HardOCP looking into the 970 3.5GB issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
At this point I'm just gonna grab some popcorn and see how nVidia is going to respond as more FCAT results start to trickle in
 
In the 2nd Farcry review they tested the use of 4GB Ram on GTX980 and 290 cards.
I asked if they could add the GTX970 because this issue had been uncovered.
Unfortunately there was no response.
There hasnt been a response from [H] that I have seen since then on this topic in any thread.

Sad.
Hopefully its because they want to be utterly sure of what they say.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Interesting, looks like there's no particular adverse effect due to the memory segmentation
Click to expand...

Did you even look at the charts?
mI4GgmS.gif
The 970 spikes 200ms while the 980 is almost entirely under 40ms.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I don't buy for a second, frankly, that it wasn't noticed or was a "misprint"
Click to expand...

The ROP's I can actually buy. But what I especially do not like is the fact that they didn't come out with the memory segmentation until they were caught. And we're not even talking only segmentation here - one segment is a full 168 GB/second faster than the other! :eek: And what's worse is that Nvidia had the audacity to add the two segments' bandwidth ratings together to get the bullshit result of 224 GB/sec, which was in turn, advertised to customers.

The truth is that even though the 970 beats its competition in situations that most users would benefit from (myself included), customers did not get what they paid for. Nvidia offered a 4GB, 256-bit Maxwell card for $329. What customers instead got was a 3.5GB (for all intents and purposes), 224-bit Maxwell card for $329.

And here's the rub... A 3.5GB, 224-bit Maxwell card for $329 wouldn't have been all that bad! But it definitely would have made those who wanted SLI reconsider. And that may have been the problem. Sinking to deception is low - no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

True, Nvidia may have a good performer on their hands for sure. But this card, thanks to its gimped memory system, won't have any lasting power.
 
Last edited:
Being a team Green for a while (did love my 9800 ATI at the time though and had a 4970 in a Mac Pro so not anti ATI at all ) , I can understand folks being pissed off at Nvidia and feeling like they may have been sketchy and intentional thinking this could slip by.

I did want to see as in the process of building a new rig soon (still waffling between monitor choices) , that this 970 fiasco seems to make the price of 980's worth it if definitely going 4k ? I was wondering before between the two due to the price difference , but it seems as if 980 is definitely the way to go for 4k due to this ?
 
I find it hard to believe that they left the specs unchallenged for so long, even on their own website.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
The ROP's I can actually buy. But what I especially do not like is the fact that they didn't come out with the memory segmentation until they were caught. And we're not even talking only segmentation here - one segment is a full 168 GB/second faster than the other! :eek: And what's worse is that Nvidia had the audacity to add the two segments' bandwidth ratings together to get the bullshit result of 224 GB/sec, which was in turn, advertised to customers.

The truth is that even though the 970 beats its competition in situations that most users would benefit from (myself included), customers did not get what they paid for. Nvidia offered a 4GB, 256-bit Maxwell card for $329. What customers instead got was a 3.5GB (for all intents and purposes), 224-bit Maxwell card for $329.

And here's the rub... A 3.5GB, 224-bit Maxwell card for $329 wouldn't have been all that bad! But it definitely would have made those who wanted SLI reconsider. And that may have been the problem. Sinking to deception is low - no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

True, Nvidia may have a good performer on their hands for sure. But this card, thanks to its gimped memory system, won't have any lasting power.
Click to expand...

Very eloquent. *applauds*
 
jbltecnicspro said:
And here's the rub... A 3.5GB, 224-bit Maxwell card for $329 wouldn't have been all that bad! But it definitely would have made those who wanted SLI reconsider. And that may have been the problem. Sinking to deception is low - no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
Click to expand...
Case in point: the 660s (I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread, I can't be sure).

Same situation -- limitations of the card effectively cut how much of the listed VRAM the cards could use properly. But in that scenario, everyone was on the same page about the unique configuration from Day 1.

This whole thing smacks of bad faith.
 
Yep it was the 660 Ti.

And you're right, had nVidia made a full disclosure at launch like it did with the 660 Ti, nobody would be saying a word right now.
 
Last edited:
Nvidia needs to do the right thing here. and rename this card to 960ti 3.5GB 224bit for $299 for 1080p 60fps .and call it a day.
 
There are also peoples who replaced their 780 by a 970 mainly to benefit from larger VRAM.
A benefit that has just been cut in half it seems!

NVIDIA is claiming that the original published specifications were partially incorrect.
And what would mean fully incorrect specifications? Specifications of a toothbrush??
 
nVidia needs to offer the option for buyers to (1) get a partial refund based on the difference (12.5%) or (2) full refund no questions asked or (3) an upgrade to the GTX 980 (the only other nVidia GPU with performance equal or better to the advertised GTX 970) at a severe discount. A free game is not adequate.

I am happy with my GTX 970, but I also bought it with the belief that I would be moving to higher resolution monitors and Surround in the next few years. So now this card might not cut it.
 
From my point of view, the smartest move for Kyle and crew would be to refrain from commenting on the current situation; whether it be answering a simple inquiry or otherwise. If [H] are performing testing then it would behoove them to wait until thorough testing is complete and analyzed fully prior to voicing their opinion. Present the facts based on their findings out of the gate, per se.

A good majority of the members of [H] know full well that Kyle doesn't pussy-foot around when it comes to bullshit marketing and deceptive practice(s). He'll hit the perpetrators with both barrels when he is on solid ground (i.e. based on facts, not here-say) to do so.

trick0502 said:
Kyle, Steve

Are you guys doing any testing of this?
Click to expand...
 
Nvidia in full damage control mode now.

Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down.

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter
Click to expand...

Sources: GeForce Forums and TechPowerUp
 
If HardOCP should do testing, I would like to see them test the thee possible conditions - less than 3.5GB, 3.5GB to 4.0GB, and more than 4.0GB. I suggest more than 4.0GB to check whether the game in question is doing something to mitigate whatever might be happening. I also suggest testing more than 4.0GB on a GTX 980 to show how those games behave in that condition in comparison to how they behave on a 970 between 3.5GB and 4.0GB - it should be similar, just a step worse.

When I read preliminary reports about people testing this, it seems universal that Shadows of Mordor appears to suffer really badly from this (it is, after all, the game that brought all this to boil), while Far Cry 4 seems to stutter very little or not at all between 3.5GB and 4.0GB. If it turns out that FC4 does handle the 3.5GB-4.0GB situation well, I suggest testing FC4 at settings beyond 4.0GB to see what it takes to make being paged to slower memory be a problem.
 
RadXge said:
There are also peoples who replaced their 780 by a 970 mainly to benefit from larger VRAM.
A benefit that has just been cut in half it seems!
Click to expand...
Hey, at least they aren't getting f*cked with a 7970GE/280X nipping at their heels in recent titles.
 
How in the hell is nVidia going to fix an architectural issue through a driver update? Sure, the driver update may improve performance, per se, yet it won't fully fix the issue in of itself.
 
AceGoober said:
How in the hell is nVidia going to fix an architectural issue through a driver update? Sure, the driver update may improve performance, per se, yet it won't fully fix the issue in of itself.
Click to expand...

They can declare only 3.5GB available for gaming and intelligently use the 0.5GB as a cache or keep it for non gaming purposes.
They can do as they have already said, prioritise what the memory is used for based on the game.

If you want them to allow the card to have 4GB ram at full speed in one block, it isnt going to happen because common sense prevails.
They have played the best card we could have asked for.
A full refund or option to upgrade.

This is costly for them.
But they have taken it on the chin.
 
What a truckload of horseshit from PeterS:

PeterS@nVidia said:
Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down.

No **** Sherlock, and it only took what, 4 months for you guys to realize you messed up the stats? And by "mess up" do you mean "intentionally deceived and only coming clean now because this thing has blown up in our face"?

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy.

And you "messed up" again, AMD's R9 290 is the best bang for buck right now.

We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance

Dear god please just leave this alone at this point ok? I have a feeling your "fix" is going to screw things up further, if past record (SLI voltage bug *hinthint*) is any indication.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

I may just take you up on your offer, we'll see...

--Peter
Click to expand...

Gee I wonder what'll happen if I post this over at the nV forums...

Actually no I won't bother, because first of all it'll just get lost in the stream of posts, and more likely than not some overzealous mod will just delete it anyway.

Nenu said:
They can declare only 3.5GB available for gaming and intelligently use the 0.5GB as a cache or keep it for non gaming purposes.
They can do as they have already said, prioritise what the memory is used for based on the game.

If you want them to allow the card to have 4GB ram at full speed in one block, it isnt going to happen because common sense prevails.
They have played the best card we could have asked for.
A full refund or option to upgrade.

This is costly for them.
But they have taken it on the chin.
Click to expand...

I bet you three rounds of beer this is nothing more than damage control PR stunt. When push comes to shove you'll be kicked around like a soccer ball in the World Cup finals.
 
Last edited:
n=1 said:
I bet you three rounds of beer this is nothing more than damage control PR stunt. When push comes to shove you'll be kicked around like a soccer ball in the World Cup finals.
Click to expand...

I'll take that bet. Companies know that only a few percent of people are willing to go through the hassle of returning their product during recalls.
 
n=1 said:
I bet you three rounds of beer this is nothing more than damage control PR stunt. When push comes to shove you'll be kicked around like a soccer ball in the World Cup finals.
Click to expand...

He says to take it up with the place of purchase/card vendor and if they refuse to give a refund he will "do his best" to help. Doesn't sound very encouraging.



We need more sites' data with frametimes and various games and scenarios. In the meantime, some more user reports.
Form VultureX @ overclock.net:
Anyway this is a less synthetic view of the problem: The 1-3% performance difference stated by nVIDIA is absolute bollocks.

Here is Far Cry 4 running on my system @ 1440p with maxed out settings.
From left to right you see SMAA, 2xMSAA and 4xMSAA
SMAA uses less than 3GB memory, 2xMSAA uses slightly over 3GB of memory and 4xMSAA is hitting the 3.5GB memory cap.

It is an unplayable stuttery mess in the last benchmark, while average fps is still good.
They completely circumvent the stuttering issue that make your games unplayable.
1dtb7rO.png
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
First frametimes results coming in, from PCGamesHardware.de:

p0oDb0Q.png

Xew0wIU.png



qg93AHQ.png

DJrIvi4.png
Click to expand...

Note that the 980 has been downlocked to better simulate 970's computing power, making the comparison even more relevant to memory subsystem differences and effects, which was supposed to be the same between the cards.
 
rinaldo00 said:
I'll take that bet. Companies know that only a few percent of people are willing to go through the hassle of returning their product during recalls.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. nV is basically calling those users' bluff who are threatening to return the card.

I'd be fuming right now if I'd gotten those dual 970s I was gonna. In any case, I'd expect nV to make this right somehow.
 
I am sure people have noticed that their 970 were using 3.5gb of its 4GB VRAM, but never took notice of the fact that they are not able to use the full 4GB, or they did and shrug it off as a hardware and/or software compatibility issue.

Also perhaps a lot of 970 owners were busy gaming with their cards, and it is not until they hit a performance drop earlier than expected and dug deeper into it that they noticed the issue.
 
Rizen said:
Yeah, the >3.5GB graph shows frametimes increasing to over 100ms average. That's pretty awful. You would definitely feel that in game.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, you got what you paid for. You didn't notice this before and you don't notice it now.

;)
 
Last edited:
chenw said:
I am sure people have noticed that their 970 were using 3.5gb of its 4GB VRAM, but never took notice of the fact that they are not able to use the full 4GB, or they did and shrug it off as a hardware and/or software compatibility issue.

Also perhaps a lot of 970 owners were busy gaming with their cards, and it is not until they hit a performance drop earlier than expected and dug deeper into it that they noticed the issue.
Click to expand...

I think I speak for most people who don't own a 970 when I say that I did notice how they never ever went above 3.5 gigs in reviews and comparisons (insert smiley of the "wtf" kind here)

Seriously no biggie for the people not going past nor planning to get past 3.5ish, they should be happy, but there is a genuine and very ugly big case against Nvidia about this for the rest. This is something that shouldn't have happened in the first place and they knew all about it. Hopefully it's solved without a class action horror that leaves 970 owners outside of the US out of getting any help, like with the MacBook bumpgate.


We'll see what the driver update does, coming soon.
 
I noticed that I did not see it go above 3.5GB in reviews but I thought nothing of it. I just figured the games did not require over 3.5GB. We all know that wont be the case for every game.
 
n=1 said:
I bet you three rounds of beer this is nothing more than damage control PR stunt. When push comes to shove you'll be kicked around like a soccer ball in the World Cup finals.
Click to expand...


So it begins...

Manoj8001 said:
Just exchanged mails with ZOTAC this what Nvidia has sent them, when asked for return he sent the same mail to me
Hi,

Find the below mail received from NVidia team.



The below mentioned thing is not an issue first and foremost it is only information which has come to light now as a result of miscommunication which was unintentional.

Simply because if the customer has read the article properly it is clearly mentioned in the article itself ,

a. There is 4GB memory (VRAM ) on the card although it is divided into 3.5GB & 0.5Mb

b. the user will not see any performance issue since the OS will allocate the entire memory smartly whenever the game requirement goes above 3.5Gb which does not happen often even with today’s high-end games.

c. The article also says as informed by Senior VP of engineering form NVDIA Mr.Jonah Alben this is only a communications gap which happened between the engineering team and the product marketing team and that architecture was builtup as it is today form the beginning and things did not change midway .

d. The article also says GTX 970 is still best performance /$ and the reviewers recommendations will not change after this revelation also.



All the above facts clearly say there is no problem with the card itself but it just the mindset.
Click to expand...

:eek:
 
Reality said:
Bullshit, you got what you paid for. You didn't notice this before and you don't notice it now.

;)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are serious, but, I don't have 970s so you are technically correct :D

However back when I used 5870s in CrossFire I definitely noticed microstuttering, frame times are very obvious when they get bad, especially when they are very inconsistent. 100ms average frame times with a much broader variance between frames would be very obviously felt in game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top