• 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.
africanos23 said:
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 aslong
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

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.
Click to expand...

STERLING STUFF Africanos23, one of the few people bothering to try.

I need cod to try, who wants to gift me cod? lol
 
geez james who made u the try police!
maybe if we were allowed more than 1 thread on this subject it wouldnt be such a mess :o
lol ><
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg said:
I actually can't believe there is people sticking up for nVidia in this instance. No matter how they dress it up, the product that was sold to us, is not the product we have.
Click to expand...

It's these kind of articles that show how deep some posters bias runs. They pretend to be neutral yet when the crap hits the fan they are telling those who suffer this issue to.

  • Turn down their video settings
  • Upgrade
  • Stop moaning over a 4% performance drop
  • Don't run 4K

Thankfully only a small handful act like this, take not of their names and remember the next time the claim "they are neutral".
 
Last edited:
africanos23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great work and thanks for taking the time to post this. I have a 4K monitor and a single GTX980. I was contemplating going 2x GTX970s for SLI but not a chance considering these revelations.

Thanks again +rep.
 
Mei said:
geez james who made u the try police!
maybe if we were allowed more than 1 thread on this subject it wouldnt be such a mess :o
lol ><
Click to expand...

I know, harsh but come on. There's an enormous amount of bickering and very little factual information in here. Somebody did say a while back that we need a separate thread for videos on this - they were right. Anything useful is getting buried in the bickering.
 
ICDP said:
Great work and thanks for taking the time to post this. I have a 4K monitor and a single GTX980. I was contemplating going 2x GTX970s for SLI but not a chance considering these revelations.

Thanks again +rep.
Click to expand...

Thanks, No point in that imo. I guess my R9-290s will have to stop collecting dust for now and I will upgrade to R9-3XX or Titans when Witcher comes out.
 
james.miller said:
I know, harsh but come on. There's an enormous amount of bickering and very little factual information in here. Somebody did say a while back that we need a separate thread for videos on this - they were right. Anything useful is getting buried in the bickering.
Click to expand...

yep then they jump on this one without watching the video or reading anything official & get caught up in the nonsense :)
sweeet
 
stooeh said:
Cheers, do you remember where abouts as even on max settings (Fade Touched+4xMSAA) at 1440p I'm struggling to hit 3.5GB VRAM running about the Hinterlands :p

Currently uploading the vid of it to youtube .
Click to expand...

Yup in the Hinterlands in the forest at the start where the mages are fighting the Templars.
 
ICDP said:
Thankfully only a small handful act like this, take not of their names and remember the next time the claim "they are neutral".
Click to expand...

I've certainly made a mental note of some names and with a memory like mine it doesn’t matter how long it takes, I will monitor these forums like a hawk, waiting for the opportunity to pounce, and when the opportunity arises I will…

… Sorry what was the question again?, I'll have the salad please.
 
One of the problems here, is the fact that there are several steps to the chain, from Nvidia to us for these cards.
For example: Nvidia sells the cores to MSI, MSI build the cards( I know they probably have someone else build them) and send them out to their distributers who in turn send them out to the retailers who then sell them to us.

So just who is going to give us a refund.

It will take time for these things to be worked out, but it will all start with Nvidia agreeing to do it, because if they don't it isn't happening.

Now the question of whether they should or not is the crux of the matter. (Personally if I was offered a refund I would take it and then buy a 980 :))

What I think is important is what Nividia do now. They have admitted that there was a mistake( intentional or not is irrelevant) so the worlds reviewers know that this card isn't what Nvidia said it was. Can they trust what Nvidia say about the next card, is that going to make a difference to their review site hits.
There are a lot more than just us the end consumer that has been misinformed about this issue, the performance being what it is isn't the biggest problem in my opinion, but what Nvidia do next is.

They have a few choices as I see it.

They could ignore the complaints, stating that all the specs extra are subject to change so tuff. this would anger a lot of people and probably hurt sales and share prices the most. Any law suits could be buried under a mountain of money so they become so long and drawn out that it wouldn't matter, but this in its self would hurt Nvidia long term.

They could agree, they were in the wrong and offer up some form of trivial compensation. This would be game vouchers or some such thing. This would appease most people and certainly help keep Nvidia's image from too much damage.

They could agree there was a mistake and offer up complete refunds of the 970's to any who want them. this would do the most to good to Nvidia's image, it would cost the most. Of course not all the buyers would want to do the refund.

Then there is the question of what do you buy instead, of course you could go to AMD, but they are only a few months away from replacing their flagship card, so is a 290/x a good idea right now? or of course there is the other companies second tier card, oh wait that would be a 970. So it would seem that right now the options are to go for a card that is about to be replaced or a 980 (which of course is more money for Nvidia).

If I was them I know what I would do, but of course we will have to wait and see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom