• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Running Man said:
It is virtually unusable. In the one instance you proposed you didn't see a large effect true. But that doesn't mean that the stuff loaded into that extra 512mb was actually being used or accessed or indeed just cached. If your not testing this then you won't see the expected outcomr..
Click to expand...

Get back to me when you find a game that does it. I haven't yet.

ICDP said:
And you miss the point that it's 3 games so far and in future that number WILL get bigger. People didn't purchase a ~£250 GPU so it would suffer issues like this. Especially considering this performance problem was conveniently hidden prior to purchase.

Saying it's only 3 games, or turn the details down is disingenuous to those who may increasingly encounter this issue as more games are released. Not nice to find your ~£250 GPU worthless for some games unless you "turn down the details" so you don't enouncer a VRAM cap you never thought existed.
Click to expand...

All this missing the point stuff is getting tedious. And i dont want to say it again but please read my post again. For example, why are people supprised that SoM stutters when the same settings use 6gb of vram on a titan? 6 does not go in to 4!
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
Ideally yes, but more realistically is may be as I mentioned previously- give them the option to trade-in the 970 and pay £100~£150 extra for a 980.
Click to expand...

i think that would go over extremely badly lol
"you are unhappy you were lied to? just give us some more money and we will try to make it up to you!"
lol!

nah maybe people will choose the 980 with their refunded money but i dont see anything but a full refund to the disgruntled customers making it better

im not saying thats what WILL happen but i dont think any of the other options are fair
 
~>Dg<~ said:
how is that a fair option if something is wrong their end not ours ?
Click to expand...
Mei said:
i think that would go over extremely badly lol
"you are unhappy you were lied to? just give us some more money and we will try to make it up to you!"
lol!

nah maybe people will choose the 980 with their refunded money but i dont see anything but a full refund to the disgruntled customers making it better

im not saying thats what WILL happen but i dont think any of the other options are fair
Click to expand...
I'm not in disagreement with you at all...but I was just saying reality usually doesn't not meet with ideals. With Nvidia being Nvidia, I would imagine they can get away with it just fine, so the running-up solution would be at least to have the option for 970 users to trade-in their 970s and add money to exchange for a 980.

Yes it's far from ideal, but it is an option that's better than no option.
 
Last edited:
mulpsmebeauty said:
Have you tested next year's games yet?
Click to expand...

That's 12 months away.

I will happily say that if games cause problems because they are using 4gb of ram then my card is no longer up to the job and i will sell and upgrade to something faster, with more ram (and 1 year is longer than most people keep cards here so you cant have me there:p).....Or i'll just knock a few settings down and keep it for another year. Can't make that decision yet, dont know what hardware will be around or pricing of.
 
james.miller said:
Get back to me when you find a game that does it. I haven't yet.



All this missing the point stuff is getting tedious. And i dont want to say it again but please read my post again. For example, why are people supprised that SoM stutters when the same settings use 6gb of vram on a titan? 6 does not go in to 4!
Click to expand...

Umm loads of people experienced either the card capping at 3500mb or stuttering at more.

How do you think the issue came about?
 
I dont think there is a case for the card does not have 4GB as it does have 4GB and it all can be used in some sort of fashion, but there is a case for the how the 4GB is split, ROP and Cache.
 
Last edited:
OCuk will be waiting for nvidia UK to authorise returns for refund. OCuk cannot afford to be out of pocket nor should they be as they will have taken the product in good faith like the rest of us.

Legally I can't see how nvidia can get away with it but I'm sure they might try.

As soon as a high level decision is taken to fund the refunds OCuk will start offering them I am sure or at least tell you to contact msi, asus etc that will offer the same but these things take days to organise.

Just remember the intel SATA 2 issue.
 
The Running Man said:
Umm loads of people experienced either the card capping at 3500mb or stuttering at more.

How do you think the issue came about?
Click to expand...

the issue came about because people were noticing the card hitting 3.5gb usage in gpu-z and sitting there with the game stuttering like mad.
Then that benchmark came out.
Then all hell broke loose and everybody said the gpu only had 3.5gb of ram.
Then we all argued.
Then nvidia clarified the hardware makeup.
Then we argued some more.


The thing is, nvidia confirmed that gpu-z doesnt read memory usage properly, whilst afterburner does. So this leaves a big unanswered question over what those original people were actually seeing. Was it stuttering because of a 3.5gb wall, i were they using over 4gb and paging? that question was asked very earlier on in this thread and no, it still hasnt been answered. sigh.

So, here we are now, in a 2k post thread where 95% of it is complaining about the hardware makeup, 4% of it is Legend banging on about lawsuits and the other 1% is the rest of us trying to varify, either way, whether this is really affecting games or not.

I think its time for people to put up or shut up.
 
I tested (for roughly 5 hours) mostly SOM COD DA , I mentioned yesterday I was going to replicate the stutter issues I had on a few games that stress out the VRAM above 3.5GB and upload vids and benches.

I have found some kind of explanation to what some users are seeing differently between each other. (This is speculation on the driver level and MSI Afterburner VRAM readings for some memory modules)

With the new 347.25 WHQL driver it's very hard to push VRAM like on the previous drivers other than SOM or supersampling 4K.
The driver will basically try EVERYTHING to not go over 3570MB and if it does it goes in 64,128MB or 256mb chunks depending on the game.
COD in the menu and some tools were reading the card as 3876~ MB while SOM seemed to stutter (felt like a VRAM bottleneck) at roughly that level ~3880MB.

COD would in no way pass 3570MB even though the VRAM usage was the same on a lot lower levels of detail. Pushing 4K needed supersampling x2 but no point in that.

The way the driver is showing the extra 0.5GB VRAM is strange and I think it's one of the reasons people are seeing varied results. I think theres a margin of error on the memory readings.

This is what happens to me,
1. Up to <3540mb is fine (most of the time) with no stutter
2. >3540-3670mb range the whole time (some stutter and slowdowns in this area)
3. 3670-3880mb is a dead spot cant seem to get any kind of usage at that range.
4. 3880MB-4096 is stutter heaven basically the card gives up.

This is solely my observations and I think it has something to do with the readings and "maybe" my cards memory.

This is on a 3930K @ 4.7Ghz with SLI Galax GTX970s 16MB ram etc

I might have more time later in the week to check other things and upload vids etc as I am doing a Dying Light benchmark ATM.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom