• 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.
Hey all.
I'm an AMD customer but have been watching this unfold. Without trying to sound biased, it is for this very reason that I side with AMD. NVidia have not and do not play fair.
AMD have been crippled in Q4 due to lack of 290 sales as well as heavy discounting on their high end GPU's over the xmas period. As well as NVidia lying to their loyal customers you have to wonder if this was done to hurt AMD more than anyone else. This is wrong!!

This petition is gaining traction. People the world over are leaving comments.

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

Nvidia should know that the people buying their products do not want to be subjected to being ripped off and given false information.
 
Last edited:
fs123 said:
hi Gibbo,

I tried to request an RMA number and all I got was the following reply :

In order to try and assist further we have included some performance data below so that you can see actual testing results between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980.

Shadows of Mordor: GTX 980 GTX970
<3.5GB settings: 2688x1512 Very High 72FPS 60FPS
>3.5GB settings: 3456x1944 Very High 55FPS (24%) 45FPS (-25%)
Relative performance difference: 1%

Battlefield 4:
<3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 2xMSAA 36FS 30FPS
>3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 135% res. 19FPS (-47%) 15FPS (-50%)
Relative performance difference: 3%

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare:
<3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 FSMAA T2x, SS off 82FPS 71FPS
>3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 FSMAA T2x, SS on 48FPS (-41%) 40FPS (-44%)

As you can see above the relative performance difference varies from 1% in Shadows of Mordor, to 3% in Battlefield 4 or Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. The performance differences between a 970 and 980 in the above examples remain a constant 15-19%, regardless of memory usage.

I hope that the above information helps clarify the performance from the GTX 970. Please let us know if you do want to continue with a step-up on your product for the higher performing GTX 980 card, and we'll get that option opened up for you.

Regards,

Nicholas Paviour

Does the OCUK return department even know we are allowed to return the cards?
Click to expand...

Bloody hell what a mess Nvidia have created.
 
Bonjour said:
He's even edited out the bit saying 'we messed up' etc. It basically now just says the 970 is fantastic and we stand by the product. Their lawyers must have had a word.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure someone screen capped it anyway so no worries. I was contemplating going 980 over 290x if ASUS decides to give refunds but I just cannot stand by Nvidia while they try to sweep this under the rug. Pretty sure a 290x 8GB will out perform a 970 Strix once I dip it in water.
 
Bonjour said:
He's even edited out the bit saying 'we messed up' etc. It basically now just says the 970 is fantastic and we stand by the product. Their lawyers must have had a word.
Click to expand...

They probably realised that admitting mistakes is a sure fire way to lose a class-action lawsuit which will probably happen in the US.
 
Ferrari100 said:
Hey all.
I'm an AMD customer but have been watching this unfold. Without trying to sound biased, it is for this very reason that I side with AMD. NVidia have not and do not play fair.
AMD have been crippled in Q4 due to lack of 290 sales as well as heavy discounting on their high end GPU's over the xmas period. As well as NVidia lying to their loyal customers you have to wonder if this was done to hurt AMD more than anyone else. This is wrong!!

This petition is gaining traction. People the world over are leaving comments.

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

Nvidia should know that the people buying there products do not want to be subjected to being ripped of and given false information.
Click to expand...

Agree but then both have their moments of dishonesty. Signed.
 
Tbh what others have already said the 970 is a fantastic card for the money and a driver update may improve things but Nvidia should have divulged the configuration of the memory system employed by the 970 to review sites when the card was sent out then perhaps more testing by them would have highlighted the issue and people would have been able to make a more informed decision based on there needs.
 
Seems like Nvidia are cutting and running then. Good on OCUK for how they're handling this. I'll never buy my PC gear from anywhere else. Great CS, just fantastic!! :)
 
Boomstick777 said:
Awesome stuff from Gibbo / OCUK.

Genuinely surprised that Nvidia are saying this is not mis-advertisement, it comes with less ROPS, L2 cache and hybrid memory 3.5GB + 0.5GB. That should have been the story from the start.

I really though Nvidia would have come through for the consumer in some way.

This has definitely soured me towards Nvidia, they could have turned this around into positive PR. Saying it has not been mis-advertised is just not true..
Click to expand...

In fairness NVIDIA never advertised rops or L2 and more ROPS would have no effect on performance. The NVIDIA bandwidth of the card was advertised correctly which is calculated by the SM/ROPs on the card, so they advertised it correct and the 4GB is present and usable. They have not miss-advertised.
 
So hang on a second.

If I have a GTX970 that is over 14 days old I can still send it back for a full refund because of the deception caused by Nvidia?

I only ask as my card is causing massive issues (constant crashing) and OCUK have tested it and reported it as being fine so are sending it back. Judging there by whether it crashes still or not I may very well take this up!
 
My reason for return is the memory issue affecting gaming (2 X 970 being affected) plain and simple. I don't drop 600 quid lightly. Be wonderful if there's a fix but already returns are happening so it goes to show the issue I have is valid.
 
fs123 said:
hi Gibbo,

I tried to request an RMA number and all I got was the following reply :

In order to try and assist further we have included some performance data below so that you can see actual testing results between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980.

Shadows of Mordor: GTX 980 GTX970
<3.5GB settings: 2688x1512 Very High 72FPS 60FPS
>3.5GB settings: 3456x1944 Very High 55FPS (24%) 45FPS (-25%)
Relative performance difference: 1%

Battlefield 4:
<3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 2xMSAA 36FS 30FPS
>3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 135% res. 19FPS (-47%) 15FPS (-50%)
Relative performance difference: 3%

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare:
<3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 FSMAA T2x, SS off 82FPS 71FPS
>3.5GB settings: 3840x2160 FSMAA T2x, SS on 48FPS (-41%) 40FPS (-44%)

As you can see above the relative performance difference varies from 1% in Shadows of Mordor, to 3% in Battlefield 4 or Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. The performance differences between a 970 and 980 in the above examples remain a constant 15-19%, regardless of memory usage.

I hope that the above information helps clarify the performance from the GTX 970. Please let us know if you do want to continue with a step-up on your product for the higher performing GTX 980 card, and we'll get that option opened up for you.

Regards,

Nicholas Paviour

Does the OCUK return department even know we are allowed to return the cards?
Click to expand...


Yes they are aware, just let them know the brand and you want a refund, any further issues, post in CS and Bailey will be in touch with you during working hours to resolve. :)
 
Gibbo said:
NVIDIA have not miss-advertised, they feel all is fine and the 970 is a fantastic product which it is.

OcUK however understands some people still are unhappy and as such we are making our own efforts of our own backs to keep our customers happy.
Click to expand...

Fair play to OCUK.

I suppose it could be a matter of a legal challenge to prove if NVIDIA have miss-advertised (misled ?) customers.

If GTX970s are being sold with "4GB VRAM" on the packaging, and in the product description, I suppose it's down to interpretation. I don't fully understand the technical details, but it appears that about 0.5GB of the VRAM on these cards isn't being used in the same way as VRAM is used in the majority (if not all ?) of other cards that are available.

This may not have much of an impact for most users, but what if it was 1.5GB of VRAM that was "missing" ? Would NVIDIA (or the card manufacturers) still get away with describing the cards as having 4GB of video memory ?

It does seem that users do experience performance issues in situations where more than 3.5GB of VRAM is being utilised. It isn't unreasonable to expect a card with a claimed 4GB of VRAM to be able to perform as expected when uptop 4GB of VRAM is being used.
 
NeilChill said:
Funny guru3d recommended a single gigabyte G1 for 1440p, check the review.
Click to expand...

Hiya, I have seen various reviews lauding a single 970 for 1440p. I personally refused to play any games until I had 2 in SLI. I guess im spoilt as I have come from xfire 5850s, SLI 580's, 680's and 770's(When I was bought the Asus PB278Q), but a single 970 couldn't run all I wanted at 60+ with max settings. I now have two and I never drop below 60FPS unless I'm using silly SS or DSR

I love the 970, I'm not a Shill or anything, just a game player who's been doing this for a looong ass time! My mate offered to swap his 2 Ref 290x's for my 970's and I said no.

I have custom coolers on these 970's now and they are OC stable and run perfect for all I do at 1440p. I'm happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom