Graphics Nvidia’s GTX970 has a rather serious memory allocation bug

I will give you two whole potatoes, my good man!

 

As long as you understand there's a strict no returns policy and I come with a -10year warranty.

 

well, if you're going to be like that, I shall be keeping my spuds.

Good day to you, sir!

 

Unlike nvidia, I couldn't go selling myself as having 4 limbs when I only have 3.5. Almost literally.

 

I guess everyone would have seen this coming, but...
Nvidia To Face Lawsuit Over GTX 970 False Advertising
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-face-lawsuit-gtx-970-false-advertising/

Personally i doubt they will get any results as it seems the very nature of the complaint is false, the 3.5GB isn't less performant (afaik) and the ROP count and L2 cache capacity was never advertised by Nvidia.

 

The lawyers will be rubbing their hands. Big pay-days a coming.

 

They'll have a hard time proving deceptive and unlawful business practice, as this was obviously a marketing mistake rather than intentional deception and lying.

 

Corky42, having read your response to this thread generally, may I ask; do you think there is anything amiss with the GTX970 at all?

 

If you have read my responses to this thread in general then you are aware that i said here that "I'm not saying Nvidia is beyond reproach", or here when i said "It's not that people think it's wrong to complain when manufacturers aren't transparent, what Nvidia done was wrong.", or when i answered your post here and said...

Or would this post here help clarify things for you, where i said "Yea i understand being left with a bad taste, after all people weren't aware of all of the compromises Nvidia made when they purchased the card."

Does that help ?
Or would you like to troll some more ?

 

Play nice and give each other the benefit of the doubt. I read that as a sarky question rather than a troll.

 

Yes, it was every bit a sarcastic question ^^

Benefit of the doubt sounds like a good idea to me.

 

We all know the vast majority of people go with nVidia but could you imagine the comments from the green fans if this was AMD. I have been transformed as anything that works for me is good.
Took me 3 months of begging for me to upgrade next month and last night she has said yes to 2x980's now a very happy man. All I need now is the ROG sli bridge then complete.

 

What sounds better to me is using Emotes to better communicate your intention.

 

the class action will succeed in part - simply because nv were wrong with certain aspects of the way the card works, does it have 4GB of ram? yes - but as nv have said , its broken down to 2 pools - 3.5GB of `fast` and 0.5gb of `not so fast`

but as PCPER have shown , and sadly is now ebing shown in evolve @1080p , when both pools of ram are needed (eg all 4gb) then you get frame variance.

a 3gb gtx 780 is quicker than a gtx 970 when the 970 spills over into the slower 512mb

 

The suit has zero merit for 'advertised ROP count', as that was never a number advertised by Nvidia. It was only distributed on request to review sites, so a class action suit would have to have a review site as a Named Plaintiff (which would essentially be suicide for any review site that did so). It'd also be hard to argue the advertised vRAM number, as the card has 4GB of vRAM on board, and has 4GB of vRAM addressable.
As far as I am aware, nobody has even accused (let alone proven) and falsification of performance data on the part of Nvidia or anyone else.

It's very much a lawyer cash-grab suit.

 

not at all - that information , supplied by NVidia to review sites is to be taken as `gospel`, and could be subpoenaed if needed

they officially said it had 64ROP`s , whereas = it doesn't.

 

The issue is that Nvidia themselves never advertised the card as having those specs. The information was supplied to review sites who incorporated it into articles, but for a false advertising suit to work it actually has to be advertised as such.
If card manufacturers marketed their cards as having those specs, the card manufacturers would be vulnerable to a false advertisement suit. But the same manufacturers would also be able to sue Nvidia for false advertisement. What cannot happen is for consumers to 'jump the chain' straight up to Nvidia.

 

Well despite some people's need to satisfy their litigative desires, I for one am not looking forward to paying a few quid extra for my next GeForce card. Because let's be honest, Nvidia don't keep a special fund to pay for these things, they'll just spread the cost over their future hardware portfolio.

So whilst the crusaders might feel they are doing the right thing, all they are really doing is harming (albeit in a very small way) the community they claim to represent.

 

Agree with shirty, nvidia will likely not even feel the dmg on these law suites outside of tech sites few know or care that the 970 has a issue of sorts. As I've said in another thread you can't Sue nvidia as they don't ever advertise the full spec sheet. A review site like bit tech asks for one from there pr department.

If company's like evga have advertised the specs that's there job to sue nvidia( never gonna happen) or more likely demand a better deal on there next batch of cards brought.

 

I'm no lawyer, but while they may not be able to pin false advertising on Nvidia i would guess that's why Gigabyte has been included.

So that leaves Nvidia having to face the unfair business practices, deceptive business practices, and unlawful business practices charges, i don't have the first idea of how the American legal system defines those terms.