Search results

What are you talking about? It has 4GB. Please dont rehash this bs. The way to explain this is that the device IDs must match. So the same GPU must be on each board. If you have different memory amounts or different clocks on those two, thats fine, but they will be matched at the value that...

Nope. Older generations of hardware needed higher clocks for multi display or high refresh rates. New generations don't.

Simply not true. TressFX code was not present in any advance copies of the game that NVIDIA received. The developer was contractually obligated not to share it with NVIDIA. Only the final advance copy had it present, right when the game shipped, and it caused crashing issues on NVIDIA hardware

Hardware limitation, not shadiness. Pre-Kepler, they could only drive two heads from a single GPU at any given time.

I just got mine and its fucking sleek. Loving it so far. Going to buy a second one for work with the high res display. It's funny that this article comes up now because I was just thinking the same thing when I got the product... "Wow Dell is really coming back strong".

But how do you handle interactive 3D when virtualized? A big part of this is having the driver and software work together to not only lower input latency, but to be able to get realtime framerates for renders, unlike what something like VNC would do, which is a high level shitter and slower...

It's not talking about that. It's talking about the crowd of people that need GPU acceleration for their work. Architects, game designers, product designers, movie studios, etc.

What would you rather watch from the couch? TV?!?

Obviously I understand this. But I know enough about the system architecture to tell you it simply doesn't happen. There is no frame to frame variance caused by having data in slower memory. How could you possibly think that? It will read from that data the same way every frame, with the same...

Wrong. You can access all 4GB just like on any other GPU. Plain and simple. You're rejecting reality. Anandtech and PCPer confirmed it.

No it's not, there is zero proof of this other than a bunch of people going through placebo effect. Where was this hitching and stuttering in the reviews? Where was it for the countless users over the last 4 months?

You don't buy the GPU for clocks you buy it for performance which is thoroughly documented across countless reviews. It's like freaking out because NVIDIA doesn't run their GPUs at full clocks all the time, and instead scales them based on usage. You paid for full clocks but you're not getting...

It doesn't have less memory than advertised. Wow some people live in an alternate reality.

No that's not accurate either. The GPU processor isn't slowing down or disabling units dynamically and it's not based on speed... It's based on usage of a capacity. It's more like if you had a washer and if you fill it up all the way beyond the top 1/8 of the washer tub, the overall RPMs on one...

1. No. Performance is performance is performance. 2. Because comparing the wrong specs against bad source data would not send up any red flags! The team responsible for feeding the incorrect data to review sites was also the one responsible for checking it on review sites against their provided...

So am I to believe that every day at work, you go back over everything you've ever done for the past number of months? How does the amount of time that has gone by affect anything? Does your work involve many countless technical specifications in tables, where its not obvious if a number is...

Anyone reading should note I presented a rational neutral question and he replied with clear bias.

You still haven't addressed the question. How do you so conclusively say that one mistake is more probable than the other? The question isn't: "Was this an intentional design by engineering?". We know that answer is yes. The question is: "Isn't it just as likely that technical marketing...

But that's not how textures work. They are either in use or they are not. Their use does not oscillate frame to frame. That's why I'm pointing out that whatever tax there is would be consistent frame to frame, and not stutter. Even if they did oscillate frame to frame (they don't, but for...

Lets game this out, rationally: If it were deception, they would try to hide it at all costs, in every avenue possible, right? Well wouldn't such a deception include hiding it in the CUDA device enumeration data that Anandtech posted that has been around for months, showing reduced cache on...

You're clearly emotionally affected by this on a deep level. I can't debate the facts with you on a rational level, so I'm not going to waste my time. Let me know when the grieving period is over and maybe we can find some common ground.

So please educate us. What's the difference between: today's games at max settings and high res (to get >3.5GB but <4.0GB used) And tomorrows games at lower settings (to get >3.5GB but <4.0GB used)? Somehow you think the fact that the game comes out in the future will make it magically...

You are stating this as fact, yet no one has conclusive evidence showing this. Why are you stating facts before any evidence has come in to support them? How would stuttering happen exactly? Could you hypothesize how slower access to some memory for some resources would cause one frame to...

No it doesn't. Clearly you don't know how reliability works. A car from the factory with a turbo is different than aftermarket. I know the factory sold me the turbo factoring in reasonable lifespan. Aftermarket turbos (and overclocked GPUs) have no such guarantee. I was just pointing...

Sure... But my point is exactly that those people are responding emotionally and irrationally. No, it's not at all. For one thing, unlike a v6 which is slower throughout, the 970 is full speed all the way up to 7/8 memory usage. Even then, the overall impact of using the last 512MB is tiny...

No, but only because overclocking has other implications for GPU lifespan and deviating from the reference design. Otherwise, for the price you see 970 vs. 980? Absolutely. Are you insane?

Funny you should say that... I didn't buy my car because it is a V8. I bought it for the 400+ horsepower and the sound it happens to make as a result of being a V8. If it didn't make the power I wanted (older car with V8) or make the sound I wanted (poor sound) I would've looked elsewhere. If...

It's unfortunate, but at the same time it would've cost you far more than 4-6% to buy a chip that didn't have that L2 disabled. They are binned based on chips that don't work perfectly from manufacturing... They shut the defective parts off. If you put the constraint in that they have all L2...

It wouldn't cause stutters. You access data from that memory intraframe, each frame. Therefore the worst it can do is slow each frame equally. Whatever is in there is being accessed the same way each frame, or not at all. No opportunity for stutter since it's not as if one frame is accessing and...

I like how you conveniently ignore posts like this right next to the one you posted. It shows the way you lean regardless of facts: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/803518/geforce-900-series/gtx-970-3-5gb-vram-issue/post/4434270/#4434270 Also, definitely loving how people just...

Of course, that's why I read reviews... I left that part out. Reviews said it cleaned better. Done. Just like reviews agreed 970 performed as it does. Done. You don't need to speculate how this affects performance when you have already seen performance reviews from every site on the planet...

Increased resolution and/or settings = lower performance. Isn't that why you buy new GPUs? The key point is that the 970, which is in question, didn't drop any more performance than 980 when work was increased and the memory above 3.5GB was used.

Wow... Incredibly thick statement here man. Please be smarter than this. You're now saying that 980 is affected with nobody seeing the same memory results in the CUDA benchmark, and no one complaining about stuttering or anything wrong with 980? This is just plain wrong. When you turn up...

Huh? "Needed to?" By that logic, NVIDIA needs to divulge exactly how they improve architectural efficiency year after year at a low transistor level, opening the door to their intellectual property that they spent millions developing and testing to their competitor for free. Just like Coca-Cola...

I assure you these key couple of sentences are very clear: He is saying interestingly, the GPU doesn't behave as he expected. The data he uploads to the video memory (DRAM) on the GPU to measure bandwidth seems to always be coming from (requested from) CPU system memory (CPU DRAM). Therefore...

No, they toggled settings to get memory in the sweet spots of just under 3.5GB and above it, but below 4GB enough to avoid normal video memory swapping that affect *every* GPU out there when you approach the dedicated video memory limit.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1537725/pcper-nvidia-responds-to-gtx-970-3-5gb-memory-issue/180#post_23453567 Which links to...

This is incorrect. Data stored in that area would be slower to access on every access, for every frame. Therefore it can't cause single frame stutter just to have data stored there. You would not see spikes or stutters, just that each frametime is slowed down equally by 1-2% overall. The...

Sorry this is wrong. Wow, so much misinformation in this thread. The Nai CUDA memory tests were *TESTING SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY*. They tested allocations that were spilling to system memory, *NOT* the special section of video memory. Even Nai, the author of the test acknowledged this.

Absolutely wrong dude, sorry. They're showing that 980, which doesn't have this "special" type of memory config, drops performance by the same amount as the 970 when settings are turned up to use above 3.5GB. And the only reason performance dropped at all on both configs is that they changed...