News Nvidia denies GeForce GTX 970 design flaw claims

The problem with 'user experience' reports is that every possible performance issue is attributed to 'bad vRAM', rather than to turning up every setting possible.

 

And the problem with using FPS to measure RAM speed and usage is that the lack of either of those has very little effect on FPS. As edzieba alludes to most of these 'user experience' reports have come from tests based on bad configurations.

 

I saw this on Guru3D and one of the guys has written an app to test this outside of games, so FPS isn't something that comes into it.

 

And that program is meant to be run in headless mode, how many of the posted screenshots of said 'benchmark' program were run like that ?

And how do we know this 'benchmark' program is handling things correctly ? From a (translated) forum post the author made discussing his own program he says...

That sounds like he said that his program isn't handling the segmented memory correctly.

 

Well looks like I've found the one corner of the internet that isn't me and like 2 other actual computing people masturbating over computer architectures that also have rational minds! bit-tech/CPC readers deliver yet again!

osnap!

Personally I've actually hit the point of complete VRAM overload requiring the uses of system RAM, and my FPS drops from 60fps to around 10fps as a result (again, nubs thinking some stutter at 45fps = RAM partitioning-related... what nubs), so a 3% difference between 970 and 980 slowdown is to me attributable to other stuff, not the partitioning of VRAM.

For now I'm still recommending the 970, and waiting for actual technical info from somewhere reputable and skilled like AnandTech or Timothy Lottes (former Nvidia engineer, inventor of FXAA - the entire idea of post-render AA while at it. He's at Epic (Unreal Engine) now, as I recall) blog or RealWorldTech.

 

Well that thread over on Guru3D is over 900 posts now and lost the plot hundreds of posts ago and has since turned in to a mud slinging fight, 'I'm right, you're wrong!'... 'No, I'm right and you're wrong!'... blah.
Did nVidia do anything 'wrong' with the architecture of the 970? I don't think so. Isn't it also likely that anyone in a system situation where this may genuinely affect them, went with the 980 anyway?
Either way, if I had £300 for a GPU right now I would still go for a 970 and I am certain I would still be happy with the performance that I would get. I think many have lost sight of that...

 

I'm still 100% happy with my GTX in ANY game at 1080 or DSR (4k res) stuff....

What game uses more than 3.5Gb of VRAM??

 

nv should have said the card was a 3.5GB card and be done with it - now they are again trying a `bumpgate` and brushing it aside.

quite a few non English websites are showing issues when pushed at 4k and over 3.5gb ram

 

I am running a evga 970 oc @ 144hz on an Asus swift pg278q monitor with games COD:AW and Far cry 4, with nothing but silky smooth eye candy...i have never gamed so richly.

No probs for me as yet.

 

Wasn't that claim from Nvidia forum mod? (ie: not official) And didn't they say that they are investigating?

 

no the nv rep said it was a crossbar issue that really wasn't an issue - and the green team fangirls are believing them - a bit like bumpgate

 

For 98% of users does any of this even matter? For non-users who aren't actively planning a 970 purchase this simply cannot matter.

Enjoy your gaming, and if your card is broken then RMA it.

 

heres a question - has anyone actually tested the R290X under the same display conditions to see its performance drop?

COD:AW @4K with FSAA and without FSAA for example?

 

No, but I have an ATi Radeon 1650XT if you want me to have a go.


No?

 

Putting your obvious bait at trying to start a GPU war aside, no one is taking what Nvidia have said as gospel.
People just want someone like yourself to provide evidence to backup their claims other than using a program in a way it wasn't intended to be used, or some random YouTube videos purporting to show micro stutters.

Unless you have bought a 970 to do CUDA work then from what i can tell no, DirectX and OpenGL has automatic memory management.

 

`random` - its from a Russian tech website ......

 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

so nv have said its a design issue - that 500mb will only be accessed at 1/7th of the speed of the rest .

so if you using all 4GB and some resident texures (for example) are stored in that portion of the ram , you`ll get stuttering

56 ROP (actual 52 with SMM limitation) vs 64 advertised, 1792KB L2 vs 2048KB advertised


WOW

 

IF it had a properly working SMM , then it be matching a 980

as it is , at 4k a 290x is up there with a 980 and ahead of a 970 (ram addressing aside)

 

IMO if you consider it false advertising I wouldn't find it amusing, I'd find it worrying. If the final 500mb is that poor performing they should have just disabled it and left it at 3.5gb.