GTX 960 and 970 doesn't use all of it's vram?

[jnmatthews9614]

So iv'e been reading around on components because I was messing around with pcparticker to see what components to put in what price range and what not, and I came across a thread that said gtx 960's couldn't use all 4 gb of it's vram in their 4gb versions. Then I mentioned it to my friends and one of them claimed that wasn't the 960, but the 970. I was wondering if there was any truth to either claims. All the sources I've found said it was practically a scam by nvidia because the GPU's simply cant accomplish the full 4gb that it claims to have. Any input?

 

[BSOD BSTD]

The 970 will utilise all of its VRAM, its a great card, so I think your friend is wrong there.

The problem with the 960 is that in order to utilise the 4GB VRAM, you would need to be either 4K gaming or have 1080p settings on ultra on newest games. The point at which youd be using the extra RAM would be the point at which youd have to dial down the settings anyway as the 960 isnt powerful enough for 4k, ultra gaming. So yes, the 4GB card can be seen as a bit of a marketing gimmick if you ask me.

That said, I have a 2GB 960 and it runs most games on Ultra at 1080p at about 40/50fps, great little card for the money.

 

[sizzling]

The 970 can use all 4gb but the last 0.5gb is accessed much slower than the rest.

The 960 isn't really powerful enough to be running settings where 4gb is needed. I have also read conflicting articles about the 960's lower memory bandwidth restricting how much it can utilise but the latest articles seemed to disprove this problem

 

[Rogue Leader]

I think this is what you are talking about:

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

They were hit with a class action lawsuit earlier this year regarding it:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199684-nvidia-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-gtx-970-memory-issues

Certain games with ultra high res textures will experience slowdown issues when they hit the 3.5 GB threshold. Shadows of Mordor is one of them. I'm sure as more games come out as graphic quality is pushed forward this issue will become more prevalent.

 

[sizzling]

Also both cards get great reviews and do well in benchmarks.

 

[jnmatthews9614]

I think this is what you are talking about:

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

They were hit with a class action lawsuit earlier this year regarding it:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199684-nvidia-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-gtx-970-memory-issues

Certain games with ultra high res textures will experience slowdown issues when they hit the 3.5 GB threshold. Shadows of Mordor is one of them. I'm sure as more games come out as graphic quality is pushed forward this issue will become more prevalent.

So you haven't heard anything about the 960? Because I've read at least a hand-full of threads claiming that the 960 is naturally bottle-necked.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I think this is what you are talking about:

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

They were hit with a class action lawsuit earlier this year regarding it:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199684-nvidia-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-gtx-970-memory-issues

Certain games with ultra high res textures will experience slowdown issues when they hit the 3.5 GB threshold. Shadows of Mordor is one of them. I'm sure as more games come out as graphic quality is pushed forward this issue will become more prevalent.

So you haven't heard anything about the 960? Because I've read at least a hand-full of threads claiming that the 960 is naturally bottle-necked.

I haven't heard of the GTX 970 issue also affecting the 960 there is a comparison of 2gb vs 4gb on the 960:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb

It basically finds that the 4gb only effects certain games. Now that said the 960 only has a 128bit memory bus vs the 970 and 980 which has 256 bit. So yeah you could call that a bottleneck, and considering the results of the test I linked it makes sense.

 

[jerdle]

The solution of course, is to simply not buy a videocard from NVIDIA 😉

 

[jnmatthews9614]

I think this is what you are talking about:

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

They were hit with a class action lawsuit earlier this year regarding it:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199684-nvidia-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-gtx-970-memory-issues

Certain games with ultra high res textures will experience slowdown issues when they hit the 3.5 GB threshold. Shadows of Mordor is one of them. I'm sure as more games come out as graphic quality is pushed forward this issue will become more prevalent.

So you haven't heard anything about the 960? Because I've read at least a hand-full of threads claiming that the 960 is naturally bottle-necked.

I haven't heard of the GTX 970 issue also affecting the 960 there is a comparison of 2gb vs 4gb on the 960:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb

It basically finds that the 4gb only effects certain games. Now that said the 960 only has a 128bit memory bus vs the 970 and 980 which has 256 bit. So yeah you could call that a bottleneck, and considering the results of the test I linked it makes sense.

Thanks for the info. I have a 970 4gb and I'm happy with it, I was just asking more out of curiosity. I don't want any misinformation spreading. Thanks again!

 

[jnmatthews9614]

The solution of course, is to simply not buy a videocard from NVIDIA 😉

I suppose, I don't know as much about AMD but it looks like the best competetor with the 970 is either the 290x or the 390x, and the 970 has better specs than the 290x, but the 390x is 50 bucks more for not that much improvement. At least from the five minute research I did on those hahaha.

 

[Rogue Leader]

The solution of course, is to simply not buy a videocard from NVIDIA 😉

I suppose, I don't know as much about AMD but it looks like the best competetor with the 970 is either the 290x or the 390x, and the 970 has better specs than the 290x, but the 390x is 50 bucks more for not that much improvement. At least from the five minute research I did on those hahaha.

At 1080p the 970 is faster than those cards, however if you go to 1440p or 4k the 290x and 390x crush the 970.

 

[jnmatthews9614]

The solution of course, is to simply not buy a videocard from NVIDIA 😉

I suppose, I don't know as much about AMD but it looks like the best competetor with the 970 is either the 290x or the 390x, and the 970 has better specs than the 290x, but the 390x is 50 bucks more for not that much improvement. At least from the five minute research I did on those hahaha.

At 1080p the 970 is faster than those cards, however if you go to 1440p or 4k the 290x and 390x crush the 970.

Good thing I only go 1080p 😛