970 Memory Problem's Effect on 3x Monitors

[Bustapalapeno]

I learned about the 970 problem where it only uses 3.5 GB of RAM at it's full speed while the rest of it works on half speed. I run three 27'' 1080x1920 monitors for a total 5760x1080 system. I enjoy AAA games quite a lot and I am curious what kind of performance hit I can expect. Personally with Far Cry 4 the frame rate seems to scale pretty normally from 1080p to 3x 1080p, and between in game detail settings. At ultra i am getting about 70 or so single and 27 or so triple. 

 

 

 

The question I am trying to make is will that 0.5GB really make a difference? It doesn't seem to now with fairly intense AAA games.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bustapalapeno

[TheKDub]

Your point is?

[Xaring]

soooo, it works perfecly? thats the point I guess.

[MeDownYou]

I learned about the 970 problem where it only uses 3.5 GB of RAM at it's full speed while the rest of it works on half speed. I run three 27'' 1080x1920 monitors for a total 5760x1080 system. I enjoy AAA games quite a lot and I am curious what kind of performance hit I can expect. Personally with Far Cry 4 the frame rate seems to scale pretty normally from 1080p to 3x 1080p, and between in game detail settings. At ultra i am getting about 70 or so single and 27 or so triple. 

pushing that many pixels you mean?  you actually probably will notice it. That said the 290x or the 980 are better cards for this configuration if you are pushing games with large textures.

[Megahurt]

It's not really about resolution, it's about vram usage. If you stay below 3.5 GB, you have no issue, at 3.6GB you might not notice anything, at 4GB you get the full extent of the problem and over 4GB you spill over into system ram which is even worse. You have 3/4 of the pixels that 4k has, so the likelyness that you will run into the problem is far less.

[ExcitezR]

i play the same way as you and i havnt seen over 3.5GB yet on BF4 and GRID auto sport don't know about far cry 4 though 

[Bustapalapeno]

So after spending a few more hours doing research, basicly the 970 is hit or miss better than the r9 290x at 5760x1080 and even at 4k. It is more dependent on the game and that is only a difference of a few FPS. By this logic, for now the difference between 3.5 and 4 GB of RAM isn't an for me. And I am fairly sure I will need more powerful chips before I need more VRAM to run 3x monitors with AAA titles. 

[Razzaa]

So after spending a few more hours doing research, basicly the 970 is hit or miss better than the r9 290x at 5760x1080 and even at 4k. It is more dependent on the game and that is only a difference of a few FPS. By this logic, for now the difference between 3.5 and 4 GB of RAM isn't an for me. And I am fairly sure I will need more powerful chips before I need more VRAM to run 3x monitors with AAA titles. 

Just what everyone has said who actually understand the issue. The ignorant will state otherwise though.