GTX 970s can only use 3.5GB of 4GB VRAM issue - Page 66 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

GTX 970s can only use 3.5GB of 4GB VRAM issue

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #651 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 05:19 PM
Go Again!
 
Wirerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 'MERICA
Posts: 5,620
Rep: 332 (Unique: 210)
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrapper View Post

Nope and how about you prove that AMD are doing the same as Nvidia (Go ahead and run the tests and see)?

+snipped+
proof? The 295 is listed as having 8gb of vram on a 1024bit bus. We know sli/xfire on a single gpu doesnt work that way.

XFX R9 295 X2 with Closed Loop Liquid Cooling 8GB DDR5 Graphics Cards R9295X8QFA https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JOQZ4XE/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_rAzXub0FDE2M9

Both manufacturers always do that as well as prebuits that have sli will list it wrong.

CPU
i9 9900k
Motherboard
Gigabyte z390 Aorus Pro
GPU
Msi 1080ti gaming x
RAM
Corsair DDR4 3000mhz cl 15
Hard Drive
Crucial MX500 500 gb
Hard Drive
Crucial MX500 1tb
Hard Drive
2tb WD 5400 rpm
Power Supply
Seasonic G-750
Cooling
EK XRES 140 DDC Top
Cooling
swiftech MCP-35X
Cooling
Gentle typhoon AP-15 X 3
Cooling
Be quite 140mm
Cooling
Nocuta 120mm Redux 1700rpm
Cooling
Bitspower DDC Heatsink Black
Cooling
Hardware Labs 240mm GTS
Cooling
EK Supremecy MX
Cooling
Ek 360mm pe rad
Cooling
Ek msi 1080ti gaming x waterblock
Case
Fractal Design R5
Operating System
WIN 10
Monitor
Acer XF250Q 240hz
Keyboard
G410 atlas
Mouse
G502
▲ hide details ▲
Wirerat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #652 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 05:38 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Goin back to Cali
Posts: 21,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wirerat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by badrapper View Post

Nope and how about you prove that AMD are doing the same as Nvidia (Go ahead and run the tests and see)?

+snipped+
proof? The 295 is listed as having 8gb of vram on a 1024bit bus. We know sli/xfire on a single gpu doesnt work that way.

XFX R9 295 X2 with Closed Loop Liquid Cooling 8GB DDR5 Graphics Cards R9295X8QFA https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JOQZ4XE/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_rAzXub0FDE2M9

Both manufacturers always do that as well as prebuits that have sli will list it wrong.


You guys are arguing differing points. While AMD does list total resources like Nv, it does not hide how they are being used. Any informed user knows that there are two gpu onboard. However with the 970 no amount of research would have brought up the segmented memory limitation because it was never disclosed. Thus it's not the same thing! Also it strikes me off bad taste to bring AMD INTO this to somehow lessen the blow.


tsm106 is offline  
post #653 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 06:06 PM
Go Again!
 
Wirerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 'MERICA
Posts: 5,620
Rep: 332 (Unique: 210)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

You guys are arguing differing points. While AMD does list total resources like Nv, it does not hide how they are being used. Any informed user knows that there are two gpu onboard. However with the 970 no amount of research would have brought up the segmented memory limitation because it was never disclosed. Thus it's not the same thing! Also it strikes me off bad taste to bring AMD INTO this to somehow lessen the blow.

I said both sides do that. Not lessening any blow just showing an example that can create confusion on total vram and bandwidth for a non tech savy consumer.

The gaming benchmarks still speak volumes more than any of the vram chatter. My own experience with the card has been absolutely steller as well. I dont agree with what nv done but I went ahead and bought my card after knowing about this issue. I only game at 1080p though.

I made my purchase based on gaming benchmarks. It wont be long before the big sites post tests showing this is either a negligible issue or something to worry about.

CPU
i9 9900k
Motherboard
Gigabyte z390 Aorus Pro
GPU
Msi 1080ti gaming x
RAM
Corsair DDR4 3000mhz cl 15
Hard Drive
Crucial MX500 500 gb
Hard Drive
Crucial MX500 1tb
Hard Drive
2tb WD 5400 rpm
Power Supply
Seasonic G-750
Cooling
EK XRES 140 DDC Top
Cooling
swiftech MCP-35X
Cooling
Gentle typhoon AP-15 X 3
Cooling
Be quite 140mm
Cooling
Nocuta 120mm Redux 1700rpm
Cooling
Bitspower DDC Heatsink Black
Cooling
Hardware Labs 240mm GTS
Cooling
EK Supremecy MX
Cooling
Ek 360mm pe rad
Cooling
Ek msi 1080ti gaming x waterblock
Case
Fractal Design R5
Operating System
WIN 10
Monitor
Acer XF250Q 240hz
Keyboard
G410 atlas
Mouse
G502
▲ hide details ▲
Wirerat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #654 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 06:12 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
dsr07mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
Rep: 0
Just tested in SoM

http://www4.slikomat.com/13/0126/m-4.0gb-.png

Works fine. I'm ignoring benchmarks, game works fine for 4k resolution and everything on ultra, ~30 fps.
dsr07mm is offline  
post #655 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 06:21 PM
Go Again!
 
Wirerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 'MERICA
Posts: 5,620
Rep: 332 (Unique: 210)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsr07mm View Post

Just tested in SoM

http://www4.slikomat.com/13/0126/m-4.0gb-.png

Works fine. I'm ignoring benchmarks, game works fine for 4k resolution and everything on ultra, ~30 fps.
thanks for this.

CPU
i9 9900k
Motherboard
Gigabyte z390 Aorus Pro
GPU
Msi 1080ti gaming x
RAM
Corsair DDR4 3000mhz cl 15
Hard Drive
Crucial MX500 500 gb
Hard Drive
Crucial MX500 1tb
Hard Drive
2tb WD 5400 rpm
Power Supply
Seasonic G-750
Cooling
EK XRES 140 DDC Top
Cooling
swiftech MCP-35X
Cooling
Gentle typhoon AP-15 X 3
Cooling
Be quite 140mm
Cooling
Nocuta 120mm Redux 1700rpm
Cooling
Bitspower DDC Heatsink Black
Cooling
Hardware Labs 240mm GTS
Cooling
EK Supremecy MX
Cooling
Ek 360mm pe rad
Cooling
Ek msi 1080ti gaming x waterblock
Case
Fractal Design R5
Operating System
WIN 10
Monitor
Acer XF250Q 240hz
Keyboard
G410 atlas
Mouse
G502
▲ hide details ▲
Wirerat is offline  
post #656 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 06:27 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
dsr07mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 31
Rep: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wirerat View Post

thanks for this.

No problem.

There Unity in 1080p with MSAA8x, I thought that TXAA is using more but its not.

http://www4.slikomat.com/13/0126/7y5-4.0gb-.png

Low fps as it is expected for 8msaa but 3.5 is definitely breachable and game works fine. No shuttering just that feeling with ~30 low fps.
dsr07mm is offline  
post #657 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 06:52 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 387
Rep: 14 (Unique: 11)

THUMPer1 is offline  
post #658 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 08:39 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Cyro999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10,755
Rep: 537 (Unique: 329)
3.25, not even 3.5 running at full speed

I don't believe in "good enough"~!!

240hz / gsync / low persistence is AWESOME

post-flame-small.gif5 GHz Overclock Club post-flame-small.gif
Cyro999 is offline  
post #659 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 09:07 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Menco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5
Rep: 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgRir5JwKyU&feature=youtu.be

I'll just leave this here, could finally be highlighting the issue. Or maybe there are some processes happening in the background
Menco is offline  
post #660 of 2990 (permalink) Old 01-25-2015, 09:16 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
VultureX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 54
Rep: 15 (Unique: 12)
The issue is real and the statement by nVIDIA is correct and very marketing aware and sneaky. They have thought about the answer, but they gave away that this is a hardware issue and it cannot be fixed. Also it might not have a very big influence on average FPS, but it does have a big influence on frametime, which is extremely annoying and causes massive intermittent stuttering. Allow me to explain:

The official post said this:
"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."

What they are saying here is that the 970GTX has fewer resources than the 980GTX to access the same amount of memory. What they don't tell you is that NVIDIA can guarentee optimal memory performance ONLY if the 3.5GB section is used. Because the 970GTX has LESSER resources, but the SAME amount of memory as the 980GTX it can never achieve the memory bandwidth the 980GTX can achieve if ALL of the vRAM is used for reading/writing, i.e. if the 970GTX is FORCED to read or fetch data strechting the ENTIRE memory address space including the 0.5GB partition. If only the 3.5GB partition is used no bandwidth issues can occur, that's why the driver tries to force everything in the 3.5GB partition.

In gaming if the full 4GB must be used this translates to frequent frametime spikes and bad performance that people have reported. But because rarely all the vRAM has to be read or written at the same time during gameplay the 0.5GB partition does not have to be accessed ALL the time. It is accessed SOMETIMES when you turn around or fly through a game world really fast. I suspect that the driver incorporates all sorts of optimizations to make sure that whatever memory piece you need to access often is stored in the 3.5GB segment, because that partition it can access without bandwidth loss. However you NOTICE when it accesses the 0.5GB partion or when it swaps data from the 0.5GB partition, because this takes more time due to bandwidth limitations accessing this partitions. In your game this will translate to a splitsecond freeze or stuttering. Tthe video card does not have to access this partition ALL the time so this influences your average FPS only by 1-3% as was shown by nVIDIA.

However this is very misleading, because that does not seem like much, but even if the video card has to access its 0.5GB partion 2 times in a second to copy and read some memory you will notice this, because this induces huge frametime spikes. They are very annoying to the user since they appear as stutters or intermittent freezing on the screen and even while they are not very frequent they may not have such a drastic impact on average FPS, but the gameplay experience is horrible! Imagine having to put up with multiple splitsecond freezes every time you turn your head!

To avoid these framespikes and stutter behaviour the driver tries to keep everything in the 3.5GB partition. If the 0.5GB partition is required you're going to see frametime spikes sooner or later.
The actual average bandwidth of the 970GTX is therefore much lower than advertised if the card is actually using all its 4GB of vRAM. The last 512MB is just for show, if it is really needed then it can be used, but it's too slow to be properly used and keep your frametime low constantly, i.e. you will not have a fluent gaming experience. Unfortunately this is clearly a hardware design flaw and it cannot be fixed. The only way to avoid the issue is to play games that require 3.5GB of vRAM or less.

The benchmarks by nvidia are very misleading. They show games running with low fps, so the frametime spikes have even less impact on total performance, because the initial performance is bad to begin with. Unfortunately I am an 970GTX SLI user so I have very good fps in most games while gaming at 2K and I will suffer most from it, because when the 4GB is truely needed the frametime spikes are VERY significant versus average frametime. Watch Dogs can use 4GB of vRAM easily and this time the stuttering is not due to the engine. I used to play this with 2x670GTX 4GB and had no issues. Now the same game with the same settings stutters on my gpus. Far Cry 4 uses 4GB easily with 4xMSAA and there the stuttering is also very appearent once the 3.5GB cap is reached. There are plenty of more example to come up with. They are not fabricated by users, they are just very hard to benchmark and to prove, since the stuttering issue is very intermittent and very game and settings dependent. And the fact that 4GB loaded does not mean that all 4GB has to be accessed simultaneously makes it even harder.

The explanation nVIDIA gave us is very misleading and should have been made public beforehand. If I had known this I would have bought 2 x 980GTX, since I game at high resolutions and suffer greatly from this issue, not only in Far Cry 4 and Watch Dogs. The bandwidth issues however are real as the following benchmark shows:

THE FOLLOWING BENCHMARK IS DEVELOPED BY NVIDIA AND PART OF THE CUDA DEVELOPER TOOLKIT.
IT MEASURES DEVICE TO DEVICE MEMORY COPY PERFORMANCE, MEANING IT IS COPYING A VRAM PORTION FROM ONE PART OF THE VRAM TO ANOTHER.

Unfortunately I cannot redistribute it due to EULA agreement, but it shows better what the other benchmark also showed. You can download and compile it yourself because it is part of the official NVIDIA CUDA toolkit. This benchmark is independent of DWM settings or other weird glitches Nai's benchmark seemed to be subject to.

With the settings I use it starts by copying 1GB of vRAM to another portion of the vRAM, so 2GB of vRAM is used in total in the first iterations. For next iterations it does the same each time for 64MB more. It ends by copying 1.875GB of vRAM to another portion of the vRAM, so at the end 3.75GB is used on the card for the copy benchmark, meaning that the 0.5GB partition has be used one way or another. The memory bandwidth should stay the same throughout the test. But this copy operation is seriously limited by the 970GTX design flaw. As soon as the last 512MB of the card is needed the performance starts dropping.
This is why people are reporting stuttering. It is a hardware limitation and it can't be fixed, we have to deal with it. frown.gif



VultureX is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off