970's having performance issues using 4GB Vram - Nvidia investigating

Telecaster · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:03

Aren't SSDs advertised as 256/512GB, yet when fitted into a machine you don't get anywhere near that. I have a 250GB Samsung Evo that shows 232GB in windows.

Not making excuses I'm just wondering where the line is drawn and whether Nv will try and worm their way out of it or try and fix it.

Awahwah · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:04

Telecaster said:
Aren't SSDs advertised as 256/512GB, yet when fitted into a machine you don't get anywhere near that. I have a 250GB Samsung Evo that shows 232GB in windows.

Not making excuses I'm just wondering where the line is drawn and whether Nv will try and worm their way out of it or try and fix it.

They state that the formatted space will be different.

ReCoN1989 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:05

Telecaster said:
Aren't SSDs advertised as 256/512GB, yet when fitted into a machine you don't get anywhere near that. I have a 250GB Samsung Evo that shows 232GB in windows.

Not making excuses I'm just wondering where the line is drawn and whether Nv will try and worm their way out of it or try and fix it.

I'm pretty sure they have a disclaimer stating that usable space will be less, just like tablets and laptops offered with x amount of storage are required to state that usable space will be less.

Marine-RX179 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:06

Awahwah said:
Explains the performance hit I've been seeing in BF4,at 1440 res. it's like the card throttles back and stutters.

Hope it's fixed or it's going back. I feel for OCUK here, if it's hardware and can't be fixed, they will be dealing with lots of returns that will cost them money. I guess that's a risk of the Business though.

I could easily say something similar to what's already been said by everyone, but I decided not to...instead I just want to say this-

"I truly hope this problem is only temporary and fixable soon. If it cannot be fixed, I wish all the 970 owners as well as retailers that sell it all the best in getting things resolved".

Hope it is not the GTX590 scandal all over again...

Awahwah · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:08

Marine-RX179 said:
I could easily say something similar to what's already been said by everyone, but I decided not to...instead I just want to say this-

"I truly hope this problem is only temporary and fixable soon. If it cannot be fixed, I wish all the 970 owners as well as retailers that sell it all the best in getting things resolved".

Hope it is not the GTX590 scandal all over again...

Some sit up, well said.

Mei · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:09

did you put on a tie for that speech

kitch9 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:11

Telecaster said:
Aren't SSDs advertised as 256/512GB, yet when fitted into a machine you don't get anywhere near that. I have a 250GB Samsung Evo that shows 232GB in windows.

Not making excuses I'm just wondering where the line is drawn and whether Nv will try and worm their way out of it or try and fix it.

Graphics cards have existed for decades. Not sure Nvidia could move the goalposts now.

murah · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:12

reading up properly it looks like the benchmark in question isn't up to scratch

I tried it, it showed the same drops as the 660, 770, 780, 970 and 980 yet when I get up in the high vram usage (star citizen maxed out can use 3.6GB granted its not optimised yet) I don't get any slow downs or hint of less performance despite the fact that the 670 was never designed to use the full 4GB.

So who here is actually experiencing issues because of this and could there be some other factor involved (Driver, windows settings who knows!)

could this be down to the MFAA/ memory compression that the 900 series uses?

ReCoN1989 said:
If something is advertised with 4GB of vram and only 3-3.5GB usable (which has already been proven) .

so it is like the 670 then? designed for 2GB Vram yet can be outfitted with 4GB Vram but won't use the full 4GB due to chip limitations (or something a long that lines I don't fully understand it)

kitch9 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:18

murah said:
reading up properly it looks like the benchmark in question isn't up to scratch

I tried it, it showed the same drops as the 660, 770, 780, 970 and 980 yet when I get up in the high vram usage (star citizen maxed out can use 3.6GB granted its not optimised yet) I don't get any slow downs or hint of less performance despite the fact that the 670 was never designed to use the full 4GB.

So who here is actually experiencing issues because of this and could there be some other factor involved (Driver, windows settings who knows!)

could this be down to the MFAA/ memory compression that the 900 series uses?

Where are you "reading up properly?"

Captain Carling · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:20

murah · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:21

http://www.overclock.net/t/1535502/gtx-970s-can-only-use-3-5gb-of-4gb-vram-issue/220
https://forums.geforce.com/default/...gathering-low-gpu-load-and-other-issues-/137/
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...gtx970s_have_a_huge_vram_issue_recall_may_be/
and on here, take half an hour to go through the oc.net thread its highly interesting especially people with older cards running the benchmark in question.

Legend · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:22

Thing is, if the 980 CAN use all its RAM, but the 970 can't, there simply HAS to be a definitive reason for this, and if it's NOT hardware, there must be some suspicion this was done deliberately so as to give the 980 a clear advantage... perhaps they made the 970 TOO good, and realised they had to do something to hold it back. Let's hope this IS the case and it's something they can fix with firmware, because I truly do not want to be embroiled in the almighty sh*tstorm that will inevitably follow if this turns out to be an unfixable hardware fault!!

Furthermore, if the fault is with Aero, some other resource hogging the memory, or the benchmark itself, surely the 980 would show an identical memory fault as the 970? It hasn't though has it?

kitch9 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:24

murah said:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1535502/gtx-970s-can-only-use-3-5gb-of-4gb-vram-issue/220
https://forums.geforce.com/default/...gathering-low-gpu-load-and-other-issues-/137/
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...gtx970s_have_a_huge_vram_issue_recall_may_be/
and on here, take half an hour to go through the oc.net thread its highly interesting especially people with older cards running the benchmark in question.

Very few are actually benchmarking properly. The benchmark should be run with the display going through the igpu to isolate the Nvidia card from os overhead.

melmac · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:25

Rusty0611 said:
You have a warranty period and you're protected by that for its length. If you think you're playing 4K at acceptable frame rates with 1 970 then think again.

I'd think that the number of people running 970 SLI in 3 years time will be minuscule.

Note that I'm not defending nVidia or retailers: merely pointing out my distaste at the entitlement culture that seems to exist sometimes where people will look for any excuse to gain something. If you are genuinely affected by this in an actual game then as I said earlier knock yourself out and pursue a refund.

wow at this attitude?? If it's a hardware issue then the card is faulty. Just because the issue might not affect you at the moment doesn't change that.

This is like the first release of the Sandy bridge motherboards where there was a flaw with the SATA. It might not have affected some people at all, others might not have noticed it for years. But all those motherboards had to be replaced even if a person hadn't noticed the fault.

Saying the Warranty will over it is rubbish too, because more places don't give money back unless you return it inside 30 days. They would just offer another 970.

I don't know where the problem is, if it turns out to be fixable problem, than that's fine. But if it's a hardware problem then everyone who bought a card should be entitled to a working replacement regardless of whether they noticed the problem or not. It should be handled exactly like Intel handled the SATA bug on Sandy Bridge.

I am hoping that it is just a software problem and easily fixable.

MrMD · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:26

So if this turns out to be faulty/intentionally gimped HW,that cant be fixed via a firmware flash or whatever im gonna be pretty ****ed ,and will be expecting a full refund sharpish

The main reason i bought a 970 was an opportunity presented itself to me to flog my 280x card to a m8 for a good price the week of the maxwell launch.Even then i was on the fence about pulling the trigger,as the perf increase was pretty small all things considered,it was the 4gb vram that pushed me tho.I only game at 1080p atm,i felt that 4gb vram would be enough for 1080p for a couple of years even at ultra/max settings.I had the intention of adding a 2nd one in sli and mayb grabbing a 144hz monitor aswell.

But if the card is fundamentally faulty,i feel like i just been kinda ****ed.I aint even really played many demanding games since i got it,i did find it strange that the demanding games i played often capped out at 3.5/3.6 GB vram,but then its only 1080p i thought to myself.Arma 3 for instance the settings i use constantly push vram usage past 3gb vram.And that game is always crashing on my 970,i have never considered vram being borked being the cause.

I have never seen a game exceed 3.8gb of my vram,but oddily enough i have never noticed it stay at that level either.For instance on titanfall,when it loads up a level,the vram will fill up to around 3.7GB,the round will start and the vram will drop down below 3.5gb during game play.

A lot of this i put down to bad drivers,as i have had many other issues due to the drivers(like the power states crash bug ect) but now i dunno.I barely ever pushed this card at all either IMO,all the graphically demanding games im interested in got pushed back into this year.

Bleh,my 280x just worked.The 970 so many issues and minor annoyances and now this#

Wall of text/rant over

Edit: Ideally this can fixed with a firmware upgrade,and nvidia actually releasing a decent driver. And hey,the 960 doesnt look so bad now does it :troll:

murah · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:26

Legend said:
Thing is, if the 980 CAN use all its RAM, but the 970 can't, there simply HAS to be a definitive reason for this, and if it's NOT hardware, there must be some suspicion this was done deliberately so as to give the 980 a clear advantage... perhaps they made the 970 TOO good, and realised they had to do something to hold it back. Let's hope this IS the case and it's something they can fix with firmware, because I truly do not want to be embroiled in the almighty sh*tstorm that will inevitably follow if this turns out to be an unfixable hardware fault!!

yet I have just seen numerous 980 benches with the same program, reporting the exact same issue as the 970. so I'm afraid I am inclined to disagree with you on some kind of performance fixing conspiracy or the 980 in fact being able to use all of its ram. Either the bench mark is wrong and something else is to blame, or the benchmark is right and the entire 900 series (And possible older gen cards) have this issue

kitch9 said:
Very few are actually benchmarking properly. The benchmark should be run with the display going through the igpu to isolate the Nvidia card from os overhead.

That's true, but there have been legit benches done right that still show the same issues.

Rusty0611 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:27

melmac said:
wow at this attitude?? If it's a hardware issue then the card is faulty. Just because the issue might not affect you at the moment doesn't change that.

^^

'Wow' at your failure to read everything. We've already been through all of that. I see little point in doing the same again.

ChrisJSY · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:27

Legend said:
Thing is, if the 980 CAN use all its RAM, but the 970 can't, there simply HAS to be a definitive reason for this, and if it's NOT hardware, there must be some suspicion this was done deliberately so as to give the 980 a clear advantage... perhaps they made the 970 TOO good, and realised they had to do something to hold it back. Let's hope this IS the case and it's something they can fix with firmware, because I truly do not want to be embroiled in the almighty sh*tstorm that will inevitably follow if this turns out to be an unfixable hardware fault!!

Furthermore, if the fault is with Aero, some other resource hogging the memory, or the benchmark itself, surely the 980 would show an identical memory fault as the 970? It hasn't though has it?

Thats my stance on it.

Same company, same series, two different cards
One works properly, the other doesn't.

Who's to blame? Sounds like an easy target to point the finger at.

Edit: I'm just going to ride this out and see what happens.

Rusty0611 · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:31

It's interesting that a few guys are coming out and reporting the issue they've been having and this confirms to them that they have a genuine issue. If anything, getting it out there is going to help a lot of people reconcile their issues and start the process of sorting it out.

That's definitely a positive.

Bonjour · 23 Jan 2015 at 18:32

It appears to only affect the 970 series...