Nvidia Hit with False Advertising Suit over GTX 970 Performance

[3DVagabond]

It's not false advertising. The card has the 4GB on there. It performs great. If nobody had told people this, wouldn't everything have been fine? Who would have been hurt?

Welcome to the forums. Where ya been?

We're past that. We're talking about how the segmenting of the RAM effects performance vs the 980, which is supposed to have the same RAM specs, but they lied about the 970. We're looking for the missing ROP's and L2$ that they claimed were there but aren't. We're concerned with people who would have upgraded from a GK110 thinking they were getting an extra gig of usable RAM, but were mislead. Nobody's looking for any missing RAM. We know what happened to it.

 

[garagisti]

It's not false advertising. The card has the 4GB on there. It performs great. If nobody had told people this, wouldn't everything have been fine? Who would have been hurt?

It was people using the cards who discovered the problem. A fair few of the people on the forums, who confirmed this affecting them have spent money for 2 cards and a good high resolution screen. That's north of $1000 in each such instance.

 

[Timorous]

It's not false advertising. The card has the 4GB on there. It performs great. If nobody had told people this, wouldn't everything have been fine? Who would have been hurt?

From a UK perspective advertising can be false in cases of omission as well as cases of untrue statements. In this instance the 4GB ram is advertised in the same way on the 980 and the 970 suggesting that the setup of these memory systems is the same. This is not the case and it does cause degraded performance above a threshold that is less than 4GB. By UK, and probably EU wide, law that would be considered false advertising through omission of important information.

Is it the same in the US where this lawsuit is taking place, no idea to be honest. I would have though it would be somewhat similar though.

Arguably the ROP/L2 situation is less of an issue in this regard because that was information sent from NV to reviewers, it was not advertised to the public directly from NV. Now I do think they should be held accountable for that false information making its way to the reviewers but I am not sure that false advertising would be the way to go on that particular issue.

 

[Creig]

Arguably the ROP/L2 situation is less of an issue in this regard because that was information sent from NV to reviewers, it was not advertised to the public directly from NV. Now I do think they should be held accountable for that false information making its way to the reviewers but I am not sure that false advertising would be the way to go on that particular issue.

In the end, I think the L2 cache size and ROP count will prove to be more damning to Nvidia's defense than the 1/8 speed 500MB of memory. The Nvidia Reviewer's Guide was sent out specifically to be included in website GTX 970 articles for public consumption. Nothing in it was deemed "confidential". Any and all information contained within it was free to be included in the author's review. Therefore, the incorrect figures for the L2 cache and ROP count are textbook cases of false advertising. Nvidia listed 64 ROPs and 2MB of L2 cache. The 970 has only 56 ROPs and 1.75MB of L2 cache. That is 100% false advertising.

The segmented memory speed issue is a bit trickier. Nvidia listed total memory bandwidth at 224 GB/s, which is technically correct. But only between the VRAM and the memory controller. Due to Nvidia's decision to use a segmented memory configuration, the rest of the card is unable to access the memory at that 224 GB/s.

Not being a lawyer I am only guessing here, but I would imagine they will say that since the card does have 224 GB/s in at least one portion of the card that they were within their rights to use that number in the Reviewers Guide.

 

[Black Octagon]

In the end, I think the L2 cache size and ROP count will prove to be more damning to Nvidia's defense than the 1/8 speed 500MB of memory. The Nvidia Reviewer's Guide was sent out specifically to be included in website GTX 970 articles for public consumption. Nothing in it was deemed "confidential". Any and all information contained within it was free to be included in the author's review. Therefore, the incorrect figures for the L2 cache and ROP count are textbook cases of false advertising. Nvidia listed 64 ROPs and 2MB of L2 cache. The 970 has only 56 ROPs and 1.75MB of L2 cache. That is 100% false advertising.

The segmented memory speed issue is a bit trickier. Nvidia listed total memory bandwidth at 224 GB/s, which is technically correct. But only between the VRAM and the memory controller. Due to Nvidia's decision to use a segmented memory configuration, the rest of the card is unable to access the memory at that 224 GB/s.

Not being a lawyer I am only guessing here, but I would imagine they will say that since the card does have 224 GB/s in at least one portion of the card that they were within their rights to use that number in the Reviewers Guide.

Hmm, I follow you but I see it as the other way round. Although the Reviewers' Guide was indeed sent to review sites and was NV's responsibility, NV never directly communicated the ROP count and L2 Cache size (from that Guide) to consumers. Does information in the Guide constitute 'advertising'? Like you, I'm not a lawyer, but I would have thought that the VRAM size + memory bandwidth specs in the public domain fall easier into the category of advertising.

 

[Timorous]

In the end, I think the L2 cache size and ROP count will prove to be more damning to Nvidia's defense than the 1/8 speed 500MB of memory. The Nvidia Reviewer's Guide was sent out specifically to be included in website GTX 970 articles for public consumption. Nothing in it was deemed "confidential". Any and all information contained within it was free to be included in the author's review. Therefore, the incorrect figures for the L2 cache and ROP count are textbook cases of false advertising. Nvidia listed 64 ROPs and 2MB of L2 cache. The 970 has only 56 ROPs and 1.75MB of L2 cache. That is 100% false advertising.

The segmented memory speed issue is a bit trickier. Nvidia listed total memory bandwidth at 224 GB/s, which is technically correct. But only between the VRAM and the memory controller. Due to Nvidia's decision to use a segmented memory configuration, the rest of the card is unable to access the memory at that 224 GB/s.

Not being a lawyer I am only guessing here, but I would imagine they will say that since the card does have 224 GB/s in at least one portion of the card that they were within their rights to use that number in the Reviewers Guide.

I guess it depends on if you can consider a product review a form of advertising or not. If you can then I agree that the L2/ROP issue becomes more problematic for them as they gave the reviewers incorrect information. If you do not consider a product review a form of advertising though then you have to rely on what NV have advertised themselves and they have not advertised ROP or L2 specs.

The point with the memory is that the 970 uses a different configuration that has additional caveats over the 980 memory configuration yet it is advertised in exactly the same way leading the user to believe that it does not have any other caveats than the 980. That is false advertising because they are misleading the consumer. The spec '4GB RAM on a 256bit bus' has implied meanings and one of those is that the memory, and the bus is one contiguous whole and can be viewed as a single block with uniform performance characteristics. The 970 does not meet this, it is not a single block with uniform performance characteristics and it should be advertised in such a way to inform the consumer of this.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

NV never directly communicated the ROP count and L2 Cache size (from that Guide) to consumers.

On the contrary, those spec sheets were provided with the explicit purpose of being shown to the consumers, since they were given out to the reviewers.

 

[Black Octagon]

On the contrary, those spec sheets were provided with the explicit purpose of being shown to the consumers, since they were given out to the reviewers.

Ok, I see your logic, but does that constitute 'advertising' in a clear and unambiguous way within the meaning of Californian law? I'm not a lawyer and so am asking the question.

 

[Cloudfire777]

What might damage Nvidia`s defence is ROPs and L2 cache.

Amount of RAM and the way the bandwidth is connected together can easily be defended with software and memory management.

Plaintiff must prove that the performance is less than advertised, on paper and in real world tasks.

 

[Kenmitch]

Not sure how the outcome of the case will end.

They should not have omitted the true specs from the beginning. Incompetence isn't something usually associated with NVIDIA.

Allowing those who felt cheated returns would have been the better option both for the consumer and NVIDIA. Sure they'd take a financial loss but in the end it wouldn't make them look as bad.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Plaintiff must prove that the performance is less than advertised, on paper and in real world tasks.

If that's what Californian law requires, then someone's been doing too much medical marihuana over there.

There is no way anyone can prove that the gimped specs affected performance in any way because no specific performance was advertised. The specs were. They'd have to engineer a 970 with the correct number of ROPs, L2cache and un-partitioned memory to have a point of reference and it's not even what the case is about.

The only thing that matters here is if the real product is different from the one advertised and what constitutes advertising under Cali law. Performance has no place in this discussion.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Does information in the Guide constitute 'advertising'?

When the intention of the reviewers guide is for the info to be published by the various sites, then yes it is considered advertising. Jensen doesn't have to call you personally and give you the specs for that to be considered advertising.

 

[ronbo613]

As others have said, it's not really about the money, but more about getting answers and accountability.

It's not about the money? Lawsuit, not about money?

That's why I support this lawsuit even if I am not sure it can win.

I also like money and would gladly take some if this forces nvidia to pay.
I am hardcore like that.

Judging by the content of this thread, it appears that the "answers" are readily available and "accountability" has already been doled out.

Waiting for the monetary assessment of video gamer's mental trauma, mental anguish and negative impact upon their quality of life by not being able to play a video game at a certain anticipated personal specification.

 

[Rakehellion]

This is really awful. D: Is there a way to disable the extra memory?

 

[Atreidin]

The only thing that matters here is if the real product is different from the one advertised and what constitutes advertising under Cali law. Performance has no place in this discussion.

Yep. Expect the pro-Nvidia trolling to keep trying to change the subject and use mountains of fallacies, though, showing that they miss the point by a mile.

 

[Black Octagon]

When the intention of the reviewers guide is for the info to be published by the various sites, then yes it is considered advertising. Jensen doesn't have to call you personally and give you the specs for that to be considered advertising.

That would be my feeling too. However, I'm not a lawyer. Are you a lawyer?

 

[AnandThenMan]

I'm not. But I don't think you have to be practicing law to understand that info supplied by Nvidia with the intent of being published is expected to be true, and constitutes advertising. If that is not the correct term it hardly matters the info is used by people to make purchasing decisions. Nvidia may try to argue they are not responsible for what 3rd parties display, but that won't fly because the same info was (and still is) prominently displayed on many sites. And that info is also used by the reviewers to give a comparative which influences your buying decision.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This is really awful. D: Is there a way to disable the extra memory?

No. And there is no guarantee that nvidia will put any effort into supporting the 3.5 + .5 configuration properly in 3-4 years.

Current games are OK. 2017 games, who knows?

 

[ronbo613]

If you bought the 970 and you're not satisfied, return it and get a refund.

 

[Leon]

Let me check my crystal ball. Ah yes, there it is, the vision of the future

I see a...
* 5 year court battle, followed by "settlement"
* $2.50 settlement check (without admission of guilt)
* $10 million to lawyers

Good luck with lawsuit, fellas

 

[UaVaj]

making an ant hill into mountain. going to be a very tough climb.

ROP and L2 are not exactly public spec. not on the retail box, not on nvidia's website, not on any nvidia's ads.

vram. regardless how it is slice. 4gb of physical ram is on the board.

proving actually damage is going to be near impossible.

important question. is this lawsuit "on retainer" or "pro bono get paid when win" ???

 

[UaVaj]

If you bought the 970 and you're not satisfied, return it and get a refund.

and buy what ??

980 ?? for more $$$.

290x ?? perhaps amd could use the extra sale.

 

[AnandThenMan]

ROP and L2 are not exactly public spec. not on the retail box, not on nvidia's website, not on any nvidia's ads.

Do you consider these links private?

 

[exar333]

and buy what ??

980 ?? for more $$$.

290x ?? perhaps amd could use the extra sale.

This.

I don't want to pay an extra $200 for the 980 especially with GM200 around the corner. I also purchased a backplate and waterblock for my card that are unusable if I return the card, so I am out more money than just the 970.

Factor in my time for the card reinstall (for a sidegrade) in my loop and I don't have any great options. I will personally just suck it up and get a better card (390/x or GM200) later this year and sell this card. Not happy with NV for sure. The card works fine, but is not what it was advertised as.

 

[UaVaj]

Do you consider these links private?

those are independent reviews.

reviewers are allowed to report whatever they want. good, bad, ugly.
(including being on nvidia's under the table payroll)

not exactly concrete advertising facts.