STRIX GTX970 vram - I can't get past 3,5G in ANY game

[plnk]

Like the topic is saying. I cannot get past 3,5GB VRAM no matter what I do. 4k DSR? Max settings? Nope. I've seen people have >3,5GB in use with their 970s.

 

Is this 0,5GB partition something that Afterburner can't really access and show on the OSD or the graphs?

 

If you're a STRIX owner - can you get past 3,5GB RAM? If so - in what games and scenarios (other than 4k DSR and max settings)?

 

What I want is to see the performance past this point for myself if it really stutters this much.

 

What I can test on: Dying Light, Watch_Dogs (no Far Crys or Unity, but I have any other Assassin's Creed), any other game from here: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197987529334/games/?tab=all 

[Butterfish]

We got a slowpoke here

[1Scotty1]

Not this type of thread again :unsure: The 3,5GB VRAM issue has been out for days now

[FloRolf]

We got a slowpoke here

 

you were right. My answer was gonna be way more rude lol.

[Guest Kloaked]

It's been said that third-party apps will not detect when that .5 VRAM is being used, if it's being used at all.

 

Is the performance not up to what you want? Was it underperforming before you knew about this?

[Darel]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Butterfish]

you were right. My answer was gonna be way more rude lol.

it's contagious tho! 

[FloRolf]

it's contagious tho! 

 

true. we want to maintain a friendly environment here on LTT. So i guess i'll just stop replying to super obvious topics.

[plnk]

I just need some confirmation from other STRIX users. Just ignore the topic if you don't have anything meaningfull to add.

[Butterfish]

I just need some confirmation from other STRIX users. Just ignore the topic if you don't have anything meaningfull to add.

Apologies

[stconquest]

I just need some confirmation from other STRIX users. Just ignore the topic if you don't have anything meaningfull to add.

 

"You are trolling."  Is this correct?

 

There is a problem with 970's.

[FloRolf]

Apologies

 

+

 

 

I just need some confirmation from other STRIX users. Just ignore the topic if you don't have anything meaningfull to add.

 

Just take a quick google search for "970 vram issue" and you will find plenty. I recommed PCpers article.

[jurian123]

Known problem by 970's. 

[plnk]

"You are trolling."  Is this correct?

 

There is a problem with 970's.

 

I know about the issue, yet I've seen people use more than 3,5GB VRAM on other 970s. Those were MSIs or EVGAs or not specified. I cannot do that on my strix. In ANY game (even the same as in the screenshot). I just want to know if other strix users experience the same. Maybe ASUS did some more "undoings" to Maxwell.

[Lewellyn]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/297381-nvidia-responds-to-gtx-970-35gb-memory-issue/

 

It's the most reasonable explanation that it's just another part of that design.

[stconquest]

I know about the issue, yet I've seen people use more than 3,5GB VRAM on other 970s. Those were MSIs or EVGAs or not specified. I cannot do that on my strix. In ANY game (even the same as in the screenshot). I just want to know if other strix users experience the same. Maybe ASUS did some more "undoings" to Maxwell.

 

Everyone is really waiting to find out too.  No one knows the all the details.  NVidia, although they are trying not to leave everyone in the dark, are not going to fully admit any error on their part... yet.  They should not, until they should.

[FloRolf]

I know about the issue, yet I've seen people use more than 3,5GB VRAM on other 970s. Those were MSIs or EVGAs or not specified. I cannot do that on my strix. In ANY game (even the same as in the screenshot). I just want to know if other strix users experience the same. Maybe ASUS did some more "undoings" to Maxwell.

 

from what i know it's basically impossible to use more because it's limited by the architecture unless you run independent programms where one can use the 3.5gb partion and the other one the slower 0.5 gb partion.

 

Maybe the guys were running multiple programms or 980s?

 

 

If you are seriously upset about that nvidia now offers to return the card for free in any case so you could go and get a 980.

[mvitkun]

I know about the issue, yet I've seen people use more than 3,5GB VRAM on other 970s. Those were MSIs or EVGAs or not specified. I cannot do that on my strix. In ANY game (even the same as in the screenshot). I just want to know if other strix users experience the same. Maybe ASUS did some more "undoings" to Maxwell.

MSI AB does detect both pools of memory, so if you're using more than 3.5GB it would correctly display it as such.

 

Asus has yet to do anything as far as I know.

 

Try Shadow of Mordor with the Ultra HD texture pack, it excels at eating VRAM.

[plnk]

Nah, I won't return it, I'm really fine with the performance, only this is bugging me beyond recognition. How come other 970s can access this 0,5GB and mine cannot. I guess I should feel kind of lucky, no stuttering for me, but... yeah.

 

I think I should get Shadow of Mordor. They say it's a great game. And demands tons of VRAM.

[Unlikelyjoker]

I just need some confirmation from other STRIX users. Just ignore the topic if you don't have anything meaningfull to add.

You don't need to own a STRIX to say that this is an issue for all 970's

But yeah all the 970's are having this issue and some are f**king mad about it.

Me? well i'm on team red now because of this.

I don't trust company's that make a shitty/faulty product and lie about it

[slightlyjaded]

Nah, I won't return it, I'm really fine with the performance, only this is bugging me beyond recognition. How come other 970s can access this 0,5GB and mine cannot. I guess I should feel kind of lucky, no stuttering for me, but... yeah.

 

I think I should get Shadow of Mordor. They say it's a great game. And demands tons of VRAM.

Your memory is working perfectly. I'll reiterate the same advice you've been getting all thread. Do your own bloody research. pcper has a great article on this issue. it was apparently a miscommunication between nividea's engineering, and marketing arms. There's 4 GB of vram there, it just isn't all equal, and unfortunately it's software controlled. Now pull your head out of whatever nether region it's occupying, and do some research..... (breathes deep) I feel better now

[plnk]

You don't need to own a STRIX to say that this is an issue for all 970's

I own a Strix card. This is not about the issue for other 970s.

 

Your memory is working perfectly. I'll reiterate the same advice you've been getting all thread. Do your own bloody research. pcper has a great article on this issue. it was apparently a miscommunication between nividea's engineering, and marketing arms. There's 4 GB of vram there, it just isn't all equal, and unfortunately it's software controlled. Now pull your head out of whatever nether region it's occupying, and do some research..... (breathes deep) I feel better now

I've done my research. All those articles have benchmarks with VRAM usage over 3,5GB. I cannot get to that point on my Strix and apparently other people can. I want to know if that's a Strix specific thing or I just cannot find an appropriate place to test this.

[zappian]

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/

 

The GTX 970 is a 3.5gb card. It will perform horribly once 3.5gb of Vram is used and is a deal breaker to many high resolution enthusiasts.

 

Nvidia scammed you.

 

[zappian]

Your memory is working perfectly. I'll reiterate the same advice you've been getting all thread. Do your own bloody research. pcper has a great article on this issue. it was apparently a miscommunication between nividea's engineering, and marketing arms. There's 4 GB of vram there, it just isn't all equal, and unfortunately it's software controlled. Now pull your head out of whatever nether region it's occupying, and do some research..... (breathes deep) I feel better now

 

Dont defend nvidia for the love of god.

 

They were either grossly incompetent at best of fucking liars at worse.

 

They faked their specs.

 

 

Proof:

 

 

Exibit A:

 

The video i linked 

 

Exbith B:

Fake specs at launch:

 

REVISED SPECS after this debacle

 

Original specs:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-geforce-gtx-970-strix-review,5.html

[slightlyjaded]

I own a Strix card. This is not about the issue for other 970s.

 

I've done my research. All those articles have benchmarks with VRAM usage over 3,5GB. I cannot get to that point on my Strix and apparently other people can. I want to know if that's a Strix specific thing or I just cannot find an appropriate place to test this.

It isn't a strix thing it is a case of whatever software you're using detecting the in use L2 cache, and not looking any further. If your game/benchmark requires that last 0.5 GB it has to buddy up with the memory block next to it, and pass through the same cache, creating a bottle neck in your system. Did you not find it strange that you were paying 300 bucks less for something that is a mildly de-tuned 980? sheesh