GTX 970 3.5 GB problem

[zaelu]

I tested DSR once with my gtx970 and at one setting... 2x I think it gave me an odd rezolution (I can't remember now) and near Nalchik I had some severe stutters but once I raise it to 4x it was really smooth... And quite maxed at 60fps were my vsync caps it.

 

I need to check it more. I didn't like it though cause the mouse clicks in cockpits were a bit off downwards and the menus were very tiny.

Edited January 30, 2015 by zaelu

[blkspade]

You guys should probably realize its an issue overlooked when concerned with most AAA titles would probably never see the issue. We however are in a niche genre that actually stands to be greatly effected by such an issue. As far as current DCS is concerned its not an issue. Those who like something like X-Plane or FSX with massive texture mods, and/or multi-monitor flying it could turn into a problem fast. Who knows how it could ultimately effect the new maps in DCS 2.0, which could very likely require more VRAM than what we're used to.

[wasyl00]

[KLR Rico]

Sure it's a hugely poweful card that costs $330 and destroys everything the competition has to offer, but it only has 7 shlangleflammers when they said it had 8. I won't touch it.

[shagrat]

Actually people buy a 4GB vRAM card for 350 EUR because things like 4k resolutions and multi monitor setups require more than 3.5GB under some conditions...

Now if you bought a car with a trailer coupling, because you think it might be useful to haul something and then you get one without, the car dealer making fun of you, what would you do?

[txmtb]

I read about the issue around the web, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing. I have the msi 970 and works great. DCS is running as it should, while when I was packing a HD 6990 it was stutterfest (shittiest card I ever had).

 

Guess that IF there's actually a bug, they'll fix it with updated drivers, keep in mind that Maxwell is a rather new architecture and could have its teething problems (and I may add, that after years with amd cards, having experienced their dedication to support their hardware with at least decent drivers, I'm rather cool about this)

 

edit: see the enclosed gif, GPUZ reports my 970 memory as it should be

 

Your pic is the typical 970, looks just like my 2. More of the issue is that there are not 64 ROPS on a 970, only 56. The cache reports as 2Mb., but in reality is only 1.75. So the specs are not what Nvidia stated they would be for the card.

Edited January 31, 2015 by txmtb

[karambiatos]

This guy says, there isnt even .5gb of slow ram on the card, its just system ram that it's using.

 

https://www.facebook.com/enbfx

[doveman]

Nvidia's own figures show around 50% fps drop on the 980 going from 3.5 to 4GB, with the 970 only being around 3% worse. So it seems neither is suitable if you actually need 4GB and maybe Nvidia should just release cheaper versions with only 3.5GB on them.

[karambiatos]

if nothing else at least the jokes are good

 

[txmtb]

if nothing else at least the jokes are good

 

 

How true.

 

 

 

This is the first Nvidia card I can remember buying, and I pick the one with RamGate right off the bat....

Edited February 1, 2015 by txmtb

[javelina1]

 

This is the first Nvidia card I can remember buying, and I pick the one with RamGate right off the bat....

 

10-4 buddy! I hear that. This is my first nVidia in years as well, and as you said, right into the heart of "RamGate"... :doh:

[txmtb]

10-4 buddy! I hear that. This is my first nVidia in years as well, and as you said, right into the heart of "RamGate"... :doh:

 

 

Yep, well, the manufacturer offered a step up outside of the normal window to a stock 980, but it would still be another $400 going into the 2 cards or $200 and a card not being used. Which I suppose I could sell and re-coupe the 2 bills. But that would be giving more money to Nvidia.

Right now, I'm just going to wait and see what comes out from Nvidia, don't expect anything though, and if it turns out that way. It'll be a trip back to the Caribbean Islands for me!

[karambiatos]

Even if the planets align, and nvidia fixes this and actually replaces 970s with proper ones, i still wont buy from nvidia ever again.

What's stopping them from putting a paperweights inside of the card, and saying "it's how its suppose to be"

[Bodo]

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Plans-Driver-Update-GTX-970-Memory-Issue-Help-Returns

 

I understand some of the issues here, but the way people react is a little OTT.

 

 

Interesting article and would go some way to acknowledge the issue and explain what will hopefully happen next.

[zaelu]

Something bad happened today... my GTX 970 started to blur the image in native resolution (1080p through HDMI). I tried cleaning the drivers and reinstall them fresh (I used a tool from guru3D.com to clean uninstall)... nothing. The image is blurry but when I lower the resolution to 1280x720 it is a bit more readable.

 

I tried switching to DVI port... same thing.

 

 

I am a bit baffled by this kind of failure that never happened to me or someone else that ask me for help.

 

It's like the resolution is not the native one... but it is. refresh rate is 60... I tried also 59... 50... 30... nothing.

[Pilotasso]

Have any of you actually ran into performance dropouts? (please state game and resolutions pls)

[remon]

Sure it's a hugely poweful card that costs $330 and destroys everything the competition has to offer, but it only has 7 shlangleflammers when they said it had 8. I won't touch it.

 

What? No it doesn't...

[Yurgon]

Have any of you actually ran into performance dropouts? (please state game and resolutions pls)

 

Personally, not yet. I'm afraid that might happen at some point in the future, though.

 

Then again, if EDGE makes use of more than 3.5 GB VRAM, I guess I'll be several video card generations past the 970 by the time it comes out, seeing as I get a new video card every 2 or 3 years. :music_whistling: :lol:

[GregP]

Not a big deal. You will only run into problems if you try play at 4K which no card can do at playable levels anyway. My old 570 would do worse. :)

 

What are "playable levels"?

 

Equal or above 30FPS

 

One 970 may not be enough, but I can verify that two certainly is. :)

 

I'm running DCS at 4K/60Hz with SLI'd 970s, and even though I rarely see VRAM usage go over 3.5 GB (maybe lending credence to the card not being able to use all 4 GB), I'm generally able to maintain 40-80 FPS. As others have pointed out, yeah it sucks not having all 4 GB, but does it really make a difference? In my experience, at 4K, where SLI is really required anyway -- no, it doesn't.

[zaelu]

Have any of you actually ran into performance dropouts? (please state game and resolutions pls)

 

Not at all. I played DCS W last few days in 3840x2160 (DSR 4X) And I didn't ran into no FPS drops. I have the game pushed up a bit with a modified high.lua and modded textures for ground and buildings that are a bit bigger than default. With the attached settings I have usually in the 40 medium FPS.

 

edit the MSAA was set to 2X when in 4x DSR!

Edited February 4, 2015 by zaelu

[KLR Rico]

What? No it doesn't...

 

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

[blkspade]

One 970 may not be enough, but I can verify that two certainly is. :)

 

I'm running DCS at 4K/60Hz with SLI'd 970s, and even though I rarely see VRAM usage go over 3.5 GB (maybe lending credence to the card not being able to use all 4 GB), I'm generally able to maintain 40-80 FPS. As others have pointed out, yeah it sucks not having all 4 GB, but does it really make a difference? In my experience, at 4K, where SLI is really required anyway -- no, it doesn't.

 

The real catch is SLI is fixing the problem of limited GPU processing, where performance doesn't depend on an total available framebuffer. I doubt there is even a way to get DCS to use that much VRAM. If there was a scenario that required SLI for processing and more than 3.5GB VRAM you'd still be screwed by the limit in SLI. Nvidia's possible driver workaround for disabling the last bit of VRAM indicates that the hit is probably worse than having to pull from system memory.

[zaelu]

My above problem fixed almost itself after switching monitors and cables and graphic cards with my girfriend's PC.

 

At first I thought I found that it is the monitor to blame as the same effect appeared when I connected my onboard Intel VGA with A DVI cable to the same monitor. But then the Monitor worked flawlessly with the same cable on her PC at same resolution (1080p). And After I saw that connecting both monitors to my PC on the GTX970, her monitor with DVI cable and mine with a second different HDMI cable makes all look good and normal... I took the final test and connect again my monitor single on my PC with the old HDMI cable... and it works... bleah... now I will have to wait the problem to rise again. :(

 

My test with DSR and GTX970 were very promising especially on 4x setting... but no after this hiccup I don't know what to say.... maybe the monito is to old and something cracked inside it... because for sure I connected it with a DVI cable (different from the problem connection) on a different VGA (onboard Intel) and it was the same problem and I double checked the connections.

 

I was always a bit scared in "DCS Model Viewer" where I saw 1200fps and the card whining because I have no means to control that FPS to put it in sync with the monitor... but I did't expect it to have problems from DSR... which it seems it has... maybe...

[shagrat]

Hmm, as I said before: heavy texture mods and complex objects can put vRAM usage up to 3.x GB quickly... Toby slow&low textures, highwayman eds towns&villages, dimitrius building textures, the ground noise in 4k/8k size and Ranger76s Object mod with some hescos, barricades, some Vehicles add a town in visible range and sit inside a Mig-21. Add DSR and GPU-Z shows max memory usage around 3.4 GB already... just saying.

[KaspeR32]

Sure it's a hugely poweful card that costs $330 and destroys everything the competition has to offer, but it only has 7 shlangleflammers when they said it had 8. I won't touch it.

+1 :smilewink:

 

Did anyone on this thread actually read about the issue?

 

"It turns out that this is a symptom of memory segmentation, as the card splits the 4GB into a 3.5GB high-priority segment and a 512MB low-priority segment. Yes, the card has access to a full 4GB of RAM. It remains to be seen if this technique causes any notable performance detriment, but from what we've seen so far, it does not."

 

What is the problem?? The card performs JUST AS GOOD as every test showed when it was released. People are cancelling their orders because of how they partitioned the memory? It's still one of the best bang for your buck cards on the market.

 

Oh well your loss.

Edited February 4, 2015 by KaspeR32