In the 32-bit PC era, systems were regularly sold with 4GB of RAM and a 32-bit OS, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of 32-bit systems could only allocate 2-3GB of RAM for running applications. Hard drives are always sold at advertised capacities that are 15-20% larger than the actual capacity in Windows. Historically, however, the relationship between available memory and useful memory has been extremely vague. Some people are going to be intrinsically unhappy about that, because they’re going to feel like they aren’t getting what they paid for with the GTX 970. So, what to make of the users who report seeing cratering performance or significant issues in specific titles? I’m not dismissing them, as it’s certainly possible that there are corner cases where Nvidia’s memory management creates a problem in specific game or in SLI, but thus far, we’ve seen limited evidence of a real-world problem. What people really seem to be unhappy about is seeing a 3.5GB limitation on a 4GB memory buffer.
#MSI KOMBUSTOR SLI 1080P#
Neither GPU can return playable framerates in 4K at ultra detail levels, but the GTX 980 isn’t inordinately faster than the GTX 970. Frame time checks revealed nothing out of place in Dragon Age: Inquisition - the game’s frame latency was identical in 1080p and 4K on both cards). Finally, in Dragon Age: Inquisition, we see the same usage discrepancy between 4GB and 3.5GB and again the same lack of a performance impact.
0 kommentar(er)
