Silver is talking about your postExcept tential's post was not defending Nvidia...
Reading comprehension issues?
Yeah it's quite sad to see the amount of apologists and defenders, why do you guys defend false advertisement? You are a consumer. You don't work for NV.
IIRC this was settled out of court, just like the Intel antitrust case, so they got off lightly. If this had gone to a court & decided by a jury(?) they would've had to pay tens of millions, at the very least, just in the US.Some people here seem to like getting scammed. Boggles the mind.
I feel the infraction should have been stronger, for what it's cost them nV could very well go ahead and try to pull this crap off again in the future.
Let's put it this way, the advertising of the GTX970 as a '4GB' card since 4GB was seen as being a safe amount of VRAM to have ensured its success. Had it been advertised truthfully, perhaps it might not have sold as well. nVidia took a calculated risk, and imo, it paid off. Sure they'd had to pay for the legal fees + $30 for each of those involved in the suit (does that mean ALL GTX970 owners, or just those directly involved in the suit?). Regardless, nVidia'd laughed all the way to the bank, settling this Class action suit is mere pittance to them.
Silver is talking about your post
You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues LOL
Sent from my HUAWEI MT7-L09 using Tapatalk
I own the card. I did know the relative performance bracket I was buying into as well, but the false specifications definitely had a play in my decision.
Anandtech was definitely not the best place to conduct this poll based on another poll taken here not too long ago.
Not a single poster has directly addressed anything you've recently said in this thread.Except tential's post was not defending Nvidia...
Reading comprehension issues?
If the 970 had that 64 ROP count then it would have performed in kind. Its not like nvidia took a 980, cut the shaders only, gave that to reviewers to bench, then sold a lesser performing 56 ROP 970 to the masses.
Anandtech was definitely not the best place to conduct this poll based on another poll taken here not too long ago.
Did performance decline after it was discovered that the specs were incorrect? You know, because Quantum physics says things change when they are observed and all.so you can advertize false specs just fine if you never sell or test a card with those specs!?
64ROPs (real was 56) and 2MB l2 were false (real was 1.75); memory bandwidth (real was 224bit at best, never 256) AND size were fake
it's not just the 4GB not being usable at decent speeds, and in a sense the tests mislead consumers anyway, if the tests done at launch used games that didn't hit the 3.5GB limit, and because of the advertized 4GB consumers felt safe that when that happened in the future the card would act like other 4GB cards, which is not the case.
Did performance decline after it was discovered that the specs were incorrect? You know, because Quantum physics says things change when they are observed and all.
The ONLY thing Nvidia should be held accountable for is the performance hit one gets when accessing that last 512MB of memory. And even that has been virtually iradicated via driver improvements.
You guys are just to rabid.
Romans in an ancient coliseum. Bring on the lions and such.
Did performance decline after it was discovered that the specs were incorrect? You know, because Quantum physics says things change when they are observed and all.
The ONLY thing Nvidia should be held accountable for is the performance hit one gets when accessing that last 512MB of memory. And even that has been virtually iradicated via driver improvements.
You guys are just to rabid.
Romans in an ancient coliseum. Bring on the lions and such.
Are you really going to defend nvidia lying to customers?
It's illegal, immoral, scummy, and many more things. Can't believe anyone would defend this.
Doesn't matter. They lied. It's illegal. They should be punished for it. Pretty simple. Heck, performance can INCREASE after the discovery. It still doesn't matter. They lied. Punishment is well deserved. It shouldn't be taken lightly. It's the people's job to keep these companies in check.
I will spend only one breath on you.
I would not defend a liar. But I would need proof of a lie here and not just some engineer/driverteam/marketing department error.
Thats the problem.
It could be a lie. It could be a error. We know Nvidia said it was a miscommunication in house. What can be said for those who want Nvidia hung without truly knowing what happ..... sorry. Out of breath.
So I guess you can't see a lie till it's spelled out for you, glad to know you where you stand on this.Maybe the judge was an AMD stockholder... who knows
Do you have, or know of any evidence as you suggest?.
Maybe the judge was an AMD stockholder... who knows
Do you have, or know of any evidence as you suggest?.
So I guess you can't see a lie till it's spelled out for you, glad to know you where you stand on this.