• 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.
Blackbadger said:
interesting stuff..


The card performs as advertised, the reviews still stand.
Click to expand...

except , with 4k screens dropping in price - the card doesn't properly work as advertised - and the more games using 4GB or more of ram , the bigegr this issue will be.


looking on PCPER - the 660 and 560 have similar weird ram splits.
 
Harlequin said:
it does though as the ROP`s are tied to the crossbar etc , which means if textures are stored in the 500mb part of the ram and get accessed @ 1/7th the rate - you`ll get stuttering as the card stalls waiting.
Click to expand...

You should take two things away from that simple description. First, despite initial reviews and information from NVIDIA, the GTX 970 actually has fewer ROPs and less L2 cache than the GTX 980. NVIDIA says this 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. That means the GTX 970 has 56 ROPs and 1792 KB of L2 cache compared to 64 ROPs and 2048 KB of L2 cache for the GTX 980. Before people complain about the ROP count difference as a performance bottleneck, keep in mind that the 13 SMMs in the GTX 970 can only output 52 pixels/clock and the seven segments of 8 ROPs each (56 total) can handle 56 pixels/clock. The SMMs are the bottleneck, not the ROPs.
Click to expand...
 
Its odd situation, should people be happy that the performance should be negligible, or unhappy that they brought a product that wasn't as advertised.

And false advertising/withholding product information about how it works is wrong, no matter how small.
 
I can't say I'm overly impressed, having bought two of the things. It will definitely put my purchase of a 4k monitor on hold for a bit (The main reason for getting them if I'm honest).
 
Tonester0011 said:
Guys, MM is that way.
Will be happy to take these defective cards off you at bargain basement prices.
Click to expand...

No problem, my 2 Asus 970 Strixs will be up for sale at £150 each.

..in 8mths time as originally planned.:D

..in the mean time I'll enjoy them to the full, 4k gaming at 50-60fps.
 
i was right even tho i have no idea what im talking about :o
im surprised they admitted that much tho
and the "mis-communication" im not sure if that is an admission of wrong doing, its borderline lol

anyway lets hope we see some good tests done on them now! that will decide if this stuff is accepted in future i should think!
 
Blackbadger said:
interesting stuff..

The part they have misstated to some initial reviewers, however not if I see correctly in the actual marketing specs.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/maxwell-architecture-gtx-980-970

Take OCUK's sales info for instance, has any of that changed ?

- GeForce GTX 970
- GPU: GeForce GTX 970 (GM204)
- Core Base Clock: 1140MHz
- Core Boost Clock: 1279MHz
- Memory Clock: 7010MHz
- Memory Size: 4096MB GDDR5 3584MB GDDR5 + 512MB DOG TURD
- Bus Type: PCI Express 3.0
- Memory Bus: 256-bit
- CUDA Cores: 1664
- DirectX 12: Yes
- DVI Port: 2x Dual-Link DVI, 1x DisplayPort & 1x HDMI
- DisplayPort: Yes
- HDCP: Yes
- HDMI: Yes
- Power: 1x 8-Pin & 1x 6-Pin
- 450W PSU Required
- 150W TDP

A bit of a mess, however, such a minor one imo..
The biggest problem - Lots of misinformation, trolling, baiting and scaremongering.

The card performs as advertised, the reviews still stand.
Click to expand...

It's not "scaremongering", it does dramatically affect the performance of the card should it use more than 3.5GB of VRAM. Judging by the opinions of those that own them, a lot do suffer the performance drop.

If it was AMD instead of Nvidia, you would never hear the end of it. As it's Nvidia that screwed up people are trying to tuck it under the carpet. I have also corrected what you've mentioned. :D
 
Last edited:
Under EU regulations everyone should be entitled to a refund but I doubt that many will actually follow through with it once the initial anger has boiled off.

It will cost them a lot to set up a refund scheme though but I'm pretty sure they will be obliged to do so.

I must admit it doesn't do Nvidia PR any good though. Now all AMD need to do is come out with a cracking card in Q2.

Bet AMD shares went up and NVidia down in the last day or two!

970 issues and gsync issues hanging around.
 
Such a strange decision, why have they disabled that 8th port at all? The 970 would be 4% quicker and if they were worried about 980 sales they could have just lowered the clocks or voltage limit instead of crippling the last 512mb of memory.
 
They still haven't clarified the stuttering issues people are having, I'm sure they have fully tested this by now, it's been 2 weeks.

Also must go for more vram on next purchase to cover any further memory access changes.....
 
Cooper said:
No problem, my 2 Asus 970 Strixs will be up for sale at £150 each.

..in 8mths time as originally planned.:D

..in the mean time I'll enjoy them to the full, 4k gaming at 50-60fps.
Click to expand...

that's about the right price...........so that's 300 quid off 390X Crossfire uum, yea i'll be happy with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom