| JEMC said: I read the AnandTech's article, and I'll post a bit of it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation To that end in the short amount of time we’ve had to work on this article we have also been working on cooking up potential corner cases for the GTX 970 and have so far come up empty, though we’re by no means done. Coming up with real (non-synthetic) gaming workloads that can utilize between 3.5GB and 4GB of VRAM while not running into a rendering performance wall is already a challenge, and all the more so when trying to find such workloads that actually demonstrate performance problems.
Now, don't take it as if I'm on their side because I'm not. They lied (even if they call it a mistake or a miss-comunication it is still a lie) and put them and the card on a bad situation, with some users angry for buying a card that is not what they thought it was, so they should offer those users the option to ask for a refund. But that doesn't change the results of the reviews of the card or the performance it showed. The card is still as good or bad as it was when it launched, only that now we know that it may not be as future-proof as some of us thought. |
No of course it doesn't. But it could change how the 970 performs a year from now when that 4GB will be very important. If in a year the 970 starts performing 10% below the 290 in even 1080p...Well that would be bad and in my opinion count as misleading people since no one expected that to happen.
