What is ACTUALLY going on with 970s?

[Dabombinable]

What did you throw on your 970? Synthetic benchmarks are useless, you must play a game that is pretty VRAM heavy. I like to use COD:AW as an example because it uses more than 3.5GB of VRAM and the constant running around and boosting everywhere really makes the stuttering quite obvious.

Crysis 3, Skyrim with DSR 4K on and texture mods, BF4. I'm doing a re-run right now.

Edit: Might have to wait on BF4, I forgot how much of a pain in the ass EA made it to play it offline.

Edit 2: F**k it, BF4 won't even load the menu after 5 minutes. EA can shove it up their ass, its till broken.

[zappian]

Nvidias testing methodology here is complete bs. They're changing a bunch of variables at once and they just show raw FPS figures, this is in no way a proper test for the issue. We have a raw benchmark that specifically tests the VRAM, we have quite a few people reporting issues while gaming, it is an issue.

 

The last .5GB of VRAM are effectively useless on the 970, a card that was advertised as a 4GB GPU. Stop defending this kind of behaviour, especially if you like Nvidia GPUs you should be furious right now. First we found out that the 970s performed worse in high-res gaming than they should in comparison to a 980 and now this. And don't even get started with "you won't notice it while gaming!" because that doesn't matter. Think about SLI 970 owners, they will eventually need more than 3.5GB of VRAM. Think about people playing at high resolutions, they will notice it sooner or later. It is a severe issue for many people, and they have every right to be pissed off right now.

 

Obviously we don't have all the information yet, but dismissing it and saying that it's "just the internet being the internet" doesn't help. Investigate, keep the pressure on Nvidia and make sure that they don't get away with it if it turns out to be true.

 

I said that somewhere in this post.

 

RAW fps numbers are useless , we want to see frame variance because on the last 0.5 GB it stutters like hell.

[Dabombinable]

Ok, Just found out the correct method to use. All (well, close enough) 4GB is useable but performance does tank.
These are the steps to follow:

1. Open up MSI afterburner's hardware monitor and scroll to memory usage (make sure that the min/max is visible
2. Open MSI kombuster
3. Change the preset to your monitor resolution
4. Change the 3D test to '3072MB' as it fully loads the vRAM
5. Start the stress test and take note of the time it takes to load the vRAM
6. Take note of the FPS
7. Run it again with the '2048MB' memory burner test
8. Repeat steps 5-6
9. You should be able to judge whether or not you have the bug

Note, I hit 3933MB vRAM usage doing this.
Edit: I should have mentioned, my GTX 970 does tank when the vRAM is over 3.5GB

[Nup]

It was a little while ago but I remembered NVIDIA stealing lots of confidential info from AMD, not cool.

 

No, not cool at all, when did this happen? have i forgotten all of this? 

 

I mean this industry is great, look at how criticism of products like folks like linus effects how changes are made, really nice to see that kind of maturity in the industry. Especially when compared to the likes of the game industry  

[Briggsy]

They did this with the 550ti and the 2GB variants of the 660/660ti,where the last 512MB of vram was kneecapped. Its a design pattern that they follow if they can make a card cheaper to be competitive price-wise, but drop in performance once that last segment of memory is accessed via stuttering or framedrops.

The 970 issue will likely get spinned into oblivion like every other deliberate muck up at nvidia.

[EpicNeuron]

I thought i had the same problems but ik can use more then 3,5 gb without frame drops.. For example when i play shadow of mordor i use in 1080p arround 3700 MB (ultra + hd pack ) Without huge frame drops somtimes a few frames but thats it.

I think that it is a hardware problem en that not evry card has it because my gtx 970 uses more without a problem.

[Sakiz105]

No stuttering here even in low fps.Gtx 980 averages around 25 in 4k so i guess it's right? Also before the newest driver it was unplayable.Freezes every 2 seconds and finally crashing

 

[Briggsy]

I thought i had the same problems but ik can use more then 3,5 gb without frame drops.. For example when i play shadow of mordor i use in 1080p arround 3700 MB (ultra + hd pack ) Without huge frame drops somtimes a few frames but thats it.

I think that it is a hardware problem en that not evry card has it because my gtx 970 uses more without a problem.

 

might wanna update your profile then to say that you bought the card, instead of saving up for a 970.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Those battlefield 4 numbers are hilarious. 30fps? Who is going to use msaa at 4K with a single card?

As for gaming at 4K with 970's. The only real game I play is bf4 and and they had no issues with it on high.

[EpicNeuron]

Good point but irrelevant. To this topic though, i really think it is different between cards..

[pitprok]

Is the problem that serious ? Im thinking of either buying a GTX 970 or a r9 290 (im going to sli/crossfire in the future so im also interested in a product that wont dissappear from the market)
The price difference isnt so important between the two so im trying to figure out which one is better and which one would work better with my fx 9590

[Guest]

Its the Green team. Hardware defects are super trivial.

 

But for Red team, someone fucks up his driver installation and you can vow never to buy their stuff again.

 

I'd be the first to say AMD's drivers are fine, and I get very annoyed when people run around going 'get nvidia amd drivers sux lolz!'

 

that said, this 970 'vram bug' is just about the biggest circlejerk over a non-issue that I've ever seen, and if the 970 was an AMD card I'd be saying the same thing.

 

it can basically be summed up as:

 

CUT DOWN VERSION OF GTX 980 PERFORMS LIKE A CUT DOWN VERSION OF A GTX 980, NEWS AT 11!

 

The 970's performance hasn't changed any since it was released, its still the same card, and its still a well performing card. At release, we already knew that the 970 gets outperformed in higher resolution memory intensive scenarios by the r9 290 and the gtx 980. This isn't even new information.

 

What we have here is a bunch of noobs spreading misleading information all over the internet such as 'zomg the 970 only has 3.5gb gddr5!', which results in a big 'controversy' based on nothing but hyperbole.

 

/rant

[JustCallMeVlad]

I'd be the first to say AMD's drivers are fine, and I get very annoyed when people run around going 'get nvidia amd drivers sux lolz!'

that said, this 970 'vram bug' is just about the biggest circlejerk over a non-issue that I've ever seen.

it can basically be summed up as:

CUT DOWN VERSION OF GTX 980 PERFORMS LIKE A CUT DOWN VERSION OF A GTX 980, NEWS AT 11!

The 970's performance hasn't changed any since it was released, its still the same card, and its still a well performing card. At release, we already knew that the 970 gets outperformed in higher resolution memory intensive scenarios by the r9 290 and the gtx 980.

You must have not been around for the 3870X2 and 4870X2 days. Back then amd drivers were pure garbage. They're just semi garbage today

[zappian]

I'd be the first to say AMD's drivers are fine, and I get very annoyed when people run around going 'get nvidia amd drivers sux lolz!'

 

that said, this 970 'vram bug' is just about the biggest circlejerk over a non-issue that I've ever seen.

 

it can basically be summed up as:

 

CUT DOWN VERSION OF GTX 980 PERFORMS LIKE A CUT DOWN VERSION OF A GTX 980, NEWS AT 11!

 

The 970's performance hasn't changed any since it was released, its still the same card, and its still a well performing card. At release, we already knew that the 970 gets outperformed in higher resolution memory intensive scenarios by the r9 290 and the gtx 980.

 

Its more 

 

CUT DOWN VERSION OF GTX 980 ADVERTISED AS A 4 GB CARD INST REALLY A 4GB CARD AND NVIDIA DECIDED TO HIDE IT FROM CONSUMERS.

 

Saying the 970 is a 4GB card is like saying a FX cpu is a eight core as much as a 5960x.

[Guest]

You must have not been around for the 3870X2 and 4870X2 days. Back then amd drivers were pure garbage. They're just semi garbage today

 

I never had the x2 version, but I did have a 4870 and had no issues with the drivers. I also had an x1950 which I don't recall having any issues with.

[JustCallMeVlad]

I never had the x2 version, but I did have a 4870 and had no issues with the drivers. I also had an x1950 which I don't recall having any issues with.

Let me just say it was pure stutter in crossfire

[JustCallMeVlad]

dp

[Guest]

Its more 

 

CUT DOWN VERSION OF GTX 980 ADVERTISED AS A 4 GB CARD INST REALLY A 4GB CARD AND NVIDIA DECIDED TO HIDE IT FROM CONSUMERS.

 

Saying the 970 is a 4GB card is like saying a FX cpu is a eight core as much as a 5960x.

 

It is really a 4gb card, this is exactly the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that is creating this circlejerk.

 

1. The 970 does have 4gb of gddr5. there's no asymmetrical design, and it is all on the same 256 bit bus.

 

2. It is possible for the 970 to allocate and use all of its vram, its just not as efficient at it as the 980, because of the reduced sm count.

[JustCallMeVlad]

It is really a 4gb card, this is exactly the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that is creating this circlejerk.

1. The 970 does have 4gb of gddr5. there's no asymmetrical design, and it is all on the same 256 bit bus.

2. It is possible for the 970 to allocate and use all of its vram, its just not as efficient at it as the 980, because of the reduced sm count.

He's clueless and an amd fanboy. Just don't even waste your time replying to him

[zappian]

He's clueless and an amd fanboy. Just don't even waste your time replying to him

 

Says the only guy on this forum that thinks that amd drivers are crap.

 

Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Says the only guy on this forum that thinks that amd drivers are crap.

Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

You really believe that amd drivers are on the same level as nvidia's? I actually feel sorry for you

[zappian]

It is really a 4gb card, this is exactly the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that is creating this circlejerk.

 

1. The 970 does have 4gb of gddr5. there's no asymmetrical design, and it is all on the same 256 bit bus.

 

2. It is possible for the 970 to allocate and use all of its vram, its just not as efficient at it as the 980, because of the reduced sm count.

 

There are situations where the most usage you can get out of it is 3.5 GB.

 

This has been reported by many uses here and on guru 3d.

 

Its a 4 GB card , but not most of the times. Most of the times is a 3.5 GB card.

 

You can do some research if you dont believe me , i dont care really.

[Briggsy]

Is the problem that serious ? Im thinking of either buying a GTX 970 or a r9 290 (im going to sli/crossfire in the future so im also interested in a product that wont dissappear from the market)

The price difference isnt so important between the two so im trying to figure out which one is better and which one would work better with my fx 9590

 

in 2 years the 290 will probably still be used in high end benchmark charts. the 970 probably won't be. by then DX12 AAA games will start emerging (dev time n' all), and suddenly bus width is going to be even more crucial with the increased size of draw calls and gradual increase to texture size from now until then - meanwhile new AMD and Nvidia flagship cards will both be using HBM at that point. the 290 will probably last longer through this transition, like most AMD flagship cards. I have my doubts the 970 will stay relevant for that long.

[Briggsy]

dp (quoted instead of edited my post). Mods please delete.

[JustCallMeVlad]

in 2 years the 290 will probably still be used in high end benchmark charts. the 970 probably won't be. by then DX12 AAA games will start emerging (dev time n' all), and suddenly bus width is going to be even more crucial with the increased size of draw calls and gradual increase to texture size from now until then - meanwhile new AMD and Nvidia flagship cards will both be using HBM at that point. the 290 will probably last longer through this transition, like most AMD flagship cards. I have my doubts the 970 will stay relevant for that long.

PM me the powerball numbers nostradamus