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

james.miller · 31 Jan 2015 at 10:56

kitch9 said:
Nvidia took the easiest design route, they knew that the market wouldn't like it so tried to hide it and only made sure reviewers actually discussed specs so they could pretend that they never advertised it if the fan got splattered.

LOL how many thousands of posts in and you still dont understand it.

tell me what's the easier design route:

disabling the 8th l2 and 8th mc and releasing a 3.5gb card

OR

designing the modules in such a way that one L2 cache can talk to two memory controllers at a reduced rate, requiring the memory to be split in to two pools.

You think they took the easier design route? really?

Bailey · 31 Jan 2015 at 10:59

sprite1275 said:
Anyone?

It will be refunded back to the orignal method of payment

Please remember the 970 is still a banging card though

Using one at the moment and I love it

Bailey

nightrider1470 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:00

Is a single 970 all thats needed to max games at 2560x1080? if so I might take advantage and return one of them

Gibbo · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:02

nightrider1470 said:
Is a single 970 all thats needed to max games at 2560x1080? if so I might take advantage and return one of them

If you have two already, why not test for yourself?

NeilChill · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:03

james.miller said:
LOL how many thousands of posts in and you still dont understand it.

tell me what's the easier design route:

disabling the 8th l2 and 8th mc and releasing a 3.5gb card

OR

designing the modules in such a way that one L2 cache can talk to two memory controllers at a reduced rate, requiring the memory to be split in to two pools.

You think they took the easier design route? really?

Your absolutely right they spent all that time coming up with a solution that would give a slight edge in performance rather then disabling the 8th L2 and MC but made the idiotic mistake of not telling anyone what they had done and why untill long after the products launch knowing full well that a lot of consumers base there purchases from reviews and specifications.

Steampunk · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:05

Well obviously the way that Nvidia went was so they could reuse binned chips that would otherwise be failed 980s, and in order for them to market a 4GB card rather than a 3.5 GB card (bigger numbers are better, right?)

I'm pretty sure a memory system that chokes performance right down as soon as it gets past 3.5GB wasn't intended, yet there's no way that Nvidia didn't know that this was the case. Still they did a good job of hiding that fact since launch and the specifics of the two-pool memory that caused it.

If reviewers had known this and told buyers they'd be in trouble trying to use the full 4GB, people would have made an informed decision and maybe Nvidia would have sold less, but at least they would not have had this backlash where people feel they were misled on the specifications of the product.

Kaapstad · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:07

kitch9 said:
Gibbo is free to make a thread, I'm avoiding the advertising of refunds as it's not OcUKs place to do it even though they are amazing in offering.

If people want information they can find it.

I don't think you want to be helpful at all to be honest.

With over 5600 posts in this thread the best you can do is tell people to find the information themselves, I don't think that is very constructive at all.

The very least you can do is update the OP with what Gibbo and OCUK are doing.

I thought the whole idea of a forum was to help people.

Andromeda1983 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:11

Which is the quietest 980?

Bonjour · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:11

There's absolutely no way it's an 'easier' design route

The easier design route would have been to simply disable stream processors. It's an extremely sophisticated attempt at reducing the performance of a card so it can't easily be 'unlocked' or otherwise reach the performance levels of the more expensive part.

Gibbo · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:11

Kaapstad said:
I don't think you want to be helpful at all to be honest.

With over 5600 posts in this thread the best you can do is tell people to find the information themselves, I don't think that is very constructive at all.

The very least you can do is update the OP with what Gibbo and OCUK are doing.

I thought the whole idea of a forum was to help people.

I've edited his post, admin powers!

Gibbo · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:12

Andromeda1983 said:
Which is the quietest 980?

I'd go with reference and don't worry OcUK is still stocking reference 980's.

Vertigo · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:14

james.miller said:
LOL how many thousands of posts in and you still dont understand it.

Don't waste your breath, he's just an NVidia hating troll spouting rubbish.

As the Anandtech article said, even if you don't understand the technicalities, the notion that NVidia would deliberately try to hide something like this is beyond bonkers as there's no way on Earth it wouldn't be discovered at some point so they'd basically be guaranteeing themselves the PR disaster they have on their hands now.

No company would do that and anyone who thinks otherwise is idiotic.

Andromeda1983 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:15

I'd go with reference and don't worry OcUK is still stocking reference 980's.

Are they as quiet as say the MSI or Asus cards Gibbo?

rolypolyman · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:19

Some still don't get it, its not what they did to the 970, its still a very good card, its the fact they kept it to themselves and whether they like it or not I regard what they did as dishonest. Also their conduct thereafter is equally disgusting and you all know what I mean. It is for each individual to decide for themselves how they react to Nvidia's behaviour, I will never buy from them again, however, I respect peeps have other views which they are entitled to etc. If Amd did something similar in the future, or any other similar company, I would feel the same.

Steampunk · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:20

Vertigo1 said:
Don't waste your breath, he's just an NVidia hating troll spouting rubbish.

As the Anandtech article said, even if you don't understand the technicalities, the notion that NVidia would deliberately try to hide something like this is beyond bonkers as there's no way on Earth it wouldn't be discovered at some point so they'd basically be guaranteeing themselves the PR disaster they have on their hands now.

No company would do that and anyone who thinks otherwise is idiotic.

So how come that's exactly what's happened? If the 970 is operating "as intended" how could Nvidia not know this would happen and deal with it in advance? Seems a shocking oversight for such a PR-savvy company.

a66as · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:20

Kaapstad said:
Which game ?

dragon age inquisition

gareth170 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:21

Gibbo said:
Because it's the only card of it's kind with those clock speeds and we have like only 15 left, the fastest is ever never cheap, check out the other 8GB 290X we sell as they are much better value.

the Powercolor Radeon R9 290X PCS+ OC 8192MB as the same clock speeds mate. only difference is one as x2 8pin other as 8pin + 6pin

kitch9 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:22

james.miller said:
I have no such thing. I have seen none of these issues with my card so i have no reason to return it. i never intended to go sli so those issues wont affect me either.

so wind your neck in.

Yes the problem does not exist, no one was lied to.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:25

Andromeda1983 said:
Which is the quietest 980?

The one you don't buy??

Edit!!

Probably the wrong thread to ask anyway!!

Legend · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:25

Gibbo said:
If Gigabyte do decide not to look after OcUK then OcUK will foot the bill by making a loss on them in b-grade by selling them for around £230ish which would be typically b-grade price and the OcUK 970 will be around £250 in b-grade.

Pretty stonking deal to whomever nabs one I say, and if you do then you'll come out WAY on top in the performance:cost stakes, vs someone who's swapped out for a 980. Hard to justify that fiscally in my mind, as good as the 980 is.