Editing Nvidia (section)

== Reception ==

=== Maxwell advertising dispute ===
{{Main|GeForce 900 series#Advertising controversy}}

=== GTX 970 hardware specifications ===
Issues with the GeForce GTX 970's specifications were first brought up by users when they found out that the cards, while featuring 4&nbsp;GB of memory, rarely accessed memory over the 3.5&nbsp;GB boundary. Further testing and investigation eventually led to Nvidia issuing a statement that the card's initially announced specifications had been altered without notice before the card was made commercially available, and that the card took a performance hit once memory over the 3.5&nbsp;GB limit were put into use.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970 |title=NVIDIA Discloses Full Memory Structure and Limitations of GTX 970 |publisher=PCPer|access-date=January 28, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150225180420/http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970|archive-date=February 25, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-memory-issue-fully-explained/ |title=GeForce GTX 970 Memory Issue Fully Explained – Nvidia's Response |date=January 24, 2015 |publisher=WCFTech|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=March 7, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150307020110/http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-memory-issue-fully-explained/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcgamer.com/why-nvidias-gtx-970-slows-down-using-more-than-35gb-vram/ |title=Why Nvidia's GTX 970 slows down when using more than 3.5GB VRAM |date=January 26, 2015 |publisher=PCGamer|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=March 2, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150302151518/http://www.pcgamer.com/why-nvidias-gtx-970-slows-down-using-more-than-35gb-vram/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The card's back-end hardware specifications, initially announced as being identical to those of the GeForce GTX 980, differed in the amount of L2 cache (1.75&nbsp;MB versus 2&nbsp;MB in the GeForce GTX 980) and the number of ROPs (56 versus 64 in the 980). Additionally, it was revealed that the card was designed to access its memory as a 3.5&nbsp;GB section, plus a 0.5&nbsp;GB one, access to the latter being 7 times slower than the first one.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation |title=GeForce GTX 970: Correcting The Specs & Exploring Memory Allocation |publisher=AnandTech|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=February 25, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150225183034/http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation|url-status=live}}</ref> The company then went on to promise a specific driver modification to alleviate the performance issues produced by the cutbacks suffered by the card.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wccftech.com/nvidia-working-driver-geforce-gtx-970-tune-memory-allocation-problems-improve-performance/ |title=NVIDIA Working on New Driver For GeForce GTX 970 To Tune Memory Allocation Problems and Improve Performance |date=January 28, 2015 |publisher=WCFTech|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=February 17, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150217061234/http://wccftech.com/nvidia-working-driver-geforce-gtx-970-tune-memory-allocation-problems-improve-performance/|url-status=live}}</ref> However, Nvidia later clarified that the promise had been a miscommunication and there would be no specific driver update for the GTX 970.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/2876802/nvidia-plans-geforce-gtx-970-driver-update-for-memory-performance-concerns.html/ |title=NVIDIA clarifies no driver update for GTX 970 specifically |date=January 29, 2015 |publisher=PC World|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=August 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210830210733/https://www.pcworld.com/article/2876802/nvidia-plans-geforce-gtx-970-driver-update-for-memory-performance-concerns.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Nvidia claimed that it would assist customers who wanted refunds in obtaining them.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Plans-Driver-Update-GTX-970-Memory-Issue-Help-Returns |title=NVIDIA Plans Driver Update for GTX 970 Memory Issue, Help with Returns |work=pcper.com |date=January 28, 2015|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=February 14, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214101918/http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Plans-Driver-Update-GTX-970-Memory-Issue-Help-Returns|url-status=live}}</ref> On February 26, 2015, Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang went on record in Nvidia's official blog to apologize for the incident.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-ceo-addresses-gtx-970-controversy/ |title=Nvidia CEO addresses GTX 970 controversy |publisher=PCGamer |date=February 26, 2015|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=February 27, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150227104339/http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-ceo-addresses-gtx-970-controversy/|url-status=live}}</ref> In February 2015 a class-action lawsuit alleging false advertising was filed against Nvidia and Gigabyte Technology in the [[U.S. District Court for Northern California]].<ref name="970lawsuit">{{cite news |url=http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-faces-false-advertising-lawsuit-over-gtx-970-specs/ |title=Nvidia faces false advertising lawsuit over GTX 970 specs |last=Chalk |first=Andy |date=February 22, 2015 |work=PC Gamer|access-date=March 27, 2015|archive-date=March 24, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150324202726/http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-faces-false-advertising-lawsuit-over-gtx-970-specs/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887234/nvidia-hit-with-false-advertising-suit-over-gtx-970-performance.html |title=Nvidia hit with false advertising suit over GTX 970 performance |last=Niccolai |first=James |date=February 20, 2015 |work=PC World|access-date=March 27, 2015|archive-date=March 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150326052210/http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887234/nvidia-hit-with-false-advertising-suit-over-gtx-970-performance.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Nvidia revealed that it is able to disable individual units, each containing 256&nbsp;KB of L2 cache and 8 ROPs, without disabling whole memory controllers.<ref name="AnandTechCorrectionPage2">{{cite web |url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2 |title=Diving Deeper: The Maxwell 2 Memory Crossbar & ROP Partitions – GeForce GTX 970: Correcting The Specs & Exploring Memory Allocation |author=Ryan Smith |work=anandtech.com|access-date=August 16, 2021|archive-date=February 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226174250/http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2|url-status=live}}</ref> This comes at the cost of dividing the memory bus into high speed and low speed segments that cannot be accessed at the same time unless one segment is reading while the other segment is writing because the L2/ROP unit managing both of the GDDR5 controllers shares the read return channel and the write data bus between the two GDDR5 controllers and itself.<ref name="AnandTechCorrectionPage2" /> This is used in the GeForce GTX 970, which therefore can be described as having 3.5 GB in its high speed segment on a 224-bit bus and 0.5 GB in a low speed segment on a 32-bit bus.<ref name="AnandTechCorrectionPage2" />

On July 27, 2016, Nvidia agreed to a preliminary settlement of the U.S. class action lawsuit,<ref name="970lawsuit" /> offering a $30 refund on GTX 970 purchases. The agreed upon refund represents the portion of the cost of the storage and performance capabilities the consumers assumed they were obtaining when they purchased the card.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/340705-nvidia-settles-graphics-card-false-advertising-class-action |title=Nvidia settles class action lawsuit |date=July 27, 2016 |work=Top Class Actions|access-date=July 27, 2016|archive-date=July 28, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160728134302/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/340705-nvidia-settles-graphics-card-false-advertising-class-action/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== GeForce Partner Program ===

{{Main|GeForce Partner Program}}The Nvidia GeForce Partner Program was a [[marketing]] program designed to provide partnering companies with benefits such as public relations support, [[Video game bundle|video game bundling]], and marketing development funds.<ref>{{cite web |title=Nvidia gets anti-competitive with unsavory GeForce Partner Program |date=March 12, 2018 |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/73661-nvidia-gets-anti-competitive-unsavory-geforce-partner-program.html |publisher=|access-date=April 17, 2021|archive-date=April 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417102448/https://www.techspot.com/news/73661-nvidia-gets-anti-competitive-unsavory-geforce-partner-program.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The program proved to be controversial, with complaints about it possibly being an [[anti-competitive]] practice.<ref name=":02">{{cite web |last1=Bennett |first1=Kyle |title=GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice |url=https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/07/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712164949/https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/07/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 12, 2019 |website=HardOcP |date=March 8, 2018}}</ref>

First announced in a blog post on March 1, 2018,<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 1, 2018 |title=GeForce Partner Program Helps Gamers Know What They're Buying {{!}} NVIDIA Blog|language=en-US|work=The Official NVIDIA Blog|url=https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/03/01/geforce-partner-program/|access-date=April 10, 2018|archive-date=April 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417102449/https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/03/01/geforce-partner-program/|url-status=live}}</ref> it was canceled on May 4, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Killian |first1=Zak |date=May 4, 2018 |title=Nvidia puts the kibosh on the GeForce Partner Program |publisher=Tech Report |url=https://techreport.com/news/33603/nvidia-puts-the-kibosh-on-the-geforce-partner-program |accessdate=May 4, 2018|archive-date=August 12, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220812101343/https://techreport.com/news/33603/nvidia-puts-the-kibosh-on-the-geforce-partner-program/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Hardware Unboxed ===
On December 10, 2020, Nvidia told [[YouTube]] tech reviewer Steven Walton of Hardware Unboxed that it would no longer supply him with GeForce Founders Edition graphics card review units.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Chris |date=December 12, 2020 |title=Nvidia Under Fire For Banning Review Site That Doesn't Focus On Nvidia Hardware Strengths {{!}} Happy Gamer |url=https://happygamer.com/nvidia-under-fire-for-banning-review-site-that-doesnt-focus-on-nvidia-hardware-strengths-97094/ |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=HappyGamer |language=en-US |archive-date=December 17, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217023151/https://happygamer.com/nvidia-under-fire-for-banning-review-site-that-doesnt-focus-on-nvidia-hardware-strengths-97094/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 13, 2020 |title=Hardware Unboxed VS NVIDIA: a Masterpiece of Bad Marketing |url=https://pangoly.com/en/blog/hardware-unboxed-vs-nvidia-a-masterpiece-of-bad-marketing/126 |access-date=December 17, 2020 |website=Pangoly |language=en |archive-date=January 23, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210123122503/https://pangoly.com/en/blog/hardware-unboxed-vs-nvidia-a-masterpiece-of-bad-marketing/126 |url-status=live}}</ref> In a Twitter message, Hardware Unboxed said, "Nvidia have officially decided to ban us from receiving GeForce Founders Edition GPU review samples. Their reasoning is that we are focusing on rasterization instead of ray tracing. They have said they will revisit this 'should your editorial direction change.'"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Nvidia have officially decided to ban us from receiving GeForce Founders Edition GPU review samples |url=https://twitter.com/hardwareunboxed/status/1337246983682060289 |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=Twitter |language=en |archive-date=December 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201224024257/https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1337246983682060289 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In emails that were disclosed by Walton from Nvidia Senior PR Manager Bryan Del Rizzo, Nvidia had said:<blockquote>...your GPU reviews and recommendations have continued to focus singularly on rasterization performance, and you have largely discounted all of the other technologies we offer gamers. It is very clear from your community commentary that you do not see things the same way that we, gamers, and the rest of the industry do.<ref name=":1" /></blockquote>TechSpot, partner site of Hardware Unboxed, said, "this and other related incidents raise serious questions around journalistic independence and what they are expecting of reviewers when they are sent products for an unbiased opinion."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last1=Lal |first1=Arjun Krishna |last2=Franco |first2=Julio |date=December 12, 2020 |title=The ugly side of Nvidia: A rollercoaster ride that shows when Big Tech doesn't get it |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/87946-ugly-side-nvidia-rollercoaster-ride-shows-when-big.html |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=TechSpot |language=en-US |archive-date=January 5, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210105184243/https://www.techspot.com/news/87946-ugly-side-nvidia-rollercoaster-ride-shows-when-big.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

A number of technology reviewers came out strongly against Nvidia's move.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 14, 2020 |title=Nvidia puts pressure on the hardware press |url=https://www.hardwareheaven.com/nvidia-puts-pressure-on-the-hardware-press/ |access-date=December 15, 2020 |website=HardwareHeaven.com |language=en-US |archive-date=December 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201214115601/https://www.hardwareheaven.com/nvidia-puts-pressure-on-the-hardware-press/ |url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Linus Sebastian]], of [[Linus Tech Tips]], titled the episode of his weekly WAN Show, "NVIDIA might ACTUALLY be EVIL..."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kokhanyuk |first=Stanislav |title=I believe in ray tracing, but I do not believe in Nvidia's RTX 3000-series GPUs |url=https://www.notebookcheck.net/I-believe-in-ray-tracing-but-I-do-not-believe-in-Nvidia-s-RTX-3000-series-GPUs.509180.0.html |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=Notebookcheck |date=December 13, 2020 |language=en |archive-date=December 29, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201229095954/https://www.notebookcheck.net/I-believe-in-ray-tracing-but-I-do-not-believe-in-Nvidia-s-RTX-3000-series-GPUs.509180.0.html |url-status=live}}</ref> and was highly critical of the company's move to dictate specific outcomes of technology reviews.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 11, 2020 |title=NVIDIA might ACTUALLY be EVIL... – WAN Show December 11, 2020 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXn9O-Rzb_M  |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/iXn9O-Rzb_M| archive-date=December 11, 2021 |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The review site Gamers Nexus said it was, "Nvidia's latest decision to shoot both its feet: They've now made it so that any reviewers covering RT will become subject to scrutiny from untrusting viewers who will suspect subversion by the company. Shortsighted self-own from NVIDIA."<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 11, 2020 |title=I have something else to say about NVIDIA's latest decision to shoot both its feet: They've now made it so that any reviewers covering RT will become subject to scrutiny from untrusting viewers who will suspect subversion by the company. Shortsighted self-own from NVIDIA. |url=https://twitter.com/gamersnexus/status/1337300582785282049 |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=Twitter |language=en |archive-date=December 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201221025356/https://twitter.com/GamersNexus/status/1337300582785282049 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Two days later, Nvidia reversed their stance.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Farrell |first=Nick |date=December 14, 2020 |title=Nvidia retreats from PR disaster |url=https://fudzilla.com/news/52042-nvidia-retreats-from-pr-disaster |access-date=December 14, 2020 |website=fudzilla.com |language=en-gb |archive-date=December 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201214112414/https://www.fudzilla.com/news/52042-nvidia-retreats-from-pr-disaster |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 15, 2020 |title=Nvidia issues an Apology for Backlisting Hardware Unboxed as their Reviewer |url=https://appuals.com/nvidia-issues-an-apology-for-backlisting-hardware-unboxed-as-their-reviewer/ |access-date=December 16, 2020 |website=Appuals.com |language=en-US |archive-date=December 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201215194427/https://appuals.com/nvidia-issues-an-apology-for-backlisting-hardware-unboxed-as-their-reviewer/ |url-status=dead}}</ref> Hardware Unboxed sent out a Twitter message, "I just received an email from Nvidia apologizing for the previous email & they've now walked everything back."<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 12, 2020 |title=I just received an email from Nvidia apologizing for the previous email & they've now walked everything back. |url=https://twitter.com/hardwareunboxed/status/1337885741389471745 |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=Twitter |language=en |archive-date=January 13, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113023143/https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1337885741389471745 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Alderson |first=Alex |title=NVIDIA u-turns on its decision to block Hardware Unboxed from receiving GPU review units |url=https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-u-turns-on-its-decision-to-block-Hardware-Unboxed-from-receiving-GPU-review-units.509177.0.html |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=Notebookcheck |date=December 13, 2020 |language=en |archive-date=December 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201214233828/https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-u-turns-on-its-decision-to-block-Hardware-Unboxed-from-receiving-GPU-review-units.509177.0.html |url-status=live}}</ref> On December 14, Hardware Unboxed released a video explaining the controversy from their viewpoint.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hardware Unboxed |title=Nvidia Bans Hardware Unboxed, Then Backpedals: Our Thoughts |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdAMcQgR92k  |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/wdAMcQgR92k| archive-date=December 11, 2021 |url-status=live|access-date=December 14, 2020 |website=YouTube|date=December 14, 2020 }}{{cbignore}}</ref> Via Twitter, they also shared a second apology sent by Nvidia's Del Rizzo that said "to withhold samples because I didn't agree with your commentary is simply inexcusable and crossed the line."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hardware Unboxed |date=December 14, 2020 |title=Twitter: Bryan Del Rizzo from Nvidia has reached out a second time to apologize and asked us to share this with you. |url=https://twitter.com/hardwareunboxed/status/1338709463721672705 |access-date=December 22, 2020 |archive-date=December 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201215045635/https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1338709463721672705 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Donny |date=December 15, 2020 |title=NVIDIA Apologizes For Email Blacklisting Reviewer, Retracts Original Statements |url=https://adoredtv.com/nvidia-apologizes-for-email-blacklisting-reviewer-retracts-original-statements/ |access-date=December 22, 2020 |website=AdoredTV |language=en-US |archive-date=December 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201215095411/https://adoredtv.com/nvidia-apologizes-for-email-blacklisting-reviewer-retracts-original-statements/ |url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Improper disclosures about cryptomining ===
In 2018, Nvidia's chips became popular for [[cryptomining]], the process of obtaining crypto rewards in exchange for verifying transactions on distributed ledgers, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said. However, the company failed to disclose that it was a "significant element" of its revenue growth from sales of chips designed for gaming, the SEC further added in a statement and charging order. Those omissions misled investors and analysts who were interested in understanding the impact of cryptomining on Nvidia's business, the SEC emphasized. Nvidia, which did not admit or deny the findings, has agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle civil charges, according to a statement made by the SEC in May 2022.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Prentice |first1=Chris |last2=Singh |first2=Kanishka |date=May 6, 2022 |title=Nvidia to pay $5.5 million penalty for 'inadequate disclosures' about cryptomining |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-sec-charges-nvidia-with-inadequate-disclosures-about-impact-cryptomining-2022-05-06/ |access-date=May 7, 2022 |archive-date=May 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220507154409/https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-sec-charges-nvidia-with-inadequate-disclosures-about-impact-cryptomining-2022-05-06/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== French Competition Authority Investigation ===
On September 26, 2023, Nvidia's French offices were searched by the French Competition Authority. The raid, authorized by a judge, was part of an investigation into suspected anti-competitive practices in the graphics card sector. Nvidia has not publicly commented on the incident.<ref>{{Cite web |last=IV |first=Antonio Pequeño |title=Nvidia's French Offices Raided Over Antitrust Concerns, Report Says |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/09/28/nvidias-french-offices-raided-over-antitrust-concerns-report-says/ |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref>