GTX 970 vram

[hhamama66]

So, we've already been over the whole GTX 970 vram thing with the fast 3.5 gb and the slow 0.5 gb.

Question is, do non reference cards suffer from the same issue?

I did a little research and found a tear down of the EVGA GTX 970 ( I have this card btw) and found that it has 8 Samsung memory each at 0.5 GB and all clocked at 7 ghz (I think that was the speed) but I have no way of actually testing this out for myself since none of the games I have on my system have been that intense on my system.

Here's the list of all my games:

Witcher 3

Transformers war for cybertron (yeah, I know, pretty old and not the great of a game)

Watch dogs

Assassin's creed 4

AC unity

AC Rogue

Portal 2

Far cry 4

GTA V

For the record, I periodically minimize my games and check temperatures and found that my graphics card gets no higher than 65 degrees C with the fans running around 500 rpm and my cpu gets no hotter than 60 with the fans at 200 rpm (if I recall correctly)

I did notice significantly reduced performance once on GTA V with msaa enabled but then again, My brother ignored the frame buffer and ran the card well above the 4gb limit for a while and had no issues what so ever and plus the game is pirated and crashes frequently even when the graphics settings are reduced so I can't make any conclusions based on the performance I get in that game.

The rest of my games run fine however and are set at either high or ultra and are averaging between 50-60.

So what do you guys think, do non reference cards simply not have that issue thanks to the components being swapped out or have I simply not met an intense game that can really push my graphics card?

[Godlygamer23]

A 970 is a 970 - they all suffer from the same VRAM "problem."

 

You can't ignore the frame buffer. It's literally impossible. Credit goes to @Enderman for reading the whole post and notifying me(indirectly) of that part of it.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Godlygamer23

[Toxicable]

A 970 is a 970 - they all suffer from the same VRAM "problem."

 /thread

[Oshino Shinobu]

Every single 970 has the same 3.5GB and 0.5GB issue. 

 

If you go over 4GB with the card (so, even past the slower 0.5GB), you'll notice right away. The performance will be crippled to around 10FPS or so. 

[Aytex]

its still overkil for 1080p im actually glad it has 3.5gb cause theres already the 980 and the ti for 4k and 2k so whats the point...

[Enderman]

My brother ignored the frame buffer and ran the card well above the 4gb limit for a while 

this is impossible

there are only 4GB

[Aytex]

this is impossible

there are only 4GB

www.downloadmoreram.com

[Unlikelyjoker]

www.downloadmoreram.com

Thanks now i have 5 Vegemite's of Vrams

[Aytex]

Thanks now i have 5 Vegemite's of Vrams

no problem!

[Tacitus]

At 1080p and 1440p it's not a problem. At these two resolutions the 970 is the best value for money card, unless you can get a 290x very cheap.

[michaelk12]

this is impossible

there are only 4GB

Not exactly, GPUs can spill over PCIe and use the system ram, but this is very slow and not practical. For example my R9 280 in GPUz showed 5 or 6 usable gigs, but the card only has 3, it is programed to spill over 2 or 3 gigs into system ram, in the rare event it ever wanted to.

[Warren Pnigel]

At 1080p and 1440p it's not a problem. At these two resolutions the 970 is the best value for money card, unless you can get a 290x very cheap.

Most people who have tested the 3.5 thing were having to use 4x msaa on 4k at ultra to go over it. Poorly optimised games tend to bring it down quicker though. 

[Enderman]

Not exactly, GPUs can spill over PCIe and use the system ram, but this is very slow and not practical. For example my R9 280 in GPUz showed 5 or 6 usable gigs, but the card only has 3, it is programed to spill over 2 or 3 gigs into system ram, in the rare event it ever wanted to.

in that case its not using more than 4GB of vram

its using ram, not vram

there are only 4GB of vram

[Rexchaos]

How would sli 970's work when sli'ed? 

You know how dx12 it combines vram from gpu's so dual 980's have 8gb vram etc

How would 970's vram stack up?

[Tacitus]

Most people who have tested the 3.5 thing were having to use 4x msaa on 4k at ultra to go over it. Poorly optimised games tend to bring it down quicker though. 

 

I had a 970, I now have 2 290xs. When using one card only, the differences between the 970 and 290x at 1080p and VSR/DSR 1440p/1800p are indistinguishable. What does this say to me? Both are excellent options, both are perfectly capable cards. 

 

I sent my 970 back not because I thought it was bad or under-performing, but simply because it wasn't much more expensive at the time to buy 2 290xs over a single 970. Both cards, as I've said in the past, are fantastic. Nvidia should be commended for bringing a highly performing and efficient card, while AMD should be commended for providing comparable raw power at a low cost as early as 2013.

[michaelk12]

in that case its not using more than 4GB of vram

its using ram, not vram

there are only 4GB of vram

It wouldn't be VRAM in the sense that we know it, but in one of those rare cases, the GPU would essentially be using it like VRAM, except the VRAM is in another part of the PC.

[Warren Pnigel]

I had a 970, I now have 2 290xs. When using one card only, the differences between the 970 and 290x at 1080p and VSR/DSR 1440p/1800p are indistinguishable. What does this say to me? Both are excellent options, both are perfectly capable cards. 

 

I sent my 970 back not because I thought it was bad or under-performing, but simply because it wasn't much more expensive at the time to buy 2 290xs over a single 970. Both cards, as I've said in the past, are fantastic. Nvidia should be commended for bringing a highly performing and efficient card, while AMD should be commended for providing comparable raw power at a low cost as early as 2013.

I agree. It's funny how people compare them and the 290x is a year older, but performance is indistinguishable. 

[Godlygamer23]

How would sli 970's work when sli'ed? 

You know how dx12 it combines vram from gpu's so dual 980's have 8gb vram etc

How would 970's vram stack up?

The VRAM would combine together in the same way that it does on the 980s utilizing DX12. In our current state, your total VRAM would be limited to 4GB.

[Rexchaos]

The VRAM would combine together in the same way that it does on the 980s utilizing DX12. In our current state, your total VRAM would be limited to 4GB.

Like how would the 3.5gb of advertised speed and 0.5gb partioned slower speed and all that work in DX12 though?

[Godlygamer23]

Like how would the 3.5gb of advertised speed and 0.5gb partioned slower speed and all that work in DX12 though?

It's recognized as 4GB of VRAM. Programs do not see the partition that NVIDIA has put in place.

[Brandonberg]

So what do you guys think, do non reference cards simply not have that issue thanks to the components being swapped out or have I simply not met an intense game that can really push my graphics card?

The 0.5GB bandwidth issue comes from the 970 chip itself so there is nothing the board manufacturers can do to rectify it.

Some tricky marketing at work here. The RAM chips may be rated to run at 7Gbps from the manufacturer (samsung) but the limitation is on the GPU chip end.

It's sort of like having a SATA 3 6Gbps SSD and having it plugged into a SATA 2 motherboard. Fast specs on the SSD box, limited in reality by other components.

 

 

Edit: Clarified between RAM & GPU Chip.

[Columbo]

The Achilles heel to the 970 is the 256 bit bus. This only affects 4k gaming. 1080p shows no signs of weakness. 

[michaelk12]

Like how would the 3.5gb of advertised speed and 0.5gb partioned slower speed and all that work in DX12 though?

We have no idea. The DX12 vram stacking thing is overhyped. DX12 doesn't all of a sudden stack your VRAM automatically in all games as soon as you download it. It opens the door for individual game devs to implement VRAM stacking on their own. Don't get your hopes too high too soon. While the chip is programmed to use the fast portion first, we don't know if a potantial game dev would opt to completely fill up the first card first (and thus using the slow portion) before starting to fill the second card, of if both cards would fill up separately. My personal guess is the latter, and again, this will heavily depend on individual devs.

[Megahurt]

Under 3.5GB, the 970 combines 7 chips to produce a 224 bit bus while the 8th one remains idle, doing nothing. When going over 3.5GB, it uses the last chip at 32 bit bus, so 7 times slower than the rest of the vram, but still faster than the pci-e bus if it were using system ram, it's better to have it then not, but not much. It never runs at the advertised 256 bit bus speed, but that would show up in direct performance. I consider the 970 a 3.5GB/224bit card, and knowing that, it is still worth it's price, just not the super deal people thought they had at launch.

[hhamama66]

Not exactly, GPUs can spill over PCIe and use the system ram, but this is very slow and not practical. For example my R9 280 in GPUz showed 5 or 6 usable gigs, but the card only has 3, it is programed to spill over 2 or 3 gigs into system ram, in the rare event it ever wanted to.

Well, I guess my brother was right to get more than 8GB of ram then lol.