Am I wrong or isnt the GTX 970 targeting 1080p-1600p? So unless someone is maxing out their multisampling, wont vram usage typically be under 3.5gb? So Im not happy about NVIDIA either with this silly misinformation, but not enough to return a nice upgrade which gets very decent performance at 1080p.
sh1tstorm is where it is at though! no publicity is bad publicity! honestly they should just left it 3gb if i buy 1gb/2/3/4/5 gb gpu i want the ram to be full bandwidth for all the ram not just 80% of the ram. I would been pissed if i bought that card and then found that out.
So with this new technology, couldnt they make 960 with more vram than 2gb? sorry i am really a noob.
If the 3.5gb card is gona run worse when then 3gb when all the ram is used cause that last amount rams bandwidth is castrated then no.
But it does run full bandwidth until 3.5GB. Like in every scenario this card is a better card then a 970 with 3GB of ram. If you have a game that's using 3.3GB of ram. The 3GB card is going to stutter, the 3.5+.5 isn't. If you have a game that's using 3.7GB of ram. The 3GB card is going to stutter, the 3.5+.5 will too but far less then the 3GB card. (Because the .5GB partition is way faster then system memory and only infrequently accessed data is being stored there). If you have a game that's using 4.3GB of ram. Both cards are stuttering the same amount.
Really? You'd rather less, then more, simply because the last bit of memory is slower? So you'd rather a worse performing card, then a better performing card, for the same price?> Is this the logic i am hearing right now? Except that it doesn't...if you are running a game that takes less then 3gb, the performance would be the same, if you are running a game that uses 3.1-3.5gb, the 970 in its current state will perform better then if left at 3gb. if running at 3.6-4.0gb, if the game uses it (and if it won't it will still perform better then at 3gb) it'll still perform better then both 3gb or 3.5gb just not at the same rate of performance that would be expected from if the last bit of memory wasn't slower, and possible stuttering (which would be apparent in 3.5gb or lower aswell, except more stuttering if there were stuttering)....but key word, still faster then 3gb and 3.5gb Except that it's not? so...not exactly sure what the point of your post is, other then to troll.... I'm not sure why i'm in this specific thread, and am reading it. It's ridiculous. It's full of people who are simply here to complain and have no other reason to be here other then to complain. You have the AMD graphics fanboys telling the world how horrible nvidia is and to convert or be struck down by humility. You have the people who have a graphics card that performs just exactly as it always has in all the benchmarks and when they got the card, but since something is different about the specs, OMGWTFBBQ the world must turn over for this blasphemy! REPENT! REPENT! Er, i mean, REFUND! I WANT FREE STUFF! even though the performance is.......the same as when i bought the card of which i bought the card for its performance..yeah..... You have the "OMG SUE ALL AND EVERYONE!" who chime in whenever there seems to be something for them to say "SUE SUE SUE!" over, because they are normal people who have the courage to claim sue, but never do it, but have this entitlement that states all business must be sued because that must be what normal individual people do, gotta make a living somehow right? And then you have the people who try and say "What really is the problem here? Yeah, bad marketing, definitely, and yet if the card was labeled as 3.5gb, with a 512mb cache, for the same price, we'd have exactly what we have now, exactly the same performance as was originally announced, and still worth the price that was listed, definitely. Lets hope something like this doesn't happen again." And what happens to these calm, level headed, not causing themselves needless stress, not causing more havoc in this world then is needed, not making a bigger deal out of something then what is needed, people? They get castrated by the previous 3 people, saying they are gullible, pawns, mindless sheep, etc. etc. etc. Well, i'm certainly glad i'm not one of the first 3....
I´m not sure when I see those mini gtx970s, seems like nvidia put way more pcb plastic and cooler than it was needed so they didn´t look overpriced in the eyes of consumers. :3eyes:
Outch, this was a bad move, as that last .5GB of the 970. Anyway for the next generation many people wont remember this...
Still trying to blow it out of proportions, I see. Oh well, only 5% return rates. But hey, the good news is, who makes good products is showing via marketshare, huh. Go AMD!
Tell me what is the point of have 3.5gb card if that card performs worse cause they castrated bandwidth on last part of ram then the 3gb card when ALL THE RAM is used at that point it dont mater if they the same price. IF the 3.5gb card performed better then the 3gb card when ALL THE RAM is used it becomes a different story, which is not the case with what nvidia did and castrating that last amount of ram. and it been proven using that last bit ram that is castrated in bandwidth is causing issues. Im not argue that more ram is bad thing its a good thing but only if all the ram run that same speed. in this case more ram with part of being castrated bandwidth wise causing performance issue. Key word here ALL THE RAM. Another words if I pay 350$ for 4gb card i expect that 4 gb card to run better then the same 350$ 3gb card when ALL the ram is used but that 970 4gb card has performance issue the said 3gb card does not have when all the ram is used or more then 3.5gb is used, cause that last bit ram runs slower bring down the performance as a whole.
Oh no, the ****-storm is deserved because not only people was lied to but has been proven also that the vram configuration can produce un-wanted behavior. As games become more resource hungry we will see more people trying to return their cards because of the problems, don´t worry.
The point is if I have a game that uses 3.3GB of ram your 3GB card is garbage and my 3.5+.5 is perfectly fine.
I totally agreed with you that Nvidia really messed up with the 970. They could remove him in the same manner that Apple removed Steve Jobs in 1984ish have a board meeting where they can remove him as CEO if they felt he wasn't doing a good enough job. Atari back in their hey day in 1970s they removed the founder so there are ways to remove a CEO and founder of a company. However since Nvidia is making all this money I cannot see any way of removing the founder father of Nvidia as CEO.
This! They totally screwed up the product descriptions, including ones sent to the reviewers (eg. 56 vs 64 units etc). But! One doesn't get perfect yields, some units have to be cut, and if that includes RAM support, it's great that they came up with such solution. It's a brilliant one, but it should have been communicated in the first place, because it's not as good as 980, and it was advertised pretty much the same. Performance-related glitches are rare, but as they may appear, it would be good if, along with full reliable product information, there was an option in drivers to cut the RAM support for certain games to the mentioned 3.5GB limit. Users may also decide to alter the settings to stay in that region for the most of the time. Over here 970 is cheaper than 290x, and costs just a little be over half of 980 price. Nothing comes close to it in its price range, and despite all the fuss about it, it would be my 1st upgrade option to consider right now. Yes, it's bad that the NV marketing was misleading and it's a shame. But please, don't attack them as Lenovo for their ads, security vulnerabilities, SSL interception and recently found keylogger.
It was a massive screw up but I don't think it was done intentionally. Even they had a hard time figuring out what was going on with the glitching and it took an outsider to pinpoint the issue. It was a big OH **** moment for them.. They did facilitate refunds for those that could not deal with it as soon as it was realized. So no one is out anything but a bit of frustration in the long run if they choose to return them. I'm inclined to give them a pass on this one as it is the first real problem we have seen like this from them. Also the 970 is a beast of a GPU even with this issue. IF they fixed the studder with drivers, as they said they were going to, then it should not be to big of an issue. Do the fix, drop the price on the card, and offer up a partial refund for those that bought it before the problem was discovered and I think they can put it behind them. I would rather see that than a class action were those that bought one get a pittance with the majority going to attorneys. If they did that way, the class action would more than likely be dropped.
