GTX 970

[LiamApex]

So due to the current issues i was just wondering what will happen to the people who water-cooled their 970's if nvidia recall the card 

 

 

because taking the cooler of can void you warenty with some brands

[Justhavocman]

So due to the current issues i was just wondering what will happen to the people who water-cooled their 970's if nvidia recall the card 

 

 

because taking the cooler of can void you warenty with some brands

Nvidia being the greedy bastards they are , won't recall anything or provide any compensation. 

[Scouten]

they would put the older cooler back on and ship it away...

[LeighPing]

I'd tend to agree with 'Justhavocman' above. But, it's easy enough to refit the windforce fans if required. No-one would know any different. In fact, with the better paste applied, it will most likely work better than it did from new.

[AddonCustoms]

Apparently Nvidia has responded saying it is working as it should... 

 

 

This was posted by an Nvidia Moderator on their own forums

 

 

 

The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory. However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.

We understand there have been some questions about how the GTX 970 will perform when it accesses the 0.5GB memory segment. The best way to test that is to look at game performance. Compare a GTX 980 to a 970 on a game that uses less than 3.5GB. Then turn up the settings so the game needs more than 3.5GB and compare 980 and 970 performance again.

Here’s an example of some performance data:



On GTX 980, Shadows of Mordor drops about 24% on GTX 980 and 25% on GTX 970, a 1% difference. On Battlefield 4, the drop is 47% on GTX 980 and 50% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. On CoD: AW, the drop is 41% on GTX 980 and 44% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. As you can see, there is very little change in the performance of the GTX 970 relative to GTX 980 on these games when it is using the 0.5GB segment.

[LiamApex]

they would put the older cooler back on and ship it away...

yes but with people like asus there is a warenty sticker on two of the gpu screws so the warenty is void 

[LeighPing]

So, upgrading the thermal paste, or adding a waterblock, borks the warranty with Asus? I would have queried that with them first and then sent the card back for a refund if they said that I couldn't do that. Why should watercooling a GPU for longevity void your warranty?

[Guest]

Nvidia being the greedy bastards they are , won't recall anything or provide any compensation. 

There's nothing to recall, because there is no 'memory bug', just a whole lotta FUD.

[LiamApex]

So, upgrading the thermal paste, or adding a waterblock, borks the warranty with Asus? I would have queried that with them first and then sent the card back for a refund if they said that I couldn't do that. Why should watercooling a GPU for longevity void your warranty?

my gtx 980 has a sticker on the main gpu die screws saying warenty void is removed

[Vypr]

Well after I hit 3.6GB of VRAM my game becomes unplayable, 4K. (I hit it all the time in BF/Crysis/etc)

Is there any way I can do some sort of an upgrade directly through gigabyte?

[LiamApex]

Well after I hit 3.6GB of VRAM my game becomes unplayable, 4K. (I hit it all the time in BF/Crysis/etc)

Is there any way I can do some sort of an upgrade directly through gigabyte?

No not yet nvidia hasnt released anything on the issue unfortunatly except they are looking into it

[Vypr]

There's nothing to recall, because there is no 'memory bug', just a whole lotta FUD.

 

No? My game becomes unplayable after 3.6GB VRAM used. It's difficult to close out of the game because of the lag, even Windows becomes laggy. 

[Guest]

No? My game becomes unplayable after 3.6GB VRAM used. It's difficult to close out of the game because of the lag, even Windows becomes laggy. 

I have no issues with the responsiveness of the windows desktop even when all 4gb are being used, you can see here in this video I recorded earlier:

(at ~40 seconds I alt tab to gpuz showing memory usage)

 

you can also see, no stuttering in the game (although fps isn't the greatest, but that's not unexpected using all ultra settings, including the ultra texture pack with 150% resolution scale)

 

It's gotten to the point where this 'memory bug' has gotten so much press that people have started equating any performance issues with this 'memory bug', whether or not that's actually the cause. Correlation does not always = causation guys

[LiamApex]

I have no issues with the responsiveness of the windows desktop even when all 4gb are being used, you can see here in this video I recorded earlier:

(at ~40 seconds I alt tab to gpuz)

 

you can also see, no stuttering in the game (although fps isn't the greatest, but that's not unexpected using all ultra settings, including the ultra texture pack with 150% resolution scale)

 

It's gotten to the point where this 'memory bug' has gotten so much press that people have started equating any performance issues with this 'memory bug', whether or not that's actually the cause.

everyone has a different experience after all everyone's card is a little bit diffrent

[Vypr]

I have no issues with the responsiveness of the windows desktop even when all 4gb are being used, you can see here in this video I recorded earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbmKik7KPqw (at ~40 seconds I alt tab to gpuz)

 

you can also see, no stuttering in the game (although fps isn't the greatest, but that's not unexpected using all ultra settings, including the ultra texture pack with 150% resolution scale)

 

It's gotten to the point where this 'memory bug' has gotten so much press that people have started equating any performance issues with this 'memory bug', whether or not that's actually the cause.

 

You don't show proof of memory allocation there, I have redone this test many times and found the same issue in Crysis, Valley Benchmark, and Battlefield. 

EDIT: Nvm, I see. I guess you may have gotten lucky.

[Zweihander]

4K is a big investment so early in the game; there are going to be some issues along the road. 

 

From what I've read so far, it doesn't sound like an easy fix regarding the VRAM issue. Or rather, there is nothing to fix. 

[NVIDIAFANBOYEXTREME]

I have a reference GTX 970. (bestbuy sells them) and I have the same problem which really does not bother me since These card is 330$ and if you are doing 4K gaming with it you should have gotten the 980.

[Vypr]

I have a reference GTX 970. (bestbuy sells them) and I have the same problem which really does not bother me since These card is 330$ and if you are doing 4K gaming with it you should have gotten the 980.

 

>  if you are doing 4K gaming with it you should have gotten the 980.

Well I would have if they told me it was 3GB of VRAM in the first place.

[Justhavocman]

I have a reference GTX 970. (bestbuy sells them) and I have the same problem which really does not bother me since These card is 330$ and if you are doing 4K gaming with it you should have gotten the 980.

AGAIN , the fact that it was falsely advertised as a 4GB card doesn't mean that " oh it's a cheaper card , oh what do you need all that VRAM for" , i paid what i was advertised  , what i do with my card is solely up to me and myself alone so stop using that flawed logic please.

[Guest]

AGAIN , the fact that it was falsely advertised as a 4GB card doesn't mean that " oh it's a cheaper card , oh what do you need all that VRAM for" , i paid what i was advertised  , what i do with my card is solely up to me and myself alone so stop using that flawed logic please.

and you did get what was advertised, because it is a 4gb card.

[Justhavocman]

and you did get what was advertised, because it is a 4gb card.

Which can only use the 85% of it's capacity , which was originally advertised to have the same memory bus\width and usage as the 980 , please stop riding the Nvidia fanboy stick and let's get real here , we all just got ripped off in a way , don't try to justify your purchase of the 970.

[NVIDIAFANBOYEXTREME]

People stop saying it does not have 4gb of ram it does Nvidia to save money just cut memory system to save money the last 500mb is just slow it is still there.