News Nvidia settles GTX 970 4GB class action lawsuits

I can't help wondering how many of the people, expecting to get a payout, already knew about the problems before they bought a card?

 

If Nvidia didn't change the advertising (which they didn't) it wouldn't matter, they still bought a product with inflated published specs and Nvidia still owes them $30.

All a bit silly really, would selling the 970 as a 3.5GB card really have affected sales when it's performance was excellent to begin with? I doubt it.

 

In reality they'll probably only get $26

 

26 USD + 4 Disney Dollars.

 

So did the UK get stiffed again on the compo?

 

I certainly didn't, but I got mine back in 2014.
Of course this does feel a bit silly, getting basically a 10% discount.

Are there any other cards that have split the memory like that in the past? I don't recall any that did that.

 

Well yes, because no one in this country sued.

On a different note, using the phrase 'compo' should automatically bar an individual from receiving compensation for anything for life...

 

Sshhiitt!
Does that mean that PPI is in jeopardy in fix the spade's fiscal review?

How will the poor, unwashed Jeremy kyler's pay for iphones and new tattoo's without compo?..
The family allowance is already at breaking point.

 

Made me chuckle

 

Just like real money, but more 'fun' (and accepted in fewer places)

 

He's the leader of the club that's made for you and me,
M.I.C
K.E.Y
M.O.U.S.E.

 

IIRC the 550Ti had some oddities with its 1GB of memory split over a 192bit memory interface:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4221/nvidias-gtx-550-ti-coming-up-short-at-150/2

Not exactly the same (no loss of ROPS) but still quirky in its design.

 

I get that it was falsely advertised but it isn't really that much different from buying a 1tb drive and then only finding 931gb of usable space. Would people have bought something else if they knew the real specs? I can't predict how a component is going to actually perform in the real world based on a bunch of numbers. I guess I just can't understand why people want to waste their lives complaining about things for a negligible outcome.

 

Actually it's quite a lot different:

1TB = 1,000,000,000,000 Bytes
1,000,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 ~ 931.32 GB

 

Yes I get that... What's your point?

 

Because it has nothing to do with nomenclature, but instead that Nvidia deliberately misled and mis-sold it's product.

 

Naturally I disagree. A quick google (which was entirely unnecessary in this case) shows that people are constantly feeling misled by storage device capacity because it never achieves what is stated on the box, which is exactly the problem here. Now, if 1tb drives were instead called 'Dave', 2tb drives called 'Steve' etc. nobody could complain that the drive actually only has 931gb of space. That would also be amusing. Is it better to have a pair of Daves, or 1 Steve?

 

You could use a pair of Daves in RAID 0 for an I/O speed boost and perform incremental back-ups to a Steve.

 

A TB, in the way storage manufacturers define a TB, is consistent and technically accurate. It may not represent 1000GB as one might people may naturally expect, but a a 1TB drive from WD will be the same as a 1TB from Seagate and so on. It is a standard.
This is wholly different what Nvidia did.