GTX 970 class-action claims settlement website goes live

Back in July, we reported that Nvidia had reached a preliminary settlement with a group of gamers who were incensed enough by the GeForce GTX 970's unusual memory configuration to sue the company. It now appears the settlement in that class-action proceeding has gone forward. Folks in the United States who purchased one of the cards between September 1, 2014 and August 24, 2016 can now file a claim form for a $30 reimbursement using a dedicated website. The claims administrator says forms must be submitted or postmarked by November 30, 2016.

The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the card "was sold to consumers (directly or indirectly through retailers) based on inaccurate or misleading information regarding the GTX 970’s specifications, performance and capabilities." The settlement agreement notes that Nvidia admitted no wrongdoing in the lawsuit, and the court emphasizes that it didn't make any ruling about the underlying facts of the suit.

We can't think of any possible downside to filing a claim in this settlement (other than forfeiting the right to sue over the same issue), so if you're one of the many who purchased a GTX 970 in the USA, be sure to claim some cash back before November 30.

Comments closed
    • Ultracer
    • 3 years ago

    I bought 3x 970 from Amazon US, but ship to Singapore. Anyone want to be my US correspondence? xD

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    If you do nothing, you will receive no Cash Payment. What a jip! Doing nothing is my favorite way of making money.

    • travbrad
    • 3 years ago

    Is it only me that finds it a bit odd that you are eligible even if you bought your card in August 2016, when we learned about the memory configuration details in January 2015? I guess just because they still put “4GB” on the box?

    • Airmantharp
    • 3 years ago

    Submitted for both cards, and ran into an issue: the ‘Device ID’ listed in the Nvidia Control Panel was the same for both, so I switched to using serial number.

    (I have EVGA cards that are registered at their site by SN, which made this the easiest route)

    • DoomGuy64
    • 3 years ago

    Doesn’t seem like Nvidia has learned it’s lesson with the ROP configuration of the 1060, only effectively being a 32 ROP card in actual capability.

    Protip for our resident Nvidiot shills:
    [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/10540/the-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-asus-strix-review[/url<] [quote<]GP106 can rasterize 32 pixels per clock on the frontend, but the backend ROPs can accept 48 pixels per clock.[/quote<] It's not a true 48 ROP card. Well, it is in the sense that the 970 had 4GB of ram. It's there for spec padding.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      [url=http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/good-good-let-the-butthurt-flow-through-you.jpg<]I think the Emperor said it best.[/url<]

        • DoomGuy64
        • 3 years ago

        More like the little boy who pointed out he’s wearing nothing.

          • superjawes
          • 3 years ago

          You’re making about as much sense as an emperor getting turned into a llama.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            I thought the emperor was a [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9mbCNs47FI<]penguin[/url<].

            • DoomGuy64
            • 3 years ago

            [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes[/url<] In case you're really that dense. PS. Ad Hominems are not a valid argument against my factual statement. The 1060 can only rasterize 32 pixels per clock, not 48.

            • superjawes
            • 3 years ago

            [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Groove[/url<] [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_Jedi[/url<] In case you missed the other references in this thread. P.S. I was not making any arguments about your OP. You were (are) sounding quite silly, so I was merely responding with silliness 😛

            • DoomGuy64
            • 3 years ago

            I quote: [quote<]making about as much sense[/quote<] First off, that's an Ad Hominem. Second, that's not even a claim of "sounding silly". That is literally YOU telling US, that you [i<]do not comprehend[/i<] my reference of the world renowned fable of the emperor's new clothes. Third, it does not refute or address my factual statement about the 1060 not being capable of rasterizing 48 pixels per clock. The 1060 has 48 ROPs exactly in the same sense that the 970 had 4 GB of ram. I understand perfectly well that there are reasons behind why this is. However, most review websites have not adequately explained the situation, much like the 970 was not adequately explained, and simply state the 1060 has 48 ROPs. Sure, it physically has 48 ROPs, just like the 970 physically had 4GB of ram. However, it can't rasterize 48 pixels per clock, and that needs to be properly exposed to the public. IMO, the 1060 is [i<]worse[/i<] than the 970, because at least the 970 could rasterize more than 32 pixels per clock. The 1060 is actually a lower end card than the 970, and yet they are selling it as the replacement for the 970. Very dishonest. Nvidia is not selling their cards based on physical capability per $, but raw efficiency which has no further headroom for improvement. AMD's 480 is in a similar situation with it's 32 ROP configuration, but at least it has some headroom with next gen API's, and driver updates. I don't think the 1060 is going to last six months before AMD overtakes it with driver updates and DX12/Vulkan. I find Nvidia's business model of selling cards under false pretense that obsolete 6 months down the road to be extremely unethical, which is why I'm pointing this out. The 1060 is effectively a 32 ROP card with no long term performance capability.

      • MathMan
      • 3 years ago

      It’s probably futile to explain this, but I’ll try anyway:

      Nvidia links the ROPs directly to the L2 cache and the memory controllers. They chose 6 memory controllers in GP106, which gives them the option of putting either 24 physical ROPs or 48.

      While the shaders can only issue 32 ROP instructions per clock, not being able to use 16 out of those 48 at the same time is still much better than having only 24.

      So it makes perfect sense to have 48. It’s not there for spec passing. The alternative would be a huge change in the architecture by having 32 ROPs but put a crossbar between the ROPs and the MCs, or only have 24 of them, and lose peak full rate performance and stall the shaders at times (see RX480).

      With the 1060 being around 10% than the 480, it seems to me that they made the right choice.

      There is no question that gp106 has 48 physical ROPs and that they are all used at full speed, just not all at the same time. Unless you can find Nvidia advertising a fill rate that 48 x clock speed, your argument about false advertising is wrong.

        • DoomGuy64
        • 3 years ago

        It’s not about what they have said, but what they [i<]haven't[/i<] said. Omitting the 1060's actual capability is misleading people who simply look at raw specs and think they're getting a true 48 ROP card, when they're not.

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    “I registered for a $30 class action settlement and only got back $26.25.” :p

    • vshade
    • 3 years ago

    I’ve bought my card on the United States, but have since came back to brazil, I still have rights to get the class action money or not?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 3 years ago

      I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but the claim website suggests that this settlement is open to United States [i<]residents[/i<] only.

      • sweatshopking
      • 3 years ago

      Imo your as deserving as any of them, and even purchased in the right local. I’d just find a usa address and apply.

      • PainIs4ThaWeak1
      • 3 years ago

      Looks like the answer is: “No” ??

      [url<]https://www.gtx970settlement.com/Faqs.aspx#q5[/url<]

    • superjawes
    • 3 years ago

    Expect a reimbursement of $25 USD and $5 CAD.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Crap, $25.16 is hardly worth doign this for.

        • Irascible
        • 3 years ago

        It takes less than five minutes. They just want the device ID from the Nvidia control panel and an address.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 3 years ago

          Right, and for $30 I can do that. But for $25 and $5 Canadian, that’s a tough sell.

    • GatoRat
    • 3 years ago

    And the lawyers walk away with how many millions?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t really care. I’m going to get 10% of my purchase back and the card still performs like it did yesterday.

        • ozzuneoj
        • 3 years ago

        Yep. I got my card for a great price as it is. Around $250 back in April of 2015. Another $30 brings it down to $220. Its still hard to get a card this capable for that price… and I have yet to actually see the ill effects of the 3.5GB fiasco.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          It comes in a form of micro-stuttering when the GPU is forced to use the smaller partitioned memory space. It is only an issue when the 970 is extremely taxed and at point the 970 is struggling whatever the memory pool is partitioned or not.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            I micro-shudder every time you type something.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            Don’t you mean micro-meh?

            • Airmantharp
            • 3 years ago

            I’ve been able to *force* this to happen by turning up the quality in GeExp for BF4; but leaving it at the default avoids this issue, and honestly the default settings are the minimum FPS I’ll accept.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      A couple of heads were rolled at Nvidia’s marketing and PR departments.

      • Freon
      • 3 years ago

      They likely have invested significant time and energy into this (read: $$$$), some of it on speculation that it would ever pay off with a positive verdict.

        • GatoRat
        • 3 years ago

        I’m sure the lawyers invested tens of thousands of dollars worth of their time, but that hardly makes them deserve $1.3 million (though, that’s low compared to many past class actions.)

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      probably 25-30% or a fixed fee. who knows. best job out there is being divorce lawyers for rich people. you literally witness and get to laugh at sham marriages and shenanigans while making huge sums of money from these dopes.

    • tanker27
    • 3 years ago

    Done, submitted mine.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This