NVIDIA Plans Driver Update for GTX 970 Memory Issue, Help with Returns

Subject: Graphics Cards | January 28, 2015 - 10:21 AM |
Tagged: nvidia, memory issue, maxwell, GTX 970, GM204, geforce

UPDATE 1/29/15: This forum post has since been edited and basically removed, with statements made on Twitter that no driver changes are planned that will specifically target the performance of the GeForce GTX 970.

The story around the GeForce GTX 970 and its confusing and shifting memory architecture continues to update. On a post in the official GeForce.com forums (on page 160 of 184!), moderator and NVIDIA employee PeterS claims that the company is working on a driver to help improve performance concerns and will also be willing to "help out" for users that honestly want to return the product they already purchased. Here is the quote:

Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down.

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter

This makes things a bit more interesting - based on my conversations with NVIDIA about the GTX 970 since this news broke, it was stated that the operating system had a much stronger role in the allocation of memory from a game's request than the driver. Based on the above statement though, NVIDIA seems to think it can at least improve on the current level of performance and tune things to help alleviate any potential bottlenecks that might exist simply in software.

View Full Size

As far as the return goes, PeterS at least offers to help this one forum user but I would assume the gesture would be available for anyone that has the same level of concern for the product. Again, as I stated in my detailed breakdown of the GTX 970 memory issue on Monday, I don't believe that users need to go that route - the GeForce GTX 970 is still a fantastic performing card in nearly all cases except (maybe) a tiny fraction where that last 500MB of frame buffer might come into play. I am working on another short piece going up today that details my experiences with the GTX 970 running up on those boundaries.

Part 1: NVIDIA Responds to GTX 970 3.5GB Memory Issue
Part 2: NVIDIA Discloses Full Memory Structure and Limitations of GTX 970

NVIDIA is trying to be proactive now, that much we can say. It seems that the company understands its mistake - not in the memory pooling decision but in the lack of clarity it offered to reviewers and consumers upon the product's launch.


January 28, 2015 | 10:28 AM - Posted by concerned citizen (not verified)

A big issue with this whole deal is how this inudorinately affects SLI users at something like 4K or 1440p. Where they have enough shading power to push the options and AA, but the card will probably buckle and stutter under the weird RAM set up.

January 28, 2015 | 11:26 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I guess we'll see what happens after the driver update.

January 29, 2015 | 02:22 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Apparently there is NOT a special driver coming from nvidia. PeterS@nvidia redacted his statement:

"Hello,

I'm sorry that what I wrote was poorly worded, I realize I made it sound like there was a special patch or something and that is definitely not the case. We are always working on new drivers that tune performance and add features, the GTX 970 is no different.

Are you having a specific issue with the 970 that I can help you with? Unfortunately we made an error in the reviewer guide but the GTX 970 is one of the best GPU's we've ever built.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,2...

Let me know how I can help.
"

From:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-9...

January 28, 2015 | 11:53 AM - Posted by Penteract (not verified)

What will "probably" happen is that review sites will test the heck out of this and will find that the worst-case scenario produces a negligible frame rate drop.

This is a textbook case of people that don't really understand what's going on turning the mole-hill they are looking at into a mountain in their minds.

January 28, 2015 | 12:50 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The customer is always right, and they should return the cards, why wait for an update to "Fix" the problem. RMA the cards, and get something that does not have the gimped memory channel. This problem is going to put a big asterisk by these cards, and Nvidia, and its retailer pipeline are going to have to sell them at cost, just to recoup their expenses. Next time do not overload the memory channel, whatever, and try a gimped solution.

January 28, 2015 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I agree that they should take them back if people really want to return them but this "issue" really effects very few users. People do not seem to understand that almost all chips sold will have a defect in them somewhere. It is not that uncommon to have things like a few extra cache blocks to make up for defective areas without needing to disable the whole cache. The clock speed is obviously binned for; not all can run at the same speed. Often an entire product line-up is made from the same die just with different portions disabled. Currently, it loos like the 970, 980, and all three mobile parts are actually the same die with different areas disabled.

Presumably people bought the 970 because they looked at the performance in the games they played and it was the best value. If they want to return it and get an AMD part that may perform worse, but has a full 256-bit buss then that is their decision.

They could also pay the extra ~220 dollars for a full 980 part.

January 28, 2015 | 05:15 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Binned dies with defective units, plus some extra fusinng to make the binned parts perform equally, and one memory channel sharing double the responsibility/load in high resolution situations. Nvidia has made a big mistake in the eyes of the customer, and we all know that games as well as benchmarks can be cherry-picked in reviews. There are no better reviews than the actual customers having problems, with their respective games, and system builds, and any of these lower grade derived SKUs are almost always the result of binning, and users need to wait a while before purchasing any GPU parts that they suspect are the results of binning, and let the first buyers be the guinea pigs.
Return the parts, and wait for something better, these parts will be on fire sale, because of the big "*" buy their name, and AMD is about ready for some new(non Binned) releases. No gimping on channels please, its not the same as fusing of some SPs, etc.

Can't wait for a third player in the discrete GPU business, and Imagination Technologies would probably not say no, if one of their customers ordered a discrete part to be made. Those PowerVR GPUs are getting more impressive with each new generation.

January 29, 2015 | 01:32 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

All chip makers bin or salvage different dies for different products. Intel's highest end desktop parts, the extreme edition core i7s are actually salvaged Xeon server parts with defective cache or cores. There is nothing wrong with binned or salvaged parts. It is a standard practice. The only issue is that they did not communicate correct specifications.

I don't know where PowerVR GPUs stand compared to current desktop parts, but they do not seem to be of too much interest. There should be a big jump in performance soon. Performance has been somewhat stagnant for a while due to being stuck at 28 nm for several years. In the next generation or 2 we should get a smaller process node plus stacked HBM memory. This should be good for a large jump in performance. The stacked memory could be somewhat disruptive since it would allow a CPU sized device to reach dedicated graphics levels of performance.

January 29, 2015 | 01:32 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

All chip makers bin or salvage different dies for different products. Intel's highest end desktop parts, the extreme edition core i7s are actually salvaged Xeon server parts with defective cache or cores. There is nothing wrong with binned or salvaged parts. It is a standard practice. The only issue is that they did not communicate correct specifications.

I don't know where PowerVR GPUs stand compared to current desktop parts, but they do not seem to be of too much interest. There should be a big jump in performance soon. Performance has been somewhat stagnant for a while due to being stuck at 28 nm for several years. In the next generation or 2 we should get a smaller process node plus stacked HBM memory. This should be good for a large jump in performance. The stacked memory could be somewhat disruptive since it would allow a CPU sized device to reach dedicated graphics levels of performance.

January 28, 2015 | 05:51 PM - Posted by ThorAxe

I used to use GTX 680 SLI (2GB cards)in my gaming rig at 1440p without any problems. Most games aren't that demanding unless you really crank up the AA or you're running something like Crysis 3 at 4K.

I've since moved it to the HTPC which is hooked up to a 4K TV, and games like Tomb Raider run fine on it.

January 28, 2015 | 10:29 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Guru3d have done some testing with Shadow of Mordor at 4K and passing the 3.5Gb mark, and have found... not much impact beyond the expected general drop in performance. Whatever, if anything, the driver is doing seems to be working pretty well, at least for them.

January 28, 2015 | 10:55 AM - Posted by Mandrake

It's good to see that the performance difference does indeed seem to be minimal as Nvidia stated. This upcoming driver should help, too.

With all that said Nvidia still screwed up. It's not a huge deal, but I still think that someone from high up in Nvidia should just come out and apologise and admit they should have fully disclosed the 970's memory architecture from the beginning. Maybe a free game code or something for 970 owners as a sign of good faith would be good, too?

January 28, 2015 | 11:22 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

A German tech website has tested the GTX 970 vs a GTX 980 clocked down to 958 Mhz - which would be the same performance as the GTX 970 (in sense of TFlops afaik). In Watch_Dogs at UHD with ultra settings the GTX 980 (which does have the same memory/cache/ROP setup as originally advertised by Nvidia) was a whopping 34% faster. The GTX 970 also started stuttering.

January 28, 2015 | 11:23 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

The GTX 980 has 384 more cores than the GTX 970... Putting them at the same clock speed does NOT equate to putting them at the same performance.

January 28, 2015 | 11:40 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Not same clock speed, lower...

958 MHz vs 1178 MHz.

January 28, 2015 | 01:14 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It's not that easy to make 'equivalent speed' that way. If the bottleneck is something easily parallelisable but requiring minimal actual computing time (e.g. something 'gated' by a minimally-parallelisable step), then the slower but wider card will perform faster. Likewise, if something is not easily parallelisable then the faster but narrower card will perform faster.
Graphic rendering is a mix of both (pixel tasks are often embarrassingly parallel, but vertex operation often are not), so just fiddling with clock speeds between two different cores will not make them perform in the same way.

January 28, 2015 | 01:29 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I can only assume that they choose exactly these clock speeds, because they offered equivalent performance before the 3.5 Gigabyte VRAM partition was exceeded. At least the article states that the GTX 980 was clocked to deliver equivalent performance as the GTX 970.

January 28, 2015 | 10:56 AM - Posted by Ophelos

Geek3d has done some testing with the OpenGL side of things. An you'll be shocked about what they've found out.

http://www.geeks3d.com/20150127/opengl-apps-not-impacted-by-gtx-970-vram...

January 28, 2015 | 02:35 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The conclusion.

According to that little test, it seems that OpenGL applications are not concerned by the VRAM allocation limitation of the GTX 970 (but they are certainly affected by the reduced speed of the 0.5GB memory that run at 1/7th of the speed of the 3.5GB memory pool). Most of the video games are Direct3D applications and that explains why many people have seen that issue.

January 28, 2015 | 04:54 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Is windows under directX just not using the second partition?

January 28, 2015 | 11:09 AM - Posted by cats (not verified)

this needs to be tested thoroughly using FCAT

also Nvidia should launch a 970 V2 with the full memory/ROP/L2 as the original specs they released for the original 970.

January 29, 2015 | 08:22 AM - Posted by Laststop (not verified)

Physically impossible. The way maxwell architecture is setup when those cores are disabled the memory controller and cache goes with it. Can't separate it.

January 28, 2015 | 11:25 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

As expected, PCper are the first guy's to post about nVidia and their damage control and at the same time reiterating how they don't think what they did is a big deal.

Looking forward to tonight's podcast where I'm sure it'll be the guy's saying how the internet overacted and everything was blown out of proportion.

January 28, 2015 | 11:40 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

It kind of did, and we likely will.

But you know, it's comforting to know that every other media outlet at least shares our opinion.

That has to mean SOMETHING, right? We can't ALL be paid-off, "BIOS-ed" shills, right?

January 28, 2015 | 11:52 AM - Posted by Fatcatsandfacts (not verified)

there might be overreaction regarding the performance implications, BUT what nvidia did is very serious, intentionally or not (I think it's was not intentional) they lied about the specs (8ROPs and 256KB l2 are simply not there), and you could say they lied about the memory amount and bandwidth, because I don't see this card using the full 256bits while gaming, just a pool with 224 and another with only 32bit, it's simply not a 4GB card in the same sense as the 980 or 290, or a 256bit card like the 980... it's a 224 3.5GB card with an extra 512MB 32bit "buffer",

what is funny is that Nvidia only messed up with the 970, all the other 4 or so GM204 based cards have a clean memory/ROP/l2 setup (each memory controller active have a ROP/l2 available, unlike the 970)

January 28, 2015 | 12:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yeah, so you just have to believe that not a single engineer or marketing person from nVidia saw a review out there that stated the specs wrong. How long has the 970 been out? Not buying it.

Thank you to the community however for finding out the BS that nVidia clearly didn't want to share and the hardware sites couldn't figure out.

January 28, 2015 | 04:48 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Absolutely agreed.
It is conceivable (though still unlikely for such a large and well-funded marketing department) that incorrect information would be mistakenly given to reviewers on launch, but it's laughable for Nvidia to imply that for all the months since launch, not a single engineer has seen any review or discussion of the 970 that mentions incorrect specifications. It's true that the 970 is still not a terrible card, but this is textbook false advertising that Nvidia clearly hoped they could get away with, even in the remote possibility that it was originally an honest mistake.

"I don't believe that users need to go that route [returns]" -Ryan
It's almost disgusting to see how eagerly the press scrambles to apologize for Nvidia's blatant bullshit. Assuming you aren't simply being paid for these comments, you are encouraging this kind of absolutely anti-consumer behaviour from Nvidia (wasn't the point of doing reviews to protect the consumer?). If I had a 970, I would attempt to return it no matter how satisfied I was with the performance - Nvidia must be punished for this false advertising, because if they are not, they will try it again. It's not so hard to imagine that if it was known that the 970 had less ("usable") memory than the comparably priced R9 290(X), at least a few people would have been swayed towards AMD.

January 28, 2015 | 12:23 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Actually, several sites have called BS on NVidia's excuse of misinformation.

January 28, 2015 | 01:21 PM - Posted by Mandrake

You and Allyn truly deserve medals for being so patient with some of the people leaving comments here. ;-0

January 28, 2015 | 02:21 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

We do it because every once in a while a post like yours brings a smile to our face and makes it all worth it. Thank you.

January 28, 2015 | 02:51 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Think how much better it would be if most posts where positive. Just a thought :p Say hello to Jen.

January 28, 2015 | 07:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Let it be said, to never completely trust any website that gets advertising revenue from the same industries/companies whose products are reviewed. There will always be questions related to objectivity. PCper is fairly unbiased, but Tom's, and now AnandTech(not owned by Anand anymore), well, there goes the technology reporting industry. If you want more unbiased technical reviews you are going to have to go behind the pay-wall.

The entire Technology industry is so full of hucksters, shills, and stock manipulators(for those that are shorting/whatever stocks), and do not forget the large Chip/OS monopolies(every bit as bad as the Standard oil trust, and Ma Bell, of the past) all trying to hold onto their market share, by belittling the competition, and arm-twisting the device OEMs.

Technology is the new moneymaker of the past 3 decades, expect there to be much snake oil, and underhanded trickery, nothing has changed much from the gilded age!

--See the Glory, Of the Royal Scam...

January 29, 2015 | 01:46 PM - Posted by ProMace (not verified)

Fully agree. It must really suck at times being a reviewer, since you have to maintain a calm and professional posture under all circumstances. It's always the frantic few that act like they've been kicked in the balls.

I installed my GTX970 Phantom into my NZXT Rogue HTPC/Gaming case yesterday, fired up Far Cry 4 and went for Ultra. What I got was Ultra performance, Ultra low noise and an Ultra big grin on my face. 2015 is good. :)

January 28, 2015 | 02:46 PM - Posted by JohnGR

OK, you know the very very bad answer to this. It's very rude so I apologize in front. But when we are dealing with Nvidia someone could also say that maybe the press also shares the same bank account. There. I told you that it was bad and rude. I apologize again.

Anyway, when AMD's Hawaii chip was throttling and the speed was not 1GHz, most of the tech sites, especially a few green ones (-Hello Tom!), where looking at the GPU frequency and saying that "Who gives a s#$%^t about performance? AMD lies about the GPU's frequency". Now, everyone is covering Nvidia's lies by downplaying the problem and saying that it is no big deal. It's only -3% difference. A totally different approach when in fact what Nvidia did was much worst than what AMD did.

January 29, 2015 | 03:09 PM - Posted by ProMace (not verified)

This is a classic example of how easily things can spin out of control on the net and how irrational people can be. On Sunday morning I woke up to read a newsflash on tweakers.net stating that a 'memory issue' had been found with the GTX970. I had ordered the card the previous evening, so I wanted to get more info on the matter ASAP, which I found here.

A big thumbs up to you guys for taking the matter seriously and putting things into perspective. Keep up the good work.

January 28, 2015 | 11:53 AM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

The way I understand it ,lower performance. Is only when :only the 512 mb would be needed (example :chess game)I don't think any would care lol.all other case should run at max,hell this might actually be good .why?MSI/msix can be done on the 512 MB part instead of on the ram (GPU part)

January 28, 2015 | 12:53 PM - Posted by Fatcatsandfacts (not verified)

lower performance yes, the old reviews are accurate in terms of performance,

but in terms of the fake specs the effect is always there, since they promised a 64ROP/2MB l2 256bit card and delivered a 56ROPs/1.75MB l2 224bit card

January 28, 2015 | 11:55 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Some more here:-

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/reviews/video_cards/the-gtx-970s-memory-e...

January 28, 2015 | 12:26 PM - Posted by JL (not verified)

Now that the cat is out of the bag regarding
the specifications, does the GTX970 have
256-bit Memory Bus Width or not?

January 28, 2015 | 12:51 PM - Posted by Fatcatsandfacts (not verified)

physically yes, but in practice it's a 224bits card at best, since the other 32bits are not aggregated to the total, but just an additional, separate 32bit bus space.

January 28, 2015 | 01:05 PM - Posted by killurconsole

Ryan ,i am still waiting for ur update

January 28, 2015 | 01:16 PM - Posted by Luciano (not verified)

Ryan, can you get a response from Nvidia on how the GTX660ti memory system works like the one they gave about the GTX970?

Anandtech already mentioned that is very similar.
But details would be nice.

January 28, 2015 | 01:25 PM - Posted by Mandrake

660 Ti has three 64 bit memory controllers (192bit total), two connect to 512MB of memory, and the third connects to 1GB of memory. At least that's how I understand it. It's still a single pool of memory, and not comparable to the unique configuration of the 970.

January 28, 2015 | 01:39 PM - Posted by Luciano (not verified)

Anandtech says something else:

"The end result as it turns out is very similar, and while NVIDIA has never explained in-depth how they handle memory allocation on those cards, it turns out that it’s very similar to GTX 970’s memory segmentation. Which is to say that NVIDIA actually has multiple generations of experience with segmented memory, and this is not the first time they have implemented it. Rather this is first time we’ve seen such a configuration on a high-performance card such as the GTX 970."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-...

January 28, 2015 | 01:46 PM - Posted by Mandrake

I do stand corrected. Thanks. That definitely made for an interesting read.

January 28, 2015 | 02:27 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

I don't agree with Anandtech's position on that. In the case of that card, there were larger proportional chunks with less of a bandwidth delta between them. In this case you have a 7:1 speed ratio between the two segments of memory. Calling it 'very similar' is a bit off.

January 28, 2015 | 05:14 PM - Posted by Luciano (not verified)

Thanks a lot for your view on that!
I got curious after Nai's test in headless mode have given this results:
http://i59.tinypic.com/29w4bd1.jpg

January 28, 2015 | 05:18 PM - Posted by Luciano (not verified)

http://oi59.tinypic.com/29w4bd1.jpg

January 29, 2015 | 12:46 PM - Posted by homerdog (not verified)

Allyn is correct. AnandTech is wrong about the 970 bus configuration being similar to the 660Ti. They are totally different.

January 28, 2015 | 01:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Fcat would have been produced ALREADY if this were an AMD card, yet the creator of the software to test AMDS XF MS is somehow gimped now, and can't be used to show the performance of it's own hardware.
Not until the FCAT code is adjusted, or very creative drivers are coded to hide the inefficiency of the last 500 anyway...

Those results could have been produced by Saturday night without issue, Monday night at the very least if folks didn't think it was "Important enough"...
It's Wednesday afternoon, and we are reading PR about how it was a mistake....still, and with folks saying it's perfectly fine the way it is.

Sure made a lot of $ on these cards, I'm certain someone over there could have produced FCAT by now, especially since the entire weekend was a fire drill with conference calls and meetings....was not a good weekend for some over there, I'm betting on that....
Still no FCAT.....pathetic!

January 28, 2015 | 01:44 PM - Posted by Mandrake

Did you bother to read the news post?

"I am working on another short piece going up today that details my experiences with the GTX 970 running up on those boundaries."

January 28, 2015 | 02:35 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

There was no update to FCAT to handle the 900 series cards, nor are we using an updated version of it for our retests now. Same driver, too. How's your argument hold up given that information?

FCAT takes time, regardless of GPU being tested, especially in a case like this where we are trying to determine a very small performance difference, and then have to perform the same exact round of testing on another card that does not have this same segmentation. Then we have to try and put that data into graphs that properly show the performance delta from *this* issue as opposed to the performance delta resulting from the fact that one card is overall slower than the other card in the first place (for reasons aside from the segmentation).

January 28, 2015 | 01:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Seems some sites have actual nV employees posting on the forums, peter at GF.com, Brian at TR.com...

SAME answer/post given on both sites, the post is a copy/paste on both sites, so this was clearly very carefully thought out.

Does mention that if you need help getting a refund to contact he/them directly.

January 28, 2015 | 01:51 PM - Posted by Fatcatsandfacts (not verified)

it's a social media guy from NV, he is posting in many different websites, nothing wrong with that

January 28, 2015 | 03:27 PM - Posted by Pholostan

Seems they have people on pretty much all sites with some traffic. A swedish forum I read have an official rep now. Showed up today (28 jan) and have made 10 posts so far.

Everything is OK, nothing to see here. Circulate, circulate.

January 28, 2015 | 02:05 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Peter said he is an Engineer

January 28, 2015 | 03:37 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Now we know who the sacrificial lamb is.

January 28, 2015 | 02:09 PM - Posted by Rick (not verified)

FCAT?

January 28, 2015 | 03:10 PM - Posted by djotter

^ +1

January 28, 2015 | 03:20 PM - Posted by Johnny Rook (not verified)

eheheh

Just DON'T FORGET SLi!

January 28, 2015 | 03:50 PM - Posted by Earnest Bunbury

FCAT = Flat Cat! https://www.dropbox.com/s/8f4qzewch91ylwo/004.JPG?dl=0

January 28, 2015 | 02:37 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Placebo pills, placebo (wonder) drivers for the customers.

January 28, 2015 | 03:22 PM - Posted by Johnny Rook (not verified)

Such as the OMEGAs, you mean. Because, I had 0% observable impact in performance going from 14.11 to OMEGA on my AMD rig.

January 28, 2015 | 05:01 PM - Posted by JohnGR

AMD Omega drivers have no impact on Nvidia hardware, so it is logical for you to have 0% impact on performance.

January 28, 2015 | 02:46 PM - Posted by mAxius

high resolution textures, 1440p, and 4k will murder this card in single and sli setups plain and simple. Anything that has to address that last 512mb of memory will hit a performance WALL. PCper should hold themselves to a higher standard than being nvidia shill.

224 GB/s aggregate
196 GB/s (3.5 GB)
28 GB/s (512MB)

memory bandwidth numbers taken from here
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,2...

January 28, 2015 | 03:16 PM - Posted by Fatcatsandfacts (not verified)

yesm the 196GB/s is the best it can achieve, you can't add the other 28GB/s to it.

224 is what the 980 can achieve, definitely not the 970, 970 is 196 for 3.5 and 28 for 0.5; 980 is 224 for all 4.

January 28, 2015 | 03:17 PM - Posted by Fatcatsandfacts (not verified)

just to add, mentioning 224 for 970 is very misleading.

January 28, 2015 | 03:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Tea & Sympathy

"I can't guarantee anything specific like refund vs credit vs upgrade+cash or whatever as they are independent companies."

"But since we don't actually sell cards directly (aside from a limited run at Best Buy), I can't force our partners to do vouchers or anything like that."

"To be extra clear, I think the GTX970 is a great card and honestly don't believe there is a better card for the price. If you are unhappy for whatever reason, talk to your board mfgr and give them a chance to help you out. If that route fails, let me know and I'll try to help."

