Monday, January 26th 2015
NVIDIA Responds to GTX 970 Memory Allocation 'Bug' Controversy
The GeForce GTX 970 memory allocation bug discovery, made towards last Friday, wrecked some NVIDIA engineers' weekends, who composed a response to what they tell is a non-issue. A bug was discovered in the way GeForce GTX 970 was allocating its 4 GB of video memory, giving some power-users the impression that the GPU isn't addressing the last 700-500 MB of its memory. NVIDIA, in its response, explained that the GPU is fully capable of addressing its 4 GB, but does so in an unusual way. Without further ado, the statement.
Source:
The TechReport
The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory. However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.Continued
We understand there have been some questions about how the GTX 970 will perform when it accesses the 0.5GB memory segment. The best way to test that is to look at game performance. Compare a GTX 980 to a 970 on a game that uses less than 3.5GB. Then turn up the settings so the game needs more than 3.5GB and compare 980 and 970 performance again.<div class="table-wrapper"><table class="tputbl hilight" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"><caption>GTX 970 vs. GTX 980 Memory-Intensive Performance Data </caption><tr><th scope="col"> </th><th scope="col">GeForce <br /> GTX 980</th><th scope="col">GeForce <br /> GTX 970</th></tr><tr><th scope="row">Shadow of Mordor</th><td align="right"></td><td align="right"></td></tr><tr class="alt"><th scope="row"><3.5GB setting = 2688x1512 Very High</th><td align="right">72 fps</td><td align="right">60 fps</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">>3.5GB setting = 3456x1944</th><td align="right">55fps (-24%)</td><td align="right">45fps (-25%)</td></tr><tr class="alt"><th scope="row">Battlefield 4</th><td align="right"></td><td align="right"></td></tr><tr><th scope="row"><3.5GB setting = 3840x2160 2xMSAA</th><td align="right">36 fps</td><td align="right">30 fps</td></tr><tr class="alt"><th scope="row">>3.5GB setting = 3840x2160 135% res</th><td align="right">19fps (-47%)</td><td align="right">15fps (-50%)</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare</th><td align="right"></td><td align="right"></td></tr><tr class="alt"><th scope="row"><3.5GB setting = 3840x2160 FSMAA T2x, Supersampling off</th><td align="right">82 fps</td><td align="right">71 fps</td></tr><tr class="alt"><th scope="row"><3.5GB setting = >3.5GB setting = 3840x2160 FSMAA T2x, Supersampling on</th><td align="right">48fps (-41%)</td><td align="right">40fps (-44%)</td></tr></table></div>
Here's an example of some performance data:
On GTX 980, Shadows of Mordor drops about 24% on GTX 980 and 25% on GTX 970, a 1% difference. On Battlefield 4, the drop is 47% on GTX 980 and 50% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. On CoD: AW, the drop is 41% on GTX 980 and 44% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. As you can see, there is very little change in the performance of the GTX 970 relative to GTX 980 on these games when it is using the 0.5GB segment.
92 Comments on NVIDIA Responds to GTX 970 Memory Allocation 'Bug' Controversy
Having said that, I wouldn't mind one bit if Nvidia dropped prices across the board, offered AAA title game keys, and intro'd the GM 200 early just to erase the bad taste.
For what it's worth, when I sold my mining cards, I did so here and sold them dirt cheap with big warnings on them. Thanks for the correction, anyhow.
Nvidia advertised the 970 as the same memory subsystem as the 980. That is clearly a big fat lie. and its not even a little different, its completely different. I cant see how they could "overlook" that in the specs.
Edit: ....and why does GPUz show 64 rops when there are 56?? Does GPUz actually detect or are the specs written in based on the model number??
a. apology
b. free game
c. price drop
rather than anything that solve, negate, or prevent further problem.
We all just got told that the engineers knew but never communicated the correct specs to the marketing team.
The more I think about this, the worse it looks for Nvidia. There is a very long thread on Nvidia forums about this starting since just after the 970 release late last year. Nvidia only makes comment when the story is reported by major tech sites. I cant believe they didn't know about this much earlier......its like they held off as long as they could to continue the hype and get 970 sales over the Christmas period.
The 970 memory subsystem is unique, I'm not aware of a similar system at least on mid-high end graphics cards. Unless they have been doing it and we weren't aware. I just don't accept they overlooked a memory subsystem that is so unique and forgot to mention it....and I don't accept it took them 3 months to figure it out.
What percentage of GTX 970 buyers encountered the problem? Sometimes people (especially the disgruntled) post multiple times over multiple forums, but for the most part, 970 owners don't seem that affected - even owners here and elsewhere say it hasn't impacted them personally (in fact the biggest outcry is from people who own AMD cards, go figure!). Nvidia stated they'd sold a million GTX 970's and 980's, and I'll go out on a limb and say that the bulk of those sales are of the former. Hundreds of thousands of cards sold, and how many individual issues (as opposed to multiple postings by individuals) reported ?
You don't have to look very far for a precedent. AMD's Evergreen series owners started questioning the stability of the cards almost from launch in September 2009( I returned two cards of mine personally and 3-4 from builds I was doing for others). It wasn't until the issue became better publicized in early 2010 that AMD started work on trying to locate and remedy the problem ( PowerPlay state voltage settings).
It would be nice to entertain the thought that this kind of stuff is acted as soon as it rears it head, but that seldom happens unless the issue is pervasive.
I mean, we all know AMD and nVidia cherry pick benchmarks and stuff to make their products look better but flat out giving wrong specs is a different thing.
Nvidia screwed to pooch on this by saying the GTX 970 ships with THE SAME MEMORY SUBSYSTEM AS OUR FLAGSHIP GEFORCE GTX 980, and I'm not buying the... PR didn't get the message. Nvidia doesn’t need to lower price or give away games… It's the owners who purchase prior who should have a way to be compensated if they want. Nvidia should just step-up… come out and say if you want to return them we’ll refund all your money, or you can apply for some form of settlement. If Nvidia can’t bring themselves to do that then, a Class Action Suit should be brought to make the owner who were duped be provide some compensation.
What's so funny are the guy here defending Nvidia saying it not a big deal, or they all do it… OMG! If this was AMD or Apple those same folks would be calling for their heads. To allow Nvidia to sweep this under the rug would just promote other Tech companies to further deceive with impunity.