GTX 970 problem fixed?

[edmund306]

Is the gtx 970 problem fixed yet? Safe to buy?

[Frankie]

It was always safe to buy.

[Critizin]

its literally a problem they can't fix.


deal with it.

[Unhelpful]

Is the gtx 970 problem fixed yet? Safe to buy?

That issue won't really be fixed to my understanding. It is how the card is designed, either make it how it is or make it essentially a 980. 

 

It was always good. People freaked out too much, and nvidia pretty much lied. But it, as a card, is very good. It always has been, even when people were freaking the fuck out. The benchmarks of it weren't faked or anything. The benchmarks are still just as high as when people fanboyed over the card at launch, even better due to driver optimizations. However is has only 3.5gb of vram. The last .5gb can pretty much be ignored.

[Prastupok]

It's not a problem. It's fine for 4k, save for a very small amount of games. 1440P? It's a no brainer.

 

The benchmarks have not changed since launch.

[TheKDub]

Is the gtx 970 problem fixed yet? Safe to buy?

 

Nvidia cannot fix it, but the card is perfectly fine.

 

Go look at some benchmarks for it, they don't lie.

I have the GTX 970 G1 Gaming from Gigabyte, and at 1080p I see absolutely no problem with the last .5GB of VRAM being slow, and at the resolutions where you would be hitting that 3.5GB+ mark, its most likely because AA was left on cranked up all the way.

I feel that AA is fine being set to this:

1080p - 8x

1440p - 4x

4K - off-2x

[jayctech]

Card benchmarks are the same as always.

[blackadder]

Nvidia cannot fix it, but the card is perfectly fine.

Go look at some benchmarks for it, they don't lie.

I have the GTX 970 G1 Gaming from Gigabyte, and at 1080p I see absolutely no problem with the last .5GB of VRAM being slow, and at the resolutions where you would be hitting that 3.5GB+ mark, its most likely because AA was left on cranked up all the way.

I feel that AA is fine being set to this:

1080p - 8x

1440p - 4x

4K - off-2x

the only game i can think of that i get 30fps in at 1080p is skyrim, all aaa games i played were a dream.

[jayctech]

That issue won't really be fixed to my understanding. It is how the card is designed, either make it how it is or make it essentially a 980. 

 

It was always good. People freaked out too much, and nvidia pretty much lied. But it, as a card, is very good. It always has been, even when people were freaking the fuck out. The benchmarks of it weren't faked or anything. The benchmarks are still just as high as when people fanboyed over the card at launch, even better due to driver optimizations. However is has only 3.5gb of vram. The last .5gb can pretty much be ignored.

I disagree. Completely false advertising so I think people were entitled to be freaked out.

[Unhelpful]

I disagree. Completely false advertising so I think people were entitled to be freaked out.

Oh of course. But not about the capabilities of the card. It can still run games just as well/better than the benchmarks said when people were recommending them left and right. And 3.5gb is more than enough for most games at 1080p and many at 1440p.

 

I was referring to freaking out and not recommending the 970 even though it is still just as good of a card.

 

nvidia needed to be freaked out at though so this shit doesn't happen again. But people actually said that the 970 is a trash card because of it... Nope.

[jayctech]

Oh of course. But not about the capabilities of the card. It can still run games just as well/better than the benchmarks said when people were recommending them left and right. And 3.5gb is more than enough for most games at 1080p and many at 1440p.

 

I was referring to freaking out and not recommending the 970 even though it is still just as good of a card.

 

nvidia needed to be freaked out at though so this shit doesn't happen again.

Ah right okay I get ya. I concur with your points here but I can also understand people being pissed off because clearly if it was the advertised specs it'd be that much better and at the same time, it's the advertised specs that they cared about when making the decision to buy the card. Especially the future proofing aspect.

[Critizin]

Oh of course. But not about the capabilities of the card. It can still run games just as well/better than the benchmarks said when people were recommending them left and right. And 3.5gb is more than enough for most games at 1080p and many at 1440p.

 

I was referring to freaking out and not recommending the 970 even though it is still just as good of a card.

 

nvidia needed to be freaked out at though so this shit doesn't happen again. But people actually said that the 970 is a trash card because of it... Nope.

it is a trash card if it goes over 3.5gb then u experience stutter... and that shits unacceptable.

[Trik'Stari]

There is no fix, it's the way the card was made to function, the best they can do is make the drivers use it more efficiently.

 

Mine runs 5720x1080 fairly well. A lot better than I was expecting. Go for it.

 

(I can play battlefield on high, without any problems that I can notice with just my eyes. And I'm talking hardline, not bf4, bf4 runs but it has some kind of crashing problem lately, that happens on one monitor or three.)

[Prastupok]

it is a trash card if it goes over 3.5gb then u experience stutter... and that shits unacceptable

 

And how many games go over 3.5GB at anything but 4K? One.

[TheKDub]

the only game i can think of that i get 30fps in at 1080p is skyrim, all aaa games i played were a dream.

 

With my 970 I easily run skyrim maxed out at 1080p with 60FPS, same for World of Tanks, Starcraft II, Hitman Absolution, And a bunch of other games.

[Critizin]

And how many games go over 3.5GB at anything but 4K? One.

And how many games in the future will do it as well..   more then one.

[Frankie]

And how many games in the future will do it as well..   more then one.

 

At that point in time the 970 will be probably obsolete.

[Critizin]

At that point in time the 970 will be probably obsolete.

I bet you witcher 3, on ultra with HD Textures will hit it.

[Frankie]

I bet you witcher 3, on ultra with HD Textures will hit it.

 

That's gonna murder more than just 970.

[boboman342]

I bet you witcher 3, on ultra with HD Textures will hit it.

I hope not I ran the witcher 2 on ultra (no ubersampling) with an increase fov mod as well as 2k textures...on my old 7870 I was getting 55-60fps. Lets hope my 970 can max it yet again, and use under 3.5Gb of vram

[blackadder]

With my 970 I easily run skyrim maxed out at 1080p with 60FPS, same for World of Tanks, Starcraft II, Hitman Absolution, And a bunch of other games.

i have a crazy amount of mods,16x aa

[Zulkkis]

nVidia uses chips that fail to become 980's to make their 970's. This is done by disabling certain modules, though this time around, Maxwell allowed them to disable a small portion of a module instead of a full module.

 

This gave nVidia the possibility to give the GTX 970 4GB of VRAM so that they could have 3.5GB of usable VRAM. Because of the partially disabled module, the speed of the last .5GB of the VRAM would be significantly reduced. If they did not do this, the GTX 970 would be a 3GB VRAM card.

 

They failed to communicate the consumers and tech experts that the last .5GB of the VRAM would be practically useless. Users of GTX 970 started noticing issues with GTX 970 when using the last .5GB of VRAM, and someone wrote a test which proved that the last .5GB of VRAM had significantly reduced bandwidth. nVidia only started to pay attention to the issue and make it clear to the public when the noise was too loud to ignore. This is the biggest issue for a lot of the consumers, not the lack of VRAM on the card itself but how nVidia was quiet about it all along.

 

The "card has 3.5GB of VRAM" is a hardware issue, and you can't patch it out.

 

TLDR; All nVidia GTX 970's work as designed, but not as initially advertised. Still a great card.

[D2ultima]

The last .5gb can pretty much be ignored.

If they would ignore it in the drivers then the problems would actually be fixed. But it's there and it is the source of the card's issues. It would literally do better WITHOUT that last thing. So no, don't ignore it. Understand that it is there and understand that it will cause problems for some people in some games using certain setups.

[Unhelpful]

If they would ignore it in the drivers then the problems would actually be fixed. But it's there and it is the source of the card's issues. It would literally do better WITHOUT that last thing. So no, don't ignore it. Understand that it is there and understand that it will cause problems for some people in some games using certain setups.

No it wouldn't be... It is still faster than putting it to system memory. 

[TheKDub]

i have a crazy amount of mods,16x aa

 

I have roughly 90 mods (~80 or so are graphical), AA - 8x (max), AF - 16x (max) and get 60FPS in pretty much all locations. (Except whiterun because of a mod that I've got that adds a shitton of plants, trees, etc... to it)