January 28, 2015 | 03:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Tom Petersen for all the hoopla and technical expertise and close relationship with his engineering team still didn't know about the spec differences?

You guys asked him about it at GTX 960 launch off-air.

I guess that means he is still just a marketing guy like his title implies.

Every time you have him on its one big Nvidia commercial.

January 28, 2015 | 04:57 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"Every time you have him on its one big Nvidia commercial."
Honestly there's not much else to expect when you get an industry guest on the show - a company isn't going to pay an employee to visit and talk unless they think it will somehow improve sales. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is interesting to see how differently Ryan treats Tom and Richard Huddy, for example. Huddy gets all the difficult, aggressive, and interesting questions (as it should be for both sides), while with Tom, Ryan (as one commenter eloquently put it) just blows sunshine up his ass.

January 28, 2015 | 05:32 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That bias treatment is all too obvious. I suspect that's why some view PCPerspective as a shill.

I have to say, that Josh gives them a much more balance treatment then the others. It could be his age or just that he is tipsy still try'n to figure that one out.

January 28, 2015 | 08:24 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Josh is the best pcper writer: fair, knowledgeable, and lewd.

January 28, 2015 | 04:58 PM - Posted by Josh Walrath

I typically learn something new whenever Tom is on.  He's a smart and personable guy who is obviously passionate about what he does.  Same with guys like JJ.  They are representing their companies, they will say lots of nice things about their products, but they will also take a deep dive into what they are doing to help showcase these products.  Knowledge is power!  Just make sure to read around and gather as many differing opinions as possible and weigh it all together.  We have brains, be sure to use them!

January 28, 2015 | 05:47 PM - Posted by Lance Ripplinger (not verified)

In the end, this will all blow over I bet. This whole thing will be like Shakespeare's classic play "Much Ado About Nothing". ;)

January 28, 2015 | 07:07 PM - Posted by BlackDove (not verified)

Even with 3.5GB and 196GB/s it manages to perform pretty well. I suspect thatsall the bandwidth saving they did with the compression.

It seems like Nvidia is guilty of trying to make their specs look better than they really are and consumers are rightfully pissed.

This is from an "Nvidia fanboy" who still says that Crossfire, and AMDs CPUs and GPUs architectures suck. Ive got a 780 and im glad now lol.

Now if only people would get this angry about things like "LED monitors", light bulbs, food, cars, and all the other stuff theyre constantly lied to about.

Im not saying its not irritating to be treated like idiots, and it looks like Nvidia really did cheat here to make the 970 look better on paper than it actually is.

It also seems like a waste of resources to design the memory subsystem to keep a useless portion of .5GB(1/8) of the total amount especially if its just to make it technically 256bit. Its almost definitely nowhere near 224GB/s in real world usage.

Im just saying: go get this pissed off over the other things i mentioned. Theyre really much worse lol.

January 28, 2015 | 07:26 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Still no FCAT?

"Re-write that code boyz, driver team- GET CRACKIN'!"

January 28, 2015 | 07:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

AMD responds to NVidia's BS:

https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/560511204951855104

January 29, 2015 | 08:54 AM - Posted by Timba (not verified)

LOL typical AMD. I expect no less from them. They should just keep quiet and keep working on trying to release some new cards (R9-3xx) before the end of the year at least.

January 28, 2015 | 08:56 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

ROTF

January 28, 2015 | 09:40 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I hate to break it to all but I have 2 gainwood gtx 980 phantoms and both exibit the same memory allocation issues.

I dont think this is only an issue with the gtx 970.
Nvidia better pickup thier game with drivers soon or ths shite will inevitibly hit the preverbial fan.

January 29, 2015 | 08:57 AM - Posted by Timba (not verified)

can you show some prof. The 980 is a full 4gb card and it's not design like the 970 (4gb+500mb). You might be having other issues.

January 29, 2015 | 01:32 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Nvidia is blaming their mistaken advertising, on a chupacabra attack, so that's why 4 = 3.5, so there you go, enjoy your cache miss, but that .5 is not available when the 3.5 is being accessed. What were they smoking, when they(marketing) dreamed this up. Nvidia has a big cache, of your cash, and those binned/gimped dies where pawned off on quite a few, candy on a rolled paper stick, types.

January 29, 2015 | 09:15 AM - Posted by raffriff42 (not verified)

Related - did you know PI=4? Google it :)

January 29, 2015 | 02:39 AM - Posted by Nez (not verified)

The biggest problem I can see is that, for the time being the GTX970 will perform superbly with pretty much any game thrown at it but future games may not fare so well. Also when the time comes to upgrade and sell you GTX970, the resell value will drop through the floor.

January 29, 2015 | 08:48 AM - Posted by Timba (not verified)

I understand both sides of the coin here and at first at was really upset an the green team but i'm not that upset as before after doing some research. The 970 should be what people paid for but this is blowing over too much. It was always stated that the 970 was design to run 4k but not maintain a playable FPS in current games at that resolution. That's what the 980 is for. What would be the point in having a 970 = 980? If you plan to use 4k with all filters on at max than you need a 980 period.

Now, I would love to see Nvidia gift everyone that got 970 an upcoming title at least to alleviate this issue.

January 29, 2015 | 09:30 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

https://twitter.com/amd_roy/status/560462075193880576

January 29, 2015 | 10:15 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Still no FCAT results that will show the stuttering and stammering when crossing 3500?
Takes a month to produce these maybe? Not from what I've seen on this very website!

Those results would have been produced by Monday night if this were an AMD mess.

What a disgrace, talk about protecting your "interests". Bah

"We're totally impartial, fair to the end" Yeah right, as long as it's green.

January 29, 2015 | 10:18 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I find it totally hilarious that the Green Team,some retailers, Manufacturers and websites are showing Fraps/FPS numbers as "proof" that all is fine, when FCAT was produced to show these exact microstutters/ unsmooth gameplay, but when it's used to show Greenies shenanigans, it is not to be used, or at least published for scrutiny.

What a joke :thumbsdown:

January 29, 2015 | 03:32 PM - Posted by hansmoleman (not verified)

Turns out PeterS lied. He has changed the post of geforce.com

"Hello,

I'm sorry that what I wrote was poorly worded, I realize I made it sound like there was a special patch or something and that is definitely not the case. We are always working on new drivers that tune performance and add features, the GTX 970 is no different.

Are you having a specific issue with the 970 that I can help you with? Unfortunately we made an error in the reviewer guide but the GTX 970 is one of the best GPU's we've ever built."

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-9...

There is no fix coming.
We are Nvidia! We can do whatever the eff we want...SUCK IT!

January 29, 2015 | 03:41 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

What a Schyster!
I read that post, and told folks to go and talk to him, as he said to contact him directly.

A guy named Brian(says he works for nV out of Santa Clara) stated similar info at Techreport on Wednesday at 2:53am, and THAT post remains.

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=101965&start=60

January 29, 2015 | 03:41 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

What a Schyster!
I read that post, and told folks to go and talk to him, as he said to contact him directly.

A guy named Brian(says he works for nV out of Santa Clara) stated similar info at Techreport on Wednesday at 2:53am, and THAT post remains.

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=101965&start=60

January 29, 2015 | 04:14 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Still not FCAT results to show the stammerinmg mess

January 29, 2015 | 04:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Peter has already edited that post on the forum to no longer explicitly reference refunds and to disavow that Nvidia is making any kind of specific driver fix for the 970.

No surprise PCper hasn't updated this to indicate that he's now changing his story.

January 29, 2015 | 04:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Man, I've always been into Radeons. When I choose to do different and get a 970, sh*it happens.

AMD has its own issues, but I don't remember being misled by any of their advertisement. Either nvidia gives a major upcoming game for free or I'm never going back buying something from them.

The question isn't "Does it perform well?". The true question is "Does it perform as sold?". The answer is no.

January 29, 2015 | 11:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Bye bye magic driver :P

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-we-w...

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.