• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nvidia responds to GTX 970 memory issue

Why? Did the card become slower?

Because economics 101.

The cards have been almost universally marked up by retailers since release due to high demand and not enough supply. This PR disaster (whether warranted or not) will lower demand and increase used sales, which would only drive retail prices down.

So no, not because the card got slower. And I don't think Nvidia is going to lower the official price any time soon. But lowered demand even for a limited time would affect market prices (even if only slightly), it never fails.
 

curlycare

Member
More info to come from PCPER:
UPDATE 1/26/15 @ 12:10am ET: I now have a lot more information on the technical details of the architecture that cause this issue and more information from NVIDIA to explain it. I spoke with SVP of GPU Engineering Jonah Alben on Sunday night to really dive into the quesitons everyone had. Expect an update here on this page at 10am PT / 1pm ET or so. Bookmark and check back!
 

Hip Hop

Member
I really hope something comes out of this for a "fix". I've sold my GTX 670 and been running on integrated for some days now. Really don't want upgrade on anything but Nvidia.
 

dehm

Neo Member
OK, unfortunately it seems I'm one of the stupid/unlucky guys who bought 970s...

I think I understand the issue about those last 0.5GB of VRAM but still am kinda confused when it comes to VRAM usage as whole, and how will it affect an average gamer like myself. It should primarily be related to a game's texture right? How exactly is it going to be affected by the game's resolution?

I mostly play on 1080p and am not experiencing any noticeable stuttering...
 

curlycare

Member
Hopefully we'll get good info blowout soon, Hilber from Guru3d:
I've briefly spoken with NV this morning. I've compiled and submitted a QA for Nvidia to get some better answers. Doing my best to get answer from the SVP of GPU Engineering late afternoon (CET).

I love your avatar by the way.
Thanks, that's Ernest, my new bff :)
 

Bricky

Member
OK, unfortunately it seems I'm one of the stupid/unlucky guys who bought 970s...

I think I understand the issue about those last 0.5GB of VRAM but still am kinda confused when it comes to VRAM usage as whole, and how will it affect an average gamer like myself. It should primarily be related to a game's texture right? How exactly is it going to be affected by the game's resolution?

I mostly play on 1080p and am not experiencing any noticeable stuttering...

VRAM is where image data is temporarily stored. Big textures and high resolutions require more VRAM, because they need more space for image data. At 1080p even 3.5GB would enough for all modern games currently released, the few exceptions being things like Skyrim with texture mods and extreme settings like the '6GB recommended' texture option in Shadow of Mordor. So basically at your resolution there is no need to worry at all.

What has people worried is that future games are likely to need more VRAM, and some think that 4GB is already the very minimum needed to future-proof their systems (aka hoping your 970 is still relevant in 2016-2017). It would be shitty that once we start seeing games demanding a full whopping 4GB of VRAM they perform sub par on this card.

On top of that the problem with this separate 0.5GB portion now revealed is that it is worse/slower VRAM, and there might be problems with stuttering once this segment is needed. This is basically what everyone is waiting for articles from tech-websites or other proper resources for to confirm or deny these suspicions without biased Nvidia tests.

So tl;dr: no need to panic until we know more, but it is completely reasonable to be angry at Nvidia for being shady about this.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
VRAM is where image data is temporarily stored. Big textures and high resolutions require more VRAM, because they need more space for image data. At 1080p even 3.5GB would enough for all modern games currently released, the few exceptions being things like Skyrim with texture mods and extreme settings like the '6GB recommended' texture option in Shadow of Mordor. So basically at your resolution there is no need to worry at all.

The situation surrounding the VRAM requirement for Mordor's HD texture pack was poorly handled by WB and even Digital Foundry. Yes, the 6GB recommendation assumes max settings, but what both parties failed to clarify is that "max settings" includes the resolution option, too, which tops out at 200%, meaning that if you have a 1080p display you're actually running the game at 4k. Indeed, 3.5GB is enough for the HD texture pack if you plan to run the game at 1080p native.
 

Bricky

Member
The situation surrounding the VRAM requirement for Mordor's HD texture pack was poorly handled by WB and even Digital Foundry. Yes, the 6GB recommendation assumes max settings, but what both parties failed to clarify is that "max settings" includes the resolution option, too, which tops out at 200%, meaning that if you have a 1080p display you're actually running the game at 4k. Indeed, 3.5GB is enough for the HD texture pack if you plan to run the game at 1080p native.

