GTX 970: 3.3GB?! Whaa?!

[techtoday]

I just read on numerous web sites that the GTX 970 has a memory bug that, not only is the 3.5gb thing bad enough, decreases it to 3.3GB! Wtf?! Will this affect anything!??! Help

[Comessy]

Sources?

 

That's actually impossible, they are 500MB Modules

[Aniallation]

inb4 #vramgate2

 

It could just be because of how flash memory is formatted, you won't get the full capacity. 32GB gives you around 29.7GB to use.

[Guest Kloaked]

It doesn't have a memory bug.

 

There's nothing wrong with the card; there's going to be people here shortly who will say otherwise, so please ignore them. The issues people have can be related to just general video card issues that people get anyways.

 

If you find nothing wrong with your card, then there's nothing wrong with it. No article with some supposed new information about a 970 is going to change that. If it performs like it did on release, that's how it performs.

[TheKDub]

inb4 #vramgate2

 

It could just be because of how flash memory is formatted, you won't get the full capacity. 32GB gives you around 29.7GB to use.

 

Nah, my 970 has the full 4GB listed.

[Enderman]

the 970 is perfectly fine

it has 4GB

its just that some people get a performance decrease when using over 3.5GB

this does NOT mean that it only has 3.5GB

 

unless you are playing at 4k there is little chance you will use over 3.5GB of vram so it doesn't matter anyway

[mwthomas10]

It doesn't have a memory bug.

 

There's nothing wrong with the card; there's going to be people here shortly who will say otherwise, so please ignore them. The issues people have can be related to just general video card issues that people get anyways.

 

If you find nothing wrong with your card, then there's nothing wrong with it. No article with some supposed new information about a 970 is going to change that. If it performs like it did on release, that's how it performs.

Thank you.  First sensible thing here I've read all day.

The GTX 970 has 4gb of vram, but the last 500mb are much slower than the first 3.5gb.  However, they are still much faster than saving to system ram in 99% of cases.

[Whorax]

It doesn't have a memory bug.

 

There's nothing wrong with the card; there's going to be people here shortly who will say otherwise, so please ignore them. The issues people have can be related to just general video card issues that people get anyways.

 

If you find nothing wrong with your card, then there's nothing wrong with it. No article with some supposed new information about a 970 is going to change that. If it performs like it did on release, that's how it performs.

Nothing wrong with the card, but there's something majorly wrong with the way it was (and still is) marketed and advertised.

 

Regarding your question OP: source? I don't really know if such a thing is possible..

[Suika]

Every 970 has the full 4GB listed.

ftfy

 

The only reason you might see some tests displaying the GTX 970 having less than 3.5GB of high-speed VRAM are those conducted on a desktop setting without using the integrated GPU to host the desktop.

 

People freaked out previously because the test that showed the 970's VRAM limitations showed the 980 having some memory consumed as well, and as it turns out, they didn't use the integrated GPU to host the desktop, and the desktop was consuming VRAM on the 980.

[Guest Kloaked]

Nothing wrong with the card, but there's something majorly wrong with the way it was (and still is) marketed and advertised.

 

Regarding your question OP: source? I don't really know if such a thing is possible..

 

It has 4 gigs of VRAM. GG WP.

[Whorax]

It has 4 gigs of VRAM. GG WP.

Yes indeed, but it isn't advertised that .5GB of it isn't as fast as the rest. Which for the sake of the consumer it should be.

[Arty]

wrong unit?

GiB instead of GB?

[brokencross]

It doesn't have a memory bug.

 

There's nothing wrong with the card; there's going to be people here shortly who will say otherwise, so please ignore them. The issues people have can be related to just general video card issues that people get anyways.

 

If you find nothing wrong with your card, then there's nothing wrong with it. No article with some supposed new information about a 970 is going to change that. If it performs like it did on release, that's how it performs.

 

There's a L2/ROP cluster disabled, making the last .5GB virtually unusable. So you don't really need to sugar coat it.

[Guest Kloaked]

 

 

There's a L2/ROP cluster disabled, making the last .5GB virtually unusable. So you don't really need to sugar coat it.

 

No, it's very usable. I would know.

 

Have you used one before?

[brokencross]

No, it's very usable. I would know.

 

Have you used one before?

Sure it is. 1/7 speed of the remaining clusters is indeed very usable. Whatever, really. 

It's an issue more than proved, even acknowledge by Nvidia themselves and yet there are some of you who just deny it.

I didn't say it was a bad card, not even by a long shot. It just happens it doesn't perform like Nvidia announced it would.

[Guest Kloaked]

Sure it is. 1/7 speed of the remaining clusters is indeed very usable. Whatever, really. 

It's an issue more than proved, even acknowledge by Nvidia themselves and yet there are some of you who just deny it.

I didn't say it was a bad card, not even by a long shot. It just happens it doesn't perform like Nvidia announced it would.

 

It very much performs like Nvidia announced it would, and it performs the same way it does when reviewers first got their hands on them. Nothing changed except the bandwagoners when they got the new information about how the card works and how it was made.

 

Have you ever used and tested a 970? Because I have.

[brokencross]

Have you ever used and tested a 970? Because I have.

No need for that. Especially when Nvidia acknowledged the issue. You're just trying to sway the discussion.

[D2ultima]

It doesn't have a memory bug.

 

There's nothing wrong with the card; there's going to be people here shortly who will say otherwise, so please ignore them. The issues people have can be related to just general video card issues that people get anyways.

 

If you find nothing wrong with your card, then there's nothing wrong with it. No article with some supposed new information about a 970 is going to change that. If it performs like it did on release, that's how it performs.

If you mean "the card functions as designed", then yes. Nothing is wrong with it. That does not mean there is no problem. And there is indeed a problem, when it comes down to using large amounts of video RAM on the card. If you don't notice it, fine. That doesn't mean other people don't, won't, or can't notice it, and no, other cards do not give the same issue. Please be wary of what you say to people who otherwise do not know. The GPU has degrees of problems using over 3.5GB of vRAM and it is not reflected in minimum or maximum FPS counts, but rather in frametime graphs or FPS graphs. It is "designed" to do so, but it doesn't mean it lacks a problem, and I have issue when people like you would say to people like the OP who do not know anything that it has no issues.

 

 

I just read on numerous web sites that the GTX 970 has a memory bug that, not only is the 3.5gb thing bad enough, decreases it to 3.3GB! Wtf?! Will this affect anything!??! Help

3.5GB of vRAM is its cutoff. No more, no less. The problem hasn't changed. If you want to learn more, check the GTX 970 section in my vRAM guide to find out more. That's about as in-depth as you'll see it explained around these parts.

[Trik'Stari]

No, it's very usable. I would know.

 

Have you used one before?

How would you know? you've got a freaking 980.

 

Granted, it's a little tank of a card, the 970, I just wish mine would overclock to more than 1475 and remain stable.....as well as going over 3.5gb vram usage without taking a shit.

 

Hoping DX12 will alleviate some of those issues (at least the 3.5 thing, I'm guessing they can do nothing about the overclocking)

 

It very much performs like Nvidia announced it would, and it performs the same way it does when reviewers first got their hands on them. Nothing changed except the bandwagoners when they got the new information about how the card works and how it was made.

 

Have you ever used and tested a 970? Because I have.

 

^This is true, as someone who bought a 970 just after launch, about a month before the issue went public, I felt like I had found the perfect girlfriend, only to find out she has herpes... I mean it doesn't kill you, but it aint great right?

[Unhelpful]

How would you know? you've got a freaking 980.

Oh god. I have a 780. I have clearly never used another GPU of that generation. /s

[Guest Kloaked]

How would you know? you've got a freaking 980.

 

I had a 970 for a few weeks to put in another system.

[Trik'Stari]

Oh god. I have a 780. I have clearly never used another GPU of that generation. /s

Kind of like saying "I have a ford fiesta, so I know what it's like to own/drive a ford GT40". (I am not equating the 780 to a ford fiesta, but you get the point, apples to oranges etc)

 

I had a 970 for a few weeks to put in another system.

See the rest of my previous post.

[Doughnutnator]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UtWL3D9ZL3Q

The issue doesn't affect you that much in real world scenarios (a.k.a gaming).

In a lot of cases the 970 will not be able to achieve more than 30FPS if the game's graphics are so intensive that they need to use that much VRAM (more than 3-3.5GB)

For example battlefield 4 at 4K. 20-30FPS at average with luck, yeah, the game will stutter because the slow 0.5GB, but the game is unplayable anyways (>30FPS)

[topsu]

inb4 #vramgate2

 

It could just be because of how flash memory is formatted, you won't get the full capacity. 32GB gives you around 29.7GB to use.

 

And it would only affect op?

 

#Logic

[alphaproject]

I read someone's post in which they mention the Nvidia drivers making the 970 NOT use anything over 3.5 gigs now in games to alleviate the problem, is that true or no? Don't shoot the messenger.