Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by alanm, Jan 23, 2015.
It's like people buy these gpus to last 10 years or something, right?
Makes me wonder how the 8gb versions of the 970s if there are any in a couple of months to a year will be made. Will they be made the in a similar fashion with 7.5gb pool and a 0.5gb pool or a 7gb pool and a 1gb pool. Either way makes you think about it.
I know with 8gb of Vram that I don't think you will have to worry about getting close to the barrier depending on what settings you run and if you have any eye candy turned on and what resolution you run your games at and depending on the game.
Just a couple of questions, then.
Are you accounting the fact that 0,5GB VRAM (you call it RAM only, right?), is actually 4x faster than system RAM over PCIe? Doesn't that increased speed be suficient to consider that module is in fact VRAM? There's not doubt the card loads 4GB of memory. OpenGL games are an easy way to confirm this.
Given the fact Windows OS allocates assets at VRAM (something like 200-300MB right?), isn't a GTX 980 or R9 290X only using 3700-3800MB of VRAM for games?
I'm about to the point of just blocking/ignore listing all new users.
How in the heck my pc spec related to this "bug", huh? Girls logic...
Do you have this issue or do not, doesn't matter, because what i wrote in my posts cover both cases.
Why these 0.5 gb memory is in the RAM, but 0-3.5 is not? Goddamit, just dump ram yourself after writing to vram some pattern if you don't believe me.
It's your problem, continue to live blind.
Most people probably do plan ahead based on specs as there simply aren't future benchmarks or games available yet.
I'd like to think the 110 horse power car I own is a 110 horsepower car. And not suddenly a 90 horse power with less weight or something. Same speed, same count of seats and bla doesn't really matter, it's just wrong information. And IT is about Information (and a bit of Technology).
I'm sorry for my very simple car comparison, especially since I really don't care about cars
You didn't cover SLI users of the 970 and I did read your post and It did not mention any of that.
I hope people get a refund just so they go away, but then again I hate the brat mentality so I also hope they get feck all and it makes them even angrier.
The card is close enough to the 980 when it comes to performance that the price difference did and still does make the 970 a bargain.
The performance gap will be no wider in 5 years time either, so no idea why people are using that excuse.
huh? didn't say any about your pc and bug?
just said nice pc spec, whats wrong with that? not my fault you have issues now is it ? and by the sound of it, its more than just your gfx card your having issues with.
That's because I believe you I asked. But, you either didn't understand my two questions or you found an easy, cleaver way to avoid both... :nerd:
You make Nai an angel by comparison.
Yep so blind I avoided buying another $400 GPU with a 256bit memory interface.
lol like your answer, totally agree
Actually, that is exactly what happens with cars. They have analog wear and tear that drags down their horsepower and fuel efficiency over time.
While there may not be the same level of manual wear and tear on graphics cards, something similar happens - the top end card now will be the mid-range card next year. The year after that, that same card will be as powerful as the low end card of that day.
Hi ENBSeries, how are you? I am lost a bit. Can you be more spesific of about your findings and share again please? Sorry i am just a noob.
edit: Ok i got it from your website , now understand more clearly.
So one last question.
Sir, are you sure about this?
one thing we can all be sure of, IF there is anything untoward to do with ram allocation of the last 512mb at a driver or maybe Vbios level then Nvidia's team will be looking into it and correct it ... that is IF it needs correcting and not because it was all kicked off from a kiddie rant.
btw the kiddie ranters are easy to spot they have changed description for there pc config
example : Gigabyte GTX970 3.5g +512mb
lol what are they like ?
OCCT test result when forcing the 970 over its 3.5 gb limit (not my video just found it linked in a rant thread)
Ive run this test myself with 3gb/4gb usage and with 4gb framerate/frametimes are a mess until the driver wrangles the Vram usage limit back to 3.532gb
Im very interested in what the driver is really doing to reduce this Vram usage
is it just ejecting unused textures or is it compromising IQ somehow (skipping mip levels/using extra compression/reducing AA quality ect ect) Who knows and would Nv even tell us if it was doing any of the above.
I think people are more upset that if the card has the computational power to run a new game on high settings, and it falls between 3.5-4GB of VRAM, they'll see stutter and other performance defects. That would be quite disappointing.
The only 'moot point' against all this seems to come from the Shadow of Mordor game. A lot of other games are showing to the contrary (with frametimes/stuttering/3.5GB ceiling). I'm curious if the 3.5GB ceiling seen in many games tested is hardware managed, or already something controlled in currently released drivers. If the latter, that would be extremely dubious given the PR statements.
I can guarantee you that stuttering in vast majority of games comes from bad porting, coding and nothing else. A lot of games stutter no matter what you do, remember when W_D launched and it stuttered on Titans when driving? AC? Wolf on AMD cards? A lot of games are poorly done, it's that simple.
Mordor runs great on my single 970, so do most games. The only games that don't run good are poorly ported games, and those run just as bad on 980. If anyone thinks that going from a 970 to a 980 will be a completely different experience, they're naive. Games that run great will run great, only a tiny bit better, hardly noticeable when you game at over 100fps. the games that run like crap on a 970 will run like crap on 980.