Should you be compensated for the GTX 970 issues and spec changes?

[lehtv]

Sorry, you are not spinning 100ms spikes where there shouldn't be any as subjective. Please go away :thumbsdown:

You know that's not what he meant

 

[cmdrdredd]

Sorry, you are not spinning 100ms spikes where there shouldn't be any as subjective. Please go away :thumbsdown:

What? I'm not spinning anything. I am saying that if the game feels smooth I don't care what the graph says. I have to play it to see what is and is not acceptable to me. You can stare at numbers all day if that's all you care about. As for me, 8x MSAA in watch dogs is still going to be too slow to play the game properly so I wouldn't use it. I probably wouldn't use it even on a 980 SLI because I run 1440p. You have blinders on and only see the negatives. You and others are jumping on "1440p and SLi 970s is impossible to use" when it's not, you just have to be reasonable with your settings. That means how much AA is applied and what type.

 

[jackstar7]

What? I'm not spinning anything. I am saying that if the game feels smooth I don't care what the graph says. I have to play it to see what is and is not acceptable to me.

Okay, but what you are doing is saying that objective analysis is meaningless to you, at which point it becomes curious what value a tech reporting site has for you.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Okay, but what you are doing is saying that objective analysis is meaningless to you, at which point it becomes curious what value a tech reporting site has for you.

No what I'm saying is that looking at a graph won't tell me that one sucks and another is awesome. They may both be ok in game play. I'm starting to think everyone owns shares in AMD or something.

 

[Eymar]

What? I'm not spinning anything. I am saying that if the game feels smooth I don't care what the graph says. I have to play it to see what is and is not acceptable to me. You can stare at numbers all day if that's all you care about. As for me, 8x MSAA in watch dogs is still going to be too slow to play the game properly so I wouldn't use it. I probably wouldn't use it even on a 980 SLI because I run 1440p. You have blinders on and only see the negatives. You and others are jumping on "1440p and SLi 970s is impossible to use" when it's not, you just have to be reasonable with your settings. That means how much AA is applied and what type.

That's all well and good, but when you're buying from newegg (and their strict refund policy) on day one availibility you have to trust the numbers from reviews. Most reviews show wide range of quality setting benchmarks to make an informed decision on a single card purchase. Most people would not expect SLI type stutters with single card benchmark results which granted should be rare for 970.

 

[utahraptor]

Even if we lose this round, by raising a huge stink now we can hopefully keep the 1070 (next card) from blowing chunks.

 

[Eymar]

@utahraptor

Yup. Consumers have to really have to keep companies in check as sadly it seems most review sites either seem to be paid reviews or afraid to rock the boat in fear of early review sample embargoes.

 

[UaVaj]

"specifications is subject to change without notice"



now.

exactly how many of you "are" or "will be" running either: 1) multiple 970 to the point where 3.5GB vram become a limiting factor? or 2) higher resolution where the lesser ROP become the limiting factor?

that fine line is about: 970 tril-sli (for vram limitation) and/or 3k surround (for rop limitation)?

if you are NOT in this group. this spec change clearly does not affect you. no need to lose sleep over it.

if you are indeed in this group. your performance has limitations based on published specs. some kind of remedy would be warranted.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Are the benchmarks on Neweggs site wrong?

AGAIN......
Am I missing something? Is this about Nvidia lying about specs or performance?
If a card with 3.5gb's +512mb of memory performs just like a 4gb card ,whats the problem?

The benchmarks provided by not-Nvidia suggest a performance issue when ~3.5GB+ is used.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac...nchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p_and_above/

Look at the minimum frame rates in BF4 between 160% (3.3GB-3.4GB vram use) and 165% (3.5GB-3.6GB vram used). It drops from 38FPS to 17FPS. That's much more than the average drops and would suggest to me some ugly stuttering or choppy play at spots.

Shadow of Mordor goes from 46FPS minimum with 3.1GB of vram use to 2FPS minimum when 3.4GB-3.5GB is used.

Obviously they're pushing the cards to use the vram. But, they aren't way out scenarios either, people buy high end cards to use heavy AA. Especially SLI users.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Even if we lose this round, by raising a huge stink now we can hopefully keep the 1070 (next card) from blowing chunks.

@utahraptor

Yup. Consumers have to really have to keep companies in check as sadly it seems most review sites either seem to be paid reviews or afraid to rock the boat in fear of early review sample embargoes.

AMD said they loudly heard the complaints about their reference cooler on the R9 290 / R9 290X and will be sure to provide something better on the next card. I'd bet Nvidia is listening too.

 

[cmdrdredd]

"specifications is subject to change without notice"



now.

exactly how many of you "are" or "will be" running either: 1) multiple 970 to the point where 3.5GB vram become a limiting factor? or 2) higher resolution where the lesser ROP become the limiting factor?

that fine line is about: 970 tril-sli (for vram limitation) and/or 3k surround (for rop limitation)?

if you are NOT in this group. this spec change clearly does not affect you. no need to lose sleep over it.

if you are indeed in this group. your performance has limitations based on published specs. some kind of remedy would be warranted.

For me I know that by the time these won't satisfy me anymore they will be EOL, similar to my 2GB 670s.

 

[HurleyBird]

For me I know that by the time these won't satisfy me anymore they will be EOL, similar to my 2GB 670s.

Sure, but these cards were marketed as having a degree of future proofing. Not everyone upgrades every generation, more people do every other. Out of curiosity, what would Nvidia actually need to do in order to make you personally upset as a consumer?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I'm just curious why everyone is pointing to performance and benchmarks only. I know AMD caught a world of crap for their 94C reference R9 290s and R9 290xs even though they bench virtually the same as aftermarket cards clocked at reference speeds (of course I'm not counting cards like the Tri-X, PCS+, DirectCU II, and MSI Gaming that come with nice overclocks out the box). Back then benchmarks probably didn't matter as much, did they?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

And the "it performs the same as it did before you found out its specs" is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Really? I thought video cards were like electrons, where the mere act of observing them completely changed what they did. Thank you Nvidia astroturfers for clearing that up for me.

Thread crapping will not be tolerated here.

-Rvenger

 

[Silverforce11]

For me I know that by the time these won't satisfy me anymore they will be EOL, similar to my 2GB 670s.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...postcount=2526

So you say: "It appears that medium is the same as high in terms of quality. High just loads up more textures for less pop in."
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37120015&postcount=658

You make it sound like constant texture pop ins is an acceptable compromise.

At some point you have to start questioning your behavior, faced with evidence of poor frame times, stutters & now more texture pop ins, yet you are steadfast in your defense of NV.

You are a very understanding customer, NV is very lucky to have good, generous & loyal folks like you willing to throw money at them.


Infraction issued for personal attack

-Rvenger

 

[cmdrdredd]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...postcount=2526

So you say: "It appears that medium is the same as high in terms of quality. High just loads up more textures for less pop in."
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37120015&postcount=658

You make it sound like constant texture pop ins is an acceptable compromise.

At some point you have to start questioning your behavior, faced with evidence of poor frame times, stutters & now more texture pop ins, yet you are steadfast in your defense of NV.

You are a very understanding customer, NV is very lucky to have good, generous & loyal folks like you willing to throw money at them.

Yeah ok...that's exactly what I said. There's no hope for those who think like you, you got it all figured out. Did you even read the link? No you didn't. The pop-in doesn't seem to be that terrible.At some point you'll have to remove the blinders and realize that not everyone is going to run out and buy AMD because you think Nvidia is terrible.


Infraction issued for personal attack

-Rvenger

 

[Silverforce11]

Yeah ok...that's exactly what I said. There's no hope for those who think like you, you got it all figured out. Did you even read the link? No you didn't. The pop-in doesn't seem to be that terrible. At some point you'll have to remove the blinders.

That's your subjective opinion.

"The stutters not that bad. The frame latency is ok. Play on medium." Sounds about right?

 

[cmdrdredd]

That's your subjective opinion.

"The stutters not that bad. The frame latency is ok. Play on medium." Sounds about right?

Medium is the same texture quality as high it only has to do with reducing some pop in that isn't all that bad to start with.I already said that. Loading up VRAM for the sake of loading up VRAM is a waste. There's many better ways to use it and better ways to put your textures in the game.

 

[Silverforce11]

Medium is the same texture quality as high it only has to do with reducing some pop in that isn't all that bad to start with. I said that but you want to be sarcastic and avoid actually reading up on the game's settings. Anything to further your agenda.

Let's see. If NV had said at the start when they launched the 970 and told people straight up, they'll get worse frame latency, more stutters, more texture pop ins as games need more than 3.5gb vram... would that affect their buying decision? I leave it for individuals to make that call.

My agenda is for honesty. Expect better from companies that we enrich with our hard earnt $. Here you are giving them a slap on the wrist, no problem, nothing to see here, move along... I have an agenda you say?

 

[Rvenger]

Anyone else who wants to start accusing others of being a fanboy will get an immediate infraction. I am done with the petty arguing. Let's get this discussion back on track, now.

Rvenger
Anandtech Super Moderator

 

[nitromullet]

I don't own one of these so I didn't vote, but I think that as a show of good faith to GTX 970 buyers NVIDIA should do something to compensate for providing inaccurate specifications.

The choice between a game code, a credit towards a GTX 980 upgrade along the lines of EVGA's step-up, or a credit/voucher towards another NVIDIA product seems appropriate IMO.

 

[Vesku]

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/162/

Nvidia employee saying they are looking at improving the driver management of the 970s memory pools. Also says he will try to help people who have trouble getting a refund or exchange.

 

[Abwx]

Medium is the same texture quality as high it only has to do with reducing some pop in that isn't all that bad to start with.I already said that. Loading up VRAM for the sake of loading up VRAM is a waste. There's many better ways to use it and better ways to put your textures in the game.

Basicaly all your argumentation is to tell people that they are using the "wrong" settings, that is, the ones that get the "bad" results, of course your "solution" is to use the "good" settings, the very one that suit your caricature of an argumentation, i mean it s you that should adapt to other s people needs and not ask them to be content with what suit you own taste, good or bad, that s not the question.
What s next, to play the games you deem acceptable..?.

 

[railven]

Here is my honest opinion:

When I encountered a hitching issue in Skyrim it pissed me off. I found out that the hitching only happened when I crossed back and forth between 1.5GBs of my 2GB GTX 660 Ti. I danced around my mods and settings to ensure I could maintain ~60 FPS @ 1440p using select mods (using .5K mods instead of 1K for smaller textures like grass.)

Now, if this issue occurred again with a GTX 970 I would be equally as pissed. When that thread started up here, people started to attack the OP. I only posted in the thread because of my prior experience with the GTX 660 Ti.

TL;DR:
Performance did change. For users that will go on to mod games and reach that critical memory threshold suddenly their game is a stuttering mess. And had this not been revealed, they would have been told its a PEBKAC.

 

[garagisti]

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/162/

Nvidia employee saying they are looking at improving the driver management of the 970s memory pools. Also says he will try to help people who have trouble getting a refund or exchange.

AFAIK the drivers are already working hard at not using anything beyond 3.5gb, and i genuinely will be interested to see what sort of wizardry one may CONjure.