Cant argue with that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia responds to GTX 970 memory issue
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
Cant argue with that.
Naked Snake
Member
Wow that literally crawled around the 1:05 mark. Like 0.5fps
I went from 780 to 970 for 4GB =/
The Crimson Beast
Banned
gaming on 4k ive noticed this stuttering on new games. i thought the card just wasnt strong enough so i usually just lowered textures. still a very good deal for 4k gaming so i'll stick with em unless i get a big discount for 2 980s. this is very fucked up though and i expect nvidia to make good on this somehow
But I was told I was making shit up by Unknown Soldier and other Nvidia apologists when I complained about severe performance issues!
They have a 980 for 400 fella
SolidSnakeUS
Member
The fucked up part... they are probably getting away with it...
Dictator93
Member
NV deserves a good tbagging for the way they have acted so far during this.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I think it's more they don't give a shit... that's basically how they've acted.
There must be something else going on. I've seen Far Cry 4 use ~3.9GB (earlier versions at least) on my 970 and it did not make the framerate turn into a slideshow. I'm running it @ 1080P by the way. Other factors that make the 980 faster do count.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Do you have one or two monitors?
chromatic9
Member
Looks bad when pushed near full vram usage.
I'd like to see them test a GTX Titan, its quite similar in performance to a 970 in most games and some slightly less. The GTX 980 has enough performance over the 970 to where I feel the video run might just be pushing the card too much. 980 will be more capable.
If I can see a Titian (not Titan Black) and a OC'd 780 6GB runs the same specs in Far Cry 4 fine it would be more proof the 970 is losing out and could run the game otherwise. Using a 980 is good data of course but just the 980 leaves some questions unanswered.
Also a lot of the sites have used this conclusion that the 970 is more likely to be hitting a limit anyway.
ScepticMatt
Member
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I have 2 monitors (only one for gaming on the PC) and I will say, I've seen some stuttering in FC4 for no reason.
Doesn't it matter more what the game is putting into that section? If it is rarely used data which could have been the case with yours the performance impact would be minimal. In this case the multi monitor large res setup is putting more active data into the slower area.
The Omega Man
Member
Why would Nvidia put 0.5GB of slowass borderline unusable memory in this card?, wouldn't it have been better to sell and market the card with 3.5GB?, I guess why I am trying to say is, didn't they foresee this type of results with this a 3.5GB + 0.5GB architecture? just to sell and advertise the card as 4GB?
GHG
Gold Member
The key thing to understand here is that at 1080p if you are seeing VRAM usage towards the maximum capacity of your card (4gb) then the game is likely just using the extra memory for caching, not constant use like it would be at higher resolutions (such as 4k). Caching isn't bandwidth intensive since your GPU's extra VRAM is just used as storage in situations like that.
What....??
AMD are always the first to go on die shrinks. They were the first to use GDDR5 over GDDR3... they're allegedly going to use HBM stacked memory for their next flagship card. In a way, they're pioneers when it comes to new "tech." I have a 290x and a 970, and I prefer my 290x for multiple monitor setup and resolutions above 1080p. At this point I could care less about Gameworks, it's not an excuse or a justification for misleading the customer
There is no way that any of the Nvidia GPU designers did not read any of the reviews of the product they created.
No. Way.
They fucked everyone in the ass with a design shortcut and kept quiet. They even hid the rop count in the bios to stop people asking questions.
Fucking despicable.
Nvidia have their fair share of shitty drivers too.
ScepticMatt
Member
Doesn't work for me either (I have a Nvidia Quadro)
Naked Snake
Member
That happened to me recently so I just uninstalled it. Also could never prevent it from auto loading with Windows.
Other than Shadow of Mordor on Ultra textures, every new game I've tried with GTX 970 SLI at 2560x1440 has run just fine. I think part of the reason might be that I usually opt for SMAA (via SweetFX if not available in the game) over any of the more VRAM-hungry AA options.
I think it'll be interesting to see how purely PC games will perform as opposed to console ports where there might not be as much optimization considering that PCs usually have better hardware.
I think it'll be interesting to see how purely PC games will perform as opposed to console ports where there might not be as much optimization considering that PCs usually have better hardware.
I've never used geforce experience before so I was more curious than anything, was interested to see what it does but from what I've read it doesn't sound like I'm missing a lot, haha. It's not like I have some ridiculously exotic setup so I was a bit baffled why it just won't work, but no loss I guess!
BlockheadBrown
Member
Yep.
Yeah, it's a bit perplexing. Prior to the 900 series nearly every second tier card had less VRAM than the flagship so I don't know why they didn't do the same with the 970.
This is probably why some games when upconverted via DSR to 4 or 5k stutter like crazy and are unplayable rather than just having a low frame rate using SLI on my 1440p monitor ;p. Nvidia needs to release drivers that make it so the last 512 mb is never used for anything other than cache, rather would have a strict limit than stuttering.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
In short, yes.
In essence the 970 is a cheaper gimped version of the 980, with the memory structure built in a cheaper way that also severely bogs down the access to the last 0.5GB of vram on the card. If I had to guess, I'd wager that they designed the 980 first as it's design is simple and efficient, but costly. Then they looked at ways to make a cheaper version of it for the mass market, and modifying the memory structure is what they came up with. They then of course conveniently forgot to tell anyone about it, or even mention it on their spec sheets. Afterall, a 4GB card is much more appealing to market than a 3.5GB card.
To summarize, we all got swindled. Lucky us!
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
The little bastards.
So you're rewarding their sleaziness with even more of your money?
Flying Toaster
Member
And what other alternative would you suggest?
Pathfinder
Member
There aren't any products from AMD that compare to the power you get from the 970 or 980 at their price points at the moment.
Soon, but not now.
Crossfire 290x costs about the same as a single 980 and performs significantly better
AngryPuppy
Banned
Find a better video card. Take your time.
AngryPuppy
Banned
Your priorities in life are fucked if you get sad over a piece of technology.
Pathfinder
Member
Not from the web results I've been seeing when searching for comparisons between the two cards.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/2x-used-r9-290x-vs-new-gtx-980.205742/#post-3170943
A few forum posts have said if you get 2x 290x's, it could best a single 980, but a single 290x isn't enough.
I think I might keep the card. Someone wanted to buy my 670 so I got a good chunk of money towards the 970. If it wasn't for that I would have held out for more than 4GB anyway. I only have one monitor and its 1080P so hopefully I won't be affected too much.
I can see myself upgrading in like 2 years anyway. After this though I'm strongly leaning towards AMD for my next card.
I can see myself upgrading in like 2 years anyway. After this though I'm strongly leaning towards AMD for my next card.
Though you may need a new power supply to do that. (~300 watts under load for the 980 vs. nearly 500 for CF 290X.)
SliChillax
Member
Your logic is fucked if you think I (or anyone) shouldn't get sad for wasting hard earned money on a falsely advertised product. 4GB was the only reason I upgraded because I play at 4K and was planning on adding another used one next year.
You understand that crossfire means you get two of them right?
You can get two 290x for about 560-580$, which is the price of a single 980
Iorv3th
Member
Pathfinder
Member
My bad. Thought Crossfire was a brand. I'm not really an AMD guy.
Sure, you could get two 290x's, but you'd need a motherboard that supports two video cards, and a power supply that can support both cards.
Add the price of those to $580 and it suddenly becomes a lot more.
AngryPuppy
Banned
If it's hard earned cash and not disposable income you shouldn't be spending this much on a video card in the first place. You also had like a month to return it, along with numerous 4k tests to read up on.
Naked Snake
Member
Fine, but your original post is still wrong:
a 290X is comparable performance to 970 and has a lower price point (in the US).