SLI 970s

[Warren Pnigel]

Hi everyone, I am getting a 1440p monitor soon, the acer predator with g sync. Are sli 970's okay for high performance games? Everyone is saying that the 3.5 gb of vram is an issue, but what do you think? I already have 1 970, so it would be easy to get another one. Am I better off selling the 970 I currently have and getting another 2 cards? Thanks for the help guys.  

[iDeJayDzn]

You're fine at 1080 and 1440p even on a single 970. SLI 970's are fine for both. I'm doing the same. Infact i have the same monitor you're thinking of getting.

[Suika]

Everyone is saying that the 3.5 gb of vram is an issue

By everyone, you mean fools.

 

Even Jay commented about how 4K, the only games that really show stuttering issues with the GTX 970 are games that require a ridiculous amount of VRAM, and most of those games require mods to push it to that point.

[Whorax]

You already have a 970 so there's no point in me suggesting a 290X.

I wouldn't get another 970, that's for sure. I'd put the extra 970 funds you have in the bank and wait for a better single card to come out when you feel the need to upgrade.

[Sorfex0]

Dont believe in that 3.5gb vram bull. I have gtx 970 sli and i do go over 3.5gb vram without shutters or performance lose. Here you go some videos. +unity gameplay with gtx 970 at 4k with all 4gb vram in use with i would say very stable performance.

[Skrizzles]

SLI 970's - P^3. Pure Pwnage.

[Zulkkis]

Users noticed the last .5GB or so slowing down significantly, before nVidia even disclosed the true nature of GTX 970 - so it's not just bull.

 

Games can cache more memory than what they actually need. Even if Afterburner or whatnot report >3.5GB VRAM usage, yet in reality the scene would require much less. This can be because i.e game doesn't really want to think what to take out from the memory until it really starts needing to do so. CoD: AW can fill the whole VRAM pool of a GTX Titan X because it takes this practise to the extreme.

 

Another thing is that surpassing the VRAM limitations of the GPU doesn't necessarily hit the average FPS that hard, but rather causes inconsistent frametimes and lower minimum framerates at few% of the frames. This means stutter. You can't measure it very effectively in traditional benchmarks. A good example of this is GamersNexus vs TechOfTomorrow comparing the GTX 960 2GB to a GTX 960 4GB. Only one of those outlets made the correct tests.

 

Regardless, let's just say that the 3.5GB of VRAM pool is... unideal for an SLI setup. It's kind of like having a 770 2GB vs having a 770 4GB right now. Or the same for the 670 or 680. The 4GB versions make a lot more sense today. It's not quite as bad with the regular GTX 970 (3.5GB now vs 2GB then), but if the SLI setup ages in some regard and we'd have to consider what is the weak point, it'll be either the VRAM or nVidia discontinuing real, performance-oriented driver updates when newer series of GPUs start coming around.

 

I would say, try a single GTX 970 first, pocket the rest of the money, and if you're unhappy, purchase one of the high-end GPUs that comes in the next round.

[Sorfex0]

Users noticed the last .5GB or so slowing down significantly, before nVidia even disclosed the true nature of GTX 970 - so it's not just bull.

 

Games can cache more memory than what they actually need. Even if Afterburner or whatnot report >3.5GB VRAM usage, yet in reality the scene would require much less. This can be because i.e game doesn't really want to think what to take out from the memory until it really starts needing to do so. CoD: AW can fill the whole VRAM pool of a GTX Titan X because it takes this practise to the extreme.

 

Another thing is that surpassing the VRAM limitations of the GPU doesn't necessarily hit the average FPS that hard, but rather causes inconsistent frametimes and lower minimum framerates at few% of the frames. This means stutter. You can't measure it very effectively in traditional benchmarks. A good example of this is GamersNexus vs TechOfTomorrow comparing the GTX 960 2GB to a GTX 960 4GB. Only one of those outlets made the correct tests.

 

Regardless, let's just say that the 3.5GB of VRAM pool is... unideal for an SLI setup. It's kind of like having a 770 2GB vs having a 770 4GB right now. Or the same for the 670 or 680. The 4GB versions make a lot more sense today. It's not quite as bad with the regular GTX 970 (3.5GB now vs 2GB then), but if the SLI setup ages in some regard and we'd have to consider what is the weak point, it'll be either the VRAM or nVidia discontinuing real, performance-oriented driver updates when newer series of GPUs start coming around.

 

I would say, try a single GTX 970 first, pocket the rest of the money, and if you're unhappy, purchase one of the high-end GPUs that comes in the next round.

And all i can see is lots of text nothing more. I actually dropped 3 videos one of them is at 4k res with one of the most demanding games and for some reason fps is perfectly stable without shutters or any fps drops. Also before buying it i was kinda scared cuz lots of ppl were flaming it for bad performance above 3.5gb vram, guess what? Tested it with most demanding latest games (watch dogs, unity, evolve, dying light, gta v, shadow of mordor) those are that did reach 3.5gb vram and above and for some reason i didnt get any performance issues. So why there is a problem when there is no problems? Can i ask did u actually had/have gtx 970 or you were reading a lot about it in forums and that gives u doctor degree? And if you do can you drop me some videos with your "shuttering" problems, cuz its starting to get on my nerves.

[Tacitus]

At 1440p 970 SLI is the king.

Good value for money and extremely fast!

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Unless you mod Skyrim with crazy 8k textures and high level ENB. You would be totally fine.

[Warren Pnigel]

You're fine at 1080 and 1440p even on a single 970. SLI 970's are fine for both. I'm doing the same. Infact i have the same monitor you're thinking of getting.

Thanks! Where did you get the monitor?? I'm wondering where to pick one of these up . . . 0_o

[iDeJayDzn]

Thanks! Where did you get the monitor?? I'm wondering where to pick one of these up . . . 0_o

 

All of them are listed on Amazon. In the UK they are anyways.

[Zulkkis]

And all i can see is lots of text nothing more. I actually dropped 3 videos one of them is at 4k res with one of the most demanding games and for some reason fps is perfectly stable without shutters or any fps drops. Also before buying it i was kinda scared cuz lots of ppl were flaming it for bad performance above 3.5gb vram, guess what? Tested it with most demanding latest games (watch dogs, unity, evolve, dying light, gta v, shadow of mordor) those are that did reach 3.5gb vram and above and for some reason i didnt get any performance issues. So why there is a problem when there is no problems? Can i ask did u actually had/have gtx 970 or you were reading a lot about it in forums and that gives u doctor degree? And if you do can you drop me some videos with your "shuttering" problems, cuz its starting to get on my nerves.

 

The gap of VRAM between what it should be and what it is, isn't large but it is there. The other issue is that you only threw framerates there with Afterburner's VRAM usage statistics which might just as well be cached data rather than in use. DigitalFoundry already tested it in few scenarios, but as the VRAM allocation issue is rather specific (GTX 970 starts at 3.5GB, GTX 980 starts at 4GB) it doesn't come up as one might think. However, there are situations where the 970 stutters more than what the performance difference between 970 and a 980 should be.

 

It is not a bad card, it is the best in the priceclass. But like DigitalFoundry says, if you're planning to SLI a couple of them, it might give you a pause. Everyone with a clue tells you to treat it effectively as a 3.5GB card, because frankly that's the easiest and a rather accurate way to describe what kind of an impact the issue has on your performance. If game caches the data then the performance won't be much different, the real usage can sit at 2GB or something even, while the whole VRAM pool is already "used" as the textures were cached. A lot of games stop the caching at 3.5GB for GTX 970, 4GB for GTX 980.