970 VRAM issue

[Jz1]

Within my research before buying this card, I read up on problems noting that the GTX 970 ran into terrible issues upon reaching more than >3.5GB  of its video ram, it would cause lag and degrade the fps. Can someone clear this up?

 

Should I still buy the card? 

[CalebTheEternal]

No, it's not an issue, even with a single 4k monitor you would be fine.

[Vexzarium]

Within my research before buying this card, I read up on problems noting that the GTX 970 ran into terrible issues upon reaching more than >3.5GB  of its video ram, it would cause lag and degrade the fps. Can someone clear this up?

 

Should I still buy the card? 

At 1080p, you wont encounter many issues with the VRAM. At 1440p+, you may. It's still a good card.

[Casperian]

Within my research before buying this card, I read up on problems noting that the GTX 970 ran into terrible issues upon reaching more than >3.5GB  of its video ram, it would cause lag and degrade the fps. Can someone clear this up?

 

Should I still buy the card? 

Depending on the resolution you game at, you are unlikely to ever hit 3.5GB. Not saying you won't but when you are using 3.5GB, it is likely that GPU will already be chugging a fair bit.

 

To answer your question though, yes it will degrade the performance is some limited cases however, I think the card is still worth the price.

 

PS. I do dev work with 3GB. I rarely actually hit that so yeah.

[mechanicalfluff]

i play 1440p with sli, don't notice any issues. don't really think it's an issue until you start scaling resolution to crazy amounts. only REAL time i've noticed hitching was in Arma3 after scaling to 250% just for s&g's. but who want's to play a game like that at 20fps

[DotoreN]

i play 1440p with sli, don't notice any issues. don't really think it's an issue until you start scaling resolution to crazy amounts. only REAL time i've noticed hitching was in Arma3 after scaling to 250% just for s&g's. but who want's to play a game like that at 20fps

 

Arma is a bad example though, it's almost only using CPU.

 

I had 15fps with my i7 first gen r9 270x and when I upgraded my cpu to i7 4790k I had an average of 70fps.. (55fps gain) which is huge in Arma. Now I upgraded the r9 270x to gtx 970 and I had a gain of ~5-8fps.. which is minimal.

 

Still Gtx 970 is ALL you want for 1080p gaming, anything more expensive/better is overkill! [unless you go 144p or 4k ofcourse]

[JamGorby]

The 970 vram thing has been blown out of proportion. Had nVidia not screwed up and explained the way the memory works in the 970 correctly from the onset, it would have been seen as a feature and not a defect. 

The card is still great value. 

[mechanicalfluff]

just thinking about it also. by the time 4k is actually able to be powered within a reasonable price range, (under $1k-ish) 970's might be.. dunno how to word it - not obsolete, 'less used'?  

 

hope you all get what my tired brain is trying to get across.

By that time something else more powerful will be the mainstream and these issues hopefully wont be in that series of cards

[JamGorby]

just thinking about it also. by the time 4k is actually able to be powered within a reasonable price range, (under $1k-ish) 970's might be.. dunno how to word it - not obsolete, 'less used'?

 

hope you all get what my tired brain is trying to get across.

By that time something else more powerful will be the mainstream and these issues hopefully wont be in that series of cards

I get you. The card wasn't meant for 4k to begin with. I still think 4k is a stretch and will be until single mid-high level cards can do it. 

[c0d0ps]

Within my research before buying this card, I read up on problems noting that the GTX 970 ran into terrible issues upon reaching more than >3.5GB  of its video ram, it would cause lag and degrade the fps. Can someone clear this up?

 

Should I still buy the card? 

You should probably mark whatever answer you thought was best as solved.

[Sorfex0]

There are no vram issues with gtx 970.

[Briggsy]

It's not an issue, just a design choice so that they could call it a 4GB card instead of a 3.5GB card. 4GB sells better.

 

The facts are as follows: There are 2 memory partitions of 3.5GB and 0.5GB. Both partitions cannot be accessed at the same time. 3.5GB of memory with a 224bit bus is active by default. if more than 3.5GB of memory is actually needed, the 0.5GB partition with a 32bit bus can be accessed, blocking off access to the 3.5GB partition temporarily. Windows controls this decision, and may choose to use system memory instead.

 

the issue is in the marketing. the card at stock speeds does not have an effective 256bit memory bus, or 224MB/s of memory bandwidth, just combined between the 2 partitions. If you buy a 970, just consider it a 3.5GB card with questionable marketing, and go from there. it's still a good graphic card regardless of how it was marketed.

[mechanicalfluff]

The 970 vram thing has been blown out of proportion. Had nVidia not screwed up and explained the way the memory works in the 970 correctly from the onset, it would have been seen as a feature and not a defect. 

The card is still great value. 

Totally agree..

Think it was Logan, may have been Jay - Benchmarks are benchmarks. It's still a bad-ass card for the money. 

[ExcitezR]

FFS its not a issue its by design the only issues it the marketing team

[IateMApoo]

Theres only few games that can use up more than 3.5 GB, like Shadow of Mordor or modded Skyrim, 970 isnt a 4K gaming card tho, but games increase in graphical fidelity all the time, so its not a safe bet for future going with 970.

[Vexzarium]

Within my research before buying this card, I read up on problems noting that the GTX 970 ran into terrible issues upon reaching more than >3.5GB  of its video ram, it would cause lag and degrade the fps. Can someone clear this up?

 

Should I still buy the card? 

OP, if you are afraid of the GTX-970, pick up a 290x. Make sure it's a good one... i.e. Lightning, Tri-X, or Vapor-X. 290x is a bit more powerful for around the same cost, but the 970 may have features that are more to your liking.

 

Either card will do the trick, it's all about what you prefer. I'm only saying that if the 970's VRAM "issue" (that was blown out of proportion) scares you, there is a damn good alternative. Go with what makes ya happy. Neither card breaks a sweat at 1080p.

[JamGorby]

OP, if you are afraid of the GTX-970, pick up a 290x. Make sure it's a good one... i.e. Lightning, Tri-X, or Vapor-X. 290x is a bit more powerful for around the same cost, but the 970 may have features that are more to your liking.

 

Either card will do the trick, it's all about what you prefer. I'm only saying that if the 970's VRAM "issue" (that was blown out of proportion) scares you, there is a damn good alternative. Go with what makes ya happy. Neither card breaks a sweat at 1080p.

^^viable option. 

[Aphala]

I get you. The card wasn't meant for 4k to begin with. I still think 4k is a stretch and will be until single mid-high level cards can do it. 

" until single mid-high level cards can do it. "

 

^ Titan X? R9 295X2? Or do you mean like R9 290X GTX 980 level?

[JamGorby]

" until single mid-high level cards can do it. "

 

^ Titan X? R9 295X2? Or do you mean like R9 290X GTX 980 level?

I actually mean 970/290 level. That's where a lot of people shop.  high mainstream I guess would be a good term. 

[JamGorby]

If I had to put money on it, I would bet generation after next. Whatever comes after 3xx for AMD or Pascal for nVidia. Maybe we'll see 4k capable cards in that $270-350 range. 

[Aphala]

I actually mean 970/290 level. That's where a lot of people shop.  high mainstream I guess would be a good term. 

Ahh that makes more sense

[Sintezza]

Yes its an issue, infact  in hightexture games, even at 1080p there some issues reported.

With shadow of mordor for example.

But also heavy modded skyrim and what not, could be a potentional issue.

 

Of course you can allways turn down some filters and still be fine.

But still for a $350,- card, and the way Nvidia is marketing it as a 1440p beast (future proofing), its just meh...

 

In a nutshell, there are 2 chunks of vram on a GTX970 card.

1 chunk of 3.5GB running over a 224bit bus, and 1 chunk of 512MB running only on 32bit.

As soon as a game exeeds the 3.5GB of vram, it will be basicly continue accesing the other 512MB, so there is basicly still 4GB of effective vram on the card.

The problem with this, is that the 512MB runs ALLOT slower, its basicly terrible slow for Vram standards.

Which basicly makes the 512MB chunk kinda useless.

 

In my opinnion for 1080p the GTX970 is still a very good card.

But Its still a ripoff in my opinnion, no matter how you look at it..

 

I would personaly grab a Sapphire 290X Vapor X over a GTX970 any day of the week.

[randy hutajulu]

Within my research before buying this card, I read up on problems noting that the GTX 970 ran into terrible issues upon reaching more than >3.5GB of its video ram, it would cause lag and degrade the fps. Can someone clear this up?

Should I still buy the card?

Last time i check, i need 2,9 gb of vram on far cry 4 with highest setting with 2xmsaa only at 1920x1200 (1080 actually since it doesn't support 16:10)

What about next year games eh?

I think 4GB os a sweetspot now.