• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

GTX 970 memory specs

G

g0lden

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
67
Is the memory still 3.5gb or 4gb now? Microcenter has it listed as 4gb, but after all the trouble nVidia caused. Is that false advertising?
 
It still has 4GB, there are plenty of threads about this. None of the US retailers are going to change their marketing material.
 
Best to treat it as 3.5Gb. Eventually NVIDIA will release drivers that will reduce any negative impact, likely having software treat it as 3.5Gb and using the .5Gb in a way that is productive without reducing performance.
 
The 970 just has over-provisioning built in. .5 GB of it.


;)



More seriously, it's not false advertising that the 970 has 4GB ram.
 
atp1916 said:
The 970 just has over-provisioning built in. .5 GB of it.


;)



More seriously, it's not false advertising that the 970 has 4GB ram.
Click to expand...

I think mostly what rubbed people the wrong way was comparatively to the 980 the only difference noted originally was the GPU core, when in fact the memory was different as well. Couple that with stating, after the fact, that the memory configuration was a feature yet never mentioned until the fiasco, most have been left with a bad taste. Performance wise for the majority of users, it is of no consequence. Faith in the company however has waned.
 
durquavian said:
I think mostly what rubbed people the wrong way was comparatively to the 980 the only difference noted originally was the GPU core, when in fact the memory was different as well. Couple that with stating, after the fact, that the memory configuration was a feature yet never mentioned until the fiasco, most have been left with a bad taste. Performance wise for the majority of users, it is of no consequence. Faith in the company however has waned.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that the company is guilty as hell ethically. Hell, i'll even quote myself here!

To me, NVidia pulled a 'fast one' and thought they could get away with it. This is frankly unforgiveable in my eyes.
 
durquavian said:
Best to treat it as 3.5Gb. Eventually NVIDIA will release drivers that will reduce any negative impact, likely having software treat it as 3.5Gb and using the .5Gb in a way that is productive without reducing performance.
Click to expand...
This. If you look at the Dying Light review here on [H], you'll see either the driver or the game is limiting VRAM usage to around 3.5GB. It does have a total of 4GB of memory onboard, but you still have to keep in mind how it is going to be used in the real world. I don't think DirectX or OpenGL can actually see the 512MB slower segment. The driver probably has to allocate that block itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top