No problems here with Mordor, at 1440p. Never played any AC after the first one (they're all sh1te) but from what I gather ACU is about as buggy a game as you get. Still, 3.5gb or 4gb won't make a difference. It's not like these games use strictly between 3.5 - 4gb vram.
SOM hovers right at 3.8gb which caused terrible performance hits with the 970's but allows butter smooth performance with the extra .5gb available on the 295. There's only a couple games that did it like I said but I paid for the performance of the 4gb at the advertised speed as well as the full 64 rops and didn't get it. I know like I said there are only a few scenarios that are affected by this but it does happen. There's been a lot of argument about it causing or not causing issues but truth be told it did and may still in certain cases and if it wasn't originally an issue it would never have been noticed. I will say that the performance drop was not as bad as entirely running out of Vram where it slows to a crawl but it would drop from 80fps down to low 30's or sometimes worse pending on scenario.
Both SoM and ACU ran just fine on my single 970, utilizing more than 3.5GB. So I'd say it was more of a SLI issue and not the "3.5 VRAM" issue.
Hey Ragin... How do you explain titan users reaching over 5gb vram usage and you're only getting 3.8gb? The game runs perfectly fine here, even with vram usage going over 3.5gb. It runs perfectly fine even on 3gb cards (780 SLI, 780ti, 79xx). If you had issues... I call PEBKAC. And I'm right.
Like I said the people I actually know do not have any problems with vram on the 970. I do not know you or at least trust what you are saying is true. Saying the 980 and 980ti is the same gpu kind of makes me leery of your technical knowledge.
Not sure guys, it was Nvidia's own determination on the issue. If you'd like details, they will have better answers than I do.
Let the 980/980ti go, I already said I had it wrong and didn't type it right. Crazy how people can make a mistake on here and they are held accountable for all eternity.
Where did Nvidia prove that 3.5gb was an issue in any game? I do have Mordor installed atm and I can see with my own eyes that there's no issues. I'm more than happy to record gameplay of Mordor, even at 4k and prove that there is no vram issue. Go on, make your call, tell me if you want to see me running the game at 4k and I'll record it with MSIA OSD just to prove you wrong.
I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, as I mentioned, call Nvidia if you need more answers since it was them that made the call to have me return the cards. It matters not to me why I had the issue nor what caused it other than it was their decision and conclusion as to why it happened, all that matters to me is I'd like cards that I can use without having the issues I was experiencing. Nvidia did just that for me and I hold nothing against them since they said we don't have a solution for you so here's you money back we advise you to purchase a different model card.
Again man, I'm not here to argue with you on behalf of Nvidia, they made the call, not me. We went through SLI testing on games as well as single card tests and it's what they said and recommended. Call them out, not me. I was fine with the cards and they performed well except in the to examples I mentioned where it would stutter and seemed to skip frames as well as drop to low FPS compared to the normal game play.
Devil's advocate here, there are 3 reasons why VRAM usage can exceed 3.5GB: 1. Not all drivers (or games) are created equal. Some GPUs may, by design, be more memory intensive. Though highly unlikely for the driver, there could also be a memory leak in the game. Also, some games might not be optimized for the GPU being used, which could result in higher memory usage. 2. Some GPUs compress data in VRAM. Though nvidia has for a while used compression, maybe the Titan doesn't. I don't really know for sure though - just speculating here. 3. Almost every desktop PC user can easily get by with 8GB of SDRAM, but many people with 12GB or more will claim that they have exceeded 8GB. Ignoring the possibility of poor task management or memory leaks, this is often because the OS will cache everything whether it needs to or not. If the RAM is available, the processor might as well use it. I wouldn't be surprised if GPUs do the same thing, where they will just cache data that they may not ever use again. The point is - when it comes to actively used RAM, it's usually much smaller than the OS will report.
They didn't. I think the gist of it was 970 owners raised the in game eye candy so high that it ran out of gpu power, likely a 980 couldn't run properly at those setting. They did that as to prove the last 512mb was causing the problem. Nvidia stance on the issue iirc was that they could of released the 970 with 3gb of vram, but they wanted to make it a 4gb card. Don't know if that is true or not. I don't have the technical knowledge of maxwell tbh.
Ironically I think the Fury X also runs out of GPU power to fully utilize the bandwidth HBM offers. Which is why it still cant match the 980ti.
crossfire review http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7226/amd-radeon-r9-fury-video-cards-crossfire/index5.html p.s HH when will u do your crossfire review ?
A good review no doubt. I find it interesting so see the low frame rates at 4k that the Fury has. At first I thought it was low ram but looking at it the Titan has the same issues in some of the games as well. They must both be running out of GPU power.
some game engines simply cannot keep up with the demands, it doesn't have to be blamed on GPUs. Here is one example: game is Split Second. We have tried to run it on max details on various PCs but it just can't maintain (30!) FPS no matter what you throw at it.
Here's another crossfire review ... remove 'space' after 'e' http://www.e teknix.com/amd-r9-fury-x-4gb-graphics-card-crossfire-review/
