• 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.
Just read through that article and if I owned a 970 or 2, I would have no concerns. Sure, the last .5GB runs a bit slower (4-6% in fact) than if it was a straight 4GB like the 980 but that 4-6% is completely negligible.

At the very least, the company did not fully disclose the missing L2 and ROP partition on the GTX 970, even if it was due to miscommunication internally. The question “should the GTX 970 be called a 3.5GB card?” is more of a philosophical debate. There is 4GB of physical memory on the card and you can definitely access all 4GB of when the game and operating system determine it is necessary. But 1/8th of that memory can only be accessed in a slower manner than the other 7/8th, even if that 1/8th is 4x faster than system memory over PCI Express. NVIDIA claims that the architecture is working exactly as intended and that with competent OS heuristics the performance difference should be negligible in real-world gaming scenarios.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is correct but if you was getting 60 fps, you would be missing out on 3.6 frames (worst case scenario). I am the worst mathematician though, so I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
 
Smok3y said:
I'm having no issues, not in any games I play which includes Farcry 4 and Battlefield. I have the Inno3D 970 and have read on one of the other forums that someone else with the same card is having no issues either? Tbh I'm not going out to actively look for the problem either. As long as what I play looks good and is running at a good frame rate I'm happy. I think the whole thing is being blown slightly out of proportion.
Click to expand...

My problem is I've been having issues before this thread was even created and became a massive issue on here.
I've said on another thread in here that I don't go looking for problems nor did I use any monitoring software but the stuttering was a problem for me in games like SoM, Dragon Age and BF4.

Fair enough if it's not a problem for you that's great and I genuinely mean that but don't just label those of us that are having genuine problems as looking for them.
 
Buckster said:
wonder what a 8gb 970 would have been like
Click to expand...

about 4-6% faster i guess.

ICEx21 said:
My problem is I've been having issues before this thread was even created and became a massive issue on here.
I've said on another thread in here that I don't go looking for problems nor did I use any monitoring software but the stuttering was a problem for me in games like SoM, Dragon Age and BF4.

Fair enough if it's not a problem for you that's great and I genuinely mean that but don't just label those of us that are having genuine problems as looking for them.
Click to expand...

where you using AB to measure the memory usage or gpu-z?
 
Sencha said:
I'm still going to pick one up. I just want a cooler card then AMD offers for 1080p. Its pretty dumb of Nvidia though.
Click to expand...

When you say cooler card what do you mean? My 290 pcs+ does not break 65oc at load with clocks of 1100/1400. It idles at 33oc. I doubt the gtx970 is much cooler. If you mean the overall heat output then sure the gtx970 wins with lower power.
 
Mordor single GTX 970
2160p, Very High preset, max VRAM about 3700MB in afterburner

FPS are pretty low (30ish) but didn't stutter. Need some more testing but I don't really have any other games that push high enough VRAM.
 
Alben told us Nvidia continues to look into possible situations where the performance drop-offs are larger on the GTX 970, and he suggested that in those cases, the company will "see if we can improve the heuristics." In short, Nvidia is taking responsiblity for managing the GTX 970's funny VRAM config, and it's possible that any problems that users turn up could be worked around via a driver update. In the end, that means the GTX 970's performance may be a little more fragile than the 980's, but Nvidia has a pretty good track record of staying on top of these kinds of things. This isn't nearly the chore that, say, maintaining SLI profiles must be.
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/review/27724/...ded?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Put down the pitchforks :p
 
Gregster said:
Just read through that article and if I owned a 970 or 2, I would have no concerns. Sure, the last .5GB runs a bit slower (4-6% in fact) than if it was a straight 4GB like the 980 but that 4-6% is completely negligible.



Not sure if this is correct but if you was getting 60 fps, you would be missing out on 3.6 frames (worst case scenario). I am the worst mathematician though, so I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

the biggest issue is when those frames would happen - access textures in the 512mb? your 1/7thy slower and its stuttering....
 
Aurhinius said:
Under EU regulations everyone should be entitled to a refund but I doubt that many will actually follow through with it once the initial anger has boiled off.

It will cost them a lot to set up a refund scheme though but I'm pretty sure they will be obliged to do so.

I must admit it doesn't do Nvidia PR any good though. Now all AMD need to do is come out with a cracking card in Q2.

Bet AMD shares went up and NVidia down in the last day or two!

970 issues and gsync issues hanging around.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, you're right. :D

AMD Shares:
656c7e782be200e90f934bb59970a149.png

Nvidia shares:
a0ddab8ef8a69ecd1de1577ba9b8db91.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom