Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[Razzaa]

Uhh, yes, it does hinder performance. 

 

The last 512MB of VRAM is at around 28 GB/s... that's not much more then the speed of GDDR3. And considering that there's already a noticeable performance difference between the DDR3 and DDR5 versions of the GT 640, yes the 970 will be impacted. Use common sense.

 

 

@Razzaa seems to not have any issues even at 1440p.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/303276-official-nvidia-gtx-970-discussion-thread/?p=4306910

 

Also, we already talked about being insulting via PM's - telling me to use common sense, like I haven't done my research on this is insulting. Please stop.

1440p Dying light. Notice the frametimes. 20ms = 50FPS. 50fps for 1440p DL everything maxed out is exceptional fps on a single card!!

 

[SeanBond]

It's not an insult, it's just saying what it is. If you use all 4GB it's not like performance will totally tank because only 1/8 of the total data on VRAM is slow. If you were to use only the data on that 1/8 portion, then performance would be downright awful. However this is not to be said that the 0.5GB doesn't affect performance, because it does, even if it's to a small extent in many cases, it does affect performance.

 

I'm not saying that you haven't done your research, I'm just saying that even with research there's still some common sense that should be used. That is not an insult.

 

Also all I see in Razzaa's videos is one game struggling to hit 30FPS and another struggling to do 50.

This is agreeable. It will cause a dip in performance but it shouldn't be any stutter or massive frame rate drops. It's just not as much performance as it could have been. Even at 1/8th speed gddr5 is fast as hell.

[Razzaa]

 

 

Also all I see in Razzaa's videos is one game struggling to hit 30FPS and another struggling to do 50.

I assume you are talking about AC: Unity. Notice what other cards pull on same settings. As you can see in my video, my 970 is keeping up with the 980

 

[Aniallation]

There are people running at 4K with SLI 970s (I will be joining that group when my cards arrive tomorrow) but one user said that he hasn't had any issues.

At 4K for the time being, it's not a big issue, but once you turn resolution scaling up to fill up more VRAM, the dips become noticeable. It's not like future games are going to use less VRAM then current titles.

 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-GTX-970-Memory-Issued-Tested-SLI

 

 

 

Frame variance takes a much larger hike on the 970, and frame times are also all over the place. 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

 

Update: We tested specifically with this title as reportedly it runs into problems (stutters) at the point where it can't use more VRAM, with our card that is 3.6 GB. Read that carefully, we can not load up the card with more VRAM even with heavier DSR - and that is the precisely point where people have been complaining about stuttering and other issues.

[Aniallation]

This is agreeable. It will cause a dip in performance but it shouldn't be any stutter or massive frame rate drops. It's just not as much performance as it could have been. Even at 1/8th speed gddr5 is fast as hell.

Some people do put up with stutter better then others though. 

[Razzaa]

At 4K for the time being, it's not a big issue, but once you turn resolution scaling up to fill up more VRAM, the dips become noticeable. It's not like future games are going to use less VRAM then current titles.

 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-GTX-970-Memory-Issued-Tested-SLI

 

 

 

Frame variance takes a much larger hike on the 970, and frame times are also all over the place. 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

 

Update: We tested specifically with this title as reportedly it runs into problems (stutters) at the point where it can't use more VRAM, with our card that is 3.6 GB. Read that carefully, we can not load up the card with more VRAM even with heavier DSR - and that is the precisely point where people have been complaining about stuttering and other issues.

So your argument is....if i run my 300$ GPU at unreasonably high settings it starts to have issues? Do you understand what resolution they are running BF4 at. They also stated it was a small variance in frame times.

 

Edit: I also just showed the card using 4gb of vram with out stutter.............

[Prastupok]

In fairness, if you're going with multi-4K setups, a 970 isn't for you. For a 1 or 2 1440p setup, it'll work great (especially in SLI).

 

Plus, at least in my case, it'll be a folding powerhouse.

[chutia]

just take a kinfe, and pop that chip out of the pcb

hahaha ya and then stick the knife in a toaster while your at it!!

[Megahurt]

The way I understand it, the gpu will use the amount of memory it needs regardless of what it has onboard, using system memory if it goes over. The last 0.5GB is still faster than the pci-e bus which would be the limiting factor.

[mr moose]

So you guys are saying the vram is an issue because it runs slower, even though people have posted videos of games using said slower ram and nothing is wrong.  Then I hear, the vram won;t be an issue until 4k.  So are you guys now insinuating that the last 512Mb is only slower if you use 4k textures and not if you have it set to 1440? 

 

 

I used to say there was a problem with 970 for 4k Because the reviews all showed the card shat itself after 1440, but I think I'll rescind that opinion for now.  Especially as I am starting to see a lot more videos come out that show vram to be much less of an issue that people make it out to be.

 

 

 

Also this thread might need to be merged with the other, or just deleted because someone said no more 970 threads.

[JoshM]

An option is fine, because it is still a 4gb card. But if it is like mandatory and unchangeable without a hack then we can all go to Nvidia and burn their office down.

Yeah thats what i though and i think thats what they need to do for people gaming at high res

[LAwLz]

So you guys are saying the vram is an issue because it runs slower, even though people have posted videos of games using said slower ram and nothing is wrong.  Then I hear, the vram won;t be an issue until 4k.  So are you guys now insinuating that the last 512Mb is only slower if you use 4k textures and not if you have it set to 1440? 

 

I used to say there was a problem with 970 for 4k Because the reviews all showed the card shat itself after 1440, but I think I'll rescind that opinion for now.  Especially as I am starting to see a lot more videos come out that show vram to be much less of an issue that people make it out to be.

 

Also this thread might need to be merged with the other, or just deleted because someone said no more 970 threads.

In a few more pages we will see:

1) Someone claim 4K on the 970 is not possible.

2) Someone posting benchmarks of popular games running just fine on the 970 without stuttering.

3) Person from point 1 will now claim that he meant 4K with super sampling enabled, or future games like Crysis 10 at 4K.

[mr moose]

In a few more pages we will see:

1) Someone claim 4K on the 970 is not possible.

2) Someone posting benchmarks of popular games running just fine on the 970 without stuttering.

3) Person from point 1 will now claim that he meant 4K with super sampling enabled, or future games like Crysis 10 at 4K.

 

we might also see someone show us the card not stuttering at 4G ram usage and then another post saying it isn't possible and that all the 970 should perform identical regardless of the game or settings. 

 

Then we'll get someone claim nvidia are the second coming of satan to eat the children of the poor.  then some shitpost meme that has been done to death.

 

Rinse, spin, repeat.

[Shahnewaz]

Here is a comparision test with a 670 4GB vs a 970:

http://youtu.be/kLs6YJrP5xU

 

A new game and the problem arises again:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total-War-Attila-PC-259548/Specials/Test-Benchmarks-1151602/

 

Yet again:

steamcommunity.com/app/239140/discussions/0/606068060814531515/

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Anyone wanna donate a 970 to me?  :lol:

Already hit all 3GB of vram in Skyrim in 1080p res. If only I had 970, I wonder what 2K res will give me B)  

[meritmaster]

you comment on me spouting bullshit then come up with this load of shite. first vid i came to on the 980 w ultra textures and it was stuttering. 1 jumped from 90 fps down to 28

 

i cant be arsed with this anymore. i have other more important things to deal with.  

I received my GTX 980 today, and played Shadow of Mordor maxxed out, and guess what, there was no stuttering, and i was playing around 60 FPS at 1440p. It was a thousand times better than my GTX 970. |

Just because it says it needs 6GB's doesn't mean it actually does. 

You're ignorant. 

[meritmaster]

 

that proves nothing given that SoM ultra textures need 6GB vram and the 970 only has 4GB of vram.  

 

i personally have run farcry 4 with 3.4-3.8gb usage @ 60fps with no issues what so ever.....

 

all i see is the same people posting the same shit and most of it baseless. its been a month and so far nothing has come out to show the 970 is suffering from any issues at all. face it nvidia didnt mis lead you you have the card that all the benches advertised. your not gonna get your free shit....deal with it

 

"that proves nothing given that SoM ultra textures need 6GB vram and the 970 only has 4GB of vram.  "

 

 

No it doesn't, and you were talking out of your ass. I received my GTX 980 today, and now there is no more stuttering when Ultra textures are turned on. 

[Dabombinable]

I received my GTX 980 today, and played Shadow of Mordor maxxed out, and guess what, there was no stuttering, and i was playing around 60 FPS at 1440p. It was a thousand times better than my GTX 970. |

Just because it says it needs 6GB's doesn't mean it actually does. 

You're ignorant. 

From my understanding, unless your playing on an identical system to those used by the devs to test the game, minimum and recommended specs are pointless for anything except a vague idea of what kind of PC you need. I'll be proving this soon (I hope) with 2xPentium 3s and a Nvidia 6200 (512MB) in unreal tournament 4. Even if the settings need to be set to minimum, and the game played at 64x480-it will still be better than playing on any of my laptops.

[jaggysnake57]

 

No it doesn't, and you were talking out of your ass. I received my GTX 980 today, and now there is no more stuttering when Ultra textures are turned on. 

 

yeah! we have it the proof we needed. are you going to testify in the class action, expert witness...."derp my 980 is fine so derp 970 is shit......"

 

shut up jackass if the 970 is so shit why is are there so few posts slating it? 

 

still waiting for that evidance

[Krml]

It's not even about that. Let me put it this way. You give me the choice of buying two oranges, one is slightly larger than the other. I opt to buy the smaller one because it fits my needs only to realize that it's not even an orange, it's a bitter grapefruit.

Of course my GTX 970 isn't worthless, I never implied it is. Not for 1080p or 1440p at least. But for 4K it is utterly worthless now. I had bought the card in anticipation of a 4K G-Sync monitor upgrade this year along with another 970 to power it. But now Nvidia slaps me in the face and tells me my card is worthless for the purpose I had originally bought it for. I'm sorry but if this isn't infuriating enough, the mere aspect of deception is enough for me to call it quits with this rotten arrangement.

UPDATE : And despite what Faa my lead you to believe I do in fact HAVE an MSI Gaming GTX 970, not that I care what an inconsiderate flame-baiter thinks.

That is exactly how I feel

[Dabombinable]

yeah! we have it the proof we needed. are you going to testify in the class action, expert witness...."derp my 980 is fine so derp 970 is shit......"

 

shut up jackass if the 970 is so shit why is are there so few posts slating it? 

 

still waiting for that evidance

Not that many people are slating it because they are more concerned with the fact Nvidia lied, not about performance issues that take a shitload of screwing around to even show (from my experience anyway).

[mr moose]

Not that many people are slating it because they are more concerned with the fact Nvidia lied, not about performance issues that take a shitload of screwing around to even show (from my experience anyway).

 

That's half the problem though, card performance and marketing issues are two separate things.  Unfortunately the internet is really good at taking an  issue from something relatively unknown to a conspiracy of watergate proportions in less than half a day.  So by the time the real issues/situation is uncovered too many people are already convinced they understand.  E.G 970 should perform worse than a 980, this is not proof that vram issues are causing problems beyond what the card would experience had it had consistent ram access.  Yet people think it does because too many people (angry users, fanboys, ignorant's etc) have spent the last few weeks telling them that.

[R_Golden]

I wish that thread would get closed... this topic is just not worth it anymore.

Yup, there's no reason to argue on it anymore. the facts are the facts and there is no changing it, people are just arguing opinion which is reckless and unintelligent. 

[Tim Drake]

 

I get this is probably overdone but DigitalFoundry finally did a video on the issue giving us the facts we needed.

 

So With a single 970, it is rarely effected.

With 970 SLI it is only effected when you ramp the settings up TO MORE THAN YOU SHOULD BE (meaning you are getting less frames than you should be aiming  for)

 

So does this prove to people that it does exactly what it is meant to at it's price point or do you still think it's a load of poo poo?

 

P.S I couldn't think of a good title :'(

[1Scotty1]

I still love my 970s in SLI