Nvidia will pay GeForce GTX 970 owners $30 over memory snafu

Nvidia's choice to fit the GeForce GTX 970 with two tiers of memory performance has been the subject of an incredible amount of discussion, memes, and controversy since the issue came to light a year and a half ago. Opinions are varied on whether the issue was actually an issue, but some folks took enough umbrage that they brought a class-action lawsuit against the green team almost immediately. That lawsuit has now reached a preliminary settlement, and Nvidia has agreed to pay out $30 to each GTX 970 buyer.

This news comes to us courtesy of Top Class Actions, who says that Nvidia agreed to pay all consumers who purchased the GTX 970 graphics card and "indicated there would not be a cap on the total amount it would pay consumers." This is only a preliminary settlement, though so the court still has to agree that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." We'll keep our ears to the ground to see when the settlement passes muster, at which point we expect consumers will be able to apply for the payout.

Comments closed
    • synthtel2
    • 3 years ago

    I just got an email from Newegg about a class-action relating to my GTX 960. I don’t have a 970, and the 970 wasn’t mentioned in the email. I wonder what happened there?

      • synthtel2
      • 3 years ago

      Now I just got a follow-up email saying the last one was in error. That’s better.

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    bring on the damages due to negligence! nice!

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    If something like this made people sue Nvidia, how about AMD and their RX 480 which could do [u<]ACTUAL[/u<] damage to your other hardware, specifically your mobo? To put this into better perspective, class action lawsuits have also often been brought against car makers who fail to do recalls on potentially dangerous/destructive parts of cars or even simply misstated emissions levels (Volkswagen). Yes, automobile failure could result in injury but if something like this GTX 970 is enough to trigger a lawsuit, I don't think the RX 480 should escape the radar.

      • taisserroots
      • 3 years ago

      “their 480 which could do actual damage to your motherboard” for the time it was unpatched, unless you were doing crazy things and running 3 in crossfire OC on a 970 chipset board with an 8 core OCed processor and killed your motherboard audio as a result no real damaeg would have occured.
      This was consumers being missold.
      Amd’s issue could be equivalent to a security error for a car. Except it was patched

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        What about those guys who bought an RX 480 and fried their PCIe slots? If that happened to you, wouldn’t you sue? And even if you survived the week and got the new driver that supposedly balances power delivery to the card, how sure are you that no latent damage was done to the mobo?

          • RAGEPRO
          • 3 years ago

          As far as I’m aware there’s only one confirmed report of RX 480s actually damaging someone’s motherboard, and that guy was running three of them, overclocked, in an altcoin mining rig where one of the cards was running off a 25W PCIe slot.

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            What if a particular car maker says they’re not doing any recall because there has been only one documented incident of the brakes failing due to design Issues?

            • Bensam123
            • 3 years ago

            What if someone cut their break lines and intentionally created an accident to blame the car maker because they wanted some buzz?

            Essentially what the miner was doing… Also if he was smart he would be using powered risers and it wouldn’t matter how much wattage the card draws through PCIE.

      • Bensam123
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah calling bullshit on this as well. It was running just barely out of PCIE spec (for the motherboard), mainly if you’re super OCing… I’m sure if everyone was frying their motherboards we’d hear about it… Yet, surprisingly, even in the age of clickbait and people willing to fry $200 GPUs for a headline, there is almost no one that has. Which means this was never really a issue and has been completely fixed.

        • evilpaul
        • 3 years ago

        Although I agree the 480X issue was overblown and the report here is the only one I’ve seen of it causing known damage to anyone’s PC, wasn’t the max power draw something like 95W and the spec is 75W? That’s not “slightly” above spec. That’s 25% more power that the maximum.

        I bought a 970 and wasn’t hugely upset about the 3.5GB thing, but wasn’t thrilled about it either. The 970 was the first high end GPU I’d ever bought. I think this next year we’ll see a lot of titles that actually need 4GB or greater VRAM. The only older ones I’ve heard of that were affected were Shadows of Mordor and maybe Max Payne 3.

        I’ve since picked up a 1080, my first top of the line GPU, so it won’t really affect me though. A free $30 in a year when this lawsuit is settled and mailing checks would be nice though. It will probably be just in time to pick up some games on the Summer Steam sale that I won’t get around to playing until 2018.

          • Bensam123
          • 3 years ago

          90w while being OC’d.

          Everything looks better with percents when you’re trying to make a point. It was 15w above it while being heavily OC’d and that’s just the spec not necessarily what it takes to burn out boards… Which I’m sure people tried for the sake of making a headline.

          If it was burning out boards AMD QA would’ve caught it as literally their test stations would be burning out traces. It was extremely blown out of proportion.

        • Krogoth
        • 3 years ago

        The overwhelming majority of the PCIe issues with RX 480 were random restarts and power-offs when the GPU was being stressed test. They were on older pre-PCIe 3.0 era board too.

        The 970’s issues that come from memory partitioning are mostly not a big deal. It is just extra micro-shuddering when the 970 is forced to use its second 512MiB partition. The problem was that Nvidia’s failed to properly disclose the nature of GM204’s binning and some curious enthusiast discovered it when they were stress-testing their 970s.

          • Bensam123
          • 3 years ago

          From what I’ve read you lose about 50% of your performance when trying to hits > 3.5GB.

          Most games now days never even get close to it, but that’s not really the point (also why 4GB RX 480s are well worth their price).

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            Nah, it is more like extra shuddering because the silicon has to take “long path” to access the 512MiB partition.

    • Skid
    • 3 years ago

    I’ll take US$30… that’s like what, CDN$100? 😛

      • taisserroots
      • 3 years ago

      Almost a £30 here Kappa

    • OneShotOneKill
    • 3 years ago

    Hmm… What percentage of the $30 dollars will make it to the secondary market (Ebay, etc..) as a discount?

    • Froz
    • 3 years ago

    You can find the proposed settlement pdf here:

    [url<]https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/07/28/nvidiasettlement.pdf[/url<] It is only for US residents. No idea if everyone who bought the GPU and lives in US is automatically "Settlement Class Member", but it looks like it.

      • f0d
      • 3 years ago

      US only?
      well that sucks.!

        • cynan
        • 3 years ago

        OT, but reminds me of the recent ludicrous 14.7 billion VW settlement. Save some of VWs money for the rest of the markets, geez.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Nice find. Looks like it’s not even going to be that much of a rigamarole.

      • evilpaul
      • 3 years ago

      Looking at the proposed settlement it doesn’t list all the AIC manufacturers (MSI who manufactured mine is missing) and a lot of retailers (I bought mine at Microcenter). Are they cutting out a bunch of people from the settlement?

    • YukaKun
    • 3 years ago

    The article doesn’t mention nVidia will pay the attorney fees, besides paying the 30 to the 970 owners.

    So, I have a good feeling, those 30 bucks will actually reach 970 owners. For all the people that already sold their 970s though, I would imagine it won’t apply. Same for the 2nd+ owners.

    Cheers!

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Based on the link Froz posted, you have to submit a proof of purchase, not proof of ownership.

      • bill94el
      • 3 years ago

      There’s a great case at the bottom of page 11 for a $50 settlement, which is where it should fall.

    • Welch
    • 3 years ago

    If it’s anything like the recent class actions, you’ll probably have to prove you intended to use the entire full 4GB of RAM.

    • puppetworx
    • 3 years ago

    Ouch, that’s the most popular single video card in the Steam hardware survey.

    And that’s why you always disclose the true memory specs.

      • taisserroots
      • 3 years ago

      It only applies to the USA, if only soe 970 owners could ask the same for the eu court as this is an eu wide issue to force Nvidia to do the same in Europe

    • ozzuneoj
    • 3 years ago

    Wow, if I get $30 back I’ll have gotten my 970 for about $200, and I bought it in April of 2015. That’s a pretty sweet deal, and it makes me feel slightly better about having bought a card with the hopes of having something fairly high end when No Man’s Sky was released, only to have the game be delayed until after the next generation of cards came out.

      • ozzuneoj
      • 3 years ago

      How did I get a thumb down for this?

      lulz

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        Dunno (have to think it was someone jealous of your deal) but I gave you one here for complaining. Lol

          • ozzuneoj
          • 3 years ago

          I love this place.

          😀

          (-1 BTW)

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    Yeah well…. it turns out that Pascal is just an overclocked gerbil on a wheel and Ngreedia lied about the whole thing!

    So uh… where’s my $500 discount check?

      • Redocbew
      • 3 years ago

      Did you buy 16.6 GTX 970’s? No?

      Then, NO CHECK FOR YOU!

      • taisserroots
      • 3 years ago

      A mule on cocaine and steroids is still on cocaine and steroids

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Chuckula mocking Nvidia? See, he’s neutral!

    • anotherengineer
    • 3 years ago

    Nice, due to the Cnd$ value and taxes that would be like a 5% discount over the normal etail price before the 1070!!! wooot wooot

      • cpucrust
      • 3 years ago

      Probably only valid in the USA.

        • ThatStupidCat
        • 3 years ago

        Maybe Canada except Quebec?

      • Prestige Worldwide
      • 3 years ago

      There would have to be a separate lawsuit / class action in Canada in order for Canadians to be eligible. US court has no jurisdiction here.

    • watzupken
    • 3 years ago

    I have a feeling this proposed 30 bucks refund will only be applicable to buyers of GTX 970 before a certain date, i.e. before they owned up to the marketing goof up.

      • f0d
      • 3 years ago

      none of the box’s or advertising had changed so when they owned up to it shouldnt matter because not everyone reads out these things on tech websites

      if their box’s specs or advertising specs had changed then i would have agreed with you

    • RoxasForTheWin
    • 3 years ago

    Neato, my 970 sli is the gift that keeps on giving. Could use 60$

    • ImSpartacus
    • 3 years ago

    NVidia would probably do well to also offer a $50 coupon (or rebate?) to be used on a new graphics card.

    Upgrade-hungry folks that are looking at Pascal releases would be tempted to take that rather than the $30 cash and it would probably be cheaper for Nvidia.

    • south side sammy
    • 3 years ago

    they’re giving $30 “refunds” to cards purchased between when and when?

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      Who knows? The linked article doesn’t tell.

        • evilpaul
        • 3 years ago

        The full text of the proposed settlement is here: [url<]https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/07/28/nvidiasettlement.pdf[/url<] (It was posted elsewhere in the comments.)

      • ThatStupidCat
      • 3 years ago

      So $30 for you and the lawyers get the rest. Just kidding.

        • south side sammy
        • 3 years ago

        no, you’re right. that pretty much sums it up.
        The $30…….. might not be in cash? but in some sort of price break on an nvidia product. so the fine in reality won’t really be as much as being reported……. me, I want the cash. it’ll also make it more “painful’ for the company to have to give cash. wouldn’t it be nice if game companies had to give back cash instead of some useless xp?

    • torquer
    • 3 years ago

    Not a bad payoff for a tempest in a teacup.

    • CScottG
    • 3 years ago

    I think it would have been nice to offer (as an alternative option), $120 off (instant rebate direct from Nvidia store only) on a single 1070 FE (or 1080 FE or new Titan). (..4 times the “refund”.)

    -repeat business is good business (..and direct sales are the best way to monetize that).

    • James296
    • 3 years ago

    nothing more then a slap on the hand

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Given the fact that the majority of GTX 970 cards sold for around $330, and that was the e-tail price, it’s fair to say nVidia is getting charged something far greater than 10% of what they charged partners for GTX 970 silicon.

    • Bensam123
    • 3 years ago

    Wake me when you can actually redeem. ~_~

    • Pancake
    • 3 years ago

    Bonus! I bought my 970 after the controversy – best for performance/W at the time. If I could be bothered cashing in it’ll be one nice rib-eye dinner.

      • JosiahBradley
      • 3 years ago

      If you just admitted you knowingly bought the device after light of a problem in marketing than you admit you were not tricked into the purchase by said marketing action. I think it would be easy in a court of law to dismiss your claim to a refund as you are investing into a scandal.

        • smilingcrow
        • 3 years ago

        I am sure Nvidia would want to chase up these sort of cases as they have so many lawyers on standby it would cost them nothing. /S

          • JosiahBradley
          • 3 years ago

          Both parties lying solves no problems, isn’t this what this suit is about?

            • Pancake
            • 3 years ago

            I think you’ve been watching too much Perry Mason or Scooby Doo.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Wouldn’t you rather have pancakes instead?

      • Flapdrol
      • 3 years ago

      I think if you bought it after you can’t.

    • DancinJack
    • 3 years ago

    $25 in fives and $5 in nickels, two months apart.

    edit: redundant language.

      • superjawes
      • 3 years ago

      I would say $25 US and $5 Canadian…

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        That’s only like $25.06 US.

          • DancinJack
          • 3 years ago

          lol

    • kvndoom
    • 3 years ago

    Cha-ching!

    (although I’m sure I’ll forget about it and never get my money)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This