• 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.

nVidia seems to have repeated ram fiasco with the 980ti DISPROVEN! Request closing thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phixsator said:
Layte claims the test is invalid due to the way my screen is setup.. so until the tests validity has been proven or disproven i think everyone should hold their horses.. no need to throw mud just yet
Click to expand...

At 3440x1440 you'll have a chunk of VRAM in use by aero/dwm which will be slow to read.
 
Rroff said:
At 3440x1440 you'll have a chunk of VRAM in use by aero/dwm which will be slow to read.
Click to expand...

ding ding!

Look what happens when you run the test on a Titan that is running a display.
E9OP5tJ.gif
 
stulid said:
Surely not twice in a row and no other reviewers bothered to check this to see if it has "ramgate" also.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA are very strict with the terms of what reviewers are allowed to do now. Think Tom's Hardware were literally the only ones to include any discussion or benchmarking for compute (a very weak suit for Maxwell) ... and it looked like there had been a lot of horse trading going on there, most non-FP benches included were ones that NVIDIA does ok in ... those that weren't, the AMD cards disappeared from the comparison .. FP benches were only synthetics. FYI FP performance is 1/10 to 1/20th that of a 290X on the 980ti ... also bear in mind there are never any FCAT SLI tests in reviews anymore, because Crossfire now has much lower frame times than SLI.
 
Last edited:
In just to subscribe to this! If they have done this again and people continue to worship them there's something very wrong with the world.
 
alexp999 said:
Can't you use the on board graphics of your CPU?
Click to expand...
Yeah i just figured i would give this a try

Rroff said:
At 3440x1440 you'll have a chunk of VRAM in use by aero/dwm which will be slow to read.
Click to expand...

Indeed what the issue is.. running it again through iGPU resolves the issue. Ill better update the OP and ask for a close of the thread.. theres no point to it anymore.. Apparently i made a big error in my testing method.. Ohh well. Thanks to Layte for pointing it out!
f1kv0k.png
 
MrMD said:
After last time none of the early reviewers thought this was worth checking? lol

They wont have done it again on a proper high end card,would they?
Click to expand...
Digital Foundry straight up claim that the issue doesn't exist with the 980 Ti in their review.

However, the biggest cutback is perhaps the most inconsequential of all, bearing in mind the current gaming landscape. The mammoth 12GB of GDDR5 found in the top-end flagship is pared back to a still lavish, but more reasonable 6GB. However, memory speeds remain the same, core and boost clocks are identical, and unlike the GTX 970, Nvidia's cutbacks have not come at the expense of ROPs or bandwidth - both are identical to Titan X. To be clear, this time there are no split-memory shenanigans.
Click to expand...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom