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

africanos23 · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:26

eyetrip said:
Well, I bought them to game at 3440x1440, but ended up gaming on 4K instead.

And, honestly, they probably could have been fine for 4K on a two or three card setup.

Hell, I thought stuttering problems were driver related, and was patiently waiting for a fix.

Thats not likely to happen though, is it?

These cards "should" be fine for 4K, though not with High AA or uber type textures obviously, but people now have to reduce settings more than they should due to the memory config.

So are you guys now all saying these are mid-range cards or something? I thought people were touting them as Nvidias high end?

Turn down settings till playable is what some people are saying

eyetrip · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:26

AtreuS said:
If okcuk wont refund a faulty product i asume we can get trading standards and the credit card company involved. The cards were EITHER missold or are faulty... both are situations where a full refund is expected to the end customer.

Personally i am going to contact my credit card company and inform them that the trader will not accept back a faulty product and see what they say. Nvidia have admitted that the cards were not "as advertised" but are trying to use creative terms to make out it doesnt matter.... sorry lads UK law doesnt work that way.

I'd like to know how you get on, but don't describe it as faulty. They aren't faulty. They just arent what we were led to believe.

setter · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:27

Surely the 980 is the current high end, the *70 moniker has been used on the mid range in the 4,5,6 and 7 series.

eyetrip · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:27

africanos23 said:
Turn down settings till playable is what some people are saying

So using less than 3.5GB?

Isn't that the whole point of people being in an uproar over this?

I know I can reduce settings to get the ram below 3.5GB, and have a smoother experience... but shouldn't have to

africanos23 · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:29

eyetrip said:
So using less than 3.5GB?

Isn't that the whole point of people being in an uproar over this?

I know I can reduce settings to get the ram below 3.5GB, and have a smoother experience... but shouldn't have to

Im one of those "uproarers" because I am on SLI 4K.

I can also reduce ram below 1GB but thats not the point

Im just saying what some boys/girls/whatever have mentioned so WE can "fix" the non-issue

Gripen90 · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:30

almighty15 said:
I would be interested to see how many of the people are raging about 4k performance actually have a 4k monitor.

I have and I'm having issues I thought were driver or game related. Not particularly happy.

TheRealDeal · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:30

eyetrip said:
So using less than 3.5GB?

Isn't that the whole point of people being in an uproar over this?

I know I can reduce settings to get the ram below 3.5GB, and have a smoother experience... but shouldn't have to

Yea before this came to light all gtx970 thought they had 4gb of full speed ram and going over that would effect performance. Now it's the case that going over 3.5gb is an option but not ideal.

Anyone defending Nvidia in this is not just a fanboi but daft as well.

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:36

TheRealDeal said:
Yea before this came to light all gtx970 thought they had 4gb of full speed ram and going over that would effect performance. Now it's the case that going over 3.5gb is an option but not ideal.

Anyone defending Nvidia in this is not just a fanboi but daft as well.

That makes me daft.

For a single card at 2160p I would take a 3gb EVGA Classified 780ti over a 970 or 980.

a66as · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:38

was playing dragon age inquisition on 1440p yesterday

i was wondering why with 970 sli my game felt amiss with stutters here and there, this was at 4x msaa and texture at fade touched, i thought maybe its driver related or sli issues because the Vram was at around 3.6gig

now im wondering if its because of lack of Vram and perhaps i would have been better served by 290x's

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:40

a66as said:
was playing dragon age inquisition on 1440p yesterday

i was wondering why with 970 sli my game felt amiss with stutters here and there, this was at 4x msaa and texture at fade touched, i thought maybe its driver related or sli issues because the Vram was at around 3.6gig

now im wondering if its because of lack of Vram and perhaps i would have been better served by 290x's

I have benched that game on a few cards and it is rubbish on all of them.

The best it got was using Mantle on a single 290X and that was not that good.

stooeh · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:41

SLI support in DAI seems poor anyway - dont you get massive texture flicker and broken fog?

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:44

stooeh said:
SLI support in DAI seems poor anyway - dont you get massive texture flicker and broken fog?

SLI was bad yes.

IIRC there was no Mantle CF 4 way support either.

With single cards Mantle seemed the best out of a bad lot.

TheRealDeal · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:45

Kaapstad said:
That makes me daft.

For a single card at 2160p I would take a 3gb EVGA Classified 780ti over a 970 or 980.

We all read the reviews and thats what most informed opinions when buying are based on or at least around here. There was no mention of this 3.5gb + 0.5gb. I am not to bothered about the rops as the card perform's really well otherwise. i think if people knew about the ram they might have thought different about there purchase.

Mei · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:45

DAI seems a pretty cpu intensive game, atleast it did on my 4790k ><

~>Dg<~ · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:46

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-admits-to-error-in-gtx-970-specs-and-memory/1100-6424915/

Kaapstad · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:48

TheRealDeal said:
We all read the reviews and thats what most informed opinions when buying are based on or at least around here. There was no mention of this 3.5gb + 0.5gb. I am not to bothered about the rops as the card perform's really well otherwise. i think if people knew about the ram they might have thought different about there purchase.

That still does not change the performance of the card.

As I pointed out earlier I think for single card use a 3gb 780ti Classified will get the better of any of the 4gb cards @2160p.

It is no good having extra VRAM if you can not use it most of the time.

TheRealDeal · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:51

Kaapstad said:
That still does not change the performance of the card.

As I pointed out earlier I think for single card use a 3gb 780ti Classified will get the better of any of the 4gb cards @2160p.

It is no good having extra VRAM if you can not use it most of the time.

There are games suffering now and it's only going to get worse as game makers change over to next gen consoles. A few games now could be any decent game in the next year. We are not all made of money and buy every single card that arrives. Some of us buy a card to last a year or 2.

I guess what i am saying is a man sitting with 4xTitan/290x/gtx980 may not care as much as a guy that saved for a gtx970 that is now not what he thought he bought.

mmj_uk · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:53

mmj_uk said:
Did NVidia actually ever list the ROP count etc? looking at their website they only list Texture Fill Rate and GTX970 is listed as 109GT/s v 144GT/s of the GTX980, aren't reviewers the ones who have misrepresented?

The NVidia website from October still lists GTX970 as 109GT/s so there has been no late editing.
https://web.archive.org/web/2014102...e/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-970/specifications

GTX 970 = 52 ROP = 104 TMU x 1050Mhz = 109GT/s
GTX 980 = 64 ROP = 128 TMU x 1126Mhz = 144GT/s

So all of those crying that they were misled by NVidia about it being 64 ROP's clearly didn't do their research properly? and that includes reviewers.

Nevk · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:55

https://www.change.org/p/nvidia-refund-for-gtx-970

Boo_hoo · 27 Jan 2015 at 17:55

I agree. I feel like the GTX 970 that I bought 2 weeks ago was mis-advertised. I really am considering sending it back and getting an R9 290.