• 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.
Harlequin said:
don't start about fire ridden cards - I know(PERSONALLY) of a GTX 480 that caught fire thanks to NV drivers
Click to expand...

The 590 was the best one. Saw loads of them go pop on Youtube :D

Nvidia love cutting corners on power phases. In fact, since Fermi they've cut corners about every way they can.

Just ask 8 Pack what he thinks about Nvidia stock cards. There's a reason they come voltage locked, let's put it that way.....
 
jwilliamson47 said:
I'm only trying to have a bit of fun. My actual opinion is, I feel disgusted by this whole situation and Nvidia's canned response is pathetic. It doesn't matter if it's AMD, Nvidia or Intel, you cannot incorrectly sell a product and expect consumers to just deal with it. By law, Nvidia have to do something here, and they think it's just going to disappear. Their reputation is at rock-bottom now and the longer this goes on, the worst it will get.
Click to expand...


Actually by law nvidia dont have to do anything as no one here bought anything from nvidia. The retailers on the other hand will have a gay old time sorting through customer complaints.
 
jwilliamson47 said:
No need! I'm an owner of 2 Gigabyte G1 Gaming 970s and bought those for 1440p games. 4GB is the minimum I required and even considered going down the 8GB 290X route or 295x2. I've tried the recent graphically intensive games and when they hit that 3600 mark, it just tanks.
Click to expand...

It's a shame because apart from that the 970's are good cards, the 290's are actually faster and better at very high res and lots of AA, but the down side there is they do use a lot more power most of the time, and the 970's are still no slouch at that more demanding stuff.

It seems true what is being said above, Nvidia are always looking for that angle to cut costs, it usually results in some, a minority having a bad time with them.

It's almost as if they calculate this, we can cut costs here and it will only affect a small number of people..... we can get away with it

AMD: for all their faults... at least they just get on with it and give us what we want from an all-out no compromise performance enthusiasts point of view.

Thats why some people are very loyal to AMD.
 
Last edited:
melmac said:
Here are some frametime results. Use Google translate to read some of the site, I am too lazy at the moment :p

Make whatever deductions/conclusions you want from this info.

PCGamesHardware.de:

]
Click to expand...

The take away from that is mainly that watchdogs runs like crap at 4K on both 970's and 980's
The 970 is visibly worse at the below 3.5gb settings and stays worse at 4k
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
No idea why your usage is so low, what resolution are you running? Are you sure you have GPU acceleration enabled in stuff like Steam/Chrome/etc?

Really? because I see similar results on my backup 290 rig, hence why this issue isn't bothering me in the slightest because I know I'm not really losing out on anything.
Click to expand...

1080P with FF GPU acceleration it sits at 250MB which is still less than yours and i dont turn it off for the sake of Vram and nothing has been disabled in steam.
You seem bothered enough to keep posting and at the end of the day i dont see an issue until im hitting the 4096Vram limit, what the Vram usage is made up of is irrelevant as its at 4096 before im getting issues and not at 3500 or anything in between.
 
Last edited:
Lets just say I'm average Joe warcraft gamer that plays at 1680 x 1050, this 970 thing ... is it really an issue to me? should I actually be super happy the price on these things is going to drop?
 
Adam Holland said:
Lets just say I'm average Joe warcraft gamer that plays at 1680 x 1050, this 970 thing ... is it really an issue to me? should I actually be super happy the price on these things is going to drop?
Click to expand...

You'd be lucky to break 1gb, let alone 4gb.

It's only really an issue at 1440p and higher, and most importantly, 4k.

The issue would have been spotted at launch, had we some real 4k games to test with. They are coming now, literally, by the day.

In fact no, let me rephrase that. Had there been more VRAM slaughtering sloppy console ports when these launched it would have been spotted sooner.

The new consoles have 8 gb total system memory. 2gb is system reserved, the other is fair game, so that's 6gb.

Will game devs optimise the textures? let's put it this way, I wouldn't bet 1p of your money on it. So, as we move forward expect games to chow down on VRAM, but not at your res.
 
ALXAndy said:
You'd be lucky to break 1gb, let alone 4gb.

It's only really an issue at 1440p and higher, and most importantly, 4k.

The issue would have been spotted at launch, had we some real 4k games to test with. They are coming now, literally, by the day.

In fact no, let me rephrase that. Had there been more VRAM slaughtering sloppy console ports when these launched it would have been spotted sooner.

The new consoles have 8 gb total system memory. 2gb is system reserved, the other is fair game, so that's 6gb.

Will game devs optimise the textures? let's put it this way, I wouldn't bet 1p of your money on it. So, as we move forward expect games to chow down on VRAM, but not at your res.
Click to expand...




^^^ just had too LOL at the way ALXAndy put things in that post.
 
melmac said:
Here are some frametime results. Use Google translate to read some of the site, I am too lazy at the moment :p

Make whatever deductions/conclusions you want from this info.
Click to expand...

I already posted the graphs but the conclusion.
However, once the memory above 3.5 gigabytes is really needed and the driver can not shirk that it be situated in Ultra-HD with 4 x MSAA and "High" texture maps with up to 3,980 MiB, shows that there must be tricked, to view the full four gigabytes. The frametimes be far more uneven compared to the GTX 980 (which, incidentally, may approve about 70 MiB more still) and it shows not only in the diagram, but sensitive natures can do this in a direct comparison in the game notice.

Away from "normal" benchmarks are the differences between GTX 970 and 980 clearly than would imply the previously known specifications - at least in the on our benchmarks. While the behavior of the driver and the heuristic possibly obtain different application-specific good results, remains a stale aftertaste whether one or the other or stuttering stutterers in the border area with the previously announced Nvidia configuration would not be avoided.
Click to expand...
 
razorpakk said:
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Dying_Light-test-dl__vram.jpg


Too close.
Click to expand...

Way too close. I was messing with DY at 5760x1080, about 6 mp and the vram consumption was spiking to 3.9gb lol. What a terribly coded game!
 
Last time I tried running Watch Dogs maxed at 4K it took 4 overclocked Titans to get it to run ok and even then the game used the entire 6gb of VRAM available.

I also tried on quadfired 290Xs but these 4gb cards could not even load the game.:)
 
This was just posted in the main thread on the Nvidia forums:

PeterS@NVIDIA


Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down.

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter



My question is, to what extent will OCUK honour a refund for a card if so desired?
 
Oh dear.... LOL!!! :eek:

shrekeh said:
This was just posted in the main thread on the Nvidia forums:

PeterS@NVIDIA


Hey,

First, I want you to know that I'm not just a mod, I work for NVIDIA in Santa Clara.

I totally get why so many people are upset. We messed up some of the stats on the reviewer kit and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. I realize a lot of you guys rely on product reviews to make purchase decisions and we let you down.

It sucks because we're really proud of this thing. The GTX970 is an amazing card and I genuinely believe it's the best card for the money that you can buy. We're working on a driver update that will tune what's allocated where in memory to further improve performance.

Having said that, I understand that this whole experience might have turned you off to the card. If you don't want the card anymore you should return it and get a refund or exchange. If you have any problems getting that done, let me know and I'll do my best to help.

--Peter



My question is, to what extent will OCUK honour a refund for a card if so desired?
Click to expand...

Post #2412

Link >> https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/161/
PeterS@NVIDIA

--Peter Sierant
Senior Director of Customer Care
NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara CA
408-486-2000
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom