http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...hics-adapters/
"Nvidia to bring back overclocking of GeForce GTX 900M graphics adapters"

Acum sa superi pe toata lumea, nu face bine la business.

Pai nu mai merge povestea asta?

"Our intent was not to remove features from GeForce notebooks, but rather to safeguard systems from operating outside design limits."

Cum bate vantul, asa si ei.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

Eh, nu asta a fost motivul dragilor...le-au sarit in cap producatorii cel mai probabil, pentru ca au fost acuzati de false advertising si amenintati cu RMA. Asus de exemplu se lauda cu overclocking capability pentru laptop-urile din seria G.
Dar probabil tot foot ei meciul cum au facut si cu seria 8XX :)

Nvidia lawsuit over GTX 970
 

Să îmi zici și mie ce scrie acolo că imi deschide altceva sau iau eroare cu 404 page not found

Sent from Z1C while Tapatalking...

Nu stiu de ce iti face asta, linkul merge de pe PC.... Pe scurt NVidia si Gigabyte (cel care a declansat procesul a cumparat doua GTX 970 Gigabyte-n.m.) au fost dati in judecata la o curte din California pentru patru capete de acuzare:

1.VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200,
ET SEQ.
(UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES);

2.VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200,
ET SEQ.
(DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES);

3.VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS & PROF. CODE §§ 17200,
ET SEQ.
(UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES);

4.VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17500,
ET SEQ. (MISLEADING ADVERTISING)

iar daca pierd procesul ar putea fi obligati sa plateasca despagubiri pe tot teritoriul SUA...

------------------------------------------------
Case4:15-cv-00760-DMR Document1 Filed02/19/15 Page4 of 31

... Plaintiff purchased these products for personal use, and to use them for college classes in video editing and rendering, as well as video game design. Upon seeing the Nvidia and Gigabyte website advertisements such as those attached hereto as Exhibits C and D, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference, the third party reviews (such as Guru3d and OC3d,see , e.g., http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...980_reference_ review,1.html) repeating the specifications provided by Nvidia in the manufacturer generated reviewer’s guide, and retailer websites such as those included in Exhibits A and B, that similarly repeated manufacturer specifications as detailed on the product’s packaging during the period between September 2014 to the present, and reaffirmed by the product packaging itself that this device operated at 4GB GDDR5 (such as in Ex. E, which is incorporated by reference), Plaintiff purchased and installed the devices in question. Soon after installing these devices in his personal computer, Plaintiff noticed that when using a high resolution monitor, the devices caused applications to slow, sputter, and cease working. He also noticed that video games requiring higher levels of performance would not work properly. Subsequently, Plaintiff learned that this was due to the material misrepresented or undisclosed fact that the alleged 4GB GDDR5 (Graphic Double Data Rate x 5 Memory) capability of the GPU, in actuality, only uses 3.5GB at the GDDR5 operating speed, while the remaining 500MB operates 80% slower, therefore not qualifying as actual GDDR5 memory capability device. Moreover, the device had less ROPs and L2 cache than advertised, further lessening the capabilities, uses and benefits of the GTX 970. In January of 2015, Plaintiff contacted both Nvidia and Gigabyte and spoke with company representatives about the ability to return the devices, but was told by both companies that there was no refund option. Plaintiff was told by Newegg (the retailer) that returns of the device were only available if the item was damaged. Because Defendants refused to offer Plaintiff a full refund when he made such a request, Plaintiff now owns two GTX 970 devices that he must either sell at a loss or use for purposes other than that which he bought them for. He thus has suffered a loss of money or property as a result of Defendants’ illegal business acts and practices. / / / ones he saw when purchasing the products, on both web pages as Exhibits A and B respectively, which are incorporated herein by reference.
-----------------------
NATURE OF THE ACTION

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
Case4:15-cv-00760-DMR Document1 Filed02/19/15 Page2 of 31

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT representation that the GTX 970 operates with a full 4GB of VRAM at GDDR5 (not a less performant 3.5 GB with a less performant and decoupled .5 GB spillover), 64 ROPs (as opposed to 56 ROPs), and an L2 cache capacity of 2048KB (as opposed to 1792 KB), or omitted material facts to the contrary. 5.

The Defendants (NVidia&Gigabyte) engaged in a scheme to mislead consumers nationwide about the characteristics, qualities and benefits of the GTX 970 by stating that the GTX 970 provides a true 4GB of VRAM, 64 ROPs, and 2048 KB of L2 cache capacity, when in fact it does not. Defendants’ marketing of the GTX 970 was intended to and did create the perception among purchasers that the product was, in fact, able to conform with the specifications as advertised. This deception has already resulted in a petition of over 8,100 purchasers who have requested that the FTC take action against Nvidia and asking for full refunds

Each Defendant was involved in the creation and dissemination of the misleading marketing regarding the GTX 970 and/or each Defendant was involved in or profited from the sales of same, and were likely aware that their marketing representations regarding the GTX 970 specifications were inaccurate. Further, each Defendant concealed material facts concerning the truth about the GTX 970’s capabilities. Nvidia’s own Senior VP of GPU Engineering, Jonah Alben, has admitted that the GTX 970 does not possess the specifications as advertised or performs as advertised
. Thus, consumers were exposed to Defendants’ marketing scheme and paid a price premium for GTX 970 devices. Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent suffered injury as a result. This is an action for injunctive and equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs and other relief pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200,

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as members of a proposed class defined as follows: All persons residing in the United States who purchased a graphics or video card that contains a GTX 970 GPU (including the GV-n970G1 Gaming-4GD) at retail and not solely for purposes of resale or distribution since September 2014 (the “Class Period”).
---------------

This might hurt a lot for nVidia. Toți vor arăta cu degetul înspre NVidia cum că așa au primit fișele și nu au nici o vina.

Sent from Z1C while Tapatalking...

Mi-ar plăcea, ca de acum înainte, să interzică vânzarea placilor video cu GTX970 pe teritorul SUA.

Cand AMD avea probleme cu stuttering-ul in unele jocuri, neavand driverii prea bine optimizati pentru Tahiti, Nvidia a mai castigat o cota din piata. Acum e randul AMD sa profite de moment, daca pot :).
Oricum, foarte bine ca sunt dati in judecata, poate vor rearanja preturile dupa treaba asta.

Ar trebui ca toți cei care au cumpărat placi video cu chipset GTX970 să solicite rambursarea sumei plătite, asta consider că ar fi cea mai mare palmă dată către inVidia.

Bre, placile merg bine...exact ca in testele si reviewurile publicate la lansare pe net.
Da, e de cacao ca au mintit vizavi de specificatii, dar placile tot la fel merg. Singura problema din punctul meu de vedere, o sa o aibe cei care si-au luat placa asta ca sa aibe ceva future-proof (asa am facut si eu); faptul ca are cu juma de giga mai putin ram utilizabil, e nu foarte ok in viitorul indepartat - gen vreo 2 ani.

Tu chiar crezi ca o firma isi acopera pierderile in urma unui proces prin reducerea preturilor(profitului) la urmatoarele produse? :rolleyes:

Tare mi-e ca din pacate tot noi consumatorii o s-o sugem.

Si-au scos grav banii pe placi de la 6$$ in sus, isi permit altfel nu o faceau.

Vanzarile Nvidia in Q3 si Q4/2014 au reprezentat un record, deci au de unde sa scoata banul si sa plateasca, totul este sa vrea sa faca asta, ceea ce i-ar imbunatatii imaginea terfelita.

Hotii de la Nvidia profita ca AMD dorm in ghete si nu scot nimic.
Sa plateasca (Nvidia) macar de data asta cand au fost prinsi cu cioara vopsita. Au scapat basma curata de prea multe ori.

Sper sa fie o zguduiala pentru Nvidia sa ii trezeasc aputin, asa cum a fost cu AMD acum 2 ani jumatate, cand driverii nu erau optimizati si in multe jocuri exista un stuttering pronuntat fata de placile Nvidia. S-au pus pe treaba si au imbunatatit driverii.

http://www.techpowerup.com/210149/it...ntroversy.html

"It Won't Happen Again:" NVIDIA CEO Breaks Silence on GTX 970 Controversy

Este clar ca nu vor face nimic, decat fortati, daca declaratia oficiala spune ca au inventat un nou tip de memorie pentru GTX 970, pacat.

Cu toate astea, paradoxal a aparut inca un grafic care arata declinul lui AMD la placile video, daca nu fac nimic este grav, au ajuns la un minim record cu vanzarile. Ii asteapta un an greu.

Ingrijorator... Nu foloseste nimanui aparitia unui monopol pe piata placilor grafice. AMD are nevoie de un nou "R300" (Radeon 9700Pro) ca sa schimbe cursul evenimentelor. Sa fie oare seria R9 300 (Fiji) potrivit pentru rolul asta? In 2-3 luni vom afla cu siguranta raspunsul...

Problema e ca ne si scoate ochii, ca doar a pus 4GB nu 3GB, puteau sa puna doar 3GB, dar jocurile viitoare vor folosi mai mult.
Oricum, nici macar nu pomeneste de celelalte probleme, 56 ROP, 1.7MB memorie cache, nu doar problema cu VRAM a creat atata valva.
Omul a pus problema incat aproape ca ne-a facut o favoare ca a pus mai multa memorie.