Statements about 1080p and GTX 970's

[TravisTea]

I keep reading "You won't have an issue with the vram of a gtx 970 because you'll never use all of it with 1080p gaming". I disagree with this statement. I had a Gigabyte G1 GTX 970 "4gb" and there are in fact some games that use more than 3.5 gb of vram. Whenever I played BF4, there were quite a few maps that ate my vram up quickly. Once I breached 3600+mb of vram being used, my frames took a nose dive. I would go from 100+ fps down to 5-10 and would roller coaster the rest of the match. I'd have to restart the game and join a different server on a different map. Same thing happened with FC4. A friend of mine just bought an EVGA 970 and has been playing Dying Light. He runs a resolution of 1680x1050. His card is using JUST UNDER 3.5gb of vram. So to say that at 1080p you'll be fine, is not completely true. Also, it's insane the number of 970's that have coil whines. I don't understand how this issue hasn't been resolved either. My card had a rather obnoxious whine to it.

 

I ended up selling my card to someone on Craig's list and am waiting to see what AMD has to offer with this next batch of cards. Keep in mind I'm not biased on cards. I've had cards from both companies and enjoy what they have to offer. I just like a card to have what I'm told it has. Also, when I read about how Nvidia would help gtx 970 users get a refund for their cards, I tried, and quoted what they're PR guy had stated about the refunds. Newegg, Gigabyte, and Nvidia all refused to do it. They kept passing the buck off to the other companies, back and forth. So to those of you who actually get refunds, kudos. I'd like to know what you had to do to pry it out of them.

 

/rant 

[dadasmithywinkle]

I keep reading "You won't have an issue with the vram of a gtx 970 because you'll never use all of it with 1080p gaming". I disagree with this statement. I had a Gigabyte G1 GTX 970 "4gb" and there are in fact some games that use more than 3.5 gb of vram. Whenever I played BF4, there were quite a few maps that ate my vram up quickly. Once I breached 3600+mb of vram being used, my frames took a nose dive. I would go from 100+ fps down to 5-10 and would roller coaster the rest of the match. I'd have to restart the game and join a different server on a different map. Same thing happened with FC4. A friend of mine just bought an EVGA 970 and has been playing Dying Light. He runs a resolution of 1680x1050. His card is using JUST UNDER 3.5gb of vram. So to say that at 1080p you'll be fine, is not completely true. Also, it's insane the number of 970's that have coil whines. I don't understand how this issue hasn't been resolved either. My card had a rather obnoxious whine to it.

 

I ended up selling my card to someone on Craig's list and am waiting to see what AMD has to offer with this next batch of cards. Keep in mind I'm not biased on cards. I've had cards from both companies and enjoy what they have to offer. I just like a card to have what I'm told it has. Also, when I read about how Nvidia would help gtx 970 users get a refund for their cards, I tried, and quoted what they're PR guy had stated about the refunds. Newegg, Gigabyte, and Nvidia all refused to do it. They kept passing the buck off to the other companies, back and forth. So to those of you who actually get refunds, kudos. I'd like to know what you had to do to pry it out of them.

 

/rant 

I never had an issue with BF4 but I did with other games.

[NeatSquidYT]

Never had an issue with any game, even BF4. And I'm running 2 monitors (1 is idle but still)

[Guest]

Shadow of Mordor with the UHD texture pack is notorious for pushing the 970 over it's 3.5Gb VRAM limit even at 1080p.

[flibberdipper]

I get kinda close to my 3GB VRAM limit once in a while. But... Still.

[TheKDub]

I keep reading "You won't have an issue with the vram of a gtx 970 because you'll never use all of it with 1080p gaming". I disagree with this statement. I had a Gigabyte G1 GTX 970 "4gb" and there are in fact some games that use more than 3.5 gb of vram. Whenever I played BF4, there were quite a few maps that ate my vram up quickly. Once I breached 3600+mb of vram being used, my frames took a nose dive. I would go from 100+ fps down to 5-10 and would roller coaster the rest of the match. I'd have to restart the game and join a different server on a different map. Same thing happened with FC4. A friend of mine just bought an EVGA 970 and has been playing Dying Light. He runs a resolution of 1680x1050. His card is using JUST UNDER 3.5gb of vram. So to say that at 1080p you'll be fine, is not completely true. Also, it's insane the number of 970's that have coil whines. I don't understand how this issue hasn't been resolved either. My card had a rather obnoxious whine to it.

 

I ended up selling my card to someone on Craig's list and am waiting to see what AMD has to offer with this next batch of cards. Keep in mind I'm not biased on cards. I've had cards from both companies and enjoy what they have to offer. I just like a card to have what I'm told it has. Also, when I read about how Nvidia would help gtx 970 users get a refund for their cards, I tried, and quoted what they're PR guy had stated about the refunds. Newegg, Gigabyte, and Nvidia all refused to do it. They kept passing the buck off to the other companies, back and forth. So to those of you who actually get refunds, kudos. I'd like to know what you had to do to pry it out of them.

 

/rant 

 

I own a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming, I have turned DSR all the way to 4x on my 1680x1050 monitor and ran a couple of games such as World of Tanks and Skyrim maxed out (skyrim had AA off because I didn't feel a need for it when using DSR), and I had no problem with them.

 

My card has very faint coil whine when under very high load, though its quiet enough to be ignored.

 

The 970 is a perfectly good card, yes there is the issue with the VRAM, big deal, performance will still be the same as shown in benchmarks.

 

Allow me about 5 minutes and I'll update this with the VRAM usage that I'm getting in games.

 

--Edit--

 

World of Tanks - About 2GB, highest I saw was about 2.2GB (4x dsr)

[Bhav]

So 3.5 Gb isn't enough at 1080p ... An extra 500 Mb for £150 on a GTX 980 is going to solve all your problems and never become Vram limited ...

No, I'm just not understanding this. If the 3.5 Gb on a 970 cant even manage at 1080p, how can the 980 manage at 1440p - 4k?

All this complaining is one of the dumbest things ever in the history of video cards.

But NVM, I suppose the answer is that the 970 sucks so you should get a 960 instead, because a much slower card and only 2 Gb Vram seems like the answer to such problems ... Based off what other people are doing.

Btw, If you're getting Vram limited with 3.5 Gb at 1080p, try reducing AA or disabling DSR first.

[IceCold007]

Kind feels like the customers "us" are all getting the shit end of the stick this year. I don't use AMD cards and is waiting for anything past the 970/980 line. But im hearing this might take a long time to happen

 

On the bright side of things it gives me time to save up for 2 new cards. Im in no rush to play the top AAA games. Im just affaid if I do buy a 4 gig vram card its not going to be enough in 12 months time with newer AAA titles. I just want a 6 or 8 gig vram card WHICH aint going to break my Bank and have my wife running after me with a sledgehammer in one hand and the divorce papers in the other.

[Badger906]

i don't know what you're doing wrong lol but i can max out bf4 with a 2gb card at 1080p and maintain a 60fps average. in fact it exceeded 60fps most of the time so id enable v sync and never got any stuttering or lags from it dipping below 60fps. I can even play bf4 at medium to high setting at 4k and still not exceed 2gb, admittedly I'm only getting around 45-50fps its still far more demanding than 1080p.

 

plus if 3.5gb wasn't enough for 1080p, then everyone in the world with a 780ti wouldn't be able to max out games at 1080p... 

 

only 2 games off hand that at 1080p can use more than 3gb vram is shadow of mordor with the graphics patch and dying light on ultra, and thats only because they used a monumentously overkill texture mapping on the ultra setting at you'd not really even notice at 1080p

[Jeramathi1992]

Thanks for this thread I was debating buying an 970 but i want all the eye candy i can get with 1080 but sounds like some games will still have issues anybody has any nvidia solutions besides the 980 at 600 dollars

[Whorax]

So 3.5 Gb isn't enough at 1080p ... An extra 500 Mb for £150 on a GTX 980 is going to solve all your problems and never become Vram limited ...

No, I'm just not understanding this. If the 3.5 Gb on a 970 cant even manage at 1080p, how can the 980 manage at 1440p - 4k?

All this complaining is one of the dumbest things ever in the history of video cards.

But NVM, I suppose the answer is that the 970 sucks so you should get a 960 instead, because a much slower card and only 2 Gb Vram seems like the answer to such problems ... Based off what other people are doing.

Btw, If you're getting Vram limited with 3.5 Gb at 1080p, try reducing AA or disabling DSR first.

Uhh.... the 980 can manage at 1440p because it has efficient 4GB VRAM...lol?

 

You also seem to forget that you don't need to upgrade all the way to a 980 because the 290X is really the better performing card if you have the wattage for it. Hell, the 290X is even cheaper than the 970 at some retailers I believe.

[Bhav]

I don't think you understood. If 3.5 Gb isn't enough for 1080p, and extra 500 Mb isn't going to he enough at 4k. I think the main problem is people leaving their AA / DSR too high.

[Humbug]

A bit surprised, didn't think BF4 could exceed 3.5GB VRAM at 1080p.

[pdv789]

I don't think you understood. If 3.5 Gb isn't enough for 1080p, and extra 500 Mb isn't going to he enough at 4k. I think the main problem is people leaving their AA / DSR too high.

The thing is if a card only has 3.5gb then it would do just fine. Even some sort of option in a manager of some sort to deny the usage of the last .5 would be better than leaving it how it is. You can play bf4 ultra on a 2gb card and it's fine. If your card has more then it will utilize more vram. And there is the problem with the 970. That last .5 is there and will be utilized but it is vastly slower than the rest of the vram on the card and because of that frame rates vary greatly and stutters are introduced.

 

I do agree with you though, the 970 is and always has been ideal for 1440p gaming, yes it 'can' do 4k and the games that don't hit that last .5gb vram wall run decently well to include bf4. If you do manage to get to that point in vram usage you should probably be turning down some settings to have a satisfactory experience. I'm still upset over my gimped .5gb vram but it's still one hell of a card. I LOVE to overclock the hell out of this beast and go on a rampage or two in bf4. I am entertaining the thought of buying what AMD has to offer coming up here shortly but that's because I'm impartial to either company and just want the best. This was just a stepping stone for me and was already planning to replace my card in the next 6 months anyways. But if I don't like what they bring to the table I will be buying myself a second 970, why? Because it's still a great card for the price. It was fairly obvious there was a compromise when you compare the price between the 970 and 980.

 

TL;DR

The 970 is still a good card and I still recommend it for it's price point. The last .5gb vram introduce the problem and it'd be better without it imo. May switch to AMD or sli depending on what is brought to the table.

[Fate]

A bit surprised, didn't think BF4 could exceed 3.5GB at VRAM at 1080p.

Ultra preset 1080p with an R9 270 (2GB card) I believe I got an average of about 50-55fps with some dips into the mid 40's in 64 player servers. The more ram you have, the more is used. 2GB vram will probably be perfectly fine (let alone 3.5GB) at 1080p for a long time with 3GB probably becoming the standard. 

[Dabombinable]

I personally only witness the slowdown of the last 500MB when running tests, however since my GTX 970 G1 Gaming is absolutely abysmal (it started degrading after 2 weeks of +140MHz, +0mV-now its unstable at even stock settings), can no longer put up any results with a clear conscience as I just don't know if the results I'm getting reflect actual fact. I can try under a GTX 650Ti OC 2GB, so if any of the mainstream games have no hassle running at 1080p with 2GB of vRAM useable, I will say that 2GB is fine for 1080p. (I need to go back through my posts, and retract any promise of doing vRAM tests with my GTX 970-there is no point when my card is as bad as it is).

[JustCallMeVlad]

I personally only witness the slowdown of the last 500MB when running tests, however since my GTX 970 G1 Gaming is absolutely abysmal (it started degrading after 2 weeks of +140MHz, +0mV-now its unstable at even stock settings), can no longer put up any results with a clear conscience as I just don't know if the results I'm getting reflect actual fact. I can try under a GTX 650Ti OC 2GB, so if any of the mainstream games have no hassle running at 1080p with 2GB of vRAM useable, I will say that 2GB is fine for 1080p. (I need to go back through my posts, and retract any promise of doing vRAM tests with my GTX 970-there is no point when my card is as bad as it is).

RMA it

[Dabombinable]

RMA it

Already in the process, and going with something else other than a G1 Gaming this time.

[pdv789]

Already in the process, and going with something else other than a G1 Gaming this time.

That's very unfortunate that you are having that issue with the G1. I have the same model and it seems to be working fine however I will have to keep an eye on it from now on. Hopefully your RMA proceeds smoothly.

[Dabombinable]

That's very unfortunate that you are having that issue with the G1. I have the same model and it seems to be working fine however I will have to keep an eye on it from now on. Hopefully your RMA proceeds smoothly.

Its quite possible that the GPU wasn't binned correctly by Nvidia and/or Gigabyte since its only lasted in all reality 3 months. I seem to be the only person with this issue so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Suika]

If the GTX 970 can't handle 1080p with a measly 3.5GB, I have the shortest end of the stick with a GTX 780 3GB. /s

Everyone talking about hitting over 3.5GB, I haven't had a VRAM bottleneck yet.

[Deletive]

Probably had 200% scaling or some shit like that.

[Bhav]

The thing is if a card only has 3.5gb then it would do just fine. Even some sort of option in a manager of some sort to deny the usage of the last .5 would be better than leaving it how it is. You can play bf4 ultra on a 2gb card and it's fine. If your card has more then it will utilize more vram. And there is the problem with the 970. That last .5 is there and will be utilized but it is vastly slower than the rest of the vram on the card and because of that frame rates vary greatly and stutters are introduced.

 

I do agree with you though, the 970 is and always has been ideal for 1440p gaming, yes it 'can' do 4k and the games that don't hit that last .5gb vram wall run decently well to include bf4. If you do manage to get to that point in vram usage you should probably be turning down some settings to have a satisfactory experience. I'm still upset over my gimped .5gb vram but it's still one hell of a card. I LOVE to overclock the hell out of this beast and go on a rampage or two in bf4. I am entertaining the thought of buying what AMD has to offer coming up here shortly but that's because I'm impartial to either company and just want the best. This was just a stepping stone for me and was already planning to replace my card in the next 6 months anyways. But if I don't like what they bring to the table I will be buying myself a second 970, why? Because it's still a great card for the price. It was fairly obvious there was a compromise when you compare the price between the 970 and 980.

 

TL;DR

The 970 is still a good card and I still recommend it for it's price point. The last .5gb vram introduce the problem and it'd be better without it imo. May switch to AMD or sli depending on what is brought to the table.

 

No I dont think it works that way. Because when you go beyond the Vram limit the additional info is put into the system ram using shared ram. The last 500 Mb on the 970 is still faster than shared ram. Its delusional to think that a 2 Gb card is going to perform better than a 970 when more than 3.5 Gb vram is needed.

[pdv789]

No I dont think it works that way. Because when you go beyond the Vram limit the additional info is put into the system ram using shared ram. The last 500 Mb on the 970 is still faster than shared ram. Its delusional to think that a 2 Gb card is going to perform better than a 970 when more than 3.5 Gb vram is needed.

Yes the last 500mb is 4x faster than using system ram for texture rendering however it is only 1/8th the speed of the other 3.5gb of vram. You are right, it is delusional to think a 2gb card would perform better than a 3.5 when it is needed. But like it has been said and proven before; it is used because it is there. If that weren't the case then when you use over 3gb in bf4 on the 970 it should blow the 780 or 780ti away when using the same settings because it forces textures and data to the system memory since they only have 3gb but that's not the case. Vram amount is rarely the bottleneck to the point that you see performance issues with the exception of a few cases such as this.

 

Maybe a 2gb card wasn't the best comparison. The 780 would have been a much better comparison with similar performance and 3gb of vram. Regardless I would much prefer the last 500mb not even be there at this point because only one can be called to/from at a time (unless somethings changed in the last week I haven't hear of) and running at 1/8th the speed of the rest the vram runs introduces the stuttering that happens however rarely it does occur. Still a great card though.

[Toto123456]

I have not run into any issues u posted here. what about those peoples with 780Ti that only has 3Gb of vram? none of them complain anything at all!! yes nvidia misadvertised it and i am very upset for what they did, but hey? it is still better than the 290x once overclocked anyway! and also peoples have been playing games for MONTHS before they even heard of the news and all of the sudden peoples started reporting problems, I think it is just a placebo effect.