ASUS Strix Nvidia GTX960 4GB - Same 4GB problem as GTX 970

[commando55555]

It claims it has 4gig off memory and it dos 0.5 runs slower but it still has 4 gig. What part off the so called memory problem wont be a problem on the 960 are you not understanding. I have 2 970 and have had no issues on any games on 1440 res. to be quite honest your a tool for buying a 960 over a 970 to avoid the memory issue any way.

 

[UnknownzD]

LOL @ buying 2 970. I would rather buy a 980 instead without any limitation on the memory itself. Unless Windows 10 is rolled out, I can't see any major advantage of using 2 970 cards at all when things get scaled up.

Anyway, since the case is already reported, I won't comment on it further, but the consumer law here requires you to explicitly state the problem lies within a product. And as the official announcement only stats that the memory size will be doubled, without telling us that the extra 500 MB will be running in a lower speed, people would normally expect that the extra 2GB will be running in the same speed, and as a result, it is a clear violation of consumer law over here.

 

[AsRock]

As other said it's the GPU it's self and how it's designed and what disabled on the chip, this is not ASUS's or any other fault but nVidia and now your on about giving them even more money.

Does us all a favor if the 3.5GB thing is such a deal to you go buy a AMD 290X or wait until june(ish ) for the 390\X.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@UnknownzD I thought you were going to test it headless like @xorbe talked about as the proper way to test to see if it is in fact, crippled? It sounds like you decided not to do that?

@AsRock I think, if in fact his proper testing shows there is a problem, it would be a problem caused by the end partners who tacked on an extra 2GB, because as xorbe and MXPhenom point out, the GM206 was designed by Nvidia for 2GB, not 4. That's the difference with the 970, since the GM204 was in fact designed from the ground up for 4, but because it is a crippled 980 it can't do an actual 4 properly. so the 970 error properly belongs in the Nvidia camp. But I don't think this 960 blame goes to them, since they didn't design the chip to support 4GB.

 

[AsRock]

but nVidia sell the 970 with 4GB, and maybe nVidia gave them the ok for 4 GB.

 

[commando55555]

brought them before the 3.5 gig thing came about. i have gone over 3.5 and not had any issues so really don't no what the big fuss is about. Were i live 2 970 cost about the same as one 980. two 970 are better than one 980.

@UnknownzD I thought you were going to test it headless like @xorbe talked about as the proper way to test to see if it is in fact, crippled? It sounds like you decided not to do that?

No point due to the fact the memory thing is not even a problem with his card. The thing i find funny he buys the low end card then goes WTF 0.5 memory is slower. Shit now i am going to run out and buy the 2 most expensive card. to get 0.5 memory drop kick much.

 

[rtwjunkie]

No point due to the fact the memory thing is not even a problem with his card.

Well, for his own piece of mind is why I asked. He sounded like he was going to test that way, and then later sounds as if it's verdict that there is a problem. Thus my question on how he arrived back at that belief.

 

[qubit]

@UnknownzD Good find and I get how this bugs you. I wouldn't want a card like this either and that goes for whether the extra 2GB is actually helpful or not. The principle is actually quite important for me in this situation.

I'd say either get a 2GB version or preferably step up to a 980. I don't think you'll regret getting a 980 if you can afford it (check PSU spec etc first) as it's so much faster. Get one with those really silent coolers from the likes of Asus and MSI.

 

[UnknownzD]

@UnknownzD Good find and I get how this bugs you. I wouldn't want a card like this either and that goes for whether the extra 2GB is actually helpful or not. The principle is actually quite important for me in this situation.

I'd say either get a 2GB version or preferably step up to a 980. I don't think you'll regret getting a 980 if you can afford it (check PSU spec etc first) as it's so much faster. Get one with those really silent coolers from the likes of Asus and MSI.

I can actually afford a GTX 980 but the local distributor has said that they have contacted ASUS, and ASUS has refused to do so. Come on, if they have stated that the memory will be designed in the same way as GTX 970 does, I would properly avoid both cards as well. I really don't want the game to be played like crazy when things get scaled up. And theoretically, this kind of bug still exist even you are using SLI, making SLI an useless option to me unless DX12 is rolled out.

Not to mention that I am currently running a server version of Windows (with legit license), where the next version will be rolled out in 2016 instead of 2015.

By the way, one interesting thing is that, when the technician of the local distributor has called back, he said that he has used the benchmark tool on all ASUS GTX 900 series versions except the GTX 980, and he has found that the reading was dropped significantly for the last 500MB even on a Titan X card, and as a result, he claimed that it is a normal problem and does not affect gaming at all. Then when I asked whether he has tested the program on GTX 980 or not, he said he didn't do it at all. So how can a Titan X produce such a problem as well? Do you think that he is actually lying to me instead of telling me the truth?

Well, for his own piece of mind is why I asked. He sounded like he was going to test that way, and then later sounds as if it's verdict that there is a problem. Thus my question on how he arrived back at that belief.

I will definitely test it in that way when I have time.

But not now, I have to finish a ton of school project at the moment.

