Jump to content

Geforce 970 Owners!


28 replies to this topic

#21 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 04:50 PM

Bench marks look pretty nice for a card that cost less than the 980 for sure, but they are just benchmarks. I think some people that purchased the 970's figured it would get them into the 4K ball game with out to much of a "hit". I would seem that some have experienced issues with them. I am sure that some just like to complain, and we all know we live in a sue happy world... but, none the less it sounds like there is something to all of the claims that does hold water. Neither a AMD or Nvidia fanboy here, I have purchased cards from both sides of the camp, and most likely purchase what matches my needs and price range from either one. However, when I buy hardware that has specific specs on it, I full well expect those specs to be real, and accurate. If they are not, it is a problem for me.

I have been buying amd cards from the 3870, 4870 512mb and 1 gb version, a Nvidia 8800GTX, 6870 2 gb, and now a XFX7970 3gb over the last 5 years. I have never had a issues with Amd drivers, and yes I know that Amd has had issues with their drivers for many years in the past, So has Nvidia. I am very happy with my XFX 7970 DD 3 gb card right now, and it handles this game very well even at 2560x1440 for any game I have played on it at mostly maxed out settings. Several that have the 970 on here have said that my 7970 should be about the same as theirs, so I am sure that most are happy with the 970's performance.

The point here is that the specs on the card was false, not accurate, and it has affected enough people for it to create a lawsuit regarding the issue. I don't believe its all about just a lot of whinners trying to hit pay dirt, and jumping on the sue band wagon. How big of a deal it is to anyone is up to the ones that purchased the hardware and what their expectations are. If it isn't put into check, whats to stop the next release or company from advertising specific specs on something, and the specs are less then was was advertised? That is pretty important information for consumers to be able to base their purchase on, and the information needs to be accurate, no?

#22 S204STi

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 59 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 05:04 PM

View PostcSand, on 23 February 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

Neither company is exactly Mr Clean.


But hey, if you're an nVidia guy and you want to switch sides, AMD is giving discounts for 970 owners :lol:


Too bad they're just rebranding the same old stuff these days.

View PostDarthPeanut, on 24 February 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

Agreed. The gtx970 is still the best performing card for the money overall with it's only shortfall benchmarks being in the 4k benchmarks to the r9 290x. Running cooler, quieter, and with less power draw is nice as well.


970 is still the best value on the market at the moment. It's also a modern card, which AMD can no longer claim to build.

The 4gb thing is a non-issue in the sense that it does have 4gb of onboard vram, it's just not going to use all of it effectively due to the architecture. Some people don't understand nuance.

Also, it isn't like the Titan which IMO is a much larger fraud.

Edited by S204STi, 24 February 2015 - 05:06 PM.


#23 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,365 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 05:07 PM

Total War - Attila: real-ingame Benchmark, 45s, 1080p, max. Detail, noAA
http://www.forum-3dc...&postcount=3999

The 970 is at the bottom.

Edited by Thorqemada, 24 February 2015 - 05:08 PM.


#24 Sundervine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 131 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 05:14 PM

I updated my comments with more information if you care to read it. Not necessary since I will make a more concise response here though.

This news really was most likely a marketing issue. This is new technology the marketing team was most likely not even aware of and we all win from it. Especially now that everyone knows that Nvidia can do it.

The new technology is the ability to only disable part of a ROP controller. This has never been done before by anyone. The generation before to make this same card it would have only had 48 ROPS instead. A much bigger hit to performance than it currently has. This is due to Nvidia or anyone else including AMD having to completely turn off the whole controller when the flaws would generate to much heat to meet their specs. Nvidia and only Nvidia at the moment can now turn off only enough to keep it in spec and still have the extra performance. That is a major breakthrough that most just do not understand.

I understand how great this is, it will either make cards cheaper of better. That is all that happened here. The flaws in the Gm204 for the 970 were to much to make it a full on 980. Thus they had to turn off some of the chip. This would have been a full 16 ROPS before because the controller had to be fully disabled to get within spec now only 8. Thats a 50% decrease in ROPs disabled. They then labeled it a 970 instead and sold it. Marketing team really probably had no idea what the engineers had done. since it still had all 4 controllers instead of the normal 3.

Edited by Sundervine, 24 February 2015 - 05:16 PM.


#25 Sundervine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 131 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 05:39 PM

To your question Bill, yes that is indeed important. However the reason that most of these in my opinion have no case and are jumping on the sue bandwagon are they had no idea what to expect in the first place. The majority of people do not actually know what a ROP does so their expectations of what it does are not there. They are in fact just buying it for the number if they did not research it before, or they are purchasing it from a review.

On the first point the numbers really tell you nothing and someone purchasing for that reason alone really do not know what they mean. If however you purchased from a review and did not check the stats that most closely relate to you then you did it wrong anyway. Also you will get what you expect because the review if checked correctly will be accurate. Ok if they are not a paid spoke site for the company of the review which there are many.

My point is if you bought it on specs you had no expectations other than you read some numbers and they were better than the other ones numbers. Also hey it was on sale because... sale. Not harmed in the least because expectations are false in that premise anyway.
Option two and its not a paid spokes site, you got what you expected because you checked the closest thing to your setup and made an informed decision. Thus also incapable of having wrong expectations.

really the stats on a box need to go away anyway they are all false advertisement in my mind. One MHZ is not equal to another. For example and AMD and Intel at the exact same MHZ are not the same. The features might look the same but they are not. Thus they are misleading. Same goes here. A certain MHZ from an Nvidia card are not the same for an AMD card. A certain number of ROPS for an Nvidia are not the same as the AMD. They might be close, real close sometimes but they are not the same. Thus these numbers setting expectations are truly false expectations anyway.

I will say that having a generic benchmark for each pixel count would be best but then we would need a third party that is trust worthy and not paid off by one or the other and that as we all know never happens. So there you have it. No i do not feel anyone was truly misled enough to earn money for it.
I will state that as long as that is the benchmark for purchasing however that it is false advertising and I do not condone it at all. LOL so yes in the end we agree completely I just do not agree anyone was harmed enough for financial gain. Sure if they want a different card of the same price, I am all for an exchange. No doubt in my mind that is the way to go but not GAIN money for it. No not that at all.

#26 Surn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 1,073 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 24 February 2015 - 05:58 PM

Glad I bought AMD stock

#27 Sundervine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 131 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 06:24 PM

Sorry that was not nice, I apologize and retract the statement.

Edited by Sundervine, 24 February 2015 - 06:28 PM.


#28 DarthPeanut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • 861 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 06:28 PM

Very interesting information... thanks for adding it Sundervine.

#29 Sundervine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 131 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 07:07 PM

Not a problem DeathPeanut, I never mind giving out information as long as I have it. I just try not to inject myself into something I know little about thus I hardly ever post lol. Also I bloviate a lot sorry about that part.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users