the mining craze, I don't remember cards being out of stock. I just remember the prices of the cards being extremely inflated. Completely different scenario.

 

In what situation does the full 4GB become more useful? Even in SLI? Any resolution you play at that is demanding enough to make 4GB of memory viable, is going to require you to lower settings anyway to achieve at least 60 fps. Take 4K for instance, in order for you to break over 3.5GB of VRAM usage (see above) you will need to have some crazy AA settings like 8x AA. There is no setup on the market that will allow you to run 8x AA @ 4K resolution. You will be much lower than 60 fps. So it's a nullified concept. Also, any situation like a game that does require more VRAM like Shadow of Mordor for instance requires more than 4GB of VRAM to be able to play @ 4K Ultra settings. 

 

You say even for rendering use, but you don't even know if rendering is affected you just used it previously as an example without any idea of if it is definite fact.

 

Okay, so if you are going to make NVIDIA be an example for all companies who falsely advertise. Then you have to hold all companies accountable for falsely advertising. For every single thing. Like telling people that Dual-GPU cards have twice the amount of VRAM, even though we know VRAM doesn't stack. Where's all the refunds for that? There are none, because it is ridiculous. The consumer wasn't misinformed, the performance numbers remain the same. There is nothing different about how a 970 performs in all the benchmarks that the many reviewers did. What's different? Now you know why it performs the way it does it certain scenarios, that's the only difference. However the information on how it performs remains the same.

 

And reviewers were sent the same 970 that everyone else bought. And the reviewers reviewed the same 970's as everyone else bought. The review's performance numbers stayed the same. There is nothing different about the benchmarks they did. No one was persuaded any differently after the fact. Everyone was more than capable of seeing what a 970 was able to do. If they were expecting it to be able to do more than what the reviewers said, then that is the consumers fault for not paying attention. You say lied to, as if the 970 benchmarks were faked. When they weren't. Stop saying lied to. The majority of the people posting on the internet have no freaking idea what a ROP even is or what it does or why having 8 less is any different. 

 

You say it has nothing to do with it again, because you want it to have nothing to do with it. If you cannot see the difference, again that is your problem for trying to be on the unreasonable side of the argument. The spec sheet is pointless. The reviews that were done, that explained the performance numbers are the same. If you cannot understand this, then I don't know what else to tell you. There is no point in continuing this discussion with you any further. The reviews stayed the same, the performance is the same. Nothing has changed. Nothing.

 

Reviewers got the 970 also, and let me repeat myself again. They told the entire community and the consumers exactly how the 970 performed. They ran the benchmarks. They posted the numbers. This didn't change anything. Oh it has a little less cache, and little less ROPs and .5GB of memory is segmented differently. Big freaking deal. The card still performs exactly the same as all the benchmarks show it.

 

If you are saying it's doesn't have an impact. Then why are you arguing in the first place? If you are saying it doesn't affect benchmarks, then why are you arguing in the first place? Just for the sake of arguing? All the reviews of the 970 are available for all eyes to see, so what it can do and what it cant do are widely accepted at this point. Someone magically discovering what it cant do shouldn't be taken as a surprise. 

 

Yeah, you know what happened with the Intel lawsuit, 13 years later they finally settled and everyone got $15. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? A class-action lawsuit? There is no principle here. Just annoying little children who are overreacting on things they don't even understand. There's plenty examples on the internet of people testing over 3.5GB of VRAM being used without any issues (like stuttering) then there is that same amount of people saying they are experiencing issues. So it is a 50/50 stance on whether it is actually a problem. For that, I say you and many other people are taking this too far.

 

 

 

I don't care about AMD. I care that nVidia provided false specsheet with some misleading information. Customers can see the price tag of the product they are willing to buy, and unless we're talking of markets with heavy government intervention, they can set the prices as they wish. It's not like you'd pay for a card that's supposed to cost 400$, but it becomes 600$ at the cash registry. You can see the prices in the store. Maybe AMD and retailers worked together to jack up the prices; I don't know, but at least I was not subjected to false advertising. Ethically, it is different from what nVidia has done.

 

The fact that VRAM is shared with each GPU is mentioned in pretty much every review of a dual-GPU card. It is a well-known fact. I do think it should be mentioned clearly on the boxes, but it is not comparable to this. If professional reviewers get fooled, you cannot expect even the well-informed consumer to know about this beforehand. People buying computer components are generally assumed to be rather proficient with computers.

 

Struttering doesn't necessarily even show up in the benchmarks. Suddenly, when measuring frametimes and stuff became important, the reviewers were getting equipment to measure that. Struttering is annoying, yet you can't get hard data on it from your FPS counter. How do you think people found out about the issue with the 970's in the first place?

 

Intel case might no be much, it's hardly a financial impact, too, but at least it's something. I do think class-action lawsuits are in general just a rather bad idea to handle issues, but the point is not to be a great way for consumers to get refunds but rather a tool for consumers to pressure companies so that they won't go about doing whatever they wish.

[ACatWithThumbs]

??, not too sure your point makes any sense.  The stutter is caused by the way the ram scales down which is due to the cut down process.  If it wasn't cut down then it would be a 980 not a 970.  Ergo unless it is a 980 or a different GPU it can't and shouldn't be expected to do 4k.

 

What you are essentially saying is this card should perform better if it was better. 

No I'm saying this card should perform like it has 4GB Vram as advertised and not like a 3,5GB card with a slow 500mb cache.

The only advertised cut down were the Cuda Cores which is not the actual case.

It shouldn't start stuttering at 3,5GB it's that simple as that.

 

[Ex14]

Most of us, at any rate. Even though it should be everyone. 

All thats changed today is our PERCEPTION of the 970. The 970 itself is the same card we had at launch, same specs and benchmarks and all. 

Just to call you out. Not THE  same for specs but yea benchmarks the same

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

And you are a pathetic yes man and a nvidia fanatic.

 

At this point, we really could not care less what you were even arguing about. When you jump to ad hominem attacks without (ever) providing a legitimate counter-argument, you have no leg to stand on. Therefore, you have lost this argument. Have a good day sir.

[Suika]

Just to call you out. Not THE  same for specs but yea benchmarks the same

Victorious is referring to the specs the card actually shipped with, not the specs that were advertised.

[Shahnewaz]

Anyone who's claiming dual 970s builds are NOT for 4k are also (indirectly) declaring Linus outright LIED on his Holiday Buyer's Guide 2014.

Watch for yourself if you don't believe me:

So did Linus lie too? Or are you guys (those claim dual 970s != 4k) lying?