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

snips86x · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:25

hahaha - nVidia are really going to have to work hard at this one. It would seem they've kept a lid on this for a very long time seeing as the 780 range are having the same issue.

Possible profit loss now?

Scoiexx said:
Wow this is unexpected, in the 1080 range, what game currently would get to 3.5+ vram usage. Really want to test this.

Watchdogs and anything else produced by Ubisoft

wellibob · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:28

I have two 970's from overclockers and if this isn't fix and deemed a fault. I'll be returning them asap as I'm sure others will. I'm happy to sit and wait for a fix if there is one but I won't tolerate faulty goods and we all got the 4 gig vram for a reason.

Rroff · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:29

snips86x said:
hahaha - nVidia are really going to have to work hard at this one. It would seem they've kept a lid on this for a very long time seeing as the 780 range are having the same issue.

Possible profit loss now?

Watchdogs and anything else produced by Ubisoft :F

Don't think its confirmed 780s are having the same issue - only happens with aero enabled which will mess with VRAM performance anyway.

RavenXXX2 · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:32

I guess this why the 980 has such a large premium over the 970, it works as intended.

setter · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:33

Rroff said:
Don't think its confirmed 780s are having the same issue - only happens with aero enabled which will mess with VRAM performance anyway.

Havent seen it here on 780.

Rroff · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:35

I've had BF4 pegged at 2.8GB (about 40MB free VRAM left) without seeing any unexpected performance drop or other degradation on mine.

Mei · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:36

ye 970 is b-grade
its their way of making ppl buy the 980

almighty15 · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:37

Looks like sending my 970's back and getting whatever AMD release.

Gibbo needs to post in here just to give his thoughts as this could cost OCUK a good chunk of money in returns.

ubersonic · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:37

Apparently the issue isn't present if you use an iGPU and run the test on a GTX970, anyone with SLI able to test disabling SLI then running the test on both cards? should only affect the main GPU (unless theres a screen attached to the other too).

McGraw · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:38

Strangely I'm finding this merely interesting.

I went with the 970 mainly because it fits in my case, was powerful, in budget and not too taxing on my 450w psu.

I was coming from a laptop and haven't had a gaming desktop for 8 years and my minimum vram was 3gb so I would still have bought this with 3.5gb ram.

For everyone else though, I hope it gets sorted.

Rusty0611 · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:41

almighty15 said:
Looks like sending my 970's back and getting whatever AMD release.

Gibbo needs to post in here just to give his thoughts as this could cost OCUK a good chunk of money in returns.

What game have you had this issue on? Or are you just looking for a free refund?

If you're having the issue then fine but if not then I'm not sure why people are so up in arms.

ubersonic · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:43

J.D said:
If Nvidia has messed up here, good luck to them. 100,000 cards multiplied by £300 = beans on toast after the refund in the Nvidia lunch room. There's a lot more than 100k cards moved most likely though. It's stupidity if they knew about this and expected nobody to find out, well it might lead people who prefer Nvidia to try AMD. Saying that, I'm just guessing and presuming. Patience = wisdom here so on that note, I'll shut up .

From the reports that the benchmark runs fine on a headless GTX970 it seems like it may be a Windows/software issue so should be fixable /shrug.

hyperseven · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:45

ubersonic said:
From the reports that the benchmark runs fine on a headless GTX970 it seems like it may be a Windows/software issue so should be fixable /shrug.

what reports?, where is the data to back this up either way?

almighty15 · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:45

Rusty0611 said:
What game have you had this issue on? Or are you just looking for a free refund?

If you're having the issue then fine but if not then I'm not sure why people are so up in arms.

1. I PAID for 4Gb.

2. I play games at 2560x1440 and 4k, so yes I hit the limit.

3. ** Calm and collected thanks **

ubersonic · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:48

almighty15 said:
1. I PAID for 4Gb.

2. I play games at 2560x1440 and 4k, so yes I hit the limit.

3. ** Calm and collected **

Rusty0611 · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:50

almighty15 said:
1. I PAID for 4Gb.

2. I play games at 2560x1440 and 4k, so yes I hit the limit.

3. ** Calm and collected **

So no then?

Why have you not reported any issues before now then?

I just think it's pathetic that now it's suddenly public you've come out demanding a right to a refund when evidently you don't seem to even be affected by the issue.

If you become affected by it at a later date then sure, knock yourself out. Could you show us what happens on your system when your VRAM is between 3.5GB and 4GB?

PayneUK · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:51

Rusty0611 said:
Why have you not reported any issues before now then?

I just think it's pathetic that now it's suddenly public you've come out demanding a right to a refund when evidently you don't seem to even be affected by the issue.

If you become affected by it at a later date then sure, knock yourself out. Could you show us what happens on your system when your VRAM is between 3.5GB and 4GB.

Just because the issue isn't currently affecting you doesn't mean you should keep quiet.

If there is a generic hardware fault with the card that cannot be fixed, affected or otherwise, you have been sold a broken and/or falsely advertised product and have every right to ask questions.

Granted returning them off the back of this thread is a bit silly, but unfortunately people starting to send their cards back may be the quickest way to get answers, I would hope NVidia will notice the growing concern about this and act, but I doubt they will until retailers start querying them regarding getting money.

J.D · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:51

Rusty0611 said:
What game have you had this issue on? Or are you just looking for a free refund?

If you're having the issue then fine but if not then I'm not sure why people are so up in arms.

People in the Nvidia thread have replicated this in gaming. Although this seems like as if it was in search of the limitation. Otherwise I've seen nothing but positivity regarding the cards apart from the coil whine issues.

ubersonic said:
From the reports that the benchmark runs fine on a headless GTX970 it seems like it may be a Windows/software issue so should be fixable /shrug.

I hope so for the users of these cards. It does seem a bit insane that Nvidia would try to sweep this under the rug and hope for the best. Seems to be fantasy based but, it's not impossible. This is our version of Eastenders, the cliffhanger and waiting to find out what happens next episode

.

McGraw · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:52

Hope the 960 doesn't lose 512mb of vram like this

Legend · 23 Jan 2015 at 15:52

almighty15 said:
1. I PAID for 4Gb.

2. I play games at 2560x1440 and 4k, so yes I hit the limit.

3. ** Calm and collected **

Yes, I agree... it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE if you're having problems with the card or a game. If these cards are not able to utilise the memory YOU PAID FOR, then you have been mis-sold the product, and are therefore legally entitled to a refund. They simply don't have a leg to stand on. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Assuming of course this cannot be fixed via firmware (or even a 'send your card to us and we'll fix it' offer), so we shall see what happens there. Nvidia need to sort this ASAP though... this snowball is only gonna keep on rolling otherwise, and this will be a 100-page thread before we know it! Be interesting to see OCUK chime in here... not their fault obviously, but their viewpoint would be interesting all the same.