Editing Nvidia (section)

=== 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>