 

[commando55555]

Well, for his own piece of mind is why I asked. He sounded like he was going to test that way, and then later sounds as if it's verdict that there is a problem. Thus my question on how he arrived back at that belief.

I can actually afford a GTX 980 but the local distributor has said that they have contacted ASUS, and ASUS has refused to do so.

And so they should why don't you just enjoy your card instead off bitching and moaning. O sorry the principle the principle.

I'd say either get a 2GB version or preferably step up to a 980. I don't think you'll regret getting a 980 if you can afford it (check PSU spec etc first) as it's so much faster. Get one with those really silent coolers from the likes of Asus and MSI.

. Off course he would he went out and brought a low end card. His bitching about memory go and buy a 2gig version. yeh ok.

 

[UnknownzD]

And so they should why don't you just enjoy your card instead off bitching and moaning. O sorry the principle the principle.
. Off course he would he went out and brought a low end card. His bitching about memory go and buy a 2gig version. yeh ok.

Stop trolling and be more constructive please. I am not bitching at all, and it is very logical to think like what I have did.

The ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB edition was sold at a price of $250 here, and the GTX970 actually costed $345 here, which is having a minor difference of around $100 here, and if the bug exists on GTX970 still exists on GTX960 4GB edition, yet 20 more frames are provided by GTX 970 even if the bug are presented on both cards, then why do I need to pay for that extra $50 to get the 4GB edition instead of the 2GB edition? And why do I not select the GTX970 instead?

Anyway, the major reason for me to pick up the GTX960 4GB edition instead of GTX970 is that, I have expected that the same problem would not occur on GTX960 again.

 

[Vayra86]

Stop wasting your time.

GTX 960 is a bad buy all around; it is priced too high for what it offers and hardly increases performance over the last gen price equivalent of today. Get a second-hand 770 and save your money for when Maxwell gets cheaper and more refined and you have a full 256 bit on a fully enabled GK104 gpu without any fuss whatsoever. 4GB on midrange cards is still worthless, just as it was with Kepler. You may see it being used, but only because the space is there, not because the GPU can actually work with all that data. SLI on two midrange cards offers a marginal performance advantage but you lose your advantage in price because midrange GPU prices drop faster than high end cards do, so if you are selling your SLI setup it will cost you money compared to selling a high end card.

960 4GB -> avoid because 4GB won't get you anywhere compared to the cheaper 2GB version
960 SLI -> avoid b/c of price and fast value drop
970 SLI -> avoid b/c of 3.5Gb issue (which will ONLY really show itself when you SLI this)

970 single -> good buy for 1080p/1440p
980 single -> highly priced buy for 1440p and up
R9 290 -> still best price/perf ratio at this time, provided you get a solid cooler

That about sums it up. Stop wasting time on useless details that you never even managed to experience in-game, but only show in synthetic testing.

 

[UnknownzD]

Stop wasting your time.

GTX 960 is a bad buy all around; it is priced too high for what it offers and hardly increases performance over the last gen price equivalent of today. Get a second-hand 770 and save your money for when Maxwell gets cheaper and more refined and you have a full 256 bit on a fully enabled GK104 gpu without any fuss whatsoever. 4GB on midrange cards is still worthless, just as it was with Kepler. You may see it being used, but only because the space is there, not because the GPU can actually work with all that data. SLI on two midrange cards offers a marginal performance advantage but you lose your advantage in price because midrange GPU prices drop faster than high end cards do, so if you are selling your SLI setup it will cost you money compared to selling a high end card.

960 4GB -> avoid because 4GB won't get you anywhere compared to the cheaper 2GB version
960 SLI -> avoid b/c of price and fast value drop
970 SLI -> avoid b/c of 3.5Gb issue (which will ONLY really show itself when you SLI this)

970 single -> good buy for 1080p/1440p
980 single -> highly priced buy for 1440p and up
R9 290 -> still best price/perf ratio at this time, provided you get a solid cooler

That about sums it up. Stop wasting time on useless details that you never even managed to experience in-game, but only show in synthetic testing.

Thanks for this guide, and I will definitely look at it once I have time to purchase another card.

 

[RichF]

It claims it has 4gig off memory and it dos 0.5 runs slower but it still has 4 gig.

Half the bandwidth of the VRAM in a 2007 midrange card (8800 GT) is not enough bandwidth for this to be anything other than fraud. Your argument is so bogus because a card maker could put 2 GB of VRAM without soldering it so it will actually work and then say "the card does have all 4 GB!"

What a clever thing that would be, eh? Take all the defective VRAM chips and put them onto Nvidia cards so people can claim they have all the VRAM they were advertised to have. That it's not actually connected electronically to the card and doesn't function is beside the point.

The thing your too cute by half argument misses is the fact that there are reasonable expectations of performance. Not having the VRAM actually functioning is a failure of that and so is having half the bandwidth of a 2007 midrange card — especially in the case of the 970 which advertised a vastly higher VRAM speed spec.

If someone puts a Corvette sticker on a Fiesta and covers up the Fiesta name with duct tape the car's performance will not match the consumer's expectation. Hidden defects in terms of reasonable expectation of performance are just as egregious as obvious ones.

 

[the54thvoid]

lol

So the 'program' that is used to identify said problem is effectively disowned by the coder? And people still use it to prove a point which in essence isn't being tested because it's not what the program is actually testing? Go figure.

Besides the 'literally' schoolboy error of buying a card with excessive memory above it's actual gpu grunt. People always fall for marketing.

 

[rtwjunkie]

lol

So the 'program' that is used to identify said problem is effectively disowned by the coder? And people still use it to prove a point which in essence isn't being tested because it's not what the program is actually testing? Go figure.

Besides the 'literally' schoolboy error of buying a card with excessive memory above it's actual gpu grunt. People always fall for marketing.

Well spoken! My personal feeling is the card doesn't have the grunt to use 4GB, so it falls down and appears not to be using it all in said disowned "program". But I would like the OP to do some more in-depth testing when he gets home before he pronounces his card as a broken design.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Half the bandwidth of the VRAM in a 2007 midrange card (8800 GT) is not enough bandwidth for this to be anything other than fraud. Your argument is so bogus because a card maker could put 2 GB of VRAM without soldering it so it will actually work and then say "the card does have all 4 GB!"

What a clever thing that would be, eh? Take all the defective VRAM chips and put them onto Nvidia cards so people can claim they have all the VRAM they were advertised to have. That it's not actually connected electronically to the card and doesn't function is beside the point.

The thing your too cute by half argument misses is the fact that there are reasonable expectations of performance. Not having the VRAM actually functioning is a failure of that and so is having half the bandwidth of a 2007 midrange card — especially in the case of the 970 which advertised a vastly higher VRAM speed spec.

If someone puts a Corvette sticker on a Fiesta and covers up the Fiesta name with duct tape the car's performance will not match the consumer's expectation. Hidden defects in terms of reasonable expectation of performance are just as egregious as obvious ones.

why can't I hold all this stupidity?

 

[commando55555]

Half the bandwidth of the VRAM in a 2007 midrange card (8800 GT) is not enough bandwidth for this to be anything other than fraud. Your argument is so bogus because a card maker could put 2 GB of VRAM without soldering it so it will actually work and then say "the card does have all 4 GB!"

What a clever thing that would be, eh? Take all the defective VRAM chips and put them onto Nvidia cards so people can claim they have all the VRAM they were advertised to have. That it's not actually connected electronically to the card and doesn't function is beside the point.

The thing your too cute by half argument misses is the fact that there are reasonable expectations of performance. Not having the VRAM actually functioning is a failure of that and so is having half the bandwidth of a 2007 midrange card — especially in the case of the 970 which advertised a vastly higher VRAM speed spec.

If someone puts a Corvette sticker on a Fiesta and covers up the Fiesta name with duct tape the car's performance will not match the consumer's expectation. Hidden defects in terms of reasonable expectation of performance are just as egregious as obvious ones.

.

The thing is it dos work do you own 970 hmm no you just have a opinion based on what you have heard so then you run off and spout crap. At the end off the day i have 2 970 and have used more than 3.5 with no performance issues. I can only judge the cards based on how they have worked for me if there was issues i would have been the first one returning my cards going what WTF. Wouldnt be the first time.

 

[Jeffredo]

My MSI GTX 960 2GB:

image posting

 

[qubit]

@Jeffredo Picture isn't displaying.

 

[xorbe]

@Jeffredo - hey it didn't bench 2GB only 1792MB which is 1.75GB ... the plot thickens!

 

[the54thvoid]

@Jeffredo - hey it didn't bench 2GB only 1792MB which is 1.75GB ... the plot thickens!

Not relevant. it's the chunks that portray any issues (non issues). The 980 does the same (shows 3800Mb or so)

 

[Jeffredo]

@Jeffredo - hey it didn't bench 2GB only 1792MB which is 1.75GB ... the plot thickens!

The last block of my GTX 780 3GB only shows up to 2.816 GB, so it may just be the program. As far as the card itself, I'm pleased with it on my secondary PC. I have it paired with an i5-4590 and a 1680x1050 monitor and it does pretty darn well at that resolution (about as good as my old GTX 670 did). Its sitting in the living room and its extremely quiet even when gaming (and the fans actually spin up a bit). No complaints from me - it is what it is and I wasn't expecting GTX 970 performance. As for the OP - go for it if you have the extra $100. To call the GTX 960 a crappy card though really isn't fair - that's a lot of money extra to spend for most people so they're really not comparable.

 

[ISI300]

Would be cool if someone with 980s or Titan Xs would post some results.

 

[UnknownzD]

I don't want to argue with those guys any more, talking about those 'real life situation'.

I just want the card to be ready for running under *full capacity* as I long as I need to.

And since DX12 is going to come out, you can never expect whether 4GB of RAM can be used up for GUGPU or not. Trading memory in return for performance is a common practice in programming.

In addition, I am really going to RMA / file an official complain to the consumer council here after this weekend, since I believe that it is totally *irresponsible' to place such problem onto consumer shoulders, instead of admitting it is their fault.