-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Is this a good sample of GTX 970?
- Thread starter Cezar
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
Isn't 500Mb used as a cache or something? That whole "OMG Nvidia screwed us for .5Gb wtf!!!1!" thing?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
there is 500Mb that are not used on the 970's, if you run into the issue you'll be in the 1%.
what res is your monitor? if it's 1080 you'll never ever see it.
what res is your monitor? if it's 1080 you'll never ever see it.
- Thread Starter
- #4
What bothers me is that I found benchmark results on the following web-page for my i5 4690k and gtx 970: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/
i5-4690K 4.2GHz GTX 970 ~1479/1890 1587 Jborg
My score is 1232 when his is 1587. This fact bothers me.
For some reason forum did not want to accept the picture from imgur and said that the file is invalid, so I post a direct link.
i5-4690K 4.2GHz GTX 970 ~1479/1890 1587 Jborg
My score is 1232 when his is 1587. This fact bothers me.
For some reason forum did not want to accept the picture from imgur and said that the file is invalid, so I post a direct link.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 13, 2006
Is your card over clocked? If so what clocks is it runnimg. And really at the same clocks they are all going to perform the same, the only real difference will be the temps depending on the cooler.
And I use 2 970s at 1440p and have never had issues with the vram
And I use 2 970s at 1440p and have never had issues with the vram
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
cezar, those cards and cpus are clocked to the max, they use software, NVidia inspector and such to strip heaven of all the eye candy and increase the scores.
don't use those to compare, go read the review benchmark results, those are moon shots.
don't use those to compare, go read the review benchmark results, those are moon shots.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
^C_D is right: don't rely on overclockers benchmarks results.
Download 3dmark11, or firestrike, and compare your score to the ones in the various 970 reviews.
Download 3dmark11, or firestrike, and compare your score to the ones in the various 970 reviews.
The extra 512MB is SLOWER guys. It's not cache, it is used when the other 3.5MB is filled.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
Ohhhh. So it's basically overflow Vram?
Weird. I thought it'd just be easier to just have 4Gb of fast Vram vs 3.5 and .5.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
correct!!! earthdog, but as many as have passed through my hands....... I still can't say I've seen it, my frame rate drops and stutters and stammers have all been cured by minor graphics adjustments.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
all 970's are like that, but don't worry about it.
chuck that card in a slot, install the drivers, tweak the graphics in your game, grab your happy juice of choice and tell us how you love your new card!!!!!!
chuck that card in a slot, install the drivers, tweak the graphics in your game, grab your happy juice of choice and tell us how you love your new card!!!!!!
Nobody has seen it. Many sites re-tested their samples after the news broke and could not produce a single issue. And in fact, it was not the first time that Nvidia and AMD have used that method of structuring Vram. It's actually a pretty cool trick because it doesn't actually lead to any performance degradation even when that .5 is used. It's engineering. The narrative surrounding it sucked, and apparently still does.
970 remains a great card for most people looking at the 1070 but who do not have the uber CPU to not bottleneck it. You need something in the 4.5ghz range or above to not 100% your CPU in CPU intensive games, or parts of games. My 4670k at 4.2ghz cannot keep up in 75% of games I play right now. The 1060 would have been a better choice for me. Or even just keeping my 970.
It is rare, yes. It was not a big deal by any stretch, correct. But the issue is real. That is how people found out about it was with the performance degradation/hitching. After further investigation they uncovered when it happened. But this really only gets ugly at higher resolution and settings where you are eclipsing the 3.5GB mark and more frequently swapping the data in/out of that portion. 
