Nvidia settles GeForce GTX 970 memory scandal in the USA
Click here to post a comment for Nvidia settles GeForce GTX 970 memory scandal in the USA on our message forum
TheDeeGee
Still people write that only 3,5 GB is useable which is not true... but i get the whole point.
sverek
Something tells me I never gonna get those $30...
Undying
So, how much are they gonna pay for disabling async compute on Maxwell cards via driver but adverting as "next gen api ready"?
Isnt that the same false advertising?
sverek
depends on what you mean by "next gen" 🤓
Its much easier to dodge bullet with abstract promotion.
pharma
I guess "overclocker's dream" may be next!
Edit: While not quite the same thing it's easy to see how advertising false claims may come back to bite you.
airbud7
Wow...$30 to those involved in the suit/ $1.3 million to the attorney...
why do I get the feeling the attorney bought a 970 just so he/she could start this $1.3 million payday?
vase
1.3 million and a certain amount of users times 30$... thats peanuts compared to the revenue they made out of selling the cards as 4GB cards... so basically its calculated.
sverek
It gonna be less than 1%, I guarantee it.
GeniusPr0
It's a technicality, going over has resulted in hitching for some games
airbud7
I would bet the "certain amount of users" #is very low....
1.3 million duck bones for the lawyer...who came out on top? 🤓
mikeysg
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.
Lane
You can use both 3.5Gb + the last 512 MB for gaming ? Damn you are reay good as it is seems even Nvidia is not abe to do it.
fantaskarsef
Depends on if you jumped on the bandwagon all these months ago 😉
Dude... no it isn't. 'Ready' never means the same as 'fully supporting', for instance, and 'next gen api' doesn't even hold any clear point that one could sue about.
Spets
This topic was beaten to death. You can use the full 4GB, the 512MB was at a slower rate.
Looks like the lawyer made a quick buck and even though the payout isn't much for Nvidia, I doubt they'd make the same mistake again after the fiasco.
Settling is always better than going through court so it's nice to see they came to an agreement.
Lane
So slow that unable to be used, and was disabled from the start by Nvidia ( better to have 3.5GB of normal GDDR5 than 3,2 + 712mb of slow ram, because if you wanted to enable the last cache and memory controller of 32b, you had obtain, not even a 3,5GB GDDR pool, but only 3.28GB of full speed GDDR )
Yes it have beaten to death... again and again.... and again and again we see the same bs about it. I personally dont care about it..
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-970/specifications
Spets
Except it is able to be used. G3D, PcPer and others have shown you can use more than 3.5GB, they've shown screenshots of using 4GB. Slow doesn't mean disabled.
sverek
Software shows what GPU API provides.
GPU can show 4GB and "virtually" utilize it, while on physical side its really 3.28GB with swapping happening behind it.
The only way to tell is by lurking into drivers, GPU bios or whatever lowest level access to hardware there is.
edit: a word.
Noisiv
It wouldn't surprise me if the court had referenced G3D forum discussions when deciding the case 🙂
What Nvidia did was bad, both pre and post 3.5GB revelation. But it wasn't something earthshattering, the performance was there, and it has been accurately measured. And the settlement reflects this.
MrBonk
These class actions are pointless. The only real winners here are the lawyers on the winning side. They will no doubt get millions.
Denial
The point is that it's a penalty to the company so they don't do again in the future. Not for people who bought the card to get paid.
