|
floor is lava posted:I'm not so sure about that. It happened when I was just allocating. Yep - this issue only really seems to affect people gaming at 1440p and above. A lot of people saying they tried gaming at 4k and 5k had the issue. Hitman Absolution at 4k on Ultra for instance was a case. Interesting because it's quite an old game, but yeah, that's memory allocation for you. E: Not to mention if you were also running a movie on another monitor at the same time as gaming, rip 970
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
r0ck0 posted:Check all the connectors, unplug and replug everything in. Check the fans make sure they are spinning at the proper speed. Run a CPU/GPU temp monitoring program. If the issue persists post in the Haus of tech support sub forum. Thanks, I'll put up a post there after I go through and check all of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Is this the reason why the R9 290 somehow performs better than the GTX 970 at 4k? Or is there an independent explanation for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
runoverbobby posted:Is this the reason why the R9 290 somehow performs better than the GTX 970 at 4k? Or is there an independent explanation for that? I think the 970 is slightly faster at 4k, especially if you consider overclocking which benefits the 970 a lot more.  The R9 290/290X have more memory bandwidth which helps at 4k, they also have more TMUs but I'm not sure if those are a bottleneck at high resolutions or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think the 970 is slightly faster at 4k, especially if you consider overclocking which benefits the 970 a lot more. AnandTech's bench shows the 290 winning out at 3840×2160 in a fair few cases. AMD has competitive parts (especially on price!), but for many, power seems to be the new worry. Although if anyone here bought a GTX 480, the situation was the exact reverse back then, and AMD had the more efficient part. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Heard about that VRAM issue that GTX970s have. Should I return mine and get something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
It looks like if you just run this tool as-is, you may run into a contention issue where DWM is holding on to part of the memory so you can't test the full VRAM space. Anyone know how to run a standard Win7 Pro machine headless for better benchmarking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Starhawk64 posted:Heard about that VRAM issue that GTX970s have. Should I return mine and get something else? Then no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Starhawk64 posted:Heard about that VRAM issue that GTX970s have. Should I return mine and get something else? Are you having a problem? In any case, your comparable options would be 290 or 290x
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:Are you having a problem? Or wait for the 380X to come out soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Or wait for the 380X to come out soon. True. If you are in return period I suppose that is an option if you can wait the difference
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:It looks like if you just run this tool as-is, you may run into a contention issue where DWM is holding on to part of the memory so you can't test the full VRAM space. Anyone know how to run a standard Win7 Pro machine headless for better benchmarking? You can always try disabling desktop composition (Control Panel > System and Security > System > Advanced System Settings > Performance Settings > Enable desktop composition).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Or wait for the 380X to come out soon. Dont forget the phase change cooling unit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Dont forget the phase change cooling unit. Scuttlebutt sez that the top-of-the-line part will have the factory AIO cooler as in the 295X2. HalloKitty posted:You can always try disabling desktop composition (Control Panel > System and Security > System > Advanced System Settings > Performance Settings > Enable desktop composition). One step better: Unplugged the monitor before running it. Was then able to address the entire memory space (outside of what the benchmark was reserving for itself.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Would this nVidia 970 thing effect an editing suite? One of our editors just got one for an Avid/Premiere Pro suite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I am so glad I decided to wait for a 960Ti or a 20nm successor to the 970. But has a 960Ti been confirmed or is it pure speculation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
drat I was about to buy a cute lil 970 mini itx edition
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Scuttlebutt sez that the top-of-the-line part will have the factory AIO cooler as in the 295X2. I hope they still have a version that I can put a proper waterblock on. Don't want to pay extra for that aio when I have a full proper loop already. Heh, already sold both of my 290s after about 4 hours being listed 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Would this nVidia 970 thing effect an editing suite? One of our editors just got one for an Avid/Premiere Pro suite. It all totally depends on VRAM needs. If you're just using e.g. Mercury Engine in Premiere Pro, that historically takes a really wimpy amount of GPU oomph relative to what a 970 can put out, and VRAM use is like 1 GB or so. At least, at 1080p - might be heftier if you're editing 4K. But if you're using some plug-in that does outrageous CUDA or OpenCL stuff, it might have high VRAM requirements. Suggestion: Next workday, pop open GPU-Z and have it log VRAM use every 5 minutes in the background, then check it at the end of the day. If it never gets up to ~3.5 GB, the VRAM thing is not having an effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:But has a 960Ti been confirmed or is it pure speculation? speculation from Asian shipping manifests that said 4GB and more shaders (unlikely since the 960 is the full GM206) 2 empty Ram slots on some PCB suggest a 3GB/192bit variant, maybe with even higher clocks (or shoddy planning) the hopes and dreams of budget games for a garbage bin harvested GM204 (the 970 has this covered already) Take your pick 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:It all totally depends on VRAM needs. If you're just using e.g. Mercury Engine in Premiere Pro, that historically takes a really wimpy amount of GPU oomph relative to what a 970 can put out, and VRAM use is like 1 GB or so. At least, at 1080p - might be heftier if you're editing 4K. But if you're using some plug-in that does outrageous CUDA or OpenCL stuff, it might have high VRAM requirements. Awesome thanks. I'll try this this upcoming week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:speculation from Asian shipping manifests that said 4GB and more shaders (unlikely since the 960 is the full GM206) I'm hoping against hope the 960Ti is just a slightly cut down 970 (but without the memory allocation issue) much like how my current 660Ti is a slightly cut down 670.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
How's the intel iGPU on linux? I'm upgrading my workstation and it'd be nice to have a single-board SFF solution. It'd be a haswell i5, unless the broadwell-K comes out sooner than expected. Currently running 2048x1536 which is pretty hefty, and probably going to get a 2560x1440 IPS. No real gaming - I've got a 270x in a separate machine for that. I mostly care about things like smooth scrolling and window movement, hardware video offloading, etc. For reference, I'm currently stuck on an old radeon HD 3200 integrated, and it chugs when asked to move a 1.5 megapixel window around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Regarding the 970 3.5Gb thing ... have any reputable sites even done any testing yet, or are we basing everything on some dude's synthetic benchmark? Aren't synthetic benchmarks pretty much useless? Is there any effect in-game? If there was, why didn't we see that when all the reviewers benchmarked the card when it was released?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Han Nehi posted:Regarding the 970 3.5Gb thing ... have any reputable sites even done any testing yet, or are we basing everything on some dude's synthetic benchmark? Aren't synthetic benchmarks pretty much useless? Is there any effect in-game? If there was, why didn't we see that when all the reviewers benchmarked the card when it was released? In all actuality it doesn't really matter. Even if it is slightly cut down it's still a hell of a deal considering how close it is to the 980 and 290 in performance for the price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:In all actuality it doesn't really matter. Even if it is slightly cut down it's still a hell of a deal considering how close it is to the 980 and 290 in performance for the price. I was actually gonna buy a gtx 970 this week, but this news has spooked me. I suspect I'll be sticking to 1080p, and got the impression the 970 was a little overkill, but now i'm finding myself contemplating a 980, which is probably a bit much. I've heard people saying that DX12 won't be good on the card. My current AMD card developed a fault, and I cannot get it RMA'd, so that's developed some bias against AMD for me, plus the constant nvidia partnerships with games. What would be the sane option here? I could stretch to a 980, but would it be worth it? Or should I wait a few months?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Rookoo posted:I was actually gonna buy a gtx 970 this week, but this news has spooked me. I suspect I'll be sticking to 1080p, and got the impression the 970 was a little overkill, but now i'm finding myself contemplating a 980, which is probably a bit much. Don't try to futureproof yourself. If you do you'll always be waiting. I used the 970 on triple 1440 and it handled it just fine. But seeing as I already had 290s on water saw now reason to keep them. The 970 is plenty at 1080. Don't be afraid of it. What brand AMD card. Don't hold a lovely company responsible for AMD's cards. There are plenty of Nvidia partners that will happily tell you to pound sand on an rma too. The 980 is about 10% better than the 970 for almost 200 dollars more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Don't try to futureproof yourself. If you do you'll always be waiting. I used the 970 on triple 1440 and it handled it just fine. But seeing as I already had 290s on water saw now reason to keep them. The 970 is plenty at 1080. Don't be afraid of it. It's a gigabyte 7850, lasts an hour at most on new games before the display cuts out, and the fans rev to max. Worked fine for 6 months. Temps are fine, fresh software did nothing, and different psu did nothing. If it was the online retailer who did the testing, their method was to run crysis 3, which won't necessarily cause the fault depending on time/luck. Anyways a gtx 560 which i think draws more power runs without fault, so i assumed it was the card. Might wait a week or two to see if this vram problem is baseless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Im noticing that none of this fiasco is really based in any real world complaints, in fact I know that I've seen MSI afterburner and gpu-z report me using 3800+ mb and I've never had a slowdown, and never seen any other actual reported issues here or elsewhere until these tests came out which again aren't even in game. E: Cross-post from parts thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2tfybe/investigating_the_970_vram_issue/ Bleh Maestro fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I just bought a 970 a few days before this news broke  I hope it's not a real thing or it's just a driver problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:All depends on if the rumor mill is right or not. Nvida was said to be skipping 20nm and going straight to 16nm FinFET but TSMC is experiencing delays that could possible push a die shrink for nvida all the way into Q1 or Q2 2016. If AMD comes out with 20nm in 2015 and 14nm FinFET early 2016 we could see things get a lot more interesting. Friggin rumor mill is all over the place right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:I'd expect delays from everybody when moving to 14nm at this point. There is almost no news at all about TSMC's 20nm except that Apple supposedly has almost all the supply of chips on that process for their A8 CPU's. I'm half expecting 3xx to still be on 28nm. If it is even with HBM the performance rumors of it being near equal with CF'd 290's are near certain to be bullshit. The original rumors of around 20% faster than the 980 sound lots more reasonable if 3xx is still on 28nm too. Of course those original rumors were saying around 200w power usage. Maybe that'll turn out to be the specs for a R9 390 while the 390X will be the 300w watercooled beast. 14nm caused Intel to stumble and schedules to slip - I wouldn't expect any other fab to do better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Harik posted:How's the intel iGPU on linux? I'm upgrading my workstation and it'd be nice to have a single-board SFF solution. It'd be a haswell i5, unless the broadwell-K comes out sooner than expected. Intel literally has a dedicated Linux driver team that operates parallel to the Windows driver team. It's pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I don't really give a poo poo that my 970 can only use up to 3.8gb or whatever it is. Close enough to 4gb for me. The 970 is a great deal for the money and I don't regret buying it. That being said, NVIDIA should have known about this issue and fixed it before launch, as I can tell others are not happy campers about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Swartz posted:Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I don't really give a poo poo that my 970 can only use up to 3.8gb or whatever it is. Close enough to 4gb for me. We don't know if it is actually a problem yet. The story broke Friday afternoon and wasn't instantly obviously cataclysmic and didn't came from a relatively unknown source. Until we have a statement from nvidia (probably Monday sometime) or an analysis from a trusted tech website, also likely on Monday. It's just speculation. If you have one don't return it yet and if you are buying one waiting until Monday to order won't make much difference to the delivery anyway. And no news from anyone by the end of the week is probably good news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
NVidia spoke on the issue: http://techreport.com/news/27721/nvidia-admits-explains-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation-issue quote:The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory. However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:35
|
|
Swartz posted:Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I don't really give a poo poo that my 970 can only use up to 3.8gb or whatever it is. Close enough to 4gb for me. From what I understand it's not about the fact that the card normally only uses 3.5-3.8gb of it's memory, it's that when it does use the memory it normally avoids it causes massive stuttering and frame rate drops. So you could be seeing terrible performance in random games because they hit the "bad" memory and suddenly the card is 60%-90% slower. Plus the whole trust issue. I mean, I'm happy with my 970 so far because everything I've tried playing on it runs great, but I did sort of think I was getting 4gb of correctly working memory on the card. If some company sold you a 4 stick pack of ram and one stick didn't work right wouldn't you want a replacement or refund or something?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:From what I understand it's not about the fact that the card normally only uses 3.5-3.8gb of it's memory, it's that when it does use the memory it normally avoids it causes massive stuttering and frame rate drops. Are people able to trigger this in games? I hadn't seen anyone link it to content behavior yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Are people able to trigger this in games? I hadn't seen anyone link it to content behavior yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Are people able to trigger this in games? I hadn't seen anyone link it to content behavior yet. If you look in the Tech Report article they have some real world usage numbers relative to a 980 when you exceed the 3.5GB threshold. The relative performance drops are only a couple of percentage points more on the 970 than the 980.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:19
|
|