Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[Humbug]

I would tell you that I've seen mine have problems when I play Dying Light, Skyrim, and rarely on watch dogs. The apologists would disagree, but personal experience trumps what they say. Go load up skyrim with graphics improvement mods on one, and watch it drop frames the split second you go over 3.5gb. Not that hard of a result to replicate

just asking- are you sure the stutter was due to the gimped VRAM? Because some gamers report stutter in watchdogs, modded skyrim and dying light regardless...

Edit- nvm just saw that you said it happens as you cross 3.5GB

[LeighPing]

Some questions I've asked myself..

 

 

Would I have bought a GTX970 had I known of the issues?

Probably. Although, I did wonder about the huge price gulf between the 970 and 980. Maybe this revelation explains that now.

 

 

Would I have bought a GTX970 had I known there was a deliberate deception involved?

No.

 

 

Should there be a lawsuit and should Nvidia be investigated regarding their actions?

Yes. If their actions deliberately mislead and duped the consumer, they should.

 

 

Does the card have a lower resale value because of these 'revised specs'?

I would think that's likely to be the case now.

 

 

Why am I keeping the card?

I'm not a regular online gamer anymore. I upgraded from a GTX650Ti (purely for more VRAM) I'm happy with this card running a 30" monitor @ 2560 x 1600 without issue. Anyhow, I watercooled it already. So, it's a bigger loss for me to send it back than to keep it.

 

 

Will I buy a brand new release from Nvidia again?

If they lied to me. Never.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeneralTheoryOfBadassery]

Returning based on thinking it only has 3.5GB of VRAM, then sure I agree with you, but when people are returning their cards because Nvidia did not disclose this information then you calling consumers "fucking idiots" is pretty ignorant thing to say.

 

They lied about the VRAM, ROP, L2 Cache and SM's. If Nvidia was upfront about all of this from the beginning then there wouldn't be this kind of backlash, but no, Nvidia lied to consumers for whatever reason and people wanting to return their cards based on this false information should not be labeled as "fucking idiots".

 

I bought a 970 last December, I have been enjoying it so very much, but every single time I see "Nvidia" or anything related to them I get a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

So you know what, I'm going to contact Amazon tomorrow and try to have my 970 returned. I can use my old 7870 for the time being until either Nvidia comes out and says they fucked up or until AMD's 300 series releases, and I bet everyone knows which one is going to come first.

 

I'd rather be a "fucking idiot" than someone who defends these liars.

 

Have a good day.

Why the fuck doesn't anyone consider the performaninstead of the specs !!!!!!

It offers almost 75% of 980's performance at half the price !!!

I still like nvidia for making such a great card which is affordable.

So.. I'd rather defend those liars than arguing with " ******* idiots "

[LeighPing]

So.. I'd rather defend those liars than arguing with " ******* idiots "

 

 

What price is the principal of integrity to you. 75%?

[bogus]

Why the fuck doesn't anyone consider the performaninstead of the specs !!!!!!

It offers almost 75% of 980's performance at half the price !!!

I still like nvidia for making such a great card which is affordable.

So.. I'd rather defend those liars than arguing with " ******* idiots "

Why the fuck do you look at specs of ... let's say a smartphone, if the performance of the device is good?

Why wouldn't just HTC release a high end phone without any specs at a $500 price tag (take into acount the top high end is $700), just by showing the smartphone performs good...but in reality you are paying a premium for a Snapdragon...let's say... 800. Would you buy a tech product with blurred out specs? 

 

That's how your logic is: specs don't matter according to you, only performance. 

In the real world: specs are mandatory for obvious reasons... it defines the product.

[Trik'Stari]

True, true. But I would also chop it down to people either being too lazy to do it or not giving a fack enough to go through with it.

 

See my above post.

Yeah.

 

just asking- are you sure the stutter was due to the gimped VRAM? Because some gamers report stutter in watchdogs, modded skyrim and dying light regardless...

Edit- nvm just saw that you said it happens as you cross 3.5GB

Don't get me wrong, there could always be other issues. But I've run all 3 with Asus GPU monitor, HW monitor, and Task Manager on my second monitor, which is running off of a different graphics card to eliminate that monitor from my 970's load, and the only time I notice problems is when I am sitting above 3.5gb.

 

Why the fuck do you look at specs of ... let's say a smartphone, if the performance of the device is good?

Why wouldn't just HTC release a high end phone without any specs at a $500 price tag (take into acount the top high end is $700), just by showing the smartphone performs good...but in reality you are paying a premium for a Snapdragon...let's say... 800. Would you buy a tech product with blurred out specs? 

 

That's how your logic is: specs don't matter according to you, only performance. 

In the real world: specs are mandatory for obvious reasons... it defines the product.

Don't forget that it isn't "half the price" either.

[FireFox]

most places are letting you return it

 

It is a shame, OK NVIDIA should have been upfront at the beginning but the GTX 970 is still a beast. People need to get over it.

 

3.5GB VRAM, well I wouldn't personally care. If I had bought one I wouldn't be returning it. This whole 'there is something wrong, I want my money back' is getting a little annoying now.

[cesrai]

-snip-

Fools ??? they fucking lied to them, if you fucking lie to me then fuck you go take your fucking card and give me my fucking money back.

 

-snip-

Nope can't just can't, you shouldn't have lied at the first place.

[Trik'Stari]

It is a shame, OK NVIDIA should have been upfront at the beginning but the GTX 970 is still a beast. People need to get over it.

 

3.5GB VRAM, well I wouldn't personally care. If I had bought one I wouldn't be returning it. This whole 'there is something wrong, I want my money back' is getting a little annoying now.

When you spend $350 on something because of its spec's, you get kinda mad when you find out those spec's were bullshit to begin with.

 

Makes it even worse when the company tries to be like "no we didn't lie....it was a miscommunication"

[Unlikelyjoker]

Simples. just return your 970 and get a 290

[cubercaleb]

People are still bitching about this? lol.

[FireFox]

When you spend $350 on something because of its spec's, you get kinda mad when you find out those spec's were bullshit to begin with.

 

Makes it even worse when the company tries to be like "no we didn't lie....it was a miscommunication"

 

I understand that but it is not having a drastic impact on performance. The card still performs very well.

[Trik'Stari]

I understand that but it is not having a drastic impact on performance. The card still performs very well.

Yeah, until you go over 3.5gb of Vram.

 

And then there is the issue of "Well if it was a miscommunication, how long did it take them to realize it?" as well as them continuing to list the card as 4gb of Vram, which is not really 100% accurate.

 

Simples. just return your 970 and get a 290

 

You mean 390? 970 still outdoes 290 to my knowledge....although it's specifications are actually accurate.

[bogus]

Don't forget that it isn't "half the price" either.

Not in every country it was half the price of a 980. I don't even know if $700 is the price tag of a new high end htc phone.

 

But let's say for the sake of the example, it's half price, since you can get devices with SD 800 for less then 350.

[Trik'Stari]

Not in every country it was half the price of a 980. But let's say for the sake of the example, it's half price, since you can get devices with SD 800 for less then 350.

Had not considered that.

[FireFox]

Yeah, until you go over 3.5gb of Vram.

 

And then there is the issue of "Well if it was a miscommunication, how long did it take them to realize it?" as well as them continuing to list the card as 4gb of Vram, which is not really 100% accurate.

 

Surely if you are going to exceed 3.5GB of VRAM then 4GB wouldn't be that far away so even if you had the full 4GB it probably wouldn't make a huge difference. Currently I'm only on 2GB and it is fine. I'm sure there are ways to help the game run smoother.

 

People will live and if not well they will get over it eventually, it is still a good card.

[jaggysnake57]

When you spend $350 on something because of its spec's, you get kinda mad when you find out those spec's were bullshit to begin with.

 

Makes it even worse when the company tries to be like "no we didn't lie....it was a miscommunication"

this is my issue 99% of people brought their cards based on benchmarks that show the card for what it is not the specs that nvidia said it had.  those same benchmarks are with the cards we have. the card has 4gb of usable vram and no where does nvidia say that all ram chips perform at the same speed, they give theoretical max.  you need to think about why they would lie.  more over how a lie benefits them.  here it doesn't because most people dont know what a ROP is much less how it effects performance.

 

the thing is in the months before this no one was complaining about vram issues, stuttering nothing. and since then people are still not complaing about it. if there was a real issue the forums would be lit up with people complaining about stuttering and vram issues, vids about it, evidence up the wazoo.  all we have is Reddit thread and people saying that games that are known to have performance issues ie watch dogs and dying light stutter. not alot to go in is it officer.  the fact is the card performs exactly like its meant to and thats why a law suit is going to be tricky.

[cesrai]

this is my issue 99% of people brought their cards based on benchmarks that show the card for what it is not the specs that nvidia said it had.  those same benchmarks are with the cards we have. the card has 4gb of usable vram and no where does nvidia say that all ram chips perform at the same speed, they give theoretical max.  you need to think about why they would lie.  more over how a lie benefits them.  here it doesn't because most people dont know what a ROP is much less how it effects performance.

 

the thing is in the months before this no one was complaining about vram issues, stuttering nothing. and since then people are still not complaing about it. if there was a real issue the forums would be lit up with people complaining about stuttering and vram issues, vids about it, evidence up the wazoo.  all we have is Reddit thread and people saying that games that are known to have performance issues ie watch dogs and dying light stutter. not alot to go in is it officer.  the fact is the card performs exactly like its meant to and thats why a law suit is going to be tricky.

What m8 ??? http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation, Nvidia said they have 4GB of ram as one 4GB that run at the same speed and on the same bus, also there is ROPs and L2 which they lied about too, even if they bought based on benchmarks, wouldn't you be pissed if you found out Nvidia lied about it ??? the owner was lied too and deceived by Nvidia, you can't expect the owner not to be mad and demanding a refund. 

[cesrai]

-snip-

WHy ???????????????

[helloimtom-]

I'm so close to returning mine, but I want to wait until the 380x (or 390x ) comes out.

[jaggysnake57]

What m8 ??? http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation, Nvidia said they have 4GB of ram as one 4GB that run at the same speed and on the same bus, also there is ROPs and L2 which they lied about too, even if they bought based on benchmarks, wouldn't you be pissed if you found out Nvidia lied about it ??? the owner was lied too and deceived by Nvidia, you can't expect the owner not to be mad and demanding a refund. 

 

from that article

 

 

The memory controllers themselves remain unchanged, with all four controllers active and driving 4GB of VRAM over a combined 256-bit memory bus.

 

so if the ram speed after this hasnt changed how have they misrepersented the performance of the 970?

 

as for the lie.....from that same article 

 

 

To be blunt, if this was intentional then this would be an incredibly stupid plan, and NVIDIA as a company has not shown themselves to be that dumb. NVIDIA gains nothing by publishing an initially incorrect ROP count for the GTX 970, and if this information had been properly presented in the first place it would have been a footnote in an article extoling the virtues of the GTX 970, rather than the centerpiece of a full-on front page exposé. Furthermore if not by this memory allocation issues then other factors would have ultimately brought these incorrect specifications to light, so NVIDIA would have never been able to keep it under wraps for long if it was part of an intentional deception.

 

what i got from that artical is even though there are 2 sections all the ram is there, usable and with the help of drivers has little effect on the overall experiance....shock

[Trik'Stari]

this is my issue 99% of people brought their cards based on benchmarks that show the card for what it is not the specs that nvidia said it had.  those same benchmarks are with the cards we have. the card has 4gb of usable vram and no where does nvidia say that all ram chips perform at the same speed, they give theoretical max.  you need to think about why they would lie.  more over how a lie benefits them.  here it doesn't because most people dont know what a ROP is much less how it effects performance.

 

the thing is in the months before this no one was complaining about vram issues, stuttering nothing. and since then people are still not complaing about it. if there was a real issue the forums would be lit up with people complaining about stuttering and vram issues, vids about it, evidence up the wazoo.  all we have is Reddit thread and people saying that games that are known to have performance issues ie watch dogs and dying light stutter. not alot to go in is it officer.  the fact is the card performs exactly like its meant to and thats why a law suit is going to be tricky.

I bought it because it was 4gb, I had other options, but as my 660 was a 2gb I decided I wanted something with more oomph, and yes, it is still miles beyond a 660.

 

It still feels like we got ripped off a bit though.

[eelnico09]

from that article

 

 

so if the ram speed after this hasnt changed how have they misrepersented the performance of the 970?

 

as for the lie.....from that same article 

 

 

what i got from that artical is even though there are 2 sections all the ram is there, usable and with the help of drivers has little effect on the overall experiance....shock

GPU Has a total of 4gb vram, people is just stupid and they go and believe whatever they read on the internet.

 

The false advertising is about the ROPs and Caché being less than advertised, the ram is still 4gb. And the GPU still performs as good as before.

 

 

 

If the memory and all this was a big deal then it wouldn't take 6 months to find out (card out in september, all this popped up 2 weeks ago)

[cesrai]

from that article

 

 

so if the ram speed after this hasnt changed how have they misrepersented the performance of the 970?

 

as for the lie.....from that same article 

 

 

what i got from that artical is even though there are 2 sections all the ram is there, usable and with the help of drivers has little effect on the overall experiance....shock

Dude, to explain it here are some pictures from a pcper.com article http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue

http://www.pcper.com/image/view/52169?return=node%2F62209 

see the GTX970 memory speeds at the last chunk.

 

was my argument ever about performance ??? NO then what was my argument about ??? it was about Nvidia laying which they did, both chunks are usable but the last chunk is running at much lower speed, they also lied about ROPs and L2 chace.

[cesrai]

GPU Has a total of 4gb vram, people is just stupid and they go and believe whatever they read on the internet.

 

The false advertising is about the ROPs and Caché being less than advertised, the ram is still 4gb. And the GPU still performs as good as before.

 

 

 

If the memory and all this was a big deal then it wouldn't take 6 months to find out (card out in september, all this popped up 2 weeks ago)

See above, don't be an asshole please don't.