970 memory allocation issue revisited

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by alanm, Jan 23, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,192
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    card ownership does not matter,

    blatant trolling like that shadow kook as opposed to someone who tries to understand and help does
     
  2. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,214
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    If Nvidia have responded with a statement why isn't it posted on their own website?


    Yes we're biased....us and the other 15 different forums where you started this same thread right?

    Did somebody mention spam...? .:3eyes:
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  3. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    Think nvidia is going to think twice before releasing a card like the 970 at a cheap price point again. Less people complaining if it were more expensive.
     
  4. CK the Greek

    CK the Greek Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    GB 2060S,Gsync,3DV2
    Conclusion about it,

    1) we all had an older card and see good performance with our new 970, however we also saw in some games the problem over 3.5 vram and the ONLY worst part is the stuttering that starts after that point while we see playable fps (I mean more than 45-50 fps,no 25 or 30..meaning stuttering due to vram not lacking gpu power,ok?)

    To tell you the truth of what I understand here might be a "problem" for the next year (or two,mostly) when we will have games that are optimized(so they won't decrease performance due to that) and they use more than 3.5gb vram and we, users with single or dual 970s have issues not able to have playable gaming...however when that moment comes..newer gpus will arise and you know the drill...BYE old BUY new :paranoid:


    2) this "thing" that Nvidia did with 970s can't be criticized legally flawed but it maybe criticized by gamers(and only). Meaning that they sell a gpu that may use up to 4gb vram but not...crystal clear as we thought it would. For me it seems like a smart sales business move wearing a legal-proof jacket.
    Now I start to think better why the heck is so big the different price between 970 and 980.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015

  5. AMN3S1AC

    AMN3S1AC Guest

    Yes, I asked that to the Nvidia Tech Support and they said that they knew nothing about this statement and that the tech team were still investigating.
     
  6. rm082e

    rm082e Master Guru

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    251
    GPU:
    3080 - QHD@165hz
    Let's put this in perspective: If the box had said up front 3.5 GB of RAM, would you still have bought the card at the same price?

    For me, absolutely.
     
  7. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,370
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    One should understand that no game which allocates entire 4GB of vram uses those data on "per frame basis".
    Only fraction is used in each frame as big part of textures which are stored in vram are not on screen each frame.

    Therefore even if game fills entire vram issue may not be see unless viewport contains affected textures.
    That is why i suggested to fill 3GB of vram with dummy data, confirm that those data have normal access speed and then load small game using 600MB into region which is suspected to be "bad".

    Now look at issue realistically, game fills 3.5GB, OS fills 250MB.
    We say 3.25GB of game data would be accessible it perfect speed (250GB/s).
    And remaining 250MB would be accessible at 10GB/s.
    If you happen to have only those "bad" 250MB of textures on screen, you still can load them 10/0.25 = 40 times per second not creating serious impact.

    In other words, I think unless artificial scenario is made to observe this issue, It will be very hard to create in regular applications/games or replicate.
    Because impact itself on fps is not that drastic in comparison to methods used to utilize that vram (downsampling/heavy AA).
    Likely most of games which already fill 3.5GB will have around 35-45fps.
    But maybe SLi users may observe bigger slowdowns/issues.
     
  8. AMN3S1AC

    AMN3S1AC Guest

    But it didn't say that, it said 4GB.

    Different details matter to different people.
     
  9. VultureX

    VultureX Banned

    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX970 SLI
    I came from a 256-bit 4GB 670GTX SLI setup and I would certainly have not purchased these cards. I expect the same experience I had on my 670GTX, but it is worse.
     
  10. rm082e

    rm082e Master Guru

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    251
    GPU:
    3080 - QHD@165hz
    That's why I said "to you" and "For me". I'm asking a question to each individual on this board.
     

  11. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    For me the problem isn´t about the card having 4GB or 3.5GB of memory, the problem is about how Nvidia handled this situation. They could have warned reviewers about this so they could warn their readers, so we could knew about it before deciding to buy the card. Instead they just played dumb and waited for the card to sell in millions before anyone could notice.

    I´m really disappointed on how Nvidia decided to handle this whole thing...
     
  12. joe187

    joe187 Master Guru

    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    20
    GPU:
    MSI RTX 3060ti
    On principle... yes it is kind of crap. But if you think about, ALL these companies today are sneaky in some way. And well 3.5 just wouldn't sell as well, a nice even 4 really brings in the herd. And well, it still technically has 4 so, heh yeah.

    That being said, 970 is still a great card.
     
  13. AMN3S1AC

    AMN3S1AC Guest

    Yes, but how can anyone make an informed choice if the specifications are not accurately listed on the box.

    You would be happy with a gtx 970 3,5GB...good for you, pity they didn't market that version with a $50 discount.
     
  14. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    3,449
    GPU:
    Asus 2080 Dual OC
    Well said. Thats the only time I experienced the issue with my card, in an "artificial scenario".
     
  15. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    I agree with you and i don´t regret buying my 970 but i just can´t stand all the bull**** Nvidia is trowing at us to hide the fact the card isn´t exactly the way they sait it was, it´s so stupid and unnecessary, most people would have bought the card anyway.

    I just hope the card doesn´t have any other problems Nvidia is "forgetting" telling us...
     

  16. Garra

    Garra Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980 Gigabyte G1
    With what program I can be testing the VGA?
     
  17. Battlefieldprin

    Battlefieldprin Member Guru

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS 780TI DC 2 OC 3GB
    so it turns out to be 3.5 GB . One of my clinet now has just canceled his purchase of 970 because of this article ( bad for business )
     
  18. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    125
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    So in essence it is a 208bit bus and 3.5GB ram with a reserve of 0.5GB and 48bit.

    Sounds a bit like turbo doesn't it? except it hasn't been marketed that way they are advertising the max theoretical, fact that games are crashing when using the other allocated space indicates that.

    Except both AMD and Intel market the typical speed with the max so really nVidia has miss sold their products.
     
  19. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    3,449
    GPU:
    Asus 2080 Dual OC
    Maybe the only games that are affected are those one can push into using over 3.5gb, and sometimes in an unrealistic manner. FC4 was running quite smooth for me maxed @1440p, modest AA. Had to apply MSAAx8 to get it to 3.79gb. And OMG, can you believe it slowed to a crawl!! :D Would like to see how other non-970 single card owners fare at that.

    Same. Paid more for my 770 than this. I upgrade almost every 12-18 months.
     
  20. Öhr

    Öhr Master Guru

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    65
    GPU:
    AMD RX 5700XT @ H₂O
    I paid 340.21€ for a card that can access 4GB with a bus width of 256bit throughout.
    Instead, you threw 3.5GB of fast access, with a slow crippled 500MB trailing in from behind.
    It's like you sold us a 4GB SSD, that was actually a combination 3.5GB SSD and 0.5GB HDD.

    You lied to us. It took you weeks to think of a ****ty press statement that essentially states: We know about the issue, we decided to ship a broken product anyway and we don't give a **** about you.

    The performance tanks in most games once we go over your implemented 3.5GB limit, thus making it only playable at 3.5GB and effectively a 3.5GB card. That's already only 7/8 of the advertised value of the card.
    Additionally, we expect identical bandwidth performance when comparing the 970 and 980, thanks to its identically advertised bus width of 256bit and memory frequency of 7000MHz total. Well, we didn't get that and received another drop in performance of roughly 18.75%.

    So in conclusion, the card the card's worth is 1/8 less of what you advertised, thanks to its 3.5GB limit and another 13/16th of that because of the reduced memory bus bandwidth, making it only worth 91/128 or 71% of your advertised product.

    If we put a pricetag on it, its only 241.87€, thus overpriced by nearly 100€.

    And that is the money I expect you [NVIDIA] to give back to us customers, in my case 98€.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page