GTX 970 lawsuit - what does this mean for Australians?

Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by super kermit, Feb 25, 2015.

  1. RyoSaeba

    RyoSaeba Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2001
    Messages:
    12,371
    Location:
    Perth
    Because it works out to be $752 delivered from Amazon using Amazon's currency converter or around $730 with 28 degrees card.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
  2. bennyg

    bennyg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,694
    Location:
    Melbourne, Oztraya
    I can't for one second believe that this issue got past QC without being detected. Thus the only interesting thing is when they knew and what they choose to do about it, leading to the hope that discovery during a court case will throw up some juicy correspondence.

    However I think if it's not thrown out it'll be settled and the class action troll lawyers who are pushing this will take home most of the settlement, as they usually do, your justice legal system at work
     
  3. jowjeh

    jowjeh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    Pccase is adamant about their advertisement being correct. I suppose the issue is that the rops and bandwidth speed was misadvertised by nvidia and not them.

    Anyway they seem keen to help highlight the issue I have and refund under that circumstance, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Worse case I'll have a practically brand new evga 970 for sale soon.
     
  4. cokes26

    cokes26 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    119
    I had emailed PCCG as well just out of interest and they had also informed me that they will not be accepting 970s back unless they are faulty.

    This is fair enough because I believe they would personally have a hard time getting their money back from their suppliers at this point. Only until they receive some sort of confirmation from them would the probably start looking at upgrading customers.

    I started with 2 x 970s in SLi and didn't really notice any ram related issues most of these dramas were from poor software. I can't think of too many games that would actually use more that 3.5gb of at 1080p or even 1440p.

    I believe that if you just have one 970 and game at 1080p you wont have any dramas but as soon as you start reaching for higher Resolutions or even SLi that is where the 980s will trounce them.

    So yes Nvidia did do the wrong thing here, so hopefully those who have had dramas can get something back in return.

    I'll be sticking with my one 970 until maybe the new AMD series comes along
     
  5. walker_2003

    walker_2003 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    10,994
    Location:
    Canberra
    is it even possible to fill 3.5gig of memory @ 1080p?

    Is there a way to limit max memory to 3.5gig so the slow stuff isn't touched?
     
  6. Supersize

    Supersize Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,734
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD
    Yes very easy, I'm running a GTX980 on a 144Hz 1080p Benq, Shadows of Mordor will use all of the 4GB's even with High Textures, (there is no FPS difference running on Ultra which will also use all the 4GB vram).

    Dying Light is another that I noticed will fill up the Vram above 3.5Gb's the longer you play.

    It seems to be new AAA games will use all available vram no matter what resolution.
     
  7. jowjeh

    jowjeh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    Hard to do that on 1080. I doubt it highly.

    Unless maybe if you use nvidia dsr?
     
  8. DivHunter

    DivHunter Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,131
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Might want to point out that all their descriptions state 4GB along with the other memory specs when the last 512 can only run at 1/7th the speed of the main 3.5GB.
     
  9. jowjeh

    jowjeh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    It still "totals" upto 224 gbs so I think technically that makes it correctly advertised.

    That's what they seemed to be trying to say anyway..
     
  10. jowjeh

    jowjeh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    My 980 just arrived.

    It only uses 6pin ports, I'm shocked lol. Dat power efficiency!

    This should do the job for me I reckon :) now can I be bothered sending the 970 back to pccasegear.. Blehhhh
     
  11. Supersize

    Supersize Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,734
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD
    This is 2 minutes of Dying Light at 1080p, 3.7GB vram used:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. jowjeh

    jowjeh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    I just need to make a point that with my new gtc 980, I tap RIGHT into the 4gb. FULL usage, no problem.

    The 970 would cap at 3.7.

    As far as I'm concerned, it is not capable of 4gb.

    Fuck this shit.
     
  13. fleetfeather

    fleetfeather Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    2612
    "memory usage" in msi afterburner is just memory allocated lol...
     
  14. Supersize

    Supersize Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,734
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD
    Yes but factor in that on a GTX970 the slower memory would be "allocated" as well, which means there could be a time it will be used, which causes stuttering and a drop in framerate :thumbup:
     
  15. jowjeh

    jowjeh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    It struggles to allocate the full 4gb. I generally only get to allocate 3.7, not with the 980 though. It may have 4gb total, but it doesn't use it properly.
     
  16. fleetfeather

    fleetfeather Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    2612
    well, not really. allocated memory doesn't just get used on a random cycle; it's positional

    for the program to use the last (slower) chunk of ram rather than merely allocate it, it would need to be allocating more than 3.7gb. As cycles are completed and data stored in RAM is no longer need, the old data is removed, and new data takes that spot; data is filled from the front. Your framerate would be in a world of trouble due to texture complexity by the time data was actually being store within that last 500mb chunk.

    it's like a page file, really: your system may allocate page file resources within your OS, so that data can be stored on disk once system RAM is pegged. However, page file data is positioned further back in the work line than the system RAM, so it does not get utilised until after all RAM storage before it gets filled.



    Q: But how does the game know which chunk of memory is the slower chunk that shouldn't be used first?
    A: I'm pretty sure I've read that the entire RAM system is polled, essentially being asked "which areas of RAM are free to store data?" Since the slower section of RAM is slower to respond with the message, it isn't filled with data until the faster sections no longer respond saying they've got room.



    Could be wrong, but pretty sure I'm right :) Would be happy to be corrected by a systems engineer if there's one lurking
     
  17. Nian

    Nian Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    913
    Well what ever the reason or situation that uses the slow .5Gb of the 970's memory. We know Star Citizen will use it all. Chris Roberts even said he was looking forward to taking advantage of 8Gb cards.

    Given that fact, who in their right mind would want to own such a fundamentally crippled graphics card?
     
  18. fleetfeather

    fleetfeather Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    2612
    who in their right mind would try to max SC on a 970 :Paranoid:

    Some time after the GTX 780 launch, Chris Roberts said that no GPU available today could max SC when it's released, and a 970 hovers right around that performance level.
     
  19. PsychoSmiley

    PsychoSmiley Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    6,776
    Location:
    Taranaki, New Zealand
    Well if somebody wants to softmod theirs to 3.5GB and give it to me for free then sure, I'll take a 'crippled' card!
     
  20. Supersize

    Supersize Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,734
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD
    I've actually had after 30 minutes of Dying Light afterburner showing the full 4096mb being allocated, so that would indicate more than the first allocated 3.7Gb had been used.
    I would have to be correct on that surely.. :lol:

    Games if codded correctly use all the 4GB's of vram at 1080p, heck if I remember correctly Dead Rising 3 used all of my GTX780ti's 3Gb's..

    Either way there is something going on, vram is being allocated, there are stutters as it fills up past 3.5gb's yadda yadda yadda.

    Nvidia admits a "miscommunication" between engineers and marketing, yet no steps have been made to fix the marketing strategy or promote the card "correctly".
    I owned one (Gigabyte GTX970 Gaming G1), it was a sweet overclocker, only reason I went to the GTX980 is they didn't cancel my preorder correctly and shipped that out a week later, so had to sell the GTX970 to recoup (man wife nearly killed me...lol..)
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: