There's a thread about this already: http://www.teamfortress.tv/35143/free-30-if-you-own-a-gtx-970

I didn't see that, but... It's live now. That previous thread was just speculation. It's a confirmed class action settlement now with a confirmed $30 payout.

The settlement was already confirmed, there just wasn't a way to apply for it yet. Now the site for applications is live.

Can we get this if we live overseas?

Oops misread. With a class action lawsuit I know that its locked per country. However because this is a settlement it say be possible for you to claim

Actually on the claim link it says that you have to be a us resident.

And you're still wrong.
This is only partially about memory and even then it's only the bandwidth. Because technically you can use 4GB.
The "problem" is that they copy pasted the number of ROPs and size of the L2 cache from the 980. Missing those doesn't actually affect performance since the shaders you'd need to utilize them are disabled on the 970.
Welcome the the American way of justice. You can't sue for stuff that affects you, but you can sue for stuff the doesn't affect you.
So in the end marketing people being lazy and copy pasting too much is costing nVidia millions. Frankly I find it hilarious.

I'm well aware that 4GB can be used on the card, just the rest (0.5GB) is so slow its practically useless in games, which is the whole point of the class action, and the reason I stated you can only really use 3.5GB, which is still basically a true statement because the rest is almost worthless. My post was very simple, trying to be helpful to people who have a 970 and want to get $30 back, I didn't bother to explain every single technical detail because that isn't the point.

And since you like to correct people, I'll correct you. And I'm not sure what in the hell you mean by "You can't sue for stuff that affects you." You can sue for any damn thing you want to. If its ridiculous though, sometimes it'll be thrown out before you go to court.

There was no need to feel attacked, I just assumed you didn't exactly know what was going on since you wrote "or something".

But if you want to correct me without even reading the documents, then here we go:

Nope, still wrong.
The ROPs and L2 cache were a major part of the lawsuit, even though more wouldn't have done anything they are the main reason the class action suit succeeded. That's what I find funny.

Because the whole suit is about misrepresentation, not performance. The VRAM issue is very complicated in both regards, whereas the ROPs and L2 are extremely clear cut. nVidia claimed 64 ROPs and 2MB L2, but the 970 got only 56 ROPs and 1.75MB L2.

Yeah you can sue for anything, I just find the whole system strange. People complained about performance, but to succeed they had to sue about misrepresentation and the stuff that didn't affect performance helped their case more than that which did.

What on earth are you even saying. So you are saying the class action has nothing to do with the fact that the card has 0.5GB of slower vRAM. I guess all these sites on the internet are wrong and you need to correct them too:

Arstechnica

"In early 2015, a group of customers found that the GTX 970—which was advertised to have 4GB of high-speed GDDR5 RAM—experienced performance issues when pushed to the limits of that memory allotment. It then came to light that the graphics card only had 3.5 GB of the high-speed RAM, with the remaining 0.5 GB running roughly 80 percent slower"

“One of the primary misrepresentations at issue is that the GTX 970 does not operate with a full 4 gigabytes of RAM, but rather with a 3.5 GB pool of RAM and a decoupled and less performant 0.5 GB spillover segment that operates at one-seventh the speed of the main pool,” the motion continued. “Accordingly, Settlement Class Members allege they were shortchanged on 0.5 GB of their 4 GB of RAM, or about 12.5 percent.”

Most of the sites out there mention nothing about the 64 ROP vs 56 etc, but I found

that explains it well.

And again because you like to correct people, I'll correct you once again. You are providing a factually incorrect statements, that the fact that the card was misrepresented "didn't affect performance." It did, and that is why the class action approved the $30 settlement. It “was calculated to represent a portion of the cost of the storage and performance capabilities the consumers thought they were obtaining in the purchase of the product.” The suit was about both misrepresentation, and the lesser performance of the card due to the misrepresentation which could easily be seen by using over 3.5GB of vRAM.

Tone down your statements. "You are still wrong", "Nope still wrong" comes across as attacking, arrogant, and rude, which is probably why I responded some-what in a similar manner.

I posted or something and gave a very vague initial statement, because it didn't matter. The point wasn't to discuss technical details, but to raise awareness of the website going live for the $30 class action.

Now you're actually trying to read it wrong?

My point was what people cared about, since it affected performance, was the VRAM. But in court the ROPs and L2 cache made for a better case since there was now doubt there where less than advertised, it was verifiable and nVidia admitted to it.

Of course review sites wrote nothing about that, since no one gives a fuck about the ROPs and L2 cache, which is exactly my point.

READ THE FUCKING COURT DOCUMENTS BEFORE GOING APESHIT ON ME.

In fact, I'm going to quote them for you.

Don't bother wasting time with someone so stupid. When people say things like "you(one?) can sue for anything" they seem to think that all attempted lawsuits result in the defendant being found guilty which is of course totally fucking stupid but I'm sure a random gamer from Germany has a better understanding of the finer points of the US judicial system than the rest of us... including the judge involved on this case.

Or just fill out your form, take your cash, and be glad you aren't dumb like setsul. Think I'm gonna spend my $30 at Outback Steakhouse. Did someone say bloomin onions on bloomin onions on bloomin onions on bloomin onions?

Maybe I should take your advice? On the other hand it's coming from someone with severely lacking reading comprehension. Also this is still way to much fun.

Pro Tip: To figure out who wrote what you have to look for username of the poster . They are preceded by the post number so they should be easy to spot. In this example "#8 dollarlayer".

I can't find right now where I'm supposed to have criticised the judge, but I'm pretty sure you can point me in the right direction.

At least we can agree on onions though.

Setsul, you might have actually have some mental issues or something.. You tell me to read the court documents? Have you read them? Why would I read a 99 page document, when all that people care about is that there is a GTX 970 class action for a free $30 if you fill out an online form.

Just so you know, a Ctrl+F in the document reveals that 3.5GB is mentioned 44 times and it is a key argument in these court documents from skimming over a few points that the 4GB of RAM was misrepresented when the other 0.5GB runs at a much slower speed. There are many angles to proving guilt in a law suit, but what would you know about American law?

Looks like you got a bit triggered though and had to go into an all caps rage. Cute.

10/10 ad hominem.
If you're right you have mental issues for reading.

FYI there's more than one document.

OH NO SOMEONE WROTE IN CAPS ON THE INTERNET HE MUST BE MAD.

i just got fckn pwnt

Ur not gonna win an argument against Setsul m8

Welcome to the internet, where people argue about graphic card lawsuits xd

Worked like a charm, by now everyone should have seen the thread and therefore the form.

I already did, I proved him wrong multiple times. And all he can do in response to my latest post asking him if he read the full 99 page document, or if he noticed that 3.5GB was referenced 44 times in the document is a non-reply, and instead, he posts more nonsense.

Mental issues for reading. Hmmm, please if you are going to call someone out for not reading a 99 page legal document at least read it yourself. Here you go, here is a link for your enjoyment. Then since you like correcting people, maybe you can go back and correct yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

Make up your mind.
You try to insult me for reading the documents, then you try to insult me for not reading the documents?

Like I already told you, there's multiple documents.
Just a random example from the one you picked.

Page 27 onwards.

This is great. It's like you are continuing to argue with me, but its as if you forgot what you are arguing about. Your point earlier which I refuted was that the main decision of the court was made based on ROP and L2 cache being falsely advertised, and I proved earlier that it was also largely about the 0.5GB of memory running at a slower speed. And I proved that in a single document this was a talking point listed 44 times.

And your last quote even proved my point, the "falsely represented..... 4GB of GDDR5."

Thanks for helping to make my case!

A: you two turbo nerds need to chill the fuck out. B: anyway to get this if i am in canada?

#23

Please just read it.

3.5GB appear in that document 44 times because the issue is explained countless times over and over again.
Also FYI this is the demand for a jury trial, which obviously does not include the court's reasoning since
a) it was written by the plaintiffs' lawyers and
b) obviously was written before any trial took place.

But hey, if you want to play the counting game then let's play.
ROPs: 61 - 16 false positives because of "Dropski" = 45.
L2: 47 times.

total: 92

I win.

#24
But it's way too much fun.

And it keeps the thread near the top. That's why you saw it I guess.

But no, sadly this only applies to the USA.
You either have to wait for nVidia to offer it voluntarily (seems unlikely) or wait for a similar verdict in Canada or, if they haven't even been sued yet in Canada, sue them yourself.

You sure are trying hard, but failing badly. I never argued that the ROP or L2 wasn't part of the case, I never argued that the card not having a full 4GB of GDDR5 was mentioned more in the court documents than ROP/L2. If you reread what I actually wrote, maybe you'll gain some understanding:

------------------------------------------

I will agree with you though that it is a fun argument. Proving you wrong repeatedly, watching you argue against yourself, then argue against something you thought that I stated is very humorous.

this thread is bonkers just claim ur $30 and chill tf out

I'm amazed you're still refusing to just read the settlement. Instead you dug up the plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial.
And then didn't read it.

I also didn't expect you to keep going after #14. By then I cba to come up with believable bullshit anymore.

But still.
I gave you so many hints that you're looking at the wrong document.
Why would you dig up that meaningless 99 page monster? The only thing anyone should care about is the actual settlement. And in that one (literally the first link on arstechnica too and I think it's somewhere on anandtech as well, no idea why you never looked at it), which is "only" 33 pages, you look at the table of contents and then go to the only chapter anyone really cares about:

And it says right there

The 30$ are fucking based on the RAM.

This all would've been over in one post if it wasn't for your aversion to reading.

I mean come on, of course it's easier to argue that 4GB were promised, not the L2 or ROPs, because it says 4GB on the front of the damn box.

Why u troll, setsul?

Setsul, you are either trolling, or are really really stupid...

But regardless, you've proved my point yet again, that the major factor in the class action was the 0.5GB of slow RAM, which was not as advertised due to a full 4GB of GDDR5 being advertised, not 3.5GB. And this would have been the only feature that 99% of consumers would pay attention to. I'm glad to see we are both in agreement with that key point.

Now that we got that out of the way, I'm sure that 33 page document was a little boring for you to read. May I suggest checking out some of these articles, they seem right up your ally.