Nvidia Receives a Class Action Lawsuit over the GTX 970

<p>For the people that bought a GTX 970 know about the &&num;8220&semi;Memory Allocation&&num;8221&semi; issue&period; It has been quite disappointing to see Nvidia not caring about resolving the issue at hand&comma; but simply deflecting it instead&comma; which begs the question&colon; Does Nvidia actually care about the issue&comma; and will they help their customers by providing a solution&quest; Probably not&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Anyone that wants to find out more about the <a href&equals;"https&colon;&sol;&sol;bagogames&period;com&sol;nvidia-gtx-970-3-5gb-memory-allocation-issue&sol;" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">GTX 970 Memory Allocation<&sol;a> issue read all about it here&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>&nbsp&semi;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Nvidia couldn&&num;8217&semi;t have just recalled all of the GTX 970&&num;8217&semi;s could they&quest; Well&comma; yes and no&period; There would still be people with GTX 970&&num;8217&semi;s who like the card&comma; or people that are unaware and would still stay unaware that there was even an issue to begin with&comma; so it seems Nvidia wants to keep the GPU on the market&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Personally I think this is a huge issue for current owners&comma; future consumers&comma; and Nvidia as a whole&period; Essentially Nvidia should have stated outright that the GPU has 4GB of VRAM&comma; but 500MB of the total usable VRAM is slower than the other 3&period;5GB&period; Now if this was the case&comma; you could still see people asking why on Earth they would have 4GB and cut the performance back 500MB&period; It doesn&&num;8217&semi;t make sense&comma; and it shouldn&&num;8217&semi;t have happened in the first place&period; Why not just have a normal 4GB GPU instead of this jacked down &lpar;500MB&rpar; memory which is rendered useless in practice&quest;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>According to the <a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;pcworld&period;com&sol;article&sol;2887234&sol;nvidia-hit-with-false-advertising-suit-over-gtx-970-performance&period;html" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">PCWorld article writer<&sol;a>&comma; Nvidia claims to have responded to the Memory Allocation issue &lpar;without linking the source&rpar; with the following&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<h3><em>&&num;8220&semi;Responding to the issue last month&comma; Nvidia acknowledged that the GTX 970 uses a different memory subsystem design than its higher-end GTX 980&comma; but it said that difference has a negligible impact on performance&period;&&num;8221&semi; &&num;8211&semi; Claims PC World Writer &&num;8211&semi; James Niccolai<&sol;em><&sol;h3>&NewLine;<p>Several sources have found that the original specifications provided by Nvidia were incorrect from day one&period; More information on this topic can be found in the source section of my previous <a href&equals;"https&colon;&sol;&sol;bagogames&period;com&sol;nvidia-gtx-970-3-5gb-memory-allocation-issue&sol;" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">GTX 970 article<&sol;a>&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p><a href&equals;"https&colon;&sol;&sol;cdn&period;bagogames&period;com&sol;wp-content&sol;uploads&sol;2015&sol;02&sol;05025639&sol;970-graph&period;png"><img class&equals;"alignnone size-full wp-image-78030" src&equals;"https&colon;&sol;&sol;cdn&period;bagogames&period;com&sol;wp-content&sol;uploads&sol;2015&sol;02&sol;05025639&sol;970-graph&period;png" alt&equals;"970 graph" width&equals;"657" height&equals;"595" &sol;><&sol;a><&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Specs list by <a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;anandtech&period;com&sol;show&sol;8935&sol;geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">AnandTech<&sol;a><&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>One person decided that Nvidia&&num;8217&semi;s lack of interest in fixing or at least resolving the issue was a step too far&comma; so they sued Nvidia with a class action law-suit&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>The following is from the Class Action <a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;scribd&period;com&sol;doc&sol;256406451&sol;Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">Lawsuit documentation<&sol;a> itself&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<h3><em>&&num;8220&semi;Nature of the action<&sol;em><&sol;h3>&NewLine;<h3><em>4&period; <span class&equals;"a">This is a nationwide class action brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased <&sol;span><span class&equals;"a">graphics or video card devices incorporating the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 graphics processing units<&sol;span><span class&equals;"a">&lpar;&OpenCurlyDoubleQuote;GPU”&rpar; &lpar;hereinafter &OpenCurlyDoubleQuote;GTX 970” or &OpenCurlyDoubleQuote;GTX 970 devices”&rpar;&comma; which were sold based on the misleading representation that the GTX 970 operates with a full 4GB of VRAM at GDDR5 &lpar;not a less performant <span class&equals;"a">3&period;5 GB with a less performant and decoupled &period;5 GB spillover&rpar;&comma; 64 ROPs &lpar;as opposed to 56 ROPs&rpar;&comma; and <&sol;span><span class&equals;"a">an L2 cache capacity of 2048KB &lpar;as opposed to 1792 KB&rpar;&comma; or omitted material facts to the contrary&period;&&num;8221&semi;<&sol;span><&sol;span><&sol;em><&sol;h3>&NewLine;<h3><em>&&num;8220&semi;5&period; The Defendants engaged in a scheme to mislead consumers nationwide about the characteristics&comma; qualities and benefits of the GTX 970 by stating that the GTX 970 provides a true 4GB of VRAM&comma; 64 ROPs&comma; and 2048 KB of L2 cache capacity&comma; when in fact it does not&period; Defendants’ marketing of the GTX 970 was intended to and did create the perception among purchasers that the product was&comma; in fact&comma; able to conform with the specifications as advertised&period; This deception has already resulted in a petition of over 8&comma;100 purchasers who have requested that the FTC take action against Nvidia and asking for full refunds&period;&&num;8221&semi;<&sol;em><&sol;h3>&NewLine;<p>As an owner of a GTX 970&comma; I feel betrayed by Nvidia&comma; so I would prefer to have a full refund of the product&comma; as under <a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;accc&period;gov&period;au&sol;consumers&sol;consumer-rights-guarantees&sol;repair-replace-refund" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">Australian Consumer Law<&sol;a> if the item is not as described or performs as described&comma; the owner even without a receipt is entitled to a full refund &lpar;weird I know&rpar;&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>So I might just get one anyway&comma; but for others that do not have this loop hole in their legal retail system&comma; you may have to hold out&period; I will update this article with further information in regards to if I was actually able to get a refund at all&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>If you had the option for a refund&comma; would you take the refund or keep the GPU&quest;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Sources&colon; <a href&equals;"https&colon;&sol;&sol;bagogames&period;com&sol;nvidia-gtx-970-3-5gb-memory-allocation-issue&sol;" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">GTX 970 Memory Allocation<&sol;a>&comma;<a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;pcworld&period;com&sol;article&sol;2887234&sol;nvidia-hit-with-false-advertising-suit-over-gtx-970-performance&period;html" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">PCWorld<&sol;a>&comma; <a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;anandtech&period;com&sol;show&sol;8935&sol;geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">anandtech<&sol;a>&comma; <a href&equals;"http&colon;&sol;&sol;www&period;scribd&period;com&sol;doc&sol;256406451&sol;Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970" target&equals;"&lowbar;blank" rel&equals;"noopener noreferrer">The lawsuit<&sol;a><&sol;p>&NewLine;

Exit mobile version