30 replies to this topic

[Tom Sawyer]

Some of us have the NIVDIA GTX 970 and have reported points where the FPS just begins to stutter.

Now this has come to light:

http://www.pcworld.c...r-in-specs.html

There are many many articles on this and cases and gamer rage is building up.

Granted most games do not use the full 4gb of memory the 970 has.

My question now is just how MUCH video memory does MWO use? When you get into a murderball and there are tons of LURMS flying, smoke, and all the other goodies does MWO cross the 3.5 "barrier" this card has? Could that last 1/2 gb be the straw that is killing game performance?

EVGA has my back. As a company I have NEVER had issues with them and they are working with customers to find a solution. I myself still have 18 days to decide I want to pony up another $150 bucks to get a 980. I was kinda hoping a 8gb version would be released for the 970 and 980 but that is still months off.

So in conclusion all of us using the 970 might want to push the boundry and try to find out how much video memory MWO is pulling and see if this why some have had issues.

[meteorol]

I'm running it on a 970 gtx with 90+ fps without a single stutter no matter what happens. Not one single fps drop, even if there are all 24 mechs slugging it out in a brutal brawl.

[Odins Fist]

If you haven't done so already.

Go to power options (in Windows) make sure it is set to "HIGH PERFORMANCE"

THEN, go to the MWO game settings and set "PARTICLES" to "LOW".

Edited by Odins Fist, 30 January 2015 - 10:41 AM.

[xWiredx]

At 1080p, MWO does not use anywhere near the 3.5GB that the 970 can address quickest. In fact, I don't think I've seen it go over 2GB. Maybe slightly, but I can't remember now. I have extra eye candy turned on in my user.cfg, I'll check it out. I can't speak for higher resolutions, but I think at 1440p it would still be under the 3.5GB bar.

[Tom Sawyer]

And of course AMD fires back https://twitter.com/...511204951855104

I myself have not seen any issues. But then again I have a water cooled sandy bridge system at 5ghz with 12gb of ddr3 system ram. Main game drive is an SSD and the monitor is only 23 inches.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Tom Sawyer, on 30 January 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

And of course AMD fires back https://twitter.com/...511204951855104

I myself have not seen any issues. But then again I have a water cooled sandy bridge system at 5ghz with 12gb of ddr3 system ram. Main game drive is an SSD and the monitor is only 23 inches.

Reading the comments I don't think it can be counted as shots fired when some fanboi ****** tries to argue that the 8 series FX CPUs have 8 cores.

[xWiredx]

AMD is also apparently offering discounts to GTX 970 owners to get them to switch. Who would want to spend any money to get the same or less performance while using way more energy? That's lose/lose for the user, and only AMD wins. Similar marketing stunts from AMD haven't been effective, so I doubt this means much of anything.

Tweaked driver for GTX 970 incoming from Nvidia shortly.

[Hardin4188]

Nvidia's behavior here certainly is troubling. http://anandtech.com...mory-allocation

Not only is the memory divided into a 3.5gb section and a 512mb section, the amount of rops that the card had was false. No one at Nvidia bothered to correct the reviewers and confessed to it just a few days ago when this all came to light.

The problem is actually even worse then just having a 3.5gb parition and a slower 512mb partition. The issue that people have discovered is that the 3.5gb and 512mb partitions cannot be used at the same time. So if it exceeds the 3.5gb of vram and switches to the slower 512mb it slows down dramatically because it can no longer access the 3.5gb of vram.

And despite a report that they were going to release a driver update to tweak performance that no longer seems to be the case. https://www.reddit.c...t_developing_a/

[Hardin4188]

xWiredx, on 30 January 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

At 1080p, MWO does not use anywhere near the 3.5GB that the 970 can address quickest. In fact, I don't think I've seen it go over 2GB. Maybe slightly, but I can't remember now. I have extra eye candy turned on in my user.cfg, I'll check it out. I can't speak for higher resolutions, but I think at 1440p it would still be under the 3.5GB bar.

I have monitored my vram usage a few times while playing and it does use nearly 3gb on 1440p. I have a Radeon HD 7950 with particles and effects on low, post aa, and every other setting on high or very high. I imagine if I used multi sampling and maxed everything out it could exceed 3gb.

[Lord Letto]

For me, I've seen it top off in Afterburner @2GB on my 2GB Radeon HD 6970 @ 1080p w/MSAA on in game, with it like that it becomes a GPU Bottleneck with like 30FPS or so max even in the Mechlab, if I turn off MSAA it goes back to normal and it don't nearly uses that much GB of VRAM and I get better FPS.

[Alcom Isst]

xWiredx, on 30 January 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

Maybe slightly, but I can't remember now. I have extra eye candy turned on in my user.cfg, I'll check it out.

Extra eye candy in the user.cfg? Sounds tasty. Can I has? Ever since I turned of MSAA, my GTX 970 hasn't been getting enough exercise.

[Vassago Rain]

[xWiredx]

Okay, with a clear user.cfg (well, almost clear, fov at 68), I ran 2 tests. I ran one regular match and one CW match.

1080p, very high settings, 8x AA 8x transparency AA and 16x anisotropic filtering forced in driver
Bog: 1885MB
Sulphur: 2782MB

From what I recall in other tests of mine, the results for veridian bog are pretty much the same for any other map. I do not know if sulphur results are going to be about the same as boreal in CW, though.

Alcom Isst, on 30 January 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

Extra eye candy in the user.cfg? Sounds tasty. Can I has? Ever since I turned of MSAA, my GTX 970 hasn't been getting enough exercise.

Honestly, I'm not anywhere near done tweaking. Also, pretty sure I've already posted it once before, or at least bits. All of it is researchable. I'd search far and wide and do your own tweaking+testing. I have a GTX 980 and 5820K running MWO, so your results may vary.

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

Seeing 970s turn to **** is funny as hell. I have a sapphire vapor-x 290. Clocked at 1250, 1650 and i wreck most all 970s overclocked. If i see one i cant beat i go into benching clocks (1300, 1700) and re-wreck them. Yeah i pull a few hundred watts, but and extra $12 a year wont kill me. Oh and my max temps at 1250, 1650 are 78*C core and 77*c vram (75% max fan speed). (85*C core at 1300, 1700 and 79*C vram, 85% fan speed). To each his own; but I love this card, and it was on sale for $289 when 970 came out at $370+ for nice designs.

EDIT: I will run 1300,1700 24/7 whenever I decide to get a waterblock and a second card. (but i might be going next gen so that may be never lol)

Edited by POOTYTANGASAUR, 31 January 2015 - 06:23 AM.

[xWiredx]

POOTYTANGASAUR, on 31 January 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

Seeing 970s turn to **** is funny as hell. I have a sapphire vapor-x 290. Clocked at 1250, 1650 and i wreck most all 970s overclocked. If i see one i cant beat i go into benching clocks (1300, 1700) and re-wreck them. Yeah i pull a few hundred watts, but and extra $12 a year wont kill me. Oh and my max temps at 1250, 1650 are 78*C core and 77*c vram (75% max fan speed). (85*C core at 1300, 1700 and 79*C vram, 85% fan speed). To each his own; but I love this card, and it was on sale for $289 when 970 came out at $370+ for nice designs.

EDIT: I will run 1300,1700 24/7 whenever I decide to get a waterblock and a second card. (but i might be going next gen so that may be never lol)

I can tell you're in it for the epeen, so please allow me to ruin your day a little bit. I haven't even OCed my GTX 980 yet. It uses less energy than your card and is still faster. Also, pretty curious how you're hitting speeds like that when reviewers are barely able to squeek out 1150. It doesn't really matter, though, because when we start overclocking the 9xx cards we start pulling away. Techpowerup actually shows the average 970 performing about 6% better at the max overclocks they were able to achieve when comparing their top 290-x OC with their average 970 overclock.

Also, protip: people that want real performance don't care about the dollars they spend achieving it. (I haven't had breakfast yet, so I'm particularly feisty, sorry).

Back ON-TOPIC: I can see where a GTX 970 owner could be let down with resolutions higher than 1080p in MWO. For 1080p and lower, though, the memory address speed issue doesn't seem to be a problem.

[Golrar]

I don't go above 1080p with my 970 and have forced AA settings like xWiredx and I see no performance issues...even on my crappy FX-8350 at 4.2Ghz (had to throw that in there). I don't recall mem usuage, but obviously it is not an issue at that resolution. If I ever get a monitor capable of higher resolutions I'll look again. But although the info is distrubing from a trust standpoint with Nvidia, the numbers still don't lie. The 9 series cards are top dog at this time.

[Odins Fist]

POOTYTANGASAUR, on 31 January 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

Seeing 970s turn to **** is funny as hell.

They aren't turning to ****.

AMD/ATI... ROFLMAO

[Goose]

So: Who's changed their "sys_budget_videomem =" from 4096 to 3584, and how'd it work?

[Smokeyjedi]

Goose, on 01 February 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

So: Who's changed their "sys_budget_videomem =" from 4096 to 3584, and how'd it work?

Heres that intuition, critical thinking, and Winning all in one post!!!! Hot damn!!!

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

xWiredx, on 31 January 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

I can tell you're in it for the epeen, so please allow me to ruin your day a little bit. I haven't even OCed my GTX 980 yet. It uses less energy than your card and is still faster. Also, pretty curious how you're hitting speeds like that when reviewers are barely able to squeek out 1150. It doesn't really matter, though, because when we start overclocking the 9xx cards we start pulling away. Techpowerup actually shows the average 970 performing about 6% better at the max overclocks they were able to achieve when comparing their top 290-x OC with their average 970 overclock.

Also, protip: people that want real performance don't care about the dollars they spend achieving it. (I haven't had breakfast yet, so I'm particularly feisty, sorry).

Back ON-TOPIC: I can see where a GTX 970 owner could be let down with resolutions higher than 1080p in MWO. For 1080p and lower, though, the memory address speed issue doesn't seem to be a problem.

I would hope your 980 beats my 290, since it cost over $250 more. Reviewers don't hit these clocks because they don't overvolt much. Here is one of my early valley runs.

Oh and I note that I sounded like an amd fan-boy with that post. However I came a gtx 680 which was a good overclocker but I didn't observe much of a performance gain with clocks. The scaling clock-wise on this 290 is beastly. (Oh and my 680 had a random memory failure which is why I tried amd out.)