Last week, we informed you about various reports regarding GTX970’s inability to effectively take advantage of more than 3.5GB of its VRAM. Our reader ‘Blackburn Whiteknight’ contacted today and shared with us some new information this issue. Not only that, but NVIDIA has stated that it is currently looking into this.
According to Blackburn Whiteknight, there is an application by Nai which tests memory bandwidth against memory allocated.
“In the GTX970, after 3200mb mark there is a huge drop off in memory bandwidth.”
This program was discovered by mrkk at overclock.net. This benchmark requires DWM or desktop composition disabled for accurate results, and can be downloaded from the following link.
The application can be found here:
https://mega.co.nz/#!w9kXUZZQ!A0yXbLnK1qd2nRZ2JFiYXrl8n90wCiA6BjlucYreppoIncase cudart64_65.dll is missing, it can be found here:
https://mega.co.nz/#!Eh0GzT4D!Kjhqzljt-i-MtHV82ktDQ8RY002JT7VIhVNpUaVpN6U
As said, the interesting thing here is that NVIDIA is currently investigating this issue. As NVIDIA’s ManuelG wrote on the official GeForce forums:
“We are still looking into this and will have an update as soon as possible.”
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Here are my results :
http://i.imgur.com/AsC9f7d.jpg
Also to those who are claiming that memory clocks are falling to 3004mhz, that is because P02 state in default BIOS has 3004mhz. If you make a custom BIOS you can increase this to 3505 or whatever your default overclocked memory is and run the test with full memory clock. In my case, its a 1557Mhz GTX970 with 3780Mhz memory clock.
S**t. That’s a huge drop off after 3.2 gig usage. Checking mine now.
Mine slightly worse! Gets below 10 GB/S towards the end. Only goes to 3.7 Gig too I noticed. Don’t know if that’s the card or the program though.
http://imgur.com/CMS4T7h
GTX 980 AND 780TI GETS the same result in that so called NAI benchmark.
I think you didn’t saw the screenshot in post carefully, GTX 980 is working as it should while 970 is taking the hit. Glad I didn’t bought this, the hype of reviews and my own liking of this card nearly took me to the shop.
Those screenshots are rigged.I saw people posting in OCN with 780ti saying they get same drop.So take your BS somewhere else.
lol afraid to accept the reality ? the problem was first reported on Guru3D forums and then a whole bunch of users started conducting tests and reported similar findings. They used MSI Afterburner, Kombuster and higher resolutions to test this so it’s happening before NAI Benchmark. Also the reason why Nvidia actually started listening is because they know something is wrong.
Must be hard for the people who bought this card but it’s not my BS it’s Nvidia’s BS.
Afraid to take what.Here is gtx 970 running FC4 AT 4K AT 4XTXAA using 3800 to 3870 vram..Ofc FPS is low cos its running at insane res and AA but that not the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r_eezULDro
Here is a video of FC4 using gtx970,980,290x,290.
GTX 970 and 980 uses same amount of vram t 8xmsaa.So all those BS 980 using more vram than 970 is lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD7sSg0d6hg
It’s good that you’re not affected by the issue but that doesn’t change the fact that tons of users are reporting this on various forums including Guru3d, Overclockers and even Nvidia’s forum. All of them are 970 owners conducting different tests and most of them are reporting this even before NAI benchmark. Just take a look at Nvidia’s forum and see what’s going on.
On a side note your 970 is taking a bigger hit on those settings, why ? because I also conducted a similar test after your video on my R9 290, I matched every setting with you except I cannot use TXAA so instead of 4xTXAA I went with 4xMSAA.
Technically my 290 should be considerably slower than your 970, even 290X is slower than 970 but here it’s more or less the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLnvq2B5z0o
Its their fault if they dont know how to run the bench. Half the
people are running on the GPU with windows 8. On windows 8 you CANNOT disable desktop composting which is skewing the results and some people are too headstrong/lazy to run on the igpu, and some people on other platforms simply don’t have one.
Funfact. there is a dedicated forum on guru3d on how to disable desktop composting for windows 8.1, after you do that, the results are pretty much in line.
I don’t like it at all, I think I’ll RMA this piece of sh*t
From a post below, someone says you need to do something special to disable Desktop Compositing in Windows 8.1. Did you do that?
It happens even with DWM disabled, but I cannot go below 199MB of VRAM usage.
Here…
See disabling composting makes the results fall better in line. Now if only 90% of the internet was literate we’d not get such skewed results.
P.S. yes those bandwidth figures are appropriate for a GTX970. A GTX660 will show dropoffs after 1536mb mark because 192bit with 2gb. These are the only two cards with the anomaly. Anyone else doing something wrong will get skewed results on the last two blocks.
Look at the results. 3328 + 199 used = 3527 so my second test only confirms that this issue exists, not disproves it.
My results with the GTX 770 2GB. With driver 347.09
Drops off A LOT from 1.6GB to 1.9GB
Could it be just the program?
Or maybe nvidias drivers are stuffed?
Dude that drop gonna happen to every gpu.I want to see somene post a video running this stupid s**t and not getting that drop at the end.Screenshots are BS and can be faked.Prove me wrong.
I think the program is just broken.
Seems like a whole lot of bullshit to me.
You are broken mate, and your math is sh*t.
Hopefully some official firmware update for the card can fix it, if not, then we’re screwed. I don’t see how a driver update can fix it but you never know. RMA won’t work, you’re still going to get the same issue.
Hopefully Nvidia will issue some kind of direct exchange program.
It seems kind of weird that they wouldn’t test for this in some manner – It’s a very strange thing to overlook in the QA process. Maybe their testing methods are flawed?
Same as EVGA version, they misplaced the GPU on the heat pipes and then brought out a SSC version.
I’ve got to say, had I not read about this “problem” I would never know. My 970 is amazing. Hammering Unity at a constant 50-60 FPS with most settings maxed. No issues at all with it.
I’m not seeing this drop off in performance after 3.5GB of VRAM in games. I just tried ACU Dead Kings at 1080p, 8xMSAA with 3984MB of VRAM used and the frame-rate it consistent around 25FPS with no performance issues. That’s about right for 8xMSAA.
http://i.imgur.com/trY2ZF4.jpg
Try this. Restart the game. It should start at 3.5gb. However if you start the game with aa off, then switch to 8x msaa, the vram usage increases to 3.9gb however is reset on a loading screen.
GTX 770 2GB
so…is this the usual behaviour in nvidia graphics?
You didn’t tell what was the VRAM usage before test. Without this your test is meaningless.
rec.exe appcrash no work 1GBVRam??
es el mio!!!!!!
This is not an issue in real world usage because games simply don’t allocate memory like these tests do, so you won’t get the performance drop that the benchmark claims in real world usage.
You actually do. Try Shadow of Mordors or Skyrim when they need to use more then 3.5gb of vram and you will see. Shuttering and unplayable. But first you need to pass 3.5 limit, only sometimes jumps over that and then its disaster.
I have no such issues with Assassins Creed Unity, I even posted a screenshot of it using 3.9GB of VRAM and the frame-rate is stable using 8xMSAA.
BS corporate shills.
Yeah, I suppose screenshots and even a video won’t convince anyone considering the people who found this issue made the wrong assumptions in the first place. Turns out this app that people are using is flawed as well.
My MSI Afterburner readout must be wrong then to all your professional GPU testers.
Wish you guys would just focus on the games, instead of spreading hearsay.
great…I do hope in time for dying light!
🙁
EVGA GTX 760 2GB
I heard that Galax GTX 970 EXOC do not have this problem with VRAM and use full 4GB! Is that true?
They can use the full 4GB, they’re just slow at using it after a certain amount. Games load into VRAM before the game loads so it’s not an issue.
People mentioned a law suit about fake advertising. The GPUs are actually 4GB. 3575mb or lower is smooth, over that its “feels” like a VRAM bottleneck.
Not from what I’ve tested.
I have 2 Galax EXOCs the issue is the same after hitting 3575mb+ like everyones reporting
To do the test correctly you need to connet your monitor to the iGPU because using your main GPU uses some VRAM.
Also this bench and “can’t use more than 3.5gb” is BS according to /u/Eszii who debunked it
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2tfybe/investigating_the_970_vram_issue/
Nai’s tool is broken fellas. Even some people with 980s/Titans/670s have similar results with this so called reliable benchmark tool while those GPUs are fine.
It happens with my 770 4GB too
here we go, another one…how many times I have to explain, until you get it, that you hit the swap file?
4X TXAA is more demanding than 4xmsaa.Also you test different part of the game.You can see in my video from 5.42 i was averaging around 15-18fps then i dropped my AA to 4xmsaa at 6.09 i started averaging around 20-22 fps.So your point is invalid.Is your card OCed?
Forgot to add i was driving around the first part of the video which is significantly more demanding than walking.
It depends on the game, in Crysis 3 MSAA is more demanding than TXAA, also TXAA is Nvidia’s tech so it should be lighter on 970 while MSAA is generic.
About the part, I had to reinstall the game to make a comparison so I can only do it for the beginning but driving aside, I saw your fps dropping more times below 15 mark even when walking so my argument is valid but since the game has open world and a lot of different locations that’s why I said “more or less” still 970 should be at least 8 – 10 fps faster than 290 specially in a game that boast so many Nvidia techs.
Not really.Yes it is faster than 290x at 1080p in far cry 4.But when you crank up the res then add insane AA on it then 970,290,290x all perform almost same.Here is proof.
gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http–www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Far_Cry_4-nv-ultra-FarCry4_3840_.jpg
gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http–www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Far_Cry_4-nv-ultra-FarCry4_1920_.jpg
They are running res slightly have higher but we are using AA which they are not.So our performance with them is comparable.At this red 970 is 1 fps faster than 290 and same as 290x.So again your point is invalid.
And that’s why I say Maxwell is a crap architecture, yes it brings great advancement in power consumption and heat reduction but on performance level it’s really disappointing, a card based on newer architecture being compared to one year old cards perform almost the same at 4k ? even 980 only being 3 – 4 fps faster than 290 is a shame for that price range, these cards should be more 4k friendly than any of the previous cards (Kepler and Hawaii) both but like I said they take bigger hits on higher resolutions thus it proves that 256bit bus for a high end card is not high enough. It should be 384 at least.
And now this GTX 970 issue, Nvidia thread is already filled upto 100 pages, so many users cannot be just lairs, right ? and on top of this Nvidia’s responses are just terribly poor. There are already theories that disabled SMM causing this card to operate at 208bit instead of 256bit.
You are an idiot if you think gtx 970 and gtx 980 are meant for 4k gaming.These cards are replacement for gtx 670 and gtx 680.They bring titan like performance to mainstream level.Both these cards are 1080p cards.They beat the crap out of both 290 and 290x at this res.At 4k neither amd nor nvidia have a single gpu giving playable fps in FC4 .Yes,gtx 980 is overpriced but that what happens when there is no competition.The big maxwell is meant for 4k gaming.Get your facts right before posting.
Also i tested 4xmsaa performance to 4x txaa in FC4.4X TXAA is 2fps slower than 4xmsaa.
Nvidia forum is full of idiots with little clue what going and just jumping on the bandwagon.i already showed you that i have no issue getting over 3.5gb.If its a architectural problem every card will have same exact issue.This is just BS spread by idiots of the internet.
Here is my country gtx 970 is significantly cheaper than 780,780ti,290,290x.And i get performance better than those cards in 90% games.I can’t ask anything more.
The biggest idiot in the world is the guy who thinks he’s right while everyone else is wrong and I think that’s you. Yeah every GTX 970 owner posting about this problem is an idiot because you say so. Nvidia noticing the issue is proof enough end of story otherwise they don’t care.
Lol Titan like performance ? as far as I know R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti put that overpriced excuse of a card to shame, the only reason why GTX 970 is cheaper is because R9 290/290X slashed GTX 780/780Ti prices hard so Nvidia wanted to do the same to AMD this time or maybe because it has this ugly vram problem.
And I never said these cards are meant for practical 4k gaming, the thing is if you compare GTX 780 Ti vs GTX 970 @ 4k then 970 takes bigger hits (same goes for 980) so yeah with newer cards Nvidia is going less 4k friendly (opposite trend).
Additionally your single video doesn’t prove anything, people already said that not everyone is affected by the problem or it show different symptoms. I can also link several videos posted by different users on Geforce thread facing the issue, so stop trying to defend your 970 purchase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQE6p5r1tYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgRir5JwKyU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMA9xKn0DaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-NLR-VWjHM
Here is a reply from your oh glorious Nvidia or should I say Ngreedia. Still calling people idiots ?
http://videocardz.com/54774/nvidia-updates-geforce-gtx-970-specifications-to-56-rops-after-reports-of-3-5gb-issue
gtx 780 http://gyazo.com/8ea0b5d470d1f45d0236985ec9e47f15
gtx 680 http://gyazo.com/b057d31d25326156c148a15ca970e348
My Asus gtx780dc2 And my friends gtx 680 does this too? Rigged.
Juses Crust people, its a 2nd grade math! When you add an amount of the vram reserved by the system to the offset displayed by this test you will notice that you go over your vram available.
TBH i am completely shocked at nvidia how they lied about everything.But still that doesn’t negate the fact that gtx 970 is still the best bang for money card right now.They lied about so many things but still the initial reviews of gtx 970 stands.So i can’t really complain.But nvidia needs to get sued bad so that they never dare doing such terrible things.
Now you’re talking more realistically mate. I agree to the fact that 970 even in it’s current condition has best price/performance ratio and if we ignore this entire mess from Nvidia then it’s probably the best GPU launch ever. I am using AMD from quite some years and never thought about going Nvidia but 970 was so tempting that I was willing to sell my 290 for that however after this I think I’ll wait for R9 300 series or 980 prices to come down a bit.
I agree they shouldn’t get away with single explanation, they should do something significant to make amends otherwise it’s going to hurt them in the long run and above all they loose customer trust.
See the thing with amd there card works only when drivers are optimised. See all these latest games which are coming out.All nvidia sponsored and all run s**t on AMD for the first week.Then AMD release drivers and then it runs same on both vendor.
For me if the game is not working fine the first week of release then it doesn’t matter how it run after 6months.Cos i finish most of them in first 2weeks.That the main reason i choose nvidia over amd.
I just recorded this same segment you played in this video.Uploading soon.
Okay looking forward to it. I’d be honest with you and not try to be an AMD fanboy, out of my 3 – 4 years with AMD from 4870 to R9 290, I never faced any major issue with their drivers like most people assume. They are rock stable, never crash and most games work out of the box without any updates, the only games that didn’t worked well in start for AMD were Assassins Creed Unity and Far Cry 4 but since several patches and AMD omega driver they started working with decent performance though I blame Ubisoft for what happened in start as we know they are famous for crappy ports, even Nvidia faced trouble making SLI work with these games even after the fact they are developed in partnership with Nvidia.
All other games like Ryse, Shadow of Mordor, Dragon Age Inquisition, Lords of the Fallen worked perfectly on my 290.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Sswr3WJ-k&feature=youtu.be
There you go.Also i see in your video you are running a hefty 1100mhz OC on your 290 which makes your card same as 290x in FC4.So keep that in mind when comparing.
Hefty ? my friend Sapphire R9 290 has default clock of 1000 Mhz so I only gave it +100, and considering the fact it doesn’t even need any voltage tweaking it’s just a minor overclock and I keep it that way 24/7.
From what I see your 970 is operating at 1300+ Mhz, the reference base clock of 970 is 1050 and boost is 1178 so that 1300 Mhz put your card ahead of GTX 980 which has reference boost of 1216 Mhz. I understand it’s a factory OC (EVGA model I think ?) but it’s still OC so you’re getting a benefit there. Anyway to keep things fair I remove my manual OC and put card back to 1000 Mhz which is Sapphire’s default clock. Here is new version of my test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEBi1Olf7zw
As you can see my video doesn’t have any major difference, it still remained in 16 – 20 range while occasionally touching 23, your fps went over 30 once or twice but that was when your draw distance was very small, other than that it remained in 20 – 25 range. Now for a card that is one year old, has older architecture and operating at slower frequencies, this is very respectable outcome at those settings.
www youtube com/watch?v=17Sswr3WJ-k
There you go.Also i see your 290 is running at a hefty 1100 mhz.At that speed it is same as a stock 290x in FC4.So keep that in mind when comparing.
Add the dots after www and youtube.Dso admin taking forever to approve.
youtube.com/watch?v=17Sswr3WJ-k
There you go.Also i see your 290 is running at a hefty 1100 mhz.At that speed it is same as a stock 290x in FC4.So keep that in mind when comparing.
Mine is Asus strike default factory OC.No its no where near gtx 980.Go and check reviews.
Saw your video.Performance is exactly as I thought it will be.Mine is like 2 to 3 fps faster.But I can assure you at 1080p difference will be about 10fps.Again as I Already told you gtx 970 is not meant to anhilate 780ti,290x,290.Its job is to give slightly better performance than those cards at good price.
Here in my country 970 is the cheapest among all those cards.So my purchase is justified.
Also as you can see without any fanboy war both of this cards use same vram at these res.And 970 is performing absolutely fine.Better than your 290 which has a 512bit 4gb full speed ram
Also mine is Asus strike running at stock OC.It is no where near 980 performance. You can check out the reviews.I can easily push mine 14500plus.