Well, Skyrim may be the worst possible example to choose to test for stuttering because it has plenty of stuttering issues all by itself without any help from hardware flaws.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
GTX 970 flaw
- Thread starter ManofGod
- Start date
- Status
Well, Skyrim may be the worst possible example to choose to test for stuttering because it has plenty of stuttering issues all by itself without any help from hardware flaws.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,026
I'd noticed some oddities with how my cards were reading for VRAM allocation/usage in different games and settings as well as a lot of issues if I pushed high on the settings (which resulted in >3.5gb of vram in SLI with framerates reported that would be playable just fine at 4k like I was running normally (50-70+)), but chalked it up to general glitches as I had no better explanation at the time. I had seen some stuttering/input lag when lowering settings but noticed it had a huge impact for the better at the time, so I just stuck with those. Now I know it was 60hz and input lag when using lower settings getting at me, and the reason higher settings were unplayable was due to the whole segmentation (3.5gb/0.5gb) problem that nvidia made these cards with, resulting in the larger hitching/stutter.
That is not a problem. Any inherent stuttering will show below the 3.5 GB threshold too. If there is a substantial change when RAM usage goes into the 3.5-4 GB range, that would be evidence of the 970 problem.
So once again you invoke the Tu quoque defence, nice.
Anyway, in case you forgot, HardOCP has always commented on how SLI was smoother than CrossFire, and according to Brent:
Brent said:
So yeah, there may or may not have been a 100 page outrage, but HardOCP certainly picked up on it during reviews and made comments about it.
And how about the situation at hand here? Nothing, absolutely nothing. nVidia's official press release is that there's no issue, Guru3D's used flawed testing to "prove" there was no issue, all the while independent and user testing (yes yes all those testers had an agenda and were on AMD's payroll goddamn) proved otherwise.
And that is simply one issue. The other issue is that nVidia flat out LIED about the specs for 4 months without bothering to correct them, and is only issuing corrected spec sheets after this segmented vram business has been blown wide open. Note we're not talking 4 days or even 4 weeks here, we're talking 4 months. FOUR MONTHS. How do you put a reasonable explanation to that? Oh wait, "because it doesn't affect performance so who cares." Right.
More user reports coming in:
misiak said:I've just tried to play COD:AW on 1080p everything maxed with 4xMSSA and I was able to cross 3.5GB threshold pretty easily. And once I did I encountered lags during fast movements from time to time. So this definitely confirms that game begin to stutter once 3.5GB is crossedGood is that until 3.5GB is reached, game runs fine, without lags. It's very annoying. To reach 3.5GB in Call of duty is really not a problem on 1080p!! I can't imagine how it is for 2K or 4K. The worst thing is that GPU load I had was only around 60% but game stutter because this 3.5GB issue. So if there would be fast 4GB of memory I could even increase aliasing, even use supersampling but I can't because game reach >3.5GB pretty fast. So now I have to lower texture quality to get bellow 3.5GB all the time.
I hope nvidia update drivers/bios to improve the memory management if possible.
So my ending from this is YES, we have only 3.5GB card with some additional caching which is most likely better than if we would have only 3.5GB card but it's not definitely a full speed 4GB card as declared (4GB/224gbps). My recommendation for all GTX970 users is - do not push the card over 3.5GB, otherwise you will get stutter.
But in the end, it's still a good card for the money, the bad is that Nvidia screwed marketing and did not tell us about it...
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
PCPerspective thinks cases where the 512MB slow pool will be a problem will be few and far between now, but agree to the fact that there is a possibility that it may become an issue later.
Read for yourself here: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Looking-GTX-970-Memory-Performance
Read for yourself here: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Looking-GTX-970-Memory-Performance
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 3,007
Yup, they are going to have to earn my trust back!
I suppose no-one from Nvidia read any reviews of the GTX 970 from the major tech sites?
No-one at Nvidia noticed that the specs listed on the front page of most reviews were different than what was actually true?
Impossible, they even link to these reviews on your Official GTX 970 page.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-970/reviews
I don't believe that they didn't know about the mistake before. After the first reviews went live, Nvidia should have contacted the sites immediately to correct the specifications error.
No-one at Nvidia noticed that the specs listed on the front page of most reviews were different than what was actually true?
Impossible, they even link to these reviews on your Official GTX 970 page.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-970/reviews
I don't believe that they didn't know about the mistake before. After the first reviews went live, Nvidia should have contacted the sites immediately to correct the specifications error.
Of course they knew... they just didn't want anyone else to find out, since they KNEW it was going to be a issue.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,026
Did some more testing using Shadow of Mordor, SLI enabled and disabled, sub-3500mb and over 3500mb VRAM consumption. Frametimes stay within normal variation/acceptable consistence when in single-card mode regardless of VRAM, but going to over 3500mb in SLI causes wild and rampant stutters/hitches with vastly fluctuating frametimes to match.
Long story short, I have to agree for single-card that while it is a big false advertisement and spec change it may not have a giant practical impact (at least from what I can see so far... unless you may want to go dual-card later for example), but in SLI it is a very real and major issue.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,999
Agreed. I am on 1080 now, but I max move to a larger resolution monitor down the line. I bought this card to last me a long time. Which is why I opted for a higher end card with 4GB of VRAM.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Judging from the wealth of info you've provided in this thread I see that it can *and will increasingly be* an issue in the future for use cases like yours and the majority of enthusaists here on [H] that can afford to drop $700+ on graphics cards alone, plus at least that again on a 2560x1440 or 4K display.
OTOH, for people like me that are very budget constrained, and have really only run a single card in a main system and running a monitor with 1920x1200 native resolution (usually using 1080 in letterbox for FOV purposes), it's still one of the best cards I could ever hope to buy outright. With that being said, I can understand the anger about the fact that NVDA dropped the ball not double checking stuff for four months. Wouldn't surprise me that if the lack of corrections came straight from the top (read: Jen-Hsun) I would be fuming too if I bought something that didn't live up to spec. With that said, despite all this kerfuffle, I'd be greatful just to own a 970.
Perhaps they should have just disabled the 8th 32-bit MC and just sold them as 3.5GB 224-bit cards and avoided this all together?
Last edited:
This is the part that gets me the most. Had nVidia been honest and marketed these as 192-bit 3.5GB cards, I actually would've gladly sprung for the 980 instead and shoved more money their way.
Funny how honesty can work out in your favor sometimes huh? But now because of this shitty little stunt they pulled, not only will I not be spending another dime on Maxwell, I'm that much more likely to grab the 390X for the next round.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,026
Yeah, definitely am glad to be able to buy these kinds of setups in the first place for sure, don't get me wrong
. Unfortunately I've yet to find the evergreen money tree I've heard so much about online .As far as cards go, I'm square in the middle of not having a particularly good option in my opinion, since I already can and definitely will continue to with newer games run smack into the 3.5-4gb no-man's land, and don't have a way to tell it to only use 3.5gb for example if I wanted to, so it spills over and makes for horrible gameplay.
As far as options go, I don't really want to shell out for two 980's (even open-box after a 970 sli refund would be a sizable extra expense for no real gain that I care about other than not having the 4gb issue, and rewarding nvidia for causing this problem), but a single 980 won't provide the performance I want/"need" for my setup either. The two 970's I have aren't really a good option for the reasons already discussed, and AMD's 390X or nvidia's GM200 cards look to be awhile out yet (so returning the 970's and waiting months on those without a gaming card wouldn't be good), probably, as well as not knowing what their performance/specs/pricing look like at this point either. At this point I'm leaning most strongly towards just getting a refund on the pair but have no idea where to go from there.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
192-bit would have been an even 3GB, 224-bit is accurate since 7x32=224 and 7x512=3,584=3.5GB -- but I feel ya. While I do not approve of their tactics, I have had horrible experiences with the red guys' cards. So I will probably just get a 960 (or a previous generation 770 or 780 if a deal is to be found so that NV doesn't get rewarded with my hard-to-come-by-and-hard-earned money on a 970 over this) and see what the next round brings when I have more money to spend on a GPU. I won't be getting a hob-nobbled part, never have and never will.
Yeah, definitely am glad to be able to buy these kinds of setups in the first place for sure, don't get me wrong
As far as cards go, I'm square in the middle of not having a particularly good option in my opinion, since I already can and definitely will continue to with newer games run smack into the 3.5-4gb no-man's land, and don't have a way to tell it to only use 3.5gb for example if I wanted to, so it spills over and makes for horrible gameplay.
As far as options go, I don't really want to shell out for two 980's (even open-box after a 970 sli refund would be a sizable extra expense for no real gain that I care about other than not having the 4gb issue, and rewarding nvidia for causing this problem), but a single 980 won't provide the performance I want/"need" for my setup either. The two 970's I have aren't really a good option for the reasons already discussed, and AMD's 390X or nvidia's GM200 cards look to be awhile out yet (so returning the 970's and waiting months on those without a gaming card wouldn't be good), probably, as well as not knowing what their performance/specs/pricing look like at this point either. At this point I'm leaning most strongly towards just getting a refund on the pair but have no idea where to go from there.
Basically it would leave you forced into getting R9 290s or 290Xs. Not a place I'd want to be... Where oh where is Matrox or 3dfx when you need them?
Yeah, definitely am glad to be able to buy these kinds of setups in the first place for sure, don't get me wrong
As far as cards go, I'm square in the middle of not having a particularly good option in my opinion, since I already can and definitely will continue to with newer games run smack into the 3.5-4gb no-man's land, and don't have a way to tell it to only use 3.5gb for example if I wanted to, so it spills over and makes for horrible gameplay.
As far as options go, I don't really want to shell out for two 980's (even open-box after a 970 sli refund would be a sizable extra expense for no real gain that I care about other than not having the 4gb issue, and rewarding nvidia for causing this problem), but a single 980 won't provide the performance I want/"need" for my setup either. The two 970's I have aren't really a good option for the reasons already discussed, and AMD's 390X or nvidia's GM200 cards look to be awhile out yet (so returning the 970's and waiting months on those without a gaming card wouldn't be good), probably, as well as not knowing what their performance/specs/pricing look like at this point either. At this point I'm leaning most strongly towards just getting a refund on the pair but have no idea where to go from there.
I am pleasantly surprised with your contribution to this thread. Your work to inform other GTX 970 users is appreciated. Sorry If i ever hurt you with my comments. btw just a suggestion. a single R9 290 Tri-X to bide the time till the R9 390X and GM200 launch in Q2 is a good idea. Then based on reviews you can choose which card you want. the R9 290 Tri-X is one of the best custom cooler designs. already its selling for USD 280 + mail in rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202080
Even with new cards launching this beast of a card should have good resale value. sell the game coupons to cut costs. Heck when Nvidia can sell the GTX 960 2GB for USD 200 you can definitely get USD 200 for a 4 - 5 month used R9 290 Tri-X 4GB when you sell in Q2. alternatively you can get a full refund on one of your GTX 970s and hold the other till Q2 when you upgrade.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,026
While I do not approve of their tactics, I have had horrible experiences with the red guys' cards.
Basically it would leave you forced into getting R9 290s or 290Xs. Not a place I'd want to be... Where oh where is Matrox or 3dfx when you need them?
Haha, I loved my V3 3000 and V5 5500 cards
. And yeah, it's no secret that I tend to buy nvidia cards primarily nowadays, for the same reason there (have had a good number of bad experiences with the competition and generally liked my nvidia cards a lot). Giving serious thought to the "refund, wait and see" option here. I own a GTX 750 Ti I can use temporarily with subsampling, which I did for a few weeks awhile back, and see if any promising new info comes along soon from either camp hopefully.EDIT:
I am pleasantly surprised with your contribution to this thread. Your work to inform other GTX 970 users is appreciated. Sorry If i ever hurt you with my comments. btw just a suggestion. a single R9 290 Tri-X to bide the time till the R9 390X and GM200 launch in Q2 is a good idea. Then based on reviews you can choose which card you want. the R9 290 Tri-X is one of the best custom cooler designs. already its selling for USD 280 + mail in rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202080
Even with new cards launching this beast of a card should have good resale value. sell the game coupons to cut costs. Heck when Nvidia can sell the GTX 960 2GB for USD 200 you can definitely get USD 200 for a 4 - 5 month used R9 290 Tri-X 4GB when you sell in Q2. alternatively you can get a full refund on one of your GTX 970s and hold the other till Q2 when you upgrade.
Not bad advice, honestly... though as said above, I'm probably going to just try and hang out for the new launches coming up from here. I know you and I have hardly had the most cordial forum posts between one another, but thanks for the earnest and thoughftful reply
. Given the whole bad press around this GTX 970 thing, I have a feeling we'll be seeing some "leaks" quote-unquote from one or both companies soon enough to capitalize on it .
Last edited:
Not bad advice, honestly... though as said above, I'm probably going to just try and hang out for the new launches coming up from here. I know you and I have hardly had the most cordial forum posts between one another, but thanks for the earnest and thoughftful reply
good luck with your next high end GPU purchase. looks like there will be good competition when the true next gen beasts from Nvidia (GM200) and AMD (R9 390X) launch. good for consumers.
oh btw roy is having a field day with the GTX 970 memory allocation episode https://twitter.com/amd_roy
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Haha, I loved my V3 3000 and V5 5500 cards
A former 3dfx V5 owner, you say?! Perhaps you might enjoy this short video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4pS_NS8Kr8
Anyways, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nsisting on Nvidia (TM) usually has paid dividends for me in the past, and while this debacle is upsetting to an extent, it hasn't totally deterred me from buying NV cards all together (still plan on a 960 if my stuff sells in FS/FT or tax refund comes) but it definitely makes me more weary of them.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 11,121
So, anyone returning their cards to nVidia?
VonGriffin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 306
if i can i will
Polish benchmark.pl, quoting game Nab, says that 980m is also affected. It displays similar behaviour in tests as 970. Also they claim, that they are other cards with similar "features" . Looks like NV is in big trouble, if that's confirmed.
And yes, I'll be returning my 970. Not because it suddenly works worse, but because to take stance against such practices. Because if NV gers away with it, we will see a lot of other companies doing same shit.
And yes, I'll be returning my 970. Not because it suddenly works worse, but because to take stance against such practices. Because if NV gers away with it, we will see a lot of other companies doing same shit.
I would really like to, how do I do this? I bought mine from best buy. From what I know the best buy cards are the ones that nvidia can actually force them to do a refund on
Last edited:
fixedmy7970
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 524
lmao. well done.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 33,483
Well, anyone that has a problem returning theirs I'll gladly take it off your hands for $200.
I've decided to keep mine (even though the coil whine is pretty bad) since for the small form factor box I have, the low power draw and heat is really important to me, and another 200 bucks for a 980 seems silly. Since I'm planning to stay at 1080p for a while, I'll just worry about choosing an 8+gb card for the next full rebuild in 12+ months.
I don't know what to do about it, the GTX 970 I got was the first GFX card I've bought in 11 years (my first PC build in 11 years too, been on a 13" MacBook Pro for the last 5 years). When I bought it on the 23/12 it seemed to be the king of the current crop for the bang for buck. Spending another 200 euros for the 980 seemed daft.
I game at 1680x1050 and for the moment I'm mostly going through a playlist thats built up over the last 5 years. I only have a couple of games from the last 6 months, of which Far Cry 4 is one, so I don't have much yet that is actively using all the vRam. (I also play Star Citizen)
That said I bought a card expecting it to have proper 4GB of Ram, I never for one minute considered that it would be split between 3.5GB and .5GB. Had I know this up front I would have had to think longer about what card I got, or held off a bit longer on getting my PC.
At this juncture it seems pointless to return the 970, beyond making a point that Nvidia's shenanigans are not okay. The AMD r9 29x cards are, as I understand it, soon to be replaced and are seemingly considered not as good, to power hungry and what not. The 980 costs too much to "fix" the vRam issue and get a bit bettter performance, and running with the onboard Intel 4600 isn't hugely appealing. I had half expected that I would upgrade the card in a year or twos time, not that my wife knows that.
I was planning to replace my monitor this year to go at least 1920x1080, if not 1440p (higher res's aren't that appealing too me), and as games start demanding more vRam I'm going to hit more and more that slow ram block.
I game at 1680x1050 and for the moment I'm mostly going through a playlist thats built up over the last 5 years. I only have a couple of games from the last 6 months, of which Far Cry 4 is one, so I don't have much yet that is actively using all the vRam. (I also play Star Citizen)
That said I bought a card expecting it to have proper 4GB of Ram, I never for one minute considered that it would be split between 3.5GB and .5GB. Had I know this up front I would have had to think longer about what card I got, or held off a bit longer on getting my PC.
At this juncture it seems pointless to return the 970, beyond making a point that Nvidia's shenanigans are not okay. The AMD r9 29x cards are, as I understand it, soon to be replaced and are seemingly considered not as good, to power hungry and what not. The 980 costs too much to "fix" the vRam issue and get a bit bettter performance, and running with the onboard Intel 4600 isn't hugely appealing. I had half expected that I would upgrade the card in a year or twos time, not that my wife knows that.
I was planning to replace my monitor this year to go at least 1920x1080, if not 1440p (higher res's aren't that appealing too me), and as games start demanding more vRam I'm going to hit more and more that slow ram block.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 3,444
Well, anyone that has a problem returning theirs I'll gladly take it off your hands for $200.
I was actually just talking to a friend and said the exact same thing 2 minutes before reading this post.
Here's to waiting for the RMA firesale.
LurkerLito
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,879
Wait so are new GFX cards coming in Q2 for sure? Maybe I'll just stick with the 970 and see what comes out then, but doing that makes me feel like I was scammed out of $330 by Nvidia. I am less inclined now to want the 980 upgrade if new cards are coming in Q2. I guess a refund is still an option, but I really don't want to go back to a GTX670 and wait for the next batch of cards to come out.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,075
I am not considering a refund to be an option until something official comes out from Nvidia or the card makers. The whole thing seems very YMMV right now. It isn't worth the effort for me to try getting Newegg to accept a return on a 3 month old card until they have a policy for it.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 33,483
Exactly! Open box goodies they won't be able to sell. Watch the price on 970's plummet and snatch a couple up. I game at 1920x1080 which the card is more than enough for. My wife games at 1680x1050 so it'll be smokin hot for her rig.
As to the person that said COD:AW at 1080 was being affected by the 3.5GB limit....LOLOL. With my SLI 560ti's I can run that game at damn near max and I have 1GB cards. That was some funny shit right there. Made my morning!
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,108
Same boat as SunnyD and HyrdoBudz, I hope this kills the 970 prices, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 33,483
And I'll gladly take a return at a significantly reduced price.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,468
To the 970 owners out there, If Nvidia would NOT have mislead/lied/cheated the specs of the card and just sold it as a GTX970 with 3.5GB of RAM for $330, would you still have bought it/considered it when compared to the current competition at that time?
You don't have a good grasp of 970's memory problems, do you?
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 33,483
You don't have a good grasp of COD:AW's lack of needing high end hardware to play at max settings, do you?
- Status