What are you trying to say here? None of the cards you listed sans the 970 had the wrong specs as supplied by Nvidia. No one was mislead, the card you bought is the card you expected.
What are you trying to say here? None of the cards you listed sans the 970 had the wrong specs as supplied by Nvidia. No one was mislead, the card you bought is the card you expected.So are they going to sue them for the GTX 660 Ti, GTX 660, GTX 560 SE, GTX 555, GTX 460 V2 and GTX 550 Ti as well? They've been doing this with memory allocation for some time. I suppose the leg they have to stand on (in the lawsuit) is that with those cards NV gave the specs as 192 bit, so when you see it paired with 1GB or 2GB of VRAM you know its not synchronous. With the GTX 970 its advertised as 256 bit.
Grasping at straws.Using the memory configuration as an argument then you could sue AMD and nVidia over their false Advertising of their Multi-GPU single cards like TitanZ or x295:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/r9#
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-z/specifications
Neither of these cards have usable "up to 8GB" or "12GB".
Using the memory configuration as an argument then you could sue AMD and nVidia over their false Advertising of their Multi-GPU single cards like TitanZ or x295:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/r9#
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-z/specifications
Neither of these cards have usable "up to 8GB" or "12GB".
Subsequently, Plaintiff learned that this was due to the material misrepresented or undisclosed fact that the alleged 4GB GDDR5 (Graphic Double Data Rate x 5 Memory) capability of the GPU, in actuality, only uses 3.5GB at the GDDR5 operating speed, while the remaining 500MB operates 80% slower, therefore not qualifying as actual GDDR5 memory capability device.
So are they going to sue them for the GTX 660 Ti, GTX 660, GTX 560 SE, GTX 555, GTX 460 V2 and GTX 550 Ti as well? They've been doing this with memory allocation for some time. I suppose the leg they have to stand on (in the lawsuit) is that with those cards NV gave the specs as 192 bit, so when you see it paired with 1GB or 2GB of VRAM you know its not synchronous. With the GTX 970 its advertised as 256 bit.
Which was hardly anyone at all.
Ahem, you're wrong. You could actually write software to use all 8gb or 12gb, by using certain methods, as was being discussed in another thread. Sure you can complain about scaling then, but it is possible to do so. Furthermore, all the memory is there, and is not segmented. The claim that 8gb or 12gb per GPU isn't made. Here, you have 4gb which is actually 3.xgb+ygb and both running at different speeds. Quite different. Then there is the matter of missing ROP's and L2 cache.Using the memory configuration as an argument then you could sue AMD and nVidia over their false Advertising of their Multi-GPU single cards like TitanZ or x295:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/r9#
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-z/specifications
Neither of these cards have usable "up to 8GB" or "12GB".
just askingNot saying I agree or disagree but this is how the case is likely to go. Anyone with a little common sense and knowledge of the legal system will see it coming.
1. The 3.5 GB vs. 4 GB Vram has no LEGAL grounds to stand on (sure there are moral or ethical grounds but this is court). Card was marketed as a 4 GB card and has 4 GB vram on board which is fully accessible. Performance partition or not this there is nothing deceptive. Card was never marketed at 4 GB "full performance", it was marketed as 4 GB and it was assumed that, like all the other cards on the market, this vram was completely high performance. "Standard Memory Config" could imply many things; mainly that it uses a typical memory bus.
Bolded part is mine and it quite unequivocally false.
2. Provided proof contains no claims of L2 or ROP.
3. The suit claims Gigabyte is at fault and engaged in deceptive practices (no grounds for this claim).
4. One would have to prove that the L2 and ROP count were advertised. (Nvidia's lawyers will attempt here to claim that specs provided to third party review sites are not advertising). "We messed up, " they will claim, " but we never advertised those facts."
I think Nvidia is at fault here and really think they should be doing damage control or something. However, putting aside any personal feelings and looking at the case in a purely objective point of view I do think Nvidia will win should a trial be called.
It is actually deceptive because the original specs meant there was a full 4GB memory bus.1. The 3.5 GB vs. 4 GB Vram has no LEGAL grounds to stand on (sure there are moral or ethical grounds but this is court). Card was marketed as a 4 GB card and has 4 GB vram on board which is fully accessible. Performance partition or not this there is nothing deceptive.
I think Nvidia is at fault here and really think they should be doing damage control or something. However, putting aside any personal feelings and looking at the case in a purely objective point of view I do think Nvidia will win should a trial be called.
All of the chips are operating at the correct GDDR5 specifications, but they're not able to be accessed in the same way leading to a difference in overall speed.
Most cars do not hit their MPG or BHP figures as quoted in the spec.
Good luck suing you dont stand a chance.
Again, this is false. People did NOT get what they thought they were getting. This cannot be disputed.The cards perform in line with the reviews and you got what you paid for.
Using the memory configuration as an argument then you could sue AMD and nVidia over their false Advertising of their Multi-GPU single cards like TitanZ or x295:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/r9#
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan-z/specifications
Neither of these cards have usable "up to 8GB" or "12GB".
Hyundai And Kia Out $745 Million Over False MPG Claims
Again, this is false. People did NOT get what they thought they were getting. This cannot be disputed.
Wrong again, people did not get the 970 Nvidia said it was.They got a 970 GTX thats exactly what they thought they were getting and actually got. Less performance than a 980 and more than a 960.
Not true, the GPU is not as Nvidia described are you intentionally trying to ignore facts?they got 4GB of VRAM and a 970 GPU. Exactly as described and claimed.
Meaning what? Nvidia supplies specs, review sites post them and assume they are in fact correct. Nvidia is responsible for the info being true not the review sites.Nvidia doesnt have to disclose how it gets to its performance and if it chooses to share that with review sites then its the review sites that choose to post it publicly.
Every auto maker uses the same test loop scenario and gets their MPG rating from that. Hyundai did the same test then inflated the numbers and got caught, very much like Nvidia made up numbers and got caught.Grossly over stating is one thing
But every car doesnt hit their mpg and most get away with it forever.
But every car doesnt hit their mpg and most get away with it forever.
So are they going to sue them for the GTX 660 Ti, GTX 660, GTX 560 SE, GTX 555, GTX 460 V2 and GTX 550 Ti as well? They've been doing this with memory allocation for some time. I suppose the leg they have to stand on (in the lawsuit) is that with those cards NV gave the specs as 192 bit, so when you see it paired with 1GB or 2GB of VRAM you know its not synchronous. With the GTX 970 its advertised as 256 bit.
People bought the card with the full expectation it would be exactly as stated. There are still numerous review sites that have the incorrect specs listed, so to this day people are being mislead into buying hardware that is not as specified. You'd think if Nvidia gave a toss they'd make some effort to correct this.The ROP count stays at a whopping 64, with a 256-bit memory bus width and a standard memory total of 4 GB.
The fact that they've been doing this for a long time goes against their explanation that the specs are a mix up, a confusion between the departments. They've got plenty of experience regarding how to handle odd specs. Here, all points lie to a deliberate marketing lie. Their release drivers were fully aware of the segmentation as it attempted to keep many games below the 3.5gb mark to avoid nasty performance issues. The driver team was obviously well aware of the plan for them to optimize it as such.
This situation reeks of NV management showing a complete disrespect and disdain for their loyal consumers. They are so arrogant they believe blatant false advertisement is not a major issue.
This small suit in LA is a minor thing. If I were in NV management, I would be very worried about a major investigation & suit by the EU commission. They are very tough on consumer protection laws over there.
Nvidia offered a refund didnt they?