The 970, while a good card, hardly mops the floor with a 290X or overclocked 290. And the 290X and 290 can be had for much less than a 970.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Petitioning for 970 Refund
- Thread starter Nauseous
- Start date
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
§kynet;1041418073 said:
I checked with the newer GPUz 0.8.1 and it displays the same information as in the screenshot.
We have requested updated slides from NVIDIA.
Oh I'm sure someone wanting to sli with there current gigabyte G1 980 will pay for thst 980 over a 970
.It's been mentioned way too many times that runing 970 sli and high rez u will most likely see the issues with the memory controller with a hacked off nut.
Another reason to run from the 970.. no fun with sli. I like the option open if I feel the need down the road to grab another card cause I'm seriously itching to run 1440 rez.
So Nvidia didn't voluntarily send out corrected spec sheets to reviewers after it was proven that the info they initially sent was wrong?
Probably just another "miscommunication" within Nvidia, I'm sure.
Yup.. just like from the beginning.. they didn't want to hurt those sale figures by stating less then 4gb card so they will continue on with the master plan. Should have a Asterix next to the 4gb claim atleast.
While I don't like the way Nvidia conducts a lot of their business, the 970 is a 4 GB card. Despite the fact that the last 500 MB sometimes runs slower than the other 3.5 GB, it still all adds up to 4 GB. Plain and simple.
Oh I'm sure someone wanting to sli with there current gigabyte G1 980 will pay for thst 980 over a 970
It's been mentioned way too many times that runing 970 sli and high rez u will most likely see the issues with the memory controller with a hacked off nut.
Another reason to run from the 970.. no fun with sli. I like the option open if I feel the need down the road to grab another card cause I'm seriously itching to run 1440 rez.
Pretty much. I've been doing a lot of testing since last night with Dying Light, Shadows of Mordor, etc. GoldenTiger's research is absolutely on the money, the results I'm seeing are clearly FUBAR with 970 SLI even with 1440p at ultra settings in any games that use more than 3.5 GB. Those that are spreading the notion that this issue effects only people running 4k resolution are completely wrong.
So I decided that if I'm going to have to reduce settings in SLI anyway, what the hell do I need the second card for? That puppy is going to find a new home and I'll just stick with a single well overclocked 970 running slightly reduced settings at least until the next round of GPUs come out. No way am I giving NV more money to upgrade to a 980 after this mess, just can't bring myself to do it.
Hense the 4gb* astrerix I mentioned. Or better would be 3 1/2GB + a 1/2 old man "with a hat" driving in the slow lane GB for a total stuttering 4GB experiance The Way we want you to play!
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,774
The specs said 4GB at 256 bit width and 7,000 MHz. If that was true nVidia wouldn't have admitted they messed up and this thread would not exist. I am curious how nVidia responds to Kyle's request if there are updated spec slides.
Damar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,613
I'd bet the response is going to be... "Meh."
NV isnt going to say or do anything because they know they've basically got nothing to fear in the long run.
The torch wavers and pitchfork holders of today are still very likely going to be next cycles customers if NV has the best price/performance out there. Plenty have already swapped out 970's for 980's.
I'll wait for AMD to ship its 3XX cards and see what NV offers up (if anything) to counter punch, then I'll decide what to buy.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,774
I agree with you guys. nVidia doing anything would probably increase their risk if by some off chance they are taken to court.
It will be hard to ignore better performance. I was just reading in the AMD forums that AMD is neglecting crossfire lately. That doesn't really inspire confidence.
I am hoping DX12 actually levels the field a little, hopefully better sli/Xfire frametimes all around? If AMD offers similar value and performance in 2016 I'll jump ship. Maybe 10% under the Titan II but $600 rather than $1350? Like the 290x and Titan... A bit of speculation there. By a bit I mean I made up pretty much all of it.
That's exactly how they are responding right now. FWIW I still remember Bumpgate, but I agree with what you're saying.
Apart from the mining craze days, AMD has historically had better price/perf than nVidia. The problem is that while the hardware was good, software support was a bit lacking. There's also the perception that nVidia is somehow more premium, so people were willing to pay more. (I liken the situation to Gigabyte mobos -- great hardware hampered by lackluster bios)
That being said, I honestly can't say nVidia is so much better than AMD recently given how shitty the Maxwell drivers have been. I'd say at this rate for single card solutions AMD might achieve parity with nVidia, and only for multi-GPU setups would nVidia pull ahead due to at least an attempt at pushing out SLI profiles regularly.
They are probably too busy trucking wheelbarrow after wheelbarrow of cash to the nearest bank to be bothered with sending out updated spec sheets.
There are only so many hours in the day, after all.
So Nvidia didn't voluntarily send out corrected spec sheets to reviewers after it was proven that the info they initially sent was wrong?
Probably just another "miscommunication" within Nvidia, I'm sure.
ah the card didnt get slower.... and most people have no clue what 'level 2 cache' is let alone what a 'ROP' is
and if you bought the card purely off the pr spec sheet sight unseen ... well i got some other things to sell you too
cash only please small bills
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I already forgot about it.
Riccochet
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 29,906
I'd venture to say that the VAST majority of 970 buyers haven't a fucking clue this issue even exists.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,774
Funny story. The reference 970 I bought went into a miniITX 4690k build for my sister's family's Christmas present. I set up the software/hardware, moderately OC'd everything shipped it 1000 miles, told her to skype me to set it up. She didn't. Her husband hooked it up and they loved it. After a month I finally got them to run 3dmark and take temps just for my own sanity. She got 7xx firestrike instead of 10k. Also helped her setup minecraft and it only got 44fps. It dawned on me she was running off the IGP for a month and thought it was great...
Yeah people probably don't notice!! Hehe
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Or don't care. I know I don't. Obviously there are situations where it could matter, but mine isn't one of them. As I've said, Nvidia could have been more upfront about this, but the card performs very well as is. By the time a game that's actually worth anything comes out, and requires a metric-eff-ton of non-segmented memory, I'll have moved onto a new card anyway.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Recent power management features have limited overclocking on desktop parts as well.
It used to be that you could push the voltage quite high and work out for yourself your max stable thermal limit.
Using more advanced cooling allowed you to take advantage of that.
Now there are voltage and TDP limits that dont extend with better cooling.
You can get a higher overclock with better cooling, but without being able to boost the TDP, the TDP ends up being your wall, not the overclock stability.
Its understandable that due to novice users pushing the boundaries without realising the consequences, they have seen the need to do this.
So its not surprising that laptops are even more restricted tbh.
The number of laptops I have had to improve the cooling on to keep them alive is silly, and those were business users who didnt overclock, they just didnt allow them to vent very well.
It used to be that you could push the voltage quite high and work out for yourself your max stable thermal limit.
Using more advanced cooling allowed you to take advantage of that.
Now there are voltage and TDP limits that dont extend with better cooling.
You can get a higher overclock with better cooling, but without being able to boost the TDP, the TDP ends up being your wall, not the overclock stability.
Its understandable that due to novice users pushing the boundaries without realising the consequences, they have seen the need to do this.
So its not surprising that laptops are even more restricted tbh.
The number of laptops I have had to improve the cooling on to keep them alive is silly, and those were business users who didnt overclock, they just didnt allow them to vent very well.
The limitations you mentioned for desktop cards can be overridden by flashing your own BIOS. I finally fixed the damn SLI voltage bug and gave myself as much power as 8+6 pin could deliver, so the only thing holding back my overclock is the silicon and my balls.
I agree that most mainstream (and even some business class) laptops have poor stock cooling. But performance laptops that house a 970M or 980M are designed to handle such high TDP cards without overheating. I have a laptop that comes with TWO 780M cards, each with a 100W TDP rating. I can give both a 10% overclock and still keep temps under 85C. After tweaking the cooling system I've managed to keep temps below 75C.
These are not your el cheapo sub $1000 junkbooks, these are $3500+ 17.3"+ DTRs that can go toe to toe with a gaming desktop.
I agree that most mainstream (and even some business class) laptops have poor stock cooling. But performance laptops that house a 970M or 980M are designed to handle such high TDP cards without overheating. I have a laptop that comes with TWO 780M cards, each with a 100W TDP rating. I can give both a 10% overclock and still keep temps under 85C. After tweaking the cooling system I've managed to keep temps below 75C.
These are not your el cheapo sub $1000 junkbooks, these are $3500+ 17.3"+ DTRs that can go toe to toe with a gaming desktop.
Last edited:
I think you could pin it on them legally, but who is going to take the time and trouble.
Exhibit A) 256-bit GTX 980 running an application at 3GB, how many channels are at greater than 50% utilization. 8, that's good.
Exhibit B) 256-bit GTX 970 running an application at 3GB, how many channels are at greater than 50% utilization. 7, ah okay isn't that 224-bits then for a majority of uses?
Exhibit A) 256-bit GTX 980 running an application at 3GB, how many channels are at greater than 50% utilization. 8, that's good.
Exhibit B) 256-bit GTX 970 running an application at 3GB, how many channels are at greater than 50% utilization. 7, ah okay isn't that 224-bits then for a majority of uses?
What does your comment have to do with anything relevant?
Nvidia knows that the 970 specs they sent to the various review websites are wrong. Yet they couldn't be bothered to send out updated spec sheets so that the article's technical details regarding the 970 could be corrected?
It's simple honesty and courtesy. If you make an error, you try to fix it.
Starrbuck
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,981
Tru dat.
When I had the two 290X Lightning cards, I could get my rig to pull 1,100+ watts under full load. In the same system with an OC'd 980, it pulls about 420 watts. Adding a second OC'd 980 would probably bring it up to no more than 700 watts. HUGE difference in both power requirements and heat!
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
This was posted over on reddit.
Starrbuck
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,981
[L]imey;1041422308 said:
I didn't get jack from them. Sold my 970s on the open market. Canceled my Newegg Premier membership. Buying all my graphics cards from Amazon from now on.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
[L]imey;1041422308 said:
That is the reason I shared this here, someone must be feeling some heat. If I were a person that was looking to return my 970 to NE, you might reference this.
Riccochet
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 29,906
I do feel bad for those wanting to return their cards and are hitting walls with the eTailer's. NVIDIA and the manufacturers throwing up the big middle finger while letting the retail outlets take the hits says something about their willingness to support the products they create. Shitty all around.
That being said it might be prudent to make future online purchases with AmEx. At least they give you a 90 day window for returns regardless of what the eTailer's policies are.
That being said it might be prudent to make future online purchases with AmEx. At least they give you a 90 day window for returns regardless of what the eTailer's policies are.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
The fact is that the retailers will NOT take the hit outside of actually having to handle the return. The AIBs will have to take heat on those returns and that will be passed back to NVIDIA.
Starrbuck
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,981
[L]imey;1041422326 said:
Not an option for me as I am already at 1440p and was experiencing issues.
What issues were you having at 1440p on the GTX 970?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
Do you think that AIBs are not already contracted to "reimburse" for returned cards?
No, just geeks getting themselves worked up over nothing. People who look at synthetic and component specs over actual benchmarks.