DarkIdeals

Actually i was the one who contacted the lawyers, not the other way around. So they wouldn't have even considered bringing the case until they found out about it from me. I looked up a firm that had prior false advertising experience. And after discussing it with them the first lawyer i talked to actually did have an understanding of the memory sub-system pretty well. And they actually have a lawyer in their california branch i spoke with who has participated in prior Nvidia suits, who is a gamer himself (you can tell if someone is a "fake" gamer, this guy wasn't. he knew random gaming memes and described his sli rig to me etc..) so people are kind of overreacting thinking some bigwig rich guys out of touch with the real issues are the only ones handling this. Perhaps we won't get much money, yes. But the actual purpose of this case is to get REFUNDS if possible, so it's not the kind of case that's likely to just give out a check in the mail. I specifically said i felt the best course of action was to ask for refund or a step up program at discount/free. But even if all they can get is a payout, the total amount asked is over 5 million, if only 100,000 people joined the suit (that's honestly probably more than really will since most 970 owners probably will never know about this and of the ones that do, many might not care) assuming the 5 mil number, that gives each person $50, so looking at this situation which is a worst case scenario since refund is what would truly be the goal, we would still be $50 more than what we'd have had if the case wasn't filed; and we would've taught companies that we won't just sit down and take it when we are lied to. If Nvidia had truly apologized and offered something to us, like a paid step up program or game coupons etc.. i imagine most of us would've been pacified and not so angry. But they not only refuse to admit responsibility, blaming it on "miscommunication" (i.e. excuses 101) they refuse to apologize in a meaningful way.

yup, i just got the 2nd 970 recently, before i was using a single 970 on an old Asrock H61 ITX mobo with only one pci-e 16x slot so i couldn't do SLI. But i tried it on my Rampage IV Black Edition with both cards and the same thing happened. As i mentioned it isn't the average fps that fraps will give you that is the problem, it's the minimum framerate and (even more so) the frame timings you can test with f-cat. I'm glad you aren't having any problems, or perhaps our standards are just different and you don't notice it?, but either way it still ruined my college courses, i could possibly live with it limiting my gaming but i paid over $1,000 on two 970s and waterblocks for them and because of it i had to back out of the college courses i planned to take,and might lose a scholarship because of it if i can't get a replacement card (lest someone call me an AMD fanboy the ONLY card i'd be willing to use over a 970 is a 980, i don't trust R9 290/290X for my classes or even gaming due to low single card performance compared to the 970/980) in time i'd have to apply again and might not get approved.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/w8uslw.jpg Go look up the official legal complaint, towards the bottom you'll see Exhibit A, B, C etc.. look down to iirc, exhibit E. It's the same picture i just posted to you; because it's the one i provided to show the product i purchased that qulified me to be plaintiff. It should mention my name on the complaint as well, Andrew O.

Except he is......HI?

As i mentioned before to others, gigabyte is not being singled out, they are simply the first one to be put on the list at this time since the only company that can be listed is the one the plaintiff purchased from. Once other people come forward that bought asus, evga, etc.. cards they will be able to be named plaintiff against those companies as well. (of course i dont know exactly what the plan is in detail)

Ahh i see. Well anyway i can still post the pictures if people truly don't believe me. Hell the pics are in the legal paperwork Exhibit E if you look it up. I understand that some people may just be jumping on the bandwagon so to speak, but i truly am having horrible problems with the 970 in vram intensive situations. Any game at 4k runs poorly, with much lower minimum fps than even an R9 290 or even a 280X in many cases, as well as having stuttering and freezing, and this is on SLI so you would expect fps to at least be playable, even the minimums. Then at 1440p at least half the games i've tried do it, they'll freeze for several seconds at a time and then restart in games like shadow of mordor, dying light, texture modded skyrim etc.. and even at "lowly" 1080p i get pretty bad stuttering on the above-mentioned games. And it's literally made the cards un-usable for the college classes i was planning to take, when using the programs you are expected to use for these courses it hits high vram usage nearly immediately and even when it does work it takes hours just to finish one small video segment whereas others can do it with a 290X or 980 in 30 minutes tops.

That's a ridiculous and incorrect metaphor. Ferrari doesn't advertise free press crews in their marketing. The day that ferrari offers a lifetime of free tune-ups in the form of a crew of slave workers to follow you around in any magazine ad, tv commercial, billboard etc.. i'll agree with you; but they wouldn't do anything remotely similar to that. California law states that in order for something to be considered false advertising, it has to be something that a reasonable informed consumer would expect to receive from the product based on marketing and research. If you did any kind of research on ferrari's and had any common sense you would OBVIOULSY know it didn't come with a crew of workers following you around...assuming you aren't mentally disabled in some way i guess. But based on Nvidia's advertising and marketing that they STILL advertise on their site, anyone reading the info would see the specs listing 4gb of full speed gddr5 memory, 64 rop, and 2mb L2 cache as well as things like "offers the greatest gaming experience at ultra 4k resolutions" that is right on the box of the reference nvidia, as well as AIO gigabyte, etc.. cards. This is obviously something that a reasonable customer who read the specifications would expect to receive when they purchased the product, because nvidia put it on their site and in ads and on boxes. There is an implied TRUST between a business and customer. Your excuse is that we shouldn't be surprised, all kinda of companies lie. But i propose to you, why do you think that way? Is this the way things SHOULD be? From your post it appears that you think just because it "does" happen alot, that it "should" happen. This is the reason we need to take a stand against it, even if it gets us nowhere in the end, because it will discourage further illegal behavior and lies, and at the very least you can say you stood up for what was right.

Unless someone on the inside happens to inform others of that amount...

Wanna see my 970s? Is this going to turn into an immature "pics or ur an AMD-fanboi" clusterfrick?

You misunderstood, i wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about him, he's being sarcastic, he's not really saying gigabyte is the only one making cards anymore. He's trying to insult the fact t hat gigabyte was the only one put in the lawsuit so far even though the reason why was explained one post above him and on several other occasions. So don't take that as an insult as i wasn't referring to you, i was just being sarcastic right back at him.

Yeah ikr, not even reading the post right above them that explains it, or the 2 others that mention it on the last page. *sarcasm meter: critical mass*

That still doesn't exempt them from state and federal law, in parts of europe retailers and some resellers like asus, msi etc.. have been forced to accept refunds due to the laws in those places. For example, when i sell something on ebay and put "no returns" it doesn't mean squat because ebay legally gives the buyer 45 days of protection. Or another example, if a company says that their specifications are subject to change on say...medication, and then add a preservative to make it last longer that people are allergic to and don't post that it has that on it, if they try to say "well we said it was subject to change" when a man that had to have his throat cut open to keep from suffocating from anaphylactic shock suffering permanent damage takes them to court the jury and judge would laugh them out of court because they are responsible. "subject to change" is something that means it may change in the future as well, not the current state of things. But regardless, even if that is true, just having the reseller companies names on the list will put pressure on nvidia because once they face the risk of losing profit they'll turn on nvidia and say "hey this is your doing, help us here" if you see what i mean. I see your point though, but i'm not so sure i agree completely. Speaking of talking out of your arse, you either didn't read a word i said or aren't capable of comprehending it because you're straight up misrepresenting what i said. Where the hell did i say i don't "look at" benchmarks? huh? I said that benchmarks alone are not an accurate measurement of a graphic cards performance, as synthetics can be horrendously innacurate, and in-game benchmarks are run on a completely different system than what you most likely have; a different cpu, different ram, possibly a different model of the gpu you have, different operating system, different cooling and airflow creating temperature disparity etc... etc.. etc.. which is why you can go look at a test from guru3d and then watch a linustechtip video and it'll be up to 5-10fps difference sometimes, or even more in some cases. You have an odd sense of humor, don't know what to say to something so odd honestly. I never said that nvidia claimed vram was below 4gb, i said that nvidia admitted that it doesn't have 4gb of "GDDR5" vram, it also doesn't have the 223gb/s speed we were promised, the 3.5gb chunk only has 192gb/s and hte 524mb chunk that most programs can't even use operates at under 50gb/s, specifically about 30gb/s. Then they admitted that the 970 only has 56 ROPs instead of 64 like promised, and that it only has 1792kb of L2 cache insteade of 2048kb like promised. Gigabyte isn't being singled out, you see. they were just the first one included since the card i bought was the gigabyte model. So someone else would have to be plaintiff that bought an asus, msi, zotac etc.. in order for them to be put on the list, which i imagine will happen eventually. And in the end gigabyte and other companies if they get dragged in will likely just jump on nvidia and possibly throw them to the wolves in exchange for being let out of the suit. (just a guess of course)

Oh, and as far as it causing harm to the consumers. Because the card will not meet many people's requirements they would have to sell it at a loss (you can't sell 970s for full price now, nobody will pay more than $280 at most for brand new open box 970s specifically because of this issue with the specs, even less for regular used ones) then you have incurred financial damages.

I know plenty of people who don't buy based on benchmarks. Frankly that's a bad way to buy things. Hell, i've heard hundreds of people always complaining on youtube videos and forums etc.. saying "well you can't believe this or that because it's a synthetic benchmark it has nothing to do with real performance" and they're right. How well a card performas on firestrike means nothing in terms of actual fps and overall quality/speed of a card. For example, a GTX 980 and TITAN BLACK are almost equal in many games as far as overall fps, with the 980 getting roughly 4-5 fps more in a good amount of games, but in just as many it only pulls ahead by 1-2 or even loses by 1-2 sometimes. But in 3dmark testing the 980 tears the TITAN apart due to the maxwell architecture doing better in benchmarks. Therefore it isn't an accurate gauge of actual performance. I bought the card based on what Nvidia said it was, which isn't what it really is. In the classes i'm going to be taking and many programs i use, things like ROPs and cache are very important, as well as the speed and bandwidth of the vram. The card was supposed to be a full 4gb of unified GDDR5 vram with over 220gb/s, 64 ROPs, and 2mb of L2 cache. In reality it has 56 rOPs, ~1.75mb L2 cache and 3.5gb of GDDR4 at only ~190gb/s with 524mb of GDDR3 speed only operating at ~50gb/s which is seperated from the rest which causes lag in many of my programs and games i use when using anywhere near 3.5gb and in many cases the program doesn't even realize that the other half gigabyte of vram is even THERE at all therefore doesn't use it. I honestly would never have bought two 970s for SLI if i had known this. I would've gotten a single 980 at least, and saved up for a 2nd one (although i may have been able to just get two 980s outright) The fact that i would've still gotten an Nvidia product (gtx980) even knowing about this, and that the 980 is STILL the card that i would pick, proves that i'm not biased against nvidia or anything. If i was i'd be going to AMD, who btw, i am also not happy with since they lied too about giving discounts on R9 290/290X's to people who were unhappy with 970s. Yet when you contact AMD about the deal they just point to newegg and tell you that the standard retail prices IS the discount deal lol.

And as for being a fake, afraid not. Here's the page where anyone else interested in signing up for it should go http://www.gtx970lawsuit.com/