Support NeoGAF

[jfoul]

This is starting to pick up more steam. It'll be interesting to see bigger sites running tests.

guru3d: Does the GeForce GTX 970 have a memory allocation bug?
TECHPOWERUP: Geforce GTX 970 Design Flaw Caps Video Memory Usage to 3.3 GB: Report

 

[kitch9]

Major tech sites (hardocp, PCper, Anandtech, Techreport, Techpowerup, Tweaktown, fudzilla) need to pick this up.

I'm sure they are looking into it.

 

[Thoraxes]

Edit: nvm

 

[protomouse]

People really believe they are going to get a upgrade to a 980 out of this???

That is Drug addict Andy Dick Crazy...

No, but they have to do something if they can't fix it or otherwise make a solid case for themselves. Intel recalled (IIRC) 8 million Cougar Point chipsets in 2011, due to a SATA controller flaw. Even though that instance led to major inconvenience for me, it did not tarnish Intel's brand in my eyes. I'd still buy another Intel product without hesitation, because they handled that very responsibly.

Depending on the true nature of this problem, Nvidia should act accordingly. This doesn't even seem like a bug tbh, because it would be a pretty big oversight if it was. This assumption leads us into even murkier waters. How much did Nvidia know, and why wasn't such a limitation advertised?

Nvidia would be wise to react before the shit hits the fan. A complete recall would be in order, unless they want to face potential lawsuits and major badwill. I hope the media draws attention to this, because Nvidia shouldn't be allowed to just sit quitely and wait for this to blow over. I don't expect them to hand out upgrades, but I expect them to give me a product that conforms to the advertised specifications.

 

[Naked Snake]

guru3d: Does the GeForce GTX 970 have a memory allocation bug?

Thanks for sharing. They don't really add anything that wasn't said in this thread already, but they link to a customized version of the benchmark and confirm that the 970 has an issue while the 980 doesn't. Shit is getting real?

 

[mrklaw]

I wonder if they could work around it with driver fixes? Some VRAM will be reserved for windows usage, which is way less demanding on bandwidth than games. So could they update their drivers so that windows VRAM allocation is from the top 512MB of the ram - i.e what appears to be the 'slow' ram, leaving more of the bottom 3.5GB for games?

 

[Dryk]

I wonder if they could work around it with driver fixes? Some VRAM will be reserved for windows usage, which is way less demanding on bandwidth than games. So could they update their drivers so that windows VRAM allocation is from the top 512MB of the ram - i.e what appears to be the 'slow' ram, leaving more of the bottom 3.5GB for games?

They could probably just update the drivers to not use the problem RAM at all if they had to. It would leave people with lower memory cards but at least they would be functional 100% of the time.

 

[bj00rn_]

The point is we all paid for a 4gb card and not a 3.5 gb one.

No one refutes that. I think all of us agree that there's definitely something here that Nvidia should clarify. I just think the previous poster's point (and mine, and other's) is that the ignorant drama thing that SOME posters are flinging around isn't helpful at all and is masking a highly valid and interesting topic which is more than worth discussing.

Thanks for sharing. They don't really add anything that wasn't said in this thread already, but they link to a customized version of the benchmark and confirm that the 970 has an issue while the 980 doesn't. Shit is getting real?

I'm tired of the customized benchmarks already. I'm sure they are valid in their own respect, but I just hope one of the sites pick it up, test and show us some real world examples.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

It's going to be a huge disaster if they can't fix the problem via software update, the 970 is one of their best selling cards in recent history and they've been cranking them out as fast as possible to meet demand for months. If they suddenly get 100,000 returns that's going to really hurt.

 

[potam]

I wonder if they could work around it with driver fixes? Some VRAM will be reserved for windows usage, which is way less demanding on bandwidth than games. So could they update their drivers so that windows VRAM allocation is from the top 512MB of the ram - i.e what appears to be the 'slow' ram, leaving more of the bottom 3.5GB for games?

I don't think there is 'slow' RAM, otherwise everyone would be seeing different chunks affected. Instead, we're all seeing roughly the same numbers (I'm assuming OCs are causing the slightly different numbers from one person to another).

 

[Durante]

I think people are being a little silly. You buy a GPU based on its feature set and performance in games. Neither of those has changed.

It's not like special "review cards" had performance characteristics different from the ones people bought.

No one refutes that. I think all of us agree that there's definitely something here that Nvidia should clarify. I just think the previous poster's point (and mine, and other's) is that the ignorant drama thing that SOME posters are flinging around isn't helpful at all and is masking a highly valid and interesting topic which is more than worth discussing.

Indeed.

But of course, the internet feeds itself on ignorant drama, not valid and interesting topics worth discussing.

 

[Throwaway123456789]

I'm tired of the customized benchmarks already. I'm sure they are valid in their own respect, but I just hope one of the sites pick it up, test and show us some real world examples.

Several posters in this thread has given accounts of "real world examples". The customized benchmarks are invaluable to pinpointing what might be wrong here.

If this can't be fixed via a software patch it's going to get pretty crazy for Nvidia.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I'm not as technically minded as 99% of people here, but if I paid for a 4GB card, and got 3.5 through an error with the product, I would consider that unfit for purpose and ask for a refund.

This would apply if the card was £100, or £500. Those who have bought this card should either have the problem rectified, or the product replaced.

 

[bj00rn_]

Several posters in this thread has given accounts of "real world examples".

I'm sorry for being lazy, I guess I overlooked them . Where are these videos you mentioned, would be interesting to see the issue "live".

 

[Dambrosi]

I just this week bought a new custom prebuilt PC with a 970 in it. Now I hear about this shit.

I'm not panicking, but this is perturbing to say the least. I don't want to receive the PC and get it in my grubby little hands at last, only to have to send it back because the graphics card has been recalled. Talk about shitty timing for me, but that said, at least the issue has come to light now, and can be attended to.

I have a feeling the best we can look forward to is a patch that resolves the issue somewhat, and the worst is a recall and replacement with those new-fangled 960s they're trying to sell. It would be nicer if we all got 980s out of this, though.

 

[potam]

I think people are being a little silly. You buy a GPU based on its feature set and performance in games. Neither of those has changed.

It's not like special "review cards" had performance characteristics different from the ones people bought.

Indeed.

But of course, the internet feeds itself on ignorant drama, not valid and interesting topics worth discussing.

you're silly

Spoiler

please just release nvfix

 

[Makareu]

So here are the results of my test. GTX 970 G1 (samsung memory, probably one of the first batch), stock settings. Tested with Shadow of Mordor, all settings on ultra, except AO on high. Test should be around 5 min gameplay and world roaming.

While vram usage is a bit weird, it shows that up to 4066MB is used, and there is no performance drop while accessing it.

 

[Durante]

I have a feeling the best we can look forward to is a patch that resolves the issue somewhat, and the worst is a recall and replacement with those new-fangled 960s they're trying to sell.

This is the kind of sillyness I'm talking about.

It's not that the 970s suddenly explode or are slower in games than previously benchmarked. A 960 is still over 50% slower than a 970. Why on earth would you replace the latter with the former?

 

[Naked Snake]

A 960 is still over 50% slower than a 970. Why on earth would you replace the latter with the former?

Sillyness

 

[chromatic9]

A good real world test would be to test a GTX Titan against the GTX 970. If a Titan can run said game better when using 3.6 - 3.9 GB of Vram then we'll know 970 has an issue.

Right now its hard to see if the 970 is just falling away as the raw performance isn't there as its a cut down 980.

This might concern SLI users more as you have the performance to run 4GB of game data with 970 SLI. I would want a refund for SLI if this is hardware limited.

 

[Phinor]

It's not that the 970s suddenly explode or are slower in games than previously benchmarked.

The issue can sometimes pop up in games but when benchmarking, you probably just try to ignore these "anomalies". I've had 5-10fps for a while multiple times in Evolve. Memory usage drops a bit, and it's back to solid 60. Now obviously I don't know if the issue in Evolve really is caused by this memory issue and now that the beta is closed we can't really test it anymore either.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

This might concern SLI users more as you have the performance to run 4GB of game data with 970 SLI. I would want a refund for SLI if this is hardware limited.

Battlefield 4 on My 970 SLI @4k resolution with 4xAA 3.6GB VRAM with it peaking at 3.72GB VRAM.

..60fps, I have no concerns at all, and neither should anyone else.

Just enjoy your cards ffs.

 

[Damian.]

I think people are being a little silly. You buy a GPU based on its feature set and performance in games. Neither of those has changed.

It's not like special "review cards" had performance characteristics different from the ones people bought.

Indeed.

But of course, the internet feeds itself on ignorant drama, not valid and interesting topics worth discussing.

People are discussing a real problem that will easily be front and center when games start creeping by 3.5GB. Don't downplay this and do damage control for Nvidia for non-reasons. You're better than that.

 

[mrklaw]

I think people are being a little silly. You buy a GPU based on its feature set and performance in games. Neither of those has changed.

It's not like special "review cards" had performance characteristics different from the ones people bought.

Indeed.

But of course, the internet feeds itself on ignorant drama, not valid and interesting topics worth discussing.

I don't think we are being silly. We bought 4GB cards with the expectation that all of that 4GB would be equally usable. Of course we were happy with reviews, and performance in current games at the time. But we buy also for future performance and many of us would have chosen 4GB with the expectation of being able to use it.

whether or not we are happy with current performance is only one part of the story. If the cards cannot be used to their full potential then I think that is reasonable grounds to be concerned.

 

[Shredderi]

This is the kind of sillyness I'm talking about.

It's not that the 970s suddenly explode or are slower in games than previously benchmarked. A 960 is still over 50% slower than a 970. Why on earth would you replace the latter with the former?

It's still a good card and will play games well. But it's not performing as well as it could/should it seems, and since we are paying for it, it would be nice to get everything out of the card.

 

[wazoo]

Battlefield 4 on My 970 SLI @4k resolution with 4xAA 3.6GB VRAM with it peaking at 3.72GB VRAM.


..60fps, I have no concerns at all, and neither should anyone else.

Just enjoy your cards ffs.

I just checked Far Cry 3 at max settings at 3.6GB at 60fps.

 

[zeomax]

So here are the results of my test. GTX 970 G1 (samsung memory, probably one of the first batch), stock settings. Tested with Shadow of Mordor, all settings on ultra, except AO on high. Test should be around 5 min gameplay and world roaming.

While vram usage is a bit weird, it shows that up to 4066MB is used, and there is no performance drop while accessing it.

Some guys at guru3d forum had the same results. With this benchmark tool they have the same bandwidth drops but games runs just fine using all the 4GB of ram. Someone testet a 780ti and had the same drops. In my opinion this benchmark tool is just crap.

 

[chromatic9]

Battlefield 4 on My 970 SLI @4k resolution with 4xAA 3.6GB VRAM with it peaking at 3.72GB VRAM.

..60fps, I have no concerns at all, and neither should anyone else.

Just enjoy your cards ffs.

Looks pretty good. Would like to see Vram a bit higher.

My experience with the 970 is newer games at 2160p and pushing the settings are a bit of a struggle. It seems fine at 3200x1800. I just don't think a single 970 has the raw performance but would like to see a Titan and a 970 sat running a game at 3.8GB of Vram in use and see what is better. If I'm missing some performance in the real world and can run actually run games using around 3.9GB of Vram then of course I'm interested about returning my GPU. The Vram issue and card capability seem to meet in the same area though.

To me the 970 is a cut down 980 and a GM204 part starting at £240. It isn't a GF110 or GK110 replacement.

 

[Moral Panic]

Running that benchmark on the same GPU you are running windows on is silly.

Are there any actual games that show this supposed reduced performance?

 

[LeleSocho]

SMH at people trying to downplay the problem.
There's a lot of people who bought this card and counted to use it for years (not everyone is a rich kid that can afford to change their gpu as soon as the new hot shit comes out, people works extra hours so they could have it) and as time passes by more and more games will have high vram requirements and this card while powerful because of these problem the cards might not meet those demands even if they should.

 

[Alasfree]

Running that benchmark on the same GPU you are running windows on is silly.

Are there any actual games that show this supposed reduced performance?

In doesn't show itself in fps as much as it does in frametime, and only near 3.5gb. At least in my case i can tell that game like Mordor or ACU even when they maintain a high framerate they stutter a bit. Strangely enough i don't remember having this problem in Wolfenstein.

 

[michaelius]

It's going to be a huge disaster if they can't fix the problem via software update, the 970 is one of their best selling cards in recent history and they've been cranking them out as fast as possible to meet demand for months. If they suddenly get 100,000 returns that's going to really hurt.

With their profit margins they can probably offer a 50$ gift card to any owner and still be profitable

 

[Mengy]

It's going to be a huge disaster if they can't fix the problem via software update, the 970 is one of their best selling cards in recent history and they've been cranking them out as fast as possible to meet demand for months. If they suddenly get 100,000 returns that's going to really hurt.

My hunch, from what I've read of the situation, is that it's a hardware issue and it won't be able to get fixed via drivers. If that's the case then I'm sure Nvidia knew all about this long ago, they probably just didn't deem it a big issue. Obviously the customers don't agree. This isn't the first time Nvidia has released hardware which didn't entirely meet the printed specs.

Very shady and not cool at all, but Nvidia has their sales and I'm sure they aren't too upset over making all of that money. I don't think I'll ever early adopt an Nvidia card ever again, because I'm fairly certain we are all going to get stuck with these underperforming video cards now.



And that kind of pisses me off.

 

[LilJoka]

Thanks for sharing. They don't really add anything that wasn't said in this thread already, but they link to a customized version of the benchmark and confirm that the 970 has an issue while the 980 doesn't. Shit is getting real?

Original results already confirmed the 980 was ok and 970 wasn't. This just adds to the evidence.

 

[Thrakier]

In doesn't show itself in fps as much as it does in frametime, and only near 3.5gb. At least in my case i can tell that game like Mordor or ACU even when they maintain a high framerate they stutter a bit. Strangely enough i don't remember having this problem in Wolfenstein.

The reason Unity and Mordor stutter is that Unity and Mordor stutter. The reason why Wolfenstein doesn't stutter is that Wolfensteins engine doesn't stutter.

It is still 90% coding. Divinity: Original Sin is a cool game which performs like shit. It drops to 45FPS in battles with no appearent reason. A 970 should outperform this game x100 but it doesn't. Because of...code.

Stop thinking that every stutter issue which occurs now is related to 500MB of ram not being as fast as the other 3,5 gig. If Nvidia adresses this with their driver so that it's a non issue 90% o the time, I'm ok with it. It's not great, but nothing in life is perfect. The 970 is still a lot of performance per dollar, no matter the issue.

 

[motohellogoto]

Welp only one thing left for us to do.

Spoiler

 

[Alasfree]

My hunch, from what I've read of the situation, is that it's a hardware issue and it won't be able to get fixed via drivers. If that's the case then I'm sure Nvidia knew all about this long ago, they probably just didn't deem it a big issue. Obviously the customers don't agree. This isn't the first time Nvidia has released hardware which didn't entirely meet the printed specs.

Very shady and not cool at all, but Nvidia has their sales and I'm sure they aren't too upset over making all of that money. I don't think I'll ever early adopt an Nvidia card ever again, because I'm fairly certain we are all going to get stuck with these underperforming video cards now.



And that kind of pisses me off.

What other time they released something that didn't follow printed specs?

I find it silly that company like Nvidia would go out of their way to destroy their public image after offering a very good product like the 970 was initially. It seem more likely that they just didn't know. Which it's not really an excuse because they should've obviously tested more throughly.
Anyway, if it's an hardware problem and not fixable through drivers or firmware it will be a mess.

 

[Morph-0]

Pure Video anyone?

 

[LilJoka]

I think people are being a little silly. You buy a GPU based on its feature set and performance in games. Neither of those has changed.

It's not like special "review cards" had performance characteristics different from the ones people bought.

Indeed.

But of course, the internet feeds itself on ignorant drama, not valid and interesting topics worth discussing.

The performance characteristic had changed though. All 970 users expect the same performance characteristic within 4Gb VRAM limit, not one characteristic up to 3.5Gb and another from 3.5Gb to 4Gb. Just because the benches never tested the cards to such an extent doesn't mean consumers should expect any less performance (stuttering/huge frame time variance) when utilising all the VRAM.

People paid a lot of money for electronics and there is no excuse to not work as advertised.

 

[Prophet Steve]

The point is we all paid for a 4gb card and not a 3.5 gb one.

Well no shit. As I said, I am not saying this is a non-issue.

But people regretting their purchases, really? The 970 is still by far the best value you can buy and you might not even notice this while playing games.

 

[Dictator93]

Well no shit. As I said, I am not saying this is a non-issue.

But people regretting their purchases, really? The 970 is still by far the best value you can buy and you might not even notice this while playing games.

There is nothing to regret until nvidia comments on it. Int hemean time, just be disappointed that their QA control isnt as good as purported.

 

[Alasfree]

The reason Unity and Mordor stutter is that Unity and Mordor stutter. The reason why Wolfenstein doesn't stutter is that Wolfensteins engine doesn't stutter.

It is still 90% coding. Divinity: Original Sin is a cool game which performs like shit. It drops to 45FPS in battles with no appearent reason. A 970 should outperform this game x100 but it doesn't. Because of...code.

Stop thinking that every stutter issue which occurs now is related to 500MB of ram not being as fast as the other 3,5 gig. If Nvidia adresses this with their driver so that it's a non issue 90% o the time, I'm ok with it. It's not great, but nothing in life is perfect. The 970 is still a lot of performance per dollar, no matter the issue.

Well, not really, those game don't stutter with setting that don't fill as much of the VRAM.
Some game just stutter on any configuration, you are right on that, it's about coding, and not every stutter is related to this, but on this specific situation is a bit different because the card has a clear memory allocation problem.

 

[Parhelion69]

Battlefield 4 on My 970 SLI @4k resolution with 4xAA 3.6GB VRAM with it peaking at 3.72GB VRAM.

..60fps, I have no concerns at all, and neither should anyone else.

Just enjoy your cards ffs.

We bought our cards, because they were future proof. Current games are already allocating 3.5-4GB VRAM. In 1 year, 3.5GB won't be enough to max out some games I believe (regardless of the framerate)

Otherwise, developers will be forced to play around this limitation and gimp their games to run allocating max 3.5GB, so essentially, REAL 4GB cards will be held back. Not a nice scenario for people that bought the highest end cards...


I live in a third world country, and I spent half my salary just for my MSI 970 4g, I made a (huge) commitment (PC gaming is all about this) by buying good components and be future proof, and now I get this... Heck, there's no way I can even return the card (No nvidia official sellers here), so I'm basically screwed if no solution comes out, and since it seems a hardware issue, we probably will stay like this forever.

If this doesn't get solved, NVIDIA please go to hell. I'll buy AMD in the future, or I'll just stay with PS5 (or Xbox Two?) and screw PC gaming altogether.

 

[Naked Snake]

SMH at people trying to downplay the problem.
There's a lot of people who bought this card and counted to use it for years (not everyone is a rich kid that can afford to change their gpu as soon as the new hot shit comes out, people works extra hours so they could have it) and as time passes by more and more games will have high vram requirements and this card while powerful because of these problem the cards might not meet those demands even if they should.

You know how the saying goes, there's a defense force for everything, including scummy multi-billion dollar corporations apparently.

That or it's cognitive dissonance making some people not want to accept the possibility that their precious 970s are gimped.

Durante, pls.

 

[Moral Panic]

Original results already confirmed the 980 was ok and 970 wasn't. This just adds to the evidence.

What evidence? Can someone show a frametime graph of a game that show a huge drop as soon as it hit's 3.7GB, 3.5GB or 3.3GB or whatever number people are throwing around? Because that "benchmark" shows a HUGE performance degradation that would be completely unmissable.

I don't mean to be an apologist if this is a real issue but I'm seeing a lot of hype and vitriol about something that has very little proof even exists.

 

[Prophet Steve]

There is nothing to regret until nvidia comments on it. Int hemean time, just be disappointed that their QA control isnt as good as purported.

Still you have plenty of people in this thread that are suddenly regretting their choice or recommending something else than a GTX 970.

It isn't like this suddenly changes the 970 into a shit product.

 

[riflen]

SMH at people trying to downplay the problem.
There's a lot of people who bought this card and counted to use it for years (not everyone is a rich kid that can afford to change their gpu as soon as the new hot shit comes out, people works extra hours so they could have it) and as time passes by more and more games will have high vram requirements and this card while powerful because of these problem the cards might not meet those demands even if they should.

No-one's downplaying anything. Some people are simply trying to post with objectivity. What problem are you talking about anyway? GTX 970 performs at X level. It did at launch and does so now.
All we have here is a test programme that appears to show some unexpected behaviour while moving data around. The card does what it's designed to do, some people's bizarre expectations notwithstanding.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

We bought our cards, because they were future proof. Current games are already allocating 3.5-4GB VRAM. In 1 year, 3.5GB won't be enough to max out some games I believe (regardless of the framerate)

Otherwise, developers will be forced to play around this limitation and gimp their games to run allocating max 3.5GB, so essentially, REAL 4GB cards will be held back. Not a nice scenario for people that bought the highest end cards...


I live in a third world country, and I spent half my salary just for my MSI 970 4g, I made a (huge) commitment (PC gaming is all about this) by buying good components and be future proof, and now I get this... Heck, there's no way I can even return the card (No nvidia official sellers here), so I'm basically screwed if no solution comes out, and since it seems a hardware issue, we probably will stay like this forever.

If this doesn't get solved, NVIDIA please go to hell. I'll buy AMD in the future, or I'll just stay with PS5 (or Xbox Two?) and screw PC gaming altogether.

All I can do is laugh at this absurd post...drama queens, all I see are drama queens.

 

[LilJoka]

What evidence? Can someone show a frametime graph of a game that show a huge drop as soon as it hit's 3.7GB, 3.5GB or 3.3GB or whatever number people are throwing around? Because that "benchmark" shows a HUGE performance degradation that would be completely unmissable.

I don't mean to be an apologist if this is a real issue but I'm seeing a lot of hype and vitriol about something that has very little proof even exists.

It's actually been nearly 2 weeks since it was discovered, go to overclock.net thread or guru3d thread.

All I can do is laugh at this absurd post...drama queens, all I see are drama queens.

He spent half his salary on a product that isn't as advertised, all you can do is laugh? Why even bother posting.

 

[Dambrosi]

This is the kind of sillyness I'm talking about.

It's not that the 970s suddenly explode or are slower in games than previously benchmarked. A 960 is still over 50% slower than a 970. Why on earth would you replace the latter with the former?

Don't get me wrong, I said I'm not in any panic. The 970 is still a huge upgrade from my trusty 750ti, I do understand this, I'm not dumb. It would, however, be shitty for me if the card were recalled just as I'm beginning to get used to its stellar performance in games.

I live in the EU, btw, and consumer protection laws are different here than in the US. I don't know what difference that makes, though.