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

[Ex14]

I'm in a fucking horrible mood so just reading some of the comments fucking frustrated me.

How can people say they didn't lie? Wtf. Since you guys keep saying everyone's analogy is bad here's one. I sell you a camera with all the bells and whistles and the perf of it is great. Good autofocus good low light perf and support for the fastest sd cards on the market. However later you can only use the SD cards to 87.5% capacity before it starts locking up. You confront me and I tell you its working as intended. NOW DID I LIE OR WAS IT A MISCOMMUNICATION.

Edit : I DON'T own a 970, but have no sort of bias against NVIDIA (almost recommended a friend to get one) About the lawsuit I'm kinda glad? I mean the stupid lawyers win, but if it might prevent such practices again from happening. Also it might generate some form of action on the side of NVIDIA.

What I do take offence is at the people who just gladly soak this crap NVIDIA just did to them/others. Yes companies lie to us, but its also because of inaction like this that they do.

[DarkIdeals]

I feel the one against Nvidia is warranted, but the one against Gigabyte? Why?

 

Hi, i noticed the thread and felt that i should clarify. I am the plaintiff in the case, the one who is starting it with the W&C/P&GF law firm. The purpose of including gigabyte in the case was that they either A) Have been selling GTX970s all along knowing they were falsely advertised, or Even if they didn't know they continue to sell them after Nvidia has admitted the false advertising. The reason for Gigabyte being chosen specifically over others is that i bought Gigabyte 970s for my SLI rig, therefore they can only put me as plaintiff for the Nvidia and Gigabyte class suits. However, they are also searching for people who have bought ASUS, EVGA etc.. cards to name them as plaintiffs in a seperate section of the class. According to research done, this is actually a quite obvious and blatant case of deceptive business practices and false advertising under the california legal code.

[d3sl91]

Hi, i noticed the thread and felt that i should clarify. I am the plaintiff in the case, the one who is starting it with the W&C/P&GF law firm. The purpose of including gigabyte in the case was that they either A) Have been selling GTX970s all along knowing they were falsely advertised, or B) Even if they didn't know they continue to sell them after Nvidia has admitted the false advertising. The reason for Gigabyte being chosen specifically over others is that i bought Gigabyte 970s for my SLI rig, therefore they can only put me as plaintiff for the Nvidia and Gigabyte class suits. However, they are also searching for people who have bought ASUS, EVGA etc.. cards to name them as plaintiffs in a seperate section of the class. According to research done, this is actually a quite obvious and blatant case of deceptive business practices and false advertising under the california legal code.

When did Gigabyte falsely advertise?

 

So, your solution is to try to hurt all these other companies for something Nvidia did?

 

Thanks......

[DarkIdeals]

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.

 

They state in all of their marketing information on their website, in ads, and even right on the boxes for the GPU's  "4GB *GDDR5*" which implies that the card has 4GB of memory functioning at a certain speed (GDDR5, graphic double data rate x 5 speed) The fact that 524mb of it only functions at 1/8th the speed (akin to GDDR3 or slower speed) makes that a lie. And people need to realize that the vram issue isn't the only lie, they also advertised that the card had 64 ROP units and 2mb of L2 cache while it actually only had 56 ROP units and about 1.75mb of L2 cache. In fact, due to hindering the card by lowering cache and ROP they made it to where the memory is seperated, and cannot be used at the same time, which means that if a game needs more than 3.5gb of vram it will have to stop using the first 3.5gb to activate the last 524mb and then once it uses that, has to shoot that info back to the 3.5gb section creating another layer of lag between when information/textures etc.. are first created and when it appears on screen; causing stuttering and slowdowns. In fact, many games can't even USE the last 524mb chunk at all, it simply caps out at around 3.5 and refuses to use more.

[d3sl91]

They state in all of their marketing information on their website, in ads, and even right on the boxes for the GPU's  "4GB *GDDR5*" which implies that the card has 4GB of memory functioning at a certain speed (GDDR5, graphic double data rate x 5 speed) The fact that 524mb of it only functions at 1/8th the speed (akin to GDDR3 or slower speed) makes that a lie. And people need to realize that the vram issue isn't the only lie, they also advertised that the card had 64 ROP units and 2mb of L2 cache while it actually only had 56 ROP units and about 1.75mb of L2 cache. In fact, due to hindering the card by lowering cache and ROP they made it to where the memory is seperated, and cannot be used at the same time, which means that if a game needs more than 3.5gb of vram it will have to stop using the first 3.5gb to activate the last 524mb and then once it uses that, has to shoot that info back to the 3.5gb section creating another layer of lag between when information/textures etc.. are first created and when it appears on screen; causing stuttering and slowdowns. In fact, many games can't even USE the last 524mb chunk at all, it simply caps out at around 3.5 and refuses to use more.

Gigabyte is selling a product they were given by nvidia. They are stating specs given to them by nvidia. And by the way, it is still "gddr5" no matter the speed it runs at. Not to mention gigabyte (that I can find) never advertised anything about the ROPs or L2 cache. The only way you know that, is because of what nvidia released to review folks. 

 

So, are you going to sue @LinusTech and all the other reviewers now too, for falsely advertising? (After all, some reviewers can keep products and get special deals by advertising). Are you going to Sue Newegg, Amazon, and other stores for still selling it and still calling them "4GB GDDR5" cards? 

 

I still dont understand how you can justify suing the middle man. When all this will do, is put money in some lawywers pockets, and 10 years down thr road, 970 owners will get $2 in the mail. 

[DarkIdeals]

Thank you. The Nvidia fanboys (And I will admit, I am a former fanboy because of this issue) refuse to accept it, despite what we actual owners say about the actual REAL LIFE performance of the card, over benchmarks. I've hit 3.5 at 1080p at 60hz in a few games, and it becomes unplayable/unenjoyable at that point.

 

Yeah, it blows my old GTX 660's ass out of the water, but for the price, I feel like someone spit in my face. Especially when they offer a middle finger of a refund.

 

 

Indeed, and the worst part is that Gigabyte offered a step up program to people who were unhappy with the performance, letting them trade in their 970s for a 980 for a discounted price. But when many of us contacted Gigabyte to actually USE the program they were either told that they can't offer the program yet and will have to "think about it" or that they don't know what we're talking about saying that there is no such program. Essentially lying to us just like Nvidia did.

 

And i can confirm other people in saying that even at 1080p some games like shadow of mordor, dying light, skyrim with texture mods and ENB etc.. cause your performance to drop drastically on a 970. People claiming they aren't losing performance are just doing benchmarks or just looking at average fps. The issue is that minimum fps tanks and you get stuttering, causing an overall less smooth gameplay experience.

 

 

 

[DarkIdeals]

Gigabyte is selling a product they were given by nvidia. They are stating specs given to them by nvidia. And by the way, it is still "gddr5" no matter the speed it runs at. Not to mention gigabyte (that I can find) never advertised anything about the ROPs or L2 cache. The only way you know that, is because of what nvidia released to review folks. 

 

So, are you going to sue @LinusTech and all the other reviewers now too, for falsely advertising? (After all, some reviewers can keep products and get special deals by advertising). Are you going to Sue Newegg, Amazon, and other stores for still selling it and still calling them "4GB GDDR5" cards? 

 

I still dont understand how you can justify suing the middle man. When all this will do, is put money in some lawywers pockets, and 10 years down thr road, 970 owners will get $2 in the mail. 

 

 

First off, Gigabyte is still selling the products and hasn't changed their information, therefore even if they did not know beforehand, they do now and continue to put profit above legit business practices. Second, GDDR5  DOES have to do with speed, it's just like DDR3 vs DDR4 RAM, DDR4 ram is faster simply due to the architecture of how it's built. DDR1 ram at 500mhz is half the speed of DDR2 ram at 500mhz, which is what DOUBLE DATA RATE means. And yes it is advertised about the ROPs and cache on their website. In fact it was still up there even a few days ago.

[DarkIdeals]

All I know, Is I hope this doesn't make things worse for us consumers, and I hope nothing but the absolute best for Nvidia and Gigabyte.

 

I don't want prices to go crazy, because now one of the two gpu manufacturers are being sued. I would never support this lawsuit if I was a 970 owner (One, because I wouldn't care about slower .5. and two, because I do not like the way it targets ONE distributor (Gigabyte). 

 

Just seems like some lawyers wanting a payday to me. 

It's not targeting only one distributer, it's just that they haven't gathered anyone to the case that bought other brands. Once someone who bought an ASUS steps forward, they would be able to add them into it as well, same for zotac, evga etc.. if that was their desire.

[DarkIdeals]

When did Gigabyte falsely advertise?

 

So, your solution is to try to hurt all these other companies for something Nvidia did?

 

Thanks......

Get your head out of the ground lol, Gigabyte is still selling the 970 after it's been proven it's false advertising. And you're telling me that you honestly believe they didn't know about this the whole time? If so i've got some ancient artifacts i wanna sell someone as trusting as you. And if you think that i had anything to do with WHO is put on the list of companies, then you don't know much about how the law works. I just contacted them about whether it was a good case and they said it definitely was.

[Not_Sean]

Holy crap people are fucking retarded. 

4 things here... 

 

1. We all bought this card on beachmarks, Hell even linus video he speaks highly of the card. Now please take your card and benchmark it again. OMG WHAT ?! ?! its the exact same Performance that you wanted when you bought the card. NOTHING CHANGED 

2. You'll counter the above point by going on about 4K and the 3.5GB runs out, but What the hell are you doing with a screen that costs that much but you got cheap and got a 970 ? doesn't add up. also remember that nice video Linus did which showed how few games even get anywhere near the 3G mark. on Ultra.

3. THERE WAS NO FUCKING LIE - Nvidia didn't "Lie" To anyone. the card still has the 4GB advertised on the box. and No they don't BY LAW have to state that its 3.5+.5. Nether would you have cared because you were only looking at Bench Marks. Hell lets go Sue Ferrari because they said my 458 is suppose to have 562BHP, I can promise you buy it and take it straight to dyno and you'll get around that number but not bang on. 

[DarkIdeals]

I'm in a fucking horrible mood so just reading some of the comments fucking frustrated me.

How can people say they didn't lie? Wtf. Since you guys keep saying everyone's analogy is bad here's one. I sell you a camera with all the bells and whistles and the perf of it is great. Good autofocus good low light perf and support for the fastest sd cards on the market. However later you can only use the SD cards to 87.5% capacity before it starts locking up. You confront me and I tell you its working as intended. NOW DID I LIE OR WAS IT A MISCOMMUNICATION.

Edit : I DON'T own a 970, but have no sort of bias against NVIDIA (almost recommended a friend to get one) About the lawsuit I'm kinda glad? I mean the stupid lawyers win, but if it might prevent such practices again from happening. Also it might generate some form of action on the side of NVIDIA.

What I do take offence is at the people who just gladly soak this crap NVIDIA just did to them/others. Yes companies lie to us, but its also because of inaction like this that they do.

Exactly, and i don't know where people get this idea that only the lawyers win in every class action suit. The fact of the matter is they are going for full refunds for everyone, or to force the instatement of a step up program so people can upgrade to a 980 at a discount. Where people get this idea that you only get a $2 check in the mail is beyond me, the only suits i've ever heard of that do that were ones like the suit against red bull where they lied about how much caffeine was in it or something and they got a certificate for a $20 case of red bull free, or like where Duracell said their new long life batteries were "longest lasting in the world" but their regular copper top turned out to have the exact same lifespan so people got a $15 check since the cost of a few red bull or a pack of batteries isn't that much. But if you consider that a GPU costs dozens of times more than an 8 pack of red bull or some batteries it's safe to say that you would at the very least get something of more value than that. Especially since retailers like Newegg and resellers like gigabyte and asus etc.. are refusing to refund anyones cards.

[DarkIdeals]

Holy crap people are fucking retarded. 

4 things here... 

 

1. We all bought this card on beachmarks, Hell even linus video he speaks highly of the card. Now please take your card and benchmark it again. OMG WHAT ?! ?! its the exact same Performance that you wanted when you bought the card. NOTHING CHANGED 

2. You'll counter the above point by going on about 4K and the 3.5GB runs out, but What the hell are you doing with a screen that costs that much but you got cheap and got a 970 ? doesn't add up. also remember that nice video Linus did which showed how few games even get anywhere near the 3G mark. on Ultra.

3. THERE WAS NO FUCKING LIE - Nvidia didn't "Lie" To anyone. the card still has the 4GB advertised on the box. and No they don't BY LAW have to state that its 3.5+.5. Nether would you have cared because you were only looking at Bench Marks. Hell lets go Sue Ferrari because they said my 458 is suppose to have 562BHP, I can promise you buy it and take it straight to dyno and you'll get around that number but not bang on. 

 

1. No, we bought the card based on nvidia's specifications that were released, which were false. And benchmarks have nothing to do with real world performance. Which brings me to....

 

2. Your point about 4k is utter nonsense, you can get 4k monitors for $500, and SLI 970s like i got cost nearly $750. And considering i'm hitting over 3.5gb vram usage at 1080p i'd say your point falls on it's face. Even standard resolutions have issues, and since nvidia marketed the card as being *paraphrased quote* the best gaming experience ever for ultra resolutions *end quote* that implies that it should function at those resolutions.

 

3. YES. THEY. DID.  They said 4gb of "GDDR5", 524mb of it is not GDDR5 speed, it's 8 times slower, making it GDDR3 speed at best. Not to mention they have admitted that the ROP and cache specs were lies as well. And it doesn't matter how few games get to those marks (at 1080p i might add), even if it's only a handful it still loses performance and many of us would not have bought the card if we had known about this. I bought it for university classes as well as gaming, and it's completely useless for the programs i need to run. Once you get into a demanding render or many other strenuous programs it falls apart lagging and stuttering and corrupting results.

 

4. That was 3 things, not 4

[d3sl91]

 

Gigabyte is selling a product they were given by nvidia. They are stating specs given to them by nvidia. And by the way, it is still "gddr5" no matter the speed it runs at. Not to mention gigabyte (that I can find) never advertised anything about the ROPs or L2 cache. The only way you know that, is because of what nvidia released to review folks. 

 

So, are you going to sue @LinusTech and all the other reviewers now too, for falsely advertising? (After all, some reviewers can keep products and get special deals by advertising). Are you going to Sue Newegg, Amazon, and other stores for still selling it and still calling them "4GB GDDR5" cards? 

 

I still dont understand how you can justify suing the middle man. When all this will do, is put money in some lawywers pockets, and 10 years down thr road, 970 owners will get $2 in the mail. 

First off, Gigabyte is still selling the products and hasn't changed their information, therefore even if they did not know beforehand, they do now and continue to put profit above legit business practices. Second, GDDR5  DOES have to do with speed, it's just like DDR3 vs DDR4 RAM, DDR4 ram is faster simply due to the architecture of how it's built. DDR1 ram at 500mhz is half the speed of DDR2 ram at 500mhz, which is what DOUBLE DATA RATE means. And yes it is advertised about the ROPs and cache on their website. In fact it was still up there even a few days ago.

 

It's not targeting only one distributer, it's just that they haven't gathered anyone to the case that bought other brands. Once someone who bought an ASUS steps forward, they would be able to add them into it as well, same for zotac, evga etc.. if that was their desire.

 

Right, they are still selling because you are getting what they are selling, a 4GB video card. Again, why are you not suing Newegg or whomever you purchased it from? They are still selling it as well. Why are you not suing LTT/LMG?

It's not a sellers responsibility to hurt their company by stopping selling a perfectly good product, same as why newegg and amazon and everyone else is still selling 970s. Just a warning, you can argue until you are blue in the face that "4GB is false advertising" but technically, it is not, as there is 4GB on the card. Yes, I am playing devil's advocate with that, but it is what it is. 

No. GDDR5 does not REQUIRE that it run at that speed, its just CAPABLE. I can run my DDR3 and DDR2 or DDR1 speeds, it's still DDR3. In this case, its how the architecture accesses that GDDR5 memory thatcauses the speed difference. That memory is fully capable of GDDR5 speeds, just nvidia has XXX disabled which prevents that.

 

And no, Gigabyte does not have that information (ROP and L2) on their website that I can find. And neither does Nvidia. Maybe they did 2 days ago, but seeing as Nvidia doesnt even have that information, I doubt that Gigabyte would.

 

I really don't mind that someone is suing nvidia. Yeah, I'm concerned it will mess up prices and something bad may happen, leaving AMD with the ability to charge way more for their cards. I'm more concerned about these 3rd parties getting sued.  

[Ex14]

Exactly, and i don't know where people get this idea that only the lawyers win in every class action suit. The fact of the matter is they are going for full refunds for everyone, or to force the instatement of a step up program so people can upgrade to a 980 at a discount. Where people get this idea that you only get a $2 check in the mail is beyond me, the only suits i've ever heard of that do that were ones like the suit against red bull where they lied about how much caffeine was in it or something and they got a certificate for a $20 case of red bull free, or like where Duracell said their new long life batteries were "longest lasting in the world" but their regular copper top turned out to have the exact same lifespan so people got a $15 check since the cost of a few red bull or a pack of batteries isn't that much. But if you consider that a GPU costs dozens of times more than an 8 pack of red bull or some batteries it's safe to say that you would at the very least get something of more value than that. Especially since retailers like Newegg and resellers like gigabyte and asus etc.. are refusing to refund anyones cards.

sorry dude. i have to say impretty sure the lawyers will win in the longrun. there was the intel one where they were given less than 50 dollars if i rmbed correctly...

[d3sl91]

Get your head out of the ground lol, Gigabyte is still selling the 970 after it's been proven it's false advertising. And you're telling me that you honestly believe they didn't know about this the whole time? If so i've got some ancient artifacts i wanna sell someone as trusting as you. And if you think that i had anything to do with WHO is put on the list of companies, then you don't know much about how the law works. I just contacted them about whether it was a good case and they said it definitely was.

 

 

Holy crap people are fucking retarded. 

4 things here... 

 

1. We all bought this card on beachmarks, Hell even linus video he speaks highly of the card. Now please take your card and benchmark it again. OMG WHAT ?! ?! its the exact same Performance that you wanted when you bought the card. NOTHING CHANGED 

2. You'll counter the above point by going on about 4K and the 3.5GB runs out, but What the hell are you doing with a screen that costs that much but you got cheap and got a 970 ? doesn't add up. also remember that nice video Linus did which showed how few games even get anywhere near the 3G mark. on Ultra.

3. THERE WAS NO FUCKING LIE - Nvidia didn't "Lie" To anyone. the card still has the 4GB advertised on the box. and No they don't BY LAW have to state that its 3.5+.5. Nether would you have cared because you were only looking at Bench Marks. Hell lets go Sue Ferrari because they said my 458 is suppose to have 562BHP, I can promise you buy it and take it straight to dyno and you'll get around that number but not bang on. 

 

1. No, we bought the card based on nvidia's specifications that were released, which were false. And benchmarks have nothing to do with real world performance. Which brings me to....

 

2. Your point about 4k is utter nonsense, you can get 4k monitors for $500, and SLI 970s like i got cost nearly $750. And considering i'm hitting over 3.5gb vram usage at 1080p i'd say your point falls on it's face. Even standard resolutions have issues, and since nvidia marketed the card as being *paraphrased quote* the best gaming experience ever for ultra resolutions *end quote* that implies that it should function at those resolutions.

 

3. YES. THEY. DID.  They said 4gb of "GDDR5", 524mb of it is not GDDR5 speed, it's 8 times slower, making it GDDR3 speed at best. Not to mention they have admitted that the ROP and cache specs were lies as well. And it doesn't matter how few games get to those marks (at 1080p i might add), even if it's only a handful it still loses performance and many of us would not have bought the card if we had known about this. I bought it for university classes as well as gaming, and it's completely useless for the programs i need to run. Once you get into a demanding render or many other strenuous programs it falls apart lagging and stuttering and corrupting results.

 

 

4. That was 3 things, not 4

 

Dude, now you are just trolling. Can't we just have a good debate, instead of you going back and digging up past posts (By the way, no, just stating "its been proven" doesn't mean it has... you need to provide reasons, that's how debating works) and trolling @Not_Sean ? 

 

You have lost all credibility to me now. I hope you are just a troll, and not the person who actually submitted this lawsuit

[DarkIdeals]

Right, they are still selling because you are getting what they are selling, a 4GB video card. Again, why are you not suing Newegg or whomever you purchased it from? They are still selling it as well. Why are you not suing LTT/LMG?

It's not a sellers responsibility to hurt their company by stopping selling a perfectly good product, same as why newegg and amazon and everyone else is still selling 970s. Just a warning, you can argue until you are blue in the face that "4GB is false advertising" but technically, it is not, as there is 4GB on the card. Yes, I am playing devil's advocate with that, but it is what it is. 

No. GDDR5 does not REQUIRE that it run at that speed, its just CAPABLE. I can run my DDR3 and DDR2 or DDR1 speeds, it's still DDR3. In this case, its how the architecture accesses that GDDR5 memory thatcauses the speed difference. That memory is fully capable of GDDR5 speeds, just nvidia has XXX disabled which prevents that.

 

And no, Gigabyte does not have that information (ROP and L2) on their website that I can find. And neither does Nvidia. Maybe they did 2 days ago, but seeing as Nvidia doesnt even have that information, I doubt that Gigabyte would.

 

I really don't mind that someone is suing nvidia. Yeah, I'm concerned it will mess up prices and something bad may happen, leaving AMD with the ability to charge way more for their cards. I'm more concerned about these 3rd parties getting sued.  

 

As i mentioned, this is not my choice. I just contacted them, and they said that it was definitely illegal. (several attorneys from several different firms) I had nothing to do with the choice of gigabyte being included. And you're point about newegg makes no sense. Newegg isn't making the product. For example, in the Duracell cas i mentioned, where the batteries are false advertised, you wouldn't sue every dollar store in america over it (although i suppose you could try and might win) because they were lied to as well. Think about it, where does newegg get the specs from? Nvidia. So in reality they THOUGHT they were selling cards with the specs listed by nvidia. But resellers like msi/gigabyte etc.. have a special relationship with nvidia. They MAKE the cards, and when the reference model supply dries up the resellers will be the ONLY ones making the product. Therefore they had a responsibility to stop selling the cards once they found out the information was incorrect. Or at least change the advertising on the cards, which they haven't (yet). Once Nvidia came out and said the specs were false, gigabyte had a legal obligation to either stop selling the 970 or change the advertising info on the boxes and on their site etc..

[jaggysnake57]

i got 3 pages in and was already sick of the same fucking retards posting the same bullshit arguments

nvidia advertise theoretical maxes and speed upto so saying some is slower than other is not a valid argument.  regardless of speed you can use all 4gb hence the card has 4gb of usable ram...end of. if sli cards can sell there cards with 8gb ram even though its really 4gb then nvidia should not have an issue.

nvidia did not lie. a lie infers they deliberately intended to device. if they are going to lie its not going to be about specs most consumers know nothing about. it was an honest mistake. how ever its still a misrepresentation. the problem is showing that it harmed the consumer given that 99% of people buy based off benchmarks and those same benchmarks took into account the ram setup and the rops and l2....i think nvidia wins this with ease

[DarkIdeals]

sorry dude. i have to say impretty sure the lawyers will win in the longrun. there was the intel one where they were given less than 50 dollars if i rmbed correctly...

That's still $50 you and i wouldn't have had otherwise. So even if we didn't "hit it big" (which isn't the point at all, if you sue simply to get cash you're just money grabbing scum and can't call yourself any better than the company you sue) we still stood up for what was right, and will cause companies to think twice before doing something like this again. $50 to the tens of thousands that bought 970s adds up to a fair amount of money in total. And while it won't bankrupt a giant like Nvidia, the negative PR they would get from this case, especially if they lost will hurt them more than restitution fees ever would. In an industry where high grade products are only bought by maybe 100,000 enthusiasts rather than millions of people worldwide like with a fast food chain or a walmart etc.. each customer counts for more. If you only have 100k customers (made up number of course) you care more about keeping the trust of each customer than the one that has millions of customers, and will do more to keep that trust (at least they should if they care about anything other than pure profit)

[DarkIdeals]

Dude, now you are just trolling. Can't we just have a good debate, instead of you going back and digging up past posts (By the way, no, just stating "its been proven" doesn't mean it has... you need to provide reasons, that's how debating works) and trolling @Not_Sean ? 

 

You have lost all credibility to me now. I hope you are just a troll, and not the person who actually submitted this lawsuit

What are you talking about? YOU are the one that sounds like a troll right now. I'm not digging up old posts, i'm simply giving my opinion in response to the posts on the last page. And really? Do i have to dig up the dozens of articles that have the direct quotes from Nvidia ADMITTING that the specs were false? That is the very definition of proof. And i find it ironic that you want to lecture about proper debating when your only tactic is to insult people by calling them trolls and acting like having credibility to some random person matters. As i mentioned i'm simply stating my opinion on the issue which is agreed with by thousands of customers and many legal professionals.   I have provided several reasons for why Nvidia is at fault here, their sloppy and unfair business practices resulted in false information about a product being released. After admitting that the specifications were false, they continued to sell them and to my knowledge still have the incorrect specifications listed on their marketing materials. I'm not trying to fight with you, i'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was just putting forth my opinion as stated, you don't agree with it...that's fine. But it's no reason to start flinging mud.

[DarkIdeals]

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/

[cesrai]

I bet this thread will be locked too.

[DarkIdeals]

i got 3 pages in and was already sick of the same fucking retards posting the same bullshit arguments

nvidia advertise theoretical maxes and speed upto so saying some is slower than other is not a valid argument.  regardless of speed you can use all 4gb hence the card has 4gb of usable ram...end of. if sli cards can sell there cards with 8gb ram even though its really 4gb then nvidia should not have an issue.

nvidia did not lie. a lie infers they deliberately intended to device. if they are going to lie its not going to be about specs most consumers know nothing about. it was an honest mistake. how ever its still a misrepresentation. the problem is showing that it harmed the consumer given that 99% of people buy based off benchmarks and those same benchmarks took into account the ram setup and the rops and l2....i think nvidia wins this with ease

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.

[DarkIdeals]

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.

[pdv789]

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.

On the Gigabyte's G1 970 box on the back bottom in the middle under the system requirements and warning in regards to how to properly handle the product in plain text it says and I quote, "specifications and pictures are subject to change without notice." I won't pretend to have a degree in law but to my understanding with that on the box means that Gigabyte can not be held accountable for the specifications of the product. Now you don't sign anything and as far as I know there is no acceptance clause by opening and using the product. That's not to say Nvidia can't be held accountable for false advertising but vendors have this statement on their boxes for this very reason.

[NeatSquidYT]

nVidia -

 

Give me games and I will not care