3,5 GB GTX 970-problemet

Kan det ha att göra med att spelen är 32bitsapplikationer och inte kan använda mer minne kanske?
Gränsen för 32bits-applikationer bör väl ligga någonstans i det området?

Rätta mig om jag har fel, men det verkar som att det är de grafikkorten som annvänder vram från hynix som har detta problemet, de som har samsungs vram verkar inte ha detta problemet.

Men varför ska man forcera kortet att använda 4GB om det inte behövs?

Låter dock väldigt mysko.
För läser man tråden på overclockers så ser man snabbt att många får deras kort över 3.5GB utan problem. Och har varken problem med FPS eller stuttering.
Medan andra inte får det över 3.5GB alls och några som tvingar det över 3.5GB får låg fps mm.
Men om problemet bara händer i morder/FC4/unity och några andra spel, men fungerar fint i andra spel. Är det inte snarare ett problem med spelen/drivrutinerna då?

Edit: såg inte bilden för än nu.

hmm, har nog märkt av det på mina kort också, i Far Cry 4 och AC Unity har jag aldrig sett VRAM över 3.5GB... mina 290X körde över 3.5GB tex.

From the Nai's Benchmark, assuming if the allocation is caused by disabled of SMM units, and different bandwidth for each different gpus once Nai's Benchmark memory allocation reaches 2816MiBytes to 3500MiBytes range, I can only assume this is caused by the way SMM units being disabled.

Allow me to elaborate my assumption. As we know, there are four raster engines for GTX 970 and GTX 980.
Each raster engine has four SMM units. GTX 980 has full SMM units for each raster engine, so there are 16 SMM units.

GTX970 is made by disabling 3 of SMM units. What nvidia refused to told us is which one of the raster engine has its SMM unit being disabled.
I found most reviewers simply modified the high level architecture overview of GTX 980 diagram by removing one SMM unit for each three raster engine with one raster engine has four SMM unit intact.

First scenario
What if the first (or the second, third, fourth) raster engine has its 3 SMM units disabled instead of evenly spread across four raster engine?

Second scenario
Or, first raster engine has two SMM units disabled and second raster engine has one SMM unit disabled?

Oh, please do notice the memory controller diagram for each of the raster engine too. >.< If we follow the first scenario, definitely, the raster engine will not be able to make fully use of the memory controller bandwidth

64bit memory controller, total 4 memory controllers = 256 bit memory controller.
Assuming if there are 3 raster engines with each three has one SMM disabled leaving 1 raster engine with 4 SMM intact.
Mathematically ;
16 SMM = 256 bit = 4096 Mb
13 SMM = 208 bit = 3328 Mb

208 bit = effective width after disabling SMM with 256 bit being actual memory controller width

IT is hardware problem=GTX970 is 208bit card.

hmm, vad ska man göra åt detta då ifall det visar sig att det är ett 208bit kort?

Hmm....I have quick a look on GTX 780 distribution and compare it to GTX 780 TI. There is no problem with Kepler series.
There are 6 memory controllers at the diagram. There is no shortage of bandwidth. GTX 780 has 4 raster engines while GTX 780 TI has 5 raster engines. You could group / refer them by GPC if you wish so.
Each of the raster engine has its own memory controllers. I think two memory controllers are underutilized for GTX 780 while one memory controller underutilized for GTX 780 TI. No idea why nvidia sell it as 384 bits even although the aforementioned memory controller is kinda unused in a sense.
If you take a look, nvidia could actually put total 6 raster engine / GPC with each connected to their own memory controller. Yield issue maybe?
You could say GTX 780 effective width is 256 bit while GTX 780 TI is 320 bit. But then we will have to look on how the GDDR5 being soldered / connected to the memory interface at the circuit board.

Maxwell V2 is diferrent. Instead of cutting Raster Engine unit as they had done for Kepler 780 series, Maxwell V2 has its SMM or SMX equivalent of Kepler being disabled.