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

RavenXXX2 · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:53

The proof is in the video, 980 utilizing its 4gb, the 970 scraping the barrel at 3.5 hence the stutter.

Mal X · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:54

Gregster said:
Depends on where you look. Plenty of people reporting stutter on a 980, a 970, a 290X, a 290, a Titan Black etc in different games. Hell, I get stutter in Elite Dangerous when I get near to a planet...Faulty Titan memory ya think?

yes, that vid also looked dodgy with the 980 as well !!!

Gregster · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:55

RavenXXX2 said:
The proof is in the video, 980 utilizing its 4gb, the 970 scraping the barrel at 3.5 hence the stutter.

So if I pick a video, that conclusively proves that it is the card and not the game/system?

easyrider · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:57

RavenXXX2 said:
The proof is in the video, 980 utilizing its 4gb, the 970 scraping the barrel at 3.5 hence the stutter.

Why isn't the gtx 970 using the 500 mb bit? Surely the game at same res should use same amount of ram ?

The 980 is seen clearly using 3.9 gb

RavenXXX2 · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:58

The site that recorded that video have done in-depth testing and confirmed the 970 is worse off against the 980 when the memory is maxed in certain games. So yes that video is conclusive proof backed up by testing.

setter · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:59

Mal X said:
yes, i would recommend this for 1080p as well..... i wouldn't fool around doing this in 1/2 measures anymore.... save yourself the grief, spend a bit more and get a monster or two inside your rig.

I personally have no interest in 4k myself as the range of cards to handle it is so small and you need several to run it. But as others have said, it depends on the games you play. Myself im an fps fan, still only at 1200 res where the cards I own do grand in what I play, and will also be ok at 1440p. Its not a great time in the gpu market for upgrading for someone like me. Nothing is a big enough improvement over what I have. Hopefully the next round of cards can change this. Though tbh I'm sceptical.

easyrider · 2 Feb 2015 at 16:59

RavenXXX2 said:
The site that recorded that video have done in-depth testing and confirmed the 970 is worse off against the 980 when the memory is maxed in certain games. So yes that video is conclusive proof backed up by testing.

Why is the gtx 970 using less ram at the same res as the 980 tho?

StrongSad · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:02

easyrider said:
Why isn't the gtx 970 using the 500 mb bit? Surely the game at same res should use same amount of ram ?

The 980 is seen clearly using 3.9 gb

I posted on Friday that my 970 was hitting 3.5 but with the same Nvidia experience setting on my 980 is was hitting 4... I will see if I have the screen shots still... AC-U

easyrider · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:02

setter said:
I personally have no interest in 4k myself as the range of cards to handle it is so small and you need several to run it. But as others have said, it depends on the games you play. Myself im an fps fan, still only at 1200 res where the cards I own do grand in what I play, and will also be ok at 1440p. Its not a great time in the gpu market for upgrading for someone like me. Nothing is a big enough improvement over what I have. Hopefully the next round of cards can change this. Though tbh I'm sceptical.

I'm going amd and freesync ...it's seems to be more less profit based

Paying a premium for Gsync just does my head in now....I need a new monitor and 1440p is my next upgrade...

RavenXXX2 · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:02

easyrider said:
Why is the gtx 970 using less ram at the same res as the 980 tho?

At a guess its being limited by the nvidia drivers to not go in that **** 500mb of vram that might makes things worse.

easyrider · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:03

Strudders said:
I posted on Friday that my 970 was hitting 3.5 but with the same Nvidia experience setting on my 980 is was hitting 4... I will see if I have the screen shots still... AC-U

Why is the 970 not accessing the slower 500mb bit ?

Harlequin · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:03

easyrider said:
I'm going amd and freesync ...it's seems to be more less profit based

Paying a premium for Gsync just does my head in now....I need a new monitor and 1440p is my next upgrade...

especially since its been proven that you don't need the g-sync module to get g-sync to work.... Asus leaked drivers on an Asus laptop (pcper have the video)

easyrider · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:04

RavenXXX2 said:
At a guess its being limited by the nvidia drivers to not go in that **** 500mb of vram that might makes things worse.

Sux ******* ***** ******* cheating ******** :mad:

Mal X · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:05

Bonjour said:
FC3 was a stuttery mess on crossfired 290s as well. I put it down to the game.

Well, maybe not a 'mess', but nowhere near as smooth as a well coded game like Tomb Raider for example.

this points towards rubbish console ports that have been released within the last 6 months..........add to this ``the evil within``, that was utter rubbish too.

FC3 definitely isn't a stuttery mess now, it's no worst than Borderlands 2

easyrider · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:05

Harlequin said:
especially since its been proven that you don't need the g-sync module to get g-sync to work.... Asus leaked drivers on an Asus laptop (pcper have the video)

More lies ? :mad:

that's disgusting !

Linky ?

Harlequin · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:06

easyrider said:
More lies ? that's disgusting !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7SYvgB6SZ4

setter · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:10

easyrider said:
More lies ? that's disgusting !

Linky ?

It hasn't been proven to work on desktop monitors yet, just laptops. The article/videos showing this could be lies for all we know.

Touche · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:11

naujoks said:
I'm actually someone who has the setup which should create all the difficulties:
2 GTX 970 in SLI, connected to the Philips 40" 4K monitor.

I can report the following frame rates from playing these games:

Far Cry 4 - 4k, everything on ultra, 2x AA: between 30 and 60 FPS. No stuttering (but other artefacts, which I blame on the game but not on the card, as Far Cry is the only game where I see them.

Dying Light - 4k, everything on high, AA off, as AA on produces horrible texture flickering (again, that's the game, not the card). Between 30 and 50 FPS, but some stuttering when you turn around quickly. It's very playable though.

Dragon Age Inquisition - 4k, everything on high, 2x AA, between 30 and 60 FPS. No stuttering, except when you turn around quickly. Very playable.

I was considering getting a second GTX 780 to the one I used to have, then got the two 970s. Only when I had ordered them did I read about the "bug" and got worried. However, these two ASUS cards are silent in desktop mode and use a lot less power. I didn't bother trying everything out with the two GTX 780. I doubt I would have got better results from them.

In case you're wondering: I'm keeping these two cards as I'm very happy with them.

That is exactly where you would see the issue the most, when the game has to load new textures.

4 GB GTX 970 vs 3 GB GTX 780 - Dying Light

Tonester0011 · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:12

Even if it was true, i still wouldn't care.
I don't even like G-Sync lol.

sativa1874 · 2 Feb 2015 at 17:17

Swapped my 2 G1 970's for 2 KFA2 980 SOC today

[/IMG]

My g1's were running at 1560/8000 these seem quicker on stock only played about with Mordor a bit all maxed. but its definitely smoother.
Both boosting to 1364, about same temps as my G1's will play about a bit more later as dogs need walked

These cards seem like a steal at £400

**Please ensure images are no wider than 1024 or use spoiler tags.**