• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

False Specs on GTX 970?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Funny for me is that 2-3 websites made some more official posts about these issues. All others made copy/paste without any tests and added their own comments. Most users make the same without any tests. At the end all is about not so many complains but a lot of **** users who thought that they got 4GB memory in one "package".
Right now maybe 1% gamers are playing in 4K. Most games won't even reach 3GB on 95% gaming PCs so all are mad not because they see any issues but because they probably will see it in 1-2 years when they move to 4K displays. In this time all will switch cards to something better just because GTX970 is not graphics card for mass market. However you see it, only low % of gamers are playing on so expensive cards but as enthusiasts and overclockers we see it pretty normal to have high end stuff at home.
 
We will see if true issue or not... when i watch the VRAM usage of my modded games. Resolution is a RAM leecher but not necessary the biggest one. In a few days i will know more... and i wont be nice, i will put in hundreds of mods and tell the engine to use the gentle 4 GB VRAM at free will.

On top of that its unrealistic to run 4k games maxed on a single 970, the Radeon may have the edge on 4k because better memory interface. In SLI it may be even more RAM demanding... the spot it may be difficult.
 
Last edited:
Yes, best if you test it yourself as I'm too lazy for that and I will sell my GTX970 soon anyway. Not because of mentioned issue but I got GTX980 and have to cover costs. I'm playing on GTX580 right now just because it's enough for all what I'm using.
People around the web made opinions based on 2 popular websites and couple users who saw something in single games. I saw somewhere comments that visible issues are happening only in some games, not all so maybe there is possible fix for that, like some additional caching or something. That's just my quick thinking as I don't really care about this issue. I'm just bored to see the same comments everywhere without actual tests made by GTX970 users.
 
Why should you care... you are getting a 980 and issue will be done for you, weird mentality. Most users are not actually experiencing issues thats correct but somehow they was not informed in advance about the possible issues, a issue hard to get in term not much scents for ethical value. Consumers can safely be tricked it seems and many people consider it valid. Guess thats the main point why so much drama... not the real world hitters, its a mental thing. I surely understand why many people are not gentle with the matter even if they are not actually suffering. Again, it is a advertised 4 GB card but may actually become issues at 3.5 GB+ on the hardware side... like it or not.
 
Last edited:
a lot of my issue is the fact that bigger games are coming. I dont usually buy a higher end card that regularly and expect to get whay I pay for. if I happen to need 4gb of ram- and I paid for the use of 4gb of ram- them I expect use of 4gb of ram. Not some silly story how somebody at the warehouse messed up and sent me some frankenstien card that works well most of the time but has the jeckyl side as well.

Really what I want is for companies to step up and feel that their customers are the most improtant thing in their whole structure and that they should be honest with them. Nvidia has punked me once and I am not happy about the possibility of them getting over on me again
 
Woomack said:
Yes, best if you test it yourself as I'm too lazy for that and I will sell my GTX970 soon anyway. People around the web made opinions based on 2 popular websites and couple users who saw something in single games. I saw somewhere comments that visible issues are happening only in some games, not all so maybe there is possible fix for that, like some additional caching or something. That's just my quick thinking as I don't really care about this issue. I'm just bored to see the same comments everywhere without actual tests made by GTX970 users.
Click to expand...

So, you are upset that others are spouting baseless claims, but you're too lazy to test out a card you already own and provide information that might validate what you're saying (which is equally baseless)?...
 
Its what the Anand article said, essentially. There is a problem with a few games that use over 3.5GB. If you are at 1080p, this barely concerns you at this time. If you are at 1440p, this concerns you a little more than barely. If you are 4K, be concerned. There are always one offs... those that pour on mods to games that this will effect in greater numbers tough.
 
Indeed, guess some evil force was helping out Woomack in order to become a affordable 980... else i dunno why to turn down a matter and even to lazy to make own confirmations... at the same time expecting others to do so. The 970 apparently lacked power (he must have some crazy games) or not future proof.. who knows. I am surely gonna test it out and not just copy the claims others do. But most freaked out claim is that he is currently running a GTX 580 and it is "enough for what he does", in the backdoor there is already a postman with a 980 waiting and will be replacing a sufficient card... one of two, sorry it is kinda weird the story. I guess he then gonna tell "oh thank you for the nice unrequired upgrade, and people that are moaning about possibly insufficient cards, in future, are just boredoom". Really cool story...
 
Last edited:
EarthDog said:
There is a problem with a few games that use over 3.5GB. If you are at 1080p, this barely concerns you at this time. If you are at 1440p, this concerns you a little more than barely. If you are 4K, be concerned..
Click to expand...

So, I've been trying to hit this issue for the past hour or so in BF4. 1440P, Ultra. Vram is maxing out around 3GB, so I haven't been able to see if there is stuttering.

I tried upping the resolution scaling, but I think it's the GPU core which can't keep up. I am seeing some "lag" at 200% res scale. VRAM is around 3400 at that setting.
 
Yeah, a 970 can't handle that on a horsepower front first and foremost. That is SSAA (full screen AA for all intents and purposes). That is also what the article mentioned. In a lot of titles, you are bottlenecked elsewhere than the 3.5GB vram.
 
4x MSAA is as good as perfect for 1080P, it is overkill going for more, settings that offer no real benefit makes few sense. I guess i can hit the 4 GB without problems simply by pumping in mods and 4-8k textures and spawning like 20 high res followers on Skyrim, but can use cheat command in order to pump hundreds of units at same spot for test purpose and spawned inside a extended city, close to a high res ocean and extending the draw distance to mad levels. No need for crazy settings, textures are the true RAM leechers. Guess people may be surprised how easy i will hit the 4GB, we will see. When im finish torturing the VRAM i may ask for a 6 GB card because the 4 GB probably a pity.
 
Last edited:
Do you think i would be interested in such a card without mods? I dont get it... it is the main reason someone needs high VRAM, not your so priced resolutions. Where you live? The main advantage for PC gaming is the ability to mod, it doesnt only add eye candy but better gameplay too.
 
There are probably more people that strap on mod packs to games then are on 4K. But they are still one offs. Most people that play games use the plain old missionary position Ivy. You happen to be one that does not... and that is OK. Get a 980 or r9 290. Problem solved. ;)

Again, one off's dont concern me too much.


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn... 'night fellows.
 
The non modders dont even deserve a 980, they should hand it over to me and use 580 instead. *flame* Sadly a 980 is outside my bucket capacity... my HIFI was pricy enough. 290 is to hot running, not a valid option, i will have heat issues.

Anyway my 970 max VRAM test will be coming soon and in term it goes bad... no excuse.
 
Last edited:
In term it will go bad assuming you pass the 3.5GB limit. Not sure what testing is happening here that hasn't already been tested and proven... but go ahead!
 
Then you basically agree that the 3.5 GB is the real usable RAM and not 4 GB i assume. Another thing to agree is that there is not a 256 bit bus but a 224 bit bus falsely advertised as a true 256 bit bus:

980: 16 SMM x 128 ALU, 4 controller partitions x 64 ROP, 8x0.25 MB L2 = 256 bit = 4096 MB
970: 13 SMM x 128 ALU, 4 controller partitions x 52 ROP, 7x0.25 MB L2 = 224 bit = 3584 MB. Interesting that the lacking L2 cache is 0.25 MB = 1/8 which is 500 MB of 4 GB, ROP another 1/8 cut, (the lack of those infos was probably an... unfortunate accident). The missing 500 MB is apparently running at 32 bit, so the performance hit is heavy.

Edit: Somehow the Anandtech version is confusing and in favor of Nvidia. I think it doesnt matter if the 4 controller partitions are at full spec because in term 3 SMM are disabled and a lack of 32 ROPs it will directly affect the memory performance, a bottleneck.

So it doesnt even matter if the general interface is 256 bit because in term the reduced SMM is not allowing for more than 224 bit we have a bottleneck slowing down the entire bus system. Its directly linked to memory controller, so i dunno with what rights Nvidia can make a 256 bit advertisement? I think the missing 0.5 GB RAM is somehow usable but because of the lack on ROP and L2 cache it will suffer high performance loss. In order to counter the issue, the remaining 0.5 GB is somehow handled by using a internal software solution (driver level) in order to screw around with allocation priority... certainly tricky and it may create issues with many games, because some games may simply accept the "allocation trick" and others are incompatible. Certainly Nvidia was aware of the issue but not revealing to the public, its hard to guess that it is all "an accident",... they make "rocket science" and cant make proper marketing?

So, it should be advertised as a 3.5 GB 224 bit card. Some RAM banks could be removed i guess, makes not much sense if the architecture is unable to handle the additional RAM at full and stable speeds. Of course it may be true that the RAM is connected on a 256 bit bus on the PCB but question is how it is internally handled by the chip and if it truly can scope with 256 bit, doesnt seem to be the case.

I mean i dont know what to say, if even half of it is true... such stuff is totaly a "Nvidia spec" and so far not known when it comes to AMD. Advertising true specs surely will drop the current market prices and Nvidia most likely was trying to avoid it. But i guess not sure if it can be keep up anymore with the current specs, its somewhat questionable and some wise geeks are probably already selling theyr 970 for a 980 and telling us that they dont care at all for the 970 issue and why so much drama, everything OK *hugging the 980 in front of them while saying it*.

Solution? I guess the 980 and 970 use the same chip and the entire matter could be locked on the software BIOS level and/or driver too. So the question is if it could be unlocked so the entire RAM is used properly, well only Nvidia knows i guess and they surely wont try to offer "more value" for a 970 user. Rather ... well... giving some excuse, such as "several months the wrong marketing paper and they do not notice it", who knows. One thing is clear: There would be much lesser buyer in term the 3.5 GB cap was known from the very start.... so congrats on "cheating" or "unfortunate mistaken", whatever is true.
 
Last edited:
ninjacore said:
So, you are upset that others are spouting baseless claims, but you're too lazy to test out a card you already own and provide information that might validate what you're saying (which is equally baseless)?...
Click to expand...

I don't have to validate anything what I'm saying. I only added comment to what is happening around the GTX970 issue topic.

I saw many complains around the web and not many actual tests of mentioned issue. Those who provided their results didn't say that issues are appearing in every game. I said I'm too lazy ( maybe used wrong word ) just because I don't care so much to waste 1-2 days on tests that won't directly affect me even if I kept this card.
...

Ivy said:
Why should you care... you are getting a 980 and issue will be done for you, weird mentality. Most users are not actually experiencing issues thats correct but somehow they was not informed in advance about the possible issues, a issue hard to get in term not much scents for ethical value. Consumers can safely be tricked it seems and many people consider it valid. Guess thats the main point why so much drama... not the real world hitters, its a mental thing. I surely understand why many people are not gentle with the matter even if they are not actually suffering. Again, it is a advertised 4 GB card but may actually become issues at 3.5 GB+ on the hardware side... like it or not.
Click to expand...

I simply don't care about so high settings as single GTX970 is too weak card for that anyway. I'm using new hardware mainly for benching and reviews so yes, why should I care to waste my time on these tests ?
Still my friend has GTX970 and I see many users on our forums who also have these cards. I'm not happy about the fact what Nvidia made as it's not right but this issue is not affecting maybe 99% users and probably won't affect for next 1-2 years. I just don't want to see whole community to panic because of issue which for most users will be only "on paper" as they won't see it while playing games.
I'm sorry it may affect you at some point but it doesn't mean all these threads around the web have to make other GTX970 users unhappy because of something that probably won't ever affect them. I bet that most GTX970 users will sell these cards before they move to something like 4k displays.

Ivy said:
Indeed, guess some evil force was helping out Woomack in order to become a affordable 980... else i dunno why to turn down a matter and even to lazy to make own confirmations... at the same time expecting others to do so. The 970 apparently lacked power (he must have some crazy games) or not future proof.. who knows. I am surely gonna test it out and not just copy the claims others do. But most freaked out claim is that he is currently running a GTX 580 and it is "enough for what he does", in the backdoor there is already a postman with a 980 waiting and will be replacing a sufficient card... one of two, sorry it is kinda weird the story. I guess he then gonna tell "oh thank you for the nice unrequired upgrade, and people that are moaning about possibly insufficient cards, in future, are just boredoom". Really cool story...
Click to expand...

I don't know why are you picking on me here. Just because I got GTX980 ? I ordered GTX980 before was any info about GTX970 issues. I'm not saying that all is fine because I already have GTX980. I would care the same if I haven't got it just because I won't use whole memory on these cards for anything I do.
As I said, I'm mainly benching on this hardware and I actually had 2x GTX970 and friend gave me one for tests. I made tri-SLI tests and decided to keep one card but since GTX980Ti will be probably in half year and there won't be anything better around for some time then I decided to get GTX980. Overpriced and not so much better than GTX970 but still better for my needs because of higher OC potential on lower temps.

If you worry about performance then simply test it. I never said I will check it and I won't because ( as you may read above ) I don't care so much to waste my time. Actually You said that will test it and then I said it will be best option. What's wrong with that ? I'm not making other users to waste their time and check anything for me. I don't need that.

It won't change what Nvidia made but if it won't confirm then at least you will feel better ( regardless what other say ). If you find some bigger issues then you have good base to drill the topic on the forums and even return hardware to the store as product is not exactly what was specified ( at least in some countries you can make that ).
It happened in the past and will happen in the future too regardless if it's Nvidia or other brand. Nvidia just used us to provide products or info not really what we expected.

ninjacore said:
So, I've been trying to hit this issue for the past hour or so in BF4. 1440P, Ultra. Vram is maxing out around 3GB, so I haven't been able to see if there is stuttering.

I tried upping the resolution scaling, but I think it's the GPU core which can't keep up. I am seeing some "lag" at 200% res scale. VRAM is around 3400 at that setting.
Click to expand...

Now think how many players are using 1440p or higher resolution and who actually will see lack of 0.5GB.


What I mainly mean is not to make other GTX970 users unhappy as most won't even see mentioned issue but will feel that they've spent a lot of money on a hardware which is "defective". I mean in general, not only about this thread as many similar are around the web and already couple of topics on OCF.

Some users were already checking GTX970 with GTX980 BIOS and it didn't work so probably it's hardware locked.
 
Last edited:
I would like to clear my stance up a bit on the whole issue as there are more than 1 side to it.

  1. I am dissapointed that nvidia had the wrong specs listed even though the card is a good performer. I bought the card with the intention of SLI for 1440 gaming in about 6 months and the 3.5GB "limit" may be an issue with this.
  2. I believe nvidia has handled this situation very poorly and thus it is spiralling out of control. When they put out the new specs there should have been some form of compensation (£20) or the option to upgrade to the 980 (not for free - just pay the difference) to help appease the masses. This would have gone a long way to make people feel that nvidia actually cared about their consumers.
  3. I do not believe all these people pushing the card to the max are actually seeing issues. I watched more than a few youtube videos of people complaining about stuttering/unplayable games and I just cannot see it. There are also mixed reports with different brands/versions of the card which is making me think it could be resolved with a driver?

With all of that above I would probably go with nvidia again over AMD. I have had too many problems with AMD which just leaves me with the feeling that I am always a step behind. If I get the option to upgrade to the 980 I would probably take it and if not then I will have to wait and see.
 
Well 980 is overkill anyway, even if i had the cash its just insane going for it. A 2x8 PIN card, i wonder how people can sustain their claim for much higher efficiency when a card is having a connection that is basically good to go for 300 W, not any less than a 290X. But i could go on waiting forever... i need new card today not in countless months. I compare 290X with 970 because its almost same priced... it would be unfair comparing it with a much more pricy 980.

Checking efficiency matters, the Nvidia cards use connections that are able to pump twice the power than they actually use (980: 300W on a 175W card*, 970: 225 W on a 150W card), its just weird. Although temperature threshold wont allow for a GPU twice that strong, maybe +30% and Nvidia is surely hiding it in order to attack AMD. Guess its to much fake really... Nvidia was probably not releasing the true high end and is just waiting for it to be released in some months. The overpowered connectors are here so a consumer got in mind that they actually own a flagship... oh well, i guess i know the game.

*290X is a 250W or so card, roughly ~40% less effective vs. 980, probably ~30% vs. 970. Its much less efficiency but nothing that cant be beaten for a new generation. GTX 960 is clearly a junk piece with lowest efficiency of entire 900 series so far (probably just ~10% more effective vs. 290X), dunno why such a bad design for lower midrange users that are in need of efficiency.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Can't get any stable overclock on Strix GTX 970
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Johan45
Johan45
D
GTX 980ti Vram Problem
Replies
16
Views
4K
mimart7
mimart7
Back