Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[thekeemo]

Lucky. I did have that issue with 3 of them so did a lot of other people as u can see.

maybe it was a launch issue?

philosophy hasnt had issues with his 2 290's

[Razzaa]

maybe it was a launch issue?

I had the issue in November. Lots of recent posts with same issue. 3 or 4 on LTT today lol

[thekeemo]

I had the issue in November. Lots of recent posts with same issue. 3 or 4 on LTT today lol

(Shrug) havent seen any of those topics and personally ive had nothing but good stuff to say about it

[Razzaa]

(Shrug) havent seen any of those topics and personally ive had nothing but good stuff to say about it

I haven't had any Vram issues with my 970

[bossdre]

If raw performance is all that matters go with 2x R9 290x (non-reference cooler) or a single 980 or 980 SLI and if you're planning on going with that configuration I think you'd be gaming or using a higher res display such as 1440p, eyefinity/surround 1080p/1440p or 4k.. don't go 970 SLI.

[Texhnlyze]

I would suggest getting 2x 290x since they do have better surround configuration (eyefinity) although, there have been a lot complaints about lingering problems that still tormenting people. You're lucky if you don't get problems.

[The Reality]

If raw performance is all that matters go with 2x R9 290x (non-reference cooler) or a single 980 or 980 SLI and if you're planning on going with that configuration I think you'd be gaming or using a higher res display such as 1440p, eyefinity/surround 1080p/1440p or 4k.. don't go 970 SLI.

Man this VRAM issue on the 970 is such a bummer. I'd rather not have to deal with the heat and power consumption of dual 290x's. Do you think that the 0.5GB will make a difference on three 1080p screens?

[The Reality]

I would suggest getting 2x 290x since they do have better surround configuration (eyefinity) although, there have been a lot complaints about lingering problems that still tormenting people. You're lucky if you don't get problems.

Hmm. I never imagined one brand would perform better than the other in multi-monitor configurations. I'll have to look into that!

[Fate]

Man this VRAM issue on the 970 is such a bummer. I'd rather not have to deal with the heat and power consumption of dual 290x's. Do you think that the 0.5GB will make a difference on three 1080p screens?

It will likely be an issue with textures/AA cranked up, and even without the .5GB vram being an issue, the 290x's will still perform quite a bit better at that resolution. 

[cloclo8003]

yeah, go for 290x

[bossdre]

Man this VRAM issue on the 970 is such a bummer. I'd rather not have to deal with the heat and power consumption of dual 290x's. Do you think that the 0.5GB will make a difference on three 1080p screens?

 

At highe res, Yes. On a single 1080p, atm, No. Once new games uses more vram it would be an issue for GTX 970 because I think (since it is in the future) either the new game engines will try to use the slower 0.5gb that will result to stutters/hitching or it won't use the slower 0.5gb but would result to a significant loss of performance compared to GTX 980 with a "real" 4gb vram and any 4gb vram AMD flagship counterparts.

 

So in time, it will have significant loss in performance. But for a single 1080p now, its a good card.

 

But ofcoures you can lower your settings to mid or low to not hit above 3.5gb or vram.

 

It WAS a beast card for its price but now, its only a GOOD card as EXPECTED for its price.

[TheKDub]

The last 0.5 GB is 7 times slower than the rest and only 2 times faster than system memory, it perfoms basically as if it was 3.5GB.

 

But it still has 4GB of VRAM total.

[bossdre]

But it still has 4GB of VRAM total.

 

Yeah, technically, it does. But I say, the GTX 970 has a pseudo 4gb vram at pseudo 224gb/s at pseudo 256-bit with 56 ROPs (corrected from 64) and 1.75mb of L2 cache (corrected from 2mb).

[Texhnlyze]

Man this VRAM issue on the 970 is such a bummer. I'd rather not have to deal with the heat and power consumption of dual 290x's. Do you think that the 0.5GB will make a difference on three 1080p screens?

 

I don't think it will be a problem for 1080p but I've been in that kind of situation where  I don't know what to buy considering that both has their own pros and cons. If you were to put me in that situation again, I would just buy 980(s) or wait for the 380x/390x and Next-gen GPUs from Nvidia. 

 

Did you consider looking at R9 295x2? It seems to be a good option considering that it does have closed looped AIO. Although, you do need to have a 1000+ watt PSU.

[d3sl91]

Man this VRAM issue on the 970 is such a bummer. I'd rather not have to deal with the heat and power consumption of dual 290x's. Do you think that the 0.5GB will make a difference on three 1080p screens?

 

Hey OP, are you planning on gaming on all 3 at once? If not, it really doesnt matter, even a single 970 will do awesome, as would a 290 or 290x. If that's the case, I'd go for the 970, since its a beast of a card, but lower heat and power usage - both are great if you plan on SLI.

 

If you are planning on running 3x 1080p for gaming, I would look at performance benchmarks for the games you wish to play. There are a few benchmarks out there for triple monitor, or 1440p or 4k that you could use to compare how two 290x or 2 970s perform on that resolution for the games you wish to play. If you really want to "future proof" - I would not bother with either. I would either get 2x 980s or 2x AMD 300 series anyway. 2x 970's or 2x290xs are decent/okay for high res gaming on current games, but neither will promise great performance in upcoming games, and you will be wanting more power anyway.  

I would also strongly advise you to think about 3 monitor gaming and think if you will actually use it. Several of my friends, myself included, have 3+ monitor setups, and even though we can run 3 monitors for gaming, none of us do. We did for a little while, but we all quit after a few months. (we mainly play FPS games). 

 

I had the issue in November. Lots of recent posts with same issue. 3 or 4 on LTT today lol

 

I sold my 290x after getting it, as it would blackscreen on me and sounded like a jet. I figured that I should get a quality experience for $500 (the price when I purchased soon after launch), so I sold it to a Miner for $200 profit and bought a 780Ti and never looked back.

[Nikolithebear]

Title kinda says it all, Im thinking of RMAing my 970s because of the VRAM issue but I'm not 100% sure its worth it with my setup.  Ive hit 90% Vram usage before ( According to MSI afterburner) not really sure if the stuttering was from the GPU or the games I'm running. 
What do you think? 

[Guest]

90% VRAM use means you exceeded the 3.5Gb high speed memory limit. Therefore the stutter is likely the GPU.

[Acerpwns]

Title kinda says it all, Im thinking of RMAing my 970s because of the VRAM issue but I'm not 100% sure its worth it with my setup. Ive hit 90% Vram usage before ( According to MSI afterburner) not really sure if the stuttering was from the GPU or the games I'm running.

What do you think?

What games are you running?

What details are you using?

What's your min/avg/max fps in said games?

[KamiKatze]

I too am very interested in what games you reach those VRAM numbers.

[Butterfish]

I too am very interested in what games you reach those VRAM numbers.

dying light. I'm reaching 3530mb with my 970 at 1440p

[Badger906]

shadow of mordor and dying light are 2 that spring to mind for eating vram

[Nikolithebear]

What games are you running?

What details are you using?

What's your min/avg/max fps in said games?

Arma3, Warthunder, Battlefield4

All maxed out except for AA is ussually alittle lower to boost frames.

Min max are around 20 min, and max 80, avg is probably around 40-50

[Acerpwns]

Arma3, Warthunder, Battlefield4

All maxed out except for AA is ussually alittle lower to boost frames.

Min max are around 20 min, and max 80, avg is probably around 40-50

well 90% VRAM usage is about 3.6-3.7GB so youre in the "not safe" zone. If the stuttering is unbearable you might want to take advantage of Nvidias offer and return the cards.you could also try turning down the quality a bit and see if that helps

[Badger906]

Arma3, Warthunder, Battlefield4

All maxed out except for AA is ussually alittle lower to boost frames.

Min max are around 20 min, and max 80, avg is probably around 40-50

while a compromise is something you don't want to do.. here is one lol... knocking shadow quality down in all games from ultra to high or high to medium is one of the easiest way to free up vram other than AA reduction.

I can play bf4 with my 2gb 770 at 4k with medium to high, but if I up the shadows from medium to high it craps a brick and I get like 19fps instead of a 35-50 average.

if you do RMA it either get a 290x spend a bit more and get a 980, depending on your brand loyalty. if there is none go 290x it actually has 4gb of vram and is the same price if not cheaper than the 970

[zappian]

970s are bad for high resolutions.