As an aside Nai - the creator of the little tool we've been playing with - confirmed today that it lacks exclusive access and will run headlong into existing applications in VRAM and spit out crazy numbers.
His post here - in German.
Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Both done with all monitors unplugged. The test actually causes the 750's driver to crash & recover if I run it with the monitors plugged in.
Chrispy_ wrote:So a vanilla 750 with a chopped-down Maxwell doesn't have this problem; Interesting.
I notice super.speler's first post has the 970 running on a w7 and the 980 on an w8. I'm with Ryu on the issue that this test is more likely to be a test of what OS and how you run it, rather than divulge any useful information about the GPU you're testing.
Ryu Connor wrote:Nai's tool does use CUDA, but you probably knew that.We need a new tool (CUDA or some other language). One that does this test using fullscreen exclusive mode and that is designed to query both segments.
super.speler wrote:I bought a 4GB video card, and knowing that I can only use about 3.5GB of it doesn't sit well with me.
Brian@NVIDIA wrote:super.speler wrote:I bought a 4GB video card, and knowing that I can only use about 3.5GB of it doesn't sit well with me.
Hey Super.speler
Just lurking the forums, and stumbled upon your thread. I work for NVIDIA out here in Santa Clara, CA.
There has been a lot of back and forth about the GTX 970 vram issue. Let me just jump in and say that while the GTX 970 is just as amazing today as it was when the card launched, our communication as a company has clearly been problematic.
I understand why GTX 970 owners are upset. We posted incorrect and misinformed specs and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. We never intended to deceive anyone but despite our best intentions many of you got wrong information/specs that impacted your buying decision which we have ultimately let you down.
The GTX 970 is still an amazing GPU and still deserves the praise it has received throughout the community, review at launch.
But, with that said, you and others may feel different. You might feel mislead and feel there isn't much you can do. Well you DO have an option.
If any of you don't want the GTX 970 you have purchased, knowing what you know about the performance in your system, you should return it. Get a refund or an exchange. You should do what will give you the best gaming experience possible and if you need help to get that done let me know, we'll help.
Brian@NVIDIA wrote:super.speler wrote:But, with that said, you and others may feel different. You might feel mislead and feel there isn't much you can do. Well you DO have an option.
If any of you don't want the GTX 970 you have purchased, knowing what you know about the performance in your system, you should return it. Get a refund or an exchange. You should do what will give you the best gaming experience possible and if you need help to get that done let me know, we'll help.
GeForce6200 wrote:After reading Nvidia's response I see the term "gaming" brought up many times. Since I have pretty limited knowledge of GPU architecture and this "issue" as a whole, I am curious if it would affect rendering. Say if the machine had a low end card to drive the display, and had 970/s specifically used for rendering would they then be affected? I do know that specific GPU rendering software can utilize all of the available VRAM. If this has already been answered I apologize, just was curious in a scenario other than gaming.
Here are some very interesting 4K 970 SLI benchmarks from Reddit
Brian@NVIDIA wrote:super.speler wrote:I bought a 4GB video card, and knowing that I can only use about 3.5GB of it doesn't sit well with me.
Hey Super.speler
Just lurking the forums, and stumbled upon your thread. I work for NVIDIA out here in Santa Clara, CA.
There has been a lot of back and forth about the GTX 970 vram issue. Let me just jump in and say that while the GTX 970 is just as amazing today as it was when the card launched, our communication as a company has clearly been problematic.
I understand why GTX 970 owners are upset. We posted incorrect and misinformed specs and we didn't properly explain the memory architecture. We never intended to deceive anyone but despite our best intentions many of you got wrong information/specs that impacted your buying decision which we have ultimately let you down.
The GTX 970 is still an amazing GPU and still deserves the praise it has received throughout the community, review at launch.
But, with that said, you and others may feel different. You might feel mislead and feel there isn't much you can do. Well you DO have an option.
If any of you don't want the GTX 970 you have purchased, knowing what you know about the performance in your system, you should return it. Get a refund or an exchange. You should do what will give you the best gaming experience possible and if you need help to get that done let me know, we'll help.
LoneWolf15 wrote:In my case, I sold my 970 at a loss, and (shame on me, but it is the best card) bought a GTX 980.
l33t-g4m3r wrote:LoneWolf15 wrote:In my case, I sold my 970 at a loss, and (shame on me, but it is the best card) bought a GTX 980.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=8 ... 9428#t=134
sschaem wrote:Hopefully we are past the 4GB confusion by now.
To recap: The OP didn't highlight any issue with addressing 4G. but the fact that the GX970 is suffering performance issues >3.2GB, while the 980 doesnt.
I dont think any game truly leverage >3GB today (its mostly texture cache) , so even if nvidia, in their drivers, limit the usage of the 970 to 3.2GB, nobody would be the wiser.
But, if anyone can prove that the GTX 970 is doing that, nvidia will be hit with a serious class action suit.