WCCftech: Memory allocation problem with GTX 970 [UPDATE] PCPer: NVidia response

[JoeRambo]

The card was designed as a 56 ROP unit and the attendant limitation that it works best with 3.5GB of VRAM.

But nVidia decided to put 4GB on it AND WRITE DRIVERS FOR IT to let it "use" 4GB.

This is very true. The card is has in fact 3.5GB of VRAM and if the remaining 512MB are getting any use, performance will drop hard. It takes ~16ms of total GPU render time to deliver 60FPS, during that time GTX970 can read/write ~0.5GB from that 512MB segment at the cost of giving up ALL bandwith to the fast 3.5GB segment. So there is simply no way the card can deliver decent framerate if those 512MB are actively used (as happen in texture mods for games and will continue to happen with console ports and other games in the future).

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Wow, Tom's Hardware made the same argument the 16 year olds on Linus Tech Tips did.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

The GeForce GTX 970 remains one of the best graphics card buys on the market. It performs the same way it did at launch — which is really good.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Wow, Tom's Hardware made the same argument the 16 year olds on Linus Tech Tips did.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

The GeForce GTX 970 remains one of the best graphics card buys on the market. It performs the same way it did at launch — which is really good.

So? They're right. It's false advertising and some people may have bought it for 4K and deserve a refund....but for many, the 970 probably remains a good buy.

I was thinking of a 980 to replace my 2x 670 SLI, but I'll hold off now and see what Nvidia does. If they don't do something, I'll likely not spend the money and/or seriously consider a 380 or 390. I'm in no rush....

 

[B-Riz]

@B-Riz
People are either very forgiving or if they are not then most likely the situation doesn't affect them now or in the future. Nothing wrong with that and most probably don't realize the latter is a rather selfish stance (I know I didn't when I was younger). Anyways, I would really like to have seen what the impact of the 970 release if this was known from the beginning. I'd assume there be a fair amount of people who would think twice before buying a 970 (before the spec change the 970 was almost a no-brainer upgrade).

If nVidia was honest upfront about the memory config, relased it at 3.5GB and why the card had 3.5GB, that having and using 4GB was not ideal, I think people would be fine with that.

It still offers great performance, only with an asterisk now.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one, I hope not, but I was very confused at the 980 / 970 launch as to why the 970 mirrored the 980 ROP and memory specs.

From past launches, the x70 was always cut down.

Well, now we know the 970 was cut down, but that information was not able to leave nVidia until these past few days...

 

[ShintaiDK]

So? They're right. It's false advertising and some people may have bought it for 4K and deserve a refund....but for many, the 970 probably remains a good buy.

To be false advertising. It would have to be on official boxes, ads and sites wouldnt it?

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

 

[KaRLiToS]

To be false advertising. It would have to be on official boxes, ads and sites wouldnt it?

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

It's the review sites responsability?? I don't understand.

 

[garagisti]

Unless you work at NVIDIA, this is just pure speculation. Nobody knows what caused this mistake and why it wasn't noticed. Could simply be they have incompetent people in charge of press relations and marketing, who knows. I try not to cast aspersions when all the information isn't there. It certainly LOOKS like one thing but could be an honest mistake, just don't know. I do think the marketing guys saying it was a communication problem is to cover their ass and I bet someone will be fired shortly and I'd love to get the full inside story as to what happened. It isn't in NVIDIA's interest to purposely deceive it's customers, especially when they're close to burying AMD once and for all.

I would ask you to follow your own advice, and unless you work at Nvidia, you should not be so hasty to believe their word. I mean, after-all their drivers were already in overdrive avoiding to load the last .5gig of Vram. Awareness, could well be argued was already there, and how blatant the disregard was, is debatable.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's the review sites responsability?? I don't understand.

Wouldn't they have to verify that the information they pass along is truthful and accurate? I imagine that many would copy&paste it in though.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wouldn't they have to verify that the information they pass along is truthful and accurate? I imagine that many would copy&paste it in though.

Well, when it comes to things like ROP count and odd or different memory subsystems they're probably only able to go by what they are told by the GPU manufacturer.

 

[waffleironhead]

To be false advertising. It would have to be on official boxes, ads and sites wouldnt it?

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

The marketing slides and images of specifications that nvidia sent in their review guide are nvidias responsibility.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The marketing slides and images of specifications that nvidia sent in their review guide are nvidias responsibility.

Its still the responsibilities of a journalist. Plus its not copy/paste nVidia material that nVidia payed to get advertised.

I am sure we are on the same page in terms that we dont like the misinformation. But legally there is nothing wrong.

 

[guskline]

I am awaiting a decision from Gigabyte whether they will refund my purchase price of the Gigabyte GTX970 G1 Gamer I bought on January 4, 2015. Neither I nor any other consumer had the correct information concerning the specs of ANY GTX970 on that date.

To me it is irrelevant if there was a mistake by the Marketing department of Nvidia about the true specs of the GTX970 (an admission make by Nvidia a few days ago). The specs released from NVIDIA, until corrected in the last few days were not entirely correct.

Where do we go from here? To insinuate that "most of the persons complaining about this revelation" are looking for a freebie is to me, an insult. For the $359.99 I paid on January 4, 2015 I want the GTX 970 with the specs Nvidia had stood by until recently.

In fairness, I think Nvidia IS trying to rectify this problem; however the fault lies only with Nvidia, not the Distributors, Card manufacturers or ultimately the consumers.

The ball is in Nvidia's court; I really hope they take the correct action.

 

[EightySix Four]

Its still the responsibilities of a journalist. Plus its not copy/paste nVidia material that nVidia payed to get advertised.

I am sure we are on the same page in terms that we dont like the misinformation. But legally there is nothing wrong.

I'm pretty sure official press material would be considered a legal issue.

 

[waffleironhead]

Its still the responsibilities of a journalist. Plus its not copy/paste nVidia material that nVidia payed to get advertised.

I am sure we are on the same page in terms that we dont like the misinformation. But legally there is nothing wrong.

The reviewers guide nvidia releases contains marketing information. It's exactly a copy paste. Why do you think all the websites contain the exact same images?nvidia gives them all marketing materials to include in their reviews. Nvidias image = nvidias responsibility. It doesn't matter if they paid for it to be advertised. Nvidia is still responsible for their marketing materials.
The journalists responsibility is to post a retraction when a mistake is realized.

 

[waffleironhead]

Wouldn't they have to verify that the information they pass along is truthful and accurate? I imagine that many would copy&paste it in though.

Verify?
Hey nvidia, all that marketing material you just gave is is accurate right? You know since we can't actually go down to the silicon level and look for disabled parts and whatnot.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I am awaiting a decision from Gigabyte whether they will refund my purchase price of the Gigabyte GTX970 G1 Gamer I bought on January 4, 2015. Neither I nor any other consumer had the correct information concerning the specs of ANY GTX970 on that date.

To me it is irrelevant if there was a mistake by the Marketing department of Nvidia about the true specs of the GTX970 (an admission make by Nvidia a few days ago). The specs released from NVIDIA, until corrected in the last few days were not entirely correct.

Where do we go from here? To insinuate that "most of the persons complaining about this revelation" are looking for a freebie is to me, an insult. For the $359.99 I paid on January 4, 2015 I want the GTX 970 with the specs Nvidia had stood by until recently.

In fairness, I think Nvidia IS trying to rectify this problem; however the fault lies only with Nvidia, not the Distributors, Card manufacturers or ultimately the consumers.

The ball is in Nvidia's court; I really hope they take the correct action.

I honestly don't consider an Nvidia Rep encouraging people to return the cards to the seller as rectifying the problem. Unless they're offering a $40 or $50 credit per card returned to offset the money the seller is losing having to sell it open box now, all they have really done is punish sellers for their own error. And I don't understand how anyone in his right mind can think this was an accident. I'm really supposed to believe that every engineer who worked on these cards didn't go read a single online review? That the people who wrote the drivers who knew this was a segmented memory architecture never saw a review? That's nonsense and I can't believe anyone would be so gullible.

 

[Vesku]

To be false advertising. It would have to be on official boxes, ads and sites wouldnt it?

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but as part of the fallout of this memory issue Nvidia had to adjust its website specs for GTX 970's ROP count and L2 amount. So even if omitting the details of how the 4GB is split is OK in most countries many people may be able to get redress due to those former spec problems. That is if they seek a refund or compensation from the retailer and are initially refused. The memory bandwidth is listed in many places as well, has there been any third party confirmation that the GTX 970 can actually transfer at 224 GB/s and not just 196 GB/s XOR 28 GB/s?

 

[thilanliyan]

To be false advertising. It would have to be on official boxes, ads and sites wouldnt it?

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

Isn't the ROPs for example nVidia giving the wrong info, and in that case, how could review sites know otherwise?

 

[AnandThenMan]

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

It is up to the review sites to somehow verify independently the info Nvidia supplied? How are they going to do that exactly? With who? If Nvidia is not the authority on their own hardware specifications then who is?

Wouldn't they have to verify that the information they pass along is truthful and accurate? I imagine that many would copy&paste it in though.

Verify how? Put the GPU under an electron scanning microscope? ALL the specs of every single GPU I've ever seen came from the company that made them. Obviously.

 

[waffleironhead]

I honestly don't consider an Nvidia Rep encouraging people to return the cards to the seller as rectifying the problem. Unless they're offering a $40 or $50 credit per card returned to offset the money the seller is losing having to sell it open box now, all they have really done is punish sellers for their own error. And I don't understand how anyone in his right mind can think this was an accident. I'm really supposed to believe that every engineer who worked on these cards didn't go read a single online review? That the people who wrote the drivers who knew this was a segmented memory architecture never saw a review? That's nonsense and I can't believe anyone would be so gullible.

I'd hope if nvidia is authorizing and encouraging the return of product back to retailers, that they have some sort of compensation set up for the retailers.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Correct me if I'm wrong but as part of the fallout of this memory issue Nvidia had to adjust its website specs for GTX 970's ROP count and L2 amount. So even if omitting the details of how the 4GB is split is OK in most countries many people may be able to get redress due to those former spec problems. That is if they seek a refund or compensation from the retailer and are initially refused. The memory bandwidth is listed in many places as well, has there been any third party confirmation that the GTX 970 can actually transfer at 224 GB/s and not just 196 GB/s XOR 28 GB/s?

Where do you see ROPs and L2 on nVidias site for the cards?

 

[RampantAndroid]

To be false advertising. It would have to be on official boxes, ads and sites wouldnt it?

While nVidia may have given wrong information to review sites. Its actually the review sites that holds all responsibility for the information they publish. Unless some are secretly run by nVidia.

They released false info to review sites who just published it; I'm no lawyer, but that is grounds for a false advertising suit since Nvidia links you to review sites from their own, and are using said reviews to drive sales.

 

[mindbomb]

The rop and l2 cache don't matter, no one bought this gpu specifically for those stats (and the values it has are still pretty good anyway). The memory thing is the real dilemma. It technically has 4GB, but it effectively only has 3.5GB. They really should have tipped off the reviewers about this, or made some effort to put this in the specs. And 3.5GB for a card is still competitive, but just be open about it.

This is actually really reminiscent of the dx11.1 support advertised for kepler. If it supports the dx11.0 feature set only, then it doesn't support dx11.1, why would you even bring that up unless you were trying to confuse people.

 

[Vesku]

Where do you see ROPs and L2 on nVidias site for the cards?

Looks like I was wrong that it's on their website. Still, should be quite a few EU countries where passing out the bad specs to reviewers is enough to get some attention.

 

[Enigmoid]

This is very true. The card is has in fact 3.5GB of VRAM and if the remaining 512MB are getting any use, performance will drop hard. It takes ~16ms of total GPU render time to deliver 60FPS, during that time GTX970 can read/write ~0.5GB from that 512MB segment at the cost of giving up ALL bandwith to the fast 3.5GB segment. So there is simply no way the card can deliver decent framerate if those 512MB are actively used (as happen in texture mods for games and will continue to happen with console ports and other games in the future).

This is untrue.

The OR problem only applies to the last memory controller. You get 192 bits at full speed and bandwidth (connected to 3 GB) with the last GB (64 bit memory controller) split into two sections.

As you can see only the last GB really has this problem. The memory controller can access the first 512 MB (which it does). However, whenever it accesses one 512 MB section, it cannot access the other. The other 3 64 bit controllers function normally.