Posted January 25, 2015 I don't really care. I will never reach 3.5GB anyway. I play games at 1080p, and I don't play VRAm intensive games. In fact, i mostly play CSGO atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 I don't really care. I will never reach 3.5GB anyway. I play games at 1080p, and I don't play VRAm intensive games. In fact, i mostly play CSGO atm. Run Arena Commander.. instant 3.5GB+. Even on 1080p. Pascal Undervolting topic, get more out of your card with less power! Why high refreshrate monitors look better even without Freesync/G-sync in one image.Stutters, framedrops, "lag". How to provide detailed information with your "bottleneck" question, as well as a few solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Run Arena Commander.. instant 3.5GB+. Even on 1080p. I don't play games like that though. I only really play CoD, CSGO and Burnout Paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Why buy a 970 then. CS:GO runs on my iGPU. Pascal Undervolting topic, get more out of your card with less power! Why high refreshrate monitors look better even without Freesync/G-sync in one image.Stutters, framedrops, "lag". How to provide detailed information with your "bottleneck" question, as well as a few solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 The german guy states (im german too ) that he programs that benchmark especially in cuda because cuda doesnt allow memory allocation so maybe when maxing out the vram with forcing the card to hold it all and not swap to system ram that it somehow tries to manage this and that, the way it tries to manage it, is the problem. I did my own testing with all my games (running single gtx970) even when using dsr at 4k i maxed out on the performance of the gpu about 30% before i will hit that mystic land behind 3.5gb. So my conclusion is for single use it probably doesnt matter at all because in real world(not benchmarks that just focus on the memory) the gpu is the limiting factor. Furthermore i bought the Card for the numbers it achieved and i guess until i tell my gtx 970 that i should have problems it probably never figures out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 I did my own testing with all my games (running single gtx970) even when using dsr at 4k i maxed out on the performance of the gpu about 30% before i will hit that mystic land behind 3.5gb. So my conclusion is for single use it probably doesnt matter at all because in real world(not benchmarks that just focus on the memory) the gpu is the limiting factor. Furthermore i bought the Card for the numbers it achieved and i guess until i tell my gtx 970 that i should have problems it probably never figures out Consoleports and CryEngine 3 games max out memory regardless, even on 1080p. The issue is that the card thinks it has 4GB but it doesn't. The only "remedy" is to tell the card it has only 3.5GB and not try to fill the gap with system memory. Pascal Undervolting topic, get more out of your card with less power! Why high refreshrate monitors look better even without Freesync/G-sync in one image.Stutters, framedrops, "lag". How to provide detailed information with your "bottleneck" question, as well as a few solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Consoleports and CryEngine 3 games max out memory regardless, even on 1080p. The issue is that the card thinks it has 4GB but it doesn't. The only "remedy" is to tell the card it has only 3.5GB and not try to fill the gap with system memory. But it does. It has eight 512MB GDDR5 chips, total of 4GB physically present. Forum Rules | Guide to Display Cables / Adapters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 But it does. It has eight 512MB GDDR5 chips, total of 4GB physically present. I know.. but it's not accessing it properly. These engines try to fill the memory, but the last 512MB are not GDDR5 apparently (not that there is a DDR3 chip on the board, it's just not using it). Arena Commander runs fine on 'only' 3.5GB GDDR5. It does not run fine on 3.5GB GDDR5 and 0.5GB DDR3. Pascal Undervolting topic, get more out of your card with less power! Why high refreshrate monitors look better even without Freesync/G-sync in one image.Stutters, framedrops, "lag". How to provide detailed information with your "bottleneck" question, as well as a few solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Alternative way to test it is to use MSI Kombuster 4GB memory burner and compare the framerate with 3GB test. http://www.geeks3d.com/20140917/msi-kombustor-3-5-0-gpu-burn-in-stress-test-opengl-opencl-benchmark/ | Intel i7-3770@4.2Ghz | Asus Z77-V | Zotac 980 Ti Amp! Omega | DDR3 1800mhz 4GB x4 | 300GB Intel DC S3500 SSD | 512GB Plextor M5 Pro | 2x 1TB WD Blue HDD | | Enermax NAXN82+ 650W 80Plus Bronze | Fiio E07K | Grado SR80i | Cooler Master XB HAF EVO | Logitech G27 | Logitech G600 | CM Storm Quickfire TK | DualShock 4 | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Consoleports and CryEngine 3 games max out memory regardless, even on 1080p. The issue is that the card thinks it has 4GB but it doesn't. The only "remedy" is to tell the card it has only 3.5GB and not try to fill the gap with system memory. obviously there are 4gb of vram on the pcb... unbelieveable how often it needs to be said and still there are people who dont get it... and in that cuda benchmark i referred to as said it is claimed that cuda prevents memory allocation so there is no way it is only because of memory allocation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 obviously there are 4gb of vram on the pcb... unbelieveable how often it needs to be said and still there are people who dont get it... and in that cuda benchmark i referred to as said it is claimed that cuda prevents memory allocation so there is no way it is only because of memory allocation Yes it's physically on the print, but that does not imply it's actually using them. Pascal Undervolting topic, get more out of your card with less power! Why high refreshrate monitors look better even without Freesync/G-sync in one image.Stutters, framedrops, "lag". How to provide detailed information with your "bottleneck" question, as well as a few solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Yes it's physically on the print, but that does not imply it's actually using them. noone claims that the graphics card isnt using it it just has a performance drop... imho you should give some evidence if youre that sure that it isnt using it at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 noone claims that the graphics card isnt using it it just has a performance drop... imho you should give some evidence if youre that sure that it isnt using it at all... Because when it goes over 3.5GB, System memory starts to rise and drop in accordance to the "vram" graph. Whereas before 3.5GB they're disjoint. http://i.imgur.com/h25L3BD.jpg Also, the Sai benchmark gives me exactly my DDR3 speed after it runs out of the 3.5GB. Pascal Undervolting topic, get more out of your card with less power! Why high refreshrate monitors look better even without Freesync/G-sync in one image.Stutters, framedrops, "lag". How to provide detailed information with your "bottleneck" question, as well as a few solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 the statement was written by a mod at nvidia forums. I wouldn't take it as a "nvidia answer". Gonna wait +1 week to see it's development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 the statement was written by a mod at nvidia forums. I wouldn't take it as a "nvidia answer". Gonna wait +1 week to see it's development A mod wouldn't respond for a community about such matter without someone telling him to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 A mod wouldn't respond for a community about such matter without someone telling him to do it. a mod is a mod. What the mod posted isn't any secret thing. If u look for it, u'll find that info over reviewer articles, so it's nothing important. He also added some realworld performance tests, without frametimes and other stuff. If this is enough or even official for you, for me it is not. It isn't even acceptable since it doesn't make it an official nvidia statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Alternative way to test it is to use MSI Kombuster 4GB memory burner and compare the framerate with 3GB test. http://www.geeks3d.com/20140917/msi-kombustor-3-5-0-gpu-burn-in-stress-test-opengl-opencl-benchmark/ This didn't really work. I got ~ 85 FPS on 1 GB test, 75 FPS on 2 GB Test and ~40 FPS on 3 GB test. I actually checked the VRAM that was used and the 3 GB test already broke the 3.5 GB mark. However, are those low FPS numbers due to the 3.5 GB bug or does the performance tank in general when hitting the max vram barier? also the test used only my 2nd 970, but not my first. who cares... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 a mod is a mod. What the mod posted isn't any secret thing. If u look for it, u'll find that info over reviewer articles, so it's nothing important. He also added some realworld performance tests, without frametimes and other stuff. If this is enough or even official for you, for me it is not. It isn't even acceptable since it doesn't make it an official nvidia statement. The PC Perspective article would disagree with you: http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue UPDATE 1/24/15 @ 11:25pm ET: Apparently there is some concern online that the statement below is not legitimate. I can assure you that the information did come from NVIDIA, though is not attributal to any specific person - the message was sent through a couple of different PR people and is the result of meetings and multiple NVIDIA employee's input. It is really a message from the company, not any one individual. I have had several 10-20 minute phone calls with NVIDIA about this issue and this statement on Saturday alone, so I know that the information wasn't from a spoofed email, etc. Also, this statement was posted by an employee moderator on the GeForce.com forums about 6 hours ago, further proving that the statement is directly from NVIDIA. I hope this clears up any concerns around the validity of the below information! Also, this isn't "new" the thread was on the GeForce boards was started on the 13th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 The PC Perspective article would disagree with you: http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue Also, this isn't "new" the thread was on the GeForce boards was started on the 13th. are you serious dude? I don't know whats wrong with people around here. Ok, dont get me wrong, this is a serious thing but, the "nvidia answer" was posted by a mod, on nvidia forums. It is by no means "official". Ofc every respected website is making a big deal about this, but thats normal, it's how they work. They need to generate views and clicks on their websites. also, legally, a mod is just a mod. nvidia can be answering through him to calm stuff up, wile avoiding legal guilt. I'll still wait for a final and official answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 a mod is a mod. What the mod posted isn't any secret thing. If u look for it, u'll find that info over reviewer articles, so it's nothing important. He also added some realworld performance tests, without frametimes and other stuff. If this is enough or even official for you, for me it is not. It isn't even acceptable since it doesn't make it an official nvidia statement. Their lawyers are probably still sending company wide memo's out to everyone working at Nvidia to keep their mouths shut. Nvidia gave the same BS responses through unofficial channels when they did this with the 2GB 660/660Ti cards. everyone knew those cards crapped the bed on the last 512MB's of VRam because that partition of Ram was separate and gimped from the first 1.5GB. Nvidia's only hope is to keep quiet and let it blow over, which it will... It won't be forgotten though. Nvidia diehards are loyal and will scour forums to tear apart anyone that talks about the problem, they will create new accounts in tech forums and start spamming new threads talking excitedly about how they want to buy a 970, and others will downplay any real issues that people are having. history just keeps repeating itself it seems. R9 3900XT | Tomahawk B550 | Ventus OC RTX 3090 | Photon 1050W | 32GB DDR4 | TUF GT501 Case | Vizio 4K 50'' HDR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 Was so sad when I heard this and confirmed to be true. I honestly would have waited and gotten the GTX 980 instead if I knew prior. Over at the Nvidia forums, people are pissed as hell and I ahve to say, rightly so: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/71/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 obviously there are 4gb of vram on the pcb... unbelieveable how often it needs to be said and still there are people who dont get it... Yep, I've just about given up everyone's already got their pitchforks and common sense has left the building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 These are my results using MSI Kombuster. GPU: MSI GTX 970 Golden Edition 1428 VRAM 2068 VRAM 3865 VRAM As you can see, there is a massive drop in performance once to crosses 3.5 VRAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 I hope this is bullshit. I bought a 970 specifically because it claims 4GB VRAM. If it's really 3.5GB I'll be mad as hell, because I 100% would have bought a 290 or 290x instead. Exact same reason. I got the 970 for the 4Gb of VRAM (expecting to be able to utilise all 4GB) for the future and for features such as DSR, and for how un-optimised some games are as of late. If I knew, I honestly would have gone R9 290 and saved myself some money. Ryze of the Phoenix: CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 @ 4.15GHz Ram: 64GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 @ 3200Mhz (Samsung B-Die & Nanya Technology) GPU: MSI RTX 3060 12GB Aero ITX Storage: Crucial P3 1TB NVMe Gen 4 SSD, 1TB Crucial MX500, Spinning Rust (7TB Internal, 16TB External - All in-use), PSU: Cooler Master MWE Gold 750w V2 PSU (Thanks LTT PSU Tier List) Cooler: BeQuite! Prue Rock 2 Black Edition Case: ThermalTake Versa J22 TG Passmark 10 Score: 6096.4 CPU-z Score: 4189 MT Unigine Valley (DX11 @1080p Ultra): 5145 CryEngine Neon Noir (1080p Ultra): 9579 Audio Setup: Scarlett 2i2, AudioTechnica AT2020 XLR, Mackie CR3 Monitors, Sennheiser HD559 headphones, HyperX Cloud II Headset, KZ ES4 IEM (Cyan) Laptop: MacBook Pro 2017 (Intel i5 7360U, 8GB DDR3, 128GB SSD, 2x Thunderbolt 3 Ports - No Touch Bar) Catalina & Boot Camp Win10 Pro Primary Phone: Xiaomi Mi 11T Pro 5G 256GB (Snapdragon 888) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted January 25, 2015 These are my results using MSI Kombuster. GPU: MSI GTX 970 Golden Edition You mean performance goes down when you increase the load stress of memory? What new exciting find is waiting to be made next? Water is wet? I'm on the edge of my seat! .... you realize that you haven't shown shit, right? Someone needs a full graph showing the threshold where the possible memory issue is causing performance to tank - rather than just simply the load. You don't get a 1:1 ratio with memory usage and frames. The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now