• 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.
For those that, for whatever reason, do not want an AMD card there is only really three options. A 980 or an older gen (but still capable) card like the 780Ti. Be it new or second hand. Or just keep the 970s which, for many people, will be perfectly fine.

They will be fine if you can accept that they aren't as fine as what you thought you paid for before knowing about the deception.
 
970s for £100 ill take 2 haha :)

Used market is going to be flooded with them soon. This has dropped owners really in the doo doo. Keeping them could be expensive if the plan was to sell later as they could become the tainted hot turd of a card to sell on. Looks like the sli option is pretty much dead and a mess too.
 
Last edited:
Whilst this issue is by design Nvidia saw it as a big enough issue to try to hide and lie about it.

Lie? I hear you say and I say yes, they lied. Through their teeth.

Anyone who tries to tell me that not one gpu engineer has the pride in their work or the curiosity to at least read one review or preview which discusses their work in detail I would frankly call them a deluded fool.
 
I'm a busy boy and dont have time for patience or being miss sold



Well if that's the case its not miss sold and lesson learned always read the small print on anything I buy but I would be surprised if that's true as I am majorly anal about choosing pc parts and usually read up on everything for hours on end

The memory isn't being taken up by the os, it's being actively avoided by the drivers until there is nowhere else it can go.
 
NVIDIA believe there is no case, they are potentially correct, the card is advertised correctly.

However I agree, some people are unhappy and OcUK believes customer is king so we want to do the right thing and shall be working around the clock to achieve it and posting updates here, again something else our competitors fail to do. This is why we might not always be the cheapest but our service levels are way beyond the competition.

It isn't (wasn't) though. Nothing against you guys, I feel for you with this. Damn man, talk about a shed load of work getting dropped on your lap for no reward.
 
Erm, no. Nvidia misinformed a handful of hardware review sites who then included invalid information in their reviews, this error was then replicated by smaller review sites who took that info from them. At no point did Nvidia or OCUK themselves misinform the customers.

Dude...

Really? Man that's a stretch.

Nvidia are not going to admit liability until they have to. They will carry on with plausible denial as long as it gets lapped up.

The incorrect rop count was even in the products bios for a start.
 
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?

Bloody hell what a mess Nvidia have created.
 
Is this actually a real issue that anyone who has a 1080p screen will notice? Everyone was perfectly happy with their 790 until last week after all!

It's a tough one as it's all subjective. Who many people have turned settings down thinking they were just avoiding normal performance issues when it was this issue causing the problem?

We'll never know I guess but this issue only got found because the card was displaying inexplicable issues for some users.
 
I wouldn't waste your breath.



LOL :D


I have little sympathy being forthright for people who buy cut down cards and then complain when they find out it's arguably more cut down than they first thought it was when they originally bought the cut down card.

gpoBZhY.jpg

Yes manufacturers always lie about specs and this unique situation happens every other day.
 
I'm very impressed by what Gibbo has done for us and that OcUK is offering refunds for those who want them. I will be buying all my PC equipment from OcUK from now on, which I have not done in the past. However, I've just completed a major upgrade. The motherboard and CPU came from Amazon (another retailer who has dealt very fairly with me concerning returns in the past), the graphics card from OcUK.

I'm relieved that the news broke just in time for me to change my pre-order for an OcUK reference 970 to a 980. If I'd already received and installed the 970, I would have kept it as I think it would have been fine for playing at 1920x1200. However, I upgraded to a 980 because I didn't want to take the chance that I'd regret having purchased the 970 in 12 months' time. I think a lot of console ports will need 4GB of VRAM. I looked long and hard at the AMD 290X, but concluded that both the 970 and 980 would still suit my needs better. While the 290X is faster than a 970 at 4K, it's slower than a 970 at 1080p. It grated to spend more money with NVIDIA, but I felt I'd be cutting my nose off to spite my face if I bought a product that didn't fit my needs as well, just because it wasn't from NVIDIA.

I'm disgusted by the way that NVIDIA has behaved. I don't think they have a leg to stand on legally. It's clear to me that NVIDIA has engaged in false advertising. I suspect they may try arguing that they never advertised that the 970 had the same memory architecture as the 980, and that misinformation had been spread by third party reviews. For example, I just checked the review in Custom PC from when the 970 and 980 were launched. It reads, "Elsewhere, the full 4GB of GDDR5 memory again runs at 7GHz (effective) across the same 256-bit interface, and all 64 ROPs are intact too". We now know this statement to be false. However, Custom PC would have based their review on the reviewer's guide supplied by NVIDIA. Jonah Alben, NVIDIA's SVP of GPU Engineering has admitted that there was an error in the reviewer’s guide and a misunderstanding between the engineering team and the technical PR team on how the architecture itself functioned.

This whole thing has been engineered from start to finish so they think they could get off on technicalities if caught.

Swindlers, how come none of the OEMs saw the error either?
 
Update the first post with gibbo's updated reply how this is being handled by ocuk. If you start a thread atleast have the decency to keep it up to date.:rolleyes:

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.
 
That only works if nVidia gimped the cards in purpose - they didn't. They tried to make the extra 500mb available instead of sticking with 3.5gb. This works well for single cards, but it's obviously screwed up sli. We were (some of us) hopeful that nVidia could fix this in drivers but if they are really sitting tight and not going to fix it then they deserve all the returned cards they get.


I'll still stick with my single card though. no whine, near silent, perfectly suited to the 2560x1080 that i game at. There is no reason at all for me to return this card but SLi users (and other single card users if they were intending to go SLi with nVidia sitting with their thumbs up their arses) certainly have every right to do so :)

Your purchase justification complex has no bounds mate. Wow.

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.
 
I'm at a loss as to find anything wrong with my 970 SLI setup? They're powering the swift brilliantly at 1440? As I mentioned in another thread the only games that stuttered for me were COD AW (my fault as I'd used the wrong type of AA that didn't like SLI or crossfire) and far cry 4 which seems broken anyway? I'm sorry but by the time the 970 is struggling in anything worth playing then I'll have upgraded anyway.

Thanks for letting us know.

Still doesn't mean you own what you thought you had paid for.
 
Turn your settings down?
I'm the wrong person for these threads, never understood why people insist on cranking details so high, if your card(s) choke...turn something down or off.

Yes, take the lies quietly like a good little consumerist and
Turn those settings down.

If anyone calls you sad for accepting that, then quietly accept that too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom