On the GTX 970 "3.6GB" RAM frenzy, I see more than one poster calls it a "RAM flaw."
The technical people were quite clear about it: it was designed that way.
The flaw was that of the marketing department.
I wouldn't call it a 'flaw' of the marketing department. If anything the marketing department made a brilliant 'correction' of the specs. Had the card been released on day 1 as a 3.5GB+512MB card, that would have been a
flaw that would have cost 970 a ton of sales/reputation damages. Since millions of people already bought the 970 card and if they wanted to stick to NV, their only option was to get the much more expensive 980, they had no option but to keep their 970. That's not a marketing flaw, but a brilliant strategy to hide the flaw. I think if 970 launched as a 3.5GB card from day 1, the market's perception of it would have been less favourable. :biggrin:
Most people buying 970 today have no idea it's a 3.5GB card. The average PC gamer doesn't do research like we do and since NV never corrected the specs on their boxes, it's still sold as a 4GB GDDR5 card.
I was not aware of that. Is it the same thing for all those other profiles (AC:Unity etc I think) that came in the same driver release?
Ya, that's why many people think HardOCP lost its mind when it blamed AMD for not having a CF profile working in FC4 when it was public knowledge that AMD couldn't get CF to work without the developer releasing a patch that made it work. It took months but somehow the minute the developer released a patch, CF magically started working with AMD doing nothing on its end. HardOCP though, well they keep blaming AMD for not having CF working in GW's game titles on day 1. LOL!