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

Gripen90 · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:41

LambChop said:
That sounds like Electronic brakeforce distribution in cars, its genius

Yea but braking doesn't make you move faster or fluently

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:41

ubersonic said:
Apparently, according to Techpowerup, reviewers got their ROP count based on a non-public document NVIDIA circulated to the media before the 970/980 were launched. That document shows 60 ROPS for both cards with no mention of whether they were all active or not on the 970 so the media assumed they were.

The same goes for the transistor count 5.2 billion a large number of which are not active on the 970 yet the Tech sites still have not updated this to the correct number.

Double standards.

Now the Tech sites are doing all this err investing the least they can do is get the rest of the specs right.

Gregster · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:41

Harlequin said:
adverts for the GTX 970 (and some reviews) were saying this card is suitable for gaming at 4k - its now the green team fangirls are saying its a mid range (yes really) card and doesn't play at 4k

Why chuck in childish comments like "fangirls"? Really not needed.

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:42

Harlequin said:
review sites is how the bulk of people buy video cards - `oooh shiny GTX 970 ultra uber edition scores well at 4k` - here ocuk take my £500....

and

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/20.html

seems TPU seem to find cards right now that can game at 4k quite well thank you

oh and

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/12.html

that's 60fps at 4k....

Sad but true.

Harlequin · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:43

Gregster said:
Why chuck in childish comments like "fangirls"? Really not needed.

knickers in a twist over this for one..... and screaming matches over FCAT and AMD.... which I do recall you did have an opinion about

Kipz · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:44

You can argue what information was given and in what way all day long but what it boils down to is that if you were to use the card at 100% of its 4GB limit that is it not fit for purpose in those circumstances. NVidia clearly withheld this information which led to consumers making ill informed purchasing decisions. Real world performance or not, people were duped.

Mal X · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:44

old gamer said:
got to feel for ocuk, they must be getting a lot of calls from irate people and its not realy there fault is it

yes but Gibbo has to be very careful about what he sais from now on, because he cant feed us any more of that sales BULL*** with regards to this card...or somebody will really let rip at him.

this card is just about ok.........just............ but its image is seriously tarnished as is Nvidia's.

there is no other card around to buy, but when there is i'm going back to AMD and i couldn't give a damn if their next card runs too hot, i'll just shove it in the D-Frame.

Gripen90 · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:44

implosiveturnip said:
You're doing it wrong: you should be going AMD (or pre-owned Nvidia at the very least!) at this point instead of giving Nvidia more of your money. If they don't loose customers due to their questionable business ethics they won't learn and stop being greedy shady see-you-next-Tuesdays!

varkanoid said:
So you still want to give Nvidia your money.

Yes because there is not alternative for my use.

africanos23 · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:46

Just so the plot thickens, I would like if possible for Kaapstaad and Gregster to state if

a - in any way related to Nvidia as shareholders or employees or have stocks
b - in any way related to OCUK as shareholders or employees

j/k

Gregster · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:46

Harlequin said:
knickers in a twist over this for one..... and screaming matches over FCAT and AMD.... which I do recall you did have an opinion about

But I don't stoop to childish name calling. Everyone has an opinion of which I respect and regardless of me agreeing with that opinion or not, there is no need for that kind of pettiness. Grow up.

Harlequin · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:46

does the card work? YES

does it work as advertised on the etailers site at the time of purchase and as the especs on that site? YES

is there potentially a fault , that the manufacturer WILL have to take liability for , likely from a court order? YES.

OCUk and the rest sold a card on good faith - they saw the reviews , heard the feedback and bought the wholesale stock.

if they give refunds , the wholesaler will have to refund them , then the importer and finally the board maker they were originally supplied.

eddyr · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:47

ubersonic said:
Apparently, according to Techpowerup, reviewers got their ROP count based on a non-public document NVIDIA circulated to the media before the 970/980 were launched. That document shows 60 ROPS for both cards with no mention of whether they were all active or not on the 970 so the media assumed they were.

Moral of the story: Consumers, please don't buy a card based on ROP count. Feel bad for the 3 guys worldwide that did for some reason....
----------------

Anyway there is a case for people to be annoyed, but they seem upset about the wrong thing for the wrong reason. And others see the rest upset and figure they ought to be upset also.
Or if the guys clamouring for refunds are honest, their desire to claim based on ROP count is merely convenient as they cannot directly go after the quirky memory partition that may and may not manifest under some scenario's. (Which is a legitimate concern).

Wizzfizz · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:47

Gregster said:
But I don't stoop to childish name calling. Everyone has an opinion of which I respect and regardless of me agreeing with that opinion or not, there is no need for that kind of pettiness. Grow up.

Maybe there are fangirls though?

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:47

humbug said:
The same reason the 1792 930Mhz Shader 256Bit R9 285 is sometimes faster than the 2048 1050Mhz Shader 384Bit R9 280X.

Texture compression.

The problem is it looks like some people are near the point of throwing themselves off Tower Bridge (not quite) because of how the 970 performs even if it can perform better than a 4gb card like a 290X on one of the games in question.

Having said that I would rather use a 290X as it is quicker than a 970 at 2160p.

Harlequin · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:47

Gregster said:
But I don't stoop to childish name calling. Everyone has an opinion of which I respect and regardless of me agreeing with that opinion or not, there is no need for that kind of pettiness. Grow up.

ROFL - name calling? prove 100% of the posters who advocate NVidia products are MALE and you have a valid point , otherwise I am 100% correct.

Gregster · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:48

africanos23 said:
Just so the plot thickens, I would like if possible for Kaapstaad and Gregster to state if

a - in any way related to Nvidia as shareholders or employees or have stocks
b - in any way related to OCUK as shareholders or employees

j/k

Sadly I don't but I wish I had shares in either company, as they are both doing very well. It would have been my luck to buy shares in AMD

Perfect_Chaos · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:49

as i'm using 1080p i'll probably keep this card until the 390x comes along at least, does not really affect me. But i will be annoyed if when i go to sell it, find out it's worth peanuts.. nobody to blame but Nv.

Gripen90 · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:50

Kaapstad said:
There is not a GPU that has been released and their won't be in the next two generations that is suitable for playing @4K, at the moment you need a minimum of 3 GPUs and the VRAM to back it up.

Review sites can say what they like as they do their testing on reduced settings @4K but at the moment there are no GPUs capable.

Exactly. I got my 3 GTX 970 assuming they had real 4GB full accessible Vram and no slowdowns for 4K. Now it turns out they're just 3.5GB and I feel 3 times screwed over.

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:51

africanos23 said:
Just so the plot thickens, I would like if possible for Kaapstaad and Gregster to state if

a - in any way related to Nvidia as shareholders or employees or have stocks
b - in any way related to OCUK as shareholders or employees

j/k

My real name is

Robert Noyce

But this should have more relevance if we were talking about intel.

Do a google search if you don't know what I am on about.

Now why is my 5960X so crap as an overclocker.

Gregster · 27 Jan 2015 at 16:52

Gripen90 said:
Exactly. I got my 3 GTX 970 assuming they had real 4GB full accessible Vram and no slowdowns for 4K. Now it turns out they're just 3.5GB and I feel 3 times screwed over.

They do have 4GB which is all accessible for 4K/5K/8K, nothing has changed there at all.