We didn't cripple 970. We invented the way to upgrade it People with the custom title and 1, 2 digit post count should take note. High end trolling from Nvidia's CEO. Like a boss. That he is
Man you guys really need to back off. You do realize they worked their arses off to break the 3GB limit on card to raise it to 4GB? Who cares if the last 512 mb is slower. You could have just been stuck with a 3GB card. Yer lucky you got that much on that card. Sure it wasn't advertised properly, which they apologized for, but you still get the full 4GB. If I wasn't able to pay for a GTX 980, I'd still rather have more than 3GB from a GTX 970 despite having to deal with a slower 512mb half. Yeesh guys, if you keep blowing steam over this, then you don't understand that what they are saying at all. I'd take 3.9GB+ of Vram before 3GB. Dude it isn't trolling...he's telling the truth.... If you don't understand the architecture don't comment. I do agree though that the limitation should have been described. But in the end its not that big of a deal. You guys are the ones blowing it out of proportion. Nvidia could have left the GTX 970 at 3GB but they didn't. They worked around the architecture to give you as close to 4GB as they could. Which again I agree should have been communicated and they DID again....apologize for. Yeah for price/performance it sure is, it's not that big of a deal in memory loss either. It's pretty much working as a cache now. Still better than having just 3GB which could have happened.
Hey everyone, You don't like what we did the the GTX 970? Deal with it. You'll still buy our GPUs. With our recent hike in GPU market share, it shows how much you like us and our proprietary tech. With our Nvidia Sabotageworks program, you can be assured our GPUs will outperform the competition even if it means crappy game performance. As a show of our appreciation, we will be upgrading our GTX 900 mobile series of GPUs with a bios that prevents core overclocking. It goes to show that our GPUs are the most reliable in the market. Oh you want to overclock your mobile GPU? Deal with it. There are no AMD alternatives. As you can see we value our customers even in the absence of competition. Is your Nvidia graphics card not performing as expected? Don't worry, it's just a feature. We hope you keep buying our overpriced GPUs. Jen-Hsun
Want me to go over the AMD/ATI cards I've owned? Power Color HD 3870 Crossfire HIS HD 4870 X2 Sapphire HD 5870 MSI HD 7970 Crossfire Don't start. I'm just not jumping on your sinking band-wagon, making a bigger deal out of something that isn't so bad. I'm not fanboy I own a PS4 with AMD hardware that I find amazing for a console. I also own another PC with an Asrock 990FX Fatality Killer paired with an HD 7970 and AMD FX 8320. You really are ignorant. It was not sabotage, they extended the 3GB limitation because they wanted to not because they had to. They literally re-arranged the architecture to make it happen and fell a bit short having to use the last 512MB or so as a cache. If you can't understand you guys really need to stop and smell the roses and try to clear up your own ignorance. What IS right about this is...yes they should have said so from the start. That part I do agree with.
My thoughts exactly. It would have been a far better PR move if he uploaded a Youtube video of himself doing a line of coke off a hooker's ass in a room filled with returned 970s and piles of money then saying 'Haters gonna hate.'.
Back off what? They advertised a 4GB card that has frametime issues above 3.5GB. Who cares? I don't know, the people playing BF4/Mordor/Etc with stuttering issues as the memory limit approaches 4GB? Those people perhaps? Would they prefer a 3GB card? I don't know? Maybe? I would imagine they would like to know the specs of the card in complete before buying it though so they could make that call for themselves. But to sit here and say they should be thankful for this feature is just a slap in the face. It's ****ty PR. End of discussion.
Can you not read? Then don't respond to my post. What do you think I said? I said you guys are taking it too far. ITS friggen only 512 mb of Vram uses as a cache/buffer because of slower bandwidth. They could have LEFT the GTX 970 at 3GB but they DIDN'T. I said I agree that it should have been advertised. But Nvidia did not SABOTAGE just didn't advertise properly. So grow up and put up people. It's not that big of a deal. If you understood that you actually are getting MORE Vram than you could have, you'd not be complaining.
"Unfortunately, we failed to communicate this internally to our marketing team, and externally to reviewers at launch." I mean, what they do internally? Keep watching youtube videos?
Hey Nvidia here's an idea why not stop skimping on vram and release an affordable card with say 6GB or 8GB or would that eat too much into your profits, so tired of all this...
Can you read? In my post that you quoted where did I say they sabotaged the card? The problem is people bought the card expecting it to have 4GB of ram and to perform without stuttering all the way up to the 4GB limit. It doesn't do that. PC Perspective benchmarks show it doesn't do that. It stutters above 3.5GB. Perhaps those people would have purchased 290x's instead. Perhaps they would have stepped up to a 980. Regardless they advertised incorrectly. Which you state. Fine. But to sit here and claim it's a feature is a red herring. No one is complaining that the card isn't a 3GB card, they are complaining that it isn't a 4GB one. It's like a kid telling his parents that he got an A on his report card, only for them to find out it's a B+, then he says "WELL IT COULD HAVE BEEN A C". No one cares, it's not an A.
It's not like the 970 was overpriced at launch, even in hindsight it's still not overpriced, but it is a good example of something looking like it was to good to be true ending up being to good to be true. The card is still performing really well for me so I have zero reason to complain and by the time it does start to struggle it could be a non issue.
For the most part I agree, it's still a good card, it's performance is competitive for the price and the vast majority of trolls are blowing it out of proportion. But the issue is with them being upfront about it. This PR blog thing now is just nonsense -- they're like one step from labeling the .5GB G-Sink and advertising that as a feature too.
Sometimes very large corporations don't understand why they can't misrepresent product to masses of customers on the Internet if at least one of them is smart. It takes only one customer to stand up, point finger back at the corporation and tell the truth about "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is like trying to sow flowers in the field with at least one mine - sooner or later you will step on it .
If you own a 970 and are suffering from any stutters playing BF4 or any game because of memory bandwidth issues then i'm sorry your an idiot. My 980 can suffer from these stutters as well once i reach a high memory count but guess what? I can fix it in 2 seconds by this thing called settings. You know that thing called options in the games you play is there for a reason. I think people expect too much out of a Mid end card. Yes it's Maxwell new and shiny but mainly the only complaint i'm hearing is how "my 970 stutters with stupidly high settings" well DERRRR. People just sound butt hurt because their cheapish mid-high range gfx card can't pump out 16x this and 8x times that with 4k res without some stuttering. Just a question to real 970 owners. If you turn down in-game settings so that you never hit 3.5gb do you still get stutters? I'm already guessing that the answer is of course not because this issue is easily avoided by simply not trying to push a mid end gfx card beyond its capabilities. You still got what you paid for, a mid-high end card that is clearly better than anything else for the price while still being good enough to play the latest AAA titles WITHOUT a problem. The problem is you.....
Uh no. The card exhibits frame-time stutters above 3.5GB of memory usage, even in QHD games (although obviously there are less games hitting 3.5GB @ QHD ). Far more than the 980 does at the same memory usage. That isn't attributed to a loss in shader power, but memory access issues. The problem is also exacerbated with SLI, as all memory/frametime issues are. Again, I definitely see posts of users, with like 10 total posts all related to this issue, claiming that their 970 performed like crap in 4K 8xAA and they only got 10FPS all due to this issue. And I agree those people are dumb. But still, there are definitely frame-time issues above 3.5GB, and again that happens in games at QHD resolution. Also the number of games that are using 3.5GB+ of memory are only going to increase in the near future. Most of which will probably all exceed 4GB anyway, but the ones that fall between 3.5-4.0GB will definitely experience more issues on the 970 then other cards also listed as 4GB cards.
Agreed but then again we can blame that on game optimization and the fact that Maxwell still really hasn't been optimized yet. The reason for this i believe is because of DX12, Nvidia seems to be mainly working on this new API and we still don't know if this can be better dealt with, with driver updates and better memory management. Well i have a evga ssc 460 with only 786mb of Vram on my sons PC and it plays ALL games just fine @1080 with lowish settings. I even tried playing the new COD on it and guess what it works fine but does stutter some times. Poxy 786mb of Vram and it still works on all games. Go figure.
