GTX 970 Settlement Checks Have Started Arriving

[imreloadin]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Or Scaling the graph in such a way that an actual 10% improvement appears to be double on a visual glance. 

But how will the consumer be able to tell how much better product x is than product y when the graphs are so close together on a normal scale

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours ago, yathis said:

claimed it?

There is a process.......always a process obviously..................so that "claim" as you mentioned...................................................................... puts you in with the class action group, BEFORE it goes to court!

 

So maybe what you are saying is you can join the class action group after the settlement?

Seems illogical. Doubt that is the case.

That is the whole point of a class action. Otherwise it would simply be a collective trial. 

You need to gather enough people to start the class action, but the ruling applies to anyone who fulfills an objective criterion (i.e., they belong to the class). That's why, after the court ruling, instructions were provided for any buyer of the 970 (probably within a time window, but I don't remember) to claim the agreed sum.

 

So, you don't join a class action, before or after. You simply belong to the class or you don't. The original people "participating" in the class action are simply a bunch of buyers the lawyers need to define the class and present their case. In other words, they are examples of the type of people affected by the problem. The ruling applies to everyone affected by the problem.

[arbellason55]

sweet, was wondering when that free money would arrive.

[MadyTehWolfie]

Don't know why they even won. The card still has 4gb of memory and even the slower .5 of a GB is still usable by the gpu. 

[AlTech]

5 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Don't know why they even won. The card still has 4gb of memory and even the slower .5 of a GB is still usable by the gpu. 

They falsely advertised 4GB of memory running at 7Ghz. when in reality it should have said 3.5GB of memory at 7GHz.

 

They also advertised the wrong ROP count.

[yathis]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

-

Explains the lawyer commercials on tv

[MyName13]

2 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Company misleads customers

Customers collectively sue company

Lawyers get most of the compensation

America

American customers at least got something.

[vorticalbox]

*cheques

[Magnetorheological]

I submitted a claim, but never got email confirmation or anything. Dunno what's going on with that.

[ttam]

This is just like people whining about a Subway sandwich being 11 inches instead of a full footlong.

 

Just a bunch of whiny babies trying to get free money.

[SteveGrabowski0]

25 minutes ago, ttam said:

This is just like people whining about a Subway sandwich being 11 inches instead of a full footlong.

 

Just a bunch of whiny babies trying to get free money.

I could give a shit about the $30 I got. I'm glad Nvidia lost $4.5 million for lying to everyone.

[Yoinkerman]

970 viewwwwws

 

$30 is alright, it's a fair % of what the cards were new

[Mooshi]

Not defending Nvidia, but this entire thing for $30 seems hella entitled first world problem lmao

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Not defending Nvidia, but this entire thing for $30 seems hella entitled first world problem lmao

A company lied to customers. The customers collectively drained $4.5 Million USD from the company's bank account accordingly.

 

How is this entitlement? They just want to see Nvidia punished for lying to the customer. The customer is always correct. You never lie to the customer. This is Businesses 101.

[Mooshi]

15 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

A company lied to customers. The customers collectively drained $4.5 Million USD from the company's bank account accordingly.

 

How is this entitlement? They just want to see Nvidia punished for lying to the customer. The customer is always correct. You never lie to the customer. This is Businesses 101.

People in Flint need clean water, this is 1st world non essential tech and there is now way around it lol

 

And customers can and often are wrong just as much as businesses can be. This is reality 101

 

4.5m isn't much for a massive company like Nvidia.

[AlTech]

15 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

People in Flint need clean water, this is 1st world non essential tech and there is now way around it lol

 

And customers can and often are wrong just as much as businesses can be. This is reality 101

 

4.5m isn't much for a massive company like Nvidia.

It still shows Nvidia they were wrong.....

[Lewellyn]

1 hour ago, Mooshi said:

People in Flint need clean water, this is 1st world non essential tech and there is now way around it lol

 

And customers can and often are wrong just as much as businesses can be. This is reality 101

 

4.5m isn't much for a massive company like Nvidia.

Your fallacy is: relative privation. Thank you for playing, come again.

[alphaproject]

If you owned a GTX 970... not sure if I'll get my settlement or not. I did file but I have no clue if I qualified or not. I bought a legit GTX 770 and it broke, I sent it to Zotac and they sent me a replacement GTX 970 so  seeing as I had ZERO choice I filled the claim with serials and such, proof of purchase and all that. If I get something....great... if not... oh well.

[Humbug]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 1:16 AM, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I can't believe AMD hasn't sued Nvidia over this. I would have 100% bought an R9 290x back in 2014 had we known the accurate specs of the 970. I can't be alone on this.

The R9 290x was always the better purchase regardless of the gtx 970 VRAM issue. Except for the hot reference version...

[TVwazhere]

I'm not even sure if i signed up for it. i think i did, but even if i didnt i'm not too upset, $30 i spent more than 2 years ago is pretty inconsequential at this point. Card still runs good and I've never had an issue because of it. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

31 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

I'm not even sure if i signed up for it. i think i did, but even if i didnt i'm not too upset, $30 i spent more than 2 years ago is pretty inconsequential at this point. Card still runs good and I've never had an issue because of it. 

Oh yeah, I'm still enjoying my 970 and probably won't upgrade it in 2017. But I do like seeing Nvidia have to pay a penalty here. Because this card was marketed as a 980 with only a few CUDA cores cut out. That lie was a huge part of why people were so excited for the 970, that it was just barely cut down from the $550 980. I think it sucks for AMD because that overhype on the 970 is why they had to cut R9 290 prices to the bone by late October 2014. I still think the 970 was a really exciting card and a great deal, but them telling a lie to the reviewers whose reviews were effective the ad campaign for the 970 seems shady. Somewhat like the Minute Maid vs POM case where Minute Maid was calling their juice pomegranate juice despite it having a tiny amount of pomegranate juice in it. Obviously not at the same level of deceit as Minute Maid was though (I certainly don't think anyone was entitled to a refund on his 970).

[SteveGrabowski0]

9 hours ago, Humbug said:

The R9 290x was always the better purchase regardless of the gtx 970 VRAM issue. Except for the hot reference version...

Debatable at the time. They were neck and neck in benchmarks at launch,

[GeekJump]

While I agree with the people saying Nvidia getting sued was b.s and overkill I, as a broke college student at the time of purchase, submitted a claim for that $30 I got the confirmation receipt when I submitted the claim but nothing since.

 

When the check comes I'm going to celebrate with some Taco Bell! YAY Diarrhea!

[IceCold008]

Lesson learned i think from Nvidia view point and the customers view point. Both will make sure this shit dont happen again. 

 

I allways tell my kids you learn from your mistakes and if you dont your an IDIOT.  Plain and simple my kids never make the same mistake twice

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 4/16/2017 at 7:58 PM, AluminiumTech said:

A company lied to customers. The customers collectively drained $4.5 Million USD from the company's bank account accordingly.

$4.5 million is probably a small percentage compared to the legal fees that NVIDIA had to pay for themselves and possibly for the plantiff, on top of any other fines that may have incurred.

Quote

How is this entitlement? They just want to see Nvidia punished for lying to the customer. The customer is always correct. You never lie to the customer. This is Businesses 101.

No, the customer is not always correct. Granted it's meant to be a humor site, but it documents quite well that customers can be just as bad as the companies that supposedly screw customers over: https://notalwaysright.com/.

 

While I can understand some of the sentiment about VRAM performance, ultimately I thought this whole thing was a hogwash at best because:

• It did not change the performance of any of the initial reviews. You still got the performance they all reported, more or less
• People continued to claim the card only had 3.5GB of VRAM. No, it had 4GB of VRAM, just partitioned in such a way that the performance is less than what was advertised.
• The other side, the ROP count, was also overadvertised. However, various websites like Tech Report and Hardware.fr noted that even with the full complement of ROPs, the shaders themselves couldn't fill them up anyway. To quote Anandtech:
   

  Quote

  As originally (and correctly) pointed out by The Tech Report and Hardware.fr, when it comes to fillrates the GTX 970 is already bottlenecked elsewhere. With a peak pixel rate of 4 pixels per clock per SMM, the GTX 970’s 13 SMMs inherently limit the card to 52px/clock, versus the 56px/clock rate for the card’s 56 ROPs.

   

• NVIDIA has had partitioned memory before in the past (I think the GTX 660 Ti had it at some point)

• Nobody seems to care about the engineering decision that was made here. Either NVIDIA could've disabled a memory controller and left the card with 3GB of VRAM and that would have even less performance, or kept it, disabled only an L2 cache that had to be shared between two memory controllers, and shipped with 4GB, with the 3.5GB + 0.5GB partition.

My whole opinion on this is the customer went after something they didn't fully understand, and some lawyers saw an angry mob they could make a profit off of.