By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - AMD Offering Discounts To Former GTX 970 Owners Following Memory Controversy

fatslob-:O on 31 January 2015

LOL ...

AMD certainly did bring the "FIX3R" out ...



Around the Network
r3tr0gam3r1337 on 31 January 2015

sorry but the 970 has 4gb of vram weather you like it or not, 3.5gb is apparently running faster and .5gb is running slower (have you got any evidence to back this claim up or is it just AMD trash talking because their GPU's are much less efficient), i am yet to see any game struggle to run on a GPU with less than 2gb vram yet quite a few of you are trying to push the idea that because a game "watch dogs" has a texture setting in the games options which unless you knew where to look you couldn't see any difference between 2gb and 3gb modes newer games are requiring more vram and that simply is a load of old tripe, no new game requires more than 2gb vram and even running at 4k with medium settings a GTX 690 still plays games at a very respectful 40 fps (crysis 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vunGj_JIVIY).

 

Edit: when i was talking about "watch dogs" 2/3gb vram texture setting i was talking about the graphics in the game not the option to change the setting.



Current PC build:

Asus Z97I-Plus, i5 4790K @ 4.6ghz, EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 1377/1853/124%, Corsair Vengence Pro 2400mhz 2x 8192mb, Corsair RM850, Corsair H80i, 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD, 750GB Seagate Momentus XT SSHD, 320GB Weston Digital HDD, Corsair 230T, Corsair K50 Raptor, HP XQ500AA mouse, Windows 10 Pro 64bit. iiyama Pro Lite G2773HS 120Hz 1Ms G2G gaming monitor.

Proxy-Pie on 31 January 2015

Lmao, well played!



Game_God on 31 January 2015
shikamaru317 said:

Nice idea by AMD, but personally I wouldn't go for it if I was a GTX 970 owner. Despite having less memory the 970 outperforms the 290 and I think the 290x also, while using less power and running cooler (which means more overclocking headroom). AMD needs to release the Rx 300 series asap.


No excuses, tell that to owners who bought the cards to crossfire them for 4K display,  games that use or will use more than 3,5gb of VRAM or workstations with applications that read/detect the 4gb of VRAM & crap because of the speed difference. They lied, they deserve every bit of flack they are getting!

Gamers & users who defend them, enable hardware/software makers to sell us unfinished defective products!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29CicBxZuw

01001011 01101001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01101101 01100101 01110100 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100001

Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 31 January 2015

Well deserved! The 970 may still be a very great card but Nvidia had no right to lie to its consumers



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Around the Network
SubiyaCryolite on 31 January 2015

I'm cool with my 970 (for now) but if AMD release a 6GB card that's 30 to 50% more powerful I'm going back home. I avoided the 290X because of power consumption and heat. The 7870 and 5670 served me great in the past.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

Captain_Tom on 31 January 2015
kumagawa said:
Kirin_gaming said:

That's a brilliant!

Well played AMD. 

Does AMD want to go bankrupt even quicker? they already lose money on the higher end cards due to trying to compete with Nvidia and now they want to lose even more money?

LOL they aren't losing ANY money on their GPU's that are 1.5 years old.  There is massive profit for both AMD and Nvidia on EVERY high end card sold.  They could both lower prices a ton if they wanted to.



Captain_Tom on 31 January 2015
shikamaru317 said:

Nice idea by AMD, but personally I wouldn't go for it if I was a GTX 970 owner. Despite having less memory the 970 outperforms the 290 and I think the 290x also, while using less power and running cooler (which means more overclocking headroom). AMD needs to release the Rx 300 series asap.


It is on par with a 290, and weaker than a 290X FYI.



Captain_Tom on 31 January 2015
shikamaru317 said:
Captain_Tom said:

It is on par with a 290, and weaker than a 290X FYI.

Depends on the game based on the benchmarks I'm looking at. In some games the 970 outperforms both the 290 and 290x, in others it only outperforms the 290, and in a small number of games (mostly games with Mantle support) both 290 and 290x beat the 970. 


Well you are probably looking at 1080p benchmarks.  I tend to only pay attention to 4K and 1440p.  There is no point in looking at 1080p since all of these cards will max out every game in 1080p without an issue, and in fact my 7970 still does.  Plan for the future if you get one of these cards!



HoloDust on 31 January 2015
Game_God said:
HoloDust said:
Yes, nVidia lied. But 970 still performs as initially benched on numerous sites, so I really don't see what's such a big fuss about.


I don't get people that being lied to, can't "see what's such a big fuss about."

People eating this kind of sh*t are the reason why hardware/software makers are shoving unfinished or defective products down our throats!!!

People buy graphic cards based on benchmarks, not based on specs alone. And most people who got this card, if they have any basic knowledge and just a bit of common sense, bought it for 1080p/1440p - that's what this card is targeted at (just look up 1440p performance in Metro and Crysis 3 and see it's nowhere near 60fps).

nVidia has been pretty stupid to try to pull this off, but that doesn't change the fact that 970 is a great card, and that's based on real life performance.