The memory bug a real issue?

max_payne32 · Jan 27, 2015

Guys i have read all about the 970's memory bug allocation problems....some customers are furious...some are impassive...many people are saying that 970 due to its crippled memory ( 3.5 gb effective memory) cannot perform well at 1440p....then my simple question is how does a 780ti with 3 gbs of memory outperform a 970 at 1440p then? and will these issue effect me at all for 1080p ultra gaming with 4x mfaa?

Vlad Rose · Jan 27, 2015

From what I read, if the video card has to access over 3 gb of memory, that last 512 meg will run super slow, completely crippling the card. So basically this is only of concern if you're running at super high resolutions and/or using custom skin packs on games to improve the graphics.

So depending on the scenario, you may never notice it. Personally, I wouldn't want to own anything that has that big of a defect in it; especially if i just paid a fair amount of change for it.

the real mvp · Jan 27, 2015

you should be good with the memory. i got a gtx titan black and it CAN`T play games on 1440p on ultra so don`t expect that from a 970

atmos929 · Jan 27, 2015

Nvidia confirmed this, yes:
http://techreport.com/news/27721/nvidia-admits-explains-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation-issue

But then again... a difference of 3% between 980 and 970 is negligible. It is still a good deal for your money.

max_payne32 · Jan 27, 2015

Vlad Rose :

hello again vlad rose

you have been very generous with your replies...so you suggest 290x?

max_payne32 · Jan 27, 2015

the real mvp :

i own a 1080p monitor...and i plan to use DSR in a few games thats all...i dont even own a 1440p monitor...the only question remains is that if its a better buy than the 290x

max_payne32 · Jan 27, 2015

Vlad Rose :

would you really call that a defect or just false advertising....if people assume that 970 is a card with 3.5 gigs of memory...then there is nothing wrong with that i hope...and how sufficient is 3.5 gbs according to your opinion

Vlad Rose · Jan 27, 2015

it's an actual defect:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-admits-to-error-in-gtx-970-specs-and-memory/1100-6424915/

as for if 3.5 GB is sufficient, I don't see a case where I personally would notice it with current gen stuff as I usually don't game over 1080p. 4K users I'm sure will notice it though.

Mousemonkey · Jan 27, 2015

Vlad Rose :

Well if you understand why the 970 exists and don't want to buy one because of that then fair enough but "fair chunk of change" I find odd as it's cheaper than a 980 and there was always going to be a reason for that.

Vlad Rose · Jan 27, 2015

Mousemonkey :

That was mentioned as reasoning for anything you buy w/o the intentions of being a cheap item to quickly get you buy. And yes the 970 is cheaper, but it's not cheap compared to like a 730 (nvidia entry gaming card). I'd be just as pissed if I bought a car that was in the Cadillac class (upper mid) or higher and it had a defect problem with it.

max_payne32 · Jan 27, 2015

I still though do not understand one single point...if they say that 970 cannot perform well in 1440p because of reduced effective vram...how does a 780ti easily beat the 970 as well as 290x in 1440p gaming by a fair margin? it has only 3gigs of memory...4k is out of question..it doesn't even come into the scenario when the discussion is about a single 970...

Mousemonkey · Jan 27, 2015

Vlad Rose :

This cannot be compared to a car in the way of "defects" and trying to portray it as such is incorrect IMO. The 970 was always a cut down 980 and if you can truly understand that then it shouldn't be a problem as you would accept that there may well be consequences with using a component that quite simply didn't make the grade when it fell out of the press. And AMD do the exact same thing so don't try and hold them up as beacon of all that is good.

sla70r · Jan 27, 2015

max_payne32 :

From what I read ( could be wrong ) when games access that last bit of memory on the 970, it slows down the entire game due to the last .5 gig being poorly designed.

Mousemonkey · Jan 27, 2015

sla70r :

max_payne32 :

From what I read ( could be wrong ) when games access that last bit of memory on the 970, it slows down the entire game due to the last .5 gig being poorly designed.

Again a lack of understanding and a poor choice of words. :pfff:

Vlad Rose · Jan 27, 2015

Mousemonkey :

Vlad Rose :

This cannot be compared to a car in the way of "defects" and trying to portray it as such is incorrect IMO. The 970 was always a cut down 980 and if you can truly understand that then it shouldn't be a problem as you would accept that there may well be consequences with using a component that quite simply didn't make the grade when it fell out of the press. And AMD do the exact same thing so don't try and hold them up as beacon of all that is good.

I never said anything about AMD being a beacon of any sort. I just stated that I would not own this particular card due to the defect. And how can they not be compared? A defect is a defect, regardless to the consumer. Or shall we go on similar terms, how about the bug in the Pentium 60 that existed in the 90s?

Mousemonkey · Jan 27, 2015

max_payne32 :

Then you don't understand consequence and the fact that a 970 is not a 980 and I don't know how to dumb it down to a level that you would be able to comprehend.

Vlad Rose :

Again you don't understand, it's not a defect.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/does-the-geforce-gtx-970-have-a-memory-allocation-bug.html

Vlad Rose · Jan 27, 2015

Mousemonkey :

max_payne32 :

Then you don't understand consequence and the fact that a 970 is not a 980 and I don't know how to dumb it down to a level that you would be able to comprehend.

Vlad Rose :

Again you don't understand, it's not a defect.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/does-the-geforce-gtx-970-have-a-memory-allocation-bug.html

So, the card does not perform as was stated per how it should perform; but I guess that's okay still since most of the consumers won't notice. Doesn't really sound much better either way.

Mousemonkey · Jan 27, 2015

Vlad Rose :

Mousemonkey :

max_payne32 :

Then you don't understand consequence and the fact that a 970 is not a 980 and I don't know how to dumb it down to a level that you would be able to comprehend.

Vlad Rose :

Again you don't understand, it's not a defect.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/does-the-geforce-gtx-970-have-a-memory-allocation-bug.html

So, the card does not perform as was stated per how it should perform; but I guess that's okay still since most of the consumers won't notice. Doesn't really sound much better either way.

The "consumers" will know that it is a cut down 980 that didn't make the grade and as such is being sold for less money than a 980, the twazzocks on the other hand will be unable to get their tiny minds around such a concept and will continue to troll.

Vlad Rose · Jan 28, 2015

Mousemonkey :

Vlad Rose :

Mousemonkey :

max_payne32 :

Then you don't understand consequence and the fact that a 970 is not a 980 and I don't know how to dumb it down to a level that you would be able to comprehend.

Vlad Rose :

Again you don't understand, it's not a defect.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/does-the-geforce-gtx-970-have-a-memory-allocation-bug.html

So, the card does not perform as was stated per how it should perform; but I guess that's okay still since most of the consumers won't notice. Doesn't really sound much better either way.

The "consumers" will know that it is a cut down 980 that didn't make the grade and as such is being sold for less money than a 980, the twazzocks on the other hand will be unable to get their tiny minds around such a concept and will continue to troll.

I guess tomshardware.com are trolls as well then: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

But yeah, keep up with the name calling....

Mousemonkey · Jan 28, 2015

Vlad Rose :

Mousemonkey :

Vlad Rose :

Mousemonkey :

So, the card does not perform as was stated per how it should perform; but I guess that's okay still since most of the consumers won't notice. Doesn't really sound much better either way.

The "consumers" will know that it is a cut down 980 that didn't make the grade and as such is being sold for less money than a 980, the twazzocks on the other hand will be unable to get their tiny minds around such a concept and will continue to troll.

I guess tomshardware.com are trolls as well then: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-specifications,28464.html

But yeah, keep up with the name calling....

And it's still a non issue.

Nvidia definitely has some mind-share to earn back. But to us the price/performance ratio trumps everything else, and that is no different today than it has been since the GeForce GTX 970 was released.

The memory bug a real issue?

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Titan

Share this page