Hey, so I've had 970 for about 2 weeks now and I love it so far, like I know I could probably return card because of false advertising reason basically but I wont, if I did I would kinda feel bad or like an asshole, I mean great card, good performance and not noticing problems until they were told us, so yeah I wont return it definitely.
However, I still feel fucked over a bit, I mean I paid for 4 GB and got 3.5, even though it doesn't affect me, I still feel fucked over, not sure how to explain it, but anyway:
1) What is actually VRAM? They say IF game uses more than 3.5 Gb of VRAM, how does game decide it? I mean could the game not squeeze the shit out of card to achieve maximum FPS and take all available memory?
Is VRAM like a memory where textures get stored when game is loaded for quick access and rendering in game? Like RAM for just software?
2) In how many years will 4 GB ram be minimum for games?
3) Is it possible that Nvidia will develop driver to fix or somehow manage issue better? I mean it makes sense to me that it's physical problem instead of software, like you can't sell car with broken engine and then fix it via software update for center console.
4) Is it possible that nvidia will compensate users with something? or its' not their style/way of doing things?
5) Anyone of you considering returning it or did already?
How many monitors you got? 1?
Your fine then pretty much.
[QUOTE=Tudd;47039342]How many monitors you got? 1?
Your fine then pretty much.[/QUOTE]
2
[editline]30th January 2015[/editline]
1: 1920x1080
2: 1366x768
[QUOTE=lockdown6;47039367]1) VRAM is a much faster form of RAM, used to store and quickly load things like textures. The game will use over 3.5 GB of VRAM if it needs it. With the 970, the problem is that the last 0.5 GB of VRAM is much slower, and it causes stuttering if the game ends up needing to use it.
2) Consoles have 8 GB of VRAM shared with the whole system (it acts as both RAM and VRAM). Bad ports will use more of it than good ones. It's more of an issue if you play at very high resolutions (over 1080p).
3) The card is already designed to avoid using the last 0.5 GB if possible. Nvidia said they would issue a driver update to improve how it manages VRAM
4) They spent months just fine until it was found out, tried to ignore it at first and only now one tech support guy offered to help people get refunds from wherever they bought them. The only real reason the 970 is built like this in the first place is probably to save costs, to give you an idea
5) I heavily considered returning mine, but instead I'll try to get a partial refund from the place I bought it and use the 970 until games start requiring more than 3.5 GB at 1080p (or it otherwise becomes obsolete).[/QUOTE]
Think I can claim partial refund from Amazon? Currently item is on review marked, cannot be purchased, [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00NFFAW50?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00[/url]
I bought mine just after Christmas, but I think it's a fantastic card and already get great performance, so these big updates they're promising are more than welcome. I'll also be buying another later on this year hopefully.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;47039375]Amazon has been giving out refunds to everyone who has asked, from what I've heard. It's worth a try[/QUOTE]
So do I contact ASUS or Maplin_Webdeals in this case?
2GB are still enough for everything at 1080p really!
You are fine for years to come!!!
Sort of lucky I didnt purchase a second 970 when I got my 4K monitor after hearing about all of this.... First time I have doubted Nvidia, used to be very AMD but after this incident
[QUOTE=lordofdafood;47039718]Sort of lucky I didnt purchase a second 970 when I got my 4K monitor after hearing about all of this.... First time I have doubted Nvidia, used to be very AMD but after this incident[/QUOTE]
Not sure if I am the only one,
but I fee that AMD is making quite a fast comeback (which is awesome)
I hope they straighten out their CPU line as well compared to Intel.
I am not fan of AMD and I am not fan of Intel or Nvidia, I just like to have choice.
Would love to be able to enter forums, ask about what CPU to get, list my requirements and have response like:
Well Intel will do faster at XX but will lack ZZ at YY
While AMD will be faster at YY but lack ZZ at XX
Right now I have AMD CPU (Fx 8350) but I would switch to some fast i7 any day if I could afford it, just because it's faster and it will give me better performance than current CPU not because I love Intel or something.
Same reason I got 970, because I was recommended it and benchmarks say R9 270X vs GTX 970 show higher results for 970.
Right now I often see people suggesting Intel and Nvidia or pure AMD without giving any proper explanation or reasons, most likely fanboys.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47039740]
Right now I have AMD CPU (Fx 8350) but I would switch to some fast i7 any day if I could afford it, just because it's faster and it will give me better performance than current CPU not because I love Intel or something.
Same reason I got 970, because I was recommended it and benchmarks say R9 270X vs GTX 970 show higher results for 970.
Right now I often see people suggesting Intel and Nvidia or pure AMD without giving any proper explanation or reasons, most likely fanboys.[/QUOTE]
I'm only running an Intel/Nvidia combo because they're at the top of their game at the moment. If AMD made a serious comeback (GPU front looks likely, CPU not so much) I would grab their product too.
Looking at this from the outside; should I try and go for a 980 to be safe with 4GB VRAM or should I go AMD ?
[editline]30th January 2015[/editline]
planning on building a computer this month
[QUOTE=maxolina;47039498]2GB are still enough for everything at 1080p really!
You are fine for years to come!!![/QUOTE]
I have a 760 2gb i bought 8 months ago, I sort of regret not getting the 4gb model. I don't play many games that I run out of VRAM, but some mods I have tried to run, does make it run out.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47039345]2
[editline]30th January 2015[/editline]
1: 1920x1080
2: 1366x768[/QUOTE]
Your still probably only going to game on the 1080p. Soooooo don't know why you guys think this is a comeback post.
3.5gb is still a hell of a lot, but hopefully their driver release will help the VRAM usage issue
and im reading that EVGA's FTW 970 doesn't have this issue, which is cool,.
can't wait to step up to the 970 ftw+
[QUOTE=ClaBrendon;47042050]3.5gb is still a hell of a lot, but hopefully their driver release will help the VRAM usage issue
and im reading that EVGA's FTW 970 doesn't have this issue, which is cool,.
can't wait to step up to the 970 ftw+[/QUOTE]
That driver thing isn't happening. It was an incorrect statement.
well, they said not specific for just the 970, it's gonna be for the entire geForce line
give the anandtech article on this issue a good read. AT is practically one of the only unbiased and properly factual tech journalism site left
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation[/url]
Like lain, I would recommend this for anyone who wants to know, because unless you talk to someone who knows GPUs really well, that person is probably not capable of explaining the issue properly and accurately.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;47039367]The only real reason the 970 is built like this in the first place is probably to save costs, to give you an idea[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. It's an architectural limitation. While you are right that they could have just thrown all the cards without 64 functioning ROP partitions away, and that this is a matter of cost, it's not quite that simple. If NVIDIA couldn't selectively disable the non functioning partitions that would have driven up the cost of the card as a result of worse yields, which means your 970 would have cost you a lot more money. Nvidia ultimately went with the best possible solution to get the performance they wanted at a given price point. If this were Kepler gen then the only solution would have been to just reduce the bus width and VRAM, which actually would have produced a worse card than we ultimately got.
I bought mine about two weeks ago as well and couldn't be happier. Just got through reading anandtech's article on the matter and I still feel it was the right purchase for me. I'm confident this card will last me as long as my GTX 480 did.
[QUOTE=ClaBrendon;47042050]3.5gb is still a hell of a lot, but hopefully their driver release will help the VRAM usage issue
and im reading that EVGA's FTW 970 doesn't have this issue, which is cool,.
can't wait to step up to the 970 ftw+[/QUOTE]
I have a 970 FTW, when playing Dying Light (at 1080p, the game is unoptimized as hell, but still) the memory usage goes up to 3.5GB and the game becomes an unplayable stutterfest.
On "Medium" texture quality the vram usage hovers around 2.5GB and the game runs fine but looks like shit, and I didn't buy a 970 to have my games look like shit, so I'm kinda confused as to what I should do now, I can't really afford a 980
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
I'm particularly dissapointed by this because I upgraded from a 660Ti which suffered from functionally the same issue, and I made sure the 970 didn't have any gimped specs related to the memory controllers and all before purchase, but people found this out only like a week after I got my card
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47045951]I have a 970 FTW, when playing Dying Light (at 1080p, the game is unoptimized as hell, but still) the memory usage goes up to 3.5GB and the game becomes an unplayable stutterfest.
On "Medium" texture quality the vram usage hovers around 2.5GB and the game runs fine but looks like shit, and I didn't buy a 970 to have my games look like shit, so I'm kinda confused as to what I should do now, I can't really afford a 980
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
I'm particularly dissapointed by this because I upgraded from a 660Ti which suffered from functionally the same issue, and I made sure the 970 didn't have any gimped specs related to the memory controllers and all before purchase, but people found this out only like a week after I got my card[/QUOTE]
Either wait for new drivers, wait for game updates or overclock more.
[QUOTE=K1ngo64;47045982]Either wait for new drivers, wait for game updates or overclock more.[/QUOTE]
I have no faith in Techland to fix their game so I guess I'll just wait for a driver that might or might not fix some of the issues, and this card has the highest factory overclock of all the 970 editions out there so I don't really want to push it any higher (I know I could've saved money by OCing myself, but I'd rather have the 3 year warranty)
I am claiming partial refund from amazon seller, something dodgy is going on, I wrote to them and they are saying they can't find my order, then I sent them order number and they still can't find it, then I sent them my address of delivery and they still are saying they can't find it.
Either they are dodging me and deleted some of their records (in which case it's easy to prove by just contacting amazon I suppose? ) or they have tech difficulities.
Try contacting amazon from the order page, or if not, contact amazon support through web chat directly, they will sort it out.
[QUOTE=rhx123;47046029]Try contacting amazon from the order page, or if not, contact amazon support through web chat directly, they will sort it out.[/QUOTE]
I want to try and deal with seller directly first, don't wanna give them trouble if they actually legitimately can't find order because of some tech issue.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47046022]I am claiming partial refund from amazon seller, something dodgy is going on, I wrote to them and they are saying they can't find my order, then I sent them order number and they still can't find it, then I sent them my address of delivery and they still are saying they can't find it.
Either they are dodging me and deleted some of their records (in which case it's easy to prove by just contacting amazon I suppose? ) or they have tech difficulities.[/QUOTE]
why are you returning your card?
does this actually affect all cards? i havnt noticed any issues and i have a 1440p monitor so im more likely to be affected.
i just played a bit of mordor with afterburner running as it seems to be the game most people are complaining about and even changing order independent transparency to on and ambient occlusion to ultra (everything else was already maxed) i had 50 fps and no stuttering, according to afterburner i had 3.8gb vram allocated
[QUOTE=waylander;47046056]does this actually affect all cards? i havnt noticed any issues and i have a 1440p monitor so im more likely to be affected.
i just played a bit of mordor with afterburner running as it seems to be the game most people are complaining about and even changing order independent transparency to on and ambient occlusion to ultra (everything else was already maxed) i had 50 fps and no stuttering, according to afterburner i had 3.8gb vram allocated[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the exact same experience here too. Maybe we just got lucky or something? Regardless I'm not remotely unhappy with my card. For the price I paid it was a great deal even if it only does utilize 3.5GB normally.
[QUOTE=Bumrang;47046055]why are you returning your card?[/QUOTE]
I am not returning it, trying my luck with partial claims saying that it was falsely advertised and that I paid for product which I was expecting to behave differently.
They didn't seem to flip me off, they are trying to validate my order right now.
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
How can I test if my card is affected?
Bought an msi 970 and had huge problems with it. Exchanged it for the Asus and now it's like the best card I've ever had. It out-performed my expectation, so I'm going to ignore whatever is going on here. I can't let it cheapen my amazement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.