• 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.
Amatsubu said:
I was just about to test SoM with ultra textures but it won't even run;p It always crashes at the loading screen With textures on high (can't even see a difference) even when the game was occasionaly reaching 3508mb there was no noticeable stuttering.
Click to expand...

SoM used over 5GB on my Titans at 1440P. VRAM hungry game.
 
Jinjur said:
Seeing as you obviously have time to work your way through the thread doing the important stuff :/ any ETA on a response to what is happening from your perspectives?

Y'know....when your done with all the curaaaaaazay swearing.
Click to expand...

You do know the mods are mods and don't work for OcUK?
 
P0tenc said:
You guys can test all you want, the fact is 0.5GB is gimped and cleverly hidden with fancy nvidia heuristics.

Whether you can notice it right now is not relevant. You Sirs have been sold a potato along with myself. The card is worth less today than it was on Thursday. Certainly I would not buy another one now, unless it was £200.
Click to expand...

I now I have the issue P0tenc, I just want to show people the exact reason we should do something rather than give Nvidia the benefit of the doubt.

Im going to run SOM and show some of the frametimes from that lousy benchmark that Nvidia said has a 1-3% performance difference.

Im going home now to get some of those lousy custom resolutions they tested up and running :cool:
 
thebennyboy said:
What good is having a faster card if it's going to be a stuttery mess whenever it uses more than 3.5GB? :D I would opt for the card that can maintain the most stable FPS without stuttering. Whether that is a 290, 980 or w/e. The 970 imo is a waste of money at least until they rectify the problem.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, So your saying that a graphics card being faster at 1080p makes no difference if it stutters over a said amount of Vram that it won't ever use at said res anyway YET.

When you think about it nothing has changed regarding anything over 1440 res the 290 wins more than the 970.

Some people have issues with the 970 that genuinely saw them with their pc's, some didn't on here until this thread started.

I am still not aware that all 970's start to stutter as soon as they go over 3.5gb as some users report that it does not stutter when using 3.8gb, It can't be both are right.
 
how does the driver/windows

distinguish between the VRAM that is really needed to be used (the bit >3.5gb) for the game

vs that would be useful for caching

because presumably in the 2nd case that "could" lead to non-necessary stutter/reduced frame rates
 
as africanos said (and my own experience shows) - if you read around the internet - the majority of users with the most pronounced issues , are those with Hynix ram chips on the cards.
 
It's gonna take a while to upload the videos I just took of Far Cry 4... I see substantial difference between 3.3-3.4GB vram usage and 3.6-3.7GB vram usage that is clearly not hitting or exceeding the 4GB barrier and is not simply down to extra work by the GPU.

2560x1440 2xMSAA everything else maxed = 3.3-3.4GB reported in afterburner
Smooth gameplay, smooth loading of distant object textures

2560x1440 8xMSAA everything else maxed = 3.6-3.7GB reported in afterburner
Much lower frame rate (consistent with increased GPU load) - however being within the vram limit there is not reason for it to not be a smooth lower frame rate, along with textures popping all over the place and stuttering as it's doing it.
There is clear stuttering and added delays in texture loading times that are not consistent with the GPU load.

I know people are not a fan of FC4 but it plays quite well at my normal settings with 2xMSAA... as soon as you increase that vram into the limited region it becomes stuttery.

I see the same behaviour with Dragon Age: Inquisition... while not hitting the 4GB limit.
 
crinkleshoes said:
It's gonna take a while to upload the videos I just took of Far Cry 4... I see substantial difference between 3.3-3.4GB vram usage and 3.6-3.7GB vram usage that is clearly not hitting or exceeding the 4GB barrier and is not simply down to extra work by the GPU.

2560x1440 2xMSAA everything else maxed = 3.3-3.4GB reported in afterburner
Smooth gameplay, smooth loading of distant object textures

2560x1440 8xMSAA everything else maxed = 3.6-3.7GB reported in afterburner
Much lower frame rate (consistent with increased GPU load) - however being within the vram limit there is not reason for it to not be a smooth lower frame rate, along with textures popping all over the place and stuttering as it's doing it.
There is clear stuttering and added delays in texture loading times that are not consistent with the GPU load.

I know people are not a fan of FC4 but it plays quite well at my normal settings with 2xMSAA... as soon as you increase that vram into the limited region it becomes stuttery.

I see the same behaviour with Dragon Age: Inquisition... while not hitting the 4GB limit.
Click to expand...

Be sure to apply the settings then quit and restart the game.

Also watch that 3rd CPU Core hit 100% ;) I can't take FC4 as a good benchmark for this.

New Signature Added :Proud Owner of SLI GTX970s with 0.5GB "Super Cache"
 
Last edited:
africanos23 said:
Be sure to apply the settings then quit and restart the game.

Also watch that 3rd CPU Core hit 100% ;) I can't take FC4 as a good benchmark for this.

New Signature Added : Proud Owner of SLI GTX970s with 0.5GB "Super Cache"
Click to expand...

question is - would it do the cpu useage on an AMD 8 core?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom