-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia responds to GTX 970 memory issue
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
Gumbie
Member
Bout 20 times.
Plus Mantle is an AMD feature. Nvidia cards don't like the forest level in Ryse for another example
If this was how everyone reacted we'd all get fucked by corporations on a daily basis. What you fail to realize is that all this sets a precedent. If u let a company get away with these sort of things they will keep doing it. If u make them pay, they will be a lot more cautious about the way they handle things. This time it's lying about specs but what will it be next time?
I am looking to upgrade from:
Intel I7 2600
4 GB RAM
Nvidia GTX 670 4 GB
I am looking to upgrade to:
i7 4790K
ASUS M. VII Gene
16 GB RAM
I already got everything else I need except for the video card. I have been reading about the issues with the last 500 MB of VRAM on the GTX 970. It was the card I had pegged as my replacement for the 670. I really don't have the funds to go to a 980 at this point. I only game at 1080p 60 FPS (my monitor doesn't support higher), and its a single monitor setup. Should I still move forward with the 970 or is there a better option for the price?
Intel I7 2600
4 GB RAM
Nvidia GTX 670 4 GB
I am looking to upgrade to:
i7 4790K
ASUS M. VII Gene
16 GB RAM
I already got everything else I need except for the video card. I have been reading about the issues with the last 500 MB of VRAM on the GTX 970. It was the card I had pegged as my replacement for the 670. I really don't have the funds to go to a 980 at this point. I only game at 1080p 60 FPS (my monitor doesn't support higher), and its a single monitor setup. Should I still move forward with the 970 or is there a better option for the price?
Get a 760 and upgrade later. (since all you have is 1080p monitor)
Or on the flip side if your PSU supports it, the other thread has a 290 for $220 after rebate.
BF3 isn't a Mantle title. I was trying to keep it consistent as TPU always use BF3 for their OC test.
Just a nitpick, the card will heat your house the same regardless of what cooler is used. The better coolers just are better at moving the heat off the card and into your house.
Valid point.
I got a 750 Watt Power supply. Would that work for the 290? I want to be able to run games like the witcher 3 and GTA 5 at 60 FPS.
A quality 750w PSU is sufficient for a single 290. No idea how GTA 5 will perform, how can we answer that ?
I guess what I am trying to say is I want the most powerful card.
The most powerful GPUs at the moment are the the R9 290X and GTX 980 if you exclude multi GPUs such as the R9 295X.
The R9 290 has a great perf/$ ratio.
Is the 970 the equivalent of the R9 290 on the Nvidia side from a performance perspective?
You could say that. But the 290X is faster and does not cost that much more, it's an option you should take very seriously.
Lockjaw333
Member
R9 290 is about 10% slower than a gtx 970 but can be had for about $100 less.
R9 290x is neck and neck with a gtx 970 but can be had for about $50 less.
Downside is that both amd cards are more power hungry, run much hotter, are a good amount larger, and use amd drivers.
Nvidia generally has better drivers and additional graphics effects like aa modes and other touches.
Well upgrading my PSU is out of the question. I don't have the budget for it and from what was written above it sounds life its iffy if the 290 will run on a 750W PS.
If I upgrade the rest of my system to what I wrote about is it safe to assume if I buy a GTX 970 today that I could run current games being released at 60 FPS with everything turned up at 1080P for the next 2-3 years? Also if I get the motherboard and proc I wrote above is it safe to assume if/when I replace the video card in 2-3 years I won't have to replace the proc/motherboard?
thewhitehawk
Member
Is Nvidia's response still "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"?
Dictator93
Member
"planned the entire time" "still a great performer" "already included in cost"
PC graphics constantly evolve so it's very unlikely, this card will hit its wall sooner or later. I really don't think it will "max out" multiplats at 60 in two years. It's way too much to ask considering more can always be added you're dealing with a finite amount of horsepower therefore compromises will have to be made if you want 60.
The only way to get max settings + 60fps is to upgrade often to the highest GPU available at the time.
Lockjaw333
Member
Exactly this.
Case in point, I have a gtx 670 and when I bought it in 2012, it maxed everything at 60 pretty much. Fast forward to today and I get around 30-40 fps on max in most games, it depends. Bf4 is 60, dragon age was 30, fc4 is 30, etc.
It's a slippery slope. I'm looking into either an r9 290x or gtx 970 right now, but I definitely don't feel great about having to do it.
Then wait, there is no rush. Nvidia and AMD are preparing new GPUs for 2015.
Besides maximum settings sometimes do not justify their performance cost.
At this point I am wanting to upgrade everything else (proc, RAM, Motherboard) to close to top of the line, so staying on a 670 seems foolish considering the cost of the other upgrades. My goal here is to upgrade everything (including video card), and then 2-3 yards from now only have to upgrade my video card.
Lockjaw333
Member
Well then, if you are set on upgrading in 2 years you should be more than fine with a GTX 970 or R9 290x. Although do realize that a 670 can still max most games at 30+, and play at High-ish settings near 60fps @ 1080p.
Edit: Just checked Newegg, and they just dropped the price on an MSI R9 290x 4GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127773&cm_re=r9_290x-_-14-127-773-_-Product
$310, or $280 after rebate. That is just a STUPID price for that card. I might jump on it.
It might just be me, but if I can't max out the games I just play them on my consoles. That being said with some of the performance issues on consoles and not being present on the PC I want to be able to max them out when I play them on PC. If I gotta run something at 30 FPS I just don't see the benefit of it.
Lockjaw333
Member
Well consider that its 30fps at much better graphics settings.
If you step down to the settings the consoles are running (medium/high), you will get 60 or close to it...
I'm not a soothsayer but a 4790K seems like a real beast which will last years easily.
I won't lie to you by telling you 60fps is absolutely 100% guaranteed though, but it's a very solid base you have here.
If you want to upgrade everything, you may be better wait for the Pascal architecture with direct CPU/GPU connection. You will need a new mobo.
Was playing AC4 at 30fps, with physix and TXAA and HBAO+ and everything maxed. ok, th game is 30fps, because Ubi Soft games are very much not done for 60fps, but it is way past the ps4 settings.
Not even talking about ACU.
What am I reading? Are you saying my 650w isn't enough for a GPU in the 290-range?
Because I used a bunch of calculators (that take PSU aging in account) and looked around on plenty of places and it seems a 550w would cut it.
Unless you're just saying "Relax, your 750w is fine" and I'm just dumb. It's early.
opticalmace
Member
The latter. You're fine.
Phew. I didn't know planning a computer upgrade would be this stressful :lol. But that's good to know.
A 650w is sufficient indeed but there are R9 290X which recommend 750w like the Vapor-X.
Surely they can't be that power hungry? I used to run GTX 770 SLI with 525 watt PSU and it was fine. Now I run 970 SLI with 760W.
opticalmace
Member
Recommendations are always out of whack. Here's total system draw with a Vapor-X doing 421W (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,3977-5.html), or crossfire at 629W (http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-r9-290x-vapor-x-8gb-cf-review/18/).
Insane.
I never get tired of this video. Funniest video in ages.
So I did some of my own testing. I concentrated on perceived performance so no graphs or numbers.
So at least with the games I have I still haven't had any real issues or ones that cannot be fixed by settings tweaks which have no real bearing to image quality.
- Far Cry 4 - 970 SLI runs this all day long at any setting at 1440p. I went down to one card and tried 4K (via DSR, which doesn't work with my SLI + G-Sync combo) + 2xMSAA + MFAA. Got sub-30 fps framerates but otherwise was fine, not like the videos on the net that have it turn into a single frame stutterfest. SMAA a bit better but still not comfortable. So not playable with a single 970 but no other issues except unreasonable settings.
- Call of Duty Advanced Warfare - 970 SLI runs this fine at 1440p, SMAA 1X and 2x supersampling (essentially 4K resolution). Could not notice any issues during gameplay, runs great.
- Shadow of Mordor - Stutters slightly at 1440p with Ultra textures when rotating viewport. Smooth with High textures.
- Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes - 970 SLI at 1440p runs like a dream. Single 970 at 4K via DSR is playable but not quite powerful enough for this res. No other issues.
So at least with the games I have I still haven't had any real issues or ones that cannot be fixed by settings tweaks which have no real bearing to image quality.
Do you by any chance have hitman absolution and AC unity? Those games are one of the few currently available that use up quite a few VRAM when possible.
CyanideFuse
Member
The pendulum of whether I return this card has been swinging one way and then the other this past week. I am still undecided...
I had ignored the pagefile issue until now but having read a message from someone on the nVidia forum I thought I would run a test. I loaded up Mordor and recorded these usage numbers:
VRAM: 3172
PF: 8598
RAM: 5827
I then start to show the difference between the usage numbers.
VRAM: 3225 (dif: +53 from 3172)
PF: 8608 (dif: +10 from 8598)
RAM: 5806 (dif: -21 from 5827)
VRAM: 3326 (dif: +101)
PF: 8718 (dif: +110)
RAM: 5817 (dif: +11)
VRAM: 3470 (dif: +144)
PF: 8858 (dif: +140)
RAM: 5824 (dif: +18)
VRAM: 3556 (dif: +86)
PF: 8962 (dif: 104)
RAM: 5846 (dif: +22)
VRAM: 3595 (dif: +39)
PF: 8981 (dif: +19)
RAM: 5852 (dif: +6)
VRAM: 3608 (dif: +13)
PF: 8990 (dif: +9)
RAM: 6022 (dif: +170)
The pagefile (not RAM) usage increases / decreases by a similar number to what the VRAM usage is reporting.
I assume the increase before 3500MB is because of VRAM already being used by Windows.
Is this possibly suggesting pagefile is used after 3.5GB? I am lost as to where the performance of this card is at!
Edit: Using 347.52 drivers.
I had ignored the pagefile issue until now but having read a message from someone on the nVidia forum I thought I would run a test. I loaded up Mordor and recorded these usage numbers:
VRAM: 3172
PF: 8598
RAM: 5827
I then start to show the difference between the usage numbers.
VRAM: 3225 (dif: +53 from 3172)
PF: 8608 (dif: +10 from 8598)
RAM: 5806 (dif: -21 from 5827)
VRAM: 3326 (dif: +101)
PF: 8718 (dif: +110)
RAM: 5817 (dif: +11)
VRAM: 3470 (dif: +144)
PF: 8858 (dif: +140)
RAM: 5824 (dif: +18)
VRAM: 3556 (dif: +86)
PF: 8962 (dif: 104)
RAM: 5846 (dif: +22)
VRAM: 3595 (dif: +39)
PF: 8981 (dif: +19)
RAM: 5852 (dif: +6)
VRAM: 3608 (dif: +13)
PF: 8990 (dif: +9)
RAM: 6022 (dif: +170)
The pagefile (not RAM) usage increases / decreases by a similar number to what the VRAM usage is reporting.
I assume the increase before 3500MB is because of VRAM already being used by Windows.
Is this possibly suggesting pagefile is used after 3.5GB? I am lost as to where the performance of this card is at!
Edit: Using 347.52 drivers.
Do we have any idea when these will come out?
CyanideFuse
Member
It was a turn of phrase so button it down alright. I was alluding to the pagefile and VRAM usage. Framerate stayed stable but frametimes spiked a bit here and there. My pagefile is on the MX100 SSD drive so perhaps that alleviate stuttering.
AMD, supposedly Q2 2015. Nvidia no idea, but they will very likely have to answer to the 390 / 390X. Unfortunately it will probably be just a new Titan.
ussjtrunks
Member
So guys this morning i tried the new driver with Shadow of Mordor, put textures to ultra and played for about an hr, vram hit 3.8gb multiple times with no stuttering wonder whats going on
Did they magically fix it by allocating vram a different way
wonder whats going onDid they magically fix it by allocating vram a different way
Dictator93
Member
What resolution / settings / framerate are you targetting?
Stahsky
A passionate embrace, a beautiful memory lingers.
Still considering 1080 or higher, but ideally as high as I can my settings while sticking close to 60 fps. 60 fps is probably the priority.
I have dual SLI 970s right now (literally just got it) and played around in AC: Unity. It felt good maxed out with great frames, aside from the flickering bug. But I'm moreso looking to futureproof myself a bit. I don't mind dropping the two for a 980 and grabbing another at the end of the year (or whenever seems like a good time) if they would net me a longer lasting experience.
CyanideFuse
Member
So guys this morning i tried the new driver with Shadow of Mordor, put textures to ultra and played for about an hr, vram hit 3.8gb multiple times with no stuttering
Did they magically fix it by allocating vram a different way
How bad was your stuttering prior to the driver update? Was it very regular?
Are you running from hard drive or SSD: where is the pagefile sat?
I have never really suffered from bad stuttering in Mordor using my 970. I have the odd frametime spike but oddly it occurs on a sudden drop off of VRAM usage e.g. going from say 3.6 down to 3.3.
Some posters on the nVidia forum seem to think there has been an improvement. Others are more cynical citing the fact it was not mentioned in the driver notes. I cannot really see nVidia shouting from the hilltops that they have 'fixed' the issue as they don't want to admit to a problem in the first place.
Edit: My problem is what happens when the card isn't as well supported with driver updates. Does it need extra love and attention to attain smoother results at high VRAM usage thus making future games a problem if this care isn't put into the driver?
ussjtrunks
Member
Before the driver on ultra with High textures i had no stuttering, on Ultra textures it was extreme it felt like 0 fps drops all the time
Now performance is mostly solid 60 with all the stuttering gone, + it actually uses 3.8gb vram. Most it used before was like 3.6 before it became unplayable
Im just running off my normal hardrive 7200rpm, not sure what the page file is at
Dictator93
Member
They would do that. But to be honest, I have no idea what the release schedule for GPUs is going to be. Everything is up in the air. There may be the situation that the Titan II or something else is out by that time which would make buying a second 980 completely wasteful.