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

[Martini1991]

err? no you're talking rubbish.

He's not.
That sounds like you.

But I do think Nvidia are pretty in the wrong here, but as far as advertising goes...... The 4GB VRAM is there, and the amount of ROP's changes little.

 

[JeffyB]

Just out of curiosity, if you guys who want a refund, actually get one...What GPU will you replace the 970 with?

If you're not fussed about the 3gb of ram a 780Ti is faster than the 970 anyway.

 

[Squink]

Probably a 980.
Running 2560x1600, I probably would have gotten the 980 if I'd known about the gimped memory on the 970.

So you would show your displeasure with the company that manufactured a misrepresented card by purchasing a more expensive product with a higher profit margin from the same company?

 

[The Slayer_UK]

Techically it has 4 gb; but its split 3.5-512......3.5 of the memory get high priorty access and the 512 runs at 1/7th of that speed....

No what you have is the issue with the lieing about the ROPs and Cache. That is where legally you can get a full refund as you are not getting 64 ROPs and 2 mg of cache.....

Ah right fair enough i just thought since it isn't a standard memory configuration with the 0.5 running at 1/7th then there might be something there but i kinda thought it was clutching at straws

 

[MasterOC]

3 x 290x's i reckon, I could snag 3 for the price of my two 970's maybe an extra 40 quid or so .

 

[RavenXXX2]

I would bag an 8GB 290x

 

[Pyr0m@nI@]{]

So you would show your displeasure with the company that manufactured a misrepresented card by purchasing a more expensive product with a higher profit margin from the same company?

At the end of the day I need a graphics card for my machine.
I'd just like one that performs well to the specs nvidia initially advertised and will last me a while.

 

[Wizzfizz]

It was bought from the shop. I'd rather just hand it over for my money back than wait for testing.

Cool, do that then.

But also inform them of the whine, so that they know. As if it's loud, then it'll be deemed faulty.

 

[Heisenberg]

So you would show your displeasure with the company that manufactured a misrepresented card by purchasing a more expensive product with a higher profit margin from the same company?

No, he would want a card that is actually as advertised and performs how it should. I don't have anything against nvidia, they made a mistake. I don't see why I should be stuck with a gimped card that is less powerful from the one I was sold though.

 

[ubersonic]

The funniest thing about this is, had Nvidia been honest it's very unlikely it would have affected sales anyway, I would still have bought one had it been advertised as 3.5GB with 500MB cache or whatnot (I know it doesn't really work like that). The only better option would still have been the GTX980 nd I still wouldn't want to spend that much extra for a small VRAM bump and small GPU speed gain.

 

[humbug]

He's not.
That sounds like you.

No i didn't, prove it.

 

[carrot1401]

Yer, I have to make do with my puny bus

Just out of curiosity, if you guys who want a refund, actually get one...What GPU will you replace the 970 with?

290x's....this is a pretty shoddy ploy from Nvidia...

 

[PayneUK]

Originally Posted by Gregster View Post
Just out of curiosity, if you guys who want a refund, actually get one...What GPU will you replace the 970 with?

I will go back to my 780 while I wait to see what develops with the next release of NVidia cards.

Oh and dig out my ear plugs because that thing squeals like a pig.

 

[Boomstick777]

I would bag an 8GB 290x

+1

An 8GB 290X is a mighty fine 970 alternative. 64 ROPS (Confirmed) 512 bit/bus and the whole 8GB of vram can be utilized if needed

 

[Rangerjr1]

@Gregster, i would get a couple of high end 680s tbh

 

[ALXAndy]

Before I do initiate my "14 day satisfaction guarantee" or my "no coil whine guarantee", how likely is it that I'd break the 3.5GB limit with SLI 970's at 1080p and max settings over the next 24 months? I'm guessing pretty likely? I know I certainly will with my CUDA rendering which is what I primarily bought the cards for.

It would all depend on how high you set MSAA.

When I built my "4k ready" rig I didn't want to sacrifice hardware so I bought a 1080p 27" monitor for £220 or so fully expecting to give it to my wife and replace it with a 4k or 1440p monitor.

Running a 27" display @ 1080p means I need a lot of msaa to offset the low res to display size ratio so I run 8x MSAA on titles such as Crysis 3.

I know that adding lots of AA to a game really smashes the VRAM.

A couple of years back I had two 670s in SLI and 4gb system ram. I loaded up NFS Shift and maxed out the MSAA and got an Nvidia message in red plastered all over the screen saying "not enough memory to run the chosen setting, settings will be automatically reduced.

So, I would guess it all depends on what sort of aliasing you use really.

IMO the 970 is a 1080p card any way, so it should be fine but know this; Nvidia always launch their cards with just enough of everything "for now".

They want to keep you coming back.

VRAM is obviously reasonably cheap. On the 4gb 670 for example the premium was only £40 or so. But Nvidia do not want your card to last four years, they want it to last until the next time they have a new card that they want you to buy.

AMD are not as shrewd and you usually get a far higher memory bandwidth and a fair chunk of actual memory.

 

[Martini1991]

No i didn't, prove it.

You're not worth it.

 

[Gregster]

Well, I wish you guys luck with getting your money back and fingers crossed, your next card is better

Ohhh and yes you did Humbug but I am not searching for it.

 

[ALXAndy]

Well, I wish you guys luck with getting your money back and fingers crossed, your next card is better

Yeah I'll +1 you there. This sucks big time and I really feel for the people this affects.

I got burned with Crossfire so I know exactly how it feels.

 

[Mei]

kind of you to say Greg*just turn down ur settings*Ster
lol