Close
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Showing results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1

  2. #2

    Default

    I have a pair of Asus GTX 970 Strix in SLI, I have been using for around 4 months now and never had a problem, my 3 x Monitor setup is 6feet by 2feet, I use 4800x900 display and I 5 box and get the 62 fps that is set up in the IsBoxer wizard.

  3. #3
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6815

    Default

    I agree with several posters over on Anandtech and personally think it's a bunch of BS or just an issue in the drivers that was overlooked. I find it hard to believe that every single review site didn't catch this "bug" when benchmarking the GPUs, but some random person did? Wat? Even if it was a hardware-level bug, does anyone expect nVidia to recall all of the 970s at this point? Hiiiighly unlikely, so they'll just play it off or try to mask the "issue" with a new driver.

    When it comes to a major claim like this, you (everyone) need to look at actual discussions that are being had and not believe everything news sites have to say since most are just looking for page hits. The thread that I've been following which deals with this supposed problem actually starts at post 89 on page 4 since the first three and a half pages are some random person claiming that the GTX 970 is not a 256-bit GPU and their "proof" was ridiculous. -__-
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  4. #4
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    7169

    Default

    Oh man, my brain aches from just reading a few pages of some of those forums "discussing" the issue. Might as well discuss it in Barrens General chat.
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

  5. #5

    Default

    I checked the Asus site, it clearly states it is a 256 card, I ran GPU-z and it reports the card as 256, with a bandwidth of 224 , where this 206 number comes from .... I don't seem to be able to find

  6. #6
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadjitsu View Post
    I checked the Asus site, it clearly states it is a 256 card, I ran GPU-z and it reports the card as 256, with a bandwidth of 224 , where this 206 number comes from .... I don't seem to be able to find
    I don't know what you're referring to when you say "where this 206 number comes from," but that's why I said to ignore the first 3.5 pages of the thread I linked because it's an entirely separate topic which was quickly debunked -- The mods of that forum didn't split the topic for some reason and it's confusing if you start from the beginning.

    Apparently, the new (and ridiculous) claim is that the GTX 970 (and only the 970) has an issue with its video RAM and any part of it after ~3.3GB is accessed at a incredibly crippled speed which is affecting performance, and people are coming to this conclusion by using a program written by someone named Nai. From what I've read, the glaring problems are:


    1. This is not any sort of official benchmark from any actual company
    2. No one knows who this Nai person is -- He's just some random guy apparently
    3. Most people seem to not know exactly what the benchmark tests, and it might only be testing CUDA performance which has nothing to do with gaming
    4. Supposedly the benchmark should be run on a headless system to ensure that the VRAM reads ZERO at the beginning of the test or else it affects the performance of the benchmark, but most people are not running the benchmark on a headless system, and therefore getting an incorrect result
    5. Not a single review site, across all of the numerous tests they would have done, found anything remotely similar to what is being claimed, and those review site tests actually include... you know... games

    But I'll be honest, I haven't been following all of this incredibly close because... I don't believe it to be an actual issue and I don't really care all that much.

    ---------------------------------

    EDIT: nVidia just released their statement earlier today about what's up:

    http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-C...B-Memory-Issue

    As expected, there's no issue.
    Last edited by MiRai : 01-24-2015 at 02:17 PM
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  7. #7

    Default

    That guy Nai was claiming the the 970 GPU's were 206 and not 256

    Thanks for the heads up on Nvidia, I did think it was all a load of hog wash, no way would they release a card that was not thoroughly tested

  8. #8

    Default

    Dammit! I *was* planning on running a headless system!

  9. #9

    Default "GTX 970 Memory Drama: Plot Thickens, NVIDIA has to Revise Specs"


  10. #10
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    7169

    Default

    Joaquin-Phoenix-signs.gif

    Maybe I'm jaded.
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •