Amazon: Partial Refund for GTX 970, kept the card

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

Avatar image for ferrari2001
ferrari2001

17772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#2 ferrari2001
Member since 2008 • 17772 Posts

It's amazing what Amazon does to keep customers satisfied. One of the many reasons I shop with them.

Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts

@GioVela2010 said:

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

I thought it's not 3.5gb, but 3.5gb+512mb.

And that's crazy. Most people probably wouldn't even notice a performance difference between 4gb and 3.5gb+512mb

Avatar image for GTR12
GTR12

13490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 GTR12
Member since 2006 • 13490 Posts

Honestly I don't even care about the 20%, I already got 20% off just by shopping through Amazon instead of locally, payed $150 less, so they can keep the profit.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

@KHAndAnime said:

@GioVela2010 said:

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

I thought it's not 3.5gb, but 3.5gb+512mb.

And that's crazy. Most people probably wouldn't even notice a performance difference between 4gb and 3.5gb+512mb

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Avatar image for Old_Gooseberry
Old_Gooseberry

3958

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 0

#6 Old_Gooseberry
Member since 2002 • 3958 Posts

i thought it was still 4gb but the one set of 512mb had lower performance. Either way it shows why amazon is such a great place to shop. most orders i get from them arrive to me within a day and i dont even live in a city, its crazy.

Avatar image for Lach0121
Lach0121

11779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Lach0121
Member since 2007 • 11779 Posts

Its nice, and temping, but Amazon already went out of their way for me recently to honor a sale price after I already bought the product, but before it reached my home. I don't want to take more than my share of Amazon honors/refunds if I don't need to atm.

Too bad most people can't see past themselves, and will take any time there is a remote possibility that they can. Always seeing one's self as the bigger picture, instead of looking past one's self to see the bigger picture.

Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Avatar image for Legend002
Legend002

13405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#9 Legend002
Member since 2007 • 13405 Posts

Dude, you can get up to 50% refund back on everything if you complaint enough. They'll ban you if they notice you cost them too much money though.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

It's not really about FPS. If you don't have enough VRAM, you can expect lots of stuttering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeAmwe5NWcI

Stuttering is far more annoying then some frame drops.

Avatar image for Toxic-Seahorse
Toxic-Seahorse

5074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Toxic-Seahorse
Member since 2012 • 5074 Posts

I could do this as I bought my card on Amazon but that'a just not right in my opinion. Amazon has always been great to me for the most part, I see no reason to try to punish them for Nvidia's screw up. It's a piece of shit move if you ask me. If you're that worried about it (benchmarks show that you really shouldn't be) then return the damn thing. This just seems like your trying to screw people out of money for no good reason.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@JangoWuzHere said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

It's not really about FPS. If you don't have enough VRAM, you can expect lots of stuttering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeAmwe5NWcI

Stuttering is far more annoying then some frame drops.

That video is a poor example in showing lack of vram causing stuttering. Problems with that video as an example is the FX 8350, fact two using a 7870xt. fact three using Unity.... Even on low a 270x with a i5 4.4 ghz minimum fps is still 10 fps averaging mid 40's.

Even if we use unity as an example a GTX 780ti 3gb actually performs better then 290x with 4gb. Tests show the game using ultra settings with MSAA 8X at 1920x1080 uses around 3.5gb and yet the 780ti with 3gb performs better then 4gb 290x. if there was a real 512mb gap it does not mean much in performance and causing stuttering.

GTX 680 vs 7970 even with a 1gb difference and yet 680 performs on par to 7970 at 1440p with 4xAA with BF4 or even Dragon Age Inquisition at 1440. Even with Assassin Creed Unity at 1080p 7970 was a whole 4 fps faster then 680 but yet 7970 still can not even make 30 fps average.

Farcry 4 with GTX 970 using DSR with ultra settings with no AA used like 4020mb and seen no stuttering.

Quality of the games coding plays a big role in memory management. Over doing it with over excessive gpu usage plays a role in stuttering, as well as other factors such as cpu and harddrive.

Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5708 Posts

Here is a video comparison between the 970 and 980 and at the later portion you can see the stuttering issue on the 970 when going over 3.5GB while the 980 has no problem.

Loading Video...

And here is another

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Ben-Buja
Ben-Buja

2809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Ben-Buja
Member since 2011 • 2809 Posts

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Dying Light is a real world scenario where the 970s Vram was not sufficient. The game used to use more than 3,5 GB Vram at 1080p and stuttered a lot, it was very annoying.

The devs then released a patch specially for the 970 which limits the texture cache to 3,4 GB and now it's extremely smooth on my system.

Pretty much proves that the 3,5 GB Vram are not future proof at all. The 512 MB will make a big difference in upcoming titles and I doubt many devs will bother to optimise them for 970s.

@GioVela2010 said:

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

Did you buy it from Amazon itself or on the Amazon marketplace from a different shop?

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

@Ben-Buja said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Dying Light is a real world scenario where the 970s Vram was not sufficient. The game used to use more than 3,5 GB Vram at 1080p and stuttered a lot, it was very annoying.

The devs then released a patch specially for the 970 which limits the texture cache to 3,4 GB and now it's extremely smooth on my system.

Pretty much proves that the 3,5 GB Vram are not future proof at all. The 512 MB will make a big difference in upcoming titles and I doubt many devs will bother to optimise them for 970s.

@GioVela2010 said:

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

Did you buy it from Amazon itself or on the Amazon marketplace from a different shop?

I got it directly from Amazon.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

The problem is that in some instances once the 970 usage reaches 3.5gb it actually skips the last 512mb segment and goes straight to system memory because the software does not see it. But other games and engines dont have an issue... You have have to look at all factors, cpu, harddrive too.

With Talos Principle

"GTX970 leading in the 1920×1080 benchmark by a small margin while the R9-290 outperforms in both the 2560×1440 and 4K resolutions. The game is playable and without any noticeable stutter or framedrops across all resolutions."

Even at 3840x2160 it uses around 2.2gb.

Having to run that game beyond normal 4k resolution with 4x AA to get it to stutter like that means that the game engine looks like it is dumping almost all the vram data and reloads it.

That Farcry 4 video is not exactly proof because look here LINK

"The video shows Far Cry 4 running at 3840x2400 (using DSR), with all other settings at maximum possible, except Anti-aliasing which is set to SMAA. Basically the settings are just high enough to trigger the full use of the GTX 970's 4GB of VRAM without oversaturating it, and not so high that they completely cripple framerates through excessive GPU processing load.

The game fluctuates around 14-20FPS due to the very stressful settings, VRAM usage sits around 3,900-4080MB throughout"

Here is example Shadow of Mordor using all 4gb of the GTX 970 and has no stuttering issues, LINK

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@Ben-Buja said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Dying Light is a real world scenario where the 970s Vram was not sufficient. The game used to use more than 3,5 GB Vram at 1080p and stuttered a lot, it was very annoying.

The devs then released a patch specially for the 970 which limits the texture cache to 3,4 GB and now it's extremely smooth on my system.

Pretty much proves that the 3,5 GB Vram are not future proof at all. The 512 MB will make a big difference in upcoming titles and I doubt many devs will bother to optimise them for 970s.


Dying light did not stutter at 1080p with GTX 970 on my system , Something else is going on.... such as the game not utilizing more then one cpu core, what cpu are you using? Also the game seems to stream data at a steady rate from harddrive. Ive seen people complaining about stutter on 980's as well. Fact is that game has memory leaks does not help.

Avatar image for topgunmv
topgunmv

10880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 topgunmv
Member since 2003 • 10880 Posts

@Ben-Buja said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Dying Light is a real world scenario where the 970s Vram was not sufficient. The game used to use more than 3,5 GB Vram at 1080p and stuttered a lot, it was very annoying.

The devs then released a patch specially for the 970 which limits the texture cache to 3,4 GB and now it's extremely smooth on my system.

Pretty much proves that the 3,5 GB Vram are not future proof at all. The 512 MB will make a big difference in upcoming titles and I doubt many devs will bother to optimise them for 970s.

Did the devs specifically say they released a patch that did that on 970 cards, or was it just forum speculation?

Avatar image for Ben-Buja
Ben-Buja

2809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 Ben-Buja
Member since 2011 • 2809 Posts

@topgunmv said:

@Ben-Buja said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Dying Light is a real world scenario where the 970s Vram was not sufficient. The game used to use more than 3,5 GB Vram at 1080p and stuttered a lot, it was very annoying.

The devs then released a patch specially for the 970 which limits the texture cache to 3,4 GB and now it's extremely smooth on my system.

Pretty much proves that the 3,5 GB Vram are not future proof at all. The 512 MB will make a big difference in upcoming titles and I doubt many devs will bother to optimise them for 970s.

Did the devs specifically say they released a patch that did that on 970 cards, or was it just forum speculation?

No, it was in the official patch notes.

http://steamcommunity.com/games/239140/announcements/detail/112923269201683635

"Minor performance tweaks for GTX970 users"

Avatar image for Ben-Buja
Ben-Buja

2809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Ben-Buja
Member since 2011 • 2809 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

Dying light did not stutter at 1080p with GTX 970 on my system , Something else is going on.... such as the game not utilizing more then one cpu core, what cpu are you using? Also the game seems to stream data at a steady rate from harddrive. Ive seen people complaining about stutter on 980's as well. Fact is that game has memory leaks does not help.

i7 3930k overclocked to 4Ghz. The CPU utilization was fixed in patch 1.2 and the LOD slider toned down.

patch 1.3 addressed the texture cache for 970 GTX

http://steamcommunity.com/games/239140/announcements/detail/112923269201683635

It runs very smooth now.

Avatar image for topgunmv
topgunmv

10880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 topgunmv
Member since 2003 • 10880 Posts

@Ben-Buja said:

@topgunmv said:

@Ben-Buja said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

512mb is a huge difference for vram.

Is it though? The benchmarks I've seen displayed that it only detriments it in situations where it'd have unplayable FPS in either scenario (4gb of 3.5gb)...

Dying Light is a real world scenario where the 970s Vram was not sufficient. The game used to use more than 3,5 GB Vram at 1080p and stuttered a lot, it was very annoying.

The devs then released a patch specially for the 970 which limits the texture cache to 3,4 GB and now it's extremely smooth on my system.

Pretty much proves that the 3,5 GB Vram are not future proof at all. The 512 MB will make a big difference in upcoming titles and I doubt many devs will bother to optimise them for 970s.

Did the devs specifically say they released a patch that did that on 970 cards, or was it just forum speculation?

No, it was in the official patch notes.

http://steamcommunity.com/games/239140/announcements/detail/112923269201683635

"Minor performance tweaks for GTX970 users"

Well, there doesn't get much more proof that the 970's memory configuration is problematic than developers having to specifically patch games for it.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@Ben-Buja said:

@04dcarraher said:

Dying light did not stutter at 1080p with GTX 970 on my system , Something else is going on.... such as the game not utilizing more then one cpu core, what cpu are you using? Also the game seems to stream data at a steady rate from harddrive. Ive seen people complaining about stutter on 980's as well. Fact is that game has memory leaks does not help.

i7 3930k overclocked to 4Ghz. The CPU utilization was fixed in patch 1.2 and the LOD slider toned down.

patch 1.3 addressed the texture cache for 970 GTX

http://steamcommunity.com/games/239140/announcements/detail/112923269201683635

It runs very smooth now.

the cpu utilization fix actually limited view distance they did not really fix the real issue there.

Avatar image for Ben-Buja
Ben-Buja

2809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 Ben-Buja
Member since 2011 • 2809 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

the cpu utilization fix actually limited view distance they did not really fix the real issue there.

Yes, as I said the LOD slider has been toned down, but the load seems to be more spread across the cores as well.

View distance was overkill at first anyway. Minor difference between 60% and 100% while it was a huge hit on the performance. They nerfed it because of the "I have to max everything or it's badly optimised" crowd.

Interesting read about this topic:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=885444

You can still get the old view distance back if you edit the config files though.

It's also worth mentioning that the PS4 version has a lower view distance than PC at 0%.

Avatar image for Elann2008
Elann2008

33028

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Elann2008
Member since 2007 • 33028 Posts

I read in an article with an Nvidia representative stating that, "they" would do anything they can to help with a full or partial refund. Take that with a grain of salt. Perhaps, behind the scenes, Amazon.com and other merchants have been told by Nvidia and given the greenlight to give partial refunds where permissible. I wouldn't be surprised.

I am not here to judge. It is our hard earned money after all. I love Amazon as a business entity. They have been extremely good to me as a customer. On top of that, they provide excellent service to me and my family, and also friends.

My dearest hope because the people at Amazon are human beings too; and the marketing department probably being held accountable to control this incident--I sincerely hope that Nvidia has an agreement with merchants like Amazon to reimburse Amazon for full and partial refunds. If merchants like Amazon are taking the brunt of these refunds, then shame on Nvidia.

Avatar image for gerygo
GeryGo

12803

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#25 GeryGo  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 12803 Posts

@GioVela2010 said:

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

Good guy Amazon meme is required! :D

Avatar image for Nick3306
Nick3306

3429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Nick3306
Member since 2007 • 3429 Posts

@GioVela2010 said:

If you ordered through Amazon you can complain that it was advertised as a 4 GB GDDR5 card and now new info has come out showing it's 3.5 GB instead.

This got me a 20% refund, so i payed $265 for a GTX 970.

Nice, you basically stole money from amazon for no reason, want a cookie?

Avatar image for Jebus213
Jebus213

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Jebus213
Member since 2010 • 10056 Posts
@RyviusARC said:

Here is a video comparison between the 970 and 980 and at the later portion you can see the stuttering issue on the 970 when going over 3.5GB while the 980 has no problem.

Loading Video...

And here is another

I've been getting this non-stop in Elite dangerous. I'd like a 100% refund.

My 280 had no problems.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#29 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
@Jebus213 said:
@RyviusARC said:

Here is a video comparison between the 970 and 980 and at the later portion you can see the stuttering issue on the 970 when going over 3.5GB while the 980 has no problem.

Loading Video...

And here is another

I've been getting this non-stop in Elite dangerous. I'd like a 100% refund.

My 280 had no problems.

This made me snicker.. The 280 and 280x only has 3gb of vram..

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@RyviusARC said:

Here is a video comparison between the 970 and 980 and at the later portion you can see the stuttering issue on the 970 when going over 3.5GB while the 980 has no problem.

Loading Video...

And here is another

Loading Video...

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Avatar image for Renevent42
Renevent42

6654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 Renevent42
Member since 2010 • 6654 Posts

"Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it!"

LOL...no kidding. Frankly, I'm surprised the 970 ran as well as it did at some of those settings.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@Renevent42 said:

"Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it!"

LOL...no kidding. Frankly, I'm surprised the 970 ran as well as it did at some of those settings.

Hey hey lets not forget the guy before it that says that his AMD 280 (with 3gb vram) ran Elite Dangerous better than his 970, makes perfectly logical sense.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

1440p 4xMSAA doesnt sound like crazy settings to me

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@GioVela2010 said:

1440p 4xMSAA doesnt sound like crazy settings to me

He isn't playing at 1440p he is playing at 1600p, I made a mistake there.. So it is EVEN HIGHER than 1440p.. Furthermore nvidia doesn't recommend using 4x msaa for Farcry 4 on the 970 before this shit happened.. Now suddenly we are getting these videos of people playing at these massively high settings coming out of the wood work about problems they have been having.. Where the **** were they the numerous months prior to this?

Especially 4x msaa with the release of MFAA which gives close to msaa X4 quality with x2 performance.. I am just trying to figure this out because I sure as hell didn't use X4 msaa on my 970 for Farcry 4, infact geforce experience recommends smaa for a single 970..

