GTX 970 4Gb or 8Gb (Due to Vram issues)

[NewGuy95]

I was planning on buying a GTX 970 but due to the problem of it its 4 Gigs Vram i'm hesitating to do it now and might wait for the 8gigs variant.Will the 8Gb version encounter the same problem as its 4 Gb version.
Should I buy the GTX 970 4Gb or wait for the 8Gb version

 

[rdc85]

Yeah 970 still a good card..
just avoid 970 SLI setup (u better off with single 980)..

(now we know why nvidia sold this card bellow their usual/normal pricing system... ) 😀

edit : here the ocn link that i first got info, if anyone interested...

Spoiler

OCN

 

[NewGuy95]

I'm still relatively new to PC gaming and This will be my first High end GPU purchase,but is the 970 a good investment To play games at very high setting at 1080p and 1440p for atleast 2 to 4 years
(Not gonna touch 4k gaming yet way outta my price range)

 

[jay2tall]

just avoid 970 SLI setup (u better off with single 980)..

So you are saying a single 980 performs better than (2) 970's? I disagree entirely. I think there is still some testing that needs to be done, but lets just say you only get 3.5GB of VRAM. I'd take (2) 970GPU's and 3.5GB of VRAM over 4GB VRAM and a single 980 GPU any day. I still want to see further tests and give game developers a chance to patch for this information. The 780 and 780Ti's only have 3GB of RAM and SLI setups on those are running great. So give it time. At this point it's a PR blunder, and everyone designed games for 4GB RAM on the 970/980 cards.

 

[rdc85]

after this fiasco,

Cannot tells, it works ok now but no guaranty 2-4 years to come.
1080p may be fine but 1440p worries me.
some user already reporting problems with game that demanding use of vram (hit 3.5 Gb barrier) in 1440p

u better save up money go with 980, settle with 780/290 or wait what amd bring with 3xx..

 

[AnonymousONIagent]

Anyone has any experience with the R9 290 and R9 290X performance wise how does it compare to the GTX970 (including the GPU temps)
My experience with my sapphire 7870 xt is that it runs quite hot around 80 degrees celcius but with good performance thats why I was interested in The GTX 970 due to maxwell better efficiency.

Same deal with the 290 and 290X, the latter in particular. They perform great, but run hot and use more power. If this is a concern for you, you should be looking at getting the 970 instead.

 

[rdc85]

just avoid 970 SLI setup (u better off with single 980)..

So you are saying a single 980 performs better than (2) 970's? I disagree entirely. ...

If SLI with 2 normal card then it sound argument, but SLI with 2 flawed card????

Some people still assuming the 970 "wrong spec" has no effect what so ever. (it's a design flaw not "marketing error")
from i read many has reporting the problem since 970 SLI usually paired with high ress gaming (high end setup)

better off having one pricier good card than having 2 cheaper card that more powerful but have broken experience
(this coming from ex-CFX user, i know that feeling)

the problem is not the memory size 3.5 Gb or 4 Gb...
the problem is the last 512mb has a speed/bandwidth of 1/10 of the usual speed/bandwidth. and when 512mb is being accessed the other 3.5gb cannot accessed at same time, it has to wait (that's is from NVIDIA press release, if I'm don't get it wrong..)

so nvidia tries so hard to make sure apps (rendering) & games don't go above 3.5 Gb barrier mark..
don't ask me how they do it.. (patching, driver refine, dumping to page file, etc..)

but when the game/apps somehow get to pass the barrier,
people are reporting shuttering, lag, out of memory allocation, etc..because of the card have to wait data from "slower ram"..
even the average fps is still good...

And yeah I'm agree we need more time to get deeper about this..
(so don't make hasty buying decision...)

 

[chenw]

While the issues I am having with SLI made me think I may never go SLI again, for this particular setup, I was actually glad I went SLI 970 instead of a single 980. I just simply have not found any particular instance where I would have prefered to run it on a 980 than on a 970 (yes, 1 980 over 1 970), if I had to name one where it might, it would be FF13, but that game has some engine oddities that makes it stutter even in 720p, so I don't think 980 would help with that one.

The only games I know that does not support SLI that i currently play is wolfenstein new order, but that game is already playable at max settings on 1 970 at 1440p, so I don't think I would gain much by going 980 in that case.

But a single 980 instead of sli 970 would probably have doomed my experience with AC:U, for what it is worth, I doubt I will be able to run it on anywhere near close setting with a single 980.

All in all, while I find the 3.5GB VRAM thing on 970 suspicious at best, deceptive at worst, and I don't condone what nVidia have done (be it a genuine mistake or deliberate act), the fact that it performs so closely on a 1 to 1 card comparison to the 980 actually makes me wonder, what EXACTLY one is paying for in a 980... the more flawed 970 finds itself to be, the more 'seriously, why does 980 exist?' thought goes into my head.

 

[AnonymousONIagent]

just avoid 970 SLI setup (u better off with single 980)..

So you are saying a single 980 performs better than (2) 970's? I disagree entirely. ...

If SLI with 2 normal card then it sound argument, but SLI with 2 flawed card????

Some people still assuming the 970 "wrong spec" has no effect what so ever. (it's a design flaw not "marketing error")
from i read many has reporting the problem since 970 SLI usually paired with high ress gaming (high end setup)

better off having one pricier good card than having 2 cheaper card that more powerful but have broken experience
(this coming from ex-CFX user, i know that feeling)

the problem is not the memory size 3.5 Gb or 4 Gb...
the problem is the last 512mb has a speed of 1/10 of the usual speed. and when 512mb is being accessed the other 3.5gb cannot accessed at same time, it has to wait (that's is from NVIDIA press release, if I'm don't get it wrong..)

so nvidia tries so hard to make sure apps (rendering) & games don't go above 3.5 Gb barrier mark..
don't ask me how they do it.. (patching, driver refine, dumping to page file, etc..)

but when the game/apps somehow get to pass the barrier,
people are reporting shuttering, lag, out of memory allocation, etc..because of the card have to wait data from "slower ram"..
even the average fps is still good...

And yeah I'm agree we need more time to get deeper about this..
(so don't make hasty buying decision...)

The 970 is not flawed, it's working as designed. The problem is that Nvidia, either intentionally or unintentionally, misled buyers to believe that the card was better than it actually is. The last 500MB is used as a sort of high-speed page file for the 3.5GB partition, it doesn't use it unless it has to, and when it does, the operating system relegates less latency dependent data to the 500MB partition. The alternative would be to use system memory over the PCI-E bus, and this would be roughly a quarter the speed of the already slow 500MB VRAM partition.

The issue here is that Nvidia violated the trust of their customers. It is not the actual card, which is still excellent.

 

[rdc85]

may be i should says design weakness than flaws.. 😀

Anyways it's no denial that 970 is still a great card...
nvidia is still trying to counter the weakness, and who knows they may find some "perfect" solution..

about SLI, not going to argue more..
since it may depends of the games, resolution, is nvidia successful limiting the vram, etc..

just for me, waiting till this become more clearer than jumping the gun and bought 2 card and got let down in the end..
just go with one first and see how it goes later..

just take it as advise either u take it or ignore it 😀...
going to bed now...

 

[Guest]

If you are playing at 1440p and are worried about the vram(I'm personally not), go ahead and wait for the 8gb version. Its unlikely that the 8gb version will have the same issue, as nvidia already lost a lot of customers on the first version due to it. The ram problem was in the old design for the vram , to support any more they will have to change the design, and that new design will probably support all 8 GB.

 

[Eggz]

Having an 8 GB variant would absolutely fix the stuttering issue!

It only occurs when VRAM on the the main buses fill. That's 3.5 on the 4 GB version. But they main buses wouldn't fill on an 8 GB version until they hit 7 GB. If you can fill 7 GB and cause the same stuttering on 1080p or 1440p with normal gaming I'll give you $50!

There are 8 pathways in the card for VRAM to get to and from the GPU, each with a 500 MB chip on the 4 GB cards. Seven of them pool together, increasing bandwidth for total throughput. The 8th pathway, while just as fast on its own, can't pool with the others because it's blocked by something on the board. So it just goes the normal speed, not the faster pooled speed.

But doubling the chip density (500 MB - > 1 GB) would prevent the problem from ever arising. The card just wouldn't access the 8th pathway - ever. They could even sell a 7 GB version with the 8th pathway turned completely off, and it would be problem solved.