Nvidia GTX 970 problems: This isn't acceptable.

[RealNeil]

I just swapped my MSI 970 Gaming for a MSI 290x Gaming, performance wise I can't notice any difference, heat is only about 5 to 10c hotter and the build quality is a massive improvement.

I had to use a few zip-ties to hook up the rear of my 970 as it sagged very badly.

I just bought an MSI R9-290X OC Gaming too. I haven't installed it yet, but you're right about the build quality. I'll be getting a second one at the end of the month.

 

[RichF]

Seriously...

Nvidia's site gives the card a bandwidth of 57.6 GB/s, a little more than twice the 28 GB/s Anandtech said the suck partition on the 970 (which creates a nice like XOR contention) provides.

An affordable card from 7-8 years ago FTW!

 

[newtekie1]

Yep, and that 0.5GB has an infinite amount more bandwidth than the 0.0GB of memory we would have gotten in any other configuration.

 

[Caring1]

You're a bit late jumping on the bag Nvidia bandwagon ....

 

[AsRock]

Vital point though the rest of the card gets totally owned by the 970.

 

[Caring1]

8800GT - 57.6 GB/s
8800X - 86.4 GB/s
8800Ultra - 103.68GB/s
compared to:
GTX 970 - 224.32gb/S

I guess the new card isn't so bad after all

 

[RejZoR]

8800GT - 57.6 GB/s
8800X - 86.4 GB/s
8800Ultra - 103.68GB/s
compared to:
GTX 970 - 224.32gb/S

I guess the new card isn't so bad after all

When you compare a dog turd to a 9 year old graphic card, the turd wouldn't look bad after all either... Just saying...

 

[xorbe]

8800GT - 57.6 GB/s
8800X - 86.4 GB/s
8800Ultra - 103.68GB/s
compared to:
GTX 970 - 224.32gb/S

I guess the new card isn't so bad after all

Correction, the 970 is effectively 196GB/s

 

[RichF]

Yep, and that 0.5GB has an infinite amount more bandwidth than the 0.0GB of memory we would have gotten in any other configuration.

False information.

In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time.

using the 512MB segment can harm the performance of the 3.5GB segment.

the larger the percentage of the time the crossbar is reading the 512MB segment, the lower the effective read memory bandwidth would be from the 3.5GB segment.

It's worse than not having it.

Correction, the 970 is effectively 196GB/s

Sorry.. This is also false information. 3.5 GB of the 970 is up to 196 GB/s but the other .5 GB is 28 GB/s and can hamper performance of the 3.5 GB partition.

You're a bit late jumping on the bag Nvidia bandwagon ....

Apparently not since there continues to be falsely optimistic information posted.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Keep beating that poor dead [all bit it rather rich and successful] horse.

 

[RichF]

Keep beating that poor dead [all bit it rather rich and successful] horse.

Why not? Has Nvidia disabled that performance-impairing partition? Has it issued a recall?

The issue is far from having been resolved adequately and it's very clear that a lot of people still don't have the facts.

The 970 is still being sold right now and sites like slickdeals are listing it as a 4 GB card — as if the problem doesn't even exist. Consumers are still being kept in the dark.

If I walk into a Microcenter right now and pick up a 970 box am I going to see anything about a performance-impairing 28GB/s XOR contention .5 GB partition?

 

[Fluffmeister]

People don't have the facts? Sure... if they live in a cave.

This is dull now.

 

[RichF]

People don't have the facts? Sure... if they live in a cave.

This is dull now.

I doubt that everyone else shares the view that facts about GPU purchases are dull, especially those frequenting enthusiast sites like this one.

Do the people who posted false information in this topic that I just corrected live in caves?

 

[the54thvoid]

I present the final logical findings in this case brought by rabid brand loyalists from both sides:

Nvidia misrepresented the product.
The product works perfectly except under very specific and quite hard to replicate circumstances.
The circumstances that would generally hamper the misrepresented specs wont run well anyway due to the ROPS it has.
The card for the vast majority of users performs as expected.
AMD loyalists can't accept this and constantly harp on. The sad fact is, a mis-sold card sells better than AMD's top tier ever did (my speculation - not fact
)
Nvidia loyalists think nothing is wrong. It certainly is, the card was mis-sold but technically it wasn't - thus the lack of any real legal recourse.

Logical outcome:
1) You have a 970 and are happy with it.
2) You have a 970 and are not happy with it - send it back for refund or new card.
3) You don't own a 970 - why do you give a fuck? NV wont make this mistake again.

Illogical outcome:
1) Get really annoyed because the card still sells well and performs well for most users.
2) Call people fan boys for saying their card is great.
3) Attack AMD products.

My outcome? Stick with sli GTX780ti with a lousy 3GB memory. Still benched Shadows of Morder at 1440p/Ultra textures with >50fps min and about 90-100fps average.

Done.

 

[RichF]

The product works perfectly...

Perfectly is an unacceptable word for a product with such a design flaw, particularly one that was undocumented.

...except under very specific and quite hard to replicate circumstances.

The only way that would be true is if it is "very specific and quite hard" to use more than 3.5 GB of VRAM, which isn't the case.

The circumstances that would generally hamper the misrepresented specs wont run well anyway due to the ROPS it has.

The 970 has enough power to utilize 4 GB of RAM at full speed. Moreover, SLI users in particular benefit from having 4 GB or more of VRAM.

The card for the vast majority of users performs as expected.

28 GB/s VRAM bandwidth with XOR contention that degrades the performance of the other VRAM partition is not expected performance. It is half the bandwidth of a midrange card from 2007.

This is a serious design flaw that should have never been put into the marketplace, especially at the price point the 970 has been sold at.

 

[Fluffmeister]

This is a serious design flaw that should have never been put into the marketplace, especially at the price point the 970 has been sold at.

It's funny then that cards like the 970 forced AMD to drop their prices again!

Sorry, but I wouldn't swap my 970 for anything AMD have on the market right now.

 

[RichF]

It's funny then that cards like the 970 forced AMD to drop their prices again!

Sorry, but I wouldn't swap my 970 for anything AMD have on the market right now.

AMD is a red herring in this discussion.

 

[Fluffmeister]

AMD is a red herring in this discussion.

Beyond a healthy price increase up to the 980, they are also the only alternative.

 

[RichF]

Beyond a healthy price increase up to the 980, they are also the only alternative.

If you're not interested in discussing the problems with the 970, I suggest posting elsewhere. AMD is a red herring. This topic is about design flaws in the 970 and other issues related to that product. That has nothing at all to do with AMD's products.

References to people living in caves, the beating of dead horses, how dull you think the discussion is, and AMD all serve as distractions from the issue at hand.

 

[BiggieShady]

Perfectly is an unacceptable word for a product with such a design flaw, particularly one that was undocumented.

Oh, you are still one of those who thinks this is a design flaw.
It's not.
This was a product marketing flaw, plain and simple.

 

[Fluffmeister]

If you're not interested in discussing the problems with the 970, I suggest posting elsewhere. AMD is a red herring. This topic is about design flaws in the 970 and other issues related to that product. That has nothing at all to do with AMD's products.

References to people living in caves, the beating of dead horses, how dull you think the discussion is, and AMD all serve as distractions from the issue at hand.

I have no problems with my 970, if you have a problem with that I suggest you keep crying into your milk.

Fight the power my man!

 

[erocker]

Oh, you are still one of those who thinks this is a design flaw.
It's not.
This was a product marketing flaw, plain and simple.

I'm not so sure. It could of been quite a few things. It could of just been an oversight on Nvidia's part when deciding on what parts to cut down/nerf/etc. when making the 970 out of the GM204. Maybe they knew about it, maybe they didn't but to me it's all a moot point. Based off of reviews and whatnot, I understand how the card performs and if I was looking for a card to buy within the budget the 970 targets, I'd buy one without a second thought.

 

[BiggieShady]

I'm not so sure. It could of been quite a few things. It could of just been an oversight on Nvidia's part when deciding on what parts to cut down/nerf/etc. when making the 970 out of the GM204.

Whatever could have been, oversight is not it ... with this kind of die harvesting where you can cut off smaller parts of module's submodule, they got better yields albeit with funky memory config that has some drawbacks .... It is also possible that in some instances they purposely gimped perfectly good parts of some of the GM204 chips - cutting good L2 and ROPs when shader modules are not all good, to get better yields and for this sku to sit more comfortably between 780 and 980.

Maybe they knew about it, maybe they didn't but to me it's all a moot point.

Of course they knew about it and you are right, it is moot point as far as this great performing card is concerned ... however not so moot point concerning company's image. They made a shit load of money while customers had a feeling they were getting cheap performance, it was win-win until the bubble burst ... and now, they still got shitload of money (minus damage control), we still got shitload of performance for it and the only thing that really suffered was company image.

Based off of reviews and whatnot, I understand how the card performs and if I was looking for a card to buy within the budget the 970 targets, I'd buy one without a second thought.

I actually did just that, price was good and I couldn't be happier with it. What irks me is that no one at nvidia is in a hurry to hotfix (in drivers) the wrong data in the spec string table (that programs like gpuz read), or not one reviewer has gone back to update the original review article with correct specs.

 

[qubit]

What irks me is that no one at nvidia is in a hurry to hotfix (in drivers) the wrong data in the spec string table (that programs like gpuz read), or not one reviewer has gone back to update the original review article with correct specs.

I've noticed this and thought it odd that the reviews haven't been adjusted. The makes the reviewers effectively "accomplices" with NVIDIA on this issue whether they mean to deliberately or not. I have no idea why they haven't adjusted their reviews.

 

[RichF]

we still got shitload of performance for it and the only thing that really suffered was company image.

I disagree. The design is very flawed. There is no good reason to have 28 GB/s bandwidth and XOR contention in a 2015 card. Half the VRAM performance of a 2007 midrange card plus XOR contention? How is that anything close to a "shitload of performance" and a "win-win"?

It isn't. It was a very stupid decision to market the card as a 4 GB card. Nvidia should have just disabled that .5 GB altogether. It did not. It fooled people into thinking they were getting a 4 GB card. It seems to be a clear case of bait and switch fraud. And, even ignoring the bad business practice altogether, there is no good reason for the design. The only thing close is a business justification based on fooling people into thinking they're getting a 4 GB card.

People need to stop praising them for a combination of deplorable business practice and highly flawed design.