-
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
- Thread starter kitch9
- Start date
- Status
You were all over the beginning of this thread talking about lawsuits and other nonsense 'if the ram couldnt be utilised' when it clearly could from the screenshoots of the original benchmark in the OP! Which, despite me saying it over and over, you ignored. So what does that make you, one of those people misinterpreting benchmarks?
Whilst others and I have been trying to recreate the problem with actual games, you've done nothing but scaremonger. I didnt realise you actually owned a 970 since you contributed so little to the thread. You just questioned how the thread has got so long for a second time - you do realise you've made more posts in it than anybody else, right?
Kaap beat me in the posting and contribution race
So if we could find a programme that caused pretty much any card to perform well under its stated spec's, would the situation not be the same as this?
As it seems to me that the only issue here is that this nai benchmark has highlighted a problem that wouldn't of shown up if it wasn't for the way that benchmark is written.
So let's all run furmark and then we can sue both Nvidia and AMD for stating that their cards run at certain speeds. When in reality performance will drop under certain circumstances.
As it seems to me that the only issue here is that this nai benchmark has highlighted a problem that wouldn't of shown up if it wasn't for the way that benchmark is written.
So let's all run furmark and then we can sue both Nvidia and AMD for stating that their cards run at certain speeds. When in reality performance will drop under certain circumstances.
I never encouraged a lawsuit or other such nonsense. As I've said before, I just said such action wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be true. It's one thing if the RAM is utilised, but it was people reporting noticeable performance issues (so it seemed anyway) between 3.5-4GB, that's what kicked this whole thing off... and I had nothing to do with that. This snowball was already rolling when I chimed in (on this forum and many others). And to most people it seemed like a VERY serious problem. I've said all along we really don't know anything for sure though, and if this DOES turn out to be one big false alarm, fair enough. It sounds like you're almost suggesting however that this should have been nipped in the bud right from the start, and should never have even got this far. I don't agree with that.
I have a 970 yes (with a second on pre-order)... I've been away from my system the past few days though, so have not been able to test anything. If someone can direct me to some benchmarks/tools though, I will gladly contribute my own results to this debate ASAP.
Last edited:
Yay! Do I win a 970?...you do realise you've made more posts in it than anybody else, right?
And these circumstances in the case of GK110s and Hawaii cards is when you run out of RAM, which happens to be ACTUAL 4gb and 3gb framebuffers, rather than 3.5 instead of the 4 as advertised.
I wouldnt hate Nvidia as much if they just made this clear from the very beginning instead of practicing this malicious behavior.
Just the 970.
Weird, they are the same are they not? one just has less shaders.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
As I said before, I am confident this will all turn out to be nothing.
But to end it once and for all, someone needs to find a game setting that uses 3800MB exactly of VRAM on a 980, then run the same on a 970.
But to end it once and for all, someone needs to find a game setting that uses 3800MB exactly of VRAM on a 980, then run the same on a 970.
That is what is causing the problem, how the SMX modules (and which ones) have been disabled as it effects how the memory bus is accessed.
Now I can understand the difference.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html
Yeah just seen this, looking at that according to Nvidia the performance dip difference is marginal, only 1 or 3 percentage points?
In other words nothing, not something that you would notice.
It strikes me as a bit of a fob-off, or are these complainants all just incredibly anal, would one even notice a 2% performance difference going over 3.5GB?
Last edited:
Nvidia release stated this is intentional - essentially to prevent reduced bandwidth from 0.5GB affecting performance all the time, by preferentially using the unhindered 3.5GB.
Seems to be speculation, not sure there is any evidence. Or at least none presented in this thread. (CBA myself to trawl the other forums, not that interested tbh although the engineering aspect itself is interesting)
Perhaps a few % going by Nvidia's provided benchmarks.
Why does it strike you as a "fob off"?
I think NVidia have got it about right with their statement.
What I think is causing a problem is monitoring software can only see the 3.5gb part of the memory and will report that the card is using that even if it really is using 3.5, 4.0 or trying to use more than 4.0gb. It is the last bit that I think is causing real world problems where the card tries to use more than 4gb and performs badly and users only see 3.5gb reported as used in something like GPUZ.
- Status