380 (4gb) vs 970 (4gb) as a upgrade ?

[Keyboy]

Different or not, the drivers do their best to make it so you never notice the difference.  Do you care if your monitor displays pixels from the top to the bottom first, as opposed to bottom to top when all you see is still a complete picture?

No i don't care. But the driver apparently didn't do a good enough job since someone noticed.

Maybe we should all agree that i think you're wrong, and you think i'm wrong and get back on topic.

[Glenwing]

func·tion

ˈfəNG(k)SH(ə)n/

verb

 

gerund or present participle: functioning

work or operate in a proper or particular way.

 

Guess we have different definitions of proper.

It's VRAM. You can store data in it. It functions properly.

If you say it's non-functioning, then you're saying it can't be used for what it's supposed to be used for (which, for RAM, is storing data). If you want to get into semantics then go ahead, but whether or not you want to go full-lawyer and argue that the statement is "technically correct", saying it only has 3.5GB of functioning VRAM is misleading because it heavily implies that only 3.5GB of VRAM on the card can be used, and the other 0.5GB is just for show, which is not correct. All 4GB of memory can be used, and can actually be used at full speed, just not at the exact same time, and the NVIDIA drivers actually do a great job of managing things, interleaving reads and writes, etc., so that scenario rarely occurs, and the performance hit is very minimal. As most people who actually own the 970 have noted, it's only an academic limitation and doesn't really have a noticeable effect on performance, even in VRAM-heavy scenarios.

[Aniallation]

To me the 0.5GB should be able to work with the other 3.5GB at same speed, not just store data.

Maybe we should all agree that i think you're wrong, and you think i'm wrong and get back on topic.

Again, you originally said that only 3.5GB function, and that is incorrect. All 4GB function, just at different speeds. Yes, everyone would prefer it if the 0.5GB worked at the same speed as the other 3.5GB, but that does NOT mean that the 0.5GB does not function (work at all).

 

People think you're wrong because you are, not to mention ignorant of definitions of words within the English language.

[Aniallation]

No i don't care. But the driver apparently didn't do a good enough job since someone noticed.

Maybe we should all agree that i think you're wrong, and you think i'm wrong and get back on topic.

Just stop. 

 

I own a 970. I've filled up all 4GB of it's VRAM. All 4GB function. You are wrong. This is not an off-topic debate, either. An example of an off-topic debate would be talking about ISIS in a GPU thread.

[Samfisher]

No i don't care. But the driver apparently didn't do a good enough job since someone noticed.

Maybe we should all agree that i think you're wrong, and you think i'm wrong and get back on topic.

 

That was BEFORE Nvidia updated their drivers to fix it.  Besides, it was only "found out" cos the program running the test wasn't even a game but a home made piece of software.  Drivers are optimized to predict VRAM usage in games where it is most likely being used in, not benchmarking.

[othertomperson]

Follow you own topic.

 

If you have a 290x it will be a downgrade as the 300 series are rebrands, also the gtx 970 only has 3.5GB of functioning memory

 

No, no and no.

 

The 390X is a slightly overclocked version of a 290X 8GB, but OP didn't mention the 390X, they said 380. The 380 is a rebadged 285 which is less powerful than a 280X. Also the 970 has 4GB of functioning memory. The 380 and the 960 are, as far as performance goes, basically the same.