Because most people have enough common sense to realize that it's impossible to have an OS and apps stored in memory without using up space? Seriously... What? And why are you only mentioning smartphones?
Its quite interesting how they are going after nVIDIA for the VRAM issue where as no one has yet to go after all the smartphone manufacturers and their false storage space advertisements. Don't think i've ever used a phone that had 16GB total usable space.. and some would come with 6GB already filled with bloatware sheesh, making it a 10GB device.
Yeah. Those comments are angry!
That had to be a mistake, you either try to PR something away or have an honest conversation about it. The blog post was definitely just a bit of PR that didn't really address any issues, there was going to be no plus side to leaving comments open on it.
It looks insane from the outside, but he is writing to the most valuable asset nv haves; the loyal customers. You dont want to alter their faith and trust by saying you flat out lied. Just say you are sorry but you did it to make them a favor.
Thats what they want to hear.
And he gives it to them.
Look at the blog that way and you better understand the brand value of nv and how professional their marketing and pr is all over.
Krumme look at those comments; those are the loyal customers and they are pissed....it was a PR piece; a terrible one at that and it was insulting. Only ones that can't see it that way are the paid pr pieces and those diehards; there's only been a couple of those posted. Rest are pissed off customers...and rightly so
If he was attempting to do that then he would have disabled commenting on the article.
I think its probably more a mistake or hugely misjudging the public feeling on the issue. Either way its a PR fail.
How can i see its loyal costomers?
- 970 is sold to a lot of customers not chosing it because of brand. They are angry even before his answer. So it doesnt matter what he writes is insulting.
- we have to remember if some of that anger for non brand loyal customers, is perhaps also a little bound by performance perhaps not beeing quite what they expected, and driver development perhaps not beeing either. That adds to it imo.
Krumme; I see what you're trying to say; but if that was true; you'd see that reflected in the comments more; its not. You literally had 2; and the rest are calling it what it is is. Utter contempt for the customer.
Remember; this isn't 20 years ago when panned answers like this worked; or partly worked 10 years ago. These panned type of answers just end up seriously pissing off your customer base and more and more people are online; getting more informed.
As I said; only those that are getting paid by Nvidia or the most die hard fans would even consider this answer not a slap in the face. Its one of the most straight forward FU from a corp that I've seen in a long time and its going to end up hurting them more than calm things down. Watch
So we now know why a lot of people say their VRAM maxes out at 3.5GB. The drivers are doing everything they can to prevent that last 512MB from being used. Which means in all practical uses, the card has 3.5GB.
The only reason nVidia made the card with 4GB was for marketing purposes. They would have sold a lot less of them if they had 3GB. So they concocted a scheme to increase it to 4GB hoping nobody would notice the strange side effects that people ultimately did notice.
Agree
The 970 is essentially a 3.5GB card that never uses the last 0.5GB for graphics
If you didn't get any stutter at that memory footprint then at best you have reduced performance, something you would not get if the 970 had the specs Nvidia claimed. Nvidia's own CEO admits as much:Myself, as well as others here who have the 970, have experienced 3800MB+ VRAM usage without any stuttering or issues.
However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth. This is a good design because we were able to add an additional 1GB for GTX 970 and our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment.
Ok, let's call it 3.5 with bonus memory. All I know is that it's not a 4GB card
Also got got any proof of your claim? And who are the "others" link to a few, thanks.
So we now know why a lot of people say their VRAM maxes out at 3.5GB. The drivers are doing everything they can to prevent that last 512MB from being used. Which means in all practical uses, the card has 3.5GB.