Jen-Hsun On GeForce GTX 970

Gregster · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:40

Hey everyone,

Some of you are disappointed that we didn’t clearly describe the segmented memory of GeForce GTX 970 when we launched it. I can see why, so let me address it.

We invented a new memory architecture in Maxwell. This new capability was created so that reduced-configurations of Maxwell can have a larger framebuffer – i.e., so that GTX 970 is not limited to 3GB, and can have an additional 1GB.

GTX 970 is a 4GB card. However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth. This is a good design because we were able to add an additional 1GB for GTX 970 and our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment.

Unfortunately, we failed to communicate this internally to our marketing team, and externally to reviewers at launch.

Since then, Jonah Alben, our senior vice president of hardware engineering, provided a technical description of the design, which was captured well by several editors. Here’s one example from The Tech Report.

Instead of being excited that we invented a way to increase memory of the GTX 970 from 3GB to 4GB, some were disappointed that we didn’t better describe the segmented nature of the architecture for that last 1GB of memory.

This is understandable. But, let me be clear: Our only intention was to create the best GPU for you. We wanted GTX 970 to have 4GB of memory, as games are using more memory than ever.

The 4GB of memory on GTX 970 is used and useful to achieve the performance you are enjoying. And as ever, our engineers will continue to enhance game performance that you can regularly download using GeForce Experience.

This new feature of Maxwell should have been clearly detailed from the beginning.

We won’t let this happen again. We’ll do a better job next time.

Jen-Hsun

- See more at: http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/02/24/gtx-970/#sthash.7N0z7iVc.dpuf

So there you have it. nVidia and specifically Jen has issued a statement on the 970 and the failure to divulge what was what in terms of the 4GB memory. Keep it friendly please guys

whyscotty · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:41

Gregster said:
So there you have it. nVidia and specifically Jen has issued a statement on the 970 and the failure to divulge what was what in terms of the 4GB memory.

Too little too late

Gregster said:
Keep it friendly please guys

Doubtful

snips86x · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:46

Interesting read but a shame performance took a hit with the new design. Interesting to see what happens next!

TNA · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:49

I think if he had come out and said this when the issue had just been discovered, it would have been a lot more believable.

What about the missing ROPs? He does not mention this? They should have disabled the 512MB of slow memory and advertised it exactly as it was. Would have avoided all this and still sold the way it did I think.

eyetrip · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:52

Nvidia 'we did you a favour shafting you. No really. You should be grateful.'

Martini1991 · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:54

eyetrip said:
Nvidia 'we did you a favour shafting you. No really. You should be grateful.'

That's exactly how I see it.

Kelt · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:58

Yay, grats to Ginseng for giving us half a gig of gimped memory, yay...

llamadal · 24 Feb 2015 at 18:59

Still an awesome card that's excellent value for money.

These things happen, while not great, could have been far worse if the card was a total dud.

drunkenmaster · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:01

TNA said:
I think if he had come out and said this when the issue had just been discovered, it would have been a lot more believable.

What about the missing ROPs? He does not mention this? They should have disabled the 512MB of slow memory and advertised it exactly as it was. Would have avoided all this and still sold the way it did I think.

Pretty much, how many weeks has it taken to come up with this reason... supposedly intentional from the design stage? If this was the real reason and they failed to tell their marketing people, then they would have said it the second this issue became apparent.

As for adding more memory.. well rather than letting game devs know to only use 3GB, or 3.5GB, if they believe their is 4GB of memory, recognise the card and attempt to use 4GB of memory they are intentionally creating a situation in which the card will slow down to access that extra memory, not ideal.

Most people would prefer a 3GB card that is 'normal' and use settings that works within 3GB without unexpected stuttering, than a 4GB card that you believe is fine to use settings up to 4GB but find games feel like they are stuttering with no obvious cause.

But again, this is Nvidia, if this was an intentional feature from the get go, it would have been all over every review talking about how fantastic Nvidia was for bringing you more memory, yet that was strangely absent.

JediFragger · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:03

Unfortunately, we failed to communicate this internally to our marketing team, and externally to reviewers at launch.

This is what I find so hard to believe and tbh I don't. I think nVidia got found out and THEN owned up, hoping it would remain undiscovered.

JediFragger · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:04

TNA said:
I think if he had come out and said this when the issue had just been discovered, it would have been a lot more believable.

What about the missing ROPs? He does not mention this? They should have disabled the 512MB of slow memory and advertised it exactly as it was. Would have avoided all this and still sold the way it did I think.

I personally believed they were motivated by fear, they couldn't *again* be seen to be offering less memory than AMD on the same tier card. Hence the attempted deception.

I'm guessing they took the decision to seem incompetent rather than deceitful, the lesser of two evils in their eyes...

Rusty0611 · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:08

JediFragger said:
I personally believed they were motivated by fear, they couldn't *again* be seen to be offering less memory than AMD on the same tier card. Hence the attempted deception.

lol looking at market share for discrete GPUs I don't think nVidia have anything to fear from AMD at present.

JediFragger · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:09

Rusty0611 said:
lol looking at market share for discrete GPUs I don't think nVidia have anything to fear from AMD at present.

True, true. They seem stronger than ever.

Just this business leaves a bad taste in the mouth, I thought nV had turned a corner in their attitudes. Make Intel of old seem tame

TNA · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:10

lol at eyetrip's sig...

eyetrip said:
Gregster - "I am a raging nVidia fanboy"

Gregster · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:17

TNA said:
lol at eyetrip's sig...

I don't make him wrong

kitch9 · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:18

llamadal said:
Still an awesome card that's excellent value for money.

These things happen, while not great, could have been far worse if the card was a total dud.

Jesus, that's not the point.

ICEx21 · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:19

eyetrip said:
Nvidia 'we did you a favour shafting you. No really. You should be grateful.'

Exactly this, you'd have to be an idiot to think that he was genuine there, he answered nothing just literally fobbed us off just so he can come out and say "yes I've addressed the issue personally".

Once again you'd have to be an idiot or a fan boy (which to be fair are one and the same) to find his words acceptable.

Martini1991 · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:20

kitch9 said:
Jesus, that's not the point.

Exactly this.

kitch9 · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:21

Rusty0611 said:
lol looking at market share for discrete GPUs I don't think nVidia have anything to fear from AMD at present.

Which is why Nvidia lied. They wanted to stop people who were rightly or wrongly attracted to AMDs value offerings.

This whole thing stinks the place out.

Martini1991 · 24 Feb 2015 at 19:22

kitch9 said:
Which is why Nvidia lied. They wanted to stop people who were rightly or wrongly attracted to AMDs value offerings.

This whole thing stinks the place out.

The 970's outselling the 290/290X even after this whole thing, so yeah.