Jump to content


Photo

GTX 970 Lawsuit


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 gamble

gamble

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,343 posts

Posted 30 July 2016 - 02:23 AM

Looks like $30US might be available for those that purchased a GTX 970:

 

https://topclassacti...g-class-action/


HAF 912 | Biostar x370GT7 | 1700x @ 4ghz | PowerColor RX 56 (RX 64 Bios) @ 1600c/945mhz | EVGA RAM @ 2933mhz  | EK Watercooled CPU | EVGA G2 1300W 


#2 mohawk

mohawk

    Champion

  • Atomican
  • 4,806 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 30 July 2016 - 07:57 AM

At the moment it is only the US as they are the only ones that filed a lawsuit against them. If the rest of the world get it we will have to wait and see.

 

Also it really was a who ha over nothing. I bought a 970 just after release and have never had a single performance problem with it. It is a bloody good perfroming card.

 

It has 4GB of memory whether or not it is partitioned and whether some of it runs at a slower speed or not. It is still 4GB in total which was what was advertised.

 

Funny how there are not massed lawsuits against hard drive manufacturers in the US over the advertised size on all HDD's and the actual size once installed. Food for thought!


Atomic's Most Recommended Psu's Thread. http://forums.atomic...p?showtopic=266

#3 Dasa

Dasa

    Guru

  • Super Hero
  • 14,833 posts

Posted 30 July 2016 - 09:32 AM

they lied about the cards specs

3.5g ram isnt a huge drop from 4g but it does make a difference when you find a game that needs it

this is something that wouldnt show up in early release reviews as games were using under 2g but something that will become a bigger problem in the future

 

they also said it has 64 rop and 2m l2 cache when it only has 56 rop and 1.75m l2 cache

this wont change the performance it has in reviews

now some nvidia fans may still argue that there still there since its a gtx980 just disabled... so i guess it depends on the color of your glasses

 

its a good card but they should still get stung for what they did

 

hdd size is annoying especially with larger drives but i guess its accepted as its the way its always been and its less of a lie than nvidia did with the 970

more of a different method of calculation

although when i look into it more it turns out they were sued for this in the past

 

Hard drive manufacturers are using the accurate description of the terms–the prefix giga, for instance, means a power of 1000, whereas the correct term for powers of 1024 is gibibyte, though it isn’t often used. Unfortunately, Windows has always calculated hard drives as powers of 1024 while hard drive manufacturers use powers of 1000.

so basically windows needs a update to be more compatible with metric measurements?


Edited by Dasa, 30 July 2016 - 09:45 AM.

Silverstone TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2100\9600MHz  -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme  - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
Parts Guide


#4 mohawk

mohawk

    Champion

  • Atomican
  • 4,806 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 30 July 2016 - 04:33 PM

they lied about the cards specs

3.5g ram isnt a huge drop from 4g but it does make a difference when you find a game that needs it

this is something that wouldnt show up in early release reviews as games were using under 2g but something that will become a bigger problem in the future

 

they also said it has 64 rop and 2m l2 cache when it only has 56 rop and 1.75m l2 cache

this wont change the performance it has in reviews

now some nvidia fans may still argue that there still there since its a gtx980 just disabled... so i guess it depends on the color of your glasses

 

its a good card but they should still get stung for what they did

 

hdd size is annoying especially with larger drives but i guess its accepted as its the way its always been and its less of a lie than nvidia did with the 970

more of a different method of calculation

although when i look into it more it turns out they were sued for this in the past

 

Hard drive manufacturers are using the accurate description of the terms–the prefix giga, for instance, means a power of 1000, whereas the correct term for powers of 1024 is gibibyte, though it isn’t often used. Unfortunately, Windows has always calculated hard drives as powers of 1024 while hard drive manufacturers use powers of 1000.

so basically windows needs a update to be more compatible with metric measurements?

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.

It has 4GB of physical ram on board the card simple as that however, they did not initially explain how it actually worked and that is were the confusion lies.

As to the other specs, the majority of people did not even notice that at all as they were so focused on the amount of ram that it pretty much got left to the wayside.


As to the HDD size issue, I'm sorry but if RAM manufacturers can build their products using the binary definition of Gigabytes then so should HDD manufacturers too!


Atomic's Most Recommended Psu's Thread. http://forums.atomic...p?showtopic=266

#5 Dasa

Dasa

    Guru

  • Super Hero
  • 14,833 posts

Posted 31 July 2016 - 08:05 AM

 

they lied about the cards specs

 

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.
 

i never said they did i said they lied about the specs and they did

but it was the first card ever released that only really had less useful\usable ram than advertised which is what made everyone so angry while that part wasnt a straight out lie it is very misleading


Edited by Dasa, 31 July 2016 - 08:47 AM.

Silverstone TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2100\9600MHz  -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme  - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
Parts Guide


#6 mohawk

mohawk

    Champion

  • Atomican
  • 4,806 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 31 July 2016 - 10:01 AM

 

 

they lied about the cards specs

 

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.
 

i never said they did i said they lied about the specs and they did

but it was the first card ever released that only really had less useful\usable ram than advertised which is what made everyone so angry while that part wasnt a straight out lie it is very misleading

 

 

I was going to write a big reply but then realised that it doesn't matter and I would just be wasting my time and energy on something that I believe was a non-issue since I have been living with a GTX 970 just after release and have never had a single problem with it in any repects.


Atomic's Most Recommended Psu's Thread. http://forums.atomic...p?showtopic=266

#7 Dasa

Dasa

    Guru

  • Super Hero
  • 14,833 posts

Posted 31 July 2016 - 10:04 AM

never said there was anything wrong with it ether it was a good value efficient card even without the extra vram its still a good 1080p card

just shoddy marketing

 

even 2g cards like the gtx960 dont suffer much of performance hit in most current games at 1080p due to a lack of vram

 

its those that purchased two cards for 2560x1600-4k that were getting trouble in a few current games due to a lack of vram where 4g would have been borderline

people who keep there 970 for a while will need to turn down texture detail sooner as new games come out than they would have if they really had full use of the 4g vram


Edited by Dasa, 31 July 2016 - 10:18 AM.

Silverstone TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2100\9600MHz  -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme  - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
Parts Guide


#8 gamble

gamble

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,343 posts

Posted 31 July 2016 - 02:28 PM

Yea in Division, once I hit over 3.6g it was stuttering with my 970.  That seems to be the only game I saw issue with it.  All in all though was a good card and ran cool.  But, wouldnt mind some extra $ from nvidia.  


HAF 912 | Biostar x370GT7 | 1700x @ 4ghz | PowerColor RX 56 (RX 64 Bios) @ 1600c/945mhz | EVGA RAM @ 2933mhz  | EK Watercooled CPU | EVGA G2 1300W 


#9 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,066 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 01 August 2016 - 09:06 AM

 

 

they lied about the cards specs

 

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.
 

i never said they did i said they lied about the specs and they did

but it was the first card ever released that only really had less useful\usable ram than advertised which is what made everyone so angry while that part wasnt a straight out lie it is very misleading

 

 

The ram wasnt onw of those lies though AFAIK.

 

All 4 GB was addressable, just the last 0.5GB was incredibly slow. IIRC


Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#10 Dasa

Dasa

    Guru

  • Super Hero
  • 14,833 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 10:13 AM

current spec says 4GB 224GB/sec but the last 500m is ~1/7th of the speed you dont find that misleading? as the last 500m is virtually useless at that speed its not much different to making use of system ram over the pci-e interface

 

say for example a new 8g card (gtx1070) only really had 4g of fast ram and 4g of really slow ram but the spec didnt mention this

it would also perform fine in all current 1080p benchmarks as most current games dont need 4gb even at 4k

would you consider this to be ok?


Edited by Dasa, 01 August 2016 - 10:23 AM.

Silverstone TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2100\9600MHz  -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme  - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
Parts Guide


#11 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,066 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 01 August 2016 - 11:02 AM

current spec says 4GB 224GB/sec but the last 500m is ~1/7th of the speed you dont find that misleading? as the last 500m is virtually useless at that speed its not much different to making use of system ram over the pci-e interface

 

say for example a new 8g card (gtx1070) only really had 4g of fast ram and 4g of really slow ram but the spec didnt mention this

it would also perform fine in all current 1080p benchmarks as most current games dont need 4gb even at 4k

would you consider this to be ok?

 

Would I be annoyed about it if I purchased one SPECIFICALLY for that reason? Probably.

Would I consider it a lie? Most likely not. Because it exists.

It'd be like me being pissed off that 16GB tablets only have about 6GB of usable space (OS, apps, etc).

 

I'm one of those minds who would like to know the EXACT specifications, regardless.

 

For example, I was annoyed my KOBO e-book was labeled as a "1GB" model, with a 4GB SD card on the mainboard.

a quick resize in gParted, and it was suddenly a 4GB storage. Just fucking tell me "4GB storage, 1GB accessible" so I know what i've got to tweak with.

 

So, annoyed? Sure.

Angry? Probably not. The ram exists.


Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#12 Dasa

Dasa

    Guru

  • Super Hero
  • 14,833 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 11:04 AM

it says the amount of ram and it says the speed of the ram if only some of the ram is that speed i consider that a lie

it doesnt say max speed or mention the lower speed

say they take it further only 512m of high speed ram and 7500m of slow at what point does it become a lie


Silverstone TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2100\9600MHz  -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme  - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
Parts Guide


#13 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,066 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 01 August 2016 - 11:08 AM

it says the amount of ram and it says the speed of the ram if only some of the ram is that speed i consider that a lie

it doesnt say max speed or mention the lower speed

say they take it further only 512m of high speed ram and 7500m of slow at what point does it become a lie

 

Ah right. I was under the impression the ram speed was a rating of the IC, not the throughput.

 

If its labeling real world throughput, not technical specs of the IC used, then ok, yes, I'd be annoyed, because its inaccurate then.


Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#14 SquallStrife

SquallStrife

    Really knows where his towel is

  • Atomican
  • 17,937 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 04:39 PM

For example, I was annoyed my KOBO e-book was labeled as a "1GB" model, with a 4GB SD card on the mainboard.

a quick resize in gParted, and it was suddenly a 4GB storage. Just fucking tell me "4GB storage, 1GB accessible" so I know what i've got to tweak with.

Errrrrr.... think about that for a nanosecond.


SyDjDDk.png [retro swim] | AzpUvwG.png @retroswimau | q5O6HgO.png +RetroSwim
四時半を待っています!

#15 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,066 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 01 August 2016 - 04:48 PM

 

For example, I was annoyed my KOBO e-book was labeled as a "1GB" model, with a 4GB SD card on the mainboard.

a quick resize in gParted, and it was suddenly a 4GB storage. Just fucking tell me "4GB storage, 1GB accessible" so I know what i've got to tweak with.

Errrrrr.... think about that for a nanosecond.

 

 

I understand in this instance i got MORE than I paid for, but the point remains.

 

"1GB accessible memory (storage)" would have been my preferred advertisement, with the technical whitesheet showing a 4GB MicroSD glued to the mainboard.

But it took us users to pop the bastards open to realize that's how it is.

 

TECHNICAL specifications are meant to be correct (technically!) lol

unless that's not your point....

 

 

in the case of this GPU, it TECHNICALLY has 4GB of ram, and you can use it all too! it's just slow.


Edited by Master_Scythe, 01 August 2016 - 04:50 PM.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#16 SquallStrife

SquallStrife

    Really knows where his towel is

  • Atomican
  • 17,937 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 05:28 PM

I understand in this instance i got MORE than I paid for, but the point remains.

 

"1GB accessible memory (storage)" would have been my preferred advertisement, with the technical whitesheet showing a 4GB MicroSD glued to the mainboard.

But it took us users to pop the bastards open to realize that's how it is.

 

TECHNICAL specifications are meant to be correct (technically!) lol

unless that's not your point....

 

It's a question of what the vendor is offering. Kobo is offering a device that can store 1GB. They don't say "contains a 1GB flash RAM chip".

 

They'll have their reasons for using a 4GB chip, it most likely relates to supply availability, but in the configuration the device is offered in, out of the box, it holds 1GB of data.

 

Release the mentality that Kobo is selling you "a device with some software on it", they're selling you a whole product. That product's specification is that it holds 1GB. That's really all there is to it.

 

Heck, for all you know, there may be batches sold with faulty 4GB cards, which have a working lower 1GB, like Sinclair did back in the day with the DRAM chips.


SyDjDDk.png [retro swim] | AzpUvwG.png @retroswimau | q5O6HgO.png +RetroSwim
四時半を待っています!

#17 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,066 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:01 AM

 

I understand in this instance i got MORE than I paid for, but the point remains.

 

"1GB accessible memory (storage)" would have been my preferred advertisement, with the technical whitesheet showing a 4GB MicroSD glued to the mainboard.

But it took us users to pop the bastards open to realize that's how it is.

 

TECHNICAL specifications are meant to be correct (technically!) lol

unless that's not your point....

 

It's a question of what the vendor is offering. Kobo is offering a device that can store 1GB. They don't say "contains a 1GB flash RAM chip".

 

They'll have their reasons for using a 4GB chip, it most likely relates to supply availability, but in the configuration the device is offered in, out of the box, it holds 1GB of data.

 

Release the mentality that Kobo is selling you "a device with some software on it", they're selling you a whole product. That product's specification is that it holds 1GB. That's really all there is to it.

 

Heck, for all you know, there may be batches sold with faulty 4GB cards, which have a working lower 1GB, like Sinclair did back in the day with the DRAM chips.

 

 

Correct. I'd still like to see it on the TECH SPECS, they're for the nerds who ant to know whats in it; but regardless.

I agree with the mixed feelings a lot of reporters are showing.

 

They advertised the card had 4GB of ram. It does. Its usable. They physically soldered it on. I can go and pull 4GB of ram off those cards.

I'm also under the impression the ratings are for the speed of the IC's, a theoretical max, not a guarantee of what speed it will run at. (am I wrong?)

 

Don't misunderstand, I know if you bought it BECAUSE "It has 4GB of ram the runs at speed XYZ" you'd be irked, because the last .5GB is slow.

 

Its purely the technical side that stops me backing 'the people'.

We don't go suing every  motherboard manufacturer when we find their chipset is slower than the next brand. That's what benchmarking is for.

We don't sue every HDD manufacturer when we find out their drives have 'quirks' (GREEN drives and RAID anyone?) that's what independent testing was for.

We even have times when you see "CL9" rated ram, only to find out it only runs that fast at 2T, but we don't sue them. We just buy another brand.

 

There's a billion and one IT components that are "bad at what they do" but still technically exactly what they advertise.

Hell, you're into RETRO gear even more so than I am; having quirks or workarounds for bad hardware is the norm, not the exception :P

 

We don't go suing every product manufacturer, we test them, find whats good and bad, and buy (or don't) accordingly.

 

Just this time the early adopters got stung before there was decent "4gb testing" complete..

at least that's how I see it.


Edited by Master_Scythe, 02 August 2016 - 09:04 AM.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#18 SquallStrife

SquallStrife

    Really knows where his towel is

  • Atomican
  • 17,937 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 09:25 AM

Correct. I'd still like to see it on the TECH SPECS, they're for the nerds who ant to know whats in it; but regardless.

 

As I said, they're not selling you a tablet device, they're selling you a book reader product.

 

The "tech specs" of the book reader product, as delivered, is 1GB.

 

If you want to tear the product down to its parts, and concern yourself with the tablet device that makes part of the e-reader product, then you've gone beyond what the vendor sold you, and that's really none of their concern.


SyDjDDk.png [retro swim] | AzpUvwG.png @retroswimau | q5O6HgO.png +RetroSwim
四時半を待っています!

#19 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,066 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 02 August 2016 - 10:26 AM

 

Correct. I'd still like to see it on the TECH SPECS, they're for the nerds who ant to know whats in it; but regardless.

 

As I said, they're not selling you a tablet device, they're selling you a book reader product.

 

The "tech specs" of the book reader product, as delivered, is 1GB.

 

If you want to tear the product down to its parts, and concern yourself with the tablet device that makes part of the e-reader product, then you've gone beyond what the vendor sold you, and that's really none of their concern.

 

 

We just disagree on the meaning of "technical".

 

Take the usual car analogy;

I'd be much more accepting of "Technically, this engine can handle 250KW, but the turbo is too small"

Rather than "Technically this engine can handle 150KW, because the turbo limits it"

 

I can dig deeper into the second comment and still get my information sure, but I prefer it to be presented in black and white.

Call and apple and apple. Not "fruit".

While both technically correct, it's just how we interpret 'technical' that we're caught on.


Edited by Master_Scythe, 02 August 2016 - 10:34 AM.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#20 SquallStrife

SquallStrife

    Really knows where his towel is

  • Atomican
  • 17,937 posts

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:29 AM

We just disagree on the meaning of "technical".


I don't think so. I just think you're yearning for an unreasonable degree of candour.
 

Take the usual car analogy;
I'd be much more accepting of "Technically, this engine can handle 250KW, but the turbo is too small"
Rather than "Technically this engine can handle 150KW, because the turbo limits it"

 
Here again you're conflating the specifications of a part with the specifications of the product. The product of engine+turbo can deliver 150KW. Period. If you change the turbo, then it's no longer that product, and all bets are off.

 

You may know, through your "car knowledge lens", that the engine and the turbo are separate, and can be swapped/changed for performance benefits, but that's irrelevant if the engine+turbo are being sold to you as a unit. For anything sold as a unit, the technical specs given are those of the unit, not of the parts that make it up.

You don't buy a fridge and expect the make/model/configuration of the compressor to be spelled out.

 

Could you imagine the can of worms if suddenly vendors were able to mince "as-configured" specifications with what the end user could potentially modify it to do?
 
If you want to dig deeper and find out what some subset of your widget is "truly" capable of, that's your prerogative. But when you start asking vendors to disclose what their products (or parts of their products) "may/should be capable of with modification", you're opening a major can of worms. How deep do you go?


Edit: What we disagree on, it appears, is in what context it's appropriate to consider a product as merely a collection of parts.


Edited by SquallStrife, 02 August 2016 - 11:36 AM.

SyDjDDk.png [retro swim] | AzpUvwG.png @retroswimau | q5O6HgO.png +RetroSwim
四時半を待っています!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users