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

[Rick@NVIDIA]

Rick, will a GTX970 in the future suffer performance wise when VRAM moves into 3.8GB/3.9GB usage compared to the GTX980?

The GTX 970 performance will remain as it is now.
There is only about a 3% difference in the performance drop when comparing a GTX 970 to a GTX 980 at high memory usage.

What you may see better performance as the drivers mature, as you will with all our GPU’s.

 

[humbug]

The GTX 970 performance will remain as it is now.
There is only about a 3% difference in the performance drop when comparing a GTX 970 to a GTX 980 at high memory usage.

What you may see better performance as the drivers mature, as you will with all our GPU’s.

Tell that to this guy, and many more like him.

 

[oldestgregg]

Not sure man but lots of folk on Ubi's forums have the issue (or other issues, such as QTE events not triggering when a controller is plugged in). If I unplug the controller the game runs fine, but sadly I never learned KB+M controls and three decades of gamepads is now too ingrained!

I found the stuttering less noticeable using the pad as you turn slower so the pan was easier on the eye.

 

[Twirlywoos]

https://forums.geforce.com/default/...tx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/post/4438166/#4438166

I think that future driver updates will help performance including SLI performance, but obviously I can't guarantee that.

To be clear, if you no longer want the card and can't get the manufacturer to help you out somehow, I'm offering to help by contacting them on your behalf. I can't guarantee anything specific like refund vs credit vs upgrade+cash or whatever as they are independent companies.

 

[Martini1991]

The GTX 970 performance will remain as it is now.
There is only about a 3% difference in the performance drop when comparing a GTX 970 to a GTX 980 at high memory usage.

What you may see better performance as the drivers mature, as you will with all our GPU’s.

So, what you're saying, is that when a 970 uses the normal 3.5GB, then X or Y of this slower 0.5Gb, that there will only be a 3% performance degradation?

 

[RavenXXX2]

That Nvidia response was basically "sorry you feel upset, but we don't care". Or is it just me that got that vibe from his post? I won't be early adopting Nvidia products in the future that's for sure.

Yes poor response from them, AMD will be my next GPU.

 

[oldestgregg]

Tell that to this guy, and many more like him.

Wow. I hadnt seen that before and this isnt going to quietly go away is it! Seeing as Im still rocking a 780 I had thought about going 980 but me thinks the new AMD cards will be my next big GPU upgrade now.

 

[Martini1991]

Tell that to this guy, and many more like him.

So far I've noticed in quite a bit of testing that while they do happen frequently at the same time, they happen independently of each other as well. At this point, I cannot say with any confidence that the glitches recorded by shadowplay have anything to do with the supposed 3.5GB issue. When I'm done testing and have video to show, as well as the input from another party, I will post a link to that with a conclusion, if a conclusion can even be made.

Using Far Cry 4 to capture video to show the hitching that occurs above around 3.5GB VRAM usage, shadowplay captured these glitches, which appeared during play only as stuttering and short freezing. I'm not sure if this is pertinent to the current unrest over the possible misrepresentation of the GTX970's specifications, but here it is, in case it is.

EDIT: I want to clarify that I am NOT saying this is absolutely an indication of the 3.5GB issue (or non-issue) concerning the GTX970. It might be, it might not be. I just found it interesting that these glitches were captured at above the 3.5GB threshold that many people are reporting issues with and made it available for possible use to get to the bottom of the question.

Is what the Youtube video owner says.

So, it's not exactly a good piece of "evidence"

 

[jwilliamson47]

The GTX 970 performance will remain as it is now.
There is only about a 3% difference in the performance drop when comparing a GTX 970 to a GTX 980 at high memory usage.

What you may see better performance as the drivers mature, as you will with all our GPU’s.

I'm sorry Rick, but this isn't acceptable. I'm a hardware reviewer and feel the pain customers are going through for a number of reasons. Forget the semantics of the situation, you cannot expect the average user to know about RAM pools, and the speed varitation. 4GB = 4GB at the maximum quote speed. Another issue, you state that the performance doesn't take a massive hit. This simply isn't true. The latest games at higer resolutions like 1440p stutter even on SLI setups and makes the cards not fit for purpose for high end gamers opting for dual card setups at 1440p. When the games exceed the 3.5gb vram, the framerate tanks with microstutter, hitching and a very sub-par experience.

If you expect users who spent £600 on an SLI 970 setup to accept the situation then you have really underestimated things. The performance IS lower than stated with modern game engines. Check, frametimes if you don't believe me.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Tell that to this guy, and many more like him

Did you even read the video description?

 

[madindehead]

I asked one of the marketing guys about this, as I find it quite interesting.

Miss-leading people is obviously a big no-no. Not releasing certain information, or withholding information is perfectly ok though: it's how marketing works.

As for the performance, given that the design of the memory architecture hasn't changed since release, the performance hasn't actually been degraded by finding out this information. The performance is the same as when it was released. It just so happens it falls over at over 3.5GB of VRAM usage. Nvidia probably knew that all along, but didn't release the information. That is not missleading people.

 

[Martini1991]

Did you even read the video description?

Of course he didn't.

He's still struggling to argue his way out of the paper bag I put on him earlier.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Pathetic if serious, if not my apologies.

if you understood the issues and how many i had with my card since buying it you would understand. also what i do i cant have the gpus not work.

add to that no help from nvidia in anyway.

then you see the issues coming out now on top . kinda ****

 

[humbug]

Wow. I hadnt seen that before and this isnt going to quietly go away is it! Seeing as Im still rocking a 780 I had thought about going 980 but me thinks the new AMD cards will be my next big GPU upgrade now.

Keep the 780 for now, it's an excellent card. the 970 isn't really any quicker overclocked vs overclocked anyway.

 

[Sin_Chase]

It's a real crying shame that people are using this as an opportunity to stick their preferential-branded oar in and cause unrest. Rather than posting balanced, factual information.

We have the likes of humbug finding a video demonstrating glitchy behaviour as 'proof' of the 970 issues, despite the fact even the AUTHOR of the video is not putting it down to the 'issue' at hand. It's disgusting and does NOTHING to help genuine 970 owners who are trying to decide what to do, how they might be able to do it and when.

 

[Thesnipergecko]

Miss-leading people is obviously a big no-no. Not releasing certain information, or withholding information is perfectly ok though: it's how marketing works.

So it's OK for me to sell you a car that looks like a Ferrari but it really only has a Punto engine inside?

 

[africanos23]

The GTX 970 performance will remain as it is now.
There is only about a 3% difference in the performance drop when comparing a GTX 970 to a GTX 980 at high memory usage.

What you may see better performance as the drivers mature, as you will with all our GPU’s.

Sorry Rick but that's false.

The benchmark clearly shows some random custom resolutions (lower than 4K) that state over 3.5GB RAM and under 3.5GB RAM. It's cherry picking so you don't use more then 3.6GB where the issue is a lot more visible.

AVG FPS doesn't show stutter and secondly 3.54GB vs 3.8GB isn't the same. The % difference would be a lot higher when capping your "add whatever name for the slow memory here".

This is coming from a 4K SLI owner and person that has a benchmark website.

I have stated previously that issues (stutter) seem to become more noticeable, if firstly the driver doesn't force the cap and the game is able to USE not *allocate* on the VRAM.

 

[BuToNz]

if you understood the issues and how many i had with my card since buying it you would understand. also what i do i cant have the gpus not work.

add to that no help from nvidia in anyway.

then you see the issues coming out now on top . kinda ****

Wish I didn't have more important things than framerate to care about. This stuff does suck but certainly isn't the end of the world.

 

[oldestgregg]

Keep the 780 for now, it's an excellent card. the 970 isn't really any quicker overclocked vs overclocked anyway.

Im surprised how well its holding up bud. Dead island runs fairly well if you keep draw distance halfway and Ive played all the big games with only a few sliders partly turned down @1400p. You know what the GPU game is like though dont you...I just feel I SHOULD upgrade even though I probs dont really need to!

 

[humbug]

Another one here...http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/

Above the 3.5gb threshold, the game was BARELY playable. I believe it was even playable due to the nature of the game rather than the GTX 970 handling its Vram better in this particular title. Only the minimum FPS was representative of the ****** experience. What was 55 FPS felt like 15.

The GTX 970 is a 3.5gb card. It will perform horribly once 3.5gb of Vram is used and is a deal breaker to many high resolution enthusiasts.