Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[Bhav]

Gigabyte do say they're offering discounted step ups to the GTX 980:

 

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/808983/geforce-900-series/gigabyte-offering-a-discounted-upgrade-from-their-970-to-their-980s-/

 

I sent them a ticket to ask how much it would cost and might do it if it is cheaper than the retail price difference.

[Guest]

More pixels doesnt always = better quality. 1440p with 1.5x DSR on a better quality monitor (144 hz + Gsync, better colours) can beat a low specced 4k monitor.

 

Plus there a lot of games where the UI and text doesnt scale well on 4k displays making the game menus unreadable.

 

You never specified that. Of course the panel quality and the features have something to do with your overall experience, but that has nothing to do with the resolution for the most part. There is nothing that makes 1440p better for gaming compared to 4k. As long as you have the same quality panel with the same features and similar performance 4k looks way better than 1440p, period.

 

I'm happy with 1080p for now, but I did intend to get the ROG Swift (or an IPS equivalent) at 1440p and pick up a second 970. I won't be doing this any more. I still hope to upgrade to a 1440p monitor, but it won't be until I'm satisfied with my GPU setup.

 

Gigabyte is supposed to be offering a step-up program for 970 users. I'm tempted, but I also hate that I am. If I were a patient and understanding human being, I would wait for the 390X and sell my G1 Gaming 970 to pay for it. Of course, there is that worry that 970 prices will plummet due to this fiasco and I would have been better to upgrade to the 980 and not bother with a 390X at all.

 

Many people have declared that they'll switch to the R9 300 series just out of principle. "Stepping up" and giving Nvidia even more money because they made a mistake seems really silly. If you're mad at them (and you have every right to be mad) then that's not the right move IMO. If a company fucks up this hard and fixes the issue or replaces the product for something better? Sure, that's great. I could respect that. But if they fuck up, tell everyone that it cannot be "fixed" because everything is working as intended (they just didn't bother to tell anyone) and their "solution" is to give them even more money? Nah, fuck that. Especially if you have a single 970 you don't have to sell it immediately, it's still a great card a 1080p and a good performer at 1440p, but I would think twice before I get an Nvidia GPU again and consider switching it up whenever I want to upgrade next.

[mr moose]

 

 

 

It's needed because they're benchmarks. Their purpose is to differentiate between five examples of extremely powerful GPUs. They aren't meant to be examples of how a game will run at a certain resolution.

 

 

That's because after everything I've just said, you're still linking to benchmarks that use MSAA in their tests. You just don't need this at 4K. I have never played any game at less than ultra, and never got less than 40 fps.

 

Even the game that did drop to 40 fps was because of a hefty CPU bottleneck.

 

 

Um, that second one has no AA and the first it was set at 2x AA.  as has been mentioned by several people AA is not as important at 4k so the setting is low or off.  

[othertomperson]

Um, that second one has no AA and the first it was set at 2x AA.  as has been mentioned by several people AA is not as important at 4k so the setting is low or off.  

 

Oh. Did you actually read the guru3d link? I only just gave it more than a superficial glance because I didn't have time earlier. They didn't get an SLI result. That 30fps with AA and SSAO enabled on a single GTX 970. Not two. Which is consistent with what I've found, generally. One GTX 970 gets between 30-40 fps.

 

You're ignoring quite a few interesting results actually. For instance, in Thief 970s got 40 fps at 4K with fucking Super Sampling enabled. I'd call that actually an impressive result, it's essentially running the game at 8K.

 

Did you even look at the FPS values in your second link? The R9 295X2 and the 970s switch places a lot, and are generally only within about 3fps of eachother. There's a couple that they did badly across the board, but if you stop being selectively disingenuous about the data you've presented, it tells a story quite different to the one you're trying to spin.

 

That Crysis result is actually really interesting. Something is wrong with SLI here, clearly. In some cases the single 970 is doing a lot better, in others the two only gain one fps. Also looking at the results more generally, all Nvidia cards do poorly here so there's something more general here than the card itself.

[mr moose]

Oh. Did you actually read the guru3d link? I only just gave it more than a superficial glance because I didn't have time earlier. They didn't get an SLI result. That 30fps with AA and SSAO enabled on a single GTX 970. Not two. Which is consistent with what I've found, generally. One GTX 970 gets between 30-40 fps.

 

You're ignoring quite a few interesting results actually. For instance, in Thief 970s got 40 fps at 4K with fucking Super Sampling enabled. I'd call that actually an impressive result, it's essentially running the game at 8K.

 

Did you even look at the FPS values in your second link? The R9 295X2 and the 970s switch places a lot, and are generally only within about 3fps of eachother. There's a couple that they did badly across the board, but if you stop being selectively disingenuous about the data you've presented, it tells a story quite different to the one you're trying to spin.

 

That Crysis result is actually really interesting. Something is wrong with SLI here, clearly. In some cases the single 970 is doing a lot better, in others the two only gain one fps. Also looking at the results more generally, all Nvidia cards do poorly here so there's something more general here than the card itself.

 

That's why I posted two reviews, the techpowerup did manage to get the sli working and without AA it only got 46FPS in 4K.  even the conclusion at the end of both recommend it for 1440, yes it can do 4K but the sweet spot is 1440.  And that why I keep saying the card performs as well now as it did before people discovered the memory issue and false advertising etc.  With these results in mind why would you buy a 970 for 4K, I never looked at the 295, but now I am I wouldn't get it for 4k either.  

[s3ns3]

Many people have declared that they'll switch to the R9 300 series just out of principle. "Stepping up" and giving Nvidia even more money because they made a mistake seems really silly. If you're mad at them (and you have every right to be mad) then that's not the right move IMO

this is the most stupid post in this thread and a terrible advice to give. 

[Bhav]

I'm not mad at Nvidia, and if Gigabyte are giving discounted step ups to G1 editions of the 980, that seems like a nice compromise.

[othertomperson]

That's why I posted two reviews, the techpowerup did manage to get the sli working and without AA it only got 46FPS in 4K.  even the conclusion at the end of both recommend it for 1440, yes it can do 4K but the sweet spot is 1440.  And that why I keep saying the card performs as well now as it did before people discovered the memory issue and false advertising etc.  With these results in mind why would you buy a 970 for 4K, I never looked at the 295, but now I am I wouldn't get it for 4k either.  

 

Because your case holds for a tiny minority of the examples you gave.

 

In Assassin's Creed 4, you get over 60fps with either cards

Same with Batman Arkham Origins, by a very comfortable margin

Same in Battlefield 3

Battlefield 4 is the first example that falls below that. The difference between 970s and 290Xs is literally 1fps.

Bioshock Infinite: both easily get over 60 fps

It would be stupid to count Crysis 3 as being representative of anything: a fucking Titan can't get 60fps at 900p according to the benchmarks you linked

Far Cry 3, 60 fps on the 970. The 290X Crossfire falls a bit short but it gets pretty close at 56 fps.

GRID 2, either solution gets over 90fps

Splinter Cell Blacklist, Thief, Tomb Raider, all decimate the all-important 60 fps mark. Sure, your FPS drops to 40 in Thief if you insist on running it at 8K then downscaling. But who in their right mind does that!?

Watch_Dogs comes pretty close, 51-53 fps is most definitely playable.

 

All of these numbers come from the source you linked. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that these aren't playable.

[Lewellyn]

I'm not mad at Nvidia, and if Gigabyte are giving discounted step ups to G1 editions of the 980, that seems like a nice compromise.

 

Gigabyte is not refunding "working" gtx 970s due to the VRAM issues...

[zappian]

Gigabyte is not refunding "working" gtx 970s due to the VRAM issues...

 

Hey this is working as intended as well.

 

No refunds.

 

/s

[Lewellyn]

Hey this is working as intended as well.

 

No refunds.

 

/s

 

Geeze you amd fanboy, she still has a face it's just that you can't see the face all the time!

[zappian]

Geeze you amd fanboy, she still has a face it's just that you can't see the face all the time!

 

85% of the face is still there , you dont even use the last 15%.

 

lol.

 

/s

[mr moose]

Gigabyte is not refunding "working" gtx 970s due to the VRAM issues...

 

I am losing respect for gigabyte with every new news article.  They used to only be as bad as the next guy, but every other article that comes out seems to tell a different tale. I'm secretly hoping they just haven't formally approved a returns process.

[Briggsy]

 

Hey this is working as intended as well.

 

No refunds.

 

/s

 

There were only two graphic cards that this bug happened on... guess which two?  

[Laputacake]

There were only two graphic cards that this bug happened on... guess which two?  

GTX 970 and 980M?

[Bhav]

Gigabyte is not refunding "working" gtx 970s due to the VRAM issues...

They're not refunding, but are giving cheap step ups to the 980 G1 Gaming:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/808983/geforce-900-series/gigabyte-offering-a-discounted-upgrade-from-their-970-to-their-980s-/

[Lewellyn]

They're not refunding, but are giving cheap step ups to the 980 G1 Gaming:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/808983/geforce-900-series/gigabyte-offering-a-discounted-upgrade-from-their-970-to-their-980s-/

 

I'm afraid that no where in that forum did someone give any proof that Gigabyte are officially giving a discounted upgrade program. Even unofficially. It's the same price. They never even unofficially said that there would be a discount. They only said that there is an upgrade program for 970 to 980... which means you pay the exact difference without a discount.

 

I know people are trying to find evidence of Nvidia and card brand retailers helping with refunds but this isn't actually happening. Gigabyte, the one with some of the highest sales of the 900's series, aren't giving out refunds and/or a discount upgrade path from 970 -> 980. People need to stop bringing forum posts in as evidence for what companies are officially doing, a post on a geforce forum led people to believe that there would be a driver update and help with returns...and that was all officially denied by Nvidia. There will be no driver update, there will be no refund help.

[Guest]

this is the most stupid post in this thread and a terrible advice to give. 

 

The part you quoted has nothing to do with advice, it's just what I've heard from a fair number of other people. Simply saying "This is stupid" also isn't a compelling argument, I hope you realize that. If you have an actual response then feel free to tell me why "this is stupid", I'm genuinely interested.

[rtpb5642]

Oh please stop whining people. People including myself loved the benchmarks when it was released, now that we know VRAM slows after 3.5GB does not make a difference just cause we know it 1 month later, the 970 now and the 970 at release have the same problem but both perform the same and perform well, at most Nvidia should give a free game to ppl who purchased it.

 

You people are butt hurt.

[Dabombinable]

Oh please stop whining people. People including myself loved the benchmarks when it was released, now that we know VRAM slows after 3.5GB does not make a difference just cause we know it 1 month later, the 970 now and the 970 at release have the same problem but both perform the same and perform well, at most Nvidia should give a free game to ppl who purchased it.

 

You people are butt hurt.

You wouldn't love the benchmarks when your GTX 970 doesn't even overclock, and requires an underclock to even run stable at idle.

[AngryGoldfish]

Oh please stop whining people. People including myself loved the benchmarks when it was released, now that we know VRAM slows after 3.5GB does not make a difference just cause we know it 1 month later, the 970 now and the 970 at release have the same problem but both perform the same and perform well, at most Nvidia should give a free game to ppl who purchased it.

 

You people are butt hurt.

 

I understand that many are negating the raw power of the 970 due to a sense of disappointment, but the 970 does not perform as it was advertised. Just because the issues were not uncovered on launch does not make them any less a reality now months later. These problems were mentioned on the GeForce forums as well as Reddit and OC.net well before it became the massive ball of hysteria that it is now. We denounced the theory at the time because we were yet to see any discernible and categorical evidence, but once it was shown there was indeed a widespread issue, and subsequently nVidia released their statement of ignorance and innocence, the shit hit the fan and people began taking their collective dumps.

 

So, despite your ignorant comment, I agree that there is a lot of butthurt. I own a 970 and I am butthurt. I was butt-fucked by nVidia and am left with a solid card that was marketed and sold as an excellent one. It still performs very well, but it is not what was advertised and is not as future proof as its initial specs promised. The card is mired and will go down as that time nVidia forgot to lube up. My anus is no more a virgin. There is no shame in being disappointed because I was lied to. There is no shame in being proud of their system, and then losing some of it.

[PCNOOB123]

The gtx 970 is still perfect for 1080p right? This is my first build and my MSI GTX970 is already here. I have a 60ips panel BTW.

[GuruMeditationError]

The gtx 970 is still perfect for 1080p right? This is my first build and my MSI GTX970 is already here. I have a 60ips panel BTW.

 

Yes it's fine, it's fine as long as you're not heavy into modding and high-res texture packs. If you're absolutely hell-bent on going out of your way to make full use of your VRAM then you might have a problem. They were probably pretty confident that no one would notice because it's kind of a non-issue with regards performance for regular gaming.

 

You can't really sell a card by saying it's 3.5Gig Vram but that's okay because you'll never use more than that, I guess you just re-tool the factory automation to add a little more to the board?

 

But that's just conjecture. Does anyone know how this actually happened and why? I can only imagine it's a deliberate effort to mislead and one they only would have made if they were pretty certain it wouldn't affect people to the point that it would warrant a recall.

 

That having been said, I think at best it's just a step too far in misleading naming conventions. When you bend the rules you get the unwritten rules, when you bend the unwritten rules, they break. :0/

[AngryGoldfish]

Yes it's fine, it's fine as long as you're not heavy into modding and high-res texture packs. If you're absolutely hell-bent on going out of your way to make full use of your VRAM then you might have a problem. They were probably pretty confident that no one would notice because it's kind of a non-issue with regards performance for regular gaming.

 

You can't really sell a card by saying it's 3.5Gig Vram but that's okay because you'll never use more than that, I guess you just re-tool the factory automation to add a little more to the board?

 

But that's just conjecture. Does anyone know how this actually happened and why? I can only imagine it's a deliberate effort to mislead and one they only would have made if they were pretty certain it wouldn't affect people to the point that it would warrant a recall.

 

That having been said, I think at best it's just a step too far in misleading naming conventions. When you bend the rules you get the unwritten rules, when you bend the unwritten rules, they break. :0/

 

The 970 chips were rejects from the 980 pile. Whatever didn't pass the 980 test were used in the 980M, 970, 970M, 960, etc. Certain features were removed and they were installed in 970 housings and sold as 970's.

[GuruMeditationError]

The 970 chips were rejects from the 980 pile. Whatever didn't pass the 980 test were used in the 980M, 970, 970M, 960, etc. Certain features were removed and they were installed in 970 housings and sold as 970's.

 

Sure but that's just binning right? Isn't that how it basically works for all (or at least most) processors?