GTX 970 3.5GB Vram Issue
  105 / 438    
[color="green"]And i say to REFUND TO ALL WHO WANT[/color][b] [/b]
And i say to REFUND TO ALL WHO WANT
Posted 01/26/2015 06:30 PM   
This is not ok!
This is not ok!

Posted 01/26/2015 06:32 PM   
Well, this will totally end in a class action lawsuit in every country where such thing exists, they lied on the specs, people bought a 4GB gfx card but only got 3.5GB at the advertised bandwidth. I know, not first time nvidia does it (GTX 660), but it's the firt time they try to fuck over the high end segment, where peple obviously care about it, they wouldn't drop $300€ + otherwise. Shitty move nvidia...
Well, this will totally end in a class action lawsuit in every country where such thing exists, they lied on the specs, people bought a 4GB gfx card but only got 3.5GB at the advertised bandwidth.

I know, not first time nvidia does it (GTX 660), but it's the firt time they try to fuck over the high end segment, where peple obviously care about it, they wouldn't drop $300€ + otherwise.

Shitty move nvidia...

Posted 01/26/2015 06:32 PM   
The problem and risk is that this performance difference essentially depends on the heuristics of the OS and its ability to balance the pools effectively, putting data that needs to be used less frequently or in a less latency-dependent fashion in the 0.5GB portion. So basically saying its the game makers fault for trying to use the slower portion of the RAM that we did not tell them about. "This is not the first time that NVIDIA has used interesting memory techniques to adjust performance characteristics of a card. The GTX 550 Ti and the GTX 660 Ti both used unbalanced memory configurations, allowing a GPU with a 192-bit memory bus to access 2GB. This also required some specific balancing on NVIDIA's side to make sure that the 64-bit portion of that GPU's memory controller with double the memory of the other two didn't weigh memory throughput down in the 1.5 GB to 2.0 GB range. NVIDIA was succeeded there an the GTX 660 Ti was one of the company's most successful products of the generation." Does this mean they fixed that card with an update or did it just work as intended >?
The problem and risk is that this performance difference essentially depends on the heuristics of the OS and its ability to balance the pools effectively, putting data that needs to be used less frequently or in a less latency-dependent fashion in the 0.5GB portion.

So basically saying its the game makers fault for trying to use the slower portion of the RAM that we did not tell them about.

"This is not the first time that NVIDIA has used interesting memory techniques to adjust performance characteristics of a card. The GTX 550 Ti and the GTX 660 Ti both used unbalanced memory configurations, allowing a GPU with a 192-bit memory bus to access 2GB. This also required some specific balancing on NVIDIA's side to make sure that the 64-bit portion of that GPU's memory controller with double the memory of the other two didn't weigh memory throughput down in the 1.5 GB to 2.0 GB range. NVIDIA was succeeded there an the GTX 660 Ti was one of the company's most successful products of the generation."

Does this mean they fixed that card with an update or did it just work as intended >?

Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-4790k @ 4.5 GHz (1.155v) http://valid.x86.fr/bnwk53 Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 3: ATX, LG1150, USB 3.0, SATA 6GBs, XFIRE/SLI 16GB KINGSTON HYPER-X FURY DUAL-DDR3 1600MHz / 4GB PALiT GTX 970 (BOOST 1450Mhz @ 70c MAX) Core Clock http://img.techpowerup.org/150418/nvidia_20150418_201516.png
/ 250GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD / 2TB WD CAVIAR BLACK / CORSAIR VS-550w POWER SUPPLY
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4100857

Posted 01/26/2015 06:34 PM   
Lied to is not a "misunderstanding" its being lied to. Now that you have my money its a misunderstanding.
Lied to is not a "misunderstanding" its being lied to. Now that you have my money its a misunderstanding.

Gigabyte G1. Sniper Gaming(F8 BIOS) i7-4790k @4.6
Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB 2x8GB@1866 CL-9-9-9-27 XMP-ON
Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980 Core@ 1475MHZ/Mem 7436MHZ
MSI GTX 970 Golden Edition 56-ROPs 1.78MB L2 Cache
Nvidia Driver (368.22 - WHQL) - Win 10 Genuine
Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD - Seagate 1TB 7200RPM 64MB-Cache HDD
Corsair 600T Case - Polaroid 50" TV-AOC E2050SWD 20" Side-Monitor

Posted 01/26/2015 06:35 PM   
So having read the article, my takeaways: -nVidia wasn't as forthcoming about the GTX 970's architecture as it should have been. Disclosing the facts around the memory segmentation as well as the reduced number of ROP's (56, not 52 as shown in the pcper.com chart) should have been mentioned from the beginning. -in the big picture the performance degradation from the partitioning of the VRAM (4% to 6%) doesn't explain the performance issues many users here are complaining of. -the reviews of the GTX 970 made no mention of this architectural change, nor did they mention any performance deficit. Did the reviewers get specially engineered samples? Did they not look deep enough into the performance of the 970? Or was there simply nothing for them to report, as the loss of performance at high levels of memory usage really is minimal? A number of reviewers did evaluate frametimes as well, finding nothing amiss. I don't think this is the final word with regards to this story.
So having read the article, my takeaways:

-nVidia wasn't as forthcoming about the GTX 970's architecture as it should have been. Disclosing the facts around the memory segmentation as well as the reduced number of ROP's (56, not 52 as shown in the pcper.com chart) should have been mentioned from the beginning.

-in the big picture the performance degradation from the partitioning of the VRAM (4% to 6%) doesn't explain the performance issues many users here are complaining of.

-the reviews of the GTX 970 made no mention of this architectural change, nor did they mention any performance deficit. Did the reviewers get specially engineered samples? Did they not look deep enough into the performance of the 970? Or was there simply nothing for them to report, as the loss of performance at high levels of memory usage really is minimal? A number of reviewers did evaluate frametimes as well, finding nothing amiss.

I don't think this is the final word with regards to this story.

i5-4690
MSI Z97-G45
Gigabyte mATX GTX 970 4 GB
2X4GB RAM
Several HDD's plus a SDD
Onboard ALC1150 sound - actually quite good!
Win 8.1

Posted 01/26/2015 06:35 PM   
They say the 0.5 GB VRam runs at [b]4 times the speed of pci express [/b]on the 970 memory architecture Which version of pci express are they talking about here, they all have different speeds ? PCi 1 = 4gb/sec Pci E 2 = 8 GB/sec pciE 3 = 15.7 GB/sec pci e 4 = 31.5 GB/sec If it's operating at 4 x pci express 1 then that means the 0.5 GB separated partition will only run at 16GB/sec max
They say the 0.5 GB VRam runs at 4 times the speed of pci express on the 970 memory architecture

Which version of pci express are they talking about here, they all have different speeds ?


PCi 1 = 4gb/sec
Pci E 2 = 8 GB/sec
pciE 3 = 15.7 GB/sec
pci e 4 = 31.5 GB/sec

If it's operating at 4 x pci express 1 then that means the 0.5 GB separated partition will only run at 16GB/sec max

MSI GTX 970 3.5gb gaming + 0.5 GB cache

Posted 01/26/2015 06:35 PM   
You lie to as, you put Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 224, but is not.
You lie to as, you put Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 224, but is not.
Posted 01/26/2015 06:35 PM   
970 was the last nvidia card I bought... the next is an AMD REFUND!!!!!!!!
970 was the last nvidia card I bought... the next is an AMD

REFUND!!!!!!!!

Posted 01/26/2015 06:35 PM   
3.5GB Vram + 500MB "cache" or "buffer".... -_- Ok, I think my GTX970 is still a good card but I have to forget all these Vram issues first.........
3.5GB Vram + 500MB "cache" or "buffer".... -_-


Ok, I think my GTX970 is still a good card but I have to forget all these Vram issues first.........

Posted 01/26/2015 06:36 PM   
So the problem lies with the OS/Drivers sometimes using the incorrect pool. That means the 970 should still be fixable by drivers alone. Fixable as in; function properly in applications which misuse the 0.5GB pool. Do I think it's wrong not to fully disclose this information; yes. But I chose the GTX970 based on benchmarks, and those don't really change. I'll look at how the drivers develop over time and decide from there.
So the problem lies with the OS/Drivers sometimes using the incorrect pool. That means the 970 should still be fixable by drivers alone.

Fixable as in; function properly in applications which misuse the 0.5GB pool.

Do I think it's wrong not to fully disclose this information; yes. But I chose the GTX970 based on benchmarks, and those don't really change.

I'll look at how the drivers develop over time and decide from there.

Intel Core i5-4670K @ 4.5ghz
MSI Z87i Gaming AC
MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G

Posted 01/26/2015 06:36 PM   
Still not buying your crappy memory excuse and this "ryan" guy forgot about the fps drop and stuttering they obviously bought him cause my 970 cant even run metro LL on 1366×768 without dropping fps like hell and god damn stuttering explain this crap nvidia my gtx 260 kinda outperforms 970 in stuttering and fps drop section.... jesus christ i upgraded to a crappy card considering its a high lvl range one.
Still not buying your crappy memory excuse and this "ryan" guy forgot about the fps drop and stuttering they obviously bought him cause my 970 cant even run metro LL on 1366×768 without dropping fps like hell and god damn stuttering explain this crap nvidia my gtx 260 kinda outperforms 970 in stuttering and fps drop section.... jesus christ i upgraded to a crappy card considering its a high lvl range one.

Posted 01/26/2015 06:37 PM   
[quote="davidmugen"]Still not buying your crappy memory excuse and this "ryan" guy forgot about the fps drop and stuttering they obviously bought him cause my 970 cant even run metro LL on 1366×768 without dropping fps like hell and god damn stuttering explain this crap nvidia my gtx 260 kinda outperforms 970 in stuttering and fps drop section.... jesus christ i upgraded to a crappy card for a high lvl range one.[/quote] Illiterate much? Your game experience has nothing to do with your 970 but probably your CPU. Metro is incredibly CPU intensive. http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/5621/15/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980--970-review-incl-ultra-hd-benchmarks-metro-last-light GTX 260, your CPU probably also stems from that era. Explains allot.
davidmugen said:Still not buying your crappy memory excuse and this "ryan" guy forgot about the fps drop and stuttering they obviously bought him cause my 970 cant even run metro LL on 1366×768 without dropping fps like hell and god damn stuttering explain this crap nvidia my gtx 260 kinda outperforms 970 in stuttering and fps drop section.... jesus christ i upgraded to a crappy card for a high lvl range one.


Illiterate much?

Your game experience has nothing to do with your 970 but probably your CPU. Metro is incredibly CPU intensive.
http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/5621/15/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980--970-review-incl-ultra-hd-benchmarks-metro-last-light

GTX 260, your CPU probably also stems from that era. Explains allot.

Intel Core i5-4670K @ 4.5ghz
MSI Z87i Gaming AC
MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G

Posted 01/26/2015 06:40 PM   
[quote="M4jestic"]So the problem lies with the OS/Drivers sometimes using the incorrect pool. That means the 970 should still be fixable by drivers alone. Fixable as in; function properly in applications which misuse the 0.5GB pool.[/quote] NO its hardware. It is broken and you were lied to... read the link to review at the bottom, we were sold hardware that doesn't have what it was advertised. [url]http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970[/url]
M4jestic said:So the problem lies with the OS/Drivers sometimes using the incorrect pool. That means the 970 should still be fixable by drivers alone.

Fixable as in; function properly in applications which misuse the 0.5GB pool.

NO its hardware. It is broken and you were lied to... read the link to review at the bottom, we were sold hardware that doesn't have what it was advertised.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Gigabyte G1. Sniper Gaming(F8 BIOS) i7-4790k @4.6
Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB 2x8GB@1866 CL-9-9-9-27 XMP-ON
Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980 Core@ 1475MHZ/Mem 7436MHZ
MSI GTX 970 Golden Edition 56-ROPs 1.78MB L2 Cache
Nvidia Driver (368.22 - WHQL) - Win 10 Genuine
Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD - Seagate 1TB 7200RPM 64MB-Cache HDD
Corsair 600T Case - Polaroid 50" TV-AOC E2050SWD 20" Side-Monitor

Posted 01/26/2015 06:40 PM   
What other alternative do we have for the GTX 970? I wouldn't want to go to AMD but they have R9290 Tri X - 4GB DDR5, 512Bit. Also, it's 20 euro's cheaper in my country (Romania) than the GTX 970 Phantom that i have.
What other alternative do we have for the GTX 970? I wouldn't want to go to AMD but they have R9290 Tri X - 4GB DDR5, 512Bit. Also, it's 20 euro's cheaper in my country (Romania) than the GTX 970 Phantom that i have.

Sign the GTX 970 refund petition at: https://www.change.org/p/nvidia-refund-for-gtx-970

Posted 01/26/2015 06:42 PM   
  105 / 438    
Scroll To Top