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

69087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

#35 Pedro  Online
Member since 2002 • 69087 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@Pedro said:

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

I game in 1080p, but if a game has something like 4xSSAA im gonna want to use it, and 1080p 4xSSAA means the game is being natively run @4k and bring down sampled to my 1080p display. That 500mb could be a big difference in those games

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@GioVela2010 said:

I game in 1080p, but if a game has something like 4xSSAA im gonna want to use it, and 1080p 4xSSAA means the game is being natively run @4k and bring down sampled to my 1080p display. That 500mb could be a big difference in those games

......... Are people suddenly delusional what their cards can and cannot do? Not even Dual SLI 980s can play games like Dragon Age Inquistion at 4k well.... The games that require that much vram are games that a single 970 is not going to perform well enough to make it worthwhile.. And as I said not even SLI 980 create a very good experience (32 fps average) at 4k resolution with games like Dragon Age Inquisition.. Did you guys actually read any product reviews before you decided to buy the 970? Do tell us what mystical games out there that you can run at 4k resolution on a single 970 and get tolerable fps to which you would need to worry about vram.. Cause all I can think of are heavily HEAVILY modded games. Dragon Age Inquisiton for instance at 4k resolution has the real 4gb 290x card 3 fps greater than the 970 gtx at 4k resolution, clocking in at a "cinematic" 21fps a second.

Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5708 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

@Pedro said:

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

SLI won't fix the issue since it deals with vRAM.

Also the Talos principle had a lot of stuttering on the 970 despite it running at around 40-50fps so it's not because of the game being too demanding.

Also I have 2 970s and I have stuttering once reaching over 3.5GB of vRAM so I just proved you wrong.

Avatar image for dxmcat
dxmcat

3385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 dxmcat
Member since 2007 • 3385 Posts

Despite all this crap, I'm still pretty sure I'm gonna get a 970 in a month or so when I upgrade. It is the best value and a 970 still craps on a r9 290x in the benches, as well as having 100w+ less TDP heat output.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@RyviusARC said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@Pedro said:

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

SLI won't fix the issue since it deals with vRAM.

Also the Talos principle had a lot of stuttering on the 970 despite it running at around 40-50fps so it's not because of the game being too demanding.

Also I have 2 970s and I have stuttering once reaching over 3.5GB of vRAM so I just proved you wrong.

My point just went completely over your head.. I never said SLI would fix the problem, I am pointing out that even with SLI no one is going to play these games at 4k resolutions when they are pushing averages of 30fps tops on the most demanding games. And that is basically what we are seeing.. A bunch of people posting videos of things like Shadows of Mordor with hi res pack in it (even though IT SAYS that you need to have a 6gb of vram to work properly).. Or we have people posting crazy high resolutions of games with super high AA that the card is going to struggle with regardless of the vram problem.. Furthermore which games and what settings are you breaking 3.5 vram for? Because this just suddenly became a "thing" why didn't reviewers catch this shit months earlier when they put it through the numerous tests out there on numerous settings? I mean they ran the paces with the very games you guys are using to some how "prove" your points, yet none of them mentioned stutters..

Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5708 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

@RyviusARC said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@Pedro said:

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

SLI won't fix the issue since it deals with vRAM.

Also the Talos principle had a lot of stuttering on the 970 despite it running at around 40-50fps so it's not because of the game being too demanding.

Also I have 2 970s and I have stuttering once reaching over 3.5GB of vRAM so I just proved you wrong.

My point just went completely over your head.. I never said SLI would fix the problem, I am pointing out that even with SLI no one is going to play these games at 4k resolutions when they are pushing averages of 30fps tops on the most demanding games. And that is basically what we are seeing.. A bunch of people posting videos of things like Shadows of Mordor with hi res pack in it (even though IT SAYS that you need to have a 6gb of vram to work properly).. Or we have people posting crazy high resolutions of games with super high AA that the card is going to struggle with regardless of the vram problem.. Furthermore which games and what settings are you breaking 3.5 vram for? Because this just suddenly became a "thing" why didn't reviewers catch this shit months earlier when they put it through the numerous tests out there on numerous settings? I mean they ran the paces with the very games you guys are using to some how "prove" your points, yet none of them mentioned stutters..

I don't even game at 4k but 1440p.

Skyrim with modded textures causes lots of stuttering once going over 3.5GB of vRAM which is easy to do.

And many people have complained about stuttering in Skyrim long before it was known that the GTX 970 only had full speed 3.5GB of vRAM.

Shadow of Mordor also has some stuttering but only in certain areas so it doesn't bother me as much.

Your argument seems to be that even with 4GB of vRAM it would still have the same issues but I had people test out the games on a 4GB GTX 980 and they had no stuttering once going over 3.5GB.

The whole point was that I paid for 4GB of full speed vRAM along with the advertised specs and was lied to.

Just because I don't notice it with games today doesn't mean the games in the future will be less vRAM dependent as well.

Also I can play at 4k with relatively good fps in just about any game at ultra settings.

Battlefield 4 maxed at 4k can be anywhere from 80fps to 55fps.

And Even a badly optimized game like The Evil Within still gets around 50fps at 4k res with max setting and the black bars removed.

Avatar image for neatfeatguy
neatfeatguy

4397

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#43 neatfeatguy
Member since 2005 • 4397 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

Mob mentality. Something "might" be wrong so now almost everyone that has a GTX 970 has these problems and even those that don't have one are jumping on the "hate the card/Nvidia" bandwagon. The few that either don't care or can't find fault that post against the mob, they're told they're wrong.

My daughter experiences the same thing at school and she's only 6 years old. She does cold lunch for the most part and she begged me to only make salami or roast beef sandwiches. She said they were her favortie. After a few weeks she said she doesn't like the sandwiches anymore and she stopped eating them. She did the same with raisins, chocolate dipped granola bars, snack pak pudding, her "favorite" yougart and the list goes on.

After a few days passed when she said she didn't like salami or roast beef sandwiches (which I knew was a lie since she still ate salami and roast beef at home) she told me that other kids don't like it so she doesn't like to eat it anymore at school.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@RyviusARC said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@RyviusARC said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@Pedro said:

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

SLI won't fix the issue since it deals with vRAM.

Also the Talos principle had a lot of stuttering on the 970 despite it running at around 40-50fps so it's not because of the game being too demanding.

Also I have 2 970s and I have stuttering once reaching over 3.5GB of vRAM so I just proved you wrong.

My point just went completely over your head.. I never said SLI would fix the problem, I am pointing out that even with SLI no one is going to play these games at 4k resolutions when they are pushing averages of 30fps tops on the most demanding games. And that is basically what we are seeing.. A bunch of people posting videos of things like Shadows of Mordor with hi res pack in it (even though IT SAYS that you need to have a 6gb of vram to work properly).. Or we have people posting crazy high resolutions of games with super high AA that the card is going to struggle with regardless of the vram problem.. Furthermore which games and what settings are you breaking 3.5 vram for? Because this just suddenly became a "thing" why didn't reviewers catch this shit months earlier when they put it through the numerous tests out there on numerous settings? I mean they ran the paces with the very games you guys are using to some how "prove" your points, yet none of them mentioned stutters..

I don't even game at 4k but 1440p.

Skyrim with modded textures causes lots of stuttering once going over 3.5GB of vRAM which is easy to do.

And many people have complained about stuttering in Skyrim long before it was known that the GTX 970 only had full speed 3.5GB of vRAM.

Shadow of Mordor also has some stuttering but only in certain areas so it doesn't bother me as much.

Your argument seems to be that even with 4GB of vRAM it would still have the same issues but I had people test out the games on a 4GB GTX 980 and they had no stuttering once going over 3.5GB.

The whole point was that I paid for 4GB of full speed vRAM along with the advertised specs and was lied to.

Just because I don't notice it with games today doesn't mean the games in the future will be less vRAM dependent as well.

Also I can play at 4k with relatively good fps in just about any game at ultra settings.

Battlefield 4 maxed at 4k can be anywhere from 80fps to 55fps.

And Even a badly optimized game like The Evil Within still gets around 50fps at 4k res with max setting and the black bars removed.

You don't say the 980 performs better? Who would of imagined that a card that costs $200 more and was billed as being more powerful than the 970 would perform better.. Mind blown.

Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5708 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

@RyviusARC said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@RyviusARC said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@Pedro said:

@sSubZerOo said:

It is comments like this that make me facepalm.. Your having a game playing at 4k resolution WITH 4x msaa.. For a SINGLE card.. The 970 was never designed for it.. The second one the exact SAME thing... It's playing the game at a resolution HIGHER than even 1440p with 4x msaa.. The most demanding of AA that nvidia doesn't recommend you use in the game with a SINGLE 970.. Its really hilarious shit like this people are posting as some how undeniable proof of the problems.. Who knew the card that costs $200 more outperforms it! All at resolutions and settings that 99% of the people will never ever use.. Great job there.. I would like to see some REAL world tests.. Oh that's right the real world tests put out there for the 970 show that it isn't a issue at all.. Instead we are getting people putting up videos like this with massive settings that no one ever uses.

Are you saying the problem will disappear if you use SLI with the 970?

Take your pick on youtube.. There are countless SLI videos at 1440p with 970s, from Farcry 4 to Crysis 3, Star Citizen etc etc.. None have stated any of the fps drops and hitches that SUDDENLY came out of no where when the whole memory fiasco occured.. Even with games on shadows of mordor, one of the "infamous examples" people like using with the hd texture pack.. A hd texture pack that the developers RECOMMEND You have a 6gb vram card to begin with!! SLI wouldn't change that, your still stuck below the required amount of vram even if the card was true 4gb.. As for 4k, quite frankly you guys are fools to begin with thinking even sli'ing it at those resolutions were a good idea.. Both the 290x crossfire and 970 sli with older games like Farcry 3 have fps averages in the 30s dipping down below 30 in tests.. These were at release date reviews showing that 4k resolution even in SLI these cards were not pulling very desirable fps to begin with. Well I guess it maybe desirable if your looking for that "cinematic" 30fps ubisoft raves about.

The fact of the matter is people are pushing the cards far further now (with the sudden memory fiasco) then reviewers at launch ever recommended at with their benchmarks..

SLI won't fix the issue since it deals with vRAM.

Also the Talos principle had a lot of stuttering on the 970 despite it running at around 40-50fps so it's not because of the game being too demanding.

Also I have 2 970s and I have stuttering once reaching over 3.5GB of vRAM so I just proved you wrong.

My point just went completely over your head.. I never said SLI would fix the problem, I am pointing out that even with SLI no one is going to play these games at 4k resolutions when they are pushing averages of 30fps tops on the most demanding games. And that is basically what we are seeing.. A bunch of people posting videos of things like Shadows of Mordor with hi res pack in it (even though IT SAYS that you need to have a 6gb of vram to work properly).. Or we have people posting crazy high resolutions of games with super high AA that the card is going to struggle with regardless of the vram problem.. Furthermore which games and what settings are you breaking 3.5 vram for? Because this just suddenly became a "thing" why didn't reviewers catch this shit months earlier when they put it through the numerous tests out there on numerous settings? I mean they ran the paces with the very games you guys are using to some how "prove" your points, yet none of them mentioned stutters..

I don't even game at 4k but 1440p.

Skyrim with modded textures causes lots of stuttering once going over 3.5GB of vRAM which is easy to do.

And many people have complained about stuttering in Skyrim long before it was known that the GTX 970 only had full speed 3.5GB of vRAM.

Shadow of Mordor also has some stuttering but only in certain areas so it doesn't bother me as much.

Your argument seems to be that even with 4GB of vRAM it would still have the same issues but I had people test out the games on a 4GB GTX 980 and they had no stuttering once going over 3.5GB.

The whole point was that I paid for 4GB of full speed vRAM along with the advertised specs and was lied to.

Just because I don't notice it with games today doesn't mean the games in the future will be less vRAM dependent as well.

Also I can play at 4k with relatively good fps in just about any game at ultra settings.

Battlefield 4 maxed at 4k can be anywhere from 80fps to 55fps.

And Even a badly optimized game like The Evil Within still gets around 50fps at 4k res with max setting and the black bars removed.

You don't say the 980 performs better? Who would of imagined that a card that costs $200 more and was billed as being more powerful than the 970 would perform better.. Mind blown.

I am not talking about the 980 having a higher avg frame rate.

What I am talking about is the 980 not stuttering when trying to access over 3.5GB of vRAM like the 970 does.