dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2015 10:02 PM |
(on the 4gb vram versions)
after it uses 1gb vram, the performance tanksssssss so badly
and now, nvidia might do a 970 gpu recall, but it's a software thing, they won't do it, but if it's a firmware thing, they'll recall it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2015 11:03 PM |
"after it uses 1gb vram, the performance tanksssssss so badly"
not really
after using 1GB of VRAM i lose like 2-3 FPS |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:00 AM |
@jhonny
if you don't have the 4gb vram version, nothing happens
and it's not a little performance dip, it tanks badly.
if you do have the 4gb vram, you got lucky. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:01 AM |
"on the 4gb vram versions"
What other versions are there?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrEWhite
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4340 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:03 AM |
| I run games like BF4 and Crysis 3 and I use 4x MSAA in both and I have no FPS issues. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Roseart2
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23532 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:05 AM |
@cat there's the 2gb 970 too
if you snitchin i go loco |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrEWhite
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4340 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:06 AM |
Also Nvidia says this is a non-issue (Scroll down to the bottom part of the article) http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/does-the-geforce-gtx-970-have-a-memory-allocation-bug,15.html |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Roseart2
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23532 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:11 AM |
@cat never mind then was thinking the gtx 770
if you snitchin i go loco |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Roseart2
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23532 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:15 AM |
@cat i'm sorry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYnas6q3Sg
if you snitchin i go loco |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 12:39 AM |
| Guys, this is not as bad as it seems, the bench mark program is suppose be used in a special environment and it seems the little performance lost is just a driver error so we don't need to worry about it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 01:54 AM |
the 970 has a problem with the last .5 gb of its vram.
There's no problem. 3.5 GBs of vram is still a lot. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
PoniSpai
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Feb 2013 |
| Total Posts: 4908 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 01:58 AM |
Having a 980 this does not bother me. Unless it actually somehow applies to me. Then I demand recall and a replacement with a free SD card for my gopro. Cause I need a new one >.> |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 03:51 PM |
@zang
for 1080p it's a lot
but for those who want to play on 2k @ ultra settings with the highest textures (and 4k), you'll run into a problem |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 04:01 PM |
"but for those who want to play on 2k @ ultra settings with the highest textures (and 4k), you'll run into a problem"
advanced warfare is a VRAM hog and the drops only occurs with 4k, 2x FSMAA(highest setting in AW) and supersampling |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 04:06 PM |
well first off its based on some benchmark nobody has heard of before and its also spitting out false numbers for Hawaii (290 and 290X) and GK110 (Titan, 780, 780 Ti, Titan Black)
secondly all 4gb of the vram is usable. because of the 970's reduced ROP count, NVIDIA has to segment the ram into two segments. 3.5 GB is the high speed and high priority segment. the last 512mb is much slower than the 3.5GB so its used to lower priority things.
so if you are satisfied with your 970 i wouldn't be freaking out right now |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 04:52 PM |
@johnny
bioshock used 2.5Gb of VRAM on my 1080p settings, and when I got to 2K, it used almost all of it
and cod aw, isn't a vram hog, it uses 1.8GB of VRAM for me |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrEWhite
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4340 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 06:47 PM |
@Johnny Use supersampling. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrEWhite
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4340 |
|
| |
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 08:36 PM |
Suorsampling isn't effient.
and 1080p looks like crap on my 2k monitor because it doesn't utilize y entire monitor,
if you have 2k monitkor, its dumb to run supersampling @2k |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrEWhite
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4340 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2015 11:39 PM |
| Thats why AW isn't using all of your VRAM, you don't have SS on. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 26 Jan 2015 12:38 AM |
there is no point running supersampling on a 2K monitor
the point of supersampling is to down scale to reduce the not make the pixels as visible (as blocks)
2k is my native res, why would I use supersampling if I don't have that problem on my 2k res monitor?
and 2k>super sampling
2K is also more demanding to run versus JUST super-sampling alone. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jan 2015 02:05 PM |
| AW gets drops on the 970 on 4K with supersampling turned on |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 26 Jan 2015 02:08 PM |
@jhonny
..................
do. you. even. know. what. supersampling is? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|