Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[SkilledRebuilds]

If it DIDNT tank and detract from gameplay experiences over 3.5GB it'd be a non-issue.

 

I KNOW.. it's already been stated many times it's rare to hit over that, but it's not impossible either.

You can see it as a 3.5GB card, but even so, you pay for a 4GB card that cannot effectively keep it's performance levels the same above 3.5-3.95GB...

[mr moose]

I don't understand either side of this. People are getting really really upset over this on one side and on the other you have people saying it's bad to be upset in the slightest when a company doesn't give accurate info. 

 

There are two issues at play, everyone is upset about the false advertising/marketing.  However there are people who are confusing that with the cards performance. The card hasn't suddenly stopped being good at 4K, it never was to begin with.  So you have people saying take a chill pill, the card is still good, still worth what you paid for it and still has issues at the same resolutions and settings it always did.

[mr moose]

If it DIDNT tank and detract from gameplay experiences over 3.5GB it'd be a non-issue.

 

I KNOW.. it's already been stated many times it's rare to hit over that, but it's not impossible either.

You can see it as a 3.5GB card, but even so, you pay for a 4GB card that cannot effectively keep it's performance levels the same above 3.5-3.95GB...

 

It might, 90% of the reviews I've read show the card starts running out of steam just after 1440 on max settings.

[SkilledRebuilds]

It might, 90% of the reviews I've read show the card starts running out of steam just after 1440 on max settings.

Ahh well that's enough performance to cover a lot of combinations of user-systems without issue.

 

So basically>? /Nvidia aimed for 1440p + Ultra + 5% on top and left it at that...? Didn't care for 4K efficiency as thats the 980's job?

[Pseudonias]

Nvidia are deleting a lot of posts on their forums about this issue, I've posted stuff (totally rational and factual), just spend some time watching the forums - Posts just keep vanishing. I dont know what Nvidia think they are doing, other than making the huge amount of people having their posts deleted angry.

 

Nvidia are not handling this situation very well which is very disappointing to see, and even more off putting as a consumer.

[Suika]

I'm definitely against NVIDIA's false advertising, as everyone who owns a 970 should be.

GPU-Z detects 64 ROPs and 4GB of VRAM because it's all there, there's no lie in that considering the GTX 980 and 970 are both GM204, but 8 ROPs aren't activated and 512MB of VRAM is segmented, a flaw with Maxwell and the ability to disable SMMs and ROPs on an individual basis.

 

The error was likely in the marketing team's inability to see that lol.

[kpreg]

GPU-Z detects 64 ROPs and 4GB of VRAM because it's all there, there's no lie in that considering the GTX 980 and 970 are both GM204, but 8 ROPs aren't activated and 512MB of VRAM is segmented, a flaw with Maxwell and the ability to disable SMMs and ROPs on an individual basis.

 

The error was likely in the marketing team's inability to see that lol.

Mistakes can be costly. Especially on a corporate level. 

[mr moose]

Ahh well that's enough performance to cover a lot of combinations of user-systems without issue.

 

So basically>? /Nvidia aimed for 1440p + Ultra + 5% on top and left it at that...? Didn't care for 4K efficiency as thats the 980's job?

 

It makes sense putting it that way, but to be honest I wouldn't know what their exact intention was other than to produce a card that was 25% behind the 980.

[Pseudonias]

Well someone from Nvidia has replied in the thread on their forums

 

So if any of you were wanting to return the card, this is what to do:

 

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/161/

 

Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down. 

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter

 

 

[Shahnewaz]

Well someone from Nvidia has replied in the thread on their forums

 

So if any of you were wanting to return the card, this is what to do:

 

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/161/

 

Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down. 

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter

Let's see how far this gets. I still say nothing (compensation) is announced officially or set in stone yet.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Shahnewaz

[Khvarrioiren]

I'm tired of this bullsht. Since fcking initial reviews it was indicated that a fcking gtx970 has 56 ROPs. I don't even know where people got the 64ROPs info for a gtx970...

 

Source: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-970-g1-gaming-review,5.html Dated fcking september 2014

 

Also, there are videos around (don't have links atm) of people playing AC:U and Shadows of Mordor over 3.5GB vram without any stutter  (wich, to me, is weird).

 

No, i'm not saying that nvidia isn't to blame, bcuz it is!

 

The spec sheet is freshly revised. Check the rest of the review where there's 64 ROP's mentioned throughout.

[MEC-777]

Let's see how far this gets. I still say nothing (compensation) is announced officially or set in stone yet.

 

I doubt we will see any sort of compensation because it's really not warranted, IMO. But let's wait and see if the updated drivers improves performance.  

[NAP51DMustang]

I doubt we will see any sort of compensation because it's really not warranted, IMO. But let's wait and see if the updated drivers improves performance.  

you cant (completely) overcome a hardware bottleneck with a software patch. also it would be in Nvidia's best interest to do some form of compensation because that would limit liability to the company as a whole.

 

-general comment here, not directed at MEC-777-

I also still feel some people don't get why a lot of people are upset. Its not that suddenly the card is performing different. its the fact that a company released technical specifications for a product upon which the product was priced, pushed, and bought (partially at least) on that were blatantly wrong and in no way could anyone there not have known it.

 

While some will say "just look at the benchmarks" that isn't the entire story. A benchmark isn't going to be the same for everyone because some are on X99 some aren't. Some are running OC setups and some aren't. To say that "benchmarks are all that matters" is even more short sighted as those test are only good on the software/games at the time of release and not on games released in 2-3 years. People use the paper specs to get an idea of how long a card will last them and buy based on that + benchmarks and reviewer comments.

 

While YOU may buy a new graphics card every year the vast majority of us do not. For instance I am still on a Gigabyte HD 6850 (like a baws) but am looking to upgrade this year and was looking to either the R9 300 series or a 970/290x depending on pricing at the time I go to purchase but I can tell you that knowing this now, the 970 is pretty much out of contention.

[Opcode]

[jaggysnake57]

It's just as much a 4K card as the R9-290X and the GTX980 is.

Those cards should play 4K at 30-40fps but the GTX970 won't because of stutter just as it won't be able to use AA in Vram hungry games or high res textures.

 

 

It should play 4K/30fps but it won't because of stutter.

The Vram bottleneck on my GTX670 pissed me off enough I don't need another card that has horse power to drive games but you have turn textures,AA,resolution down because it doesn't have enough Vram.

 

its not though, if you want 4k your looking @980s simple as the 970 just isnt strong enough with or with out the ram issue

 

people are just looking for an excuse 

[zappian]

Well someone from Nvidia has replied in the thread on their forums

 

So if any of you were wanting to return the card, this is what to do:

 

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/161/

 

Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down. 

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter

 

Well at least they are doing something about it.

 

I wish they had explained the memory architecture sooner rather than at the last fucking possible moment when they were pushed against a brick wall by the consumers.

 

Its still an apology and thats what i wanted from NVIDIA , kudos to them for owning up to their mistakes.

 

Peace.

[plnk]

OK, so I have this issue. I can't get past 3,5GB on my STRIX in any game (so, yeah, I don't really experience this stuttering effect, but I bought a 4GB card, not a 3,5GB one...). Neither Watch_Dogs or Dying Light; and they can eat up a lot of VRAM (whether they need it or not, maybe it's just some preloading, I don't care really). I've seen people having their games eat >3,5GB RAM on the 970s but it's just not the case for me - was ASUS fiddling around some more with the memory on their STRIX card? Can someone else with the STRIX confirm this?

[Texhnlyze]

Let's get this straight, do people decide to buy a card depending on its specs or the performance it delivers?

[Lewellyn]

Let's get this straight, do people decide to buy a card depending on its specs or the performance it delivers?

 

Specs + performance = 10. Then add three.

[zappian]

Let's get this straight, do people decide to buy a card depending on its specs or the performance it delivers?

 

I think people bought a 970 because they dindt know it crapped out after 3.5 GB.

 

And performance is closed related to specs.

 

From BUILD a pc:

 

The GTX 970 is a 3.5gb card. It will perform horribly once 3.5gb of Vram is used and is a deal breaker to many high resolution enthusiasts.

 

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

 

What Nvidia did was like trying to sell a 1 TB SDD that was one part 900 GB TB and One part glued together 5400rpm 100 GB HDD.

[MEC-777]

you cant (completely) overcome a hardware bottleneck with a software patch. also it would be in Nvidia's best interest to do some form of compensation because that would limit liability to the company as a whole.

 

-general comment here, not directed at MEC-777-

I also still feel some people don't get why a lot of people are upset. Its not that suddenly the card is performing different. its the fact that a company released technical specifications for a product upon which the product was priced, pushed, and bought (partially at least) on that were blatantly wrong and in no way could anyone there not have known it.

 

While some will say "just look at the benchmarks" that isn't the entire story. A benchmark isn't going to be the same for everyone because some are on X99 some aren't. Some are running OC setups and some aren't. To say that "benchmarks are all that matters" is even more short sighted as those test are only good on the software/games at the time of release and not on games released in 2-3 years. People use the paper specs to get an idea of how long a card will last them and buy based on that + benchmarks and reviewer comments.

 

While YOU may buy a new graphics card every year the vast majority of us do not. For instance I am still on a Gigabyte HD 6850 (like a baws) but am looking to upgrade this year and was looking to either the R9 300 series or a 970/290x depending on pricing at the time I go to purchase but I can tell you that knowing this now, the 970 is pretty much out of contention.

 

I understand drivers or firmware update my not [completely] compensate for the issue, but it may help improve it and that's better than nothing/leaving it as it is.

 

As for your comments about the benchmarks - benchmarks need to be taken within context. You're right to say that not everyone is running the same setup as those on which the benchmarks were performed. But more often than not, benchmark setups are designed to remove as much of the bottlenecking from other system components as possible (like using X99 platform etc.) so that when all cards are tested on that same system, we can see the real [unrestricted] differences in performance - card vs. card. So even if you have a different system, you can still see how that card stacks up against others on a level playing field. 

 

If your current system specs are such that it would bottleneck the 970, then perhaps you shouldn't be looking at cards in this high of range or should be thinking about other upgrades instead. Most people looking at the 970 are already running at least an FX 8-core (which will only bottleneck in certain titles) or an i5 (which won't bottleneck at all) so the results of the benchmarks in question should still be within a small percentage of what you will see on your own system combined with sufficient supportive components.

 

If you're running an Athlon 760K, yeah, you're going to see very different (lower) performance in a lot of games. If you're running an FX-8320/50 OC'd, you'll see some lower numbers in some games. And if you're running basically any i5 or better, performance should be within 5% +/- of those benchmarks.

 

So all that being said, knowing your own system specs vs. the benchmarking system specs, you should be able to draw a rough conclusion as to how the card will perform on your own system. IMO, this is all part of doing the proper research before buying a product, so you know what you're getting and what to expect. 

[kwapybara]

I think people bought a 970 because they dindt know it crapped out after 3.5 GB.

 

And performance is closed related to specs.

 

From BUILD a pc:

 

 

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

 

What Nvidia did was like trying to sell a 1 TB SDD that was one part 900 GB TB and One part glued together 5400rpm 100 GB HDD.

But 1TB is 1024GB.... what is the 24GB remaining composed of?  :blink:

[zappian]

But 1TB is 1024GB.... what is the 24GB remaining composed of?  :blink:

 

124 GB 5400 RPM HDD.*

[Shahnewaz]

Let's get this straight, do people decide to buy a card depending on its specs or the performance it delivers?

That is a non-factor into this issue. People can buy a card for whatever reason they have, and that's not a problem; cause it's their choice.

 

Problem is, it's not performing as intended to, because they gimped the specs without telling us.

[79wjd]

That is a non-factor into this issue. People can buy a card for whatever reason they have, and that's not a problem; cause it's their choice.

 

Problem is, it's not performing as intended to, because they gimped the specs without telling us.

Actually it performs exactly as it has always been intended to. Nothing has changed since the dozens of professional reviews were posted with benchmarks.