|
I guess this is more a GPU question than a monitor question, but as far as picking a new monitor, does having a displayport matter in the context of the next generation of GPUs with HBM? I'm guessing that even modern or predicted GPU won't bottleneck on DVI or HDMI yet but I wanted to be sure.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Anandtech put up a thorough writeup. http://anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation Bummer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
I had my card go bad on me recently. I got 3 years of overclocked use out of it so im not too upset. It was a 7970 that started to flicker which progressed outputting a white screen with grey lines If I did anything but be on the desktop. This morning I couldnt get any picture out of it at all. I set it back to factory and was able to boot up but I got the white screen when I tried to load a game. I went shopping for an r9 290 but all they had were gtx 970's in stock and I needed something now. I'm pretty pleased with it and it seems like a noticeable step up in power except that everything seems like load a tiny bit slower. The graphics are better but there is a small stutter whenever graphics load in. I am on all the most current drivers and I uninstalled all the old radeon stuff. Is there such a thing as graphics card repair? The 7970 was relatively expensive and still a good card. It would be worth fixing and using in a new build if possible. Im okay if its not since I feel I did get my money's worth out of it. Fauxtool fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I guess this is more a GPU question than a monitor question, but as far as picking a new monitor, does having a displayport matter in the context of the next generation of GPUs with HBM? I'm guessing that even modern or predicted GPU won't bottleneck on DVI or HDMI yet but I wanted to be sure. HBM is a red herring. The interface matters solely for the monitor's resolution and secondary capabilities like whether it sends audio or not. And it is SUPER easy to bottleneck DVI and HDMI and even DisplayPort now. For example, if you want to drive a 4K screen at 60 Hz, your only choices are DisplayPort 1.2 or later or HDMI 2.0. If your monitor does not have these inputs, it does not matter what the card's outputs will be. If you want to drive a 5K screen, you need DisplayPort 2.0 or two DisplayPort 1.2 (or later) plugs; DVI and HDMI need not apply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:47
|
|
Fauxtool posted:I had my card go bad on me recently. I got 3 years of overclocked use out of it so im not too upset. It was a 7970 that started to flicker which progressed outputting a white screen with grey lines If I did anything but be on the desktop. This morning I couldnt get any picture out of it at all. You can't really fix graphics cards unless it's something like the fans on the cooler going bad on you. Your old card does not sound like it has that sort of problem, it sounds like damage to the card itself and that is unfixable.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Hace posted:Without a doubt, yeah. Are you kidding? Just a year ago people were justifying the bitmining markups for no reason other than AMD. Not everybody of course, but greater than zero. Then once those prices crashed, for like 5 months straight this was like "Well the 770 is pretty nice but you can get two 290's so you're literally retarded if you dont" (I mean, it was true!). The first time I've ever seen a nvidia rush here was when the 970 was released, because it was a very surprisingly good card for an even more surprising price. That's all it takes Trust me the moment AMD has anything to compete (and not by slashing prices by half) you will see AMD right back where it was. If anything I feel like AMD gets too much credit for being some kind of "good" or "wholesome" company and would get even less heat than nvidia is if the situation were flipped. That being said at least the fanboyism is muted here more than any other tech forum I see anywhere else. Personally, the 3.5 gb thing is an actual problem for me so I am looking forward to next gen AMD stuff now. Depending on pricing
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
I get why people are mad. Its still a great card for the good price right? Is there any possible outcome to this beyond Nvidia saying "oops sorry" Is this something that will only affect people trying to play current games at 4k or will it have negative effects at low resolutions too? I imagine that you gotta really push it to notice anything and not a lot of people are doing that and will never notice. To use a car analogy. I dont think if I would care if my car had 50hp less than advertised if it could still hit the same 0-60 time in the brochure. If that error resulted in a lower resale value i would be upset and I can see something similar for the card. Even though its a great card you are getting less than you paid for and thats a bummer Fauxtool fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:I get why people are mad. Its still a great card for the good price right? It still performs exactly as it did the day it was released. However I think some of the concern is when games consistently use more than the 3.5 gb segment, vs now when for most people they do not. While 4GB is accessible (an application will see 4GB and can use 4GB) using the 512 mb section can cause obnoxious frame drops if it really is truly using all that ram. Also, like with anything, this is going to be a fire hard to put out and its already a "thing". But that's what happens when you publish incorrect specs, this is entirely their fault, no matter how well it performs otherwise. I do not believe it was all that intentional though since there would have been nothing gained from it. It would have come to light very quickly, they had nothing to "compete" with to inflate numbers, and of course the bad press - especially right before an AMD release. But no, your analogy is correct. Using the same analogy you can say "The 0-60 time is still correct, however we're moving to a very mountainous area and that missing 50 hp will negatively affect the time when it otherwise wouldn't" if you want to imagine hills as ... game vram usage lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:I get why people are mad. Its still a great card for the good price right? It seems that in games the worst case scenario is a 3-4% performance drop since the vast majority of your resources are still going to be in the fast region. If you are doing compute work on it then it might be a bigger deal since doing operations on data in the upper region will see a massive performance hit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
I'm just hoping they make a fixed version and distribute it to owners somehow or at least give a refund. I've been noticing a lot of games nowadays tend to eat up VRAM and I'd like to have that extra 0.5 GB working properly. I got really angry about it in this thread and I apologize because it's still a good card even with the bug (I haven't had a single problem with maxing most games out at 60 FPS, save for The Witcher 2 where the ubersampling brought me down to about 40-50 FPS), but I still think this shouldn't have happened and people who bought the card have a right to some sort of recompense because it wasn't as good as advertised, you know?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:I'm just hoping they make a fixed version and distribute it to owners somehow or at least give a refund. I've been noticing a lot of games nowadays tend to eat up VRAM and I'd like to have that extra 0.5 GB working properly. I got really angry about it in this thread and I apologize because it's still a good card even with the bug (I haven't had a single problem with maxing most games out at 60 FPS, save for The Witcher 2 where the ubersampling brought me down to about 40-50 FPS), but I still think this shouldn't have happened and people who bought the card have a right to some sort of recompense because it wasn't as good as advertised, you know? If you read the anandtech article above (they actually got a direct technical response from nvidia), it isnt going away. It's a matter of harvesting. Fixing it would basically require 980 silicon. The big gently caress up here is originally advertising different specs (ROPs and cache). The excuse makes sense in a corporate sense, although it doesn't rule out someone up the chain thinking "hmm no 3.5gb+0.5 gb is confusing" but the chances of this being an actual mistake are pretty high. If they advertised it correctly nothing would have changed, and as they said it'd be a minor footnote that people really wouldn't care about after seeing the benchmarks. Its really hard to imagine a refund. Everybody would have to yell pretty loud and for a long time. I really dont want any alternative though, so, I don't know what I'd do with the money. Hopefully the new AMD stuff is priced well Makes me wonder about 970 SLI though, if not now then in the near future. edit: Haha its happening, saw some buy it nows for $300 flat on 970s on ebay, one going for $260 with 10 hours left. Good time to buy 
1gnoirents fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:the chances of this being an actual mistake are pretty high. There is really no way that they could have expected no one to ever notice, and I really doubt they had some nefarious intent, but it reeks more of a decision of "It's too difficult to explain and doesn't sound good. We'll just go with the regular numbers, we're technically not lying about them anyway." I do wonder how this'll affect the 970 when more games start to fill up that 4GB, though. It's unquestionably a really good card now, but it might turn out to be a (small) handicap at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:If you read the anandtech article above (they actually got a direct technical response from nvidia), it isnt going away. It's a matter of harvesting. Fixing it would basically require 980 silicon. The big gently caress up here is originally advertising different specs (ROPs and cache). The excuse makes sense in a corporate sense, although it doesn't rule out someone up the chain thinking "hmm no 3.5gb+0.5 gb is confusing" but the chances of this being an actual mistake are pretty high. If they advertised it correctly nothing would have changed, and as they said it'd be a minor footnote that people really wouldn't care about after seeing the benchmarks. Nice, glad I unloaded mine over the weekend for just shy of what I paid  People are saying June for the 390x 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
If anyone is really upset, there's a petition going! https://www.change.org/p/nvidia-refund-for-gtx-970
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Even if Nvidia offers a refund, are you just going to buy a r290?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
This is why I just ordered a relatively loud and hot EVGA SC 970 on sale. Step Up Program gives me 90 days to switch to a 980, 980TI or the "coming soon" 8GB 970 if GTA V needs more than 3.5GB at 1440p. All of which are probably overkill but what other options are there right now? My old 670 is struggling with a lot of modern games, vram and gpu usage maxed out. If it turns out to be good enough I can switch to a higher clocked model with a quieter cooler for like £20. Can't go AMD because I got the new Shield tablet for Christmas and it works great for streaming older 720p/1080p games downstairs on the bigscreen TV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
If they were completely upfront about the issues I'd still have bought the card no problem, probably at the same price. Not that my dead 670 gave me the choice to wait for AMD, but I've been burned too many times by ATI/AMD to give them the benefit of the doubt. Higher power consumption is also a negative of the AMD cards for me, since I have relatively expensive power and leave stuff running 24/7 until it fails. I do expect AMD to capitalize on this, and good for them I guess. The way NVIDIA is handling it isn't very good though. There's no loving way that not even one of their technical engineers read anandtech or other tech sites. Someone should have noticed this when the first reviews went up. I can believe it's an honest mistake that the wrong numbers went out, but they have to have realized there was a problem with their marketing material pretty early on and just sat quiet about it for months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:01
|
|
Even if this is a completely honest mistake I think it behooves them to do something about it, I dunno what they should do but they clearly screwed up big time with the false specs and such. Earlier someone used the example of cars with 50hp less than advertised, if that really happened it would be all over the news and we would see lawsuits or a recall. Imagine if Intel sold chips that were labeled "3.5Ghz" but are only clocked at 3Ghz? It would be an uproar, honest mistake or not. at the people demanding a free 980 though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:
I'd wager most of the people demanding a free 980 bought their 970 with their parents' charge card or with Grandma's gift cards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
This debacle doesn't seem that different from the TLB, TSX, FDIV and various other CPU gently caress-ups historically by CPU makers and there'll likely be some drivers that patch it out or something. We've always had to do some crazy gymnastics to access memory at various points in computing history. Anyone remember emm386.exe? How about the bank switching modes on the Atari 2600? Any game developer that feels like releasing a patch to avoid this area is free to do so, but this may be possible to fix on nVidia's side with drivers that exclude the region from allocation unless developers specifically enable access to it on a GTX 970. People threatening to sue over this kind of asinine crap only lets the lawyers win. Never give in to team law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:14
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:This debacle doesn't seem that different from the TLB, TSX, FDIV and various other CPU gently caress-ups historically by CPU makers and there'll likely be some drivers that patch it out or something. We've always had to do some crazy gymnastics to access memory at various points in computing history. Anyone remember emm386.exe? How about the bank switching modes on the Atari 2600? Any game developer that feels like releasing a patch to avoid this area is free to do so, but this may be possible to fix on nVidia's side with drivers that exclude the region from allocation unless developers specifically enable access to it on a GTX 970. It's more about stuff like the 970 being sold as having 64 ROPs and 2MB of L2 cache and really only having 56 ROPs and 1.75MB of L2 cache. Unlike the 3.5+.5GB memory issue the card simply does not have 64 ROPs or the extra .25MB of L2.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Yes, but it's also hard to take that seriously when the number one source for people getting those specs is from reviews that also publish empirical performance data, which should be and often is the first and often the last stop for making product comparisons in this market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
I also wouldn't expect a court to look on favorably when the argument is made that a few lost frames per second is cause for punitive damages because "I'd have totally won that CS:Go round if it hadn't been for that uber-slow memory, brah." Quite honestly the only thing people could expect to get out of this would be another game voucher or something like a $30 prepaid card, which would bring what most people paid outright down to ~$299. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:I'm just hoping they make a fixed version and distribute it to owners somehow or at least give a refund. I've been noticing a lot of games nowadays tend to eat up VRAM and I'd like to have that extra 0.5 GB working properly. I got really angry about it in this thread and I apologize because it's still a good card even with the bug (I haven't had a single problem with maxing most games out at 60 FPS, save for The Witcher 2 where the ubersampling brought me down to about 40-50 FPS), but I still think this shouldn't have happened and people who bought the card have a right to some sort of recompense because it wasn't as good as advertised, you know? It's not going to be 'fixed' because it was never a problem. The card behaves exactly as it was designed too, there isn't some defect that's been discovered. The problem is that incorrect technical specs were provided to the press, so people got confused because the card in some circumstances wasn't performing as well as the paper specs suggested it should. The card hasn't changed. It's the same incredible, good value performer that it always was, it's just now that we have the correct specs we can see that it probably isn't suitable for people who want to game at 4K for example. That being said, the mix up over the specs provided to the press does in my opinion constitute false advertising, and depending on the laws wherever you live you could be entitled to some sort of compensation. Under Australian law for example, it's reasonably clear cut that this development would basically entitle you to return the card to the retailer and get a full refund if you wanted to - Australian retailers have a legal obligation to provide a refund if a product differs from the advertised specifications, or if it doesn't do something you were told it would do before purchasing. I have to say though that anyone who sells off their 970 or decides to buy a 290 instead is being a colossal idiot - the value proposition hasn't changed and the 970 is still *the* card to buy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
So when is the r3XX supposed to be coming out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:So when is the r3XX supposed to be coming out? June for the 390, supposedly. Likely 2-3 months more for the lesser SKUs, as is custom. This also doesn't take into account the possibility of low yields for HBM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
I've heard late Q2, early Q3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:So when is the r3XX supposed to be coming out? 380X in February. So, let's say March for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Brad Wardell explains the difference between DX11 and DX12 like you're a five-year-old. Is anyone willing to illustrate Battlefield 4's (or other games') adaptation of Mantle from this perspective for me? What were the reasons for choosing Battlefield (or was it the other way around for AMD)? How long did it take overall? What setbacks proved to be a challenge against the completion of the project?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
I cannot break 3.4GB VRAM used in Skyrim. I have a *lot* of graphical mods and my resolution is 2560x1440. I never reached 3.5GB Shadow of Mordor, but I "settled" for high textures rather than Ultra because I can't tell the difference in motion. I haven't touched a new UbiSoft game since FarCry 3, but my understanding is that the problems with them are not just VRAM related. This could be an issue if you're running SLI 970 at a higher res, but the vast majority of 970 owners will likely never lose a frame to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Can we interrupt 970 chat again? This article got through to my dumb little reptilian brain and I need this API in every time-wasting MMO I have played ever. I'd like to know the various factors weighed and considered by development teams of existing games to adapt new APIs. I'm also interested the timeframes (on average) required for such projects from "OK let's do this" to "argh my hands OK it's mostly done and tested come get it", but that's a selfish desire. The reason they chose mantel: AMD gave them lots of money and the frostbite is the de facto organization engine that will power all of EA games. AMD just needs to dump the money bags down once and it will be in every EA game for 2-3 years. Sure, they don't have a call of duty (or rear end creed...or a good battlefield game lately) but EA has a strong portfolio of games that immediately gets mantel support. Far easier to get this going than HairFX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 08:58
|
|
Hamburger Test posted:I cannot break 3.4GB VRAM used in Skyrim. I have a *lot* of graphical mods and my resolution is 2560x1440. I never reached 3.5GB Shadow of Mordor, but I "settled" for high textures rather than Ultra because I can't tell the difference in motion. I haven't touched a new UbiSoft game since FarCry 3, but my understanding is that the problems with them are not just VRAM related. Are you using ENB? Especially ENB with some fairly extreme settings?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Hamburger Test posted:I cannot break 3.4GB VRAM used in Skyrim. I have a *lot* of graphical mods and my resolution is 2560x1440. DSR? vv Well, I meant just as an extra option to attempt to push the card harder HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Are you using ENB? Especially ENB with some fairly extreme settings? I am, but I disabled quite a few of the settings since I hate stuff like depth of field effects in most circumstances. It's great for screenshots and movies, not for a first/third person "action" game. HalloKitty posted:DSR? I have a native 2560x1440 27". I could really use a faster card, but my limit is not VRAM. I haven't actually played around with DSR because the pixels are so small that just little bit of AA is good enough for me. quote:vv Well, I meant just as an extra option to attempt to push the card harder I don't imagine DSR would play well with ENB, and I don't want to give up the improvement to shadows and the like from ENB. My point was that I am already at a stupid level of high res textures and what I need at this resolution is more power (because ENB is a major hog) rather than those last 500MB of VRAM. Hamburger Test fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Embarrassed edit: The perils of multiple windows being open.
MiniSune fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
foxsports posted:TIGERS prop Matt Lodge has been stood down from training after being arrested earlier this month, with the NRL’s Integrity Unit launching an investigation into the incident. yeah suck it nvidia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:yeah suck it nvidia? NRL Integrity Unit is gonna show them the cost of false advertising!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Hell broke lose in the German Gaming and Computertech-Forums, nvidia faces the Nerd jihad. Yes, they lied about the specs. But does this make the card worse? Some raging fellas claimed they would not have bought the 970 with 3,5 GB because of 4K Gaming. Seriously, who thought the 970 or 980 would be 4k cards to begin with? And how many of the raging gamers would have noticed the issue? My 970 eVGA SLI Rig has 17400 Firestrike points and playing on my ASUS Swift @2560*1440 up to 144 frames via G-Sync is just gaming porn and makes my gaming buddies jealous. I am the 1 %  Can't wait for playing GTA V on my system. I hope AMD exploits nvidias marketing desaster. Would be best for us customers. After all the 970 is a great GPU and still best in slot imho for that price. Don't hesitate buying 1 or 2 for 1080p and 1440p Gaming. Panic sellers might let you get some for way below 300 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Mr.PayDay posted:I hope AMD exploits nvidias marketing desaster. Would be best for us customers. Man, now I wish I'd have waited a couple weeks before deciding to get a second MSI 970 (which was installed yesterday).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Mr.PayDay posted:And how many of the raging gamers would have noticed the issue? Clearly SOMEBODY did over in Europe, who had the programming chops to back up their claims with science, which led to that benchmarking too, which led to where we are now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:54
|
|