• 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.

970's having performance issues using 4GB Vram - Nvidia investigating

Status
Not open for further replies.
ICEx21 said:
But the fact it's only happening once it goes over a certain amount of VRAM (not even maxing it out) surely points out that's where the cause lies?
Not just in this game but SoM and BF4 for me as well and as buggy as they are FC 3 after testing yesterday and FC4 along with Ass Creed.
Click to expand...

Exactly if and when the heuristic algorithm fails and puts data into the 0.5GB portion which is actually in demand the XOR rule applies. So data is read at one seventh the speed and while the system is waiting (stutter) the 3.5GB is hanging around waiting for the 0.5GB snail cache to finish its read.
 
I really don't understand why people are acting like this is the end of the world lol, maybe if I explain why I couldn't care less it may help some of you guys care less?

I have both a main GTX970 SLI rig and a secondary R9 290X rig, my GTX970 cards have 4GB VRAM each, my R9 290X has 4GB VRAM. The GTX970 has it's memory controllers split so it can access the first 3.5GB faster (the RAM is all the same). Sitting on the desktop I have just over 300mb VRAM usage, this means my GTX970 has 3.5+0.2 available and my 290X has 3.7 available.

The GTX970 has hardware memory compression, by the time it exceeds 3.5GB the 290X will already have exceeded 3.7GB in the same situation, so even without factoring in the impact of trying to use the additional 0.2GB (not much impact as when used in normal conditions and not synthetic tests it's only 4-6% lower than what the card would have done with a regular memory config, not enough to even notice) the whole thing is irrelevant.

Is my GTX970 better than my R290? Yes.
Is my GTX970 better than the GTX780it replaced? Yes.
Is my GTX970 better than anything else I could have got for the money? Yes.
Is my GTX970 giving the same performance today as last week? Yes.
Did I buy my GTX970 based on performance reviews that are still valid? Yes.
Will my enjoyment of the card ever be crippled by this rubbish? No.
Do I care about any of this memorygate crap? No.
 
The bottom line is

A) did not disclosing this information help Nvidia sales and make the 970 one of the most succesful "high-end" launches of all time?

B) did not disclosing this information hurt sales of their main competitor?

If the answer to either of those is yes the nvidia should be taken to taks!

What that does for existing 970 owners is any odies guess.
 
LambChop said:
I would be extremely surprised if the people up in arms about this actually have any of the issues described in the 1 or 2 games mentioned previously or actually even own the games. Also as a side note, its about time developers start to optimize their games better and not think.... oh, 4/8gb vram, lets use the lot. Also the 5.5gb on the ps4 has a lot to answer for, console ports issue anyone ?
Click to expand...

That's shared VRAM and system Ram.

I can pretty much guarantee there won't be any PS4 games using 4GB V-ram+
 
ICEx21 said:
I've posted the issues I'm having a few times now, if you can talk me through what to do I can post my videos up to highlight the issues, if nothing else it will show people what's happening and at the very worst hopefully I'm doing something stupid which contributes to the issues and someone can give me advice on fixing it if it's a problem I've created somehow (yes I'm still holding out hope :( ).

Also I contacted Overclockers a few minutes ago (I ended up calling 5 times as each time I got through to RMA someone put the phone down and at one point in the middle of me explaining my problem), when I called them on Friday explaining my issue they were happy to give me an rma number when I called back as I didn't have my order number, spoke to someone today and explained the same thing and as expected they are saying there's no problem and the cards are working as intended and no RMA will be issued.
I can also confirm they are talking to Nvidia at the moment but the guy did say there is no time scale for this issue being resolved and they have no time scale as to when they will hear back from Nvidia.

I don't think anything is going to come out of this, a lot of noise is being made now but the company will just let the dust blow over and after that it will be business as usual.
For me I'll continue to use these cards but I do feel like I've peed away £600 on something that I bought based on the fact I was told it's pretty close to a 980 but in reality it's not as the newer games that come out that will use the full 4gb will stutter for me considering the ones I'm playing now are currently doing that.
Ah well when the 390 comes out I'll have a good look at that and make my decision on whether to keep the cards or sell them to move back to the red team.
Click to expand...

You approached this the wrong way - Don't explain any issue with an RMA.

Inform the returns that you are returning the product as you deem it not what was advertised and that you require a refund. Clearly state the discrepency in ROP count between what was advertised and what is infact the case. That's all the information you need to give them.

You need to be straight and to the point. Don't give them the oppotunity to talk you down or otherwise. They have an obligation to uphold your rights as a consumer. Expect them to put up a fight because it's in their interest to try and talk you out of this as they will incure costs. This isn't your problem though and they need to pass those costs on to nvidia.
 
ubersonic said:
I really don't understand why people are acting like this is the end of the world lol, maybe if I explain why I couldn't care less it may help some of you guys care less?

I have both a main GTX970 SLI rig and a secondary R9 290X rig, my GTX970 cards have 4GB VRAM each, my R9 290X has 4GB VRAM. The GTX970 has it's memory controllers split so it can access the first 3.5GB faster (the RAM is all the same). Sitting on the desktop I have just over 300mb VRAM usage, this means my GTX970 has 3.5+0.2 available and my 290X has 3.7 available.

The GTX970 has hardware memory compression, by the time it exceeds 3.5GB the 290X will already have exceeded 3.7GB in the same situation, so even without factoring in the impact of trying to use the additional 0.2GB (not much impact as when used in normal conditions and not synthetic tests it's only 4-6% lower than what the card would have done with a regular memory config, not enough to even notice) the whole thing is irrelevant.

Is my GTX970 better than my R290? Yes.
Is my GTX970 better than the GTX780it replaced? Yes.
Is my GTX970 better than anything else I could have got for the money? Yes.
Is my GTX970 giving the same performance today as last week? Yes.
Did I buy my GTX970 based on performance reviews that are still valid? Yes.
Will my enjoyment of the card ever be crippled by this rubbish? No.
Do I care about any of this memorygate crap? No.
Click to expand...

Nice to see a common sense post and I would feel the same way if I had a 970.
 
ICEx21 said:
At the same settings there's absolutely no stuttering with a single 290 on DX and mantle where as if I go to the exact same area with the same settings on a single 970 I get stuttering that's very very noticeable
Click to expand...

What settings and what area so I can check it for myself?
 
ubersonic said:
Is my GTX970 better than my R290? Yes.
Is my GTX970 better than the GTX780it replaced? Yes.
Is my GTX970 better than anything else I could have got for the money? Yes.
Is my GTX970 giving the same performance today as last week? Yes.
Did I buy my GTX970 based on performance reviews that are still valid? Yes.
Will my enjoyment of the card ever be crippled by this rubbish? No.
Do I care about any of this memorygate crap? No.
Click to expand...

Let me do this from my point of view.

Is my GTX970 better than my R290?
No. My 290 didn't stutter in the games I played where as both my 970s in single and sli mode do.

Is my GTX970 better than the GTX780it replaced?
N/A as I didn't have that card

Is my GTX970 better than anything else I could have got for the money?
No as I could have got another 290 or a 980 which wouldn't have these problems

Is my GTX970 giving the same performance today as last week?
Yes. Last week it had the same issue and this week it's also having the same issue.

Did I buy my GTX970 based on performance reviews and are they still valid?
Yes I did buy them on performance reviews and a little bit of future proofing and no they aren't still valid.

Will my enjoyment of the card ever be crippled by this rubbish?
Yes because I have a valid issue and my mistake was waiting too long for a driver fix which I know now isn't possible.

Do I care about any of this memorygate crap?
Retarded question considering you took the time to make this above post.
 
whyscotty said:
If by that you mean future proof, no such thing.
Click to expand...

Yes there is such i thing that's why i bought quad fire 4GB 5970 instead of the 2GB versions and i read post after post of users saying that they upgraded from the 5970+5870 because it was running out of Vram even though the grunt was there.
 
Last edited:
Quote from unfair trading regulations -

—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information, .
(b)the commercial practice hides material information, .
(c)the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or .
(d)the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, .
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.



I would say this applies in this case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom