Nvidia GTX 970 problems: This isn't acceptable.

[Jurassic1024]

How can Nvidia fix something that they say is working as intended ?

What part of the word could did you not understand?

they would have to do the 972 moniker to get away from the flawed 970, because you wouldnt be able to tell which 970s are the problematic ones and which ones are not


Oh, like Intel did with the P8P67 chipset (B3 revision)?
Tech isn't for you. Please find another interest.

 

[RealNeil]

Whats going to be really funny, is that 970s will still probably sell well, its only the enthusiasts like us that will know this problem

This,.................

They'll still sell well because they still perform well. (just like when they were initially reviewed)

Corporate lying is still rampant and will be for the foreseeable future.

First statement was due to miscommunication with departments. Now they retract their promise to update driver to fix 970.

I think that they realized that a driver solution was either impossible, or it would open up the 970's performance to unacceptable levels.

 

[GoldenTiger]

The ROP and L2 count are NOT THE ISSUE. We need to get that out of the way, because they don't change the reviews and performance we all saw before and after the GTX 970's release. If you felt you were lied to/duped/tricked/mislead about that in particular, then maybe tech isn't a hobby you should continue.

The ONLY issue is the performance, or lack thereof, of the 0.5GB memory pool when accessed, and until someone credible can PROVE without a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact handicapping the card, then threads like these are a huge waste of time, because right now, it is 100% speculation, and I don't do speculation. I'm a techie so speculation is about as good as gossip and rumors.

Wake me when there is something relevant to read on the issue...

Already covered in the OP, including the specs issue being incorrect as well as the 3.5+0.5GB segmentation not being disclosed and being the part actually causing the practical performance issues. It seems you enjoy repeating things already said in a discussion .

Anywho, the whole segmented memory problem is very widely known and verified by people who own GTX 970/GTX 970 SLI setups across a multitude of forums. I have additionally provided controlled testing that I personally conducted and showed the data for including showing for sure that it is the segmented memory causing the excessively large frametime variance, and the issue has been discussed and tested to the same conclusion by reputable review sites that don't have an (at least blatantly obvious ie being sponsored by NVidia on their own review links on GeForce.com) financial stake in the whole thing (i.e. free review samples, advertising placements from people involved, etc.) such as PC Games Hardware (Germany) here: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-970-Grafikkarte-259503/Specials/zu-wenig-VRAM-1149056/ . Or, at least, they are willing to speak up about the issue instead of dismissing it as a "pr issue" like HardOCP has.

Do you have anything to add or are you just defending, by all accounts what is being called by most false advertising and non-disclosure of major design flaws (segmented memory/controllers) by NVidia for some unknown reason?

This,.................
They'll still sell well because they still perform well. (just like when they were initially reviewed)

Corporate lying is still rampant and will be for the foreseeable future.

I think that they realized that a driver solution was either impossible, or it would open up the 970's performance to unacceptable levels.

It's impossible to fix properly with a driver revision because it is, as admitted by NVidia themselves, a by-design hardware flaw intentionally built in the way they created the GTX 970 chips (cut-down GM204). And yes, many companies do pull various stunts, but that hardly excuses anything, nor is it a defense for their actions. Unlike some who have had problems though, they have been flip-flopping on their position of what is/isn't wrong, and not providing any remedy to consumers their actions have wronged. I remember back when my P67 motherboard had the recall from Intel, and it took just one simple email to get the board replaced, postage pre-paid both ways, free of charge with a fixed version, in a prompt fashion at that. Meanwhile, in 2015 NVidia is sitting doing absolutely nothing to resolve their issue and it will be brand damage lasting for years to come at this point as a whole.

 

[RealNeil]

And yes, many companies do pull various stunts, but that hardly excuses anything, nor is it a defense for their actions.

I'm not defending them. They blew it, and it's in their faces now. I'm waiting to see what develops next.

 

[xorbe]

It's just a backdoor way to significantly increase the price of their cards to gouge extra profits from the punters and they have been doing this since Kepler.

This. They've opted to push wattage down and shrink the die, while barely inching perf forward, and raising prices. ffs, the 970 is a 224-bit card effectively. The 384-bit card is going to be outrageously priced probably.

 

[64K]

This. They've opted to push wattage down and shrink the die, while barely inching perf forward, and raising prices. ffs, the 970 is a 224-bit card effectively. The 384-bit card is going to be outrageously priced probably.

