[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47046006]I have no faith in Techland to fix their game so I guess I'll just wait for a driver that might or might not fix some of the issues, and this card has the highest factory overclock of all the 970 editions out there so I don't really want to push it any higher (I know I could've saved money by OCing myself, but I'd rather have the 3 year warranty)[/QUOTE]
I'm running a Strix with +170MHz on Core and +370MHz on Memory and it is completely stable. Factory overclocking is laughable at best.
Actually I wanted to ask something (Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject in case I get anything wrong); The performance drop over the GTX980 is because some of the CUDA cores and L2 Cache are disabled, is this done during the manufacturing process or is it down to drivers/firmware? If the latter, does that technically mean that with custom drivers we could gain that functionality back?
I am only getting 25 fps in Dying Light with all settings set to low (I mean all) @ 1080.
Is that normal or what?
Tempted to use this issue to purchase my second GTX 970 for SLI purposes - I already run 4K off 1 card, havn't had any game go over 2.5gb of VRAM so far
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47047132]I am only getting 25 fps in Dying Light with all settings set to low (I mean all) @ 1080.
Is that normal or what?[/QUOTE]
With a 970? Is your CPU up to par?
Goddamn it I'm tempted to get 2 AMD 290x's since they are selling for like $300 because of the whole nvidia fiasco on newegg
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47045951]I have a 970 FTW, when playing Dying Light (at 1080p, the game is unoptimized as hell, but still) the memory usage goes up to 3.5GB and the game becomes an unplayable stutterfest.
On "Medium" texture quality the vram usage hovers around 2.5GB and the game runs fine but looks like shit, and I didn't buy a 970 to have my games look like shit, so I'm kinda confused as to what I should do now, I can't really afford a 980
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
I'm particularly dissapointed by this because I upgraded from a 660Ti which suffered from functionally the same issue, and I made sure the 970 didn't have any gimped specs related to the memory controllers and all before purchase, but people found this out only like a week after I got my card[/QUOTE]
Not sure if this will help you, but if the memory usage is just peaking 3.5 GB for you, use windows basic (assuming you're using Windows 7) , I've read Aero uses about 100-200 MB of memory, which might just pull you under that 3.5 GB limit.
[QUOTE=voltlight;47047855]Not sure if this will help you, but if the memory usage is just peaking 3.5 GB for you, use windows basic (assuming you're using Windows 7) , I've read Aero uses about 100-200 MB of memory, which might just pull you under that 3.5 GB limit.[/QUOTE]
I'm on 8.1, don't know why isn't it showing up under my name :v
Tried switching to one of the "high contrast" profiles and the memory usage didn't change, oh well.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47047849]With a 970? Is your CPU up to par?
Goddamn it I'm tempted to get 2 AMD 290x's since they are selling for like $300 because of the whole nvidia fiasco on newegg[/QUOTE]
FX 8350, There is something wrong with my PC, I asked for help before but nobody could determine whats wrong with my PC.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47047887]FX 8350, There is something wrong with my PC, I asked for help before but nobody could determine whats wrong with my PC.[/QUOTE]
it's not the 970.
i mean, the 980 has 4GB of ram. you would still run in to issues running games that need so much VRAM even with the full speed .5
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47047884]I'm on 8.1, don't know why isn't it showing up under my name :v
Tried switching to one of the "high contrast" profiles and the memory usage didn't change, oh well.[/QUOTE]
Because the user agent sniffer only has an icon for Windows 8, and 8.1 changed the OS part of the user agent just slightly.
Garry probably won't fix it until Windows 10 gets its first service pack
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47046078]
How can I test if my card is affected?[/QUOTE]
They're all the same.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47039740]I Would love to be able to enter forums, ask about what CPU to get, list my requirements and have response like:
Will Intel will do faster at XX but will lack ZZ at YY
While AMD will be faster at YY but lack ZZ at XX[/QUOTE]
You can find that exact stuff ln most benchmark articles. My favorite one is [url]http://www.techspot.com/review/405-the-witcher-2-performance/page8.html[/url] because it shows that even when going from 2 to 4 cores, game performance was only changed by about 25% rather than double. It also showed you that GHz isn't necessarily equal between AMD and Intel, seeing as the Intel CPU at 2.66GHz outperformed the AMD CPU at 3.7GHz in their benchmarks. Repetitive tasks like file compression or video encoding scale well with more cores, but most other programs don't seem to. Ultimately, you'll need to look at the benchmarks to get an idea on real-world performance for different tasks.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47045951]I have a 970 FTW, when playing Dying Light (at 1080p, the game is unoptimized as hell, but still) the memory usage goes up to 3.5GB and the game becomes an unplayable stutterfest.
On "Medium" texture quality the vram usage hovers around 2.5GB and the game runs fine but looks like shit, and I didn't buy a 970 to have my games look like shit, so I'm kinda confused as to what I should do now, I can't really afford a 980
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
I'm particularly dissapointed by this because I upgraded from a 660Ti which suffered from functionally the same issue, and I made sure the 970 didn't have any gimped specs related to the memory controllers and all before purchase, but people found this out only like a week after I got my card[/QUOTE]hmm, strange. my Dying Light runs 60fps maxed easily. No stuttering on my FTW, but the game uses 5Gb of my system RAM, which is annoying in itself, so check if that's the reason your stuttering.
also, try stepping up to the new 970 ftw+
i haven't have 1 issue with my 970, apart from coil whine, no stuttering or anything that people are complaining of.
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47047887]FX 8350, There is something wrong with my PC, I asked for help before but nobody could determine whats wrong with my PC.[/QUOTE]8350 could be the reason, not 100% sure though
latest drivers right?
[QUOTE=ClaBrendon;47048529]hmm, strange. my Dying Light runs 60fps maxed easily. No stuttering on my FTW, but the game uses 5Gb of my system RAM, which is annoying in itself, so check if that's the reason your stuttering.
also, try stepping up to the new 970 ftw+
i haven't have 1 issue with my 970, apart from coil whine, no stuttering or anything that people are complaining of.
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
8350 could be the reason, not 100% sure though
latest drivers right?[/QUOTE]
Yes, latest.
Assuming you mean Video card drivers?
I may sound retarded now but: Is there such thing as CPU drivers?
[QUOTE=ClaBrendon;47048529]hmm, strange. my Dying Light runs 60fps maxed easily. No stuttering on my FTW, but the game uses 5Gb of my system RAM, which is annoying in itself, so check if that's the reason your stuttering.
also, try stepping up to the new 970 ftw+
i haven't have 1 issue with my 970, apart from coil whine, no stuttering or anything that people are complaining of.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah it uses like 4GB of my RAM and accesses the pagefile constantly, that might have to do something with stuttering since the drive the pagefile is on is really old and slow.
And yeah, I can max it out and get ~70fps, the problems start when I start running or moving the camera, sometimes the game just stops for two seconds and that's not great
idk, it may be your system RAM causing the stuttering, only way to know is get more RAM or different gpu.
RAM would be a cheaper, hmm. hard to say,.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47039335]Hey, so I've had 970 for about 2 weeks now and I love it so far, like I know I could probably return card because of false advertising reason basically but I wont, if I did I would kinda feel bad or like an asshole, I mean great card, good performance and not noticing problems until they were told us, so yeah I wont return it definitely.
However, I still feel fucked over a bit, I mean I paid for 4 GB and got 3.5, even though it doesn't affect me, I still feel fucked over, not sure how to explain it, but anyway:
1) What is actually VRAM? They say IF game uses more than 3.5 Gb of VRAM, how does game decide it? I mean could the game not squeeze the shit out of card to achieve maximum FPS and take all available memory?
Is VRAM like a memory where textures get stored when game is loaded for quick access and rendering in game? Like RAM for just software?
2) In how many years will 4 GB ram be minimum for games?
3) Is it possible that Nvidia will develop driver to fix or somehow manage issue better? I mean it makes sense to me that it's physical problem instead of software, like you can't sell car with broken engine and then fix it via software update for center console.
4) Is it possible that nvidia will compensate users with something? or its' not their style/way of doing things?
5) Anyone of you considering returning it or did already?[/QUOTE]
1. VRAM is memory onboard the card. This is where you'd like all graphics data to be, since it's the fastest to access, faster than system ram.
2. No one can say. Game developers would like to sell their game to the largest possible market, so until the largest possible market is made up of gamers with 4GB videocards this is not going to happen. A few developers will push the envelope and release very demanding games, but that isn't a 'minimum' for games but a recommended amount.
3. I doubt it because Nvidia doesn't consider this a problem or issue to fix. The card functions as it's supposed to function.
4. I doubt it. I think the retailers(Amazon, Newegg, etc) might be willing to do something, if only to keep their customers happy. Companies like Asus/MSI/Evga might do something, for the same reason. Nvidia itself? No. Why not? Nvidia knows they don't have to. If you bought a 970 it's because you already weighed AMD vs Nvidia and went with Nvidia. You, as a customer, have nowhere else to go. If AMD's competing product was a good buy in your eyes you would have bought that to start with.
Just my take on it.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47050124]1. VRAM is memory onboard the card. This is where you'd like all graphics data to be, since it's the fastest to access, faster than system ram.
2. No one can say. Game developers would like to sell their game to the largest possible market, so until the largest possible market is made up of gamers with 4GB videocards this is not going to happen. A few developers will push the envelope and release very demanding games, but that isn't a 'minimum' for games but a recommended amount.
3. I doubt it because Nvidia doesn't consider this a problem or issue to fix. The card functions as it's supposed to function.
4. I doubt it. I think the retailers(Amazon, Newegg, etc) might be willing to do something, if only to keep their customers happy. Companies like Asus/MSI/Evga might do something, for the same reason. Nvidia itself? No. Why not? Nvidia knows they don't have to. If you bought a 970 it's because you already weighed AMD vs Nvidia and went with Nvidia. You, as a customer, have nowhere else to go. If AMD's competing product was a good buy in your eyes you would have bought that to start with.
Just my take on it.[/QUOTE]
"If AMD's competing product was a good buy in your eyes"
Nvidia was good to buy when I "Thought" it has 4 GB vram, when I bought it I found out it has that problem which makes it initially a lie.
So that's kinda unfair.
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47050180]"If AMD's competing product was a good buy in your eyes"
Nvidia was good to buy when I "Thought" it has 4 GB vram, when I bought it I found out it has that problem which makes it initially a lie.
So that's kinda unfair.[/QUOTE]
No it's not a lie, it has 4GB of VRAM. You obviously don't understand the issue, although I linked a comprehensive explanation of it earlier in the thread so I don't know what excuse people have to still think it only has 3.5GB or something. That being said, if you want to get a refund for your card there are apparently avenues for that.
[QUOTE=ClaBrendon;47048529]hmm, strange. my Dying Light runs 60fps maxed easily. No stuttering on my FTW, but the game uses 5Gb of my system RAM, which is annoying in itself, so check if that's the reason your stuttering.
also, try stepping up to the new 970 ftw+
i haven't have 1 issue with my 970, apart from coil whine, no stuttering or anything that people are complaining of.
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
8350 could be the reason, not 100% sure though
latest drivers right?[/QUOTE]
FTW's have every memory crossbar enabled, you're not going to ever the stutter issue.
[QUOTE=27X;47050721]FTW's have every memory crossbar enabled, you're not going to ever the stutter issue.[/QUOTE]
That's bullshit, the card AnandTech got for review was the 970 FTW.
I was told otherwise, my bad.
So how much does this actually affect anything.
[QUOTE=redBadger;47050863]So how much does this actually affect anything.[/QUOTE]
Please refer to the Anandtech™ review for Anandtech™'s coverage of the Nvidia GTX 970 RAM controversy exclusively at Anandtech™
You realize Kaabii works for Anandtech right?
I understand that perfectly.
[editline]31st January 2015[/editline]
Anandtech
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47045951]I have a 970 FTW, when playing Dying Light (at 1080p, the game is unoptimized as hell, but still) the memory usage goes up to 3.5GB and the game becomes an unplayable stutterfest.
On "Medium" texture quality the vram usage hovers around 2.5GB and the game runs fine but looks like shit, and I didn't buy a 970 to have my games look like shit, so I'm kinda confused as to what I should do now, I can't really afford a 980[/QUOTE]
iirc due to the 970 issue it will only ever show 3.5 gb being used max even if the other 500 is being used unless you're using something like MSI afterburner or whatever
sounds like it could be more an issue with dying light than anything else. try running some other games and push your card over 3.5 gb and see what happens. use the nvidia upscaling thinger to run at 4k to help use more memory.
[QUOTE=27X;47050908]You realize Kaabii works for Anandtech right?[/QUOTE]
For the record I didn't feel the need to openly state that because it's like bragging and you can just check my Twitter. Also I wasn't the first one to link it here so yeah, please don't think I'm trying to shill or something, I just genuinely think that nobody else did a proper job of it except for Scott Wasson on The Tech Report podcast which is a lot longer to listen to than reading an article.
[editline]1st February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47050892]Please refer to the Anandtech™ review for Anandtech™'s coverage of the Nvidia GTX 970 RAM controversy exclusively at Anandtech™[/QUOTE]
Don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
Anandtech is unfortunately one of the few places left that have coherent relatively non-bias articles about actual technical information. Definitely a solid source.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47050892]Please refer to the Anandtech™ review for Anandtech™'s coverage of the Nvidia GTX 970 RAM controversy exclusively at Anandtech™[/QUOTE]
Yeah it still doesn't tell me if this really is going to affect my gaming in a serious way or not. Unless I didn't look hard enough, it's basically explaining what happened and why.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.