970 memory allocation issue revisited

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by alanm, Jan 23, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FrAnTiC

    FrAnTiC Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus STRIX GTX1070 OC
    I thought that if it was intentional the engineers would have known it already and there wouldn't be anything to investigate in first place.
     
  2. flexy

    flexy Member Guru

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Riva 128
    Do you REALLY think we had this discussion if there was only a 1%-3% performance hit?

    AFAIK, users investigated this and looked closer what's going on because they had MASSIVE peformance drops when a certain VREM usage was reached, not "1%-3%"
     
  3. IcE

    IcE Don Snow Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,693
    Likes Received:
    73
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 1070 Mini
    What GPU doesn't have a massive performance drop when it runs out of VRAM? Seriously? It's difficult to even max 3GB on my 780, I seriously don't see how this would ever be a serious issue to anyone outside of principle.
     
  4. flexy

    flexy Member Guru

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Riva 128

    How exactly is this official statement "news"?

    We know this already. Yes the GTX970 only has normal 4GB "on paper", if an app or game uses the last chunks it uses another method and gets slow. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY. So the NV statement just confirms what we found out.
     

  5. fry178

    fry178 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    167
    GPU:
    FTW Hybrid 2080S
    i cant find anything on nvidias website or product box that says 4GB vram @256bit, or "useable" 4gb for "every" app.

    its 4gb vram, which the card physically has,
    says its coming with a memory bus width of 256bit, which it is.

    anyone that has a car, please check advertised mpg with what you actually get driving.
    is it the same or better? NO?
    sued the company yet?!


    nvidia acknowledging that there is/might be an issue, and knowing about before the product was shipped, is NOT the same.

    thinking that amd is not doing what everyone else (on this planet) is doing (that sells a service/product), keep living in lala-land...


    that said, i think there might be an issue. does it matter to gamers? probably not (at least within expected fps range).

    AND, as soon as i finished my building my quad (rotor), i will get an oced 970....
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  6. flexy

    flexy Member Guru

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Riva 128
    The "difference" here the 970 "runs out of VRAM" when it hits 3GB-ish although it's a advertized as 4GB. Obviously it has nothing to do with "running out of Vram" since the 980 has the same amount of Vram and doesn't have the problem. So "it runs out of Vram" because of its internal architecture, it simply CAN NOT ACCESS the entire 4GB properly which is the entire point of this discussion. Why and how it does this 'internally' is [for me] entirely irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  7. Thuban

    Thuban New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 980
    if this hardware failure is true, that's why the GTX 960 has exactly 1.024 shader cores (instead of maybe 1.280) and only 2gb vram to avoid this hardware failure :p
     
  8. flexy

    flexy Member Guru

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Riva 128
    Please anyone:

    * Does this issue also apply WHEN DWM IS DISABLED?
    * Does this issue apply under Linux, DOS, memory test on bootable DVD...ie. independently from Windows?
    * Under what condition does the performance drop after 3.5G NOT occur?
    * Has the memory allocation problem/slowdown a REAL impact in games, eg. in games that use more than 3.5 Vrem, eg. by using DSR, downsampling etc.

    It's amazing that even reading lots in various threads there is no clear, concise answer to find to the above questions.

    Gracias
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  9. stevevnicks

    stevevnicks Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    Don't need one
    some people are claiming that its a false statement lol so all I can say is my system is playing games fine I don't have no issues with the way my cards run, wait and see for official Nvidia statement but Im still happy with how my setup runs so if there is a a so called fix in the post to make it run faster then whooper if not what difference will I notice lol none as its running grate as it is .. so probs why im not kicking up a fuss to something I have never had an issue with or noticed to be honest. handy that other people do though because if its not giving all its got and more can be tapped from it then I will see it as an bonus ... and nice one to the hardcore testers for finding this problem if it is indeed a real world problem.

    time to order a pizza and play with kali Linux laters :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  10. goranm

    goranm Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 970 G1
    It's a segmentation problem, CUDA must use single segment.
     

  11. rm082e

    rm082e Master Guru

    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    131
    GPU:
    GTX 970 SLI
    The results seem inconsistent. Some people are playing games like Dragon Age and Watchdogs with 4K mem usage and no problem. Some folks are looking at Shadow of Mordor, Farcry 4, and AC: Unity and reporting problems when above 3.5.

    Best thing each of us can do is boot up a game, turn on down sampling, crank the AA until the memory usage is through the roof and see what happens. The repeat that test in several other games. I'll be doing exactly that tonight when I get home.
     
  12. Singleton99

    Singleton99 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    68
    GPU:
    Aorus-Extreme-1080TI
    Well i've been following this news as many others have to , and should ive of purchased two 970s ( i have the upgrade bug) which at the last minute decided not to , i think that i would of felt totally missed lead in thinking that one was getting a full 4g of fast ddr5 vram
    and that 4g vram would stand me in good for running at higher rez, then to find out that i only got 3.5g of vram would have left a bad taste in my mouth . This is not a smart move by Nvidia and i suppose is going to impact badly on 970 sales until this mess is sorted out .
     
  13. goranm

    goranm Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 970 G1
    Performance drop would be SIGNIFICANT if this was a case, ant it's not! CUDA is a "problem" They must fix CUDA driver to be able to work with 2 segments!
     
  14. goranm

    goranm Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 970 G1
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  15. neo5555

    neo5555 Active Member

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2 x 6950's in CF

  16. goranm

    goranm Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 970 G1
    Resized.
     
  17. Essenthy

    Essenthy Master Guru

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    GTX 980Ti 6GB
    the only reason why Watch dogs run OK ( by ok i mean around 28~ fps ) at 4k is if you use High textures or low, wich at 4k dosnt reach 3500mb even when overmoded with reflections/bloom all over the place

    you can totally forget about it with ultra texture at 4k, the game tank at around 12-10~fps, at first i though it was because of Watch dogs weird ass ultra texture loading methode, so i tried to go over 3500mb with high textures, and of course as soon as reacher 3528mb the game started to tank fps around 20~ and lower
     
  18. neo5555

    neo5555 Active Member

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2 x 6950's in CF
    Thank you :)
     
  19. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,216
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    This is pure speculation nothing more. Where is your supporting evidence other than hyperbole and rhetoric from people jumping on the bandwagon. Rhetoric like I've never seen before, it's quite crazy.

    Has there been any reliable source to back up the claims of a performance penalty due to gimped hardware? I mean what GPU wouldn't tank when the gfx settings are pushed up so high you're using nearly 4GB VRAM, is that even doable on a single GPU in double digit fps?

    The only games even really mentioned seem to be Skyrim and maybe Shadow of Mordor. In nearly every thread I have seen, Skyrim is the only game mentioned, and it's always the same...."Skyrim won't use over 3.5GB and it stutters which means all 4GB isn't accessible so Nvidia shafted us".

    Skyrim stutters because it's Gamebryo, and everyone knows Gamebryo runs like a pig. Not quite indisputable evidence of missing VRAM....

    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  20. edi_2

    edi_2 Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI 5970 crossfire
    So nvidia has advertised different product. Such a shame. Its great card but knowing that only 3gb in my case can be used is different story and i should not buy it. I would say to nvidia. I want my money back.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page