Yeah, I know it is (have the game and card myself) but it was the only other example where 3.5GB isn't necessarily enough at this resolution I could think of off the top of my head. It can go slightly over that amount even at 1080p with everything turned up to max.
 

dehm

Neo Member
VRAM is where image data is temporarily stored. Big textures and high resolutions require more VRAM, because they need more space for image data. At 1080p even 3.5GB would enough for all modern games currently released, the few exceptions being things like Skyrim with texture mods and extreme settings like the '6GB recommended' texture option in Shadow of Mordor. So basically at your resolution there is no need to worry at all.

What has people worried is that future games are likely to need more VRAM, and some think that 4GB is already the very minimum needed to future-proof their systems (aka hoping your 970 is still relevant in 2016-2017). It would be shitty that once we start seeing games demanding a full whopping 4GB of VRAM they perform sub par on this card.

On top of that the problem with this separate 0.5GB portion now revealed is that it is worse/slower VRAM, and there might be problems with stuttering once this segment is needed. This is basically what everyone is waiting for articles from tech-websites or other proper resources for to confirm or deny these suspicions without biased Nvidia tests.

So tl;dr: no need to panic until we know more, but it is completely reasonable to be angry at Nvidia for being shady about this.

I did read all of it and it was very enlightening! Thank you sir, and yes, even if it won't harm me that much I'm still somewhat mad... Probably should've waited some more
 
I did read all of it and it was very enlightening! Thank you sir, and yes, even if it won't harm me that much I'm still somewhat mad... Probably should've waited some more

We are victims of false advertising and to a lesser extent incompetent/rushed reviews. Don't blame yourself.

This post will rile up the corporate apologists/undercover marketers
 
So, basically if I was looking at the 970, but have money to spare I should just go with the 980?

The answer to that is entirely subjective, depends on what the extra performance and VRAM of the 980 is worth to you. I don't think anyone can answer the question for you without you providing more info on your needs and expectations.

But if cost was not a factor then of course the 980 is better, that's not debatable.
 
So, basically if I was looking at the 970, but have money to spare I should just go with the 980?

Yes.

The people who say that you can overclock the 970 are delusional. The 980 is like 20% faster per clock. It's not like AMD GPUs where they only cut down certain parts, so between the R9 290 and the R9 290X there's like 10% difference and even then it's only when you're playing a game that is shader or TMU limited.

The 970 is significantly inferior to the 980 in every respect. So if you have the money, go for it. Even if this issue hadn't cropped up, you should get a 980 if you could.
 
PCPer has the first update with info from nvidia: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Apparently Nvidia "accidentally" mislabeled the 970 as having the same number of ROPs and L2 cache as the 980 in all the review material they sent out to tech sites. Funny how they only just noticed it, several months later, when under scrutiny...

They confirm the last 500MB is 1/7th the speed of the first 3.5GB also. Expect detailed benchmarks this week sometime.
 

SpotAnime

Member
PCPer has the first update with info from nvidia: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Apparently Nvidia "accidentally" mislabeled the 970 as having the same number of ROPs and L2 cache as the 980 in all the review material they sent out to tech sites.

They confirm the last 500MB is 1/7th the speed of the first 3.5GB also. Expect detailed benchmarks this week sometime.

Man, this is bullshit. It's not like the 970 was a drop in the bucket - it was the decision between buying a PS4 or upgrading my PC.

And Nvidia not disclosing this info? Sounds like a class action lawsuit in the waiting. I would fully expect to get a free game download out of this, but would rather have a replacement or upgrade program for the price I paid for the 970.

It's misleading, to say the least.
 

jimmypop

Banned
Possibly the most relevant quote from the updated PCPER article:

At the very least, the company did not fully disclose the missing L2 and ROP partition on the GTX 970, even if it was due to miscommunication internally. The question “should the GTX 970 be called a 3.5GB card?” is more of a philosophical debate. There is 4GB of physical memory on the card and you can definitely access all 4GB of when the game and operating system determine it is necessary. But 1/8th of that memory can only be accessed in a slower manner than the other 7/8th, even if that 1/8th is 4x faster than system memory over PCI Express. NVIDIA claims that the architecture is working exactly as intended and that with competent OS heuristics the performance difference should be negligible in real-world gaming scenarios.
 

Kezen

Banned
"Miscommunication"....Right.

That's very disappointing and if it was not for Gameworks and their drivers I would stop buying Nvidia cards.
 
Possibly the most relevant quote from the updated PCPER article:

I like this one myself

For those of you that read this and remain affronted by NVIDIA calling the GeForce GTX 970 a 4GB card without equivocation: I get it. But I also respectfully disagree. Should NVIDIA have been more upfront about the changes this GPU brought compared to the GTX 980? Absolutely and emphatically. But does this change the stance or position of the GTX 970 in the world of discrete PC graphics? I don’t think it does.
 

Xdrive05

Member
Possibly the most relevant quote from the updated PCPER article:

That is a great and fair summary based on the info in the article. And I'm fine with that compromise if true and accurate (that the 0.5gb pool is still 4x faster than system ram over pci-express).

All that's left now is show me the frame times. Let's see the actual in game consequences of it.
 

jimmypop

Banned
That is a great and fair summary based on the info in the article. And I'm fine with that compromise if true and accurate (that the 0.5gb pool is still 4x faster than system ram over pci-express).

All that's left now is show me the frame times. Let's see the actual in game consequences of it.

Hopefully PCPer will deliver, given their history with frame time measurement.
 

Reallink

Member
PCPer has the first update with info from nvidia: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Apparently Nvidia "accidentally" mislabeled the 970 as having the same number of ROPs and L2 cache as the 980 in all the review material they sent out to tech sites. Funny how they only just noticed it, several months later, when under scrutiny...

They confirm the last 500MB is 1/7th the speed of the first 3.5GB also. Expect detailed benchmarks this week sometime.

Yep, they're getting sued for sure.
 

SpotAnime

Member
That is a great and fair summary based on the info in the article. And I'm fine with that compromise if true and accurate (that the 0.5gb pool is still 4x faster than system ram over pci-express).

All that's left now is show me the frame times. Let's see the actual in game consequences of it.

But here's the question I still have - for games like Mordor which require 4GB for the ultra resolution textures, will the card still support that? I know the article states that not all 4GB should be utilized at once, in theory at least, but how does that translate to the game requirements on some of these games with ultra res?

And not only that, but we're talking about games now...what about future-proofing in the event more games require more VRAM for their textures? Did my 970's shelf life just get cut in half?
 

Zane

Member
From Anandtech:

As for the memory segmentation, there are 3 basic scenarios to consider, only one of which has the potential to impact the GTX 970 in particular. In all cases with less than 3.5GB of memory allocated the GTX 970 behaves just as if it had a single segment, with no corner cases to be concerned about. Meanwhile in cases with more than 4GB of memory allocation the GTX 970 will still spill over to PCIe, just as the GTX 980 does, typically crushing performance in both cases. This leaves the last case as the only real concern, which is memory allocations between 3.5GB and 4GB.

In the case of memory allocations between 3.5GB and 4GB, what happens is unfortunately less-than-deterministic. The use of heuristics to determine which resources to allocate to which memory segment, though the correct solution in this case, means that the real world performance impact is going to vary on a game-by-game basis.

If NVIDIA’s heuristics and driver team do their job correctly, then the performance impact versus a theoretical single-segment 4GB card should only be a few percent. Even in cases where the entire 4GB space is filled with in-use resources, picking resources that don’t need to be accessed frequently can sufficiently hide the lack of bandwidth from the 512MB segment. This is after all just a permutation on basic caching principles.

The worst case scenario on the other hand would be to have the NVIDIA heuristics fail, or alternatively ending up with a workload where no great solution exists, and over 3.5GB of resources must be repeatedly and heavily accessed. In this case there is certainly the potential for performance to crumple, especially if accessing resources in the slow segment is a blocking action. And in this case the GTX 970 would still perform better than a true 3.5GB card since the slow segment is still much faster than system memory, but it’s nonetheless significantly slower than the 3.5GB segment as well.

...

In the end while I am disappointed that these details haven’t come out until now, I am satisfied that we now finally have enough information in hand to truly understand what’s going on with the GTX 970 and what its strengths and weaknesses are as a result of memory segmentation. Meanwhile for real world performance, right now this is an ongoing test with the GTX 970. As the highest-profile card to use memory segmentation it’s the first time NVIDIA has been under the microscope like this, but it’s far from the first time they’ve used this technology. 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. In which case what has ultimately changed today is not the GTX 970, but rather our perception of it
 

Zane

Member
And not only that, but we're talking about games now...what about future-proofing in the event more games require more VRAM for their textures? Did my 970's shelf life just get cut in half?

You mean when games require more than 4GB of VRAM? Well by then, every card currently on the market will be hosed and you'll have to upgrade anyway.
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
So accidentally "forgot" to tell journalist. What a load of old bollocks.

I can see a class action suit coming.
 

Yudoken

Member
I'm really mad at Nvidia but I will wait until this whole stuff got solved.
As far as it seems this can't be solved with a simple driver update.
 

Vamphuntr

Member
PCPer has the first update with info from nvidia: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

Apparently Nvidia "accidentally" mislabeled the 970 as having the same number of ROPs and L2 cache as the 980 in all the review material they sent out to tech sites. Funny how they only just noticed it, several months later, when under scrutiny...

They confirm the last 500MB is 1/7th the speed of the first 3.5GB also. Expect detailed benchmarks this week sometime.

Wow. This sure wasn't on the box of the Asus Strix 970 I bought. I want the 389$CDN plus tax I spent on this back.
 

Ryde3

Member
man, I bought every part for my PC, except the GPU. Was going to go today to pick up a Gigabyte 970... but now I'm wondering if I shouldn't? I do plan on gaming in 1080p for the next year, and the thought was to SLI in the future when I get a 4K monitor... but now I see that may not be feasible with this card? Even when SLI'd? Ah not sure what to do now!
 
man, I bought every part for my PC, except the GPU. Was going to go today to pick up a Gigabyte 970... but now I'm wondering if I shouldn't? I do plan on gaming in 1080p for the next year, and the thought was to SLI in the future when I get a 4K monitor... but now I see that may not be feasible with this card? Even when SLI'd? Ah not sure what to do now!

It's still a very capable card. Expect more detailed analysis about the vram thing in the next few days... I know PC Per is working on frametime analysis.
 

Zane

Member
I forgot that it wasn't just the review material, but the ROP/L2 specs given to all the hardware manufacturers are wrong too. Complete BS on Nvidia's part imo.

yeah I'll agree that that shit is scummy. still an awesome card though so i'm not that angry. I feel like I got what I paid for.
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
man, I bought every part for my PC, except the GPU. Was going to go today to pick up a Gigabyte 970... but now I'm wondering if I shouldn't? I do plan on gaming in 1080p for the next year, and the thought was to SLI in the future when I get a 4K monitor... but now I see that may not be feasible with this card? Even when SLI'd? Ah not sure what to do now!
As if the 980 with 500 MB more/better RAM is more future proof then the 970. I think that at the point the 970 hits it's limits, the 980 will do as well or soon after. So yeah, I'd say you should still stick with the 970.

Not that I am to be misunderstood. The move Nvidia pulled is shitty.
 
yeah I'll agree that that shit is scummy. still an awesome card though so i'm not that angry. I feel like I got what I paid for.

For sure, it's a great card regardless. I've almost bought one a few times. I edited my post because I wasn't sure if manufacturers actually list ROPs etc (I checked the strix site and didn't see it).
 
I'm really mad at Nvidia but I will wait until this whole stuff got solved.
As far as it seems this can't be solved with a simple driver update.

Not it can't be. The experience will vary from game to game and will be a function of their ability to creatively allocate what is being stored in that space.

In short, 970 owners will be relying on Nvidia-provided circus tricks to keep any games that hit between 3.5GB and 4GB of ram from falling deep into the performance shitter.

The good thing is that few games run into RAM requirements this high @ 4K right now. and even less so @ 1080/1200p. This time next year, it may be a problem.

Yea, I think I'm going to make the move to use my Step Up to go to a 980. Save some peace of mind and maybe 6-12 months on feeling like I need an upgrade.
 

Zane

Member
As if the 980 with 500 MB more/better RAM is more future proof then the 970. I think that at the point the 970 hits it's limits, the 980 will do as well or soon after. So yeah, I'd say you should still stick with the 970.

Not that I am to be misunderstood. The move Nvidia pulled is shitty.

This is my stance. They will reach obsolescence at exactly the same time.
 

Bricky

Member
So accidentally "forgot" to tell journalist. What a load of old bollocks.

I can see a class action suit coming.

Yeah, this shit shouldn't hold up under European laws either. False advertising is false advertising even if the misrepresentation was an unintentional mistake (which I highly doubt). Nvidia fucked up.

Now we'll just need to wait for the frametime analysis, if that turns out allright the good news is real-world performance effects are negligible for the time being. Whether this will actually impact the card's long-term relevance is anyone's guess.
 
Yeah, this shit shouldn't hold up under European laws either. False advertising is false advertising even if the misrepresentation was an unintentional mistake (which I highly doubt). Nvidia fucked up.

Now we'll just need to wait for the frametime analysis, if that turns out allright the good news is real-world performance effects are negligible for the time being. Whether this will actually impact the card's long-term relevance is anyone's guess.

Extremetech has some initial analysis: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198223-investigating-the-gtx-970-does-nvidias-penultimate-gpu-have-a-memory-problem/2

Nothing is noted except at 4K in Mordor:
S-of-M.png


We will have to wait for more testing to know for sure though.
 

Ryde3

Member
It's still a very capable card. Expect more detailed analysis about the vram thing in the next few days... I know PC Per is working on frametime analysis.

As if the 980 with 500 MB more/better RAM is more future proof then the 970. I think that at the point the 970 hits it's limits, the 980 will do as well or soon after. So yeah, I'd say you should still stick with the 970.

Not that I am to be misunderstood. The move Nvidia pulled is shitty.

Thank you for the quick replies - that's my understanding aswell. Building this week, wish me luck!
 
Top Bottom