If Nvidias engineer were to comment on the vram issue of the gtx 970..... - General

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZJrsssPA0[/media] Jesus this is gold....Unless you have a 970

This is funny, but I can't help but want to know what that guy's really saying.

i do :( though i mean it still has great performance so i have no complaints. what's even the problem?

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47040473]i do :( though i mean it still has great performance so i have no complaints. what's even the problem?[/QUOTE] "drivers will not be used to increase performance of the 970" and blatant false advertising

Holy shit I haven't laughed like that for a long time.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;47040487]"drivers will not be used to increase performance of the 970" and blatant false advertising[/QUOTE] When did they say it would? As soon as I learned what the issue was it is extremely obvious it is a hardware level thing. At most I would think they could potentially knock the card to 3.75 gb (disable the one of the two shared 256mb MCs) in software but I don't know if that is possible...

If nobody said anything I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference.

Alright, I did more research on the issue. I'm fucked.

Aaaah ha [QUOTE=NassimO PotatO;47032509][IMG]http://www.jepix.fr/images/sanstitre5femxsy.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[img]http://puu.sh/feVgv.png[/img]

Oh, AMD must be loving this shit

Well... glad I went with the 980...?

Snip [editline]30th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=lekkimsm;47041672]Aaaah ha[/QUOTE] Double snip

Why does this video have the old youtube comment system? [IMG]http://puu.sh/ffAwX/9be0bef74b.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=lekkimsm;47041692]Oh, AMD must be loving this shit[/QUOTE] They could use some material, but then again they advertise really badly. Seem to play off of 90's sterotypes of Gam3rz.

[QUOTE=omegasupreme1;47042689]Why does this video have the old youtube comment system? [IMG]http://puu.sh/ffAwX/9be0bef74b.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] This feels too good to be true.... Please tell me it's coming back!

[QUOTE=omegasupreme1;47042689]Why does this video have the old youtube comment system? [IMG]http://puu.sh/ffAwX/9be0bef74b.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I've seen it on a few other new(er) videos. It's probably just a partner thing.

I'm still very happy with my 970. Most everything can run on the highest settings at 60fps. The people who are running into this problem are the people trying to run 4k, supersampling, etc.

[QUOTE=Dippeggs;47044026]The people who are running into this problem are the people trying to run 4k, supersampling, etc.[/QUOTE] For $350 it should be capable of a lot more, and it should perform as advertised. It's pretty clear that NVIDIA intentionally gimped the entire GPU, there's no reason to have 512MB of it's VRAM dedicated for low-priority processes when the rest is all high-priority. There's no way it's an oversight, and there's no way that it "can't be fixed". It's an issue with how that last 512MB is being used, and that can be fixed with software. [sp]this is why I bought an r9 290x[/sp]

I was so close to buying a 970, but I put in the extra dosh for the 980. Seems like I made the wise choice.

[QUOTE=haloguy234;47044126]For $350 it should be capable of a lot more, and it should perform as advertised. It's pretty clear that NVIDIA intentionally gimped the entire GPU, there's no reason to have 512MB of it's VRAM dedicated for low-priority processes when the rest is all high-priority. There's no way it's an oversight, and there's no way that it "can't be fixed". It's an issue with how that last 512MB is being used, and that can be fixed with software. [sp]this is why I bought an r9 290x[/sp][/QUOTE] Uhmmmmmmmmmmmm How did it perform in the advertisements? And what do you mean it should be capable of much more?The 970 is a a great card, there are no two ways about that. Be happy with whatever card you have, but the 970 didn't suddenly become a shit card because of this, that's just plain ridiculous. I'd say the drawbacks of the 290X are larger than this issue with the 970, but whatever floats your boat.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47044203]Uhmmmmmmmmmmmm How did it perform in the advertisements? And what do you mean it should be capable of much more?The 970 is a a great card, there are no two ways about that. Be happy with whatever card you have, but the 970 didn't suddenly become a shit card because of this, that's just plain ridiculous. I'd say the drawbacks of the 290X are larger than this issue with the 970, but whatever floats your boat.[/QUOTE] it's advertised as 4GB it's not 4GB if you're perfectly fine with that then you may as well go and buy those cheap chinese SSDs that are just flash drives inside of an SSD chassis, after all it's advertised as an SSD so what difference does it make! [editline]30th January 2015[/editline] it's not a question of whether or not the card is shit, it's the principle.

A bit bummed out it's not as powerful as it was advertised but as far as the actual product quality goes it's such a massive leap in performance compared to my previous card that I can't complain. I'm also not sure a 0.5gb difference is going to actually make much of a difference on a performance standpoint.

I can't wait for AMD new gpu series to arrive. It's gonna mop up the shit nvidia left.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47045140]A bit bummed out it's not as powerful as it was advertised but as far as the actual product quality goes it's such a massive leap in performance compared to my previous card that I can't complain. I'm also not sure a 0.5gb difference is going to actually make much of a difference on a performance standpoint.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't, except that .5gb ruins your performance if a game ever gets to use it (apparently speed tanks x7) and you can't limit your vram usage. its why I cant run some programs like sfm anymore, even though my other card did them perfectly.

[QUOTE=haloguy234;47044424]it's advertised as 4GB it's not 4GB if you're perfectly fine with that then you may as well go and buy those cheap chinese SSDs that are just flash drives inside of an SSD chassis, after all it's advertised as an SSD so what difference does it make! [editline]30th January 2015[/editline] it's not a question of whether or not the card is shit, it's the principle.[/QUOTE] Super nice zinger post there. Where did I say I was fine with them lying (whether it miscommunication or something else)? You mentioned performance, so I want to know what kind of performance you could reasonably expect from what Nvidia told you. The reality of the situation is that you can't know what kind of performance you could expect, because the amount information you've been given is completely arbitrary. A GPU might begin to stutter when playing BF4 at 4K and high settings, but you can't know whether that's necessarily down to VRAM, the number of ROPs or maybe an architectural decision that only Nvidia knows about. This is basically proven by the fact that people are going on about the 4GB, and not the number of ROPs or the size of the cache - things Nvidia were lying about too (and much more important when it comes to performance). Your expectations of performance are far from precise enough for you to argue the GTX 970 didn't perform as well as you expected it too - otherwise you should have expected something even closer to the 980, and obviously most people didn't. And were you actually implying that there's a way to improve the situation and Nvidia is holding it back? The fact of the matter is that the GTX 970 performed better than the competition, and it still does. If you want the best card for your money, get the best card for your money. By all means, try to get some of your money back, but getting an inferior card because of this is just stupid, unless you have a fairly specific use case (games that require more than 3.5GB of VRAM). Is it scummy that Nvidia lied about the specs? Of course. I've been running AMD for the last 5 years by the way.

My partner just spent their pay-cheque on a 970 having heard/read up on the power/price value of the card. Hearing this is pretty upsetting, because I doubt they knew.

The problem is when in a few years the time where your card is like low mid tier and you can't just get a new one yet all games will want to access that 4GB.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;47044135]I was so close to buying a 970, but I put in the extra dosh for the 980. Seems like I made the wise choice.[/QUOTE] But that wasn't a wise choice, for another $100, you could have bought another 970 and you'd double your performance. Especially at 2560x1440/4K resolutions.

[QUOTE=Korova;47046145]But that wasn't a wise choice, for another $100, you could have bought another 970 and you'd double your performance. Especially at 2560x1440/4K resolutions.[/QUOTE] Not all games scale well with SLI, by the way. And there are a bunch of games that have issues with frametime being inconsistent, which leads to micro-stuttering and other jittery. I'd rather just get a decent enough card and update periodically, selling the older cards to offset some of the cost. And if performance really is an issue, just go for the top-tier cards.