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

[Silverforce11]

Dying Light, heavy vram using game, esp @ 4k:
Yet we have the "3.5gb" 970 ahead of the 6gb Titan . And seemingly doing well in SLI, even the 3gb 780ti.

You should catch up if you're gonna cherry pick. That way you at least know the cherries well enough not to pick a spoiled one.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37120015&postcount=658

 

[3DVagabond]

Yeah i think so too,back of box requires a minimum of a 500w.Guru3d calls for a 550-600w in their review while Newegg calls for a 700w.

It's one of the stop gag things that have really stopped me from taking the 290x seriously till now.

The 700w, or even 750w I've seen listed, is to cover you for crap PSU's. Your 650 will handle a single 290X just fine. If you over clocked everything to the max and ran something that pegged your GPU and CPU together, you might have issues. Gaming though, even overclocked, should be fine assuming your PSU is in good condition.

[H]'s results

That 570W system power is with a 3770k o/c'd @ 4.8 GHz and 1.391v pushed through a Vapor-X. More voltage than I would ever recommend 24/7 with air cooling.

To quote [H] "Insane".

People like to blow the 290's power consumption out of proportion because it's about the only thing they can fault it for. Here's a chip that has stretched past it's contemporaries in modern games and hangs with next gen cards as well. All for under $350. Hard to find much to fault it for except using more power.

 

[amenx]

Guru3d, Shadow of Mordor GeForce GTX 970 VRAM stress test w/FCAT results.

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/middle_earth_shadow_of_mordor_geforce_gtx_970_vram_stress_test.html

 

[skipsneeky2]

To quote [H] "Insane".

People like to blow the 290's power consumption out of proportion because it's about the only thing they can fault it for. Here's a chip that has stretched past it's contemporaries in modern games and hangs with next gen cards as well. All for under $350. Hard to find much to fault it for except using more power.

Yeah i was eyeballing the 290x honestly right before Nvidia pretty much confirmed a 3.5gb 970.Crossed my mind but issues concerning vga/hdmi to my t.v was pushing me more towards a 970 till now.

May need another thread but my 770 pretty much has ran dvi-i to vga cause of a horrible hdmi picture.Not sure what is at fault but i never jumped on hdmi+Amd before either.Been happy with this setup,want a painless upgrade.

 

[Silverforce11]

Guru3d, Shadow of Mordor GeForce GTX 970 VRAM stress test w/FCAT results.

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/middle_earth_shadow_of_mordor_geforce_gtx_970_vram_stress_test.html

It's interesting that Guru3d needed 1440p and DSR to 4K just to break 3.5gb on SoM... when other sites show ultra textures at 1080p already breaks 3.5gb.

It looks as though Guru3d forgot to install the optional Ultra HD content pack:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/311670/

Or they are just special.

Either way, they did capture the problem in their brief frame time measurement. Note the major frame time spikes.

Users report the problem is a major issue when panning the camera. If they stand still its less stuttery.

Also, Guru3d thinks the 970 isn't for Ultra HD: "Face it, if you planned to game at Ultra HD, you would not buy a GeForce GTX 970." What a revelation!

 

[3DVagabond]

I find them to be fair and unbiased. Seem to be pretty competent, as well. Maybe we'll see more from others?

 

[Cloudfire777]

From HardwareCanucks::

Battlefield 4:

Less than 3.5GB VRAM:
GTX 970 is 15% slower than GTX 980

More than 3.5GB VRAM:
GTX 970 is 21% slower than GTX 980

Result. 6% loss going over 3.5GB VRAM usage


Dragon Age:

Less than 3.5GB VRAM
GTX 970 is 12% slower than GTX 980

More than 3.5GB VRAM
GTX 970 is 17% slower than GTX 980

Result. 5% loss going over 3.5GB VRAM usage


Hitman:

Less than 3.5GB VRAM
GTX 970 is 15% slower than GTX 980'

More than 3.5GB VRAM
GTX 970 is 17% slower than GTX 980

Result. 2% loss going over 3.5GB VRAM usage


Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor

Less than 3.5GB VRAM
GTX 970 is 11% slower than GTX 980

More than 3.5GB VRAM
GTX 970 is 17% slower than GTX 980

Result. 6% loss going over 3.5GB VRAM usage

 

[5150Joker]

So apparently some nvidia employee said they will help people obtain refunds. Will get the link once I'm on my desktop. If that's the case, it should give those customers who truly wanted 4gb an out so they can buy something else.

Edit: found it https://forums.geforce.com/default/...tx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/post/4438090/#4438090

 

[Creig]

It's ironic that the only recent Nvidia card that I recommended people purchase (due to its attractive priceerformance ratio) has now been revealed to have a previously undisclosed memory design flaw.

 

[5150Joker]

It's ironic that the only recent Nvidia card that I recommended people purchase (due to its attractive priceerformance ratio) has now been revealed to have a previously undisclosed memory design flaw.

It's not a flaw. A flaw would signify something that is operating negatively outside design specifications. This card is operating as designed. The flaw was with the initial marketing. There is still not a better card on the market for the price and you know that.

I suspect most of the faux outrage is coming from people who want a freebie and fanboys. There probably is only a very tiny subset of players that are truly impacted by the cards design limitation. None of this changes my recommendation to friends and family to buy this card over competitor products.

 

[Cloudfire777]

A 5% loss in performance isnt much to complain about over imho. Its something, but its not as disastrous as some people would have it to be

 

[5150Joker]

A 5% loss in performance isnt much to complain about over imho. Its something, but its not as disastrous as some people would have it to be

Mountains out of molehills. There's a few gamers who use insane resolutions and/or settings that drop fps to uncomfortable levels who might notice but I suspect the vast majority of owners will continue to enjoy their purchase for years to come.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Mountains out of molehills. There's a few gamers who use insane resolutions and/or settings that drop fps to uncomfortable levels who might notice but I suspect the vast majority of owners will continue to enjoy their purchase for years to come.

Yep. HardwareCanucks review I posted above cover it pretty good.
Its 4K resolutions, contains both below 3.5GB and over 3.5GB usage, they used FCAT to monitor the framrates and plot that in the total result.

2-6% reduction when using that last 500MB VRAM partition. We still havent seen games that use over 3.5GB with resolutions like 1080p. They may show less reduction than the games HC tested.
If I had GTX 970 that wouldnt be enough to ask for a refund imo. Its still offer really great performance/$.

But you know, too many people that feel they feel entitled to everything and milk this all they can to get an upgrade.

 

[RussianSensation]

Need to do some serious thinking still, the best 970 being the G1 Gaming 970 is $360 while the best 290x i think being the MSI Lightning is $340.Got a TX650 with 54a on the 12v.....enough for this beast?

No, it's $310, unless you don't count rebates?

None of my business but you have missed so many incredible deals on after-market R9 290 ($200-210 around Black Friday) and you even missed the $50 off $225 deal on Newegg that ran for a while and ended just 2 days ago.
http://slickdeals.net/f/7609250-50-off-225-at-newegg-using-visa-checkout-amex-sync

4 months have passed since G1 970 came out at $360-370 and it's still $350-360. I personally don't understand the logic of waiting 4 months to save $10-20. At this point by the time you decide to upgrade, might as well wait for massive price wars with R9 300 series in Q2.

Its still offer really great performance/$.

Sure, relative to a 980 or 970 SLI vs. 295X2. However, relative to an after-market R9 290 going for $240-250, a $330 970 does not offer "great" performance/$ considering their performance is all but 4-5% apart at 1080P and nearly identical at 1440p and above. Features and NV specific bonuses could be factors but we aren't counting subjective metrics in price/performance since everyone has a different opinion on TXAA, PhysX, 3D Vision, CUDA, etc.

Mountains out of molehills. There's a few gamers who use insane resolutions and/or settings that drop fps to uncomfortable levels who might notice but I suspect the vast majority of owners will continue to enjoy their purchase for years to come.

5%? Way to ignore the major differences in Shadow of Mordor and Watch Dogs at playable resolutions on a 290X where 970 tanks.

None of this changes my recommendation to friends and family to buy this card over competitor products.

That's expected. Wouldn't be surprised if you recommended a $350 GTX970 over a $400 R9 380X. Since you won't ever consider AMD cards, to you it makes no difference what their respective performance or price/performance is. Therefore, you can't provide objective advice to your friends/relatives. This automatically means that any card NV sells between $200-500 you'd automatically recommend, as long as it's NV. Now tell us something we don't know.

It's ironic that the only recent Nvidia card that I recommended people purchase (due to its attractive priceerformance ratio) has now been revealed to have a previously undisclosed memory design flaw.

It's sad, isn't it. Between the $100 GTX750Ti and overpriced $550 GTX980 that is barely 10% faster than a $310 MSI Lighting R9 290X today, NV has a $450 gap. Shocking but given the brand loyalty and the average knowledge of the types of customers that only keep buying NV, NV won't even skip a beat. Believe me even overpriced VRAM frame times stuttering mess like a 960 will sell at $200 by truckloads. Ignorance is a bliss.

 

[guskline]

5150Joker: Sent you a PM

 

[5150Joker]

5150Joker: Sent you a PM

I didn't receive it.

 

[guskline]

I didn't receive it.

Perhaps the PM on this forum is running slow.

 

[guskline]

I didn't receive it.

I will get back to you later. @ 8:30 AM here in the East Coast and needed elsewhere.:thumbsup:

 

[SteveGrabowski]

nvidia screen shot by magbanutes, on Flickr

In other words, those of us who want to return these cards are up poop creek if you bought from Newegg. Luckily bhphotovideo has already given me a RMA # for my 3rd 970.

I can't blame newegg here. They're not at fault. If I returned my EVGA GTX 970 SC to them they'd take a big hit selling it as an open box item. You have to think demand for the 970 is going to go down at least temporarily now that Nvidia has been caught in their lie and furthermore, this is a card that has now been replaced with a newer design (EVGA GTX 970 SSC). I don't think Newegg should take the price hit. They were nothing but great for me. They had my card shipped the day I ordered it and it was at my house halfway across the country in 3 days when I used their free shipping. I consider that A+ service and I don't want to penalize the company that's treating me well. The company that lied to me is the one that should take the hit. And how many people actually believe the "oops, we plum forgot to correct every reviewer for 4 months"? Yeah, me neither. Nvidia was more than happy to have the reviewers singing the praises of the 970 as a barely cut down 980.

 

[SPBHM]

it would be good to compare it with the 512MB completely disabled to make a good conclusion,

at this point it feels like the 32bit 512MB are there more for marketing, because 3.5 would be less than the 290, and 256bits sounds better than 224.

 

[skipsneeky2]

4 months have passed since G1 970 came out at $360-370 and it's still $350-360. I personally don't understand the logic of waiting 4 months to save $10-20. At this point by the time you decide to upgrade, might as well wait for massive price wars with R9 300 series in Q2.

Didn't wait cause i wanted to,its cause iv'e been saving.That and seeing where drivers and performance would land with the 970.I was dead set on a 970 but with this whole 3.5gb,i'm not so sure about it now.

Buying this Friday,adding deals to my favorites so i will check things out.Got a budget of $360 going into a gpu that i aim to game with for a good 2 years.I see plenty of options.:thumbsup:

Certainly not gonna rush this purchase like the 770.

 

[SlowSpyder]

A 5% loss in performance isnt much to complain about over imho. Its something, but its not as disastrous as some people would have it to be

Saying it is just a 5% performance loss is oversimplifying things. In the earlier links in the threads, minimum frame rates were plummeting in some games. Frame times are worse. But all of that only happens at some settings that use a lot of vram, and may not be a big deal to many gamers today. But it may be a problem down the road as games that are more and more vram heavy come to market. And it seems that drivers may have a big impact on how this card manages the vram on this card, and that makes people concerned as Kepler drivers seem to have taken a backseat now that Maxwell is on the market. What happens if Maxwell drivers take a backseat next year?

It isn't all doom and gloom as the card still has a number of things going for it and can still make sense for some people. And the problems may always be a setting or two away from being eliminated. That's why none of the performance problems are the worst part, in my opinion. What is to me is the fact that Nvidia knew how this card was being reviewed and marketed. I think it is fairly deceptive on their part not to be up front with this card's configuration. At least let people make an informed decision.

 

[realjetavenger]

<snip>

No, it's $310, unless you don't count rebates?

Part of the problem is that, at least at launch, the 970 was priced between the 280X and 290, even though it's performance was between the 290 and 290X (if not tied or better than the X in some cases). Now, of course, is a different story with pricing.

In my case, as stated in another thread here I thought there was either something wrong with my card or my system and spent hours trying to "fix" it. As it turns out, nope, everything was working as it was supposed to.
When this card was purchased, there was no direct competition at it's msrp. Today is a different story. If buying today, considering the price is the same or less than what I paid for the 970 (besides the current pricing of the cards involved here), yeah, I'd go for a 290X.

 

[Paul98]

That 5% lower average can have a huge effect on playability given that too little memory usually is shown in frametime spikes, rather than just slightly lower normal fps.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I can't blame newegg here. They're not at fault. If I returned my EVGA GTX 970 SC to them they'd take a big hit selling it as an open box item. You have to think demand for the 970 is going to go down at least temporarily now that Nvidia has been caught in their lie and furthermore, this is a card that has now been replaced with a newer design (EVGA GTX 970 SSC). I don't think Newegg should take the price hit. They were nothing but great for me. They had my card shipped the day I ordered it and it was at my house halfway across the country in 3 days when I used their free shipping. I consider that A+ service and I don't want to penalize the company that's treating me well. The company that lied to me is the one that should take the hit. And how many people actually believe the "oops, we plum forgot to correct every reviewer for 4 months"? Yeah, me neither. Nvidia was more than happy to have the reviewers singing the praises of the 970 as a barely cut down 980.

What's my suggested recourse then? Just eat close to $200 in paypal/shipping/fleabay/taxes to get rid of my 970 SLI setup? I've forwarded that conversation to the Nvidia rep on the geforce board to see if he's able to help me. If/when I'm able to get rid of these 970's, I'll go ahead with a 290x crossfire setup which is very well depreciated at this point (at least vs. the wildly overpriced 980) to get me through to the 390x launch. Just hoping my AX850 can power the rig.