GTX 970 New Games Lagging

[Sandi1987]

I have only 30 FPS on High in Gravel. All new games lagging. What's wrong with my computer?

He has 60 FPS with the same GPU and i7. Should i change my CPU?

 

[PHaS3]

What resolution are you trying to play at? 1080p should be fine, anything higher the 970 isn't going to do well, especially in newer games.

Your 4670K @ 4.2 should be fine. Keep in mind now that the 970 is starting to get older. What new games are slow? When did this start happening? Are you on the latest driver from NVIDIA?

 

[GreiverBlade]

What resolution are you trying to play at? 1080p should be fine, Your 4670K @ 4.2 should be fine.

this

Keep in mind now that the 970 is starting to get older.

this (well it's actually the 3.5+0.5 that could be the issue here ... and even when it was "young" it was like that )

and

Are you on the latest driver from NVIDIA?

that, well sometime the latest can be the source of issues also (i'm always 2 month late on driver .... specially with Nvidia )

globally ... well, need more info as PhaS3 wrote

 

[Sandi1987]

I play all new games with 1920x1080. Even in Metro: Last Light Redux i have FPS drop and it's older game.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Monitor the vRAM usage when gaming and maybe try different drivers revision (though you didn't specify which driver you use atm )

 

[Sandi1987]

I update GPU driver and i have better FPS.

 

[Vya Domus]

Then it's fine now , I guess ?

 

[GreiverBlade]

Then it's fine now , I guess ?

funny i was about to ask the same... although it's pretty vague



(btw Yumeko from Kakegurui this time .... nice taste buddy )

 

[rtwjunkie]

Are you still using 8gb of system ram? 8 is the minimum and not ideal. This should be considered as well.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Are you still using 8gb of system ram? 8 is the minimum and not ideal. This should be considered as well.

usually 8gb is enough, unlike a 970 but yep ... that could also be one culprit but

by the last post of the op, albeit quite foggy, it seems, driver upgrade solved his issue

 

[las]

Haha, it's not the RAM. Metro Last Light has 2GB minimum requirement, 4GB recommended and 8GB optimal.

Update GPU driver with clean install option.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Haha, it's not the RAM. Metro Last Light has 2GB minimum requirement, 4GB recommended and 8GB optimal.

next time read the post above the last one you did read

Update GPU driver with clean install option.

seems the OP already did it.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Haha, it's not the RAM. Metro Last Light has 2GB minimum requirement, 4GB recommended and 8GB optimal.

Update GPU driver with clean install option.

This isn’t a “ha ha” antagonistic forum like Tom’s. Go there if you want to display immaturity and general rudeness like that. Most members here aren’t that type, which is what makes TPU different.

Also read everything OP wrote. Main problem was not Metro. He said “even in Metro...” which means additionally.

 

[SomeOne99h]

Are you still using 8gb of system ram? 8 is the minimum and not ideal. This should be considered as well.

rtwjunkie, wasn't your previous experience with 970 is similar to the OP's issue and was the reason for you to jump to 980ti?
EDIT: about the first video you posted Sandi, he was playing without vsync, I noticed him showing us the settings and it was off. Is your vsync ON? If yes, That explains you get half of the FPS.

 

[BiggieShady]

Similar thing happened to me once, drivers suddenly borked their gpu clock switching control somehow, suddenly at full screen 3d I would not get to boost clocks at all but one bin lower ... driver reinstall also fixed it

 

[rtwjunkie]

rtwjunkie, wasn't your previous experience with 970 is similar to the OP's issue and was the reason for you to jump to 980ti?
EDIT: about the first video you posted Sandi, he was playing without vsync, I noticed him showing us the settings and it was off. Is your vsync ON? If yes, That explains you get half of the FPS.

Previous was 970, yes. However it wasn’t quite the same. I had a different problem in that it wouldn’t always get 60fps with all details. It would be 50-60 with vsynch, not 30’s.

I’m glad OP figured it out with driver update. Some of them can severely impact performance. That’s why when I find a good one I stay several months on it.

 

[SomeOne99h]

Oh I see.
I have followed your advice and picked the last driver for Kepler (650ti) which is 347.88. Thank you, I am happy with it

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Should know by now to read the whole thread, I just installed Gravel after reading the OP to test on my 780 Ti (3GB) to see if it was a vRAM issue (it's not as I was getting 60+ FPS with everything maxxed. 1080p and using a max of 2.6GB, only to read it was a driver issue when I was about to post my findings

 

[Sandi1987]

Should know by now to read the whole thread, I just installed Gravel after reading the OP to test on my 780 Ti (3GB) to see if it was a vRAM issue (it's not as I was getting 60+ FPS with everything maxxed. 1080p and using a max of 2.6GB, only to read it was a driver issue when I was about to post my findings

Which Windows do you have? Something is wrong with my computer if i had FPS drop in Metro. I had the same problem with FPS drop when i had Intel Core i3 and ATI Radeon 6850/7870 XT before i buy i5. Bad RAM?

 

[las]

This isn’t a “ha ha” antagonistic forum like Tom’s. Go there if you want to display immaturity and general rudeness like that.

Just because you praise 16GB+ for gaming in every single thread does not mean that im rude.

Again, it's not the RAM. I've seen Metro series run smooth as butter on 4GB systems.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Just because you praise 16GB+ for gaming in every single thread does not mean that im rude.

Again, it's not the RAM. I've seen Metro series run smooth as butter on 4GB systems.

And again... already solved .... (and before your initial "i laugh at you because you dared to think it was system RAM" post #11 ) oh and by the way driver test recommended since post #5 OP confirmed it since post #6


want the last word? denied =>"ha ha" (note that i use "sarcasme" rather than "rudeness" .... laugh of it as a joke .... those who get vexed with sarcasme never go too far )



technically it's a little rude ... also where i am "ha ha"=/="ah ah" the second one is laughing lightly about something funny, the first one is mocking somebody targeted by the sentence following it, imagine, i am in front of you and i laugh loudly and add a negative sentence after it (countering an argument you advanced previously) or i laugh lightly and mention that, albeit having a point (yep the culprit could still be 8gb although i also think 8gb is enough ... specially with the actual prices ), the issue lies in the video driver (or video RAM)

not that i didn't saw stuttering issues whose culprit was unstable RAM (8gb 16gb 2133mhz 3200mhz DDR3 DDR4, you pick)

Should know by now to read the whole thread, I just installed Gravel after reading the OP to test on my 780 Ti (3GB) to see if it was a vRAM issue (it's not as I was getting 60+ FPS with everything maxxed. 1080p and using a max of 2.6GB, only to read it was a driver issue when I was about to post my findings

actually .... if it was only with Metro or Gravel but the OP mentioned "all" new games lag, so, unfortunately, the 970 peculiar memory configuration could also be an issue (or "will be" since it's literally bound to happen )

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Ah ha

My son has no problems with his 970

edit

i have used the expression " Ah ha" to describe an element of hidden surprise as in....

"Ah ha, i bought you a little gift"

perhaps it needs more aaaaaaa's i dont know

Aaaaah haaaaa maybe?

 

[GreiverBlade]

Ah ha

My son has no problems with his 970

edit

i have used the expression " Ah ha" to describe an element of hidden surprise as in....

"Ah ha, i bought you a little gift"

perhaps it needs more aaaaaaa's i dont know

Aaaaah haaaaa maybe?

"ah ha" (suprise! ) =/= "ha ha" (seriously? you silly... ) =/= "ah ah" (oh that's funny...) .... (i know i know .... writing on the internet ... require some caution and extended use of smiley (laughing lightly just in case as in "ahah" ) and "Aaaaah haaaa" is rather a "i told you" than a "suprise!" .... errr different culture maybe?

anyway ... the OP seems to have another problem/thread for now and seems to have solved partly the current issue with a drivers update
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/sony-ps4-pro-or-new-gtx-1070.242068/#post-3808051

 

[WhiteNoise]

The 970 is on it's last legs IMO. Even when i had one I wasn't totally impressed which is why I sold it and bought a 980. Now the 980 is still a very viable card to run. If I'm not mistaken, Metro is pretty demanding game isn't it?

Anyways I'm not saying the 970 is a bad card. Its actually quite good at the time and still viable but I left that one behind quite some time ago due to under preforming.

 

[John Naylor]

when you apply for a car loan, The 3.5 + 0.5 GB thing was never an issue ... it's been debunked dozens of times. In every single instance you can **create** an issue, the same thing happens on the 980 which in and of itself debunks the claim. I always like to say that no one is ever wring, some folks are just misinformed and that's the case here. The No. 1 reason folks were convinced there was a problem is because they's run a card with mor VRAM and their utility reported that it was 'using" more than 3.5 GB of RAM. The problem is no utility exists that reports actual VRAM usage. It reports VRAM allocation. As an aanalogy, if you have a credit card with $500 on the card against your $5,000 limit, what gets reported to the bank as your liability.... $5,000. Same thing, it doesn't report the amount of VRAM being used, it reports the amount that was allocated to the game during the install process based upon the amount of VRAM on the card. Simply put, your chosen utility is misinforming you.

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...y-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

GPU-Z claims to report how much VRAM the GPU actually uses, but there’s a significant caveat to this metric. GPU-Z doesn’t actually report how much VRAM the GPU is actually using — instead, it reports the amount of VRAM that a game has requested. We spoke to Nvidia’s Brandon Bell on this topic, who told us the following: “None of the GPU tools on the market report memory usage correctly, whether it’s GPU-Z, Afterburner, Precision, etc. They all report the amount of memory requested by the GPU, not the actual memory usage. Cards will larger memory will request more memory, but that doesn’t mean that they actually use it. They simply request it because the memory is available.”

Folks have been overestimating VRAM needs for years but actual testing shows that the manufacturer's actually know what they are doing. Alienbabeltech was the 1st to bring this to wide attention when they tested 45 or so GFX cards (GTX 770s 2GB + 4 GB) at 5760 x 1080. Only a handful of games showed any significant difference in fps and in every dsingle case, the games resolution and settings were such that the game was unplayable in either the 2GB or the 2 GB models. Not really important if 4 GB gets you a 30% increase in fpd when we are talking about going from 12 - 16 fps. In ever other instance, the fame were almost identical with the 2GB sometimes outperforming the 4 GB. The real interesting point was that max payne would not install at 5760 res with the 2 GB card, so they installed it with the 4 GB ... then went back to the 2 GB ... same image quality, same fps, same everything.

If ya look at the link above, they saw the same results, the only games where they could produce a significant difference where > 4 GB was needed, the game setting and resolution had to be such that fps was well below 30 and unplayable. This has been found in each and every case tho there are exceptions, poor console ports for example will benefit from more VRAM. But outside that no significant difference shave been found. The alien site no longer exists but ya can see the tables on this foreign language video

Same results here.... showing results with 6xx series, 7xx series, 9xx series
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 G1 Gaming 4GB review - VRAM Analysis 2GB vs 4GB - Alien Isolation
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/


In detail for the 970 .... keep in mind this was written in 2015 but the fact remains ... yeas you can create a problem by doing certain things when using resolution and settinmgs higher than recommended for that card. But if uyyou can produce an effect, the same effect is evident oin the 980 and doesn't have the 970s configuration.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/mi...rdor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test,12.html

After some internal testing here over the weekend we could quite honestly not really reproduce stutters or weird issues other than the normal stuff once you run out of graphics memory. Once you run out of ~3.5 GB memory or on the ~4GB GTX 980 slowdowns or weird behavior can occur, but that goes with any graphics card that runs out of video memory....

Thing is, the quantifying fact is that nobody really has massive issues, dozens and dozens of media have tested the card with in-depth reviews like the ones here on my site. Replicating the stutters and stuff you see in some of the video's, well to date I have not been able to reproduce them unless you do crazy stuff, and I've been on this all weekend.....Let me clearly state this, the GTX 970 is not an Ultra HD card, it has never been marketed as such and we never recommended even a GTX 980 for Ultra HD gaming either. So if you start looking at that resolution and zoom in, then of course you are bound to run into performance issues, but so does the GTX 980. Face it, if you planned to game at Ultra HD, you would not buy a GeForce GTX 970.

Overall you will have a hard time pushing any card over 3.5 GB of graphics memory usage with any game unless you do some freaky stuff. The ones that do pass 3.5 GB mostly are poor console ports or situations where you game in Ultra HD or DSR Ultra HD rendering. In that situation I cannot guarantee that your overall experience will be trouble free, however we have a hard time detecting and replicating the stuttering issues some people have mentioned.

With that out of the way, we can get to the issue ... As we can see here metro LL has no problem with the Asus Strixc 970

We are looking at a 11.8% advantage for the 980 here @ 1080p ... so if VRAM was a problem... we should expect to see the the 970s speed disadvantage increase substantially at higher resolutions ... but we don't.... at 1440p. it's just slightly lower at 10.6% and at 2160p it's only 7.4%

So if ya are not seeing 80 fps in Metro LL after your driver upgrade ... check your settings against that TPU used. Once it's known, hetehr you have an issue... we'll be in a position for figure out what it is.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/16.html