Nvidia GeForce GTX 900 Series MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Bite the bullet and get a 980. OOOOOO its so nice.
 


If he has the money, the 980 is a no brainer, however, the 970 delivers performance that is on par with a Titan, so if he doesn't need it he doesn't have to get it, lol.
 
I told you it's coming on january guys 😛
anyway, I see that it performs nice, but in some games it's neck to neck with the 760, sometimes the 760 beats it. We are talking on a new generation of cards. 970 and 980 were a really good step over the 7xx. But performance wise are you guys happy with the 960 even if you are not buying it ?
 
I am disappointed, I had high hopes after the pricing of the 970 but it cost more than you can get a 280X & I personally don't care about efficiency. I may have bought one &/or recommended my brother did but unless it comes down alot from its launch price no chance.
 
Don't buy an nvidia gtx 970 it only has 3.5 GB useable memory with some seeing only 3.2 GB. Nvidia is marketing it as a 4 GB card but its not buyer beware.
 


Why didnt you post what Nvidia said about this? Its on NV forums under GeForce 900 Series. You know where they said 3.5 and then 500..you know two parttions and how the 980 does not have this. Pfft

So there is no lol buyer beware. My 970 does not suffer from this and so many others have posted with videos showing they dont suffer from this either.

Pffft so Nvidia makes the 900 cards? Or do they send some part to their partners and they by a 3rd party put that part on what with what? Yeah my Gigabyte alone G1 and depends which one for not all have the same memory that Nvidia didnt put on Gigabyte did. So if my card starts to have problems ..NV did it? haha. All 970/980 ALL made the same? Nvidia did it? You have no clue what your talking about and I have just a TAD more..yet stop blaming NV try blaming Gigabyte or Asus or MSI so forth.
 
Actually, all the third party receivers have the same PCB, but modifies it to their liking.
The GTX 960 release was dissapointing. First, I had thought two things:
1. The GTX 960 would have 3GB of VRAM and 192-bit/256-bit memory bus and it's gonna wreck 1080p.
2. Okay they lowered the performance. Any constumer-respecting company would lower the launch price. Even Nvidia wouldn't be this greedy, would it?

Second thoughts after the release: Same level as the r9 285 with +/- performance level. Price too high. I'm going to wait for the r9 300s series until the Nvidia marketing heads think right.
 


Use Nividia Inspector (automatic download link). Install and open it. Once you do, there will be a little black square with a green squiggle in the upper left of the Nvidia Inspector window (see image below).

nvidia_inspector_1.9.5.5.jpg


Once you open the ticker from that little black icon, right-click: Monitors > GPU Memory

That will add a box showing the VRAM usage. Enjoy! 🙂
 


So far it hasn't been an issue for me and I am running four monitors so high resolutions don't have a problem, I'm sure I saw something about some games using the full 4GB though so whilst this is something to keep the AMD fanbois happy in reality it doesn't seem too big a deal tbh.
 
well like I told one guy , if this issues was across the board with the 970 and the cards that you see tested and benched had this but still scored so well as they show it to do then yes it looks to be a non issue .. like you say does all you ask of it and your happy then its a non issue
but like I said if you wanted a full fledged card you would of got the 980 .. that price diff show why more and more everyday .. as I stated in the 2 posts from me above
 
So I was so baffled with the 970 bug and bumped into this thread if anyone already discuss this here. So far none.

3.4Gb instead of Marketed 4Gb of VRAM is what Nvidia claim to be the problem. Technical Marketing`s fault to provide us incorrect specifications.
 
Actually, it had 3.5GB of easy accessed memory with 0.5 GB with 7 times less efficiency than the last one. There are two reasons for this statement: 2MB of L2 cache have been disabled and 2 SMMs have been too. Which is why they use less memory than 3.5 GB. However, it does not impact performance if you take these 0.5 GB and use them, there won't be any differences: only the performance increase will be much less noticeable. I have the MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G and I tested it, and it is true what iamlegend said: unless games require more than 3.5 GB, they don't use it(except for ACU, which is still crap for optimization).
 
The claims in performance impact is when scaling using DSR. Yes, for more pixels requires more VRAM.

So why, they allocate the 512MB for slow mem? And is this issue will be solved by overclocking?
 
It's because of the reduced L2 Memory Cache and the reduced memory units compared to the GTX 970 that Nvidia claimed to have. And overclocking will not solve the issue.
 


I doubt it will impact anything. We're talking about the second best Nvidia card for a good price. People won't look beyond that. This is way too esoteric an issue to impact sales in any meaningful way. Despite how this site might make things, very few people will figure out the issue, and most who do won't understand or care enough to think it's a problem. For those savvy enough to get to the bottom of it, they might even be worse off. They'll study a lot of material just to conclude that the 970 actually has 4 GB, just in two segments (3.5 and 0.5) - so meh
 
Hi,

Based on what i've read. The VRAM for 970 is at its best when it uses <= 3.5GB?

So this will not impact users of only 1 - 1920x1080 monitor?
 
I use a 22" LCD screen for my PC and I was thinking of getting the 970 or the 970 Mini. Should I be looking at a different card?

 


Size of the screen doesn't matter. It's the resolution. If your screen is 1920x1080, you'll be doing great with the 970. It can dominate nearly everything at that resolution. I say nearly because there are some titles where turning things up all the way will make it choppy, but that's not a big deal because you can turn down the settings that don't make the game actually look better and be back in business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom