Gurg :
quilciri :
neon neophyte :
Yes, huge. When memory is fully tapped out, the drop off in performance is drastic.
When all the other cards have a 4gb standard, games will be designed FOR 4gb. Not 3.5gb. The gtx 970 is the *only* card with 3.5gb. It falls under the standard.
So yes, huge.
Well, if you're going to double down on the hyperbole and ignore the main point that this is a waste of court resources, allow me to re-calibrate. When Exxon Valdez spilled oil along hundreds of miles of coastline, ruined the livelihood of thousands of people and did environmental damage that will take most of our lifetime to undo....
that was huge.
That deserved the class action lawsuit that was filed against Exxon.
Nvidia makes
video cards, not seatbelts. return the card and go buy a 290X.
The Exxon spill had almost zilch effect on me economically as well as ecologically and was basically irrelevant. In contrast the Nvidia lie means I've wasted $800 on two 970s that if I could exchange for a credit would be gone from my system ASAP. Without a credit I'm stuck with them for at least the next two or three years despite their poor stuttering gaming performance. The $800 lost plus another $1200 for replacements is too much to swallow for my budget.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation
"To that end in the short amount of time we’ve had to work on this article we have also been working on cooking up potential corner cases for the GTX 970 and have so far come up empty, though we’re by no means done. Coming up with real (non-synthetic) gaming workloads that can utilize between 3.5GB and 4GB of VRAM while not running into a rendering performance wall is already a challenge, and all the more so when trying to find such workloads that actually demonstrate performance problems. This at first glance does seem to validate NVIDIA’s overall claims that performance is not significantly impacted by the memory segmentation, but we’re going to continue looking to see if that holds up. In the meantime NVIDIA seems very eager to find such corner cases as well, and if there are any they’d like to be able to identify what’s going on and tweak their heuristics to resolve them."
"But so far with this new information we have been unable to break the GTX 970, which means NVIDIA is likely on the right track and the GTX 970 should still be considered as great a card now as it was at launch."
"At least on paper this looks like the best compromise NVIDIA could make."
Note they are clear it's by design, and anantech thinks it works as perf shows. They've been using this tech for years (again as noted at anandtech), and as such have things worked out fairly well, or reviews would have shown something.
No comment from them since. I don't believe you're stuttering (at least not due to a corner case nobody seems to be able to show exists)
They can't find situations yet and you can bet Anandtech is looking as AMD lovers
Email them your corner case if you have one. Note anandtech explains why they do NOT think it was a lie (no way to hide it, eventually would be found out etc). Also note ALL 4 GB is there, just 512 is accessed slower, but as noted they can't find a place where you're not limited by something else already. It's also possible if they ever find one they could fix it as noted by anandtech. But you have to FIND that first.
Please provide a link to a website showing IN GAMES that you can land over 3.5 and >4GB and have an issue (the corner case).
http://techreport.com/news/27856/nvidia-ceo-on-gtx-970-controversy-we-wont-let-this-happen-again
As Jen says here, the 4GB IS USED:
"The 4GB of memory on GTX 970 is used and useful to achieve the performance you are enjoying."
As a poster on that article noted:
"GTX 970 performance before this was known : 70 fps in Game X
GTX 970 performance after this was known : 70 fps in Game X"
ROFL. Again, all the people who have this problem (that anandtech can't prove even can happen) should email anandtech their situation so they can prove it. The benchmarks so far have NOT changed. Please quit trying to waste my tax dollars on crap like this. Any claims of "future games might have a problem" is ridiculous. I can say that about anything and nobody claims all your games will run great in 10yrs...LOL. Also, SLI users are a very small percent of the public anyway.
http://techreport.com/news/27721/nvidia-admits-explains-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation-issue
shows how stupid this is at least so far.
"
Like the ROP issue, this limitation is already baked into the GTX 970's measured performance. Perhaps folks will find some instances where the GTX 970's memory allocation limits affect performance more dramatically than in Nvidia's examples above. If so, maybe we should worry about this limitation. If not, well, then it's all kind of academic."
So far academic here too. Again, email your terrible problem to either site. I can't wait
If your case is under 30fps anyway (making the game unplayable) it's kind of pointless. IE the BF4 situation they show where BOTH cards are below 19fps (980 OR 970 would SUCK here). Pointless. That's like saying AMD is faster at 500000x300000 at 1fps, than NV is at .5fps so this is a huge deal, their both running slide shows but wow AMD is faster...ROFL No that isn't a real res, but you get the point. According to techreport, you can go buy 980's and not much will change. They noted 1-3% more drop depending on game when it hits >3.5GB and ends up on the slow train for that last 512MB). Big deal.