• 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.
Sin_Chase said:
It's a real crying shame that people are using this as an opportunity to stick their preferential-branded oar in and cause unrest. Rather than posting balanced, factual information.

We have the likes of humbug finding a video demonstrating glitchy behaviour as 'proof' of the 970 issues, despite the fact even the AUTHOR of the video is not putting it down to the 'issue' at hand. It's disgusting and does NOTHING to help genuine 970 owners who are trying to decide what to do, how they might be able to do it and when.
Click to expand...



That's easy. Just do a charge back. I've cancelled my 970 order at the forest.
 
I own a MSI 970 and was about to pull the trigger on a Asus ROG Swift today for G-sync. With all these issues and no fix in sight I have decided to hold off, try and get a full refund from the etailer I purchased it from and wait for the new AMD 3xx cards and get a freesync monitor. This will save me money (Only if I can get a full refund).

The whole ordeal as put me off Nvidia for the moment with bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
 
Just to add to my previous post with FCAT results of 4K DSR @ 2560x1440 GURU3D

2560x1440 – Very high Quality + DSR @ 3840x2160 = almost 3 GB VRAM usage
2560x1440 – Ultra Quality + DSR @ 3840x2160 = almost 3.6 GB VRAM usage

Utilizing graphics memory after 3.5 GB can result into performance issues as the card needs to manage some really weird stuff in memory, it's nearly load-balancing. But fact remains it seems to be handling that well, it’s hard to detect and replicate oddities. If you unequivocally refuse to accept the situation at hand, you really should return your card and pick a Radeon R9 290X or GeForce GTX 980. However, if you decide to upgrade to a GTX 980, you will be spending more money and thus rewarding Nvidia for it. Until further notice our recommendation on the GeForce GTX 970 stands as it was, for the money it is an excellent performer. But it should have been called a 3.5 GB card with a 512MB L3 GDDR5 cache buffer.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html
 
BuToNz said:
Wish I didn't have more important things than framerate to care about. This stuff does suck but certainly isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...

what does that matter to you ? is it your issue ? no one said its the end of the world. you have no clue so why try and justify any response ?

have you got a 970 ?
 
Its a 3% drop in average FPS, That does not take into account the stuttering and visual anomalies that users are experiencing. As someone said, 45 FPS feels like 15 FPS.

Granted the card still performs the same in the way that not many people are hitting that 3.5Gb threshold. Surely you cannot deny that there is clearly a problem there even if most users aren't encountering it YET!

It's kind of like selling a set of ladders where the top few rungs are unstable and saying that people shouldn't be concerned because they will hardly ever use those rungs. The fact remains that there is still a problem there, wether it can be fixed with drivers is moot at this point. Nvidia covered it up and is still hoping that it's fine because people probably won't experience it. I am not supporting those sort of business ethics.
 
humbug said:
The statement you put out to reviewers was "misunderstanding between Engineers and the PR team"

So why are you looking into it? was that another misunderstanding by the PR team?

Those poor people are having a bit of a rough time with it.
Click to expand...

If errors happen we need to understand why and make sure it does not happen again.
 
oldestgregg said:
Im surprised how well its holding up bud. Dead island runs fairly well if you keep draw distance halfway and Ive played all the big games with only a few sliders partly turned down @1400p. You know what the GPU game is like though dont you...I just feel I SHOULD upgrade even though I probs dont really need to!
Click to expand...


The 970 has Tiling and Texture compression to help it along with it's 256Bit Bus and 1664 Shaders, + 1250Mhz boost.

But look at the difference between these two cards, the 780 is derived from a big fat workstation GPU. the 970 is a supper clocked jumped up GTX 770 with a little firmware help.
 
humbug said:
The 970 has Tiling and Texture compression to help it along with it's 256Bit Bus and 1664 Shaders, + 1250Mhz boost.

But look at the difference between these two cards, the 780 is derived from a big fat workstation GPU. the 970 is a supper clocked jumped up GTX 770 with a little firmware help.
Click to expand...

Wish Id never sold my other 2 780's now :(
 
~>Dg<~ said:
what does that matter to you ? is it your issue ? no one said its the end of the world. you have no clue so why try and justify any response ?

have you got a 970 ?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter to me at all. Not my issue, nor would be. Yes I do. My mothers maiden name is...
 
FCAT btw is a Nvidia creation so I guess testing isn't that hard. I don't want to burn money on getting the device and providing results above 3.6GB just to prove a point that's visible across thousands of users.
 
oldestgregg said:
Im surprised how well its holding up bud. Dead island runs fairly well if you keep draw distance halfway and Ive played all the big games with only a few sliders partly turned down @1400p. You know what the GPU game is like though dont you...I just feel I SHOULD upgrade even though I probs dont really need to!
Click to expand...
I was considering moving to a pair of 970's at release, (currently use 780 sli). This was mainly for the cooler running temps of the 970. As im currently only at 1920x1200 res, the games i play arent effected by vram use, and wouldnt be even with the 970's. However im moving to a swift monitor soon but have decided to stick with the 780's.
 
Rick@NVIDIA said:
If errors happen we need to understand why and make sure it does not happen again.
Click to expand...

Aka "how to cover our rear ends better"

Your in the position of the largest market share right now, dont let that fool you into thinking your customers are sheep or can be taken for granted, PC enthusiasts are often very fickle and wont hesitate to jump ship to another brand and not go back for a good while.

Do the right thing by your customers, you have admitted mistakes have been made, now repay their loyalty, i dont think software drivers is the answer either.

Full refunds or an upgrade path to your 980 series i would think is the minimum you can do right now to retain any form of credability.
 
In my opinion, even a full refund or partial trade-in for a 980 would represent merely an adequate reimbursement. After all, customers were still misinformed to the extent that many have openly admitted they would not have bought the card had they been in possession of the facts. That's outright fraud.

To actually 'make good', would require more. A refund plus a free game, or a discounted trade-in on a 980 with a considerable saving that acknowledges the administrative hassle, wasted time and broken consumer confidence of this debacle.
 
Considering Rick is fairly restricted as to what he can say I think he should be commended for coming on the forum.

I agree that the performance is the same as at launch but that's not exactly the issue.

Regardless, Nvidia has acknowledged they've made a mistake (these things happen) and hopefully they can come up with some sort of proposal (Refund / Exchange for another card without loss / games?) for disatisfied 970 owners.
 
Originally Posted by humbug View Post
@ Rick, welcome to the forum

When your PR Team looked at the 970 specifications list for Reviewers and it said "ROP Count" what did the your engineers say should go there? was it 64 or 56?

I'm just interested in the trail of communication between your engineers and PR; how the number 56 could be mistaken for 64.

Also, since the card's release not one of your Ten Thousand Employees spotted the error? and who wrote the BIOS for System readouts? the PR team?
Click to expand...
deuse said:
Cough


Well rick it's over to you.
Click to expand...
When your PR Team looked at the 970 specifications list for Reviewers and it said "ROP Count" what did the your engineers say should go there? was it 64 or 56?

I'm just interested in the trail of communication between your engineers and PR; how the number 56 could be mistaken for 64.

We need to investigate that first and understand why the mistake happened and was not picked up.

Also, since the card's release not one of your Ten Thousand Employees spotted the error? and who wrote the BIOS for System readouts? the PR team?
This was a genuine mistake, our tech marketing team who write the reviewers guides, thought the card had 64 ROP’s and this has been missed since launch.
It is not in our best interests to give the incorrect specs out, it does not help us in anyway and as I've mentioned this does not affect the performance in any way from what you read in reviews.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom