[GTX970] The "problem" with its memory

[Javisoft]

Well, the first thing is that it's hard to notice stuttering in a video, there have to be very big lags, even so I notice quite a bit of stutter with the GPU at about 85-90%, that can go unnoticed, but as I say, I've seen lags like in the 660 video that in situ must be spectacular. The problem is, it has already been recognized by all parties, that it is less pressing than in the 660s because of better drivers, architecture and partitions, yes, but personally I would never think of buying a 970, and much less looking at an immediate future where sli and Cross can probably share vram in its entirety giving the starting signal for uncompressed textures for cutreports ….. But it's just my opinion XD.

[fjavi]

@Javisoft:

Well, the first thing is that it's hard to notice stuttering in a video, there have to be very large lags, even so, I notice quite a bit of stutter with the GPU at about 85-90%, that can go unnoticed, but as I say, I've seen lags like in the 660 video that in situ must be spectacular.

The problem is, it has already been recognized by all parties, that it is less pressing than in the 660s due to better drivers, architecture, and partitions, yes, but personally I wouldn't think of buying a 970, much less looking at the immediate future where sli and Cross can probably share vram in full giving the starting signal for uncompressed textures for cutreports …..

But it's just my opinion XD.

But it's going at 25 or 30 fps, so we won't know if at 60 fps that has stuttering, that happens to us with any card as soon as it drops near 20fps.

I didn't buy 970 or 980 because it's a GM204 and I don't want to pay for a chip that I don't see as high-end, I don't want to pay for that chip as if it were high-end, but if I see a 970 at 200€ I don't think I can resist.

Because it's still the same card that a few days ago most people thought was the best.

Regards

[Javisoft]

They also said that it performed like a 780ti XD … Shadow of Mordor in sli still has the same problems that are noticeable, even more so with a better fps rate, but for that, the best thing is to see it live.

[fjavi]

@Javisoft:

They also said it performed like a 780ti XD … Shadow of mordor in sli still has the same problems that are noticeable, even more so with a better fps rate, but for that the best thing is to see it live.

That always happens, everything new is said to perform better than the old, but I wouldn't trade my 780 for a 970 thinking about performance, because I think it's a waste, it will be better in temperature and consumption, but mine also has good temperature and makes little noise, that's why I'm not interested in these new ones.

If I saw one for 200€ then yes I would put it in another computer and have both, but I don't upgrade unless it's to gain a significant margin in performance.

regards

[wwwendigo]

@Javisoft:

Also they said it performed like a 780ti XD … Shadow of mordor in sli still has the same problems that are noticeable, even more so with a better fps rate, but for that the best thing is to see it live.

And it does perform, besides having an OC margin that a 780 Ti doesn't have without messing around with the voltages. Although of course, given your signature it's understandable why there's so much defense of how serious a problem it is and why there's so much interest (another case of defending "mine is the best, I hate it when there's a new option that offers the same or better at a lower price").

But so you don't fool yourself too much, I'll inform you:

3.5 GB (not counting the help of the 0.5 GB, whether you like it or not), are MORE than the 3 GB of a Ti, so don't start looking for a hair in an egg saying that you don't know what in SLI you can see the problem, when this doesn't exist in monogpu (a problem with an SLI profile doesn't mean absolutely nothing, and I'll also inform you about something: using SLI does NOT magnify either the consumption or memory requirements of a graphics card, less so when working in AFR which is the typical thing).

PD: Said from the experience of seeing a GTX 970 in operation with that little game, everything maxed out. Since you value that experience so much, just look…. :troll:

There are some pretty serious tests looking for the effects of memory in monogpu and SLI, without finding positive results or, when the worst case, cases so dubious and lacking practicality, that it's quite funny that people once again make up stories by recording videos that by definition affect, even if little, the functioning of the system (more so if recording against some disk in use).

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/106/gtx-970-3-5-go-224-bit-lieu-4-go-256-bit.html

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/68595-gtx-970s-memory-explained-tested.html

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-GTX-970-Memory-Issued-Tested-SLI

In all the cases where they manage to "show something" of the problem of the VRAM configuration of the GTX 970, in any case the GTX 980s don't give an adequate performance (it's not having rates of <30 fps in BF4 or an average around 50 fps in CoD using multigpu, with peaks in both cases of almost 100 ms per frame, visible yes or not always, whether the "experience" with a GTX 980 is better or not, in no case can we talk about good gameplay in both cases).

And this is when you take things to the max, painting pixels at full capacity (4K, 1600p with supersampling), we already know that the GK110s get tired on the way to 4K, not to mention that the VRAM also makes them give up, if they put an SLI config of 780 Ti in the graphics cards, maybe we would all laugh even more, if possible. :ugly:

[Javisoft]

If you want to troll this is not the place, first of all because it has been more than proven that the 970 with OC only equals the 780ti ref without OC, that in some game it surpasses it by a few fps, well it goes almost to 1400/1800 in the tests …. You are one of those who seem to still live in the month following the release of these and their hype, there you go, I have already tested them more than enough both in single and in SLI.

The fact of the vram is getting tired, seriously, 3.5gb is more than 3gb ….. that is an idiocy like a castle, as has always happened, you run out of graphic power before vram, more so, with the cutreports doing ramdisk …..

In SLI configurations the problem is aggravated, not only in Mordor, in Far Cry 4 it is unbearable, it is not about AFR, it is about the delay that is generated when accessing section 1 of the vram in ns and its connection with the pciex, but well you to yours …..

About the reviews, of no use for the links, curiously everyone has started to put them as soon as I released them on the forums …. but regardless, you do not manage to "show something" as you say, it is clearly shown everywhere …..

Do not excuse the problem in the lack of power at high resolutions, the data from the websites is very very very clear, the case of guru3d is textbook with a drop to 0 fps and a pitiful timeframe compared to the 980.

On hardwarecanucks you can see perfectly the percentage of loss that added to the 14% difference between both cards (980-970) gives us an average of 18% worse in pure performance ….. not counting the problems derived from the fantastic strategy of nvidia with the 970.

And on pcperspective, if you do not recognize it there, we can stop, little more to comment with you then …..

About the sli of 780ti, as I say, it is quite more powerful and much more consistent, I do not understand where the weak laugh you would give me ….. A Crysis3 at 4k with 2xmsaa is at 2.8 gb of vram, to give you an example, Metro LL more of the same, the cutreports exhaust the vram without you mentioning it for maxwell for example, in fact there is no loss of performance for it since as I say they use ramdisk.

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare VGA graphics performance benchmark review - Video memory usage - Final Words & Conclusion

It is clear that if seeing the previous links you continue to think like this I will not convince you otherwise, there is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see and if you have not tested them in situ even more, but denying the obvious … bad.

About the 780ti and the 970, well, like everything, you have to go look for reviews:

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 FTW ACX 2.0 Review - Page 5

MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4 GB Review | techPowerUp

To give you two quick examples, in fact the 780ti is only 1% slower with maximum overclock compared to the 980 …. if you do not believe it, congratulations, but the reality is very different.

Best regards.

[wwwendigo]

@Javisoft:

If you want to troll this is not the place, first of all because it has been more than proven that the 970 with OC only matches the 780ti ref without OC

Best regards.

Look, I didn't even bother to read more after the gem you dropped in the first sentence, first by being disrespectful, and second by dropping the first nonsense statement with the sole intention of flaming.

And stop lying, please, because here people don't suck their thumbs:

And so with any resolution they use on TPU!, a minimal difference between reference cards (especially the 970, with TDP and blower of the GTX 670 doing some thermal throttling) of 2-3% between both cards (and don't come with percentage subtractions, rookie mistake that I won't amend and I'll warn you about).

Nothing to do with the tuned ones or anyone who mounts a blower of "reference" style GTX 770 or GTX 680, which are better than the "basic" ones with blower like GTX 670/760.

About 20 games to make that average, so less wolves, by the way, given that I see a clear intention to flame and be disrespectful, on a personal level, and to lie about the most basic truth, obviously I report you for your clear intention to make fun of people.

Considering that mine comes with a slight factory OC, better dissipation and less thermal throttling, and that I can also get without problems an extra 15% of REAL performance with light OC without touching voltages, there's only one thing left to add:

Take your trolling elsewhere.

[Fassou]

As in the heat of an argument one can forget where one is, we are going to remember it.

In this forum one can talk and argue even passionately, but do not mount a escalation of comments based on belittling the arguments of the other because you should already know that those things, at least here, end very quickly.

If you do not want posts to disappear, and your green squares to be reduced or change color, then relax.

Regards!

[whoololon]

I think the issue is very clear.
I don't care if the FPS drop is noticeable or not, it's something that shouldn't happen.
They're saying it's only when you go over 3.5 GB of VRAM... as if that never happens.
I have X Plane 10 with an Airbus 320neo, which also cost me a pretty penny, and I reach a constant VRAM usage (I'm not talking about peak usage) of 3.9 GB.
No, it's been a "let's see if it works" on the part of nVidia, which at least will refund the money for having that card, as it has, hidden flaws.

No one refunds money for a minor defect that isn't noticeable.

[Javisoft]

@wwwendigo:

Look, I haven't even bothered to read more after the pearl you've dropped in the first sentence, first by being disrespectful, and second by dropping the first nonsense statement with the sole intention of flaming.

And stop lying, please, because here people don't suck their fingers:

And so with any resolution they use on TPU!, a minimal difference between reference cards (especially the 970, with TDP and blower of the GTX 670 doing some thermal throttling) of 2-3% between both cards (and don't come with percentage subtractions, a rookie mistake that I won't amend and I'll warn you about).

Nothing to do with the tuned ones or anyone who mounts a "reference" blower style GTX 770 or GTX 680, which are better than the "basic" ones with blower type GTX 670/760.

About 20 games to make that average, so fewer wolves, by the way, given that I see a clear intention to flame and disrespect, on a personal level, and to disrespect the most basic truth, obviously I report for your clear intention to make fun of people.

Considering that mine comes with a slight factory OC, better dissipation and less thermal throttling, and that I can also get without problems an extra 15% REAL performance with light OC without touching voltages, there's only one thing left to add:

Take your jabs elsewhere.

I've already put above a review of the evga 970 ssc, one of the best 970s, and as you can see it's below, even at 1500 in some games it's still below a reference 780 ti ….. Let's not even talk about boosting the 780ti to 1ghz with undervolt clear, why then...

The internet is too big to be able to compare and see which webs are more impartial, how the different driver versions affect both architectures and the performance they acquire, so that you can say what you just said....

I won't even bother to put the data obtained on site by me, I'll tell you in advance that with maximum OC both cards give me an average of 10 fps in almost all games, it's a world.... and without VRAM problems XD.

Defend and excuse what you want, the numbers don't lie and are objective, the problem is serious and has little solution, you can put on as many band-aids as you want, all the ones you're willing to swallow.... You have thousands of users with problems, depending on the PC configuration greater or lesser, each one endures what they want, but then don't go crying on the forums soon as some do when not even at 1080p the games are smokable due to the continuous and excessive use of VRAM.

More so when talking about the sums of VRAM by dx12 and drivers...

Anyway, goodbye.