EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC isn't as powerful as it should be.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

So I just upgraded my GPU so my specs are as follows:
RIG SPECS:
ASUS A88X Pro mother board
AMD A10-7850k APU at 4.10GHz
16GB Corsair Vengeance RAM
EVGA nVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB DDR5 SSC
Western Digital 1TB HDD
Corsair CX600 PSU
Corsair H60 H20 CPU Cooler
Windows 10 64-bit

YES, I KNOW MY CPU IS ♥♥♥♥. However, games... especially old games (Rugby Challenge 2, Skyrim, etc...) should NOT studder during game play/game menus/cut scenes. The 970 is MUCH more powerful than the minimum or even recomended GPUs for these games. So, how come Skyrim; I can't complete max out and have a SOLID 60FPS? It'll be stable, but will still dip. Advanced Warfare will studder for a couple minutes after loading the map (go from 60FSP to 33 for a brief second), and Rugby Challenge 2.. the least demanding of all three games, and yet it'll dip during cutscenes and in the game menu. WTF?

[Rove]

So wait I thought there was a problem with the drive now?

Did you fix it somehow? Linux or something else?

Cause if you get a new drive you have to do a complete new install anyways.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Originalmente postado por Rove:

So wait I thought there was a problem with the drive now?

Did you fix it somehow? Linux or something else?

Cause if you get a new drive you have to do a complete new install anyways.

It's just a guess, I don't think my HDD would just go bad in less than a year but the fact that I've installed three different versions on Windows on top of each other, and never doing a clean install could cause issues I'm sure. I reckon it's worth a shot, right?

[Rove]

Well I advise you to at least try Linux Mint LiveCD/DVD/USB first and see if you can then access the drive from there. It requires not installation and will show if the drive is dead or if it shows up to the system.

Re-installing Windows is drastic and will wipe all your files.

A live boot of Linux Mint does not require installation, just a DVD or USB.

If you are going to re-install Windows at least make sure the drive is working in Linux Mint first. You can also make a new partition from all the spare space on the drive so that when you re-install Windows you can do it to the new partition. That way you will have all your old data on the old partition and be able to salvage it and transfer it to the new install.

Though there is the concern that you a got a blue-screen due to a virus and preserving the old partition could preserve that and re-infect you I guess. Still you could quarantine it and scan.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

After 3 hours, Windows Reset is still stuck at 99% and saying "Resetting this PC 99%" reckon this ♥♥♥♥ will take hours. I don't know why though. It shouldn't take that long

[Rove]

Again, try Linux Mint....
Why haven't you?

[Reddy]

You guys are overlooking such a simple issue. It's the RAM. He's running a 32-bit OS with 16GB of ram. Only 4GB will be used.

[Space Coward]

Originalmente postado por Feyrom:

You guys are overlooking such a simple issue. It's the RAM. He's running a 32-bit OS with 16GB of ram. Only 4GB will be used.

He already said it was Windows 10 64-bit. Even if he were, 3.2GB of RAM is still good enough for most tasks, and so far, 4GB seems not to be a problem anywhere if you have a 64-bit OS. Just look up the Potato Masher series if you don't believe me.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Originalmente postado por Feyrom:

You guys are overlooking such a simple issue. It's the RAM. He's running a 32-bit OS with 16GB of ram. Only 4GB will be used.

Don't know where you got the idea I'm running 32-bit Lol. I'm running Windows 10 64-bit and all 16GB of RAM is usable (well, 15.9)

[Space Coward]

Originalmente postado por Capt.Kiwi:

Originalmente postado por Feyrom:

You guys are overlooking such a simple issue. It's the RAM. He's running a 32-bit OS with 16GB of ram. Only 4GB will be used.

Don't know where you got the idea I'm running 32-bit Lol. I'm running Windows 10 64-bit and all 16GB of RAM is usable (well, 15.9)

Nothing you can do about that last .1, it's partitioned by Windows and that last 100MB is reserved for OS-related tasks. Not that it matters, of course, since you've got a whole 15.7 GB to burn...

Anyway, the problem probably is your AMD A10 7850k. The Athlon 860k is a great processor for the price, but it's a $70 Pentium-equivalent and you're putting it with a $300 GPU. To be honest, I have no idea why you went with an A10 when you can get that without the integrated R7 graphics for $50 less.

[chrisnc35]

Don't know if this was mentioned already, the GTX 970 4Gb, all 4 Gb can be utilized while using low settings (or lower). But once you start to use high to max setting on programs, games etc.. you will tend to only access 3.5 Gb. It's not a flaw in the card, it was designed this way according to nvidea. You "technically" have access to it, just not at maxed settings.

[Space Coward]

Originalmente postado por chrisnc35:

Don't know if this was mentioned already, the GTX 970 4Gb, all 4 Gb can be utilized while using low settings (or lower). But once you start to use high to max setting on programs, games etc.. you will tend to only access 3.5 Gb. It's not a flaw in the card, it was designed this way according to nvidea. You "technically" have access to it, just not at maxed settings.

Not quite. Basically, it has 4GB of VRAM, but split into two pieces. 3.5 GB of it is at normal speed, 512MB of it is slowed down. The drivers do a good job of making sure it's only used if they have to, though I think Nvidia would have been better off simply shutting it off entirely and marketing the card as 3.5GB, which was still massive for the time.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Originalmente postado por Kill-Cam Celebrity:

Originalmente postado por chrisnc35:

Don't know if this was mentioned already, the GTX 970 4Gb, all 4 Gb can be utilized while using low settings (or lower). But once you start to use high to max setting on programs, games etc.. you will tend to only access 3.5 Gb. It's not a flaw in the card, it was designed this way according to nvidea. You "technically" have access to it, just not at maxed settings.

Not quite. Basically, it has 4GB of VRAM, but split into two pieces. 3.5 GB of it is at normal speed, 512MB of it is slowed down. The drivers do a good job of making sure it's only used if they have to, though I think Nvidia would have been better off simply shutting it off entirely and marketing the card as 3.5GB, which was still massive for the time.

But currently 4GB VRAM isn't much, right? On average with thr GTX 970 4GB I get a stable 60FPS (stable as in average 60, but ocassional drops)
Skyrim: High settings, no AA, low shadows: 60FPS (rarely dips to 57-59FPS) VSYNC ON
Killing Floor 2: (low settings, no AA, no shadows: 60FPS (will sometimes dip to 52FPS, but that's because it's an indie game and also it's still in production) VSYNC ON
Titanfall: High settings, no AA, no shadows: 60FPS (might dip a little during intense titan fights but mininally) VSYNC ON
Battlefield 4: Low settings, no aa, low shadows: 60FPS (may drop to 57FPS for a few seconds but overall, runs perfectly except for slow loading times due to my ultra ♥♥♥♥♥♥ CPU). VSYNC ON
CoD Advanced Warfare: High texture settings, no shadows, no AA: 60FPS (at the start of each map it'll be ♥♥♥♥♥♥ FPS but will balance out to a solid 60FPS after a couple minutes. Again, probably due to my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ CPU) VSYNC ON

I ALWAYS have VSYNC on because my monitor only has a 60HZ refresh rate so anything over 60FPS will cause screen tearing and will work my GPU harder than it needs to and thus shorten it's lifespan.

[Space Coward]

Originalmente postado por Capt.Kiwi:

Originalmente postado por Kill-Cam Celebrity:

Not quite. Basically, it has 4GB of VRAM, but split into two pieces. 3.5 GB of it is at normal speed, 512MB of it is slowed down. The drivers do a good job of making sure it's only used if they have to, though I think Nvidia would have been better off simply shutting it off entirely and marketing the card as 3.5GB, which was still massive for the time.

But currently 4GB VRAM isn't much, right? On average with thr GTX 970 4GB I get a stable 60FPS (stable as in average 60, but ocassional drops)
Skyrim: High settings, no AA, low shadows: 60FPS (rarely dips to 57-59FPS) VSYNC ON
Killing Floor 2: (low settings, no AA, no shadows: 60FPS (will sometimes dip to 52FPS, but that's because it's an indie game and also it's still in production) VSYNC ON
Titanfall: High settings, no AA, no shadows: 60FPS (might dip a little during intense titan fights but mininally) VSYNC ON
Battlefield 4: Low settings, no aa, low shadows: 60FPS (may drop to 57FPS for a few seconds but overall, runs perfectly except for slow loading times due to my ultra ♥♥♥♥♥♥ CPU). VSYNC ON
CoD Advanced Warfare: High texture settings, no shadows, no AA: 60FPS (at the start of each map it'll be ♥♥♥♥♥♥ FPS but will balance out to a solid 60FPS after a couple minutes. Again, probably due to my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ CPU) VSYNC ON

I ALWAYS have VSYNC on because my monitor only has a 60HZ refresh rate so anything over 60FPS will cause screen tearing and will work my GPU harder than it needs to and thus shorten it's lifespan.

4GB is still pretty big, as the cheapest 3GB card is $170 and the cheapest 4GB card (GTX 960 4GB doesn't count) is a whole $250. If you want to get any bigger than 4GB, you have to pay up a nice $650 for your graphics card alone... unless you get one of those R9 390 8GB cards, which is honestly a bit excessive.

The only games that seem to really cross that RAM limit heavily is Shadow of Mordor and a few bad ports (id Tech 5 games are also pretty bad about VRAM usage). The GTX 970 is still very good for its price (even if obsolete next to the R9 390), and older processors simply can't keep up with that kind of GPU horsepower.

[_I_]

they made a 4g gt640
but its nowhere near strong enough to effectively use more than 1g for games

[Space Coward]

Originalmente postado por _I_:

they made a 4g gt640
but its nowhere near strong enough to effectively use more than 1g for games

Exactly, GTX 970 not only has 4GB but also has the power to utilize it.