Nvidia’s GTX 970 specification problems continue with a filed class action lawsuit.
Many gamers who purchased Nvidia’s GTX 970 were annoyed to find that their card didn’t utilise the 4GB of VRAM as advertised by Nvidia. Instead of 4GB of VRAM driving the cards, the 970 actually has issues beyond 3.5GB and that extra .5 is the reason for this lawsuit along with other GTX 970 specifications that were advertised by Nvidia prior to the 970’s release.
The claim filed against Nvidia and Giga-Byte Technology in the court documents reads:
“This is a nationwide class action brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased graphics or video card devices incorporating the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 graphics processing units (“GPU”) (hereinafter “GTX 970” or “GTX 970 devices”), which were sold based on the misleading representation that the GTX 970 operates with a full 4GB of VRAM at GDDR5 (not a less performant3.5 GB with a less performant and decoupled .5 GB spillover), 64 ROPs (as opposed to 56 ROPs), andan L2 cache capacity of 2048KB (as opposed to 1792 KB), or omitted material facts to the contrary.”
Games will often require the full 4GB and if it’s not available performance issues will occur and this has been a problem for card owners, especially at higher resolutions or with multiple monitors. There’s also the issue of ROPS (render output units) with Nvidia claiming the 970 had 64 when in fact there are 56.
Nvidia and hardware retailers appear to still be advertising the 970 with the original specs, a fact that has also appeared in the filing:
“On January 25, 2015, Nvidia’s Senior VP of GPU Engineering, Jonah Alben, admitted that while the GTX 970 technically features 4GB of VRAM, the final 512MB part runs at a far slower rate than the first 3.5GB.
The 970 was advertised prior to release with specs that are not actually present, a fact that was acknowledged by Nvidia since the problem came to light. At the end of January Nvidia said the issues were being “investigated” and since then gamers have been trying to return cards and receive refunds from retailers. Not always successfully.
We’ll have to see how this one plays out in the weeks, and probably months ahead.
Thanks EricBrighteyes.
