PSA: Possible GTX 970 problem/disscussion

[Shad Shadson]

As there were a ton of people talking about building new computers, and specifically using 970s, I thought I would bring this up as it is IMPORTANT FOR ANYONE WHO PLANS ON BUILDING A COMPUTER SOON.

Edit:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-C ... ns-GTX-970

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/gefo ... allocation

READ THESE TO GET A FULL, UNBIASED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE!!!! THIS IS OFFICIAL AND HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED BY NVIDIA THEMSELVES!

***Original, unedited post ahead***

It seems that many people are having huge performance problems after allocating more then ~3.5GB in games; these include things like immense amounts of stutter and HUGE frame drops due to the 'second .5mb partition' having 'less then 1/25th the power of the normal partition' to people. No one knows the cause yet. Some people think it's on the hardware level due to the partitioning that's been done. Some people think this is firmware/software level and could be fixed via updates (I think it'd be more on the hardware level, but it's amazing no one noticed it on the reference cards). Others STILL say this is an DirectX issue and not happening on OpenGL (Not sure how much this matters, Yadda/John basically told me this is 100% bullshit and means nothing, but I thought I'd put what I've heard ). Some people say it's faulty ram (but people with all types of vram have been having this problem so I doubt that one. Maybe certain vram types are more prone?).

http://techreport.com/news/27721/nvidia ... tion-issue

Some people DO NOT have this problem AT ALL with their gtx 970s (How can it be a hardware problem then? Maybe just shitty factory design?), so don't fucking have a conniption fit because this is happening to people. I just wanted to make those who have a 970/were planning to get a 970 aware about this BIG problem. If you have a 970, you might want to RMA it if you can and get a 980 or something else (i probably can't, I have 4 days left basically and the shipment would have to make it there in 2 days since it's the weekend and I wouldn't be able to get support for anything), but even with this problem it's still a pretty decent card if you don't need all 4gb, it just sucks that nvidia would stoop to this level.

If you haven't built a computer yet, well you're lucky and not me so yeah, but yeah you can wait for the maxwell shit or w/e new AMD offering. P good!

I am giving you all the information I currently know, and nvidia seems to be looking for a solution themselves, so hope that works. Regardless, discuss #970gate.

[tenks]

shad, did you make sure your card is even affected by this problem and i don't mean run that benchmark that everybody keeps spamming, get yourself a game that is sure to allocate over 3.5 gigs and see the performance

it really just seems like there is no logical explanation for it and it's kinda like a lottery, so check if you've won
in general i'd only trust hard facts, seeing how much shit is flinging around on p much everywhere this topic is brought up

[Shad Shadson]

shad, did you make sure your card is even affected by this problem and i don't mean run that benchmark that everybody keeps spamming, get yourself a game that is sure to allocate over 3.5 gigs and see the performance

it really just seems like there is no logical explanation for it and it's kinda like a lottery, so check if you've won
in general i'd only trust hard facts, seeing how much shit is flinging around on p much everywhere this topic is brought up

I honestly haven't, but I'm just worried and letting people know this may be a problem, and I will update as stuff comes in. I'm just as lost as everyone else in this whole mess is, and all people have is theories right now. I guess I made it sound like it's a fact but in reality no one even knows. Only game I can think of that will run above 4k is farcry4 or shadow of mordor. I WILL EDIT WITH MY RESULTS.

[Yadda]

My theory on this is that the built in VRAM is set to receive no power when running below 3.5, which makes sense as Maxwell is fairly robust and energy efficient in comparison to its Kepler cousins.

My theory is the Card Bios hasn't been properly configured to reallocate power to the problem memory cores, causing the ram to choke, reallocate to the existing cores and then process a frame. Most motherboards do this sort of thing to the individual cores of the CPU but since NVIDIA is trying something new here by employing the same method to individual cores of memory, none of the other manufacturers are taking this into account.

I'm sure there will be a firmware/driver update that addresses this, but for the time being, if you can afford a 980 / 770 ti , these are your best bets. Avoid the 970 until they address the issue.

If you own a 970 already, register your product so that it becomes easier to place an RMA if they do a recall.

[Shad Shadson]

My theory on this is that the built in VRAM is set to receive no power when running below 3.5, which makes sense as Maxwell is fairly robust and energy efficient in comparison to its Kepler cousins.

My theory is the Card Bios hasn't been properly configured to reallocate power to the problem memory cores, causing the ram to choke, reallocate to the existing cores and then process a frame. Most motherboards do this sort of thing to the individual cores of the CPU but since NVIDIA is trying something new here by employing the same method to individual cores of memory, none of the other manufacturers are taking this into account.

I'm sure there will be a firmware/driver update that addresses this, but for the time being, if you can afford a 980 / 770 ti , these are your best bets. Avoid the 970 until they address the issue.

If you own a 970 already, register your product so that it becomes easier to place an RMA if they do a recall.

This is what I'm hoping (and from what I've heard and the happenings that seem to be happening it seems the most logical), but it doesn't explain why some people are having problems and others aren't (seemingly). Who knows.

[tenks]

aight, so it did some more diggin' and apparently the benchmark that everyone spams, is not even meant for measuring the vram entirely which could mean that the full 4gb are used, it's just not correctly shown in the benchmark. and the big performance drop we're seeing is most likely that after the 4gb are full, the system memory is accessed which is noticeably slower of course
additionally it seems like this problem is mostly occuring on 4k resolution with far from performant settings and is currently being forced by playing games on 4k downsample just to get to the 3.5gig mark, so i'm really not sure how this would affect a non 4k gamer

[Yadda]

More information TBD:
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Card ... mory-Issue

I now have a lot more information on the technical details of the architecture that causes this issue and more information from NVIDIA to explain it. I spoke with SVP of GPU Engineering Jonah Alben on Sunday night to really dive into the quesitons everyone had. Expect an update here on this page at 10am PT / 1pm ET or so. Bookmark and check back!

quesitons

[Yadda]

Nvidia explained that this is not a 'problem' but more of a diminished feature that's being misinterpreted by consumers because they fucked up the marketing.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970



Nothing's actually malfunctioning, they just lowered the ROP count and have a smaller l2 cache. What I hypothesized isn't the full story but it's roughly the same... When accessed independently and in a vacuum, the l2 cache isn't actually passing through directly to the crossbar but reallocating to another SMM. Their mistake is, they branded and advertised the card as a 4GB card when it's actually 3.5gb and has a 500mb l2 cache.

Essentially it's the same as having a 3GB card with 500mb cache overhead, but they managed to squeeze in an extra 500mb of VRAM. So the full story is, the full specs of the card got lost in translation when pitched from the technical writers to the PR team and they advertised it as a 4gb card when it actually is only a 3.5gb card with 500mb cache.

TL;DR They lied about the specs, but nothing's malfunctioning so you're good. Also I'm psychic, sort of.

[Shad Shadson]

Essentially it's the same as having a 3GB card with 500mb cache overhead, but they managed to squeeze in an extra 500mb of VRAM. So the full story is, the full specs of the card got lost in translation when pitched from the technical writers to the PR team and they advertised it as a 4gb card when it actually is only a 3.5gb card with 500mb cache.

TL;DR They lied about the specs, but nothing's malfunctioning so you're good. Also I'm psychic, sort of.

Alright, so we kind of know what the problem is, but it doesn't seem to be causing the stutter people get, which is the real problem.

Since it is 1/7th slower, it should obviously cause this problem (after all as far as I know bandwidth differences should cause this frame-time problem). However it's only in certain games (Farcry 4, Shadows of mordor), but not in other games at 4k (like DA:Inquisition). Is this possibly because the game/os/whatever can't find a place for the slower partition of memory to go? I guess the real question is: The innate specifications can't be fixed, but who fucking cares about those, can the things like the stuttering and massive slowdowns be fixed by software/firmware updates? my assumption is yes, but honestly I don't know and it might just be unfixable due to architecture.

This puts a damper on me using SLI on these things later, but I reckon I'll buy another gpu around 300-400 before I go back to school in the fall and sell this one off for a loss. It's a nice card when you're not working with higher definitions regardless, so I don't have any problem with holding onto it for now until the new AMD and nvidia offerings, I just wish I knew about this sooner.

[Yadda]

With that in mind, I'd say it's a new card and Nvidia has to update its drivers to suit each gaming scenario. Eventually something ought to roll out that imposes limits on memory usage instead of assuming it has 4gb to play with. It won't be a global fix, but a fix applied per-game.

[tenks]

bought mine, idgaf it's an incredible value card regardless and yeah most problems come from games that think they have 4gb VRAM to their content, when they don't, so as soon as they take that into account or start optimizing them, it should be all good

[Koolcid]

FUCK.

[Shad Shadson]

FUCK.

It's still an EXCELLENT card for the price, you just might find yourself slightly more dissapointed. Check with your retailer to see if they're willing to do anything (i've heard some retailers are in light of this issue, I'll probably email mine tomorrow to see if they're willing to budge.). If you have EVGA, I've heard they've allowed customers to use their 'step up' program outside of their allotted date in light of this issue. And furthermore, it seems like Nvidia have finally started to make this shit 'right' (if it was ever wrong at all):

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topi ... issue/161/



I hope nvidia is being serious about this because If they are I can just buy a 980. I might just do that yet, I dunno.

Keep in mind that if you're playing in 1080p you're probably 100% fine. 1440p/dual monitor set ups with 1440p monitors are a bit more gray, because certain edge cases (shadows of mordor) are having problems allocating ram and thus leading to stuttering. you can turn shit down and have a decent time, or maybe nvidia drivers will fix how ram is allocated for games like that/watchdogs/whatever the fuck else.

Here's my checklist:

single-card setups: YES.
multi-gpu setups (and in that case 'futureproofing' I guess): I wouldn't recommend it.
1080p/1080p multimonitor: 4gb ram shouldn't matter until EoL, so YES.
1480p/ 1480p multimonitor: Maybe? Most games work fine, but games like Shadow of Mordor, Modded Skyrim, Farcry 4, Assassin's Creed: Unity, and Dying light have been reporting having these problems. THAT BEING SAID, some people have noted the stutters being a lot less severe then people are saying (4 or less every couple of minutes), and half of those games are unoptimized buggy messes, so whatever.
4k setups: NO. These cards weren't meant for 4k anyways, but really neither are 980s.


Edit: and hey, AMD have stepped up to the plate. If you don't want a 980 and are find with AMD (I know some people aren't, and for good reason, but I've never had a problem with AMD personally and I've used 3 of their cards) AMD Roy is willing to hook people up. http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/commen ... d_wanting/

Just get ready to probably buy a new PSU and have your computer be a volcano. Not to mention those driver problems (Though TBF I never had them with my cards at all and their new Omega series drivers and Radeon drivers are pretty decent I guess? I dunno)

[Yadda]

Apparently 970 isn't the only card with this hindrance, now the 980m is reporting the same 'issues' now they're saying the have limited other cards as well.

This is like.. FERMI levels of horrible PR. Jesus christ NVidia.

At this rate I'd just wait for the r390x at this point, this amount of bullshit knows no bounds.

[tenks]

haven't had any problems with my gtx 970 so far, except stutters in dying light but that is the most unoptimized hunk of garbage under the sun, so idk, people reporting it runs just as shit on r290x, the hope for a driver update that fixes the 'issue' was killed now too so idk what to believe anymore