That was a long time ago. The way things stand for drivers right now:
Stability
AMD >>> Nvidia
Performance Optimization
Nvidia >>> AMD
HD7870 launch:
580 is 3% faster at 1080P with AA @ Computerbase
Today,
7870/R9 270X is 30% faster than the 580 at 1080P with AA @ Computerbase
That's a delta of 33%. To put it into perspective, it took NV more than 1.5 years to increase performance from a 760 to a 960 by just 10%.
Seems like the op is extremely out of touch with what performance metrics matter.
The short answer is it's 256-bit until your game uses the bad 0.5 GB.
There is 3.5 GB of good memory that runs at 256-bit speed, 0.5 GB of poison memory that when accessed causes steep performance drops. nvidia drivers will try to keep games from using the poison memory but you may need to manually adjust settings in some future games.
My current card is a GTX 680 and the card before that was a 560ti but I would not buy a 970 unless nvidia ever offers a way to completely disable access to the bad 0.5 GB. But marketing will probably not let them do that since they want to sell it as a 4GB card even though it is not really.
The short answer is it's 256-bit until your game uses the bad 0.5 GB.
There is 3.5 GB of good memory that runs at 256-bit speed, 0.5 GB of poison memory that when accessed causes steep performance drops. nvidia drivers will try to keep games from using the poison memory but you may need to manually adjust settings in some future games.
My current card is a GTX 680 and the card before that was a 560ti but I would not buy a 970 unless nvidia ever offers a way to completely disable access to the bad 0.5 GB. But marketing will probably not let them do that since they want to sell it as a 4GB card even though it is not really.
I have read conflicting information about this, I would appreciate some clarification.
Thanks
its not 256 bit exactly, but is enough to wipe the floor against amd 512bit flagship while having lower power consumption, running cooler and huge overclock capabilities...
its not 256 bit exactly, but is enough to wipe the floor against amd 512bit flagship while having lower power consumption, running cooler and huge overclock capabilities...
This is why you don't want a GTX970
1) Memory interface. The card is not a true 4GB card, the GPU is a harvested die and as a result the memory access pattern is inconsistent, a technical limitation. This can and does cause hitches/stuttering.
2) Driver support. To get around the asymmetrical memory requires driver aware support for games, otherwise the game engine will assume the card has a full 4GB and use it accordingly. When this happens, the last much slower 512MB block will produce frame rate issues.
3) Long term ownership. This ties into driver support, Nvidia has shown that they are not shy about abandoning continued optimizations on older hardware (Kepler) so it is not a stretch to say the same thing will happen with the 970.
The safe play is to just avoid the 970 and get the 980 or the 290X.
He is not exaggerating about the Kepler issues. I had two Titans and I couldn't even enjoy a game(the Witcher 3) I bought at 1440p Those cards cost 1000$ a piece, it is truly unacceptable to leave its users in such a situation. Period. If the cards were 5 years old and we would be at a new node then fine, I'd understand. The cards are still too new and it was very deceiving to give it 6GBs suggesting at least a good longevity only to make those 6GB totally useless even with SLI..
2. Driver support. The driver isn't really a concern of the end user if it does what it is supposed to do for any GPU. So, number 2 is a larger than normal reach. Kepler is receiving performance improvements through recent drivers. Your point is noted but also exaggerated.
3. Long term ownership potential applies for any graphics card purchase. And why would you equate 3.5GB of full speed memory and 4GB (512MB) could make the difference between short term and long term investment potential? I'd say 6GB would be a worthy jump from any of the 4GB cards would be grounds to declare longevity.
You exaggerate every point you tried to make. I just hope the OP doesn't fall for it.
In short, yes it is 256bit. But not really. nVidia cleverly hid the "not really" part from folks who bought the card during and after release.
To touch on the concerns that gamers have, the GTX970 is 224bit wide (not 256bit) memory bandwith for up to 3.5gb's of the cards memory, not the full 4gb.
That's what got some folks peeved. nVidia was deceptive on how the specced and marketed the card initially. In addition to memory controversy, there was also inaccurate initial ROP specs and perhaps other.
From TechPowerUP
That was a long time ago. The way things stand for drivers right now:
Stability
AMD >>> Nvidia
Performance Optimization
Nvidia >>> AMD
This is why you don't want a GTX970
1) Memory interface. The card is not a true 4GB card, the GPU is a harvested die and as a result the memory access pattern is inconsistent, a technical limitation. This can and does cause hitches/stuttering.
2) Driver support. To get around the asymmetrical memory requires driver aware support for games, otherwise the game engine will assume the card has a full 4GB and use it accordingly. When this happens, the last much slower 512MB block will produce frame rate issues.
3) Long term ownership. This ties into driver support, Nvidia has shown that they are not shy about abandoning continued optimizations on older hardware (Kepler) so it is not a stretch to say the same thing will happen with the 970.
The safe play is to just avoid the 970 and get the 980 or the 290X.
Bro...the OP is trolling us. Come on.
I know a bunch Kepler owners who would beg to differ with you...NV driver team has almost completely ignored kepler since maxwell came out, other than to "fix" some issues with 970.
1. Yes, the card is a true 4GB card. The GPU is a harvested die resulting in a GTX970 instead of a 980. The memory pattern is by design, consistency has nothing to do with it as it runs the same all the time. A technical limitation for sure, but one that does not adversely affect gameplay except under extreme circumstances as is true with ANY GPU in existence. I'm sure you ran through all my links and both videos before you posted this.
2. Driver support. The driver isn't really a concern of the end user if it does what it is supposed to do for any GPU. So, number 2 is a larger than normal reach. Kepler is receiving performance improvements through recent drivers. Your point is noted but also exaggerated.
3. Long term ownership potential applies for any graphics card purchase. And why would you equate 3.5GB of full speed memory and 4GB (512MB) could make the difference between short term and long term investment potential? I'd say 6GB would be a worthy jump from any of the 4GB cards would be grounds to declare longevity.
You exaggerate every point you tried to make. I just hope the OP doesn't fall for it.
He is not exaggerating about the Kepler issues. I had two Titans and I couldn't even enjoy a game(the Witcher 3) I bought at 1440p Those cards cost 1000$ a piece, it is truly unacceptable to leave its users in such a situation. Period. If the cards were 5 years old and we would be at a new node then fine, I'd understand. The cards are still too new and it was very deceiving to give it 6GBs suggesting at least a good longevity only to make those 6GB totally useless even with SLI.
As a Kepler owner and previous owner of two flagship Keplers one of which just got burned due to a leak I agree and that's the reason I still haven't replaced them with the 980Ti. I feel deceived. 6GB was a marketing gimmick not future-proofing. This time I'm going to bet on less RAM and lack of planned obsolescence thus I'm waiting on the FURY. I feel fine with 2560x1440 so 4GB should suffice. I'd feel much better with more RAM tough but I'm not buying from NV. I feel burned.
Have you considered that there is nothing they can do to make them perform much better? The latest games may use techniques that the Kepler architecture is just poor at. Perhaps due to compute usage.
He is not exaggerating about the Kepler issues. I had two Titans and I couldn't even enjoy a game(the Witcher 3) I bought at 1440p Those cards cost 1000$ a piece, it is truly unacceptable to leave its users in such a situation. Period. If the cards were 5 years old and we would be at a new node then fine, I'd understand. The cards are still too new and it was very deceiving to give it 6GBs suggesting at least a good longevity only to make those 6GB totally useless even with SLI.
Oh come on Keys. NV has a ton of great cards these days, and they have earned their dominant market share...but recommending a 970 to somebody with all the smoke around that card is a disservice. NV was deceptive about the memory and the RoP's, and the card didn't really thrive until it got some serious driver support. What's going to happen when that driver support dries up in 12-18 mos when the next gen comes out? At least tell the OP to hold out for 980 price drops (as I did), there is no reason to recommend 970 to anybody right now unless the price drops through the floor on it (say something like <= r9 290 prices).