Topic: NVidia Thread -> Update: PCG review on 6 GB VRAM GeForce 980 Ti

[MysterD]

NEW -> 5/21/2015:
PC Gamer -> Review on 6 GB VRAM GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

OLD:
PC Gamer -> Explaining the NVidia GF GTX 970 Issue.
PC Gamer -> Class action lawsuit incoming towards NVidia over the GeForce 970 3.5 GB controversy.

[MysterD]

For those who don't know what the issue w/ the 970 is, it's this:
http://www.pcgamer.com/why-nvidias-gtx-970-slows-down-using-more-than-35gb-vram/

According to Anandtech, Nvidia's technical marketing team wasn't aware of the device's specific limitations when it created the reviewer's guide, and the error managed to slip through various layers of oversight at Nvidia before making it out to the press and public. Again, the GTX 970 does have 4GB of GDDR5 VRAM, but the fewer ROPs (56, as opposed to 64) and smaller L2 cache (1792kb as opposed to 2048kb) affect the way the card can access that last 500MB chunk of VRAM, as we explained in January. Misstating those specs is what now has Nvidia in hot water.

Basically, any game that has a in-game setting wanting 4GB VRAM to run it properly - it won't run properly w/ the 970 b/c of the 3.5 GB + 500 MB split at different speeds.
The Crew, SoM, ACU, and others have had issues of some kind if you want to run it at its best setting w/ the 970 - stutters, freezes, massive slow-downs, etc.

Check Youtube + the net - you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Cobra951]

I'm thinking it's deserved.  They either tried to pull a fast one to save on cost ("shh! they'll never notice"), or the design is faulty.  What would be the point of a card that can't access 1/8th of its memory properly?  The split makes no sense at all, except as a miscalculation (or just plain malfeasance).

[MysterD]

I'm thinking it's deserved.

Agreed.

They either tried to pull a fast one to save on cost ("shh! they'll never notice"), or the design is faulty.  What would be the point of a card that can't access 1/8th of its memory properly?

Yeah, it's either one or the other.

It's not like these cards are cheap - we're talking at least $330 MSRP retail here for a 970. And that's a 970 that doesn't have some of the better stuff. 970's w/ better coolers on it and/or ones that are factory-overclocked, they go for a bit more.

If NVidia from the beginning said these cards were 3.5 GB cards, nobody would be complaining. Everybody knows most games will run great w/ this card. Plus, gamers would know what they'd be getting into, if they bought this card - i.e. some of those recent games that have ultra-settings wanting 4GB VRAM (or more), pretty good chance it won't run well w/ this card.

If you want a real 4GB card, you'd have to shell out $500+ for the 980.

[Xessive]

[Cobra951]

Hahaha!  I had a tough time following the subtitles because I was trying to understand what he was actually saying.  Something about putting on a swim suit and sandals, going to the beach, and the tide had gone up.  He's too hysterical to be intelligible after that.  Doesn't matter.  Funny stuff.  But what, no Hitler as head of Nvidia?

[Xessive]

Nvidia has released an official statement regarding the controversy in a blog post by Nvidia's CEO.

[MysterD]

I totally missed out on this insane deal this morning, since I was at work.

For that price, I so would've tolerated the 3.5GB issue - as this would be cheaper than a 2GB GF 960 that retails at $200 USD.

So, Microcenter had a price-mistake this morning they decided to honor (before they fixed it) at $145.99 for a "4GB" GF 970 that contains a promo-code voucher for Witcher 3 game-key + $5 rebate:
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/30x8i1/gpu_evga_geforce_gtx_970_superclocked_in_store/cpwo7za

[MysterD]

Reviews on 6 GB VRAM GeForce GTX 980 Ti:
PC Gamer.
Eurogamer.
TechReport.