I've had games stutter with my Titans. Does this mean I ran out of Vram
No, it means you need to send me one to test for a bit
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Jen-Hsun On GeForce GTX 970
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
No, it means you need to send me one to test for a bit
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
@pgtips, thanks for the info.
Margin of error out the box, if you can throw up something conclusive that filling the vram will cause more stuttering on different chips, I'll give it a read.
The underlying 970 ramgate point is what the rated spec is/was, nothing more, nothing less, what branded vram oc's can achieve is moot in a direct comparison.
Margin of error out the box, if you can throw up something conclusive that filling the vram will cause more stuttering on different chips, I'll give it a read.
The underlying 970 ramgate point is what the rated spec is/was, nothing more, nothing less, what branded vram oc's can achieve is moot in a direct comparison.
I've had games stutter with my Titans. Does this mean I ran out of Vram
No
It means you need more Titans.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Of coarse, any excuse.
I would say we need to turn this around
We need to see some proper testing with the different types of VRAM to see if they all behave the same way with the 970 fault.
I can also say from experience my 290Xs with Elpida are very poor compared to my Hynix ones.
IIRC if you are using an Elpida based 290 you also have a far greater chance of a black screen, I am only reminding you of this to highlight how important memory type can be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,484
- Location
- UK.
The lawsuit is here, reads as perfectly reasonable. Falsely advertised product. I will be amazed if Nvidia can weasel out of this. I'm sure there will out of court settlement offers floating about..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256406451/Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256406451/Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970
Last edited:
This will drag on for eons and come to nothing, look at intel. Lied about devils canyon, not even a law suit mentioned. But it's rarely mentioned on forums. AMD would do the same if they were caught out, no such thing as a friendly corporation. They will all do their best to wangle themselves out of a sticky spot.
The lawsuit is here, reads as perfectly reasonable. Falsely advertised product. I will be amazed if Nvidia can weasel out of this. I'm sure there will out of court settlement offers floating about..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256406451/Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970
I will be surprised if this costs NVidia anything.
I think the people pursuing the lawsuit could be out of pocket.
The lawyers will be happy as they get paid whatever the outcome.
Isn't the usual grace period 2weeks? The RAM revelations came out much later than that.
Very true Kaap, but did that not depend where in the world you were? I know ocuk offered returns but i never looked at other parts of the world. But the way nvidia handled the whole thing was a farce.
I think other vendors took OCUKs lead and followed by taking back 970s that people were not happy with because of the memory fault. My mate sent his card back to pram computers for example.
I actually thought about going 970 sli from the 780's i have in sig. Mainly from a cooler running point of view. The extra vram sounded good at the time too, but that didnt pan out well. Now im in a gpu quandary. A case of waiting and loose more value on the 780's. 8gb 290's are out of the question, on this motherboard theyd fry up in a few days. So im stuck playing the waiting game on a good single card solution.
That's because Euro sellers don't have a choice on the matter, etailers aren't coping the hit just to look like the good guy, the ramgate thread was fighting/baiting from day one, closing it 200+ pages later because of fighting/baiting carried the benefit of the return info drifting into obscurity.
Other parts of the globe will have to fight for a refund.
Last edited:
We are Brits. We have no first hand experience of how utterly ABSURD the US legal system is. This will be dragged out but it wouldn't surprise me if this ends up going in the plaintiffs favour... assuming Nvidia don't settle beforehand. There have been far more ridiculous and baseless lawsuits than this that have been won. The McDonalds case where a woman won nearly £2million after spilling hot coffee on her lap springs to mind. Logic plays no part in this.
The lawsuit is here, reads as perfectly reasonable. Falsely advertised product. I will be amazed if Nvidia can weasel out of this. I'm sure there will out of court settlement offers floating about..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256406451/Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970
I think really the only people that could sue over the reviewer's info would be the reviewers, That info Nvidia will claim wasnt distributed or meant for consumers.
I know most New Zealand stores didnt have a return policy for the vram issue it was working as intended according to retailers .
Nvidia does deserve some sort of punishment as i dont believe the "mistake line" but what i dont know what.
The memory case won't go anywhere, there is 4Gb of fully accessible memory, there is no lie or misinformation at all and nothing the end user should really care about at all. The max bandidwth is achievable and such architecture will liekly be common for years to come.
Some of the other specifications may have some legal precedence, namely the amount of cache and the exact way this interacts with system performance. The devil will be in the detail, how are they marketed, how did nvidia present marketing mArterial to reviewers, what is on the box, what is the industry standard. The reduced ROP count doesn't actually matter at all because of the reduced SMM count can only output less pixels per clock than there are ROPs so there is provably no need.
4Gb is full accessible. All memory is substantially faster tha system memory
The peak bandwidth is achiveable
There are more ROPs than required
The number of SMM units were correctly advertised
However, there was less L2 cache than the reviewers published. Where does the fault lie with this, was it purposely disinformation, was the reviewer pack explicit in the L2 size?
Some of the other specifications may have some legal precedence, namely the amount of cache and the exact way this interacts with system performance. The devil will be in the detail, how are they marketed, how did nvidia present marketing mArterial to reviewers, what is on the box, what is the industry standard. The reduced ROP count doesn't actually matter at all because of the reduced SMM count can only output less pixels per clock than there are ROPs so there is provably no need.
4Gb is full accessible. All memory is substantially faster tha system memory
The peak bandwidth is achiveable
There are more ROPs than required
The number of SMM units were correctly advertised
However, there was less L2 cache than the reviewers published. Where does the fault lie with this, was it purposely disinformation, was the reviewer pack explicit in the L2 size?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,484
- Location
- UK.
If you read the lawsuit the premise of it was the fact that the guy bought two GTX 970's then this info about different spec was uncovered and neither Gigabyte, Nvidia or the retailer would except a return.
That is the basis for the lawsuit, a falsely advertised product that Nvidia / Gigabyte / retailer would not allow to be returned.
I imagine big out of court settlements are being thrown about right now to end this quickly
Some were lucky in this country as OCUK etc were willing to accept returns and helped unhappy customers out. I think this guy has a genuine lawsuit, Nvidia really did falsely advertise the product, and the retail review kits sent out to review sites etc listed false spec.
I imagine Nvidia will pay out privately / quietly and they won't do this again. Which is good to know lol. Let's hope GM200 isn't gimped
If you read the lawsuit the premise of it was the fact that the guy bought two GTX 970's then this info about different spec was uncovered and neither Gigabyte, Nvidia or the retailer would except a return.
That is the basis for the lawsuit, a falsely advertised product that Nvidia / Gigabyte / retailer would not allow to be returned.
I imagine big out of court settlements are being thrown about right now to end this quickly
Some were lucky in this country as OCUK etc were willing to accept returns and helped unhappy customers out. I think this guy has a genuine lawsuit, Nvidia really did falsely advertise the product, and the retail review kits sent out to review sites etc listed false spec.
I imagine Nvidia will pay out privately / quietly and they won't do this again. Which is good to know lol. Let's hope GM200 isn't gimped
If someone were to win this lawsuit what could they expect, the most that would be fair would be their money back for their 970. It is not like it has been a life changing experience not having a few ROPs lol.