• 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.
i think the video is good for a simple way of explaining what is going on but i dont think they can say things like "this would not alter my recommendation" without doing enough tests on it,

their own words, the card has jumped down from 4gb of vram to 3.5gb vram with a slower 512mb cache that windows decides how to use,

it would help if they actually understood how the hardware they are reviewing works before doing a review in the first place, or they might aswell just be saying "i like the color" "...and the spinny things on the bottom thats cool" which is basicly a oc3d review i know but :)
 
humbug said:
The alternative is Nvidia Disclaimers hold up in court. a claimant has no case despite buying the product based on incorrectly published information.

Result = We got your money, tough!

That may well happen, but it's not a good thing. is it?



@ dyonisis007, They are sorting it out, so just leave them to it. Don't like it, Red X top right of your screen.
Click to expand...

I clearly remember having a discussion with you about how I said "AMD state a clock of 'X' on the 290X" but in the real world, it doesn't hit that and you defended them to the hilt and came back with "AMD do not advertise that but the e-tailers do", so therefore AMD have done no wrong doing.

Funny how AMD are fine to do something wrong but nVidia need to be sued and are the bad guys. And for a man who claims he has shares in nVidia, you don't seem to be fussed about them. If I had shares, I would be doing what I can to keep the price high :rolleyes:
 
I wonder who's gonna be the unlucky soul that's gonna get put up as the scapegoat to take the blame named and shamed, beheaded in front of the public for preserving the image of Nvidia...:D
 
lol if you think anything said on ocuk forums has a impact on shares you are grossly over estimating the things you type! :o
 
So where do 970 owners stand then , if your unhappy with the cards sold with misinformation and have had them longer than 28 days , then your stuffed ? , while they work etc , I diddnt buy them knowing in the future they may be more crippled then first thought compared to a 980 .
 
Mei said:
i think the video is good for a simple way of explaining what is going on but i dont think they can say things like "this would not alter my recommendation" without doing enough tests on it,

their own words, the card has jumped down from 4gb of vram to 3.5gb vram with a slower 512mb cache that windows decides how to use,

it would help if they actually understood how the hardware they are reviewing works before doing a review in the first place, or they might aswell just be saying "i like the color" "...and the spinny things on the bottom thats cool" which is basicly a oc3d review i know but :)
Click to expand...

Well most reviews have already done the games fps tests so they know how that cards preform, knowing now they have .5 of slower memory wont magically change the fps the cards have already got in reviews
 
Another argument, for mis selling, I would say the resale value of 970's has dropped by 20 -25 percent as a result of this **** up, which as time goes by will get more noticeable as games use more memory. It's a clear case of mis selling, if someone were to legally challenge this nvidia would clearly lose.

Why? The specifications were materially different to the manufacturers stated ones.. and whoever thinks it matters if it's on the box or not you are wrong you cannot seriously expect all the low level specs of the gpu to be on the box, that's why you use the manufacturer website..

Nvidia need to learn a lesson in honesty here, people should return their cards just to shaft them, no doubt it may be different in the us, but in the eu the consumer protection laws are very strong and nvidia are shafted.
 
triss said:
Well most reviews have already done the games fps tests so they know how that cards preform, knowing now they have .5 of slower memory wont magically change the fps the cards have already got in reviews
Click to expand...

they do standard tests yes, most of them never play games on them for any length of time
does this news make them tests invalid? no! but they still dont know how this cache affects games in real world and under different situations to the standard tests

but my point was more is a "personality" really the best person to be giving recommendations in the first place when they have little idea what they are even looking at, which makes it more important that manufactures are honest in the first place

its unfair to expect the public to be hardware engineers :o
 
james.miller said:
20-25% isn't enough. I want 75% please.


You lot need to rage harder :mad:
Click to expand...

Don't have any so not that bothered, I am usually on the 'green' team too, but this episode really does not play well with me, best way to make sure nvidia don't pull this stunt again is for them to feel the mistake in the pocket. I don't want this to happen to me in the future!
 
Kaapstad said:
If we are not counting the ROPs or SMs we can not count the transistors they are based on can we.:D
Click to expand...

TBH mate, I don't really know. My knowledge of GPUs is amount of vram, how powerful they are and the features the have. And I am no longer sure about the first one.

rolypolyman said:
'If this was a "miscommunication" between marketing and engineering how does the fact that GPU-z reports 64 ROPS for this card, did marketing write the BIOS for the cards '

Marketing, I don't think so. :D
Click to expand...

I think it is because GPU-Z reads what card you have and then gets some of the spec off a database somewhere.

Reason I say this is because of this sentence on the anandtech article

The pre-GM204 version of NVIDIA’s DeviceQuery CUDA application, for example, correctly reports that the GTX 970 only has 1.75MB of L2 cache and the GTX 980 has 2MB of L2 cache, even if it doesn’t fully understand the makeup of the Maxwell 2 architecture.
Click to expand...

Now I am not an expert on coding or GPUs but i have a feeling that getting information from a data base is easier to code for than to read it from every individual GPU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom