• 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.
Although the 224 bit was another spec not advertised at all it is not a issue for non 4k gamers and only if people play 4k it might show benefit to have full 256 bit and it needs SLI too for full playability. Even at 4k, i guess in term the memory can OC to 8k or so there is few performance loss. The main issue is clearly the 3.5 GB cap because future games may surely use more and more RAM and many modded games can always make use of 4GB, so the max RAM issue is the only matter i consider critical.
 
Although the 224 bit was another spec not advertised at all it is not a issue for non 4k gamers and only if people play 4k it might show benefit to have full 256 bit and it needs SLI too for full playability. Even at 4k, i guess in term the memory can OC to 8k or so there is few performance loss. The main issue is clearly the 3.5 GB cap because future games may surely use more and more RAM and many modded games can always make use of 4GB, so the max RAM issue is the only matter i consider critical.

I don't play modded Skyrim, but is that one which might use 3.5+? I'm curious to see minimum FPS results from a game like that which uses 3.5+, but still should have playable FPS otherwise. I think that will be more beneficial to our discussion than all the back-and-forth :)
 
That is a compilation of FPS and its result. Which includes bandwidth and this vram thing people are up in arms about. The problem was ALWAYS there so performance is what it is. ;)
 
That is a compilation of FPS and its result. Which includes bandwidth and this vram thing people are up in arms about. The problem was ALWAYS there so performance is what it is. ;)

Yes, but at what vram usage level?
 
All the reviews are standart games without mods. Told several times that there is people actually buying 4GB cards so they can mod with less bottlenecks. It may be minority but it is a advertised spec that was not done properly and not a real 4GB card as a result.

Regarding Skyrim: At the current stage as one of the highest modded games of all time, it could easely reach or even surpass 4 GB i assume, i even heard that some people see benefit from 6 GB Titan cards. Textures are by far the biggest RAM leecher, not sheer resolution, and some mods can add totally crazy textures.
 
Last edited:
Just came across this post by a moderator (nvidia employee?) from the geforce forums:

The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory. However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.

We understand there have been some questions about how the GTX 970 will perform when it accesses the 0.5GB memory segment. The best way to test that is to look at game performance. Compare a GTX 980 to a 970 on a game that uses less than 3.5GB. Then turn up the settings so the game needs more than 3.5GB and compare 980 and 970 performance again.

Here’s an example of some performance data:

diff.png

On GTX 980, Shadows of Mordor drops about 24% on GTX 980 and 25% on GTX 970, a 1% difference. On Battlefield 4, the drop is 47% on GTX 980 and 50% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. On CoD: AW, the drop is 41% on GTX 980 and 44% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. As you can see, there is very little change in the performance of the GTX 970 relative to GTX 980 on these games when it is using the 0.5GB segment.

That's basically what I was after (if it can be believed?). The drop in performance when 3.5GB is exceeded is essentially the same on the 970 and 980. As long as these numbers are all accurate, I have no further concerns. I'm guessing any driver improvements they attempt will just be to try and close that 3-4% gap.
 
This is just a set of a few well running and optimized games that are barely hitting the lacking 0.5 GB at all, it is not truly able to represent the possible odds. Modded games may behave different and cant be easely optimized on the driver level. There is simply a clean memory interface needed in order to make it almost failproof... really no excuse.
 
Last edited:
This is just a set of a few well running and optimized games that are barely hitting the lacking 0.5 GB at all, it is not truly able to represent the possible odds. Modded games may behave different and cant be easely optimized on the driver level. There is simply a clean memory interface needed in order to make it almost failproof... really no excuse.

I don't think this will matter. VRAM usage is VRAM usage, regardless of whether it's resolution scaling (in the above chart) or additional texture mods (your reference) gobbling it up.
 
Well i will be testing it soon because im not to lazy and in term i see a real issue i will not be happy, to much guessing now. And once again, FPS says not to much, i do need stability graph.
 
I tell you, in term im desperate im even gonna fit your PSU into the shoebox case*... i make it happen, its still easyer than making a proper marketing happen it seems, so i am actually lazy. I dont know limits... its a Nvidia spec, not mine. *Including your short paced shoes even.
 
Last edited:
we get 224 bit at once or get 32 bit at once, but never 256bit at once. thats kinda like saying if we have dual channel ddr2 in pairs installed that we have ddr4 memory! when we really have ddr2 memory
I am more mad at being lied to once again by nvidia, and it doesnt help for all the people on forums (not those of us here) just jump in and try to right the ship for nvidia. I just want nvidia to take responsibility for their misrepresentation. microcenter didnt lie to me, msi didnt lie to me, nvidia lied to me. If they were to offer me a refund of the full price of the card and the taxes I paid- I would accept. and the card I have is an exceptionally good clocking card. and never throttles or havent noticed it even once. the car performs rather well, but its not what I paid them for, and want them to do what is right and make it right. give my full expenditures back or give me a card that does what I paid for
I know I am ranting, but this will be the second time they have lied and not even made a real attempt to make it right
 
Right, it makes no sense attaching a GDDR5 on a 32 bit interface, its comparable to cheap DDR2 RAM, heck even DDR3 could be faster in term its more than 2 channel or high clocked. This is really a mean invention Nvidia did... waste of valuable fast paced high end RAM modules.

Dunno whats the idea behind, guess they had in mind to offer more value to the 980 GTX, but there is no need: People buy a 980 because it is faster, not because "more value", a flagship is never a value card... just a sheer bragging rights for the needy.
 
Last edited:
Been watching this since the beginning of the weekend, and have seen the excuse/PR regarding it.
Regardless of the fact that I don't believe for one second that it "Was just noticed after we were informed- a marketing/PR mistake", I have seen a couple of posts in different forums from Supposed 'Nv" EMPLOYEES from Santa Clara-
Peter at Geforce.com (Moderator-Engineer per his words), and Brian at Techreport have posted(Peter a few times- Brian only once) both say they work for nV in Santa Clara, and both say they will help with refunds or exchanges if that is what is wanted.

Peter: https://forums.geforce.com/default/...tx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/post/4438090/#4438090 post # 2398
Brian- Joined at 2:23am, and posted at 2.53 am

Hope that helps anyone that is sweating it out, I have read that Newegg is taking care of folks with credit(misrepresentation-wrong specs), OCUK is waiting for nV to tell them what they can do(Gibbo posted that he told them he'd like the info by tomorrow night), as I'm sure other retailers are as well.
 
all I know is that the card was misrepresented and money was spent by me to obtain said card and said specs. which is not what I recieved. this was totally nvidia's doings and not msi or microcenter. I want nvidia to be the ones to refund my money in full. as they are the only ones that I currently have an issue with. fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you
 
Mispresentation is a pretty gentle word for a obvious abusing of marketing in order to boast a pretty rewarding product. Somewhat unfair advantage vs. AMD, they surely may have more customers in term truth was known from the start. Anyway in long term not sure it may pay out for Nvidia, so they already got a hit in trust and all whats left is a memory fix.
 
224bit... no where to be found in the Anand article. HOWEVER there is reference to the 224GB/s bandwidth. Throughout this article they do not call it '224bit bus'. Can someone tell me where that 224bit thing is coming from? I am a bit confused there... here is what Anand says it is...

Finally, because of this configuration and the lack of a ROP/L2 unit we get to the memory segments. Although the full 256-bit memory bus is present and active on GTX 970 and capable of providing 224GB/sec of combined memory bandwidth between the DRAM modules and the memory controllers, it’s a bit of a misnomer to say the card has that much bandwidth between the memory controllers and everything else, at least in the same sense that the GTX 980 does...

I mean I understand that there are 8 channels @ 32 bit each, but taking one away, doesn't make it 224bit as it can still reach and access the rest according to Anand...

This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once when doing a pure read or a pure write. In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time...

...Despite all of this, achieving peak memory bandwidth performance on the GTX 970 is still possible, but it requires much more effort since simple striping will not do the trick. The easiest and most effective solution in this regard is to interleave reads and writes over the segments, such that one segment is writing while another segment is reading. Interleaving in this fashion allows both segments to work at once – avoiding the blocking effect of the shared read and write buses – and makes it more likely that both segments are doing useful work rather than waiting for their turn on an operation. However because this is only applicable to situations where more than 3.5GB of VRAM is in use and both segments are necessary, this means it's only theoretically possible to achieve 224GB/sec when more than 3.5GB of VRAM is in use. In any situations below 3.5GB we are de-facto limited to just the larger segment, in which case there are only 7 memory channels (196GB/sec) to stripe memory operations across. NVIDIA could of course interleave operations sooner than that and use both segments more often, but due to the blocking effect we've discussed before the performance hit from using the 512MB segment can quickly become greater than any gains.

Am I missing something?
 
Back