• 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.
sprite1275

Some know the phone is that way, lots and lots of people don't.

I have not said Nvidia should not be all over this. far from it.
There are issues to be sorted and they should do it.

In this thread there are people posting over 4GB memory usage on a 970 (AC-U) with some saying that it is as good as their Titans.

Just saying
 
Rangerjr1 said:
Some people on here have said they have noticed stuttering and thought it was a result of a bad overclock for some time. I guess they're just too much in love with Nvidia to realize something might be wrong, or even blame the drivers lol
Click to expand...

I've experienced stutters from the get go with this Card while playing BF4. I blamed drivers/windows install. So, rebuilt my machine (W7) - same thing. Rebuilt with W8.1 - same thing. Removed all CPU overclocks, I'm sure you can guess.

That is why I requested a RMA at the End of Dec but has yet to be returned to OcUK. In light of this 'news' it certainly explains the problems I've been seeing and I've resurrected the RMA today. In my mind, I have a fully function 7970 that played BF4 fine. I will reinstall and use that from tonight.

I picked up the 970 to future proof a little. I guess, as soon as OcUK issue a new RMA code, I will wait for the next round of GPU to be released before buying again (NV or AMD).

She still clocks like a monster though :)
 
It appears there are too many variables to confirm or deny it is the card at present then? As usual, forums fan the flames of problems before they are proven.

That said, I do have concern for future use of my purchase. I have been over the moon at the card's performance thus far, but I have not stretched it and am gaming at 1080.

I absolutely planned on picking up a 1440p monitor later this year when I move my 970 set-up back into my custom loop in the attic room. The purchase of the 970 to enjoy now was in readyness for gaming at the next res.

I will be disappointed if that is not possible on the latest games at 1440 over a non-communicated design feature.


I hate having seeds of doubt sown for purchases of new tech.... and end up looking for problems that aren't there.
 
Rangerjr1 said:
It's ridiculous how some of you will say it's not an issue or something you have not noticed when you run single 1080p screen dammit lol. Your experience is not the same as the ones who are running high res setups. This problem does not apply to you, simply because you never had any intent of utilizing the card to its fullest potential. It's stupid, it's pathetic and it's just not necessary.
Click to expand...

This!

If you're not gaming at 1440p, 1600p, 4k or higher then your opinion is moot to be honest.
 
almighty15 said:
This!

If you're not gaming at 1440p, 1600p, 4k or higher then your opinion is moot to be honest.
Click to expand...

And there's me thinking it was a memory issue, not a resolution issue.


in other news, the 660ti had a similar (much more severe) memory arrangement!

google Translate said:
Geforce GTX 660 Ti in the test: Overview
Nvidia GTX 660 will revisit for the Ti-suffix and thus seeks an association to the metal titanium: "A lot of strength yet light" is the stated goal since the Geforce GTX 560 Ti The Geforce GTX. 660 Ti corresponds to a detail of the Geforce GTX 670: The 17.3 centimeters short board, including 2 GiByte GDDR5 Videopeicher is up on a GPU voltage phase is the same and the clock speeds of 915 / 3,004 MHz (GPU base clock / graphics memory) are identical. The installed Kepler chip GK104 has as usual over 1,344 active shader units, the drastic difference is in the truest sense of the memory interface: The GeForce GTX 670 has access to 256 data lines, the GeForce GTX 660 Ti only on the 192. " non-standard "interface along with" straight "amount of memory is made ​​according to Nvidia follows:

4 pieces 64Mx32: @ 1024MB 128-bit
4 pieces 64Mx32 in x16 mode: 1024MB @ 64-bit

Each of the eight memory modules accordingly has a capacity of 512 MiByte (8 x 512 = 2,048 MiB), but the interface incision does not allow any individual to a 32-bit channel clamp (8 x 32 = 256 bits). Nvidia chose the GTX 660 Ti to to connect half the memory, 1,024 MiB with a total of 128 bits, while the other half has to make do with 16 bits per block RAM (64-bit total). This means that the GTX 660 Ti has at least up to a memory allocation of 1,024 MiB over the full transfer rate with a throughput of about 144 Gbytes / sec. (At 3,004 MHz GDDR5) for allocated memory above this limit, the transfer rate to drop to half - depending on how the memory controller can be controlled, however, it is quite possible and likely that up to 1.5 GiByte the full range available is.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...Tests/Test-Nvidia-Geforce-GTX-660-Ti-1017214/
 
"We are aware of the issue and are waiting for NVidia to investigate and respond, we hope they will be able to resolve this in a timely manner”

Or something similar, they would be crazy to say anything else.
 
Bonjour said:
At the very least, it is a large (and growing) PR issue.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter...no matter how bad it the PR may be for Nvidia, it will only be temporary. Give it time it will eventually blow over and people will move on and forget about it when the next gen cards comes out, regardless of the issue in question being truly resolved or not at the end. The GTX590 incident was a very good example of this.

For the people who only game at 1920 res (who most likely ain't gonna hit the 3.5GB usage in games) that keep saying it his a "non-issue", I really think they should actually pay more attention to the 970 users that have commented they are having issue gaming at 2560 res or beyond and using up to 3.5GB of vram or beyond, rather than dismissing them and continue to arguing for arguing's sake. They are comparing orange to apple.

And anyone that thinks there are "AMD fanboys" throwing oil to the flame, please be rational able this. Nvidia having issue with their products doesn't not benefit them AT ALL in real term, as it might give AMD an excuse to charge more for new their products with it being so close to release now...
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
Doesn't matter...no matter how bad it the PR may be for Nvidia, it will only be temporary. Give it time it will eventually blow over and people will move on and forget about it when the next gen cards comes out, regardless of the issue in question being truly resolved or not at the end. The GTX590 incident was a very good example of this.
Click to expand...

And the GeForce FX series.
 
PayneUK said:
"We are aware of the issue and are waiting for NVidia to investigate and respond, we hope they will be able to resolve this in a timely manner”

Or something similar, they would be crazy to say anything else.
Click to expand...

They've already responded and they've already explained it.

3.5gb runs at the full stated bandwidth, 500mb doesn't. That's how the card works and why it's so much cheaper than the 980 which sounds almost the same.

TBH I can't see them even bothering to respond any more. It all depends what happens next; IE - if a popular web site investigates and proves that the card does fall to bits when using more than 3.5gb.

I gotta be honest here, I reckon they've got their backsides more than covered. It sucks and all, but that's just life. When they released that driver that stopped the fan on my GTX 280 and killed it I had terrible trouble getting my money back (no one had any parts at the time, it's why BFG went out of business).

So yeah they do some rotten things. IE - stopping production of their 2 series cards 18 months before they released Fermi giving their OEMs bugger all to sell, releasing a driver that killed most 2 series cards and the OEMs had no replacements, ETC ETC.

There are many, many reasons why I don't like Nvidia.

However, most of this is a storm in a teacup because the 970 is cheaper than the 780 was and is still a bit faster and does have more VRAM.

TBH? to all the people who bought a 970 and thought 4gb was going to be enough for more than a year? shame on you. You really should know better by now.

The only safe option is Titan and Titan black. Anything else? Nvidia sees it as a throw away and expect you to upgrade sooner rather than later. If you didn't they wouldn't be in business.

Treat em mean.......
 
Unlike GM107, the GM204 GPU features four Graphics Processor Clusters (GPCs) instead of one. That means it benefits from four times the number of raster engines. Of course, high-end graphics cards require a beefier back-end to handle all of that data throughput, and the GeForce GTX 980 utilizes four render back-ends capable of handling 16 full-color ROP operations per clock, adding up to 64. Four 64-bit memory controllers create an aggregate 256-bit bus. By the way, you may have noticed that the GeForce GTX 970's 13 SMMs don't divide equally into four GPCs. Nvidia says that there is no predefined recipe of SMMs per GPC in the 970, and each GPU may be configured differently.
Click to expand...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941.html

It has never been hidden from nVidia that the memory reading on the 970 differs to the 980. It is explained quite clearly there and 13 doesn't divide equally but as we have seen, 4GB is usable and what might help is if nVidia give a detailed description of the other .5GBs speed and if it could cause any issues between 3.5GB and 4GB. Nothing I have seen has shown me that it does but I am open minded and happy to see something that can.
 
Andygully said:
To be honest they could have avoided it all by making the card a 3.5gb
Click to expand...

But it doesn't sound the same does it?

The main reason any one went from the 780 to the 970 was the extra VRAM. Not 500mb, but the advertised 1gb jump.

4gb as we know just about cuts it now (typical of Nvidia). At 4k it's literally right on the limit.

They're saving their big cards running lots of VRAM for later, and they want you to buy. That's the whole point.

I didn't pay £699 per card for my Titans for any other reason than VRAM. The consoles have 8gb shared memory which apparently 6gb is reserved for the graphics.

So I would say that at 1080p my cards will last the lifetime of a console, which isn't actually that bad for £699. It's what? at least five years.

Learned my lesson buying 2gb 670s. I thought it was tight, given the AMD cards were all 3gb. Typical of Nvidia, release something that sounds incredible then a year in it starts to struggle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom