Should comsumers file a world class-action law suit against Nividia's Falsifying GTX970 Specifications???

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scibbo

Honorable
Nov 6, 2013
173
0
10,710
Being one of many people world wide that purchased a gtx 970, after hearing the latest new regarding the gpu's false specifications make me believe I did not get what I agreed on purchasing.

Upon purchasing my gtx970 I was under the impression that it was a 4gb card not 3.5, ROPs were 64 not 56 and memory bandwith was actually 224 GB/s not 224 GB/s aggregate...

I know in Australia, consumer laws deems this product to be recalled or marked as defective and sold much cheaper then its current retail value. ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) would deem this a crime to consumers and would be sued for false marketing and false information regarding the product.

Is this an major issue and should we be seeing a major class-action law suit against Nividia???

Im interested in hearing other peoples thoughts are around the world regarding the gtx 970 and the thoughts of people that have purchased the gpu not getting what they actually paid for.

Cheers
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
g-unit1111

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
Jul 27, 2011
42,704
853
104,940
I just got my GTX 970 installed and my CPU-Z shows all 4 GB installed and accounted for:

cpuz_1.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Scibbo

Honorable
Nov 6, 2013
173
0
10,710




I agree to a extent regarding the gtx 970 but it does not help with others that have already purchased the gpu's.under false specifications and advertisement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest
Do your games run slower than advertised? Nope. Is your computer broken now? Nope. So there was a miscommunication between the engineers and marketing. It happens. It's sure not like the wonderous fun that was the P67 recall.The 970 is still the best card for the money if you don't want a space heater in your case. If you don't like it then sell it and buy an AMD card. I didn't see any talk of class action lawsuits when literally every single reference R9 290 and 290X looked like it was assembled by blind people with heavy machinery not to mention the thermal throttling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AnonymousONIagent

AnonymousONIagent

Reputable
Jan 26, 2015
85
0
4,660
Personally, I don't feel cheated. My purchase decision was made after I spent a number of days searching through benchmark after benchmark from source after source for hours at a time. I did not once take specifications into account. I was aware of them, but they had virtually no impact upon my decision.

Since the benchmarks we've seen are all still valid, and only specifications have changed, I still feel that I bought exactly what I thought I was buying: a card that could run what I wanted at maxed out settings in 1080p at high frame rates and have performance to spare.

Now, of course I'm not representative of the entirety of people who bought GTX 970s, and some people didn't get what they thought they were getting, and are rightfully angry. But I'm not one of them.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
leeb2013

leeb2013

Honorable
Aug 5, 2013
1,966
0
12,460


they didn't advertise how fast games would run. Whether his computer is broken is irrelevant to this argument. Nvidia's internal reasons for falsely advertising the specs are irrelevant. The fact that it's best value currently is irrelevant. He shouldn't have to sell it at a loss just because Nvidia falsely advertised the specs. AMD didn't advertise that their R9 would not thermal throttle.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
J

Jay Stew

Reputable
Jun 17, 2014
208
0
4,690
The 70s series has been for about a decade the 2nd tier in performance under the 80s, as I said I will be hopefully upgrading a 9800GTX+ which was upgraded from a 9600GT. The 60s series is the budget level, the 70s is the performance level and the 80s is simply in the first generation an unnecessary expenditure in my opinion. Not as much overclocking room as the 70s level, about 40% more pricey for 10-15% more performance. As the case has been made, if you are unhappy with the performance of the 70s you can add a 2nd one in SLI for only about $100 more than a 80s level card and blow away the performance of either individual card.

As to false advertising. You have 4GB of ram on the card, if some of the RAM at the very edge doesn't run as fast as the rest of it, you'd have to show exactly where that impacts real world performance. So far I haven't seen that proved at all. I also doubt Nvidia ever intended to falsely list specs on the card. What is true is this card is a top performer and remains so regardless of the spec clarification. If you really are still unhappy call Nvidia up and see about exchanging it for a 60 or 80 series card. OR STFU!

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

scrote

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
20
0
18,520


The 970 is a useless pos for some people. There are threads running all over the place, for some time now (well and truly prior to Nvida's "announcement"), trying to understand why the 970 was struggling to perform under certain conditions. Now the reason has come to light.

Not to mention, with 1440p and 4k gaming becoming more and more prevalent, the 970 looks less and less like a value proposition with it's gimped memory sub-system.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
1

11sphere92

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2014
918
0
19,510
Well i know the reason why u kinda do this.. Because u felt they say its 4gb but actually its 3,5gb right?

Anyway the ain't wrong about the Memory bandwidth because it was PRIMARY 3,5gb and SECONDARY 512mb so total still 4gb (Even there are a problem) also the ROP are the one that they made the wrong info and etc.

Well this is their fault, but yet we cannot do anything. And maybe a great thing they can do is, do the refund :p (Which won't happen i think)

FYI : I'm a GTX 970 User and kinda dissapointed, since i was going to SLI those and get a 4k Monitor..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest
The 970 is a useless pos for some people.
Click to expand...

Troll much? Also who the hell expects to game at 4K with a midgrade GPU? If not for the 20nm debacle we would have big Maxwell vs whatever AMD can come up with by now anyway. The strengths and weaknesses of Nvidia and AMD didn't change with Maxwell. AMD has done better at higher resolutions for quite a while now. And literally nothing has changed from release but some numbers on paper.

And I don't think 8 posts in 5 years make you any sort of judge as to what the mods on this site are like.


they didn't advertise how fast games would run. Whether his computer is broken is irrelevant to this argument. Nvidia's internal reasons for falsely advertising the specs are irrelevant. The fact that it's best value currently is irrelevant. He shouldn't have to sell it at a loss just because Nvidia falsely advertised the specs. AMD didn't advertise that their R9 would not thermal throttle.
Click to expand...

True. So maybe people sue. And after 6 or 8 years languishing in court and costing Nvidia hundreds of millions in court costs if nothing else you might get a fat check for $10 or $15 bucks while the lawyers get the rest. Then what? Nvidia has to skip a generation of cards to pay all the people butthurt over semantics enough for a fast food burger? Oh fun, a new 450w card from AMD and 1000w power supplies for all!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

scrote

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
20
0
18,520


These cards, based on initial specs, were clearly a winner in SLI. However, issues have been cropping up for some people that can very well be attributed to the memory-subsystem on the GTX 970.

The vram allocation issue also crops up at 1440p.

I know it's not the end of the world, nor is it an issue for all every GTX 970 owner, but to blithely state that unhappy people should sell their card(s) is a pretty bs response, and you know it.

Also, I fail to see how failures in other manufacturers (your AMD examples) have any real relevance to the situation. If people have an issue with AMD, they can take it up with them. Here, we're talking about Nvidia.

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but I imagine there is some people who have been scratching their heads for quite awhile over weird performance issues with their 970's that have gotten pretty pissed off the last few days.

And I don't think 8 posts in 5 years make you any sort of judge as to what the mods on this site are like.
Click to expand...

That's not an argument. The number of posts that I have has no bearing on the your posting style. Regardless, I'd rather keep on topic, my apologies for the attack, it was pointless.

they didn't advertise how fast games would run. Whether his computer is broken is irrelevant to this argument. Nvidia's internal reasons for falsely advertising the specs are irrelevant. The fact that it's best value currently is irrelevant. He shouldn't have to sell it at a loss just because Nvidia falsely advertised the specs. AMD didn't advertise that their R9 would not thermal throttle.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really expects it to go there. C'mon, hyperbole much?

The real complaint is of Nvidia misrepresenting their product. People paid for one thing and got another. That can be dealt with long before the courts.

A more likely scenario (imho) is that local/state/federal consumer protection agencies start receiving complaints regarding retailers unwillingness to refund for falsely advertised products. Hand-in-hand with that will be Nvidia's role in the misleading marketing campaign.

End of the day, I just feel that Nivida's response so far (from I have seen around on various forums) is...insufficient.

In answer to the OP though, I think class-action pretty unlikely to happen.

Go through the consumer protection channels in your country, and deal with any complaints that way, would be my suggestion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

scrote

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
20
0
18,520
http://truepcgaming.com/2015/01/27/nvidia-should-honor-gtx-970-refund-requests/

There's a well written response to the situation that sums it up much better than I did.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Mousemonkey

Mousemonkey

Titan
Sep 3, 2006
59,462
17
92,965

What!! Why only one? And why isn't it folding?


Two of them in SLi @ 57 x 1080 is disappointing but that may be due to the games I have tried not running @ 57 x 1080 in SLi, in Surround mode however Crysis 3 and FC4 run really well using both cards. Alas that is something you're going to miss out on. :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AnonymousONIagent

AnonymousONIagent

Reputable
Jan 26, 2015
85
0
4,660

AMD's no better. They advertise the R9 295X2 as an 8GB card, yet because it's a dual GPU card it can only technically use 4GB. This likely because AMD saw Nvidia getting away with the exact same thing with the Titan Z, a card advertised with 12GB VRAM, but only behaves like it only has 6GB.

For all we know, AMD could've been planning to pull their own 970 so to speak with the R9 3XX cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
1

11sphere92

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2014
918
0
19,510
Two of them in SLi @ 57 x 1080 is disappointing but that may be due to the games I have tried not running @ 57 x 1080 in SLi, in Surround mode however Crysis 3 and FC4 run really well using both cards. Alas that is something you're going to miss out on. :(

So what should i do mate? Do you think i need to get GTX 980 / AMD Radeon R9 290X to get 4k Monitor? was thinking to have one 4k monitor.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Onus

Onus

Titan
Jan 27, 2006
37,036
12
89,965
As much as I've roundly condemned Willful Wrongdoing, I'm finding it difficult to even get angry at nVidia about this one. It does indeed look more like a mistake than an attempt to dupe people; after all benchmarks would have immediately exposed any real issue. Yes, there are particular cases, and you can watch them on YouTube, but they are far from general. Is it a[nother] nVidia gimp? Absolutely. Was it nefarious? I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

Guest

Guest


You did get a 4GB NVidia GTX970. The RAM is simply configured differently than you where aware of, but its all there. So, who is making false claims now?

And as regards any lawsuit, should there be one? NO!

Unless one can prove intent to deceive by NVidia and the performance of the graphics card is LESS than advertised, which it is NOT, then there is no good case for a lawsuit. All the RAM is there - it's just not used as a GTX980 because it's NOT a GTX980. If folks want GTX980 performance and all RAM used in a complete block, buy a GTX980 and pay several hundred dollars more.

Also, one should consider another point: Why would NVidia make any attempt to deceive when computer technology is so thoroughly reviewed by so many tech sites that the information would come to light anyway (as it did). NVidia had NOTHING to gain here. Nothing.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Onus

Onus

Titan
Jan 27, 2006
37,036
12
89,965
Given that it was a "mistake" vs. "willful wrongdoing" still does not exempt nVidia from making consumers whole. I think there are still a majority of buyers (such as myself) who are unlikely to ever see a problem, and too many of them are quick to jump on the "I've been screwed!" bandwagon, even though they have not had a problem and are not likely to have one. These are the ones who need to take a chill-pill and settle down. Okay nVidia, it's on you to do right by those who truly are experiencing problems.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom