I am a real gamer, and I'll think you find no real gamer playing games picked up on this.
Hundreds of gamers online on various sites picked it up. They first noticed issues with frame times and performance drops, and only then monitored the VRAM usage to figure out a possible cause to the issue. Saying no real gamer picked it up is basically twisting facts and reality.
What actually happened was some geek looked at detail at what the card was reporting and was wondering why it said it only had 3.5Gb of memory. That was chased up by other geeks who worked out it did in-fact have 4Gb of memory but the last .5Gb runs slow.
If the card simply performed slower in synthetic benchmarks once VRAM exceed 3.5GBs, no one would care. The problem is the card suffered in real world settings such as modded games with high rez texture packs or in 970 SLI where the performance was there to enable MSAA.
Since then both reviewers and forum junkies such as yourself have been trying as hard as they can to prove the slow down in actual games with minimal success.
There is nothing to prove -- it is a fact that you don't want to accept.
You now show me a random graphic showing memory allocation testing at 4K in one game that's meant to prove how broken the card is?
Not just 4K. Various users have already provided proof that the stutters occur even at 1080P and 1440P. You must have missed those posts but I have no interest in relinking them.
Now reviews that we used to buy the cards will have picked up on that already in their fps scores,
If you looked at any of the videos that show the issues, the problem is hardly picked up in FPS. You can have 16-18% slower FPS than a 980 but the performance is exponentially worse due to
frame times. Since most reviewers are no longer using FCAT and measuring frame times, they probably didn't notice it since it's not as if they sit through every benchmark in front of the monitor. Also, not every site out there tests modded Skyrim and GTA IV or SoM.
but that can't be accepted so you then have people like yourself desperately trying to prove that the old reviews are in-fact wrong
I stated no such thing. I said that most reviewers don't have the time to do extensive testing like someone spending 50 hours playing SoM. Just because most reviewers didn't notice the problems, doesn't mean they don't exist. You are the one who is desperately trying to make it seem like no problem actually exists as if the cases where the >3.5GB of VRAM matter are unicorn scenarios.
and magically in the future all gamers using 970's are going to be seeing much worse gaming results.
No one made such statements. You seem to have reading compression issues. This is the 2nd statement you just made up. It's not that all gamers will notice problems. If someone plays COD or DOTA 2 or WOW, they won't notice. But to imply that over the 2-3 years of ownership no other game in the world will ever exceed 3.5GB of VRAM from Feb 2015 to Feb 2018 is a bold statement. I can't speak for every 970 gamer but simply ignoring the issue as if it doesn't exist as you are trying to do is not going to make it go away.
Hence we must all return our cards now!!!
3rd time you made up things no one said. If someone plays a lot of GW titles or is happy with his/her 970, no one is telling that gamer to return it. It's more about being aware of the situation prior to making a purchase for someone who hasn't bought a new card yet. If I had a 970, I would definitely return it but it would have nothing to do with 3.5GB of VRAM. I would return it because I'd rather save $80-100 and get an after-market 290/290X and just roll-over that money saved towards a 14nm upgrade. Having said that no one is telling every 970 user to return his/her card.
--
The 5% return rate is actually extremely high as I said because you can't just return 970 cards that easily since NV/retailers are not accepting returns in most places. There is no worldwide recall or anything. If NV/retailers said everyone could return their 970 cards, the 5% would increase substantially. Anyway, it's amazing that people go out of their way to defend their preferred brand at all costs. 970 is still a good card but how NV has handled the situation is extremely poor imo. To me it doesn't matter if this issue was to be made by AMD, Intel, Asus or NV, etc. You simply have to acknowledge when you messed up and offer alternatives to gamers (free game coupon, discount towards a future NV GPU upgrade, option for a refund, etc.). NV doing absolutely nothing up to now is shockingly bad from a business ethics point of view. Whether true or not, NV is basically sending a message:
"We could care less about the consumer." Think about, even if just 5% of 970 buyers return their cards, it's 5% of gamers NV could have kept happy by spending $20-30 on a free game coupon.
Fact is GREAT companies own up to mistakes even when the performance doesn't change materially.
"If you have an ounce of rotary blood in your veins, you already know how this story starts: Mazda said the RX-8 made 247 hp. Several owners' dynos said otherwise. Then, Mazda changed the rating to 238 hp and offered either cash and free maintenance or a buyback to the 3,000 or so people who already bought one."
Read more: http://www.superstreetonline.com/fe...rx8-miata-horsepower-dyno-test/#ixzz3RH5STthx"
^ Are you kidding me? You realize the monetary value Mazda had to offer here? We are talking about just 9hp or 3.6%, less than the performance hit 970 experiences when VRAM exceeds 3.5GB of VRAM.
The reduced HP rating on the RX-8 didn't magically change the performance of the RX-8 or its MPG ratings from launch reviews of the vehicle, but Mazda did acknowledge their error and did something about it. What did NV do? Absolutely nothing. It's literally impossible to defend NV because we have precedent that when companies are caught false advertising, intentionally OR not, it doesn't matter - they ACT. I guess NV thinks its customer base is so brand attached that they don't need to lift a finger. That's the saddest part of all.
Facebook
Twitter