Nvidia corrects GTX 970 specs following memory allocation issue

[Scorpus]

Over the weekend we reported on a memory allocation issue with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 graphics card. Some users were having difficulty using all of the card's 4 GB of VRAM, while others experienced performance issues such as stuttering when VRAM exceeded 3.5 GB.

Nvidia acknowledged the partitioning of the card's VRAM into a main 3.5 GB segment and a secondary 0.5 GB section might have been the cause. They also claimed that, in their testing at least, there was no performance reduction when VRAM use exceeded 3.5 GB, relative to the GTX 980 that has a different memory structure.

Now, Nvidia has made the interesting move of correcting their previously published specifications for the GTX 970. As AnandTech notes in their excellent breakdown on the matter, Nvidia incorrectly stated that the GTX 970 had 64 ROPs and 2 MB of L2 cache, when in fact the card has 56 ROPs and 1.75 MB of L2 cache.

This is because the GM204 GPU in the GTX 970 has one (out of four) ROP/memory controller partitions partially disabled. The ability to disable this particular section of the GPU is new to Maxwell's architecture, and wasn't picked up by Nvidia's technical PR team. It also explains why the GTX 970 has a different memory system to the GTX 980.

The correction to the GTX 970's specifications doesn't change its performance, which we found to be excellent for the price in our review last September. With proper caching of frequently accessed assets in the larger, 3.5 GB VRAM partition, it's unlikely that you'll notice issues relating to the slow memory performance of the remaining 0.5 GB.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/59530-nvidia-corrects-gtx-970-specs.html

 

[Guest]

I avoided the 970 as I viewed it as a "compromise part".
I am quite pleased with my GTX 980 but I have *ALWAYS* been leary of the marketing lies of Nvidia.
They have a great product.... why do they feel the need to lie?
It just leaves a foul taste in ones mouth.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I avoided the 970 as I viewed it as a "compromise part".

Funny how you would view a specific card, the way the whole lineup has been marketed.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I don't get why so many people are caught up with the "lies", when it doesn't change the performance we all seen in the reviews.

We all would of bought the card anyway even if we seen the actual specs of the card from the beginning.

Again, the real issue is will we see the card lag in certain situations due to the memory pools.

 

[Guest]

when it doesn't change the performance we all seen in the reviews

Yes, it does.
FPS is not the only metric that represents performance. This issue doesn't significantly reduce framerates, what it does is cause stuttering, similar to stuttering caused by SLI/CrossFireX. It doesn't matter if the "FPS" value being shown is high, the irregularity between frames causes the impression that the framerate is much lower than what is being shown by the FPS counter.
THAT is the problem, not reducion in framerates, which is why the "only 3% reduction" charts Nvidia released were complete irrelavant and likely made to take advantage of uninformed people just like yourself.

 

[dividebyzero]

Yes, it does.
FPS is not the only metric that represents performance. This issue doesn't significantly reduce framerates, what it does is cause stuttering, similar to stuttering caused by SLI/CrossFireX. It doesn't matter if the "FPS" value being shown is high, the irregularity between frames causes the impression that the framerate is much lower than what is being shown by the FPS counter.
THAT is the problem, not reducion in framerates, which is why the "only 3% reduction" charts Nvidia released were complete irrelavant and likely made to take advantage of uninformed people just like yourself.

PCGH tested the GTX 970 "3.5GB+0.5GB" against a simulated 4GB using a GTX 980 downclocked to simulate the GTX 970's bandwidth/core/bus disparity. Although they have only done limited game testing (inc 4K), the stuttering between them isn't that pronounced. Any card's vRAM loaded to the gills will exhibit the same tendency- as the comparison with the 290X attests.

 

[Steve]

I avoided the 970 as I viewed it as a "compromise part".
I am quite pleased with my GTX 980 but I have *ALWAYS* been leary of the marketing lies of Nvidia.
They have a great product.... why do they feel the need to lie?
It just leaves a foul taste in ones mouth.

The GTX 970 is considerably better value than the GTX 980.

 

[genuinethief]

I bought your gts 450, had a gtx 560 ........

what bugs they had.. ?.

should the user dig deep into gtx 980 too ?.

 

[loading]

I avoided the 970 as I viewed it as a "compromise part".
I am quite pleased with my GTX 980 but I have *ALWAYS* been leary of the marketing lies of Nvidia.
They have a great product.... why do they feel the need to lie?
It just leaves a foul taste in ones mouth.

The GTX 970 is considerably better value than the GTX 980.

And still is. I don't know why everyone is in a fuss over this. At $330 the 970 is a steal and was way undervalued.

The only people that are affected by this "missing .5 GB RAM" are those in SLI config's for 4k or are using DSR to simulate 4k. Anyone playing at 1080p won't miss the RAM.

 

[dividebyzero]

And still is. I don't know why everyone is in a fuss over this.

Well, it is a screw-up on Nvidia's part. Having said that, this is the interwebz, and a large percentage of people use it for little more than raging against anything and everything- probably as some self-therapy to avoid going postal in real life.

As for the GTX 970 issue, card owners for the most part don't seem overly concerned, although they'd obviously welcome some free stuff (naturally). The biggest outcry is from people who use AMD hardware. You can probably fill in the blanks.

 

[genuinethief]

A person who got a 4 gb gtx 970 now only has a gtx 970- 3.5 gb,
this is called cheating I hope.
similar thing happenend
when a person got a 1 gb videocard advertised as 1GB videoram
but it contained only 512 MB , they sold it as 1 GB Turbo .
it was a gt 210.

Excellent Nvidia -

Utterly .

Jesus Saves.

 

[genuinethief]

And still is. I don't know why everyone is in a fuss over this. At $330 the 970 is a steal and was way undervalued.

The only people that are affected by this "missing .5 GB RAM" are those in SLI config's for 4k or are using DSR to simulate 4k. Anyone playing at 1080p won't miss the RAM.

if I use euro truck simulator2 with hd textures and all expansions ---

it will swallow more ram ,

if I play crysis 3

there are more

if I ?.

there is no ONLY again loading.....

I apologise if wrong.

 

[loading]

Well, it is a screw-up on Nvidia's part. Having said that, this is the interwebz, and a large percentage of people use it for little more than raging against anything and everything- probably as some self-therapy to avoid going postal in real life.

As for the GTX 970 issue, card owners for the most part don't seem overly concerned, although they'd obviously welcome some free stuff (naturally). The biggest outcry is from people who use AMD hardware. You can probably fill in the blanks.

Oh don't get me wrong. I think NVIDIA should do something for those customers and at the very least make sure this doesn't happen again. Offer a voucher for a game or a discount on another product. If they really wanted to be open about it they would allow 970 owners a sort of "step up" program like EVGA does.

 

[dividebyzero]

Oh don't get me wrong. I think NVIDIA should do something for those customers and at the very least make sure this doesn't happen again. Offer a voucher for a game or a discount on another product. If they really wanted to be open about it they would allow 970 owners a sort of "step up" program like EVGA does.

The only reason why anyone would return the card is because it fails to meet their gaming expectations. A game voucher doesn't alter that fact. Ideally, the only acceptable options is refund in cash/credit, and then go buy something that does meet the expectation - which in effect, is exactly what EVGA's Step Up program is.
Offering a discount after purchase makes no logical sense until the loophole is closed by changing the terms under which the 970 is sold - the specification, otherwise what is to stop people buying the card just to get an instant discount?

 

[genuinethief]

You Said That right.
we can never get all GTX 970 sold globally and fix it
else refund but -
the damage done by Nvidia - becomes out of control .