• 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.
Marine-RX179 said:
Forget about Nvidia and AMD for a sec here...let pretend this issue is with an Intel CPU- a CPU thats clearly stated 4.00GHz in the spec, and people bought that CPU, only later to discover that not only it is actually a 3.80GHz CPU with masked reading saying it's 4.00GHz in cpu-z, and the CPU performance will throttle and drop down to 3.50GHz when CPU usage usage hit above 87.5%...surely there will be uproar, and people will demand Intel to "do something" to address the situation, rather than just putting up with Intel telling them "it's part of the design feature" or " it's unforuntate that they has been miscommunications within the company".
Click to expand...

Thats exactly how a lot of intel cpu's work.

The top speed is only available when running a few cores, if running all cores at the same time the clock speed is reduced.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
If the consumer was not deceived by Nvidia in the first place they could have made a decision to buy a 970 or not based on the memory config and might have even went with the 980.

That was taken out their hands by Nvidia's deceit, so I'm not surprised some people are upset with the new 970 specs months after release and of course performance issues.
Click to expand...

Exactly... they lied. My choice of card was not made with all the facts and feel ( a little ) cheated.

I was lucky as i bought mine from ocuk ( from whom we have still heard zilch ) using a credit card... so if this issue is confirmed to be in hardware and they will not let me return and upgrade to a 980 then i will at least have the credit card company to sort it for me ( sale of inherently faulty goods ).

Nvidia can yell all day that its not a design fault... the issue is it was NOT in the advertised specs... hence making us unable to make an informed choice. So its either a design fault OR misrepresentation... either was you are entitled to return for a full refund.

As i have mentioned twice now, the fact that no one from ocuk has make a statement worries me. Has anyone talked to them yet? i tried phoning on my lunch break and couldnt get though. ( yes i have an early lunch )
 
Last edited:
I actually can't believe there is people sticking up for nVidia in this instance. No matter how they dress it up, the product that was sold to us, is not the product we have.
 
ICEx21 said:
That's exactly what happened to me, ended up going for SLI and man I regret it now.
Click to expand...

id of saved money , got my 4GB ''USABLE RAM'' at full bandwidth and would have no doubt bin able to jump a 4K monitor this year without ******** myself. I knew the 970's where always going to be slower at 4k, but I didn't know they'd be slower still befor the Vram was maxed. Powerconsumption was the topper , but it wouldn't have been had I known what I know now.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
If the consumer was not deceived by Nvidia in the first place they could have made a decision to buy a 970 or not based on the memory config and might have even went with the 980.

That was taken out their hands by Nvidia's deceit, so I'm not surprised some people are upset with the new 970 specs months after release and of course performance issues.
Click to expand...
This really.

I have recommended the the 970 to members seeking purchase advice here on the forum, and telling them that the 980 is not worth the price premium numerous times. Had I knew about the actual "design" of the 970, I would have provided them with more informed advise regarding the 980 vs 970.
 
james.miller said:
How about my reply to MasterOC claiming 500mb is VIRTUALLY UNUSABLE.

Notice how i didn't mention it being slower? Now read back further and notice how I've never denied it being slower. Then understand that my ac:u video is just an example of the kind of vram usage that is supposed to 'cripple' my card thanks to the VIRTUALLY UNUSABLE ram that i am, in fact, using. It's an example because I've not found anything that does cripple it without going over 4gb yet, and believe me I've tried and I've asked other people to show evidence and upload some videos.

2000 posts in and still nothing.

I mean really, what else do you think i should try to explain?
Click to expand...

It is virtually unusable. In the one instance you proposed you didn't see a large effect true. But that doesn't mean that the stuff loaded into that extra 512mb was actually being used or accessed or indeed just cached. If your not testing this then you won't see the expected outcomr..
 
As far as specifications are subject to change without notice

The specifications have to be correct at the time of purchase, but they dont have to warn you about upcoming changes to the specific product, so if you wanted to buy one now and then get another one later for a matching pair and the specs have changed then tough luck.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
If the consumer was not deceived by Nvidia in the first place they could have made a decision to buy a 970 or not based on the memory config and might have even went with the 980.

That was taken out their hands by Nvidia's deceit, so I'm not surprised some people are upset with the new 970 specs months after release and of course performance issues.
Click to expand...

yeh and as dramatic as it sounds, the fairest thing for the consumer would be a full refund if they are unhappy

releasing some software that helps the situation i dont think is enough, it was labelled in error
 
~>Dg<~ said:
what time is ocuk response ?
Click to expand...

Probably shortly after they have finished talking to NVidia and know what their stance is. I would be patent as retailers really shouldn’t be getting flack for this, they will be just as annoyed with NVidia for causing this hassle as the rest of us.
 
ICEx21 said:
From my phone call to them they have no time scale for a response nor do they have a time scale for when Nvidia will get back to them.
Click to expand...

Well i assume then in that case they are taking returns once the matter is official REGARDLESS of the amount of time we have had the cards?

IF not then they should let us know now.
 
AtreuS said:
Well i assume then in that case they are taking returns once the matter is official REGARDLESS of the amount of time we have had the cards?

IF not then they should let us know now.
Click to expand...

As it stands at the moment they are not taking the cards back as they are working as specified.
 
james.miller said:
I think DSR is over-rated, personally. But i'll try it regardless :)



I have seen 3 games consistently mentioned. SoM, which would give 6gb titans a run for their moment at the settings people are using on a 970. DA:I, which i've seen no video evidence of yet, and COD:AW, for which the only video ive seen was that stock 970 vs an overclocked 980 in a different system comparison....

you're way off the mark.
Click to expand...

And you miss the point that it's 3 games so far and in future that number WILL get bigger. People didn't purchase a ~£250 GPU so it would suffer issues like this. Especially considering this performance problem was conveniently hidden prior to purchase.

Saying it's only 3 games, or turn the details down is disingenuous to those who may increasingly encounter this issue as more games are released. Not nice to find your ~£250 GPU worthless for some games unless you "turn down the details" so you don't enouncer a VRAM cap you never thought existed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom