WCCftech: Memory allocation problem with GTX 970 [UPDATE] PCPer: NVidia response

[Silverforce11]

I'm not sure this will have any measurable effect on their stock price anyway.

Such a bold statement.
Put your money where your mouth is and go buy a load of NV shares.

 

[Spanners]

Such a bold statement.
Put your money where your mouth is and go buy a load of NV shares.

"I'm not sure" is hardly the boldest of statements but cheers.

 

[Abwx]

The most important question is, did they know about differences before, or after the GTX 970 was released?

The micro architectural details they disclosed are things that are drawn starting from the first high level gross diagram in the designing phase, that s just the kind of thing that you cant ignore since this is a basic technical choice made from the start, on this respect i find the design not elegant, even if all thoses corners are cut to increase power usage efficency.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Thoses guys are not crazy, they have the right to sell stock options that have reached maturity, wich is surely the case of the sold stocks, if sold at peaks it point to inside knowledge used for the purpose but you can be sure taht they sold only part of what was allowed as a cover, legaly nothing can be made against them.

Just throwing some numbers up here...

Peak share price for 2014 occurred on 12/03

This thread is just gonna get locked like the other one anyway

Speaking of the other thread... for those saying performance hasn't decreased from what the launch day benches were showing, and all 970s were shipped in this 3.5gb + 0.5gb configuration, isn't that obvious? That there's no performance degradation because there was never one documented to begin with? What am I missing here?

 

[Abwx]

Just throwing some numbers up here...

Peak share price for 2014 occurred on 12/03

This thread is just gonna get locked like the other one anyway

Ok, i ll do you a short analysis.

On 12/03 certainly that it was a peak but then it s logical to sell since the price is at an historical high of 21$, as such this transaction cant be considered as exceptional and is even rather logical.

Next transaction, 12/22, is just after a recovery, it s logical that one wait for the price to get close to previous levels but admintingly the timing seems quite too opportunistic, but as i told you thoses people are not crazy, next trade is 01/03 and this one occur while the stock has plunged, this transaction will exonerate the previous one of any insider info being used previously, it s quite possible that it was made on purpose.

The two next transactions follow the previous scheme, that is at different prices, wich says that there was no insider info used.

I m not denying that they could have used some infos marginaly but what is sure is that this curve and the price points are not enough for a regulatory body to justify even one minute of investigation.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Ok, i ll do you a short analysis.

On 12/03 certainly that it was a peak but then it s logical to sell since the price is at an historical high of 21$, as such this transaction cant be considered as exceptional and is even rather logical.

Next transaction, 12/22, is just after a recovery, it s logical that one wait for the price to get close to previous levels but admintingly the timing seems quite too opportunistic, but as i told you thoses people are not crazy, next trade is 01/03 and this one occur while the stock has plunged, this transaction will exonerate the previous one of any insider info being used previously, it s quite possible that it was made on purpose.

The two next transactions follow the previous scheme, that is at different prices, wich says that there was no insider info used.

I m not denying that they could have used some infos marginaly but what is sure is that this curve and the price points are not enough for a regulatory body to justify even one minute of investigation.

I knew that much, seems pretty logical and common sense to me

I'm just not smart enough to gamble with my money

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Dodged the bullet there, almost traded my 780s for 970s around Xmas.
Oh well, at least there aren't any woodscrews this time around

 

[SimianR]

Reading Ryan's article, here seems to be the biggest issue to me.

This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once on the read side. GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but not both at once; it is a true XOR situation. Furthermore because the 512MB segment cannot be read at the same time as the 3.5GB segment, reading this segment blocks accessing the 3.5GB segment for that cycle, further reducing the effective memory bandwidth of the card. The larger the percentage of the time the crossbar is reading the 512MB segment, the lower the effective memory bandwidth from the 3.5GB segment.

Wondering down the line how much of a performance impact this will have when a game truly needs more than 3.5GB of VRAM.

 

[Abwx]

I knew that much, seems pretty logical and common sense to me

I'm just not smart enough to gamble with my money

It is 13 years that i m gambling my money about every day, there s tons of insiders selling much more stocks $ wise than those Nvidia representatives and i can tell you that nothing never happens unless it s very big amounts.

But when it comes to the consumer side of things thoses same people can be eventualy put to trial due to the 970 misleading specs, although it s obvious that Nvidia will fight any legal action, their recent statement that the card work exactly as intended is not to convince the buyers, it s cautiously stated for eventual legal issues, that is, Nvidia said that they did absolutely no wrongdoings in respect of consumers other than an omission that wasnt deliberate, that s all the sense of their statement.

Edit : i ll add that gambling money doesnt require smartness, it s even counterproductive sometimes, what is needed is cold logic and the ability to take the planned decisions without hesitation, first is to decide a max level of losses if things turn sour, let say 5%, and cut the losses without emotion, such an ability is 80% of the smartness you re talking about...

 

[Majcric]

What I want know is this issue common from both camps. I bought the 680 over the 670 because I had very bad experience with the Gtx 560ti. Does 290 suffer vs 290x etc. and cutdown chips from both camps? Would really like to see results?

 

[garagisti]

I sincerely don't know if someone's gullible enough to think that after 5 months and more than a million units in sale (you can safely assume most of them were 970), putting one's hand up and saying we messed up, it is remotely truthful! That when someone was already pushing it with them that something's the matter. Now we learn that it is a mistake on the marketing team's part and that 970 is what it is, by design. Right! Heck, i've seen more fastidious people on a call center shop floor, and this is tech. As pointed out earlier, the drivers are alredy working on 3.5 gigs, so they can't claim lack of knowledge. Lack of conscience, well they are a business and it is not like they owned up to:
Messing up DX10
Being creative with TDP
Sending golden samples for review, performance of which wasn't matched by retail products
Bumpgate
Woodscrews

At the time of launch, they were good value, given what AMD cards cost, but their prices have seen an adjustment, 970/ 980 haven't had one. I feel as a hardware enthusiast for anyone who was hard done by this, as most of us don't have piles upon piles monies, but mostly a keen interest. I know, it doesn't buy much hardware, but when you do, you want to get what you were promised.

Surely, this revised specification, it will not stand the test of time for most purchasers of the card. Games are only going to get more demanding, and i don't see that changing much, and even though DX12 brings some efficiency gains, i see it lapped up by most of us for some more details(mmmmmmmmmmmmm).

What was beyond my understanding throughout this, was how viciously Nvidia were being defended on interweb. Heck, at places, there are people still defending Nvidia for promising buyers something, and not delivering the goods. Some came up with a brilliant plan to avoid this situation. Some were proposing that they will give Nvidia a lot more money to buy a not broken product, cause it was a mistake. Sometimes you really don't have words within the rules of the forums to truly express what you feel. Where's the shaking head smily when you need one.
http://i.imgur.com/GkPFl.gif

 

[R0H1T]

What I want know is this issue common from both camps. I bought the 680 over the 670 because I had very bad experience with the Gtx 560ti. Does 290 suffer vs 290x etc. and cutdown chips from both camps? Would really like to see results?

No it isn't, Nvidia released wrong specs (fake really) for the 970, the only reason they admitted this now is because a number of users caught them lying, can't see how this can be equated with 290/290x spec differences :hmm:

 

[Black Octagon]

I'm going to take a different approach here and say I'm not that concerned whether they lied or just genuinely stuffed up. Both stuff-ups and intentional deception happen SO often in business that either scenario is truly believable.

In either case, I would like to think 970 owners have a right to either a refund or some other compensation. The GPU is not the same product that was advertised, period. Don't really matter why this happened, nor even if there are immediate performance consequences.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No it isn't, Nvidia released wrong specs (fake really) for the 970, the only reason they admitted this now is because a number of users caught them lying, can't see how this can be equated with 290/290x spec differences :hmm:

While that is true (though you haven't proven intent) - review sites guided many people to their purchases. Many of those people will now leave bad reviews on sites - not because they observed bad performance, but instead because they are reading all of this.

Not excusing anyone here...just trying to show a little bit of reality (and I think a class action is warranted. In WA, many people can return their cards *by law* since there was false advertising.)

 

[lopri]

What I find strange is - how are the threads that seem to put NVIDIA in a negative light conveniently locked "for review," without any hint of what is under the review? The issue was big enough to get on the front page of this site with many pages of analysis as well as a promise of further investigation by the author.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2418466
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2416150

It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.

 

[RampantAndroid]

What I find strange is - how are the threads that seem to put NVIDIA in a negative light conveniently locked "for review," without any hint of what is under the review? The issue was big enough to get on the front page of this site with many pages of analysis as well as a promise of further investigation by the author.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2418466
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2416150

It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.

Threads about Mantle are frequently also locked for review. If you're around here enough, it's nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[ocre]

Compensation?

I ask nvidia in a chat if they would take their card back and exchange it for a 980 but let me the pay difference.

I just wanted a card with 64rops. My best buy card isnt much past 30days and i cant return it there.

I told them i didnt want a compensation and i wast even angry. Just wanted the 64rops i thought i already bought. I offered to pay the difference for a gtx980 and they said that they couldnt do that right now and they are,

"looking into options"

said they would get back to me via email......we'll see how it goes.

Its not the ram that i cared about. I have the card and forced it to use more that 3.5gb, the performance is not dropping off a cliff. Its pretty much how nvidia and others have said (the ones who arent emotional).

I didnt care about the segmented ram at all. But the ROPs, its the ROPS.......that is just unfortunate.
I just think specs matter to enough of us that nvidia should offer us some kind of something. Like a way to get a card with 64rops, you know if thats what you really wanted. I even offered to pay the difference, because i would do that to get what i want.

I told them this was a big deal and i hope nvidia takes their customers serious. Especially ones that are reasonably trying to work something out with them.

They say they will get back with me. So we will see.

 

[lopri]

But what is under the review? Granted only reason I came here this time around was because of the aforementioned front page article by Ryan Smith. Then I saw both the related threads locked with no indication of what the beef is.

If you do not want something to be recurring, you have to give fair notice. If Mantle-related thread is inexplicably locked for "review," then that also does disservice to the community.

 

[Carfax83]

But what is under the review? Granted only reason I came here this time around was because of the aforementioned front page article by Ryan Smith. Then I saw both the related threads locked with no indication of what the beef is.

If you do not want something to be recurring, you have to give fair notice. If Mantle-related thread is inexplicably locked for "review," then that also does disservice to the community.

I made a thread about that in the moderator forum, and I suggest anyone that feels the same way does so as well..

 

[flash-gordon]

What I find strange is - how are the threads that seem to put NVIDIA in a negative light conveniently locked "for review," without any hint of what is under the review? The issue was big enough to get on the front page of this site with many pages of analysis as well as a promise of further investigation by the author.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2418466
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2416150

It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.

It's a strange and common behavior over here... In best case is overmoderation, in worst case paychecks...

 

[NTMBK]

OP has single post, with name about the 970... Hmmm... WWYBYWB?

EDIT: This post was from before the threads got merged, and referred to "970customer", not this thread's OP

 

[ViRGE]

It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.

Or it could be that a large lot of people here are absolute jerks who are looking for reasons to fight...

You will find that threads don't get locked when people behave and when they engage in meaningful discussion instead of pointless bickering.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

OP has single post, with name about the 970... Hmmm... WWYBYWB?

If you dump his text into Google it shows up in a few other places. I saw it at 4chan, hard, and I think ars... probably the same person pushing the same agenda

No one really responded to him over at those forums

 

[amenx]

Yep, more thread crapping seems to happen in Nvidia threads.

 

[Eymar]

Compensation?

I ask nvidia in a chat if they would take their card back and exchange it for a 980 but let me the pay difference.

They say they will get back with me. So we will see.

I hope it turns out well for you.

I read alot of the reviews at release and decided to buy three 970s for 1440p surround gaming because the 970 had 4GB of ram and performance numbers showed 2x 970 SLI within 20% of 2x 980 SLI so hoping the same for tri-sli.
When I got the 3x 970s running the FPS was good for the games I play (>90), but did not feel like 90 (even with Rog Swift GSYNC monitors) due to microstutter. I just assumed it was due to tri-sli frame pacing and maybe in combination with surround.

Thankfully I was able to return them without restock fee for 3x 980s and been smooth gaming ever since. Looking at memory usage in Crysis 3 and Grid Autosport (~3.3-3.6GB depending on AA level) maybe the 3.5GB limit was the cause, but definitely would of stayed clear of 970s if I knew about the 3.5GB limit (as well as the # of ROPs) in the first place.