• Nvidia Settles Graphics Card False Advertising Class Action
    44 replies, posted
[quote]Nvidia says it will pay each buyer of the graphics card $30 and will pay an additional $1.3 million in attorneys’ fees, according to settlement documents.[/quote] [url]https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/340705-nvidia-settles-graphics-card-false-advertising-class-action/[/url]
Free $30, nice Watch this be US only or some shit
Where can I claim my 30 dollars?
Both lawsuits were california based, so probably US only.
That was pretty fast as far as these things go
Should've been $30.5
You'll get $30, but only $26.25 will be usable in any practical scenario. [sp]The 970 is a great card, btw. Only ever ran into issues in situations the card wasn't designed to handle.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Cock Boner;50790493]You'll get $30, but only $26.25 will be usable in any practical scenario. [sp]The 970 is a great card, btw. Only ever ran into issues in situations the card wasn't designed to handle.[/sp][/QUOTE] What sort of issues?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50790494]What sort of issues?[/QUOTE] anything that needs more than 3.5GB of VRAM.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50790494]What sort of issues?[/QUOTE] Its' advertised as a 4 GB VRAM card but it only manages to use up to 3.5 GBs.
The issues were if you went over 3.5gb VRAM then you hit .5 slower RAM that was on the card and your frame rate tanked [editline]28th July 2016[/editline] It really did have 4gb of RAM, just in two parts
It also had 56 ROPs rather than 64 as advertised.
where do i get my money
The only time I hit problems with this card was in Shadow of Mordor. When playing on Ultra textures I experienced regular (around ever 10-20 secs) freezes for a fraction of a second. It got irritating so I tried to check what was up, finding GPU Mem usage at ~3.8 GB. Could just be the game, since putting textures down to high or medium kept it at that memory level, but I had no more of those freezes.
I remember there also being a cache difference from 2M to 1.5M.
When the whole thing happened i remember the clusterfuck that followed
Maybe this will teach them not to fucking lie about their products.
Where do I acquire this currency
I have 2 cards fucking amazing [editline]28th July 2016[/editline] actually 3 is in this house techniqually, one I gave to another in the house and the other is someone elses, and then mine
[QUOTE=phygon;50790750]Where do I acquire this currency[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hilton;50790587]where do i get my money[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=rndgenerator;50790342]Where can I claim my 30 dollars?[/QUOTE] If any of you read the fucking article you would know where to get your money, but I'll answer it for you anyway: You cant right now.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50791111]If any of you read the fucking article you would know where to get your money, but I'll answer it for you anyway: You cant right now.[/QUOTE] [quote]nstructions on how to file a claim for the Nvidia class action settlement were not immediately available. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates.[/quote] This read to me like "we don't know how to claim it but these people might" to me
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50790746]Maybe this will teach them not to fucking lie about their products.[/QUOTE] It's not exactly lying. The card has 4Gb of usable VRAM. When you look into the details, you see the breakdown of it. Personally, I prefer to see that over 3.5Gb VRAM + 512Mb VRAM, or however you would show it has 4Gb total VRAM.
[QUOTE=01271;50790572]It also had 56 ROPs rather than 64 as advertised.[/QUOTE] According to the article it's the opposite. You got more ROPs than advertised. Could be the article made a mistake though.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50791111]If any of you read the fucking article you would know where to get your money, but I'll answer it for you anyway: You cant right now.[/QUOTE] wow it's almost like you were the one who didn't read it
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50790494]What sort of issues?[/QUOTE] As everyone said, the 3.5GB thing. However, in most situations, times where you need more than 3.5GB were also times that the 970 was not designed to handle, such as 1440p or 4k gaming on high/ultra settings. I'm not defending Nvidia's practices, they're scummy as hell. It's just a happy coincidence that the 3.5GB issue is not the card's only limitation.
[QUOTE=Cock Boner;50791583]As everyone said, the 3.5GB thing. However, in most situations, times where you need more than 3.5GB were also times that the 970 was not designed to handle, such as 1440p or 4k gaming on high/ultra settings. I'm not defending Nvidia's practices, they're scummy as hell. It's just a happy coincidence that the 3.5GB issue is not the card's only limitation.[/QUOTE] Yes the biggest VRAM issues would have come up in SLI solutions playing at those resolutions.
[QUOTE=bitches;50791478]wow it's almost like you were the one who didn't read it[/QUOTE] Do you struggle with reading comprehension? [quote]instructions on how to file a claim for the Nvidia class action settlement were not immediately available. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates. You can also “Follow” this case using your free Top Class Actions account to receive notifications when this article is updated.[/quote] aka- You cant right now.
[QUOTE=Cock Boner;50791583]As everyone said, the 3.5GB thing. However, in most situations, times where you need more than 3.5GB were also times that the 970 was not designed to handle, such as 1440p or 4k gaming on high/ultra settings. I'm not defending Nvidia's practices, they're scummy as hell. It's just a happy coincidence that the 3.5GB issue is not the card's only limitation.[/QUOTE] Well, the card was advertised as having 4 gb of VRAM so yes, it is advertised and designed to handle up to 4 GB of VRAM.
Boy do I have egg on my face now. At the time, the R9 390 was faster for cheaper. If I had gotten the GTX 970 I would've gotten the better price:performance after this settlement! :v:
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;50791385]According to the article it's the opposite. You got more ROPs than advertised. Could be the article made a mistake though.[/QUOTE] I know, the article made a mistake.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.