This is not in defense of Nvidia. They misrepresented the GTX 970 and I think they did try to ignore it. I find it hard to believe that no one from Nvidia saw the incorrect specs and didn't pass it upstairs to upper management for months. Especially considering that 2 Nvidia employees started new accounts here when the shit hit the fan and so that tells me there are some people from Nvidia that visit tech sites as if that's not obvious anyway.

Pertaining to your post. The GTX 970's counterpart in the Kepler family would be the GTX 670. The 970 is about 56% faster. That's pretty good. The 670 launched for $400 and the basic 970 launched for $330. 70$ cheaper. They did not raise prices. They lowered prices.

 

[TheGrey]

With the entire internet having their feelings hurt, and crying for their parents to hold them, I went ahead a bought one in a minor discount at my local retailer. After several days of intensive gaming, I am satisfied with it, and it is a nice upgrade from 660. Once again, doing the exact opposite of what internet is saying has paid off.

 

[bpgt64]

I almost feel like the Engineer's probably saw this coming, but figured it had a 50/50 shot of never being discovered. Thus they rolled the dice.

 

[Jborg]

With the entire internet having their feelings hurt, and crying for their parents to hold them, I went ahead a bought one in a minor discount at my local retailer. After several days of intensive gaming, I am satisfied with it, and it is a nice upgrade from 660. Once again, doing the exact opposite of what internet is saying has paid off.

I own a GTX 970 and my feelings are not hurt, yes the company lied or whatever, but my games still play on High detail with good FPS.

it runs games on High/Ultra just fine on 1080p. I have no complaints for 1080p gaming.

Crysis 3 could be more optimized, and Dragon Age Inquistion Im sitting at 40-50 FPS on Ultra detail.

Its still a great card.



I wouldn't mind some sort of compensation, but who knows really at this point.

 

[Vayra86]

With the entire internet having their feelings hurt, and crying for their parents to hold them, I went ahead a bought one in a minor discount at my local retailer. After several days of intensive gaming, I am satisfied with it, and it is a nice upgrade from 660. Once again, doing the exact opposite of what internet is saying has paid off.

And you registered to this forum just to post this info? Thanks for enlightening us.

FYI you went from one shaky memory subsystem (660@ 192bit 1.5Gb + 0.5gb@44gbps) to another, so I can imagine you will never see the difference.

 

[bpgt64]

I own a GTX 970 and my feelings are not hurt, yes the company lied or whatever, but my games still play on High detail with good FPS.

it runs games on High/Ultra just fine on 1080p. I have no complaints for 1080p gaming.

Crysis 3 could be more optimized, and Dragon Age Inquistion Im sitting at 40-50 FPS on Ultra detail.

Its still a great card.



I wouldn't mind some sort of compensation, but who knows really at this point.

You aren't mad now, but you will be if you do upgrade your monitor.

The card is basically just not future proof at all. And if they were honest about how it was configured, this wouldn't be a problem. People were buying these cards thinking, I can buy 2 and be set for 4k gaming, or 1440p@60fps gaming on newer games. A lot of people waited for this card for HDMI 2.0, and such, and the card is basically not usable at that resolution when a game consumes past 3.5gb of memory.

 

[GhostRyder]

This is not in defense of Nvidia. They misrepresented the GTX 970 and I think they did try to ignore it. I find it hard to believe that no one from Nvidia saw the incorrect specs and didn't pass it upstairs to upper management for months. Especially considering that 2 Nvidia employees started new accounts here when the shit hit the fan and so that tells me there are some people from Nvidia that visit tech sites as if that's not obvious anyway.

Pertaining to your post. The GTX 970's counterpart in the Kepler family would be the GTX 670. The 970 is about 56% faster. That's pretty good. The 670 launched for $400 and the basic 970 launched for $330. 70$ cheaper. They did not raise prices. They lowered prices.

I think the problem is not so much that we can look back on the chips and know that the GTX 970 is really the successor to the GTX 670, its that this is the first time in awhile that a GPU series has been released that really was not much of a step beyond the old series of cards. While I completely agree with you that its the successor to the Kepler mid range chips (GK 104) the problem really is just the performance in the end of it all. The GTX 670 and GTX 680 both bested the previous kings GTX 580 by quite a margin or at least enough to count buying a GTX 670 as a true upgrade to a GTX 580 (And of course the 680 was an even bigger step up) where as the GTX 970 is not a step up from a 780ti and the GTX 980 is not to much higher than a 780ti without some overclocking (Or getting a card that will auto boost extremely high). More people do not look at chip identifiers and buy based on a name than anything else because they assume the higher number equates to a higher card. Not really the most effective method but its something to be expected among users who don't spend much time on building their machines and are more concerned with plugging the card in and playing versus how many cuda cores it has.

As for the GTX 970, the problem is still the fact that its not as great as it was originally made out to be. At $300 its still a good deal that's for sure in some respects but not nearly as good a deal as it was made out to be and one of the main reasons many users jumped onto the bandwagon over many other cards including the GTX 980 (Because buying 2 GTX 970's made more sense to some over a single GTX 980 based on the fact the only difference was a slight bit of power or so they thought).

 

[Jborg]

You aren't mad now, but you will be if you do upgrade your monitor.

The card is basically just not future proof at all. And if they were honest about how it was configured, this wouldn't be a problem. People were buying these cards thinking, I can buy 2 and be set for 4k gaming, or 1440p@60fps gaming on newer games. A lot of people waited for this card for HDMI 2.0, and such, and the card is basically not usable at that resolution when a game consumes past 3.5gb of memory.

Understandable. I see how enthusiasts and high end gamers would be pissed about this and they should be.

Like I said though, personally for myself, playing at 1080p. Its just fine for me.

However, it is good this was discovered.

 

[HTC]

As for the GTX 970, the problem is still the fact that its not as great as it was originally made out to be. At $300 its still a good deal that's for sure in some respects but not nearly as good a deal as it was made out to be and one of the main reasons many users jumped onto the bandwagon over many other cards including the GTX 980 (Because buying 2 GTX 970's made more sense to some over a single GTX 980 based on the fact the only difference was a slight bit of power or so they thought).

Just wondering: if w1zzard new of this problem by the time he made the review, how much would this have penalized on the valuation of the card?

 

[64K]

I think the problem is not so much that we can look back on the chips and know that the GTX 970 is really the successor to the GTX 670, its that this is the first time in awhile that a GPU series has been released that really was not much of a step beyond the old series of cards. While I completely agree with you that its the successor to the Kepler mid range chips (GK 104) the problem really is just the performance in the end of it all. The GTX 670 and GTX 680 both bested the previous kings GTX 580 by quite a margin or at least enough to count buying a GTX 670 as a true upgrade to a GTX 580 (And of course the 680 was an even bigger step up) where as the GTX 970 is not a step up from a 780ti and the GTX 980 is not to much higher than a 780ti without some overclocking (Or getting a card that will auto boost extremely high). More people do not look at chip identifiers and buy based on a name than anything else because they assume the higher number equates to a higher card. Not really the most effective method but its something to be expected among users who don't spend much time on building their machines and are more concerned with plugging the card in and playing versus how many cuda cores it has.

As for the GTX 970, the problem is still the fact that its not as great as it was originally made out to be. At $300 its still a good deal that's for sure in some respects but not nearly as good a deal as it was made out to be and one of the main reasons many users jumped onto the bandwagon over many other cards including the GTX 980 (Because buying 2 GTX 970's made more sense to some over a single GTX 980 based on the fact the only difference was a slight bit of power or so they thought).

I would like to address a couple of your points.

The Fermi counterpart to the Kepler GTX 670 would be somewhere between a GTX 460 and a GTX 470. Using the performance of the GTX 470 then the 670 showed about a 72% increase in performance over the 470. The GTX 970 only showed a 56% increase in performance over the 670 but it was priced $70 lower than the 670 at launch.

Also, I don't think anyone expected the GM104 (970/980) to top the GK110 (780Ti) like the 670/680 topped the GF110 (580) because the Fermi was on the 40nm process and the Kepler was on the 28nm process. The die shrink allowed the efficiency to go up so the 670/680 had room for 2.6 times more shaders and faster core clocks over the 580. The 970 is still on the 28nm process. If it had been on the 20nm process then you would see a good bit more performance potential but TSMC dropped the ball on that.

 

[xorbe]

Pertaining to your post. The GTX 970's counterpart in the Kepler family would be the GTX 670. The 970 is about 56% faster. That's pretty good. The 670 launched for $400 and the basic 970 launched for $330. 70$ cheaper. They did not raise prices. They lowered prices.

This is where I disagree. The counterpart is the 660, also with unbalanced vram. This is part of the inching they are doing. How long before x80 is the x60, with two Titan models to choose from (filling in for x70 and x80).

With the entire internet having their feelings hurt, and crying for their parents to hold them, I went ahead a bought one in a minor discount at my local retailer. After several days of intensive gaming, I am satisfied with it, and it is a nice upgrade from 660. Once again, doing the exact opposite of what internet is saying has paid off.

Oh look, another less-than-5-posts poster madly in love with nVidia's dishonesty. PR damage control.

 

[GhostRyder]

I would like to address a couple of your points.

The Fermi counterpart to the Kepler GTX 670 would be somewhere between a GTX 460 and a GTX 470. Using the performance of the GTX 470 then the 670 showed about a 72% increase in performance over the 470. The GTX 970 only showed a 56% increase in performance over the 670 but it was priced $70 lower than the 670 at launch.

I am aware, however I was speaking specifically from a performance perspective and what users have come to expect over the years versus the chip designations themselves and comparisons between them. As the price is lower yes that makes it a nicer deal overall than previous years however it still does not stand up as being that great an improvement except in the area of efficiency. The die shrink would have alleviated that but I still feel if your going to release a new product your upper tier cards should best the previous (Or at least the second one down matches) to offer a good value and a good reason to upgrade.

Also, I don't think anyone expected the GM104 (970/980) to top the GK110 (780Ti) like the 670/680 topped the GF110 (580) because the Fermi was on the 40nm process and the Kepler was on the 28nm process. The die shrink allowed the efficiency to go up so the 670/680 had room for 2.6 times more shaders and faster core clocks over the 580. The 970 is still on the 28nm process. If it had been on the 20nm process then you would see a good bit more performance potential but TSMC dropped the ball on that.

Yea you are correct but I think that line of thinking is not something I prefer. I would like each card generation to justify itself for purchase with more than just saying its ever so slightly better than the previous. But then again that is why I started skipping generations before upgrading.

 

[RealNeil]

I almost bought a pair of GTX-970s last night. I came real close to pulling the trigger.
Then I thought about it and realized that If I wait for a month or so, I can get GTX-980s instead.

Also, isn't there an announcement coming from AMD soon? (shiny new bling)

As far as the 970's 3.5GB affecting 4K performance, I'm seeing excellent 4K performance with a Pair of 3GB R9-280X OC cards in crossfire already. So I'm not sure what a performance hit this is gonna be for someone who likes Crossfire and SLI.

 

[suraswami]

Sorry I didn't read the long thread, if I use a single 970 @ 1080P, will I still see this issue creep up? Assuming I can max out whatever settings the card can with my CPU coping with it!!

 

[64K]

This is where I disagree. The counterpart is the 660, also with unbalanced vram.

This isn't exact but I look at the part number to get a sense of where Nvidia is placing their GPUs in there lineup. The GTX 660 was a GK106 and the GTX 970 is a GM104. The GTX 960 is a GM206 and is the true successor to the GTX 660. If you believe that the 970's counterpart is the 660 then that would mean the 970 performs 206% better than the 660 which further detracts from your inching position.

Yea you are correct but I think that line of thinking is not something I prefer. I would like each card generation to justify itself for purchase with more than just saying its ever so slightly better than the previous. But then again that is why I started skipping generations before upgrading.

Yeah, there is nothing I would have liked to see more than the 970/980 on the 20nm process for a full and complete generation upgrade. I needed more than my 680 2GB for my monitor so I got this 970. While I don't regret it and am happy with the performance so far I'm not happy with Nvidia's deception and I certainly support anyone that wants a refund especially, as you pointed out, the ones who bought 2 thinking it would be great for 4K.

 

[xfia]

Sorry I didn't read the long thread, if I use a single 970 @ 1080P, will I still see this issue creep up? Assuming I can max out whatever settings the card can with my CPU coping with it!!

did you miss the whole fiasco? it is possible at 1080p to experience the flaw if you run mods like for skyrim not much more of a chance than that.
every game is different so it could happen at any res if the settings are high enough.
basically should be considered as a 3.5gb gpu and is not a bad thing but the flaw is not so great for sli and could be compounded as time goes on.

some may not agree with me but I just call it how I see it.

 

[radusorin]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/la...a-after-gtx-970-memory-allocation-claims.html

 

[DonInKansas]

4GB of Ram with 3.5 usable? Maybe the 970 is just running a 32 Bit OS.

 

[Dave65]

Wow, if people screamed about our corrupt government's and the fate of our future as much as they do about a video card the world would be a much better place..

 

[Xzibit]

Wow, if people screamed about our corrupt government's and the fate of our future as much as they do about a video card the world would be a much better place..

They do but depending on who is in office you are either a Crony or a Racist