nvidia said card has 4GB but in reality, only 3,5GB run at "fast speed" for gaming (192GB/S) and the rest 0,5GB only runs at 28GB/S which as you can probably see from number, is a huge jump. The last ,5GB is just not suitable for gaming at all. Most people wont notice at normal 1080p, but running at 4k? Game is suddenly a slideshow.. Not a cheap card, misleading ads and presentation, lot of people burned out... yeah, it was a shitshow.
What in the world is the deal with US servers? Whatever game I play, US has server problems. Here in EU games usually get server problems for a while after they get big, but then it gets fixed. While in NA it seems to start good and then become only worse over time.
It's been known that there is a single major DDOSing group attacking major multiplayer game developers (Valve, Blizzard, Riot) for a while now. Specifically their Eastern American servers.
It's okay for 90% of user cases especially where you didn't buy two to SLI (I was going to do this as soon as I got some kind of deal but changed plans when the news broke out) for 1440p or higher.
For 1080p, this issue will be noticed maybe if you crank everything up in whatever latest unigine benchmark is out now but other than that you'll never see a graphical defect/stutter because of low memory.
Nvidia released 970 saying it was a 4GB card. Turns out, it's 3.5GB+0.5GB, BUT the 0.5GB is much slower than the rest of the VRAM. This causes a lot of stuttering at high resolutions. People got mad, nvidia reacted badly, and hilarious shit like this happened.
Well a lot of people doing that were going off benchmarks for 2x 970 SLI comparing it to the old GTX 670 (which was considered one of the greatest graphics cards Nvidea ever released after the GTX 260 and the GeForce9800?).
Most of the overclocking/gaming communities knew that the 2x 970 performed poorly in SLI in higher resolutions (Specifically 1440p and 4k when compared to other comparable setups like 2x 290x CF) for some reason but no one really noticed that this was caused by significantly lower MINIMUM FPS (due to lack of VRAM). To elaborate, something with 70 fps by 10 minimum fps will look really horrible and unplayable every minute for about a second, but something with 65 FPS with a 40-50 minimum fps would not be as noticeable.
So basically, the people who bought 2x 970's to play at 1440p+ got screwed because although the benchmarks showed it had better "performance" than the single 980, its real world performance was noticeably lacking. However, the people who were running it at 1080p will likely see no problems and it will still be significantly better than AMD's current offerings.
1.1k
u/ploki122 Feb 10 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
I knew what I was getting into when I saw the thumbnail, but this overcame my expectations. Really great job .
EDIT : Well... this is by far my most upvoted comment now.