• 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.
Rick@NVIDIA said:
Updated just so it is a bit clearer.

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.
Click to expand...

So no one who actually knows what they're talking about proofreads whatever the marketing team writes? Amazing just amazing lol
 
It dosent run as advertised and you cant say that it still runs how we read in reviews because not everybody sits there for hours and reads reviews. Some just go onto the forums and read whats good, or browse the store and buy the second best part. obviously we check out fps numbers but most wont divulge into the deep architecture stuff cos it blags heads, for that reason most were led to believe its 4gb. Nvidia knew not many games would use 4gb and kept hush until people picked up on it and started collating together. Now its the ultimate damage control. Now that even the reviewers have been able to replicate the problem even THEY are saying it dosent run as we were led to believe after 3.6gb vram usage. Specs on ocuk state 4gb at 256bit bus, not their fault, nvidias fault. I spent money on the best 970 i could afford, 20% less performance than the 980 for over £100+ less, too good to be true i thought. I really dont like being blagged, makes me feel stupid.
 
Rick@NVIDIA said:
This does not affect the performance in any way from what you read in reviews.
Click to expand...

Although it sort of does since I'd hazard a guess that if reviewers re-posted their reviews with what we know now and utilised more than 3.5Gb VRAM the results would show an entirely different card. :rolleyes:
 
This has been going on for days. No way do they not know exactly how this happened.

You get each end of the process to prove it wasn't them until someone finds evidence of being given wrong info or someone having put the wrong thing on paper.
 
hyperseven said:
so they are quite happy for you to return or exchange, have they told the vendors this?
Click to expand...

They have not informed us anything yet.

Come of the phone not long ago, basically requested I have a solution by tomorrow otherwise OcUK will take its own action for our own customers.

We want our customers happy, so we want a solution and want it ASAP, they've promised to come back to me.

I want to give my customers a solution by end of play tomorrow, it is what I am pushing very hard for and determined to get it. :)

If a driver resolves it then awesome, but if not possible I want a happy outcome for OcUK customers, working on it guys and will have more updates tomorrow. :)
 
garyfl said:
It dosent run as advertised and you cant say that it still runs how we read in reviews because not everybody sits there for hours and reads reviews. Some just go onto the forums and read whats good, or browse the store and buy the second best part. obviously we check out fps numbers but most wont divulge into the deep architecture stuff cos it blags heads, for that reason most were led to believe its 4gb. Nvidia knew not many games would use 4gb and kept hush until people picked up on it and started collating together. Now its the ultimate damage control. Now that even the reviewers have been able to replicate the problem even THEY are saying it dosent run as we were led to believe after 3.6gb vram usage. Specs on ocuk state 4gb at 256bit bus, not their fault, nvidias fault. I spent money on the best 970 i could afford, 20% less performance than the 980 for over £100+ less, too good to be true i thought. I really dont like being blagged, makes me feel stupid.
Click to expand...

They test average FPS when disclosing performance difference of 3-6% vs the GTX980s but state on their FCAT page

GPU performance is often calculated by running benchmark games and recording the average Frames Per Second (FPS) using FRAPS or a similar tool. Unfortunately, many significant performance implications can be missed by using this traditional method.

That makes me feel stupid
 
I keep seeing articles and Nvidia reps on forums saying that if a consumer is unhappy they should return for a refund or exchange.

If only it was that simple! Really needs some sort of confirmation that this is possible. I spent ages pouring over the reviews to see what the difference was and the 970s should, on paper, have been perfect for me.

I play in 1440p all the time and the sli 970s, without having the equivalent of one foot missing, should have easily handled this.

The key point is if the consumer had known about this handicap would they have bought it? No, I would have gone for 2 x 980s instead.

Edit - Just seen GIBBOS post above. Cheers I shall wait until tomorrow. Just hope a driver update doesnt just fool us into thinking its working and then introduce even more issues for SLI owners.
 
Gibbo said:
They have not informed us anything yet.

Come of the phone not long ago, basically requested I have a solution by tomorrow otherwise OcUK will take its own action for our own customers.

We want our customers happy, so we want a solution and want it ASAP, they've promised to come back to me.

I want to give my customers a solution by end of play tomorrow, it is what I am pushing very hard for and determined to get it. :)

If a driver resolves it then awesome, but if not possible I want a happy outcome for OcUK customers, working on it guys and will have more updates tomorrow. :)
Click to expand...

thanks a lot.........good on you
 
africanos23 said:
They test average FPS when disclosing performance difference of 3-6% vs the GTX980s but state on their FCAT page

GPU performance is often calculated by running benchmark games and recording the average Frames Per Second (FPS) using FRAPS or a similar tool. Unfortunately, many significant performance implications can be missed by using this traditional method.

That makes me feel stupid
Click to expand...

love how they left out minimums
 
Gibbo said:
They have not informed us anything yet.

Come of the phone not long ago, basically requested I have a solution by tomorrow otherwise OcUK will take its own action for our own customers.

We want our customers happy, so we want a solution and want it ASAP, they've promised to come back to me.

I want to give my customers a solution by end of play tomorrow, it is what I am pushing very hard for and determined to get it. :)

If a driver resolves it then awesome, but if not possible I want a happy outcome for OcUK customers, working on it guys and will have more updates tomorrow. :)
Click to expand...

Excellent. Should we check the threads or will an official announcement come out via email for customers who bought 970's?
 
Hi Gibbo, I appreciate how frustrating this must be for you guys. I would be more than happy to receive a credit (in lieu of a refund) for the full cost of the card so that I may put it towards whatever AMD are going to offer later this year. Thanks for all you and your team are doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom