The primary plaintiff probably only bought a gigabyte card which precludes them from including other AIBs. This isn't really a class action yet until the judge certifies it. Once other plaintiffs join they can amend the suit to include other AIBs they bought from.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Petitioning for 970 Refund
- Thread starter Nauseous
- Start date
The primary plaintiff probably only bought a gigabyte card which precludes them from including other AIBs. This isn't really a class action yet until the judge certifies it. Once other plaintiffs join they can amend the suit to include other AIBs they bought from.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,152
I'm curious about those that have received refunds for 970's already... Since so many 970's were sold with a promo game code, is the value of the game code deducted from the refund people are getting?
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 10,292
I conservatively ball parked the high end segment to be 10-15% of NVidia's revenue. Someone is going to be pissed.
Also I've seen issues become totally convoluted (non issues) as they go up the chain. If they lose a big case in court there's not many ways to politically spin it.
Anyways point being - a few million is a noticeable chunk of their profit and I don't think this market segment is as niche as people make it out to be. They sold over 1 million 970s in the first quarter they were out.
If nVidia is like a normal company there's likely a director or executive of some type that will have his bonus affected by this. Then shit gets real.
Also I've seen issues become totally convoluted (non issues) as they go up the chain. If they lose a big case in court there's not many ways to politically spin it.
Anyways point being - a few million is a noticeable chunk of their profit and I don't think this market segment is as niche as people make it out to be. They sold over 1 million 970s in the first quarter they were out.
If nVidia is like a normal company there's likely a director or executive of some type that will have his bonus affected by this. Then shit gets real.
Last edited:
Sprayingmango
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
omfg.....a lawsuit....seriously!??!
The cards work as advertised. All you dipshits and your mob mentality BS. Absolutely ridiculous.
The cards work as advertised. All you dipshits and your mob mentality BS. Absolutely ridiculous.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,006
So I had mentioned before that Amazon offered me a 30% refund when I only asked for 20%, and one of my buddies only got 20%. Well another friend hit me up, he managed to get 35%. He asked for 20-30%. He showed me both the email he sent them, and their reply email. It seems overall that Amazon is really going out of their way with the customer service shiznit. Yes it's true, we are all pleased with the GTX970's performance, and have been since launch. But at the end of the day, I don't like buying products based on false specifications, and this is just simply compensation for that.
nvidia isn't going to lose money on this. they're just going to end up selling more 980s which have an even higher margin.
at this point nvidia is primarily focused on winning marketshare, because that's how you take over an industry segment and become the de factor brand, and nvidia is on its way to doing just that.
at this point nvidia is primarily focused on winning marketshare, because that's how you take over an industry segment and become the de factor brand, and nvidia is on its way to doing just that.
MelonSplitter
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,139
OMG! OMG!, Dude shut the hell up. If you would have bought a 970 then you would understand peoples freakin frustration. You mad bro because we got some compensation
No, people are entitled to return the product that they aren't happy with for a full refund.
Pointing out that Amazon shouldn't have to eat their profit margins because of nVidia's bad behavior isn't "white knighting" for a corporation nor is it being a "pussy."
This thread is just degrading into juvenile behavior and really highlighting some members' weak moral fiber. Also, the fact that some of you are taking partial refunds completely undermines the basis for a class action suit because now you have no harm in a legal sense.
Justify your behavior all you want but the end result is harming consumers with legitimate issues, possible ramifications for line workers, and history shows that abuses like these will be responded to by clamping down on liberal return policies.
Zinn
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,490
I think a class action lawsuit is justified. I'm glad to see one is moving forward.
I dare say none of the 3 threads (2 closed) we have on [H]ard would exist (or at best there'd be 1 thread that fizzles out quickly) if nVidia had offered that option from day 1.
Yes Peter Sierant did offer to help initially, but quickly did a 180 a couple days later. For the most part people have been stonewalled and read the official party line when they try to claim a refund.
True Amazon has been the one sole exception, but that's coz Amazin is really Amazin. Newegg also seems to be more open to refunds now, but by no means is this a general phenomenon.
Glad I bought the 970 strictly for 1080p gaming. Paid a small premium for an ITX version but won't be seeking a partial refund from Amazon since I'm happy with the card's performance at 1080p.
nVidia does need to get slapped for this action, so those that bought the card expecting performance at 4K need to get on the Class Action.
nVidia does need to get slapped for this action, so those that bought the card expecting performance at 4K need to get on the Class Action.
Not really.
The issue isn't the performance of the card, it's the false advertising. The GTX 970 is the same card today as it was the day it came out, before the whole 3.5gb thing was discovered. Most people (both individuals and reviewers alike) will still say that it's the best performing card out there for the money. No one is going to stop recommending it to people except for those who actually need the full 4gb and are running 4K setups and playing insanely demanding/poorly optimized games, which is a very small percentage of people overall. In fact, if you read through the thread, most people are perfectly happy with the performance of their cards and are only upset that they were lied to on the spec sheet.
People have a right to be upset. It is false advertising no matter how you try to cut it.
p3sty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,622
c'mon mango people bought this for the " bang for the buck" which means you push it to the max .However, when you do you find out they took some shortcuts that impact us negatively Totally shady shit
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 10,292
I'm under the impression the cost will be driven back to nVidia. My statement was more aimed at people defending nVidia.
If the cost does not go back to nVidia and it's a hit against Amazon I'd have to agree with you. For me, it's about increasing nVidia's risk assessment of pulling this again and reacting the way they did. I'd hate to buy a 980ti or Titan II in the future and find out it's gimped and there's no recourse.
MelonSplitter
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,139
Now that is Freakin funny!!!! Classic
I laughed.
On topic, I go by principle and this card cannot perform to it's advertised specs. So in my opinion Nvidia falsely advertised and those that bought the cards should get partially compensated or be able to return for a full refund. If I saw a 970 on a crazy deal I would have a hard time turning it down, but I wouldn't buy this card near full price on principle alone.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,614
Gods I haven't seen that in ages....
Its true though, they'll take any cost associated with this and use it to get themselves a tax break or some other compensation.
Pretty standard practice.
It can and it does, as benchmarks have shown since time immemorial.
Dude stop lying to people...It does not perform as advertised...The 256Bit Bus? You want to tell me its performing at 224GB/s? You want to tell people that it was advertised to only have 24GB/s bandwidth in the last .5GB? I cannot believe that people think we are stupid enough to fall for this shit Stop defending them its done, stop white-knighting this company like your paycheck depends on it.
“ROPs (original) – 64
ROPs (actual) – 56
L2 cache (original) – 2MB
L2 cache (actual) – 1.75MB
Memory Bandwidth (original) – 224 GB/s for 4GB VRAM
Memory Bandwidth (actual) – 196 GB/s for 7 memory chips totalling 3.5 GB, and 28 GB/s for the remaining 512 MB 8th memory chip.”
IT CANNOT MAGICALLY PERFORM AT 224GB/s! THAT'S FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CUT AND DRY JUST ACCEPT IT!
Memory bandwidth affects performance, or do you never use AA, DSR, or any bandwidth intensive features?
“ROPs (original) – 64
ROPs (actual) – 56
L2 cache (original) – 2MB
L2 cache (actual) – 1.75MB
Memory Bandwidth (original) – 224 GB/s for 4GB VRAM
Memory Bandwidth (actual) – 196 GB/s for 7 memory chips totalling 3.5 GB, and 28 GB/s for the remaining 512 MB 8th memory chip.”
IT CANNOT MAGICALLY PERFORM AT 224GB/s! THAT'S FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CUT AND DRY JUST ACCEPT IT!
Memory bandwidth affects performance, or do you never use AA, DSR, or any bandwidth intensive features?
Last edited:
Are you claiming that if it had 64 rop and 256 bit/4GB all the time, that it wouldn't perform any better?
The card is not bottlenecked by ROP-count so having 64 wouldn't make it any better. The card's performance is limited by its number of SMMs.
The performance impact of the memory segmentation is negligible, if not practically non-existent.
If this were actually a criminal case (which it isn't of course) where the burden of proof is far higher, the prosecution would have any impossible time of proving its case on technical grounds. They could point to numbers on a spec sheet but actually providing data showing performance impact would be quite a feat.
I don't know if this is "white-knighting", but I'm just talking about the facts here. The irony is that nvidia is being hammered for lying when people here have no problem repeating the same distortions over and over again and blowing things out to a deceptive proportion. The fact is, nvidia is far closer to the truth than all the people who are running around outraged like they just had their computers stolen. It's amazing what people get themselves all spun up about these days. Here you have a great card and people are pissed because they somehow think they were robbed of some "theoretical maximum performance". Then you'll have a political class that actually is robbing them of their cash and liberties, and there's no passion left over to fight it. just smh and lol.
That little gate in the memory controller that switches the memory modules -- guess what? You're not missing out on anything.
The performance impact of the memory segmentation is negligible, if not practically non-existent.
If this were actually a criminal case (which it isn't of course) where the burden of proof is far higher, the prosecution would have any impossible time of proving its case on technical grounds. They could point to numbers on a spec sheet but actually providing data showing performance impact would be quite a feat.
I don't know if this is "white-knighting", but I'm just talking about the facts here. The irony is that nvidia is being hammered for lying when people here have no problem repeating the same distortions over and over again and blowing things out to a deceptive proportion. The fact is, nvidia is far closer to the truth than all the people who are running around outraged like they just had their computers stolen. It's amazing what people get themselves all spun up about these days. Here you have a great card and people are pissed because they somehow think they were robbed of some "theoretical maximum performance". Then you'll have a political class that actually is robbing them of their cash and liberties, and there's no passion left over to fight it. just smh and lol.
That little gate in the memory controller that switches the memory modules -- guess what? You're not missing out on anything.
Please show documentation that the card is not limited to 3.5gb vram by Nvidia. Otherwise, it is indeed falsely advertised as a 4gb vram gpu. It's that simple. Nothing else needs to be brought up. Either it can perform at a full 4gb or it can't, which it's already been shown it cannot. So unless you can show proof from the manufacturer that it indeed can perform at a full 4gb vram your statements are not credible.
It is a 4 GB card. All 4 GB are usable. The detrimental performance impact when all 4 GB are in use is practically negligible, as has been shown by benchmarks.
This is what I'm talking about with the distortions. People have managed to convince themselves that they're looking at a mountain here, when it's barely even a molehill.
Stating what?
Documentation from Nvidia showing all 4gb are usuable at all times and that it is working as intended.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue
From the article: "Over the past couple of weeks users of GeForce GTX 970 cards have noticed and started researching a problem with memory allocation in memory-heavy gaming. Essentially, gamers noticed that the GTX 970 with its 4GB of system memory was only ever accessing 3.5GB of that memory. When it did attempt to access the final 500MB of memory, performance seemed to drop dramatically. "
spaceace420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 276
pushing my 970 in shadows of mordor at 1080p ultra textures actually caused my system to run out of ram and use up the pagefile to the point it crashed with windows out of memory error. gpuz high mem usage was at 4000 when it happened and was fine until it crossed the threshold of 3600. First thing I thought was memory leak but nothing online about it anywhere. It is a real issue affecting some people and i'm pretty sure people at higher rez are hit alot worse than others (sli anyone). It was almost an hour into playing when I hit the wall during a big fight and there was no stuttering until then, no issues at all ever on high textures. I love my card but we were mislead by nvidia, the fact that people think it is a molehill leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They lied to everyone and you all think that is fine? So in your mind corporate America should be able to lie and profit from it and we should turn a blind eye to it. I am really concerned for our world and can understand why things are heading the way they seem to be.
lol
first, they didn't lie. you got a 4 gb card, and all 4 gb are usable. the performance of the segmented memory design is as it is shown in performance reviews. just the same as the other cards nvidia released in the past with segmented memory designs.
second, if windows is crashing because of out of memory issues it's not the GPU. how does that even make sense? you ran out of SYSTEM ram and are blaming the GPU? and it's nvidia that's muddying the waters here?
Would you care to reply to my post or n=1's about the obvious issue of only 3.5gb vram or .5gb vram being accessible?
The half-gigabyte segment is accessible. That's a fact. We have benchmarks to prove it. They're all over the place, including the very PCPer and AnandTech articles that were referenced.
The memory system is very much "working as intended". It was designed this way.
It seems that there is still some confusion emanating from that Nai CUDA benchmark that even the author has said was actually faulty.
I'm sorry but the articles explain how using 4gb vram is not viable. At this juncture you have not shown viable documentation stating otherwise. It is clear, the card is not a true 4gb vram and it is falsely advertised. The public has the right to be aware of this. If you do not understand this then I'm sorry for you and there is nothing left to say.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 10,292
Ugh, so sick of this thread and the same crap being regurgitated. Then I can't help myself and post too.
I'd like to know how GoldenTiger and the German's benchmarks were flawed. They showed major issues.
I also hate the benchmark statements anyways. Really, all the tech sites add up to a couple guys doing a limited amount of tests. I'd like someone to disprove the tests that show the system working the way that logically it should (stutter).
And the "designed this way" statements. That's what bothered me the most about this whole thing. This was no slight mishap between engineering and PR like nVidia spun it. That's a complete lie. This was planned wayyyyy in advance.
I'd like to know how GoldenTiger and the German's benchmarks were flawed. They showed major issues.
I also hate the benchmark statements anyways. Really, all the tech sites add up to a couple guys doing a limited amount of tests. I'd like someone to disprove the tests that show the system working the way that logically it should (stutter).
And the "designed this way" statements. That's what bothered me the most about this whole thing. This was no slight mishap between engineering and PR like nVidia spun it. That's a complete lie. This was planned wayyyyy in advance.
spaceace420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 276
Quick question, When playing a game and your system memory use jumps up to the point it has to try and use a page file that is set up for 3Gigs and you have 8 Gigs of memory what is eating up the system ram? Do you remember the old days when memory leaks in games were happening quite often? Game played perfectly until that point of getting into the last segment of memory and then began paging to the system memory and then the pagefile. Where do you think the information in the video card comes from? Is it some magical pathway the rest of the world doesn't know about or does it come from system resources. They did not disclose this design that is working as intended until these issues came up right, so lie, misinformation and miscommunication depending on which side of the fence you are on bud.