Dreams-Visions
Member
I think it depends on what games you're playing and look to play. It's really hard to say. But if you can wait a couple more months, I think you should. See what AMD is going to come out with.
Nvidia responds to GTX 970 memory issue
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
it's not just about games today...I like to keep video cards for 2-3 years...my last GTX 580 lasted 3 years...a year from now will games become more VRAM hungry and will the 970 still be as good...that extra ½ gig of VRAM will make a difference when games are closer to maxing it out
a year ago would anyone have predicted that games such as Shadow of Mordor or Evil Within would recommend up to 6GB VRAM?...regardless if those specs were inflated...everyone was saying that 2GB VRAM was more then enough for the next few years...my point is that technology moves at a fast pace...
michaelius
Banned
That pretty much shows how pointless they are if you need to get into 10-20 fps range to cause stuttering.
DarKshodaN
Member
NoRéN;150115574 said:
I would not wonder if this happens
TyphoonStruggle
Member
I don't care about "4GB" as long as the product I bought performs as expected.
4GB on a shit card is still shit. 3GB on a great card is still great. Its all about managing bottlenecks.
4GB on a shit card is still shit. 3GB on a great card is still great. Its all about managing bottlenecks.
Going nvidia more money to get a 980 seems counter intuitive. For not much more you could do 970SLI and get a lot more power. Yes you'd still have the RAM though. But the 970 is in such a sweet spot in terms of price
erformance, that alternatives are difficult to recommend. I think it would still be the best option if it was the same price and a 3.5Gb card.
erformance, that alternatives are difficult to recommend. I think it would still be the best option if it was the same price and a 3.5Gb card.Dictator93
Member
Going nvidia more money to get a 980 seems counter intuitive. For not much more you could do 970SLI and get a lot more power. Yes you'd still have the RAM though. But the 970 is in such a sweet spot in terms of price
I think it becomes questionable in SLI now. SLI is used for future scaling and higher res. That 3.5 is directly going against that.
Azure Dream
Member
But they sold the card with falsified specs (which they're now calling an accident, even though they've released false numbers and tuned their drivers and diagnostic program to hide this). Everyone knows the card isn't going to last forever (future-proof), but it's going to become less useful much sooner than we were led to believe. It's a great card now, but it's going to hit a performance wall faster than the card they advertised would have. This is not okay.
One eighth of the card's memory is basically useless. 12.5% off the product you paid for is not actually there in a functional manner. Why are people making excuses for this? Regardless of whether or not this is a good card right now, this is false advertising, and it should not be ignored or rewarded.
However Mordor runs fine even with 2 GB on high textures with barely any real difference in visuals. The ones who are hit the hardest are 4K users and those who like high AA settings or "ultra" (often uncompressed) textures. Basically the "maxers".
With no real alternatives in sight (one 980 is almost as much as I paid for 970 SLI) I'm sticking to the cards especially since I have a G-Sync display. I'm just hoping excessive VRAM use doesn't become the staple of console ports.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
UMM it didn't recommend 6gb. It said 6gb for the separate ultra textures pack, not included in the base game, which was barely an improvement over high which ran on 3gb cards without issues.
Almost every game in 2014 ran on 1gb cards or even 512mb. People on 2gb will not be able to enjoy max textures and crazy res, but will otherwise be fine in 2015.
Issue summed up right here, maybe adding that Nvidia's response since has also shown a distinct lack of respect for their core customers (Vocal advocates as a result of early adoption). Anything else is missing the fundamental point at hand.
Xcell Miguel
Gold Member
I have an SLI of 970s and I did some tests to see if I can see an impact on performance when they beyond that 3.5GB "barrier" :
As ACU runs at 60 FPS on my PC with everything in Ultra High and MSAA4x in 1080p (i7 5930K @ 4.6GHz and 16GB DDR4 in Quad Channel) and uses near 3.5 GB on my 970s, I tried removing the AA and use DSR to force 2880*1620 so that GPU load is still about the same (between 70 and 90%).
The result is that the game now eats between 3.7 and 3.9 GB of VRAM, and I still get pretty smooth 60 FPS even while running in Paris and looking arround. The only drops I had were when the GPUs were overloaded so it went down to 55 FPS with both GPUs load at 99%.
I played more than 30 minutes and I never encountered stutter or huge frame drops. It ran nearly as smooth as 1080p and MSAA4x (GPUs are never overloaded in this case, except in some cutscenes).
So maybe the game's engine was not using that 500 MB "slow" memory intensively, nor that "slow" bandwith is still enough for games (or some games), or my system memory and PCIE3 16x were fast enougth ?
I don't know, but for now, I won't replace my 970s as it seems to be a non-problem for me (until when ?).
NoRéN;150115574 said:
Most games are made with consoles in mind, so there is a "default" level of detail that will be maintained through out the life of current gen consoles. It might peak here and there, but that's what settings are for.
Besides, if you are gaming in 1080 super-mega-ultra textures serve no purpose and if you are shooting for 4k with ultra settings you should probably not get a 970.
Seems to me the only people that have cause to be concerned are those with 2 970s. Well, also those who feel the principle of the matter out weighs everything else.
I'm not concerned at all. I fully expect my 970 to last quite a while. Consoles are struggling just to hit 1080 at a reasonable framerate and that shows no sign of changing any time soon.
Remember, the times when people are saying 1GB was all you will ever need for 1080p. Then, people repeated the same mistake with 2GB. Now, even 4GB, is probably not enough. Wonder, where these people are now.
Personal, I thought my 6GB Titans would be good enough for awhile, but with 4K, I need 8GB or more.
Personal, I thought my 6GB Titans would be good enough for awhile, but with 4K, I need 8GB or more.
Nvidia better do something soon or risk a lawsuit. They completely mislead everyone in thinking this card was a 4GB including to reviewers, whose job is to properly convey the card, which was deliberately hidden from them. I am quite shocked they have not offered any legitimate response.
It's just game tech improving and rolling with the hardware available. When 1+ GB cards started appearing I can't remember anything but GTA IV requiring more than half a gig of VRAM. The ones pushing 2 GB to its limits came out just late last year.
With 1440p and 4K displays becoming more common we will probably see the norm become 4 GB in a year or so considering at this point to fill all that VRAM you really have to go for high AA and DSR (or 4K).
The one thing people nowadays don't seem to accept is games that have max settings that may be only acceptable on future hardware. I remember it taking quite a while before Crysis 1 ran well on max detail but people were pretty much ok with that because the game looked phenomenal even at the sligthly lower setting. Now they're crying that they can't run with max DSR and ultra high res textures that offer no real difference in 1080p.
Don't take me wrong, I think Nvidia really fucked themselves here. I don't know if it was yields at the factory (causing non-working memory controllers that had to be disabled) or design choice but to think their deception wouldn't come out eventually was naive at best.
2GB at 1080p is still fine for the majority of games. SoM's ultra high res texture pack that requires plenty of VRAM doesn't even come bundled with the game.
I don't see how they can refuse under the SOGA. It'd be worth someone raising this with the Citizen's Advice Bureau to see where legally Scan et al. stand.
I got this from facebook, there are people whining about it on there and I've contacted them myself and all I've been asked to do is log a query with them, they haven't released any statements and they found out about this problem on the 24th according to their customer service.
I've not been very impressed with scan, I think I'll use OCUK in the future.
Good.
As others stated they should under the SOGA, all UK retailers should although I can somewhat understand the reluctance if NV and the board partners are going to play the 'we did nothing wrong' card and a retailer taking a board partner, or NV to court over the issue is not going to happen.
Nvidia screwed up, and should be told, very much so. But with the tinfoil hat off we already know that they know, and it's highly unlikely it's going to happen again. Since the 970 is the best card around for the money, trying to "teach Nvidia a lesson" at this stage is a huge waste of time. Feel free to be upset if that what you really want, I'm only trying to put forward my thoughts here (and I'm buying different card for the OR CV1 anyway), but in my opinion I feel that some of you guys are taking your principles way too far and way too seriously (unless riding your principles is a hobby in itself of course).
CyanideFuse
Member
What did they say to you? I bought my card from them and I am mulling over returning the card.
^On principal and going back to my 670.
Edit: Just seen your other messages. What did you say? Did you have to spend long putting your case across to get them to accept a return?
GHG
Gold Member
I'm sorry, I didn't know we were talking about a $1 bar of chocolate here.
How can you say someone is taking "principles" too far? Do you know their situation? Do you know what their decision process was when purchasing a 970? Do you know what they had to do to accumulate the money to buy a 970?
The bottom line is that PC enthusiast hardware is expensive, and a problem like this one should not be taken lightly. Think of the precedent it sets if everyone sits back and says "well its not that bad, I still got the best performing card for the money at the time". If people do that then Nvidia will do it time and time again, screwing consumers out of their money. Then it will spread across the rest of the industry as everyone else starts doing it to stay competitive.
The performance issues of the card is just one part of the wider issues at hand here.
If individuals want to take this further then it is entirely up to them, and to be frank its absolutely nothing to do with you.
Its not about teaching anyone a lesson, its about doing what is right for us, the consumers.
Wickerbasket
Member
I dunno, I can understand why people are upset; they thought they were buying one thing, and it turned out to be something else. The salt in the wound seems to be that Nvidia knew they were lying and intentionally misled people through their marketing.
No one likes to think they've been duped, especially when it's concerning hundreds of dollars/pounds, so that's why you're probably seeing a lot of strong replies.
I think it's very likely they're going to be sued as they've broken UK advertising laws and I hope they're forced into giving customers compensation.
CyanideFuse
Member
I called them and went through to the RMA bit, I basically mentioned the card was misadvertised and I can't play the games I want to play because of it.
I didn't quote the sale of goods act or anything but you can do it.
Sale of Goods act 1979, section 13.
Kelli Lemondrop
Banned
except the 970 isnt the best card around for the money, the R9 290 is $240 and almost as fast compared to $330 for the 970, and the R9 290X is faster, and is only $260. the 970 is a very bad value proposition whichever way you choose to look at it in todays market.
Respectfully disagree, sir. Allowing companies to walk all over customers should not be acceptble, irrespective if they are producing the "best" product at a point in time. In the cold light of consumerism the only way to "teach a company a lesson" is through their bottom line so by choosing not further support nvidia in this case with a step up to a 980, or by returning a 970 using the law specifically aimed to prevent this sort of unethical behavior , I hardly feel is "going too far."
I am guessing that Nvidia's response to this situation would be vastly different if the US had the same consumer protection laws as the EU and Australia among other places, which in itself tells it's own story if true.
CyanideFuse
Member
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
If you don't mind getting lied to and fucked over by large companies then fine. But stop coming in here claiming folks are over reacting. Go and suck nVidias cock in some other thread.
See, what you wanted to say was fine but it's how you said it.
They never had the sweet spot on price/perf, the 290 series wins if purely on that metric since AMD quickly dropped price when the two cards came out.But the 970 is in such a sweet spot in terms of price
When you factor considerations like linux drivers, perf/watt, temp on load then 970 looks more attractive.
Let's be fair here though, the retailers have been screwed as hard as everyone else here and that is probably why this doesn't just go away quietly depending on the volume of returns in the countries whose laws allow it.
My issue is I bought and built a new PC about 2 months ago and stopped salvaging old parts, I just wanted an entire new pc with a backup if needed.
Part of that was a 970 based on the fact the price increase and performance was advertised and benchmarked that made me think the 980 wasn't worth the extra.
The card is a beast as it is, I don't know how long it will last in terms of supporting games at 1440p but this issue brings many questions, of which I personally don't have the time or expertise to really find out. I've heard the Asus ROG Swift monitors are hiding a lot of the hiccups and stuttering those without don't.
The issue I have is would I have bought it knowing what I do now? Probably not.
Would I have bought a 980? Doubtful, even being able to afford it I don't like what I'm getting for the extra.
What AMD Alternative is there? All I'd feel like is I'm buying a cheaper, inferior product that has issue with the main games I've been playing (a particular series for years).
To add to that, I have until the end of February to make this decision.
If there's an AMD card out by then or near enough I'll revert to my 680
Edit: OH wait, gsync :/
Part of that was a 970 based on the fact the price increase and performance was advertised and benchmarked that made me think the 980 wasn't worth the extra.
The card is a beast as it is, I don't know how long it will last in terms of supporting games at 1440p but this issue brings many questions, of which I personally don't have the time or expertise to really find out. I've heard the Asus ROG Swift monitors are hiding a lot of the hiccups and stuttering those without don't.
The issue I have is would I have bought it knowing what I do now? Probably not.
Would I have bought a 980? Doubtful, even being able to afford it I don't like what I'm getting for the extra.
What AMD Alternative is there? All I'd feel like is I'm buying a cheaper, inferior product that has issue with the main games I've been playing (a particular series for years).
To add to that, I have until the end of February to make this decision.
If there's an AMD card out by then or near enough I'll revert to my 680
Edit: OH wait, gsync :/
Yeah I get that, but retailers have to abide by the SOGA, it doesn't matter if they've been screwed or not.
michaelius
Banned
Fastest 1GB card I can find - 560ti
Yeah I bet if it had 4 gigs it would be powerhouse running Ryse at max details today
Money I've saved on getting 2GB gtx 770 already paid for half of the upgrade to 970.
You forgot to add in USA - AMD needs to pull their head out of their asses and realise that non english speaking countries exist if they want to increase their market share.
True that. It shouldn't matter to the end consumer, you are 100% correct. I guess what I was trying to say poorly is that Nvidia's lack of response is really not helping anyone, from retailers to consumers.
2 gig is enough if you want a good cheap card for this console gen.
Pc games are scalable. There will always be makimg games to push specs at Ultra settings. That doesn't mean your card is crap if it can't push every games at Ultra settings.
Eventually every card hits it's limits.
It sucks for retailers. They are losing money for the refunds because of Nvidia and they can't do much either. What are they going to do? Nvidia has a lot of making up to do.
Yeah, it must really suck for retailers as well, it's a shitty situation and there is no way around that!
^^ If you are a retailer in the UK I'm afraid it is just tough shit, like I said above, I know it sucks for them too.
I've toyed with the idea of using the SOGA to get a refund for mine, since I made my new build I've always been planning on upgrading for Oculus CV. There's not a lot other than a GTX 980 that I would go for right now so I don't think I will bother. I'm going to wait for CV to hit and see what cards AMD and Nvidia have out then, I know I'd like a card with more VRAM. GTX 970 is a great stop-gap for me right now, I only play in 1080 and it slaughters every game I own.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Yep. I've considered returning my 970 and getting a 290 instead but I had a bad experience with an AMD card before and I don't want to go down that road again. Nvidia's support is just much better. And even though the 970 isn't what I paid for, I'm still happy with it for now, so I'm just going to keep it and learn a hard lesson for the future.
They might try and fob you off (I'd fully expect someone like Ebuyer to do that) but legally they've no ground to stand on imo. Their beef is with Nvidia.
protomouse
Member
What would be the German equivalent of SOGA?
Pretty much the same situation for me. Tempted to get the refund and grab a 290x knowing that I will be upgrading sooner than I had origanlly thought I would, ideally when the next step up in Vram is launched. Definetly not considering a 980 though, that would send all the wrong messages.