WCCftech: Memory allocation problem with GTX 970 [UPDATE] PCPer: NVidia response

[xthetenth]

The problem I see is that the card has the performance I bought in current games. That's great. However, it's got a wonky setup that would've made my decision more interesting because I bought the thing to last, and a setup that likely demands good driver support to work well without performance problems especially in games that demand VRAM is not the card I bought. I bought based on performance today and an expectation of performance in the future informed by an incorrect representation of the technical specifications.

 

[Final8ty]

Some good info here.
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/

 

[exar333]

NV should also update the drivers for the 970 to allow users to select a 'hard-cap' of 3.5GB VRAM or allow the card to use the full 4GB. It would be interesting to see the use cases where one or the other is more advantageous...

 

[skipsneeky2]

Some good info here.
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/

All i can gather from that article is games being played with a resolution and settings i simply wouldn't run even if i had sli 970.The average and minimum is downright not working for me at least in any of those games.

Need a follow up article with 1080p,obviously this is more or less the real resolution the card should be marketed for.

 

[SlowSpyder]

All i can gather from that article is games being played with a resolution and settings i simply wouldn't run even if i had sli 970.The average and minimum is downright not working for me at least in any of those games.

Need a follow up article with 1080p,obviously this is more or less the real resolution the card should be marketed for.

You shouldn't look at it from an absolute performance perspective. He's obviously trying to isolate the problem by using a certain amount of vram. Look at the minimum FPS when you go from 160% to 165% resolution scaling in BF4. At 160% and 3.3-3.4GB of ram used, 38FPS min and smooth as you'd expect. At 165% scaling and 3.5-3.6GB of vram use, the performance tanks, all the way down to less than half the minimum FPS of 160% scaling with 17FPS.

It is obvious that these cards cannot be used like average 4GB cards. The actual usable memory is less than advertised. The performance drops like there is a vram wall at 3.5+GB.

Same with Shadow of Mordor. Look at how the minimums tank when the vram use goes too high but the averages barely budge.

 

[exar333]

You shouldn't look at it from an absolute performance perspective. He's obviously trying to isolate the problem by using a certain amount of vram. Look at the minimum FPS when you go from 160% to 165% resolution scaling in BF4. At 160% and 3.3-3.4GB of ram used, 38FPS min and smooth as you'd expect. At 165% scaling and 3.5-3.6GB of vram use, the performance tanks, all the way down to less than half the minimum FPS of 160% scaling with 17FPS.

It is obvious that these cards cannot be used like average 4GB cards. The actual usable memory is less than advertised. The performance drops like there is a vram wall at 3.5+GB.

Same with Shadow of Mordor. Look at how the minimums tank when the vram use goes too high but the averages barely budge.

Agreed.

I am waiting for a good site to be able to test these cards in a strictly 3.5GB vs. 4GB situation. It very well may be more opportunistic to not allow the card to load textures beyond 3.5GB. I think we are just starting to scratch the surface on the 'magic' that NV's drivers are doing here. We need more investigation on this to know the real impacts.

 

[skipsneeky2]

You shouldn't look at it from an absolute performance perspective. He's obviously trying to isolate the problem by using a certain amount of vram. Look at the minimum FPS when you go from 160% to 165% resolution scaling in BF4. At 160% and 3.3-3.4GB of ram used, 38FPS min and smooth as you'd expect. At 165% scaling and 3.5-3.6GB of vram use, the performance tanks, all the way down to less than half the minimum FPS of 160% scaling with 17FPS.

It is obvious that these cards cannot be used like average 4GB cards. The actual usable memory is less than advertised. The performance drops like there is a vram wall at 3.5+GB.

Same with Shadow of Mordor. Look at how the minimums tank when the vram use goes too high but the averages barely budge.

Yeah i noticed all that too,i was more then curious if this selection of games or any like it could have these issues as well at 1080p?BF4 on that article looked great but yeah the scaling at 165% is just to much.I don't touch it myself or MSAA for that matter.

Guessing for 1080p you could tank BF4 with 200% scaling on 2 cards with 4x MSAA.That is certain i am sure.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah i noticed all that too,i was more then curious if this selection of games or any like it could have these issues as well at 1080p?BF4 on that article looked great but yeah the scaling at 165% is just to much.I don't touch it myself or MSAA for that matter.



Guessing for 1080p you could tank BF4 with 200% scaling on 2 cards with 4x MSAA.That is certain i am sure.

Yeah probably. I leave it on 1440p and that's it. No scaling. In some games I can go above that and remain perfectly fine. For example in far cry 4 if I don't run any AA I can use the next resolution up from 2560x1440 (which I forget exactly what it is) and keep my minimums above 50 still which is pretty good.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yeah i noticed all that too,i was more then curious if this selection of games or any like it could have these issues as well at 1080p?BF4 on that article looked great but yeah the scaling at 165% is just to much.I don't touch it myself or MSAA for that matter.

Guessing for 1080p you could tank BF4 with 200% scaling on 2 cards with 4x MSAA.That is certain i am sure.

No idea. At 1080P it would probably depend on the game and type of AA used. I doubt the problem would show up too often today at 1080P, but who knows a year from now. I assume if 1080P performance was poor, we would have seen more posts prior to this issue being uncovered from random people complaining about their GTX970 at normal resolutions. I don't think there has been a lot of that.

Personally I doubt this is a huge deal in real world terms for most GTX970 owners (though as I mentioned earlier, depending on how games are in the near-ish future and possibly how driver support goes, it could be a bigger issue down the road). But, people don't like feeling like they had one pulled over on them, and this card isn't the 64 ROP / 256 bit / 4GB card it was advertised as.

 

[Final8ty]

Guessing for 1080p you could tank BF4 with 200% scaling on 2 cards with 4x MSAA.That is certain i am sure.

I do exactly that only with 3 cards when i play on my plasma, its really sweet.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Yeah probably. I leave it on 1440p and that's it. No scaling. In some games I can go above that and remain perfectly fine. For example in far cry 4 if I don't run any AA I can use the next resolution up from 2560x1440 (which I forget exactly what it is) and keep my minimums above 50 still which is pretty good.

That actually is pretty good,from what i hear FC4 really can push systems too.It's a game on my to buy list after i pick up a gpu this week.

I am still impressed by the BF4 numbers too,that game certainly screams 2013 when these newer beautiful games pretty much take so much more to run.It's the game i really want to play again when i upgrade so looking forward to pretty much turning on everything.:thumbsup:

 

[skipsneeky2]

I do exactly that only with 3 cards when i play on my plasma, its really sweet.

Oh i bet,wheres your memory usage on that setup?Does that include 4x MSAA too?

 

[Pneumothorax]

I love how Newegg has this page up now that they're using to deny returns.

Already on my 2nd rep, trying to override the VGA return policy so I can complete my return of almost $1000 of 970's.

Update: after wasting close to a hour, no returns possible. Guess I'll dump these cards on the 'bay before they lose further value.

 

[jackstar7]

I love how Newegg has this page up now that they're using to deny returns.

Already on my 2nd rep, trying to override the VGA return policy so I can complete my return of almost $1000 of 970's.

Update: after wasting close to a hour, no returns possible. Guess I'll dump these cards on the 'bay before they lose further value.

That stinks. Is there any way to approach the manufacturers of the cards directly? Or is the assumption that they'll try to dump this on the retailers?

 

[Attic]

You shouldn't look at it from an absolute performance perspective. He's obviously trying to isolate the problem by using a certain amount of vram. Look at the minimum FPS when you go from 160% to 165% resolution scaling in BF4. At 160% and 3.3-3.4GB of ram used, 38FPS min and smooth as you'd expect. At 165% scaling and 3.5-3.6GB of vram use, the performance tanks, all the way down to less than half the minimum FPS of 160% scaling with 17FPS.

It is obvious that these cards cannot be used like average 4GB cards. The actual usable memory is less than advertised. The performance drops like there is a vram wall at 3.5+GB.

Same with Shadow of Mordor. Look at how the minimums tank when the vram use goes too high but the averages barely budge.

Where is this information being presented? I haven't seen those tests/results.

Edit: Ok here, http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/ from a user.

Regarding Watchdogs:

At 3.4gb Vram usage and under, this game was smooth. Only on very quick camera turns did the game slow down, and only slightly.
ABOVE the threshold of 3.5gb, the game was still smooth and playable... until you turned the camera. Massive freezes and stutters occured making it impossible to aim with a mouse. I'm pretty sure the maximum FPS is higher because I accidentally swung the camera into the sky a few times. The FPS was not representative of the experience. It felt MUCH worse than 42 fps.

Regarding BF4:

This was tested using maximum settings with 0x FXAA, max FOV, and 0x motion blur.
EDIT: It seems a lot of people are missing what I did with BF4. I cranked up the resolution scale to purposely induce the Vram related stuttering. No one plays at 165%, it was simply to demonstrate that it could happen in BF4 as well.
At 3.3 to 3.4gb Vram usage, the game ran smoothly. The FPS was expectedly low due to the INSANE resolution scale I had to apply to raise the Vram usage 600mb, but it was still playable. I even killed some tanks, and I'm not very good at that.
ABOVE the 3.5gb threshold was a nightmare. Again, massive stuttering and freezing came into play. The FPS is not representative of the experience. Frametimes were awful (I use Frostbite 3's built in graphs to monitor) and spiking everywhere.

On Shadows of Mordor:

This was tested using both High and Ultra textures.
At 3.1gb Vram usage, the game played smoothly. I expected higher FPS for the stock results but was very pleased with how much overclocking scaled in this game.
Above the 3.5gb threshold, the game was BARELY playable. I believe it was even playable due to the nature of the game rather than the GTX 970 handling its Vram better in this particular title. Only the minimum FPS was representative of the shitty experience. What was 55 FPS felt like 15.

This is the kind of info i'd like to see confirmed or denied from trusted review sites (Anand/HardOCP).

If this behavior is confirmed, I would think a lot of users would want to know how to avoid running into trouble on the 970 with VRAM usage, particularly down the road, to do that it appears you need to treat the card like a 3.5gb card. Concern here is that developers in the future are going to target 4gb VRAM, not 3.5gb VRAM.

 

[ocre]

This news is absolute horrible,i was looking forward to a 970 this week to buy.

I could buy it still going in knowing its a 3.5gb card,buy a top of the line 290 non x for less,buy a 780 and oc it to 780ti speeds which seems easy enough or jump on a 290x.

What would you do coming from a 2gb 770?Are new games even choking before they use 3.5gb?I like minimums in the 60s when possible so i adjust settings as needed.

I found the 970 to be a massive upgrade over my gk104. It's performance is strong. I have forced over 3.5gb and it didn't fall off the cliff. The ram segmented hasn't effected me and I am not even bothered by that.

i am just bothered by the ROPs being misrepresented. I don't know how that will factor in over time. The 970 will may very well perform where it will always be in relation to the 980. As others have stated, the rop ratio to SM is the same as the 980.
But I think that least nvidia could do is give those who feel tricked by this some sort of option, some way to make it right.
I would pay the difference for a gtx980 but I am sure most people aren't wanting to do that. I would just rather have all the ROPs and would have just bought a 980 in the first place.....should have anyway.

But, its not the performance that I am having issues with here. I just think there are people who get into specs even if they are mostly meaningless numbers. Nvidia should understand that

 

[Pneumothorax]

nvidia screen shot by magbanutes, on Flickr

In other words, those of us who want to return these cards are up poop creek if you bought from Newegg. Luckily bhphotovideo has already given me a RMA # for my 3rd 970.

 

[exar333]

nvidia screen shot by magbanutes, on Flickr

In other words, those of us who want to return these cards are up poop creek if you bought from Newegg. Luckily bhphotovideo has already given me a RMA # for my 3rd 970.

NV needs a definitive response to the memory fiasco ASAP or the situation will get further out of control. They either need to own-up and figure-out a way to make buyers happy or dig-in and wait for a lawsuit. Either way, they need to respond and be clear on return requests and what they plan to do (or not do) for current owners who want to keep their card.

Edit: The alternative will be a game of ping-pong between AIBs, sellers (like Newegg) and NV. That will only pi$$ off customers even more.

 

[jackstar7]

If there were a lawsuit, it would seem that retailers have even more of a claim to damages given the customers likely to be lost over this kind of debacle.

 

[Magic Carpet]

nvidia screen shot by magbanutes, on Flickr

In other words, those of us who want to return these cards are up poop creek if you bought from Newegg. Luckily bhphotovideo has already given me a RMA # for my 3rd 970.

This is outrageous, imo. You are clearly not happy with your purchase and they are suggesting you to further waste your time contacting the vendor :thumbsdown:

 

[tential]

You shouldn't look at it from an absolute performance perspective. He's obviously trying to isolate the problem by using a certain amount of vram. Look at the minimum FPS when you go from 160% to 165% resolution scaling in BF4. At 160% and 3.3-3.4GB of ram used, 38FPS min and smooth as you'd expect. At 165% scaling and 3.5-3.6GB of vram use, the performance tanks, all the way down to less than half the minimum FPS of 160% scaling with 17FPS.

It is obvious that these cards cannot be used like average 4GB cards. The actual usable memory is less than advertised. The performance drops like there is a vram wall at 3.5+GB.

Same with Shadow of Mordor. Look at how the minimums tank when the vram use goes too high but the averages barely budge.

In that mini-review the author made an edit and said no one uses the resolution scale at 165%?

I understand for multiplayer you want a smooth experience as possible, but single player I'm sure people would use that...

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've been watching this thread with some fascination. I did "enough" research to my satisfaction just to pick the "right" GTX 970 card. I had toyed with the idea of 980 vs 970. Say what you will -- I'm STILL toying with the idea of picking up a second 970 for SLI. And -- I'm still "young" in my window of time to make an RMA-> replacement with the Egg for a 980 card.

And of course, my purchase preceded the announcement of the 500MB "problem" by mere days -- MERE DAYS!!

There are a few categories of users, with an enthusiast group (here) possessing more tech knowledge, and gamers who post customer reviews. The latter so far aren't fretting much over the miscalculated promotion of 4GB that doesn't explain the segmented 3.5/500MB architecture of the 970 card.

But folks here (the first category) are kicking up the dust about the misrepresentation. I can't quite make up my mind. The 970 seems to perform up to and beyond my expectations (for the MONEY), and the 2x 970 configuration still looks good (for the MONEY and relative to either 980 or 2x 980 performance in gaming benchies).

If I do one thing, I'll carry the weight of my own fear of potential embarrassment when somebody says "Ahh! Ya GOT THOSE DE-FECT-IVE 970 cards! Why you got those darn 970 cards, anyway!" If I do the other thing, it's either going to cost me more or the same, or the performance boost shouldn't matter much.

Not ALL of this, but at least part of it is about "group-think" and the behavior of consumers over details missed in advertising promotion. Looking at it from the perspective of NVidia's self-interest, that of MSI or ASUS or EVGA and Newegg and their self-interest, and how they promoted the 970 from the git-go -- I might have done the same thing. Otherwise, they'd have to fill advertisements with more technical details about cross-bar resources and the whole enchilada. But if I were SMART and I were NVidia, EVGA, MSI, ASUS etc. -- I probably would've advertised the card as "3.5GB VRAM" with an asterisk.

But that's not the culture of today, which gives us Bernie Madoff, Robert Rizzo, Rita Crundwell, Carly Fiorina, Halliburton and a $2 trillion dollar war that's just "sunk cost," and a certain category of politicians who will tell any lie, make any distortion, flip-flop on any issue -- just to achieve power.

So how does this advertising anomaly stack up against all that?

People in marketing. The economist Frank Knight had something to say about all this: Companies create demand for something that the consumer might otherwise never miss and never need. It is less about need, supply and demand -- and more about commercial propaganda and mass-psychology.

 

[Final8ty]

Oh i bet,wheres your memory usage on that setup?Does that include 4x MSAA too?

Yes that includes 4x MSAA and i have not looked at the mem use for ages, it just runs silky smooth.

 

[Final8ty]

I made a short video using High and Medium textures to show the 970 3.5GB VRAM issues. As soon as it reached 3500mb the game starts to stutter really badly and craps out.

Lowering it to Medium textures and it runs smooth as silk. I'm only gaming at 1080p. Should I not be using High textures at 1080p?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Q6jmg_qik&feature=youtu.be

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18651061&page=85

 

[Final8ty]

First frametimes results coming in, from PCGamesHardware.de:

Google Translate:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041389274#post1041389274