GTX 970 can't use all of its 4GB VRAM

jo3

Active Member
Veterans
Jul 31, 2014
425
39
28
32
Not tested mine yet will have to see how it goes :)
 

JeffBeefJaw

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,223
414
91
47
Spec for the 970 has been changed...
p6iqWMP.png
 

jo3

Active Member
Veterans
Jul 31, 2014
425
39
28
32
No they lied / got it wrong in the marketing so its less of a card but no one knew o_O

 

Irathi

Well-Known Member
Community Leader
Aug 21, 2013
2,646
608
113
38
Well the performance tests didn't lie? And the GTX 970 did really well :)

The GTX 960 though, not so much... barely faster than my GTX 760
 

dnaRIP

Co-Leader
Staff member
Community Leader
Feb 14, 2012
2,616
719
137
56
From PC Gamer:

http://www.pcgamer.com/why-nvidias-gtx-970-slows-down-using-more-than-35gb-vram/

Nvidia responded on Friday with this statement (and chart):

“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.

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:

9S5xuc0.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.”

So, it uses both the 3.6 GB and 0.5 GB segments when needed.
 

jo3

Active Member
Veterans
Jul 31, 2014
425
39
28
32
It was the L2 cache they got wrong and have only just changed the specs on their site but it would have been nice to know that 0.5Mb of the Vram runs at 1/7th of the speed aswell.

We will have to see if this effects the lifespan on the card when 4K starts to take off :)
 
Last edited:

JeffBeefJaw

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,223
414
91
47
Seems an odd decision to not just sell the card with its actual spec. Gpu enthusiasts would find out sooner or later. This is not something new though nvidia, amd/ati and Intel have all lied about specs at some point. I'd be looking for a full refund if I owned one of these cards and go for a 980 or even a 780ti which is faster than the 970 anyway.
 

Irathi

Well-Known Member
Community Leader
Aug 21, 2013
2,646
608
113
38
They are just saying that they will attempt to increase the performance of the last 500mb if i'm not mistaken.

They should've marketed the card as 3.5 Gb and all of this would've been avoided. Then it would've been happy fans that realised hey we actually got a mystery 500mb extra ram! omg NVIDIA IS AWESOME!
 

Purestorm

Grand Saber
Officer Star Citizen
Oct 28, 2012
2,550
953
113
33
Dundalk, Ireland
Nah people would probably be more pissed if there was un-utilised RAM instead of under-performing RAM.

In any case the incorrect specs on the L2 cache and ROPs is more significant. People paid for something they thought was advertised to be better than it actually was.