GTX 970 3.5 vram issue returned, help?

[iso4675809]

Hey guys, after I was made aware of the gtx 970's hardware limitations I put 2 and 2 together. I figured out that the poor performance with new titles such as far cry 4, assassins creed unity and dying light weren't due to the drivers i had installed on my pc; the stuttering itself was due to the design of the card. This sadden for I, had believed I found the perfect deal when it came down to price and performance. I returned my card yesterday but my local retailer was being really difficult about the situation I couldn't get a refund but i was able to exchange it for the gtx 980- i just paid the difference which was about 250. However it occurred to that now i could return the 980 and get a refund.

Do you guys think i should keep the 980, or should i return it and wait for amd's new lineup which should be soon, i believe within the next 2 months?

 

[JUICEhunter]

Tough call, if you're in doubt return it, you can always re-buy it.

 

[iamlegend]

Keep the 980.

 

[11sphere92]

Definitely keep 980. Its a beast. and as far as i know, stuttering freeze that im having before solved after i changed my RAM a few times.

My benchmark on Unigine back to normal.
Im suggesting to try get new memory and check if the stuttering gone

 

[Jimmy Gibbs Jr]

I would say keep it. It's a beast, unless you want to go for some AMD R9 3xxx 8GB for the same price, which I think is pointless unless you're playing (or planning to play) on 4k or multi-monitor setups.

I have a question on the 970 myself:

When that iffy 0.5GB partition is activated, does it slow down the entire card and makes the whole 4GB run at a crippled speed (which would explain some serious stuttering etc)???

If not, then I suppose the people who reported massive performance and FPS drops either had badly optimized games or a couple of 4k monitors, which is too much for a single 970 anyway.

I combed the internet and found some benchmarks but no-one explains whether the slow half gigabyte is affecting the other 3.5

Any thoughts?

 

[iso4675809]

I was gaming on a benq rl2455hm monitor @ 1080p 60hz; at that resolution the gtx 970 should dominate any game thrown at it, in theory. However in the most recent titles such as assassins creed, far cry 4 and dying light it just seemed that the card was struggling. I had to turn down a couple of settings just to have the game run smoothly otherwise it would lead to a lot of stuttering or even a crash. Honestly before I was aware of the hardware limitations, I believed it was the driver update I installed so I ran it back to 344.75 and I overclocked it, that seemed to help but still I was noticing the performance was lacking. I was having trouble determining what the problem was I mean I got 12 gb of good ram and i5 4690k so there shouldn't have been any reason for it not to perform well. After I discovered NVidia's deception I put 2 and 2 together and returned my card.

I was debating on getting a 980 but for 250 more dollars it just doesn't appeal to me, so im going to wait for amd to release their new lineup which is supposed to be incredible-supposedly the 380X performs on par with a full fat gm200 and the 390X blows it out the water. So ill wait and see how the market reacts to the new lineup.

 

[iamlegend]

You have a good point there, I have red in previous thread that the 250USD for 0.5GB of VRAM is not justifiable in any case. hahaha

 

[iso4675809]

You have a good point there, I have red in previous thread that the 250USD for 0.5GB of VRAM is not justifiable in any case. hahaha

Yeah its really not worth it; you might as well save up 200 more dollars and get yourself an amd 295x2

 

[Jimmy Gibbs Jr]

Hang on...

You mentioned Far Cry 4 and AC Unity. These games' recommended requirements show the 290x which is a stronger card than the 970. Needless to say that even if you have the gear listed in the recommended specs it is not guaranteed that you can play on ultra/maxed out graphics. So I'm afraid it is not right to say that the 970 should theoretically max out these games at 1080. Also, these 2 games (as many other ubisoft titles) are notoriously badly optimised and so is Dying Light, everybody is reporting problems.

I still need some proof that the funny vram arrangement of the 970 is causing poor gaming performance. What about the 290 (non X) which is more comparable to the 970? Can this card max out FC4? What about vram usage, I doubt that FC4 uses up to more than 3GB at 1080.

I am not trying to defend Nvidia, I never would, what they did is disgraceful at best. They lied about the specs and they kept the vram thingy a secret until it was actually uncovered by the users themselves. I just need some solid connection between the hardware issue and the gaming performance instead of formalised panic.

Is there anybody with a good technical knowledge to explain a bit further on this topic? Does the slow vram partition affect the performance of the other 3.5 GB?

 

[iso4675809]

Hang on...

You mentioned Far Cry 4 and AC Unity. These games' recommended requirements show the 290x which is a stronger card than the 970. Needless to say that even if you have the gear listed in the recommended specs it is not guaranteed that you can play on ultra/maxed out graphics. So I'm afraid it is not right to say that the 970 should theoretically max out these games at 1080. Also, these 2 games (as many other ubisoft titles) are notoriously badly optimised and so is Dying Light, everybody is reporting problems.

I still need some proof that the funny vram arrangement of the 970 is causing poor gaming performance. What about the 290 (non X) which is more comparable to the 970? Can this card max out FC4? What about vram usage, I doubt that FC4 uses up to more than 3GB at 1080.

I am not trying to defend Nvidia, I never would, what they did is disgraceful at best. They lied about the specs and they kept the vram thingy a secret until it was actually uncovered by the users themselves. I just need some solid connection between the hardware issue and the gaming performance instead of formalised panic.

Is there anybody with a good technical knowledge to explain a bit further on this topic? Does the slow vram partition affect the performance of the other 3.5 GB?

Lmao even a jacked up 970 is better than a r9 290x. Despite its hardware limitations in most benchmarks and games, maxwell has outperformed amd's r9 290/X

 

[Jimmy Gibbs Jr]

This is all you had to say on my comment?

Benchmarks reveal that the 290x and the 970 are actually on a par at 1080. In some games (Far Cry series, Thief, Tomb Raider) the 970 has a slight advantage, in other games the 290x performs at 2-5 fps better (Metro LL, AC Black Flag, BF 4). In higher resolutions the 290x always wins on performance. In terms of computing power 290x is clearly a more capable piece.

I am a 970 owner, just FYI. I am looking for answers regarding the vram thing. You said you returned yours because some games didnt work well and "you put 2 and 2 together" after you learned about the vram issue. I say there is no real evidence of the card's silly vram arrangement and poor gaming performance, at least not at 1080. I play Far Cry 4 maxed out and I get a solid 55-60 FPS outdoors without any stuttering or crashes. I don't have AC Unity or Shadow of Mordor or Dying Light. I also play Evolve and Metro Last Light (without SSAA) maxed out without ever dropping below 60 FPS. By the way, Evolve uses up 3.6-3.7 GB of vram and is the only game I have seen doing that on Afterburner. Still no problems.

Lmao to people returning their cards based on performance in ubisoft games.

 

[iso4675809]

This is all you had to say on my comment?

Benchmarks reveal that the 290x and the 970 are actually on a par at 1080. In some games (Far Cry series, Thief, Tomb Raider) the 970 has a slight advantage, in other games the 290x performs at 2-5 fps better (Metro LL, AC Black Flag, BF 4). In higher resolutions the 290x always wins on performance. In terms of computing power 290x is clearly a more capable piece.

I am a 970 owner, just FYI. I am looking for answers regarding the vram thing. You said you returned yours because some games didnt work well and "you put 2 and 2 together" after you learned about the vram issue. I say there is no real evidence of the card's silly vram arrangement and poor gaming performance, at least not at 1080. I play Far Cry 4 maxed out and I get a solid 55-60 FPS outdoors without any stuttering or crashes. I don't have AC Unity or Shadow of Mordor or Dying Light. I also play Evolve and Metro Last Light (without SSAA) maxed out without ever dropping below 60 FPS. By the way, Evolve uses up 3.6-3.7 GB of vram and is the only game I have seen doing that on Afterburner. Still no problems.

Lmao to people returning their cards based on performance in ubisoft games.

Idk dude maybe I purchased a faulty card; I just shared my experience with the gtx 970 i purchased, that doesn't apply to everyone else. There was really no other reason for poor performance, i have an i5 4690k 12gb of good ram all premium parts in my build. You dont have to be douche about it.

 

[Jimmy Gibbs Jr]

I only "douched back" to your previous "lmao" reply, which had nothing useful to offer and only mocked my comparison of 970 and 290x.

Anywayz, I apologise, the last thing I want is to start being a douche or a flame war.

I have literally combed the internet about this issue. I have only seen:

- Either people complaining when the card starts to cough because they use Ultra modded games at 4k and expect things to run smoothly (which is very stupid)

- or some stuttering when some Ubisoft and ONLY Ubisoft games (AC, FC, Watch Dogs, Dying Light, Shadow of Mordor) stutter when the card hits 4gigs of vram at 1440 or higher resolutions. I dont think I need to expand on how badly optimised these games are. I bought Far Cry a few days ago (I suppose some patches and drivers have imrpoved performance in the last few weeks)

My advice would be to get a 970 again (I have the MSI but I guess the Strix would be equally durable and overall good buy) but only after the prices drop. Seems like there is actually a positive outcome out of all this madness. Demand has decreased and so will the price, especially after AMD releases the 300 series.

My question/request still stands by the way... If anybody can produce solid evidence that there is a link between 970's Vram thing and stuttering/lagging/crashing I would be the first wh owants to hear about it.

Peace

 

[iso4675809]

I only "douched back" to your previous "lmao" reply, which had nothing useful to offer and only mocked my comparison of 970 and 290x.

Anywayz, I apologise, the last thing I want is to start being a douche or a flame war.

I have literally combed the internet about this issue. I have only seen:

- Either people complaining when the card starts to cough because they use Ultra modded games at 4k and expect things to run smoothly (which is very stupid)

- or some stuttering when some Ubisoft and ONLY Ubisoft games (AC, FC, Watch Dogs, Dying Light, Shadow of Mordor) stutter when the card hits 4gigs of vram at 1440 or higher resolutions. I dont think I need to expand on how badly optimised these games are. I bought Far Cry a few days ago (I suppose some patches and drivers have imrpoved performance in the last few weeks)

My advice would be to get a 970 again (I have the MSI but I guess the Strix would be equally durable and overall good buy) but only after the prices drop. Seems like there is actually a positive outcome out of all this madness. Demand has decreased and so will the price, especially after AMD releases the 300 series.

My question/request still stands by the way... If anybody can produce solid evidence that there is a link between 970's Vram thing and stuttering/lagging/crashing I would be the first wh owants to hear about it.

Peace

I had no idea dying light was developed by ubisoft, I know however that assassin's creed is crap god nows how many patches its by. Eh I could always buy it back but right now im playing the waiting game, i've also heard nvidia has 8gb model of the 970 and 980 in the works but i guess we'll see what happens.

 

[Robomonkey]

I only "douched back" to your previous "lmao" reply, which had nothing useful to offer and only mocked my comparison of 970 and 290x.

Anywayz, I apologise, the last thing I want is to start being a douche or a flame war.

I have literally combed the internet about this issue. I have only seen:

- Either people complaining when the card starts to cough because they use Ultra modded games at 4k and expect things to run smoothly (which is very stupid)

- or some stuttering when some Ubisoft and ONLY Ubisoft games (AC, FC, Watch Dogs, Dying Light, Shadow of Mordor) stutter when the card hits 4gigs of vram at 1440 or higher resolutions. I dont think I need to expand on how badly optimised these games are. I bought Far Cry a few days ago (I suppose some patches and drivers have imrpoved performance in the last few weeks)

My advice would be to get a 970 again (I have the MSI but I guess the Strix would be equally durable and overall good buy) but only after the prices drop. Seems like there is actually a positive outcome out of all this madness. Demand has decreased and so will the price, especially after AMD releases the 300 series.

My question/request still stands by the way... If anybody can produce solid evidence that there is a link between 970's Vram thing and stuttering/lagging/crashing I would be the first wh owants to hear about it.

Peace

Great information provided, I am also in the market for a new card, i only played 1080p and everything maxed out, and am stuck between the EVGA GTX 297X series and 397X series and AMDs ASUS R9 290x Directcu II what are your opinions regarding the 2 cards, my build is reltiviley old since it was built around a MSI 6970 Lightning, with AMD Phenom II 1090 x6 with 3.2 ghz with a Corsair ATX 850w

Thanks