• 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.
f03d5957032be2f907f9626b78e6ef22d51500fd_full.jpg

:D, this thread has made my day. Thank you OP!
 
**snip**

So another point in that perhaps they have advertised a 256bit bus width but only delivered a 208bit bus width?

1664/2048 = 0.8125
208/256 = 0.8125

(From the 970 vs 980 runs above)
150/178 = 0.84



Not trying to add to the flames... just curious...

Someone on Guru3D came up with the same hypothesis.
 
I ran that bench on my GTX 980 (yes 980) and mine also dips at around 3.4GB.

Gaming though I have not had a single issue, the cards have been running perfectly when all 4GB of VRAM is used, and the cards have spent the majority of their time at 3.5 to 4GB of VRAM usage (about 3 months I've had these).

Playing Shadow of Mordor at 1080p with ultra textures is silky smooth and has no frame rate drops at all, that game with ultra textures permanently sticks to 3.8GB to 4GB of VRAM and I have put around 35hrs into it with the 980's.

Watch Dogs also runs fine with 3.5 to 4GB of VRAM used, as well as many other VRAM demanding games I have ran in the last few months.

Considering my gaming performance with 4GB of VRAM used has been flawless, I am completely ignoring this benchmark result.

Edit - Just though I would add that before I ran the bench Windows 8.1 was using around 450MB of VRAM.

GTX%20980_zpscoeilgmc.jpg

That's why you have to run the benchmark in headless mode (ie, no monitor attached).
 
If it was AMD product with that defect, there would be people with torches on the streets asking for the company to be crucified.

However, I read here "is a feature, we are OK" or "not needed so much vram", "irrelevant to every day use" even from others "AMD fanboy hate rumours". :rolleyes:

Where's gregster these days :D?

Heheheh :D
 
Where's gregster these days :D?

TBH I'm pretty sure he won't care. He owns Titans, doesn't have to play with mid ranged parts.

I bought my TBs about two weeks before the 970 and 980 launched. The only regret? I could have had three 970s for the price I paid.

Thing is, what use is 3.5gb VRAM over three GPUs for 4k? it's ruddy useless is what it is.

God, I really, truly dodged a bullet there :eek:
 
If it was AMD product with that defect, there would be people with torches on the streets asking for the company to be crucified.

However, I read here "is a feature, we are OK" or "not needed so much vram", "irrelevant to every day use" even from others "AMD fanboy hate rumours". :rolleyes:



Heheheh :D

AMD gets a lot of flak for their coolers, but atleast we get fully functional RAM, PCBs and Cores. And are advertised as such, :rolleyes:
 
If it was AMD product with that defect, there would be people with torches on the streets asking for the company to be crucified.

However, I read here "is a feature, we are OK" or "not needed so much vram", "irrelevant to every day use" even from others "AMD fanboy hate rumours". :rolleyes:



Heheheh :D

One thing I can credit AMD for (and it's probably only the one lmao) is that they've never been tight with memory controllers or actual VRAM.

It's something people don't realise the importance of.
 
TBH I'm pretty sure he won't care. He owns Titans, doesn't have to play with mid ranged parts.

I bought my TBs about two weeks before the 970 and 980 launched. The only regret? I could have had three 970s for the price I paid.

Thing is, what use is 3.5gb VRAM over three GPUs for 4k? it's ruddy useless is what it is.

God, I really, truly dodged a bullet there :eek:

GK110s, beast graphics cards. But these 900 series cards have made a new breed of uneducated fanbois who read all these 970 vs 290 threads where people will say 970 ALL DAY. It has led me to hate these cards with a passion, not to mention the gimped bus width.

And as much as people hate to admit it (and wont 90% of the time) firestrike reflects gameplay performance to a certain extent and 290xs and 290s seem to score better on average, atleast my cards do :D.
 
GK110s, beast graphics cards. But these 900 series cards have made a new breed of uneducated fanbois who read all these 970 vs 290 threads where people will say 970 ALL DAY. It has led me to hate these cards with a passion, not to mention the gimped bus width.

And as much as people hate to admit it (and wont 90% of the time) firestrike reflects gameplay performance to a certain extent and 290xs and 290s seem to score better on average, atleast my cards do :D.

shhh don't burst bubbles.

And please do not mention the "money saving from electricity" :D
 
They won't have to recall, because legally the card does have 4gb of VRAM. So it's not like they're mis-selling the card like that.

The GPU itself accesses that 4gb in a odd way, and yeah it's like, totally crap, but the bottom line is there is 4gb there and the card can use it all (just not very well).

Basically? they've pulled a fast one. This is why the only thing I like about Nvidia are their drivers, and it ends there. This is a mid range GPU being sold as a high end one for a top end price.

BS? totally, but that's Nvidia for you.
Are you a lawyer? Obviously not. If this snowballs, your argument is deeply flawed on every level. I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but if the card cannot utilise 4GB RAM without falling over itself, then you do not have 4GB of usable RAM, because once you get over 3.5 and a game tries to access the remaining 0.5, it will stutter and (can) become unplayable. How is this remotely acceptable? As more games demand that level of RAM, this problem is only going to escalate... GTAV people? A storm is coming...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom