Him using pickles as example is clever because people probably care less about pickles in burger than RAM in GPU. In my mind, the RAM is probably a missing cheese from the double cheeseburger.
Nvidia responds to GTX 970 memory issue
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
TheChewyWaffles
Member
So it's assured the 980 has no such issues?
100% the 980 does not have such issues.
Yes it's faster than using DDR3 system ram but it's around 20GB/s vs the real VRAM at 150GB/s. Nvidia failed to mention the speed differential in their statement.
Terbinator
Member
Of course he is. He owns a 290.
Moral Panic
Member
No because you would notice missing cheese and taste the missing cheese. No one has yet to show any evidence of this affecting games.
Peterthumpa
Member
Sometimes the overreaction on GAF is mesmerizing. 2 weeks ago the 970 was da best card eva.
I'm playing a lot of recent games, including Unity and Crysis 3 at max settings and no perceivable problems, at all. I think that real world scenarios are what matters.
Maybe those who bought should give this situation two fucks, enjoy your card and call it a day.
I'm playing a lot of recent games, including Unity and Crysis 3 at max settings and no perceivable problems, at all. I think that real world scenarios are what matters.
Maybe those who bought should give this situation two fucks, enjoy your card and call it a day.
My worry is a premature end to good performance when nvidia driver is not developed to optimally use 3.5Gb and 500Mb sections on a per game basis.
I'd still be very happy with my card even if it was advertised as a 3.5GB card. Its still generally about 50% more powerful than my GTX670.
Not that it excuses Nvidia from doing anything shady if that's what has happened, but I'm not going to be returning my card or suddenly acting unhappy with what I have. And I'd still say a 970 is a great buy.
Azure Dream
Member
"We didn't catch the problem for a while, so false advertising is a-ok!"
We didn't notice it for a while because apparently Nvidia is doing some shady things to disguise it, yet we were already running into games where it became an issue (Shadow of Mordor). When I was picking a card, I bought it with VR in mind (I have a DK2 that sadly has not been employed much, but I want to change that). So I'll need a lot of VRAM. I thought the 970's 4 GB would be okay, but to find out 1/8th of the RAM is hobbled, and the drivers actively avoid using it, that doesn't stop it being a good value, but it does mean the card is not how they advertised it.
Cute Dragon Here
Member
I don't get all this hullabaloo about the card and how it uses memory if all I see is the card performing as well as it did even with the memory handicap.
Sometimes, I believe the best course of action is to sit things out. I certainly do not find this issue to be anything worth arguing about after checking out how the data pans out.
Sometimes, I believe the best course of action is to sit things out. I certainly do not find this issue to be anything worth arguing about after checking out how the data pans out.
Right. The card is still great value. It's easily ocable to 980 levels, and it stays cool and silent. That is very important for me. What Nividia pulled there isn't nice and they should get shit for it so that they are more transparent in the future - but the 970 is still good value, even at 3,5GB.
But, but, but... what about "the future"?
Who ever said it was on a per game basis?
General Lee
Member
I believe the 660 Ti had the same exact thing happen. Wasn't a big thing back then, and I guess people mostly overlooked it since it never got the same amount of press. Under normal gaming circumstances this shouldn't pose a big problem since the driver should be smart enough to not get stalled by the slow last bit of memory. The numbers are pretty much baked into what we've already seen as the 970 performance, but of course this does mean that when playing games requiring ~4 GB of memory the performance drop will always be larger than with the 980.
What's dubious is how Nvidia can claim a certain bandwidth for the 4 GB memory the card has, if it doesn't actually achieve that. I haven't actually checked if they make a written claim of such anywhere, and if it already takes into account the cuts. If it doesn't, well that's false advertising right there.
What's dubious is how Nvidia can claim a certain bandwidth for the 4 GB memory the card has, if it doesn't actually achieve that. I haven't actually checked if they make a written claim of such anywhere, and if it already takes into account the cuts. If it doesn't, well that's false advertising right there.
You're a part of the problem. 8GB? Really? For what purpose?
I mean, I know this isn't guru3D, but come on people.
Please leave the thread. You're not displaying the appropriate level of contrived outrage.
Well, obviously. The card is >CAD$400. It's not going to be a third-world problem.
Maybe we can all ignore the fact that the card "still works well enough in today's real world situations, so suck it up buttercup" and consider that they're still not selling what they're advertising -- or at least they're merely being "technically correct" (which is the best kind of correct).
nephilimdj
Member
Its crazy to think noone would notice this all to save a few bucks
I wasn't knocking your concern with the 3.5GB thing. I was knocking your hamburger thing hehe.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
My concern is for demands placed on the card once we move away from cross-gen titles to strictly "next-gen" (PS4/XBO/PC) titles that take advantage of the greater RAM of the latest consoles. That's when we will see issues with the 970's memory issues crop up.
Yeah, I had tried to edit that when I realized it (and to add another terrible analogy about cars and speed limits), but the server ate both I guess.
michaelius
Banned
Which is why we need some hardware site to examine it with FCAT.
Naked Snake
Member
Give it time, it's the weekend.
protomouse
Member
Either way, chances are high that they have a class action coming their way (and deservedly so).
Exactly. The published specifications have failed to mention that the card will only provide consistent bandwidth to 3.5GB of VRAM by design. It doesn't matter if Nvidia provides benchmarks and claims it makes little difference in practice. Even if it does not, it is important enough on paper - and should have been made explicit from day one.
Exactly. The published specifications have failed to mention that the card will only provide consistent bandwidth to 3.5GB of VRAM by design. It doesn't matter if Nvidia provides benchmarks and claims it makes little difference in practice. Even if it does not, it is important enough on paper - and should have been made explicit from day one.
Naked Snake
Member
I didn't reply to this from yesterday, so here goes. Your cry for "conspiracy theories" is unfounded (at least in reference to my post which you were replying to); when I said more data will surface I was not implying that the data will necessarily or even likely show the issue to be a big deal*. I'm fully aware and have maintained that it can go either way, which is why I haven't made a judgement on the matter either way and have been asking people to wait.
But if I were a betting man (which I'm not), I'd say it's not looking good for Nvidia right now. Time will tell. All we need is thorough tests and benchmarks showing frametimes comparing 970 and 980 in multiple games and under specific conditions to determine how much and what kind of an impact this issue has on performance in current games. Which is exactly what I was referring to when I said "data will undoubtedly surface very soon" (based on the amount of attention this has gotten, hardware sites and enthusiasts will be eager to beat each other to the punch in presenting said tests). Unfortunately I don't think it will be possible to definitively tell how it will affect future games though, until those games are released and tested.
*At the end of the day it being a big deal or not is entirely, and rightfully so, subjective. People have the right to be pissed about Nvidia not being transparent about this, even if its real-world effect turns out to be minimal.
cheezcake
Member
Again, it does. Just not in the way people expect. We need more detailed frametime analysis with comparison to 980 frametimes under identical conditions before we bring out the pitchforks.
Technically it is still 4Gb GDDR5 just that 500Mb has reduced bandwidth available. So it would be the bandwidth spec that is false to some extent.
Naked Snake
Member
Riposte
Member
I'm in the same boat. I need someone to give a definitive yes or no.
The 970 easily handles BF4 at 1440p over 60fps on ultra. I don't think that game gets anywhere near 3.5GB of VRAM though.
I'm more concerned about newer titles that will utilize >3.5GB of VRAM but the 970 will be more than capable of handling on the core side.
What about the dedicated level of corporate arse kissing some are showing?
It depends this is technically false advertising on Nvidia's part. Does it make a huge effect on performance? No. But it is something that should have been disclosed to users before they purchased the card. I could see an EU complaint leading to some sanctions on Nvidia since they are very particular about false advertising.
It's still a great card for the value even if they had just sold it as a 3.5gb card. If it seems appealing to you don't let this dissuade you. It is more about false advertising then performance issues. Just take into account that you may have to reduce VRAM usage in the future if you have a game using more than 3.5gb.
Even with only "3.5GB" high-speed memory, GTX970 is going to last for years.
Thought this makes it easier to wait if AMD is releasing anything soon.
My current HD6870 (1GB vram), is still good for most games. The Evil Within (only ~20fps) are only game I had to put off due to it.
I hope some hardware site releases tests demonstrating real performance in high vram situations.
Teletraan1
Banned
I think that the fact that the ram does not all run at the same speed is something that they should have been completely transparent about from the jump. I think their own admission here is enough proof to start getting mad. The more backlash there is the more transparency they will need to bring from a legal or community relations standpoint going forward. I hope they get absolutely roasted for this because they should get absolutely roasted for this. So should anyone. You have to take companies to task when they shit the bed. Even if they can do a bunch of driver tricks or whatever to minimize the impact of this in real world scenarios. They were not forthright with this info and it could have an impact down the road. If my 2GB card could only do 1.5GB right now at full bandwidth I would be fucked. Fast forward a few years and we will be in that exact same situation.
Naked Snake
Member
I find it hilarious that the card people proclaimed to be the best GPU EVER the last few months is the exact same card "today", gaming benchmarks and all, as it was "yesterday" when it was the amazing best gfx card. "The incredible power your mind", it sure is one hell of a potent thing to drive teh internetz drama.
Naked Snake
Member
A lot of us are arguing over principles, of honesty and transparency we expect in today's market economy. Stahp.
Also not everyone plans to replace their GPU every 2, 3, or even 4 years, and having inaccurate specs affects their long-term purchase planning decisions. What you're doing is disrespectful and dismissive, if you have nothing to add other than poking fun at and acting flabbergasted that others don't see things the way you do, you should leave the discussion, because that point has been made many times by you and others already. It means nothing to the debate others are having.
Haint
Member
Sony and MS will inevitably release a large chunk of the 3GB they currently reserve for the OS (which is a ridiculous amount), so the concern goes beyond simply dropping cross gen design sensibilities. I'll be the first to admit I have no idea whether this could become a real world issue in the future, but the people pointing to current benchmarks to exclaim there's no problem are just being stupid. I used a GTX460 for over 4 years, so yea, I'm one of these crazy people that expects to get more than 1 or 2 years out of a $370 card.
Femmeworth
Banned
Why hasn't this brought down the price of the cards. It should totally do that.
Xdrive05
Member
I'm waiting to see if this happens too.
The big tech sites have articles this week (maybe even tomorrow) showing the effects when usage is 4GB. If they are unfavorable, you may see a price drop if the market responds accordingly. But even so I wouldn't expect it to happen overnight.
Jimmy Rustle
Banned
I have a pair of overclocked 970s in SLI.
Played Dragon Age Inquisition at 1620p (2xMsaa), sometimes 1800p with no Msaa.
Felt fine. 60fps, with drops during intense combat. No stutter though.
I'll upgrade when the 1000 series release only if it becomes a problem.
Played Dragon Age Inquisition at 1620p (2xMsaa), sometimes 1800p with no Msaa.
Felt fine. 60fps, with drops during intense combat. No stutter though.
I'll upgrade when the 1000 series release only if it becomes a problem.
Femmeworth
Banned
I'm not really expecting them to go down. I'm building a PC at the moment and it would be nice if they did.
dgrdsv
Member
Why? Did the card become slower?