How to disable the 32 bit 512 MB VRAM on GTX 970?

[Artas1984]

So here is the thing. I am testing my GTX 780 and GTX 970 in modern games now, soon to be launching a thread and a video about how these cards are performing in 2018. But there is BIG fricking problem with GTX 970! Performance in some of the games is ABYSMAL, like in Ashes of Singularity and Wreckfest - it is not just the fact that GTX 970 is slower than GTX 780, it feels like i am testing some GT 630 - horrible stuttering and just low ass FPS. And i just started testing it not expecting how many more surprises will i encounter. The last time i tested GTX 970 was:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...i-strix-oc-vs-gtx1070-dual-benchmarks.232448/

As you can see SLI GTX 970 performed very well beating GTX 1070, despite low minimal FPS, and i never experienced this sorta problem then, but now that i updated my game list i do!


Has there ever been released a bios for GTX 970 that enables access to main RAM once 3,5 GB of it's 256 bit VRAM is reached out and the slow 32 bit 512 MB leftover is left unaccessed?

 

[Frick]

Not possible afaik. Does the BIOS even differentiate between the two?

 

[newtekie1]

Not possible afaik. Does the BIOS even differentiate between the two?

No, the BIOS doesn't, it is all done within the driver. The driver is smart enough to only use the main 3.5GB portion first, and only use the remaining 0.5GB when needed. This is still a better solution than being forced to use system RAM when the 3.5GB is full.

 

[Artas1984]

Actually i've done testing my games and am glad to tell that this problem exists no more. I've physically reinstalled GTX 970 and the problem in Wreckfest and Ashes seems to have gone. Funny thing was that in other games i had no problems, just in these..

Well but thank's for a quicky and another certified conclusion about GTX 970.

 

[dj-electric]

Cards should be tested in real-life out-of-box scenarios no matter if its resulting in bad experience.
If anything, people need to know about these happening.

 

[John Naylor]

Every review site that tested it it after the all the 3.5 GB hoopla was unable to create an issue on the 970 that did not also occur on the 980. Was AoS a console port ? Any time this is done, I just expect problems to be a given.

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

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. These cards are still too weak for such a resolution combined with proper image quality settings. Remember, Ultra HD = 4x 1080P. ....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

Utilizing graphics memory after 3.5 GB can result into performance issues as the card needs to manage some really weird stuff in memory, it's nearly load-balancing. But fact remains it seems to be handling that well, it’s hard to detect and replicate oddities.

 

[R-T-B]

Was AoS a console port ?

lol no. It's more a PC-exclusive testing ground for new tech in the guise of a strategy game.