• 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.
theMilitant said:
I'm highly skeptical that this was purely down to an oversight on the part of the marketing team. As someone else said earlier, Nvidia must have noticed even if it was a marketing error, and decided to keep on marketing the cards as such. Disappointing.
Click to expand...

So are they going to correct that marketing error now?
 
the 970 IS a strong card, no mistake about it, BUT if they didn't have this ram issue - then it would put the card damn close to a 980....
 
Smok3y said:
I'm having no issues, not in any games I play which includes Farcry 4 and Battlefield. I have the Inno3D 970 and have read on one of the other forums that someone else with the same card is having no issues either? Tbh I'm not going out to actively look for the problem either. As long as what I play looks good and is running at a good frame rate I'm happy. I think the whole thing is being blown slightly out of proportion.
Click to expand...

I also have SLI Inno3D 970's and have tried but cannot replicate the issue, In fact I tried to replicate it a few weeks ago when the 'problem' started cropping up on reddit, surprised OCUK was so slow. I run at 1440p and have tested SOM at 4K max etc...

TBH even if I did have the performance hit, I'm hard pushed to get my cards over 3GB let alone 4GB. I only ever use 4 x AA as IMO higher isn't needed with 1440p, and SOM ultra at 1440p never drops below 70FPS. I get 54FPS @ 4k (SOM super sampling)

Given nvidia's responses there is obviously a design decision(flaw) that is causing this, but with my Inno3D cards I don't appear to be experiencing it, or I don't notice. Either way, I'm not about to return them. They are awesome! If I was running 4k then maybe this would really become a problem, then again if I was running 4k I wouldn't have 970's, but at 1440p, despite the mis-marketing I am happy with the product.

I realise people are up in arms, we all like a bit of drama, but seriously. Real world performance, I'm sure all but the 4k 970 owners would never have noticed!

R4cHRq6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gregster said:
So, has anyone noticed an issue between 3.5GB and 4GB with a 970 then?
Click to expand...

Does this mean anyone with a 290X can get all hot and bothered as well.

Depending what make of memory is used on a 290X (Elpida, Hynix or Samsung) the difference in performance can be more than the figures being quoted for the memory on the 970.

Should people with Elpida memory on their 290X do one of the following ?

1. RMA it

2. Sue AMD

3. Rant and rave on a forum

4. Take it out on the dog

5. Enjoy their gaming

Answers on a post card to the red baron.:D
 
silverfoxxxx said:
Would rma's stand for this issue?, it feels like 1 step forward 4 steps back on whether the issue is prevalent enough for mass rma's.
Click to expand...

Why? your card performs exactly the same as it does the day you bought it, the way people are reacting you would think that NVidia have been faking benchmarks.
 
Kaapstad said:
Does this mean anyone with a 290X can get all hot and bothered as well.

Depending what make of memory is used on a 290X (Elpida, Hynix or Samsung) the difference in performance can be more than the figures being quoted for the memory on the 970.

Should people with Elpida memory on their 290X do one of the following ?

1. RMA it

2. Sue AMD

3. Rant and rave on a forum

4. Take it out on the dog

5. Enjoy their gaming

Answers on a post card to the red baron.:D
Click to expand...

burn AMD down.... as was done over the FCAT issue - rather than try and sweep it under the carpet - Nvidia style??
 
Kaapstad said:
Does this mean anyone with a 290X can get all hot and bothered as well.

Depending what make of memory is used on a 290X (Elpida, Hynix or Samsung) the difference in performance can be more than the figures being quoted for the memory on the 970.

Should people with Elpida memory on their 290X do one of the following ?

1. RMA it

2. Sue AMD

3. Rant and rave on a forum

4. Take it out on the dog

5. Enjoy their gaming

Answers on a post card to the red baron.:D
Click to expand...

It only really affected those who overclocked, and besides, I never heard of people with Elpida memory getting lower performance?
 
Would really like to know where we stand from an RMA perspective if we've been mis-sold. My 970s are doing a great job, but I can't help but think this fiasco is going to kill the value of these cards (more so than usual) on the resale market when I come to sell on....
 
theMilitant said:
I'm highly skeptical that this was purely down to an oversight on the part of the marketing team. As someone else said earlier, Nvidia must have noticed even if it was a marketing error, and decided to keep on marketing the cards as such. Disappointing.
Click to expand...

I miss the good old days where the market people put all sorts of interesting things in to consumer products like radioactive elements and does anyone remember how Coca Cola got it's name, that was a real marketing oversight.:D
 
Kaapstad said:
Does this mean anyone with a 290X can get all hot and bothered as well.

Depending what make of memory is used on a 290X (Elpida, Hynix or Samsung) the difference in performance can be more than the figures being quoted for the memory on the 970.

Should people with Elpida memory on their 290X do one of the following ?

1. RMA it

2. Sue AMD

3. Rant and rave on a forum

4. Take it out on the dog

5. Enjoy their gaming

Answers on a post card to the red baron.:D
Click to expand...

It least you got the full-speed RAM you paid for. They did at least accept RMA's for them as it was an issue, i don't know if they still use Elpida. I doubt they do as 90% of the returned 290X's were probably Elpida. :d

Doesn't excuse what Nvidia are doing at all, specially since the issue with the AMD cards RAM was not intentional. I strongly believed Nvidia knew what they were doing when they had that VRAM config. They probably hoped nobody would notice.

AMD VRAM issue = Unintentional - an oversight by AMD's board partners but not intentional.
Nvidia VRAM issue = Intentional - they likely knew it could cause issues.
 
mmj_uk said:
Why? your card performs exactly the same as it does the day you bought it, the way people are reacting you would think that NVidia have been faking benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Long before this issue became known to me, I have felt that performance was not right and often suffered stuttering.

I thought nvidias drivers were currently just crap.

Now I believe it's down to how they gimped these cards.

Honestly, had I had clearer details on the specs, I would not have bought a couple of 970's
 
bloodkil said:
It only really affected those who overclocked, and besides, I never heard of people with Elpida memory getting lower performance?
Click to expand...

Clock for clock you do get lower performance depending on the type of memory used.

The point is it is so small (like the performance loss with the 970) that no one notices or cares unless they do want to benchmark their cards.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom