False Specs on GTX 970?

That sounds more like a software bug? Was it BF4 or Far Cry 4? I ask because the "fur" setting

it actually was farcry 4. and the timing is 59 seconds give or take a tenth of a second

Are those settings on top of 'default' ultra? I can't get it to break more than 3GB at 2560x1440 default ultra with resolution scaling (SSAA) at 130% (R9 295x2).

What was the ram use with those settings? Was it hitting the 3.5GB+ area? I can't reproduce that with default ultra on the GTX970 HOF.

I ordered a Gigabyte GTX 970 on 1/4/15 from Newegg. I sold 2 GTX 670FTWs (2G Vram) so I would "upgrade to a 4G Vram card. This disclosure has caused me to return the card to Newegg.
I ordered a Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290 instead. Slower, but 4 G Vram. Also filed a consumer complaint with the FTC concerning this.

gkline said:

Also filed a consumer complaint with the FTC concerning this.

Click to expand...

Way to go instead of just a lot of talk.

RGone...

gkline said:

I ordered a Gigabyte GTX 970 on 1/4/15 from Newegg. I sold 2 GTX 670FTWs (2G Vram) so I would "upgrade to a 4G Vram card. This disclosure has caused me to return the card to Newegg.
I ordered a Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290 instead. Slower, but 4 G Vram. Also filed a consumer complaint with the FTC concerning this.

Click to expand...

Wow.. why the heck would you get the 290 and not the 290x with the prices slashed? Makes no sense.

Here is another review done by guru3D. While the performance of the card stands below 3.5GB they say it should have been advertised as a 3.5GB card and not 4 GB. It is really interesting but honestly I am not sure what I will do next with my card if exchanges are offered.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

those setting were on top of ultra. and would barely go over 3gb of vram. Marks titan would just load up vram and not think twice about it.
but its crazy looking at the graphs in afterburner. truly appears to be a scheduled vram refresh or something with a crazy 59 second super high frametime on cue

Pierre3400 said:

Wow.. why the heck would you get the 290 and not the 290x with the prices slashed? Makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I already own 2 of the Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290s in rig 1 below. They perform incredibly well. The 290X was $359.99 and the 290 was $279.99 ( with rebate $259.99). The $80 (or $100 with rebate) difference was too much to justify jumping to the 290X. It's my secondary rig.

Downgrade? Somewhat but not that large AND I know the card will perform well enough more games coming demand higher Vram. Since you own a GTX980 you know what 4G Vram really means!

gkline said:

I already own 2 of the Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290s in rig 1 below. They perform incredibly well. The 290X was $359.99 and the 290 was $279.99 ( with rebate $259.99). The $80 (or $100 with rebate) difference was too much to justify jumping to the 290X. It's my secondary rig.

Downgrade? Somewhat but not that large AND I know the card will perform well enough more games coming demand higher Vram. Since you own a GTX980 you know what 4G Vram really means!

Click to expand...

So, you were experiencing issues with your 970 to begin with or you were just worried that you eventually would? (I'm assuming the latter since the games and settings which actually use 3.5+ are utterly unplayable with a single card).

dejo said:

those setting were on top of ultra. and would barely go over 3gb of vram. Marks titan would just load up vram and not think twice about it.
but its crazy looking at the graphs in afterburner. truly appears to be a scheduled vram refresh or something with a crazy 59 second super high frametime on cue

Click to expand...

Single player or multiplayer? It may be serverside ssues? I don't show that behavior playing bf4 on this card (multiplayer).

ninjacore, the concern about the future. I edited my sig to reflect my monitor changes. Both rigs now use 2560 x 1440 monitors. I hadn't edited the 3770k rig because I just got the GTX970 in the beginning of January. I had the 670s for some time and was happy with them but since I received over $200 of gift cards at Christmas I thought it was time to make the leap to a newer Nvidia card. I have an EVGA GTX780 Classified in a third rig but it is watercooled so the best route for me was to sell both 670s (which I did) and jump to a 4G video card of similar performance to the 670s in SLI.

I really like the Sapphire Tri-X cards but wanted an Nvidia card. The 970 "seemed" to fit the bill. It ran well but after the revelation I decided that the Sapphire , though slower,would fit the bill as far as Vram. The GTX980 was a LARGE leap in cost.

I was still within my 30 day window to send it back to Newegg (they said ad said replacement and I pointed out their ad said 4G Vram and the specs from the chip manufacturer said 64ROPs while we all know after the "revelation" it is 64 for the 980 and 56 for the 970).

I might lose some $$ on this move and I know under 3.5G Vram usage the 970 is slightly faster than the 290 (own/owned both!). However, down the road if I go to sell the Sapphire Tri-X 290 I won't be faced with how I list it's specs.

Hope this answers your question.

PS I note your sig so I understand your inquiry.

Especially since it's a backup PC, that all definitely seems reasonable (getting a cheaper card). After reading about this a lot the last week, though, I honestly don't think there will exist a game and settings combination where a single card would be playable if it had 4GB instead of 3.5.

In addition to what's in my sig, I've also owned 3 290s and currently own a 290X. I went with the 970 because it runs cooler and has identical to or better performance than the 290X. After finding out about the spec discrepancy, I was initially a little concerned, but I tested it out and just couldn't find a scenario where it would actually be an issue for me. At 1440P, I had to go 200% res scaling in BF4 and I still wasn't above 3.5 (I think it was 3.3ish). The game was utterly unplayable at that point because the 970 core couldn't handle it (not the ram).

Maybe Witcher 3 will get there with a single card? Maybe not. I like my card and will be keeping it, but I can understand why someone might return theirs. I just don't think existing performance is a valid reason to do so.

Performance isn't the issue. Truth about specs is. It's a shame for Nvidia's Engineering Department.

Hard for me to believe after the 970's initial release last year that someone in Engineering didn't call and say "I think your not correct in your ads marketing! It's only 56ROPs not 64 and the Gross 4G Vram is segmented"

I also filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission online about false (ROPs) or deceptive (4G Vram with no further explanation) advertising.

Probably will die a silent death but at least I did what I think was correct.

Joe, its was actually farcry 4 rather than bf4. and we did have the setting turned up about as high as we could at 1920x1080. but that 59 second stutter was there every time, even if we stopped moving all together. I do think that it is an AA issue, but many turn that up as well.
I am not a gamer so take this with a grain of salt. But I would bet money that it is a driver thing trying to keep mem usage down. The titan with the same settings didnt show the same behavior at all. Mark also thought that the titan was a bit slower on fps but that it played better as it was smooth with the same settings

gkline said:

Performance isn't the issue. Truth about specs is. I also file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission online about false (ROPs) or deceptive (4G Vram with no further explanation) advertising.

Click to expand...

And you're definitely well-within your rights to do so. Doesn't seem worth my time, though, and I don't believe Nvidia did any of this on purpose. Should there have been a mistake like this out of ignorance? No, not with a corporation of that size, but I work for a similarly sized tech company so I know it can happen. And again, the card is a beast even in its current state.

and was single player as well. forgot to put that in

dejo said:

Joe, its was actually farcry 4 rather than bf4. and we did have the setting turned up about as high as we could at 1920x1080. but that 59 second stutter was there every time, even if we stopped moving all together. I do think that it is an AA issue, but many turn that up as well.
I am not a gamer so take this with a grain of salt. But I would bet money that it is a driver thing trying to keep mem usage down. The titan with the same settings didnt show the same behavior at all. Mark also thought that the titan was a bit slower on fps but that it played better as it was smooth with the same settings

Click to expand...

Makes sense you are seeing hitching (not that the driver is doing anything) considering...http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again

Far cry 4 uses 4gb at ultra without adding to its settings. I'd contend, on that title due to what it does to ANY gpu, that pouring on additional settings when it's also a horsepower issue, May not paint the most accurate picture.

EarthDog said:

Makes sense you are seeing hitching (not that the driver is doing anything) considering...http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again

Far cry 4 uses 4gb at ultra without adding to its settings. I'd contend, on that title due to what it does to ANY gpu, that pouring on additional settings when it's also a horsepower issue, May not paint the most accurate picture.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I haven't played it in a couple weeks (and I think I still was using the 290X when I did last). I'll load it up later today and post my results.

Apologies... It's not a horsepower issue there (far cry 4) at least with FPS...Since it can break 4gb on its default ultra settings, I wouldn't want to play fc4 with a 970!