970 memory allocation issue revisited

He's been involved in enough of the thread to know what's been going on. I wouldn't expect someone who's just coming into it and making their first post in the thread to read 34 pages worth of mostly crap. In that case, I'd just quote or link to the relevant information. Most of which has been repeated numerous times over the last 8 pages.

 

Actually, when I posted that neogaf link, I skipped from page 25 to page 34 directly.

In any case, this means my purchase might be worthwhile. :beer:

 

Thanks for information.

 

Deleted: OK, not interesting data to add.

 

Did you unplug your monitor before testing this? or did you try to use igpu and disabling dwm ?

 

Don't bother with Nai's benchmark, it's flawed.
Check the previous page.

 

You might wish to review the thread instead of asking to rehash what has been beat to death already.

 

Found a link to a video that seems to finally highlight the issue, runs a benchmark test with msi where the card stutters all the way up to 4gb usage the settles out to 3.5 where it is nice and smooth. Would share but don't have enough posts, search "970 3.5GB vram issue. Nvidia GTX 970 series video card is not a dedicated 4GB as advertised" posted by BitBot Robot on youtube.

Looks like a valid test, although could be something else going on with his pc.

 

Doesn't anyone even casually browse a thread before posting what has already been posted a dozen times? Makes me wonder if most of these 'new' members are sock puppets.

 

FYI I have been following the thread for a number of pages and have not seen this video.

Did you even look for it or just making a blanket statement for anyone trying to share some new information?

 

It isn't new information. You're repeating what has been posted. That it might not be the exact same video, does not mean the same thing hasn't been beat to death.

 

Clearly didn't watch the video

 

I'v been skimming the thread here and there and you seem to say it's related to a CUDA bug/limitation or something complex, then why do games start to stutter when they go past 3.5GB? And why does the driver try to keep it under 3.5 for the 970 and the behaviour doesn't happen with the 980? Seems CUDA stuff is being used as a scapegoat excuse.

I don't understand much in-depth about computers and electronics in general but 2 months ago i was thinking of buying one for my next pc last christmas but instead this just re-inforced my ultimate decision to just wait for the next fully capable dx12 graphics cards from both nvidia and amd.

 

Clearly he's rehashing what has been beat to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgRir5JwKyU

 

Because the GTX 980 doesn't have the same memory segmentation that the GTX 970 does.

 

And that makes it acceptable (including legally) for presenting the 970 as a regular common graphics card with 4GB that a consumer assumes can access at full speed like previous common products either from nvidia or any other manufacturer.

That omission is completely unacceptable. As a customer or otherwise.

You wouldn't like to buy what you thought would be a 5 seat high end family car to later figure out if the 5th seat was occupied the vehicle would slow down severely more than any other equivalent vehicle and start braking randomly as well.

Am i a troll now too? (not saying you did such claim, just that any valid concern raised that goes agaisn't nvidia about this topic seems to be easily hair thinned into "you'r just a intahrnet trollz" stamp)

 

I don't understand your rage fit. I just answered your question. Considering it costs far less that the GTX 980.. and there is no equivalent that it is slower than...your example is??? Folks believing this single GPU is going to utilize over 3GB effectively in all gaming scenarios are being wildly optimistic. There are cases were even a TITAN will have issues. That is purely a function of a lack of GPU horsepower. Now whether or not Nvidia should have been a bit more clearer about this is a separate issue.

 

Figured you could interpret it at a personal level, i edited the post precisely to avoid that.

Last sentence was to poke at the general trend where the replies end up at.

 

Okay, but do you get what I was trying to convey? This was a design trade off to maximize performance for the vast majority of usage scenarios. This is pretty much only apparent at unplayable game settings. Who plays at 30 FPS?
Frankly with the 'outrage' this has created, it isn't surprising Nvidia is reluctant to say much. I'm an electrical engineer by trade so, I guess these kinds of things don't bother me as much because it is the nature of the beast in a manner of speaking.

 

You are a troll:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4999370&postcount=41

But back on topic, there is no slowdowns in games. It has been posted time over time that the 970 does just fine with VRAM at 3.5-3.9 and is relative to the 980's performance.
Feel free to backtrack in the thread.