NVIDIA have been hit with a class action suit over the GTX 970.

[Trik'Stari]

Can you please explain exactly how Nvidia "lied", because I don't see it.

 

Oh come the fuck on! What do you want from them? I would be really really happy about a 20% refund, especially since the card still performs exactly like the benchmarks (which I hope you based your purchase on) showed.

 

Same goes for you. Please explain how Nvidia "lied", because I don't get it. Be very specific when you explain it to me as well.

As for gameworks rigging, is there any proof of that? Last time I checked the only games people were using as examples of "herp derp Gameworks cripples AMD cards" were from Ubisoft and they ran really bad on Nvidia cards as well. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that Ubisoft just fucked up the game instead of assuming that Nvidia are so desperate to cripple AMD that they are willing to sacrifice their own performance to do so.

Not sure of which anti consumer BS you are speaking of. Please be specific when you tell me.

This is so incredibly stupid I don't know where to begin. This will benefit absolutely nobody, except maybe the lawyers. It won't help 970 owners since the performance of the card won't change. It won't help AMD or other Nvidia users either. In a BEST case scenario, everyone will get slightly worse GPUs (including AMD users) in the coming years because instead of developing new and better things, Nvidia will have to spend time and effort fighting a ridiculous legal battle. The stronger Nvidia is, the more AMD has to fight and push so this will be bad for AMD users as well.

Everyone who are cheering for this are so blinded by irrational hatred of Nvidia that they don't even realize this is bad news for them as well.

They lied by saying it has 4gb of Vram. I would equate what they did with buying a sports car, where the seller or manufacturer says " this new car goes 175mph!"" but when you get to 150 two of the wheels fall off.

 

If you go over 3.5, the game you are playing becomes impossible to enjoy, and difficult if not impossible to play, end of story. This card does not have 4gb of Vram because all 4gb cannot be used at the same time while maintaining the same performance. And I actually bought it for the 4gb of Vram, not for benchmarks. At least not their benchmarks because I'm not dumb enough to believe a graph from a company trying to sell me a product. I'm more likely to believe a benchmark from Linus, which is partially what I based my selection on.

 

But mainly the 4gb of Vram is what I Was looking for.

[deathjester]

No it's more like removing your gallbladder.

Could it negatively impact your life?Yes, in fact more likely than not it will.

Is it possible to live your life without noticing the impact though?Yes.

 

This would be true if Nvidia DSR and downsampling did not exist. It can possibly be a big issue for people running "next gen" games which use high texture assets that will target 3 gigs AND you want to downsample or play the game at a native 1440p resolution or higher.

 

1080p? No. The GTX 970 is not a 1080p card though, except on crappy Game Works games that run bad on everything at 1440p.

 

You should not be playing native 1080p on an AMD R9 290/GTX 970/980. You should be using DSR/VSR at 1440p on a 1080p screen or a native 1440p monitor. Downsampling is the best AA there is. Shadows of Mordor had this in game. On DX 9 games we did it with Gedosato. Now we can do it on DX 11+ games.

[mvitkun]

Well for a start they didn't technically lie, so I'm not sure how anyone's expecting this to go down in court.

And even if by some sheer technological incompetence on the part of the courts (not outside the realms of possibility) Nvidia losing would just mean in a decade's time some people who have long since upgraded will be getting cheques for £2.50.

So saying that the card has 8 more ROPs than it actually does and that it has 256KB more L2 cache than it does isn't lying?

Is it just fibbing? 

Nvidia claimed for a large period of time prior to and after the GTX 970 launch that it had 64 ROPs and 2048KB L2 cache.

They later said that, along with with the 512MB of slower VRAM, it had 56 ROPs and 1792KB L2 cache.

[NumLock21]

So how much will each GTX 970 owner get after the lawyers gets their cut first? And you can probably tell this person who started this lawsuit owns a Gigabyte card, thus he went after Gigabyte.

[Exty]

They lied by saying it has 4gb of Vram. I would equate what they did with buying a sports car, where the seller or manufacturer says " this new car goes 175mph!"" but when you get to 150 two of the wheels fall off.

 

If you go over 3.5, the game you are playing becomes impossible to enjoy, and difficult if not impossible to play, end of story. This card does not have 4gb of Vram because all 4gb cannot be used at the same time while maintaining the same performance. And I actually bought it for the 4gb of Vram, not for benchmarks. At least not their benchmarks because I'm not dumb enough to believe a graph from a company trying to sell me a product. I'm more likely to believe a benchmark from Linus, which is partially what I based my selection on.

 

But mainly the 4gb of Vram is what I Was looking for.

the card doesn't even run at 224gb/s

[Pesmerga]

No it's more like removing your gallbladder.

Could it negatively impact your life?Yes, in fact more likely than not it will.

Is it possible to live your life without noticing the impact though?Yes.

 

yup but your example misses the point, the gallbladder wouldn't be there anymore. My post wasn't about the performance or the issues, it's about that phrase, it ticks me

[mvitkun]

yup but your example misses the point, the gallbladder wouldn't be there anymore. My post wasn't about the performance or the issues, it's about that phrase, it ticks me

No I got your point, but the example you used was horrible.

You can't live anywhere near normally with a crippled leg.

[Snickerzz]

yay now i get $10 in a few years!

[xvantok]

Did Nvidia actually do anything illegal. I mean there was actually 4GB on the card you know. It's just 0.5GB of that 4GB was slower then the rest. It's like sueing AMD and Nvidia for saying there is 8GB on a dual GPU card when you can only use 4GB of that memory.

In Britain, they 100% did! they mis-advertised a product, amongst other things. I don't know much about American law though.

[deathjester]

So how much will each GTX 970 owner get after the lawyers gets their cut first? And you can probably tell this person who started this lawsuit owns a Gigabyte card, thus he went after Gigabyte.

 

Might be as simple as what was advertised on their box. Other vendors might have been smarter. They may have posted the false ROPs/cache size that Nvidia claimed.

 

Don't know. Never seen the G1 box. Anyone have one? 

[othertomperson]

So saying that the card has 8 more ROPs than it actually does and that it has 256KB more L2 cache than it does isn't lying?

Is it just fibbing? 

Nvidia claimed for a large period of time prior to and after the GTX 970 launch that it had 64 ROPs and 2048KB L2 cache.

They later said that, along with with the 512MB of slower VRAM, it had 56 ROPs and 1792KB L2 cache.

 

They weren't advertised specs, they were information sent to reviewers. And I don't think they were under any obligation to explain exactly how the RAM layout worked. They said that it had 4GB of GDDR5 and it does.

[Victorious Secret]

Oh wow, one example! How conclusive! /s

 

By the way, one representitve said that out of all people, and it wasn't even a chief of staff or someone high up. If anyone actually understood the issue (most people don't, they just like spewing shit), they would realize that a driver could never fix it.

 

It was my understanding that Gameworks has various levels of licensing that a developer can acquire, as well as various levels of Nvidia intervention. At the basic end, all they do is send over engineers to help integrate what you were interested in. They don't need source code for a game to do that, thats crazy talk. 

Nvidia also offers developers the entire access for Gameworks. The source. If they want it, they can have it and they can do what they want to it so it can be more efficient or different or whatever; the developers have the final say. So when AMD cries about not having access to the source...thats not Nvidias problem. Thats the developers. Either they are out of time before launch or they've already tried and its as good as it could be for both sets of cards. 

[Decon]

Source - http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887234/nvidia-hit-with-false-advertising-suit-over-gtx-970-performance.html

 

 

This is kind of a big deal. Basically, they're being hit with a suit along with Gigabyte, though I don't see what they have to do with it. Not too suprising though. How do I feel? I don't know. I think it's a waste of time. Companies lie to you people. All of them. None of them are little innocent goody two shoes. Not to say that there's an excuse for lying. There isn't, but don't be suprised if they are lying to you.

as much as I wish people would stop getting all butthurt over the 970 "#vramgate", I think it's a good thing this is happening.  Hopefully this will prevent worse things from happening in the future...

[Exty]

The new nvidia self driving cars will avoid 3 grown people and one kid , while hitting the second kid

[LAwLz]

Gameworks rigging thats very easy , the 770 and the 280x are equivalent on non rigged games right?

 

-snip-

 

There you go.

That is one game. Some games favor some GPUs, and this has always been the case. The AMD 5000 series was crushing everything Nvidia had to offer in Crysis Warhead when that was released. I'm talking dual GPU Nvidia cards struggling to keep up with a single GPU AMD card. This like this happens from time to time, and correlation does not imply causation.

 

Oh and you are still ignoring the fact that a lot of GameWorks titles (such as Watch_Dogs) ran like shit on Nvidia cards as well.

 

As for nvidia lying I have explain this a thousand times , they said they were going to launch drivers to fix the issue and they retracted that statement.

 

Maybe consult a dictionary for a definition of the word.

How is it a lie if they retracted the statement and it was not even an official statement from Nvidia to begin with?

 

 

They lied by saying it has 4gb of Vram.

But it has 4GB of RAM. Are you dumb? Sorry for being rude but you are acting really stupid right now. There is physically 4GB of RAM on the card, and every single byte of it can be addressed.

The 4GB claim is not a lie because the card has 4GB. Why is this so hard for you to understand. The card doesn't have 3.5GB of RAM, it really does have 4GB. Sure the last 512MB has a different bandwidth, but it's still there.

The only one who is lying here is you, because you say it doesn't have 4GB of RAM, which it most certainly does.

[deathjester]

yay now i get $10 in a few years!

 

Probably not even that. Maybe a coupon for AC Unity Definitive Edition remake for next, next gen consoles and PC. Now with TXAA 2. Even more blur. Requires Tri SLI GTX 1080's to run at 1080p 30 FPS.

[Exty]

That is one game. Some games favor some GPUs, and this has always been the case. The AMD 5000 series was crushing everything Nvidia had to offer in Crysis Warhead when that was released. I'm talking dual GPU Nvidia cards struggling to keep up with a single GPU AMD card. This like this happens from time to time, and correlation does not imply causation.

 

Oh and you are still ignoring the fact that a lot of GameWorks titles (such as Watch_Dogs) ran like shit on Nvidia cards as well.

 

How is it a lie if they retracted the statement and it was not even an official statement from Nvidia to begin with?

 

 

But it has 4GB of RAM. Are you dumb? Sorry for being rude but you are acting really stupid right now. There is physically 4GB of RAM on the card, and every single byte of it can be addressed.

The 4GB claim is not a lie because the card has 4GB. Why is this so hard for you to understand. The card doesn't have 3.5GB of RAM, it really does have 4GB. Sure the last 512MB has a different bandwidth, but it's still there.

The only one who is lying here is you, because you say it doesn't have 4GB of RAM, which it most certainly does.

It doesn't have the advertised speed of the VRam

[zappian]

That is one game. Some games favor some GPUs, and this has always been the case. The AMD 5000 series was crushing everything Nvidia had to offer in Crysis Warhead when that was released. I'm talking dual GPU Nvidia cards struggling to keep up with a single GPU AMD card. This like this happens from time to time, and correlation does not imply causation.

 

Oh and you are still ignoring the fact that a lot of GameWorks titles (such as Watch_Dogs) ran like shit on Nvidia cards as well.

 

How is it a lie if they retracted the statement and it was not even an official statement from Nvidia to begin with?

 

 

But it has 4GB of RAM. Are you dumb? Sorry for being rude but you are acting really stupid right now. There is physically 4GB of RAM on the card, and every single byte of it can be addressed.

The 4GB claim is not a lie because the card has 4GB. Why is this so hard for you to understand. The card doesn't have 3.5GB of RAM, it really does have 4GB. Sure the last 512MB has a different bandwidth, but it's still there.

The only one who is lying here is you, because you say it doesn't have 4GB of RAM, which it most certainly does.

 

They claimed something that turned out to be false.

 

Thus they lied.

 

Its not rocket science , they also mis represented the 970.

 

Another lie.

 

They didnt mention the slower portion of vram so thats a lie by omission.

[kuddlesworth9419]

In Britain, they 100% did! they mis-advertised a product, amongst other things. I don't know much about American law though.

Then AMD needs to be sued as well then because they also say dual GPu cards have double the memory but only half can be used at any time.

[LAwLz]

I would equate what they did with buying a sports car, where the seller or manufacturer says " this new car goes 175mph!"" but when you get to 150 two of the wheels fall off.

Please don't make dumb analogies.

 

If you go over 3.5, the game you are playing becomes impossible to enjoy, and difficult if not impossible to play, end of story. This card does not have 4gb of Vram because all 4gb cannot be used at the same time while maintaining the same performance.

Oh so now you're saying it does have more than 3.5GB of RAM, because if it didn't then you wouldn't even be able to use it. You can't say "it doesn't exist because if you use it then you get lower performance". It either exists and you can use it, or it doesn't exist. You're 100% right when you say you can't use 4GB of RAM at the same time and have the same performance on all 4GB. That is a very true statement. It's a a huge pile of dog shit you are spewing out when you say they lied about the card having 4GB of RAM though, because it does in every single definition of the word.

 

The card has 4GB of RAM, end of story. YOU are lying when you say it doesn't. Feel free to say not all of the 4GB of VRAM has the same bandwidth, but don't come here and lie abiout the card not having 4GB of VRAM.

 

 

But mainly the 4gb of Vram is what I Was looking for.

Yes and you are literally, figural and legally wrong about it not having 4GB of VRAM. It does.

[ManWithBeard1990]

It was only a matter of time before this happened. In Europe this wouldn't happen but in America court cases are a way of life.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I think as far as the memory goes there's no case.

It's advertised as having 4GB of GDDR5, and it has it.

However there may be a case to make about the 256KB l2 cache and 8 ROPs that are present on the original specifications but not on the card itself.

Yea I guess there is a case there but who is really that picky to sue them for that. It probably makes little to no difference in performance anyway. I meant the card is still an incredibly good card. I see the only people that are going to sue Nvidia are law firms that want to make a quick buck like prenda law.

[deathjester]

 

/thread. When you have press correct a lie on two specifications on the card that you gave to press to sell a product? You lied. You can argue ram/bandwidth all you want, but in the end that is now what the lawyers will go after. Why would they bother. Nvidia flat out lied about ROPs/cache and gave that lie to press. That is called false advertising. Book em Danno. 

[ComradeHX]

Gigabyte being caught in crossfire? How terrible, you still have EVGA...etc.

[pdv789]

Might be as simple as what was advertised on their box. Other vendors might have been smarter. They may have posted the false ROPs/cache size that Nvidia claimed.

 

Don't know. Never seen the G1 box. Anyone have one? 

The G1 box literally states on the back in small text on the bottom middle, "the specifications and pictures are subject to change without notice."

 

That is what is going to save Gigabyte from being found at fault in a lawsuit. I do think that either all or none of the vendors need to be help accountable equally but with such a statement on the G1 box I would presume that it is on the boxes from other vendors as well for this very reason. I personally hope that Nvidia is found guilty in court and is required to pay a penalty. I understand I would be lucky to even see .001% of a penalty but that's not the point. Nvidia falsely advertised their cards and it wasn't for just a few days or a week this went on for months. I bought it because of the advertised 4gb and how it performed on benchmarks. 'Technically' there is 4gb of usable vram. They did falsely advertise the ROPs/cache however and that will probably be what loses this for them.