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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So nVidia apparently lied or marketing their GTX 970 in a deceptive way. The way the card was designed it could only really use 3.5GB of memory, instead of the 4GB they advertised, or something....

Anyways there is now a class action settlement. Basically fill out the form, provide proof of purchase and they will mail you a $30 check, if you owned a GTX 970.

Settlement link: https://www.gtx970settlement.com/Home.aspx

More info on slickdeals: http://slickdeals.net/f/9095159-gtx-970-30-class-action-settlement-is-now-live?v=1

I doubt it will be that much. After all its a 24.5" TN 1080p panel. I'd guess it will be no more than double the Asus 144Hz Asus VG248QE. So <$600.

240FPS combined with G-Sync (which means zero screen tearing) i think would be pretty amazing.

The price will also depend on if other companies announce 240Hz panels or not. If it's an Asus exclusive then they will likely price gouge. But Asus doesn't make the actual panel, so if there is a 240Hz panel out there likely other companies will likely use them as well.

A friend showed me this article: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-1327880/review

Thats pretty crazy. 240Hz + Gsync. That's gotta be smooth as butter. Kind of want...

What I want to know is how many people on the top 500 list were banned. Why doesn't NA blizzard act like China blizzard and just publish all their names so we can shame them if we know any of the cheaters.

The other sad thing is with all the ults and wallhack features that some heroes have, its really hard to know if someone is actually cheating against you or not and its almost impossible to investigate someone if you think they are fishy. Makes me wonder how many ranked games I've lost against cheaters.

My build is finally mostly finished:

CPU: i7 5960X 8 cores @ 4.2Ghz (will OC more later)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H110i GTX
RAM: 32GB G.Skill DDR4-2400
GPU: eVGA GTX 1080 FTW Edition
Motherboard: Asrock X99 Extreme4
SSD; Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB
Case: Thermaltake Core V71
PSU: Corsiar HX750 80+ Gold

I built it a few months ago but just got the GTX 1080 yesterday. Only reason I went with such a high end CPU is because my buddy that works @ Intel hooked me up. Still waiting on a 1TB SSD to add to the system.

Youtube link doesn't work, facebook page has 30 likes, Twitter has 76 follows. My guess is this is a tiny start-up sponsor that probably has little to no money. I would be very surprised if they offered much of anything.

VAC detects based upon process name or process signature, known .dll injections into game files/engine, and also by memory signature where the hack will make changes to active memory shared by both the hack and the game.

The reason brand new or private hacks can sometimes be detected by VAC is because the person that wrote the hack probably used the same or similar method or exploit and that is already in the valve database would be my guess.

A guy I met a while back used to write hacks just for fun and he would report exploits to valve sometimes. He even got VAC'ed in one wave on an alt through code he wrote! He also showed me some crazy shit on a valve server. I'll not get into details but it was basically god mode. He was almost impossible to kill!

I'm not sure why valve doesn't try something more simple than their current VAC system and just do more game server side detection. Like implement random hidden hitboxes in maps that aim hacks will try to lock onto. If the cheater has a lot of false shots on these hidden hitboxes = ban. Or other time related detection. Scoping in and hitting a headshot within 200ms (faster than possible human reaction times) = 1 detection. Multiple detection = ban. It's an ongoing battle and I realize that, but really there are other ways to stop the full retard aimbot not trying to hide it hackers by using examples like I mentioned above.

Is this real life