Is the GTX 970 a 256bit card or not? I bought it because it was 256 bit.

[Keysplayr]

That's a bit of a strawman. Other cards in this GPU family don't need extra coding to avoid unsafe use of a bad area of their VRAM.

The 970 will continue to get the basic GPU family support for years, but how long will nvidia do the extra work specific to this one card? Once sales have stopped they have much less incentive to spend the extra developer time.

A strawman? I bet they all have coding to try to keep max memory usage to the amount of system memory available in the buffer. Is that not the same thing? A GTX980 probably has code to try not to exceed 4GB. Is this correct or not Dave? A 780Ti may have algorithms to not exceed 3GB. You find a problem with the 970 having code to not exceed 3.5? If so, you have a problem with all graphics cards. Just like AnandthenMan would never buy a card controlled by software.

Man, the arguments in here are pretty weak.

 

[Keysplayr]

He's just going to attack and throw insults my way because he's got nothing useful to counter with. As I said, there is enough info in this thread for people to make up their own minds about the 970.

What attack? What insult? Do tell..

 

[DaveSimmons]

A strawman? I bet they all have coding to try to keep max memory usage to the amount of system memory available in the buffer. Is that not the same thing? A GTX980 probably has code to try not to exceed 4GB. Is this correct or not Dave? A 780Ti may have algorithms to not exceed 3GB. You find a problem with the 970 having code to not exceed 3.5? If so, you have a problem with all graphics cards. Just like AnandthenMan would never buy a card controlled by software.

Man, the arguments in here are pretty weak.

You might be correct if nvidia offered a way to disable all use of the bad 0.5 GB, but they don't. That makes the 970 different from other cards with a hard RAM limit.

 

[Keysplayr]

Dave. All cards have a hard RAM limit. And finally, that last 512MB on the 970 is not bad RAM and you need to stop perpetuating that myth or correct your terminology. It is far slower than the main 3.5GB area, but still much faster than system ram. So, if you compared two graphics cards, one with 3.5GB total memory, and a GTX970, the 3.5 card would have to access system ram a whole lot sooner than the 970. The last 512MB of RAM on the 970 is not bad, poison, unsafe. Got to keep things real. You asking Nvidia to disable the last 512 of VRAM is like asking to disable system ram for texture buffer use. Yes, this is what you're asking.

 

[RussianSensation]

Dave. All cards have a hard RAM limit. And finally, that last 512MB on the 970 is not bad RAM and you need to stop perpetuating that myth or correct your terminology. It is far slower than the main 3.5GB area, but still much faster than system ram. So, if you compared two graphics cards, one with 3.5GB total memory, and a GTX970, the 3.5 card would have to access system ram a whole lot sooner than the 970. The last 512MB of RAM on the 970 is not bad, poison, unsafe. Got to keep things real. You asking Nvidia to disable the last 512 of VRAM is like asking to disable system ram for texture buffer use. Yes, this is what you're asking.

GTX970 in action in Shadow of Mordor, last 512MB are not useful since they run at 28GB/sec, which results in constant stuttering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6k55epUBCE

970 is a 3.5GB with GDDR5 224GB/sec videocard + 512MB 28 GB/sec GDDR5. You can't call a V8 engine a true 8-cylinder engine if the last 2 cylinders only work at 1/8th the speed of the first 6.

 

[chimaxi83]

Dave. All cards have a hard RAM limit. And finally, that last 512MB on the 970 is not bad RAM and you need to stop perpetuating that myth or correct your terminology. It is far slower than the main 3.5GB area, but still much faster than system ram. So, if you compared two graphics cards, one with 3.5GB total memory, and a GTX970, the 3.5 card would have to access system ram a whole lot sooner than the 970. The last 512MB of RAM on the 970 is not bad, poison, unsafe. Got to keep things real. You asking Nvidia to disable the last 512 of VRAM is like asking to disable system ram for texture buffer use. Yes, this is what you're asking.

Would you post defensive walls of text for a 290X with 3.5GB full speed VRAM, and 0.5GB of the slow stuff, that they misled everyone about? Remember, honesty is the best policy.

 

[Keysplayr]

Would you post defensive walls of text for a 290X with 3.5GB full speed VRAM, and 0.5GB of the slow stuff, that they misled everyone about? Remember, honesty is the best policy.

290X has 4GB. Your question has no relevance to the conversation. I, and others and the Mods have requested that we stick to the topic, which is GTX970.

 

[chimaxi83]

290X has 4GB. Your question has no relevance to the conversation. I, and others and the Mods have requested that we stick to the topic, which is GTX970.

That's what I thought.

 

[Keysplayr]

GTX970 in action in Shadow of Mordor, last 512MB are not useful since they run at 28GB/sec, which results in constant stuttering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6k55epUBCE

970 is a 3.5GB with GDDR5 224GB/sec videocard + 512MB 28 GB/sec GDDR5. You can't call a V8 engine a true 8-cylinder engine if the last 2 cylinders only work at 1/8th the speed of the first 6.

You can call it whatever you want RS. It doesn't change the fact that these reviewers and you tubers have to really try hard to get VRAM usage over 3.5GB and the performance is really great. Look at the MSI graph it never went over 3.5GB and check out the conclusion at 16:00 minutes into the vid.
What this guy says makes perfect sense. And he's right.

 

[Keysplayr]

That's what I thought.

I should hope so. 290X does have 4GB.

 

[AnandThenMan]

A GTX980 probably has code to try not to exceed 4GB. Is this correct or not Dave? A 780Ti may have algorithms to not exceed 3GB. You find a problem with the 970 having code to not exceed 3.5?

The 970 is a 4GB card, technically. If it was limited to 3.5GB then no problem, but the fast/slow memory access is where the problem lies. I see you are having trouble understanding this concept. You cannot bring system memory into this equation because it is not normally treated as the frame buffer.

If so, you have a problem with all graphics cards. Just like AnandthenMan would never buy a card controlled by software.

Here's what I actually said, I bolded the important parts for you. Notice how I didn't say anything about not wanted to buy any card that is controlled by software. I assume you skimmed over what I posted and misunderstood what I said.

No way I am going to buy a card that relies on software to specifically get around a badly designed memory system.

290X has 4GB. Your question has no relevance to the conversation.

Then we can compare the 970 to the 980, in fact we for months were told by Nvidia that the 970 had the same basic config as the 980.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Dave. All cards have a hard RAM limit. And finally, that last 512MB on the 970 is not bad RAM and you need to stop perpetuating that myth or correct your terminology. It is far slower than the main 3.5GB area, but still much faster than system ram. So, if you compared two graphics cards, one with 3.5GB total memory, and a GTX970, the 3.5 card would have to access system ram a whole lot sooner than the 970. The last 512MB of RAM on the 970 is not bad, poison, unsafe. Got to keep things real. You asking Nvidia to disable the last 512 of VRAM is like asking to disable system ram for texture buffer use. Yes, this is what you're asking.

No.

With a 3.5 GB card, drivers, game engines, game code all know to only use 3.5 GB of VRAM because that is what will run at full speed. Drivers, engines, game code all know that if they exceed 3.5 GB they will need to use much slower system RAM.

With the 970, the card tells engines and game code that it has 4 GB of full speed VRAM. They do not know that 512 MB runs at a very slow speed. They do not know that storing anything in that RAM can kill performance. They do not know that using that RAM is as almost bad as paging out to system RAM. They don't know that storing a texture or whatever in that RAM is not the same as storing it in the first 3.5 GB.

With the 970, nvidia can put extra code into the drivers to try to work around this. We don't know how much of that code is game-specific. We don't know what will happen with future games when nvidia no longer cares about writing game-specific fixups for the 970.

 

[Keysplayr]

I guess if they limited the 970 to only ever access 3.5GB of memory that wouldn't be such a bad thing seeing as how it almost never does that anyway. Where the problem lies is that there isn't any problem. The card behaves and performs fantastically. The "concept", or at least the thing you are trying to call a "concept" isn't really a "concept". It's a gross exaggeration to build on the bad press and anger sent Nvidia's way for not disclosing the actual specs and actual memory functionality of the 970.
I think that the real concept you are trying to push here is, even with all the bad press, and memory configuration, it's still the same great card today as it was at launch. Even better. (drivers).

