970 memory allocation issue revisited

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. UZ7

    UZ7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,523
    Likes Received:
    67
    GPU:
    GB Vision 3080 10GB
    Welp, if you guys aren't happy with your card then nows the time to return it lol.
     
  2. trandoanhung199

    trandoanhung199 Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus EN8500GT
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  3. bigfutus

    bigfutus Master Guru

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    56
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Ti
    Bad Nvidia, bad! If i knew that 970 had only 3,5GB of RAM, well... i would buy it anyway.
     
  4. bo3bber

    bo3bber Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 760 SLI
    Seems to me that some of the Ancient Gurus here owe an apology to Nai.

    About 40 pages back, there are repeated and insistent posts that Nai's benchmark was flawed and had no value whatsoever. So much so, that they even convinced Nai himself that it was flawed.

    Now in retrospect we can see that his tool was right. Maybe not flawless, but it showed a genuine flaw, and has been proven to be correct.

    He found a genuine thing. It may or may not be an actual problem, but his goal was just to explore an interesting slowdown.

    I'd like to thank Nai for bringing this to fore, because it has made it clear that I need to wait on my upgrade.
     

  5. WoenK

    WoenK Active Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Vega 64
    Test shows, that Watchdogs is unplayable in UHD on the 970 and 980 (anyone expected anything else?)

    Frametimes chart also suggests that even in full HD using about 3,5 GB the game is also not very playable (about 30 FPS on AVERAGE?)

    And the frametimes for the 290X look worse than the 970 because it has way more spikes even if the spikes are slightly lower. Also the 970 did not use over 3536 MB but just 3474 MB and thus should not have the problem right ? How did they measure which parts of VRAM where occupied in the tests ?



    Really would like to see some real tests that states how much VRAM is really used, what else uses VRAM at the same time, how much got swapped to RAM at the same time, in which areas the used VRAM is allocated and with what tool this was controlled.
    GPU-Z is not a tool for something like that because it does not show the processes and it does not show the usage accurately (hell, it just reads most of the stuff from a database )
    The game engine outputs are out of the question because they are not accurate enough (I do not even think they are really aware of how much VRAM is even still available)
    Process explorer from MS does a better job there, I only have the feeling it does not really show absolutely everything that does occupy VRAM, because I am pretty sure that the drivers already occupy quite some part of VRAM just after booting but so far have not found anything that shows it.

    Bottomline....all tests are not accurate enough and the tester only finds what he was expecting to find. A more scientific approach should be done.
     
  6. WhiteLightning

    WhiteLightning Don Illuminati Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,173
    Likes Received:
    2,004
    GPU:
    GTX1070 iChillx4
    56 rops L2-cache 1792KB
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Raider0001

    Raider0001 Master Guru

    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    PowerColor RX 6800
    I tried to tell them that Nai's convinced nvidia to reveal something wrong about 970 and yet they were not (like they had more IQ than nvidia)
     
  8. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    2,775
    GPU:
    Asus 2080 Dual OC
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  9. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    And the 2gb 690 beats the titan at 1600p.
     
  10. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    2,775
    GPU:
    Asus 2080 Dual OC
    I've always thought GPU power trumps vram in all but the most extreme or isolated situations.
     

  11. Turanis

    Turanis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,779
    Likes Received:
    475
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RX500
    Because Titan(X,Y,Z) is more for professional graphics,and after that for some kind of games.
    Titan(X,Y,Z) is for Cuda,a little brother of Quadro,if you know what I mean.

    And of course if you wanna 4K get 2 -3 cards in SLI/CF.
    Old cards (780TI-290X) still performs well in SLI/CF.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  12. rflair

    rflair Don Commisso Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,204
    Likes Received:
    548
    GPU:
    5700XT
    Where are the shills?

    I won't tolerate unneeded bashing of either camp.

    Edit: Sorry, but if your talking about disgruntled 970 owners, then they have a right to post what they feel.
     
  13. Spets

    Spets Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,141
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    RTX 3090
    I should of been more clear (didn't quote the link), I was referring to the GeForce forums, not here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  14. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    42,462
    Likes Received:
    10,271
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  15. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    For me things are simple right now, the 970 it´s an amazing card with great performance at a decent price.
    And although i consider that many people are exaggerating their "performance issues" by expecting 2 970 in SLI to run perfectly fine at 4K with everything maxed out, in the end Nvidia ****ed up bigtime by lying like this and they are the ones to blame. There´s no excuse to the fact that it took 4 months and lots of complaints for Nvidia to come forward and recognize that they made a "mistake"... Not to mention that still they haven´t issued an official apology to everyone you bought a 970.

    So for me they should compensate everyone that bought a 970 with some sort of freebie or offer an set up program to trade the 970 for a 980, for those who desired it.

    And make sure this doesn´t happen again...
     

  16. cowie

    cowie Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,273
    Likes Received:
    345
    GPU:
    GTX
    soo its the same song a few month later besides nv bs'in about the spec's

    jajajaja you said clusterscrew
     
  17. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
  18. WoenK

    WoenK Active Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Vega 64
    For what reason exactly?
    Tests show there is nothing wrong with the card.
    And even if they lied about the ROPS, they did not promise a 980 performance or did they?

    Nvidia did a quite few mistakes in the past and allways very reluctantly admitted them, they do not have a history to "compensate" for wrong hopes, they do not even compensate when they really screw up (see the Nvidia solder problem).
     
  19. mR Yellow

    mR Yellow Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire R9 Fury
    Great post. I noticed that it was mostly 970 owners that tried to bad mouth Nai.
     
  20. JohnLai

    JohnLai Member Guru

    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    ASUS GTX 970 3.5+0.5GB
    Well, technically, it is thanks to Nai's benchmark and VultureX modification that nvidia finally admit GTX970 hardware 'issue'. Even though the benchmark is technically 'flawed' since the final 0.5gb chunk isn't being read properly.

    What important is that nvidia finally acknowledge the memory segmentation has resulted in some stuttering issue and they are currently investigating it.

    I read at techpowerup Nvidia will release new re-tuned driver to address some of problem caused by memory segmentation soon.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page