GTX 970 Strix and VRAM

[kjp00]

Hi,

I bought a machine equipped with the GTX 970 Strix last week, which will arrive in the next few days.

I've just come across the commotion about the 3.5GB VRAM limitation (which I assumed applied equally to the Strix as well as the standard GPU). I'm not technically inclined on these things but I think I understand the issue. My question is about what this is likely to mean practically.

I bought the card on the back of awesome reviews with the understanding it would handle current games in 1440p at, if not maxed out settings, something that's at least very good. Three years down the line, say, I would hope it could still be able to handle new games at medium settings.

Based of that requirement, is this VRAM issue a concern? This is more than just a peace of mind question: I could try and get the card changed if it's really not worth getting now. Are games in the near future really likely to exceed that 3.5 threshold with no alternative workaround?

Many thanks.

 

[vmem]

this anandtech article explains everything:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation

basically
1. all 970s are built with gimped Vram... the brand you buy does not matter
2. all the initial performance reviews of the gtx 970 are real and still valid. these new findings does not take away anything from the performance of the gtx 970
3. whether or not the VRAM issue will be a concern years down the road would be hard to tell. I think it would be wrong to think that the 970 only have 3.5gb of ram (as the other 0.5gb is still there). but rather slower 4gb of VRAM than a 980, which is arguably a bigger issue

I can tell you that with a 1440p monitor, I haven't ran into any issues myself, even playing games such as shadow of mordor or BF4 on high / ultra settings where more than 3.5GB of VRAM usage is observed.

 

[kjp00]

Fair enough - looking at your specs my machine is basically the same as yours (minus 8gb RAM)

So if you had to buy now at the same price point, you'd still argue the 970 offered great value for money?

And as someone who presumably bought a while ago, how annoyed are you at nvidia for the misrepresentation?

 

[vmem]

Hmm, all good questions there

I think if Nvidia came out straight in the beginning with the real specs for the gtx 970, I would have still bought it. the performance / dollar ratio does not change with the new information. I think I would have had a little more reservations, knowing that the current trend is for video games to use more and more VRAM. But ultimately the future is difficult to predict. and I can tell you that I just played a marathon session of shadow of mordor (am snowed in on the east coast haha), on ultra settings I am hitting 3.5-4GB of VRAM usage, and I did not notice any obvious stuttering. frame rates were between 45 and 60fps averaging around 50 or so (my GPU is water cooled and heavily overclocked though).

As for personal annoyance, I just feel a little odd about it. a bit like I've been cheated, even though the logical part of me knows that I am still getting the performance that I paid for. I am very interested in seeing how Nvidia will (or will not) make it up to their customers, as I think this has become a bigger marketing and company image issue for Nvidia than one of actual performance. What Nvidia did to us customers is wrong, they probably thought of it as a little white lie for marketing's sake (at the end of the day the differences between the old published specs and real specs isn't huge), but the lie is costing them customer confidence. Honestly, if this fiasco causes a dramatic price drop in the gtx 970, or the rich folks decide to sell their 970s to move to AMD camp in spite, I might pick up a second one for SLI haha.

With all of that said, my personal purchasing decision was actually constrained by thermal envelope, rather than money. when I saw the silverstone FT05 case, I decided I wanted to do a custom water cooling build inside it (the case is linked below for reference). Knowing that I am gaming at 1440p, I figured I would eventually want to SLI, so I needed to maximize my performance while limiting the total heat output to something managable by my 180mmx2 radiator (and an additional 120x120mm radiator on the exhaust). So considering that a single gtx 970 is basically only 150w, I can get a pair at 300W, plus maybe 200W or so for the CPU plus the rest of the components. even considering some extra overclocking, I would limit my power draw (and in turn heat output) to something like 600W or so. which is managable. So when I purchased my gtx 970, I know that chances are nothing with a better performance / power ratio will be coming out in the future (for 1440p gaming anyway). so I do not regret my purchase.
http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=522

 

[kjp00]

Thanks - this has reassured me somewhat

One of the reasons I got the Strix is that I read it was so apt for overclocking. Forgive the stupid question, but can overclocking increase the VRAM limit before you come across performance issues, or does it only improve frame rates below that threshold?

I've been reading a lot on forums about SLI issues (these users being shafted the most by the revelations, apparently) and higher resolution problems. But you - as a lot of people have, before info about the limitations arose - seem to be doing just fine with a 970 at 1440p. I was thinking about perhaps exchanging the card with the R9 290X - which I can get for the same price - but I've heard the AMD, while a better performer at higher res, runs much hotter and sounds like a vacuum cleaner.

To be honest, I'm not all that fussed about squeezing every possible graphical detail from my card. I'll sit further back from my 27 inch monitor if I must. What I do want is to be able to play new games for the next three years or so, and for them to look nice (and I expect even medium at 1440p looks pretty nice) at a playable framerate. Do you reckon that's a reasonable expectation from a single 970 Strix? (With the understanding that no one can know for sure what future games will demand!)

 

[vmem]

Sorry if I can't be more reassuring, I prefer to lay down the info I know and let you draw your own conclusions.

Anyway, as far as the Strix goes it is actually the quietest card. I believe the MSI gaming card has the best build for overclocking, while the Gigabyte card have shown more overclocking potential on air cooling because of its massive cooler. Though ultimately reviews show all of the cards have similar overclocking potential.

With that out of the way, overclocking the VRAM cannot overcome the performance issues some people have observed (or claims to). this is because there are 0.5GB of VRAM that is actually connected differently than the other 3.5GB, resulting in the 0.5GB having severely limited bandwidth. if other people's tests are real, the 0.5GB can only send information at something like 1/10th the rate of the other 3.5GB. Thus you can see why overclocking will do little to solve this problem. Now in cases where all the VRAM is used equally, you can imagine the GPU reading every 8 frames from this 0.5GB, without any serious hit to performance. However, if something messes up and the GPU decides to use the 0.5GB for multiple frames in a row, you can imagine severe stuttering happening due to the limited bandwidth.

Following the same reasoning, the more cards you add in SLI, the bigger this "slow" 0.5GB of VRAM becomes, as any time multiple frames are written or read on the slow VRAM, it creates potential for stuttering. Since I originally planned on SLI, this does make me mad, but I'll wait to see how things play out. As for the AMD R9 290x, everything you've heard is true. it will perform the same or better than a GTX 970, while using almost double the power, hence why it ends up being much louder.

Ultimately, if you're not going to SLI, I think the 970 is a fantastic deal, and generally, I am fairly confident that you'll be gaming happily on it for the foreseeable future.

 

[kjp00]

I really appreciate your answers . I'm going to stick with the 970 Strix because, as you say, it's still a great card if you're not going to SLI, and the alternatives are either too pricey (the 980) or too noisy (the AMDs). I figure by the time I have to upgrade there'll be something that can really handle 5k at a decent price!

That said, like most people I'm annoyed and frustrated that nvidea could make such a gaping mistake and not admit up to it sooner - even if in effect it won't make much difference.

Thanks again!

 

[vmem]

you're very welcome, enjoy your gtx 970 and happy gaming!