About semantics. I don't play. You say what you say. It's easy to see what is implied, inferred, meant, alluded to. You said you wouldn't buy a card that relies on software to specifically get around a badly designed memory system. First of all, it isn't a badly designed memory system. It was a very smart way to cut the chip without deactivating a whole SMX. The only problem with the 970 was the lack of info about actual specs. People were angry and rightly so. A mistake I believe Nvidia will never make again.

And lastly, yes. Like I said, mistakes were made, people were angry. It's out now and widely discussed. Technically, GTX980 is identical to GTX970. 970 just has less hardware enabled and a memory crossbar to get to the last bit of cache on the 512MB segment. If you had one, you'd love it. Or love to hate it.

 

[Keysplayr]

No.

With a 3.5 GB card, drivers, game engines, game code all know to only use 3.5 GB of VRAM because that is what will run at full speed. Drivers, engines, game code all know that if they exceed 3.5 GB they will need to use much slower system RAM.

With the 970, the card tells engines and game code that it has 4 GB of full speed VRAM. They do not know that 512 MB runs at a very slow speed. They do not know that storing anything in that RAM can kill performance. They do not know that using that RAM is as almost bad as paging out to system RAM. They don't know that storing a texture or whatever in that RAM is not the same as storing it in the first 3.5 GB.

With the 970, nvidia can put extra code into the drivers to try to work around this. We don't know how much of that code is game-specific. We don't know what will happen with future games when nvidia no longer cares about writing game-specific fixups for the 970.

It's a damn good thing then that it is terribly difficult to even force the 970 over 3.5GB.
I'd be positively moon-eyed to know why you guys aren't absorbing this little tid bit of info.
I don't think I'll get my answer though.

So, you're using a GTX680 or GTX780Ti. What happens when VRAM usage goes over 2GB and 3GB respectively?

 

[ocre]

You can call it whatever you want RS. It doesn't change the fact that these reviewers and you tubers have to really try hard to get VRAM usage over 3.5GB and the performance is really great. Look at the MSI graph it never went over 3.5GB and check out the conclusion at 16:00 minutes into the vid.
What this guy says makes perfect sense. And he's right.

He has no experience at all with a 970.

I actually went thru all this as an owner of the 970. I started believing a lot of the negative spin. See, all the "proof" was at resolutions that overwhelmed the 970. I found out this first hand. See, using DSR scaling something interesting happens. You might do 1.5x fine then 2x, and its still quite a good experience. But once you enable 3x, then all of a sudden...........its just a stutter mess. Not playable.

Of course i thought, hmmmmm, so this is all because the bad memory. I made a huge fuss. I got best buy to return my card that was months old but all they would give me was in store credit. A card of equal or greater value. There was nothing but r7 AMD cards, another 970, or the 980. So, i paid the difference and got the 980.

Got home and was really surprised at what i found. Those settings that brought the 970 to a crawl, they were not pretty on the 980 either. I had extensive time with the 970 and was really impressed with DSR. I have a crap ton of games, a massive library that gets bigger and bigger. I was blown away.....
I struggled to find a single case where the 980 was great when the 970 struggled. And i tried.

But i guess I fell for the fud. I did find out one thing for sure. That 10-15% fps advantages you might see on the graphs from review sites, they are much smaller in real life. With the frame rate overlay, i could see that i was getting a few more fps, on benchmarks the difference was right were it should have been. But in real life gaming, i was surprised by how little different a 980 feels over the 970.

I went thru this, first hand. And after i got my 980, reviews started showing up testing the 970 memory issue in detail. And what do you know......they find out pretty much the same thing i did. That the settings needed to make a 970 crawl, they are also ugly on the 980.

There were a lot of test and several sites. There were some that even included the 290x as well. But people just ignored that the 970 had less stutter than the the 290x in those extreme cases.

It just didnt add up.
Now we did have forum posters claiming all these issues. And i had issues running modern games with DSR piled on as well. So there is an issue with the 970.......but it is not unique to it at all.
If you keep piling on settings at very high resolutions, your card wont be able to keep up. When i got the 980, with non segmented memory and all, i found out something i should have already known. Those settings were just too much cause not even the 980 could run them fine.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's a damn good thing then that it is terribly difficult to even force the 970 over 3.5GB.
I'd be positively moon-eyed to know why you guys aren't absorbing this little tid bit of info.
I don't think I'll get my answer though.

So, you're using a GTX680 or GTX780Ti. What happens when VRAM usage goes over 2GB and 3GB respectively?

Yes, the 970 is a good card as long as RAM use stays under 3.5 GB. Yes, almost all current games run in less. I keep saying this, but my concern is for 1-2 years from now not today. Not everyone buys a new card every year.

As I just said, with 2GB and 3GB cards, the game engine and game code knows the usable RAM that the card has. Both know what amount of RAM is safe to use for current rendering and for caching resources to avoid re-fetching them.

With the 970 both engines and game code can try to cache too much because the 970 gives a false report of the available full speed RAM. The code can store resources needed "now" into the slow RAM even when there is room in the fast RAM. The code doesn't know that it might need to copy resources from slow to fast.

Yes, my 680 can't render a scene that requires 3 GB for the current frame at all. But the drivers, engine, game code all know this.

If the 680 reported itself as having 2.5 GB of RAM, and it had a similar design with 512MB of that being very low speed RAM, you'd probably see many current games get into trouble because they put some of the resources for the current frame into the slow RAM instead of the fast RAM.

# = current frame resources
@ = caching to avoid system RAM fetches

SAFE:
[ ###############@@@@@ ] [ @@@@@ ] 2.0 + 512

PROBLEM!
[ #####@@@@@#####@@@@@ ] [ ##### ]

The problem arises because the code sees all of the video RAM as running at the same speed, but it does not.

The slow RAM is fine to use as a low-speed cache, but will cause stalls if the code treats it as full-speed RAM instead of as a faster version of system RAM.

If the 970 reported itself as 3.5 GB, code would store nothing in the 512 MB, so it would never store assets needed "now" in the wrong part of video RAM.

 

[AnandThenMan]

If there were no issues then there would have been nothing to discover and this whole 970 memory fiasco would have never happened. But people did notice, I remember seeing game tests/settings that were fine on the 980 but were stuttering on the 970, it was not simply the 970 having a lower frame rate.

Once again it is up to people to decide if they want to risk it with the 970 and have at some point driver tweaks/updates no longer being a priority. Remember there IS a driver specific consideration, JHH was very clear about this.

 

[crisium]

Remember there IS a driver specific consideration, JHH was very clear about this.

I loved how your first post on this was quite clear, and left no room for misinterpretation.

our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment.

So yes, all GPUs use software to keep within VRAM limits. What an insightful assertion. But the GTX 970 specifically does something that other cards do not - it specifies certain deliberate data to only be used in the last 512MB.

What about this leaves room for debate? The GTX 970 is different from other GPUs, and requires additional driver work to determine what exactly "less frequently used data" is for each game. But OK, pretend it's the same as the GTX 980 which certainly does not care about what is in the last 512MB compared to the first 3.5GB...

 

[amenx]

GTX970 in action in Shadow of Mordor, last 512MB are not useful since they run at 28GB/sec, which results in constant stuttering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6k55epUBCE

970 is a 3.5GB with GDDR5 224GB/sec videocard + 512MB 28 GB/sec GDDR5. You can't call a V8 engine a true 8-cylinder engine if the last 2 cylinders only work at 1/8th the speed of the first 6.

Outdated. The game has no problem after driver 347.52. From my last post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKUzktpBr2g

 

[DaveSimmons]

Outdated. The game has no problem after driver 347.52. From my last post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKUzktpBr2g

Which is great, as long as nvidia keeps writing driver fixups just for the 970.

When they stop, not so great.

 

[Rvenger]

The OP hasn't been back in quite some time. I suppose you all scared him away with the arguing. Well done.


Thread Closed unless OP requests by PM.

-Rvenger