Buyers rights

[Legend]

An interview regarding a product launch is technically classed as a marketing activity - and I suggest you actually read the law and historical case law relating to the Regulation before accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about - it seems the only ignorant one here is in fact you.

OH WOW, you're right!! It's all over the news that Sean Murray is facing life in prison for all those claims he made about No Man's Sky before release. He's apparently just taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy with Julian Assange!

You can quote regulations until you're blue in the face, it's absolutely meaningless. If you honestly think Nvidia aren't going to have a litany of disclaimers in regards to performance then you're in dream land. And that interview is absolutely and utterly meaningless from a legal perspective, but by all means cite an actual legal precedent if you think otherwise.

 

[five8five]

the 35-45% was the number given by Nvidia in an interview - if the performance improvements like for like are not averaging at that level that would be misleading under consumer protection law. The law states that you cannot mislead consumers it doesn't say you can only mislead consumers unto 35% of the time lol

If Nvidia come out on media day and say apologies we said a performance improvement of 35-45% earlier but due to unforeseen circumstances we are unable to achieve that and it's actually 15-25%. And then they put that in advertising blurb for the card. That isn't against the law.

 

[Paladine]

If Nvidia come out on media day and say apologies we said a performance improvement of 35-45% earlier but due to unforeseen circumstances we are unable to achieve that and it's actually 15-25%. And then they put that in advertising blurb for the card. That isn't against the law.

You are entirely welcome to keep telling yourself and believing that

 

[LePhuronn]

The 4GB RAM fiasco with the GTX 970 was sufficiently close to being factually untrue to cause a stink, and people got their money back.

Marketing hyperbole like "light years ahead" is hardly in the same ballpark.

There is enough wiggle room (as pointed out above) to spin the context and the subject of the sentence to mean anything. Just because you interpret it as "with the inclusion of ray tracing, the card as a whole puts it light years ahead of everything else" doesn't actually mean that's what the sentence intended to say; it is entirely reasonable, and more accurate, to interpret the sentence as "the ray tracing capabilities of this card are light years ahead of anything else".

Same with the "45% faster than previous generations" statement. It didn't say "45% faster than THE previous generation", i.e. Pascal. "Generations" plural could easily be referring to Maxwell, Kepler or even Fermi.

For all their shady practices, Nvidia are not stupid enough (usually) to actually shoot themselves in the foot with a marketing phrase.

#poorvolta

 

[Stanners]

the 35-45% was the number given by Nvidia in an interview - if the performance improvements like for like are not averaging at that level that would be misleading under consumer protection law. The law states that you cannot mislead consumers it doesn't say you can only mislead consumers unto 35% of the time lol

I get you, makes sense now I have re read it. I thought you were saying the law states it has to be 35-45% faster

 

[five8five]

You are entirely welcome to keep telling yourself and believing that

Check your pre-order because that's all it is at the moment. I bet have in the small print "specifications subject to change", "errors and omissions excepted" or similar.

 

[Legend]

Peterson's quote is;

"...if you are on high-resolution and not CPU limited you could expect to see between 35 percent and 45 percent performance gains in existing games when you step up from a GTX 1080 to an RTX 2080."

First of all, what is high-resolution? No specifics given here. CPU limited... well there is MAHOOOSIVE wiggle room here if anyone attacks his statement from a legal perspective. He could mean an overclocked 8700K at 5Ghz! And MOST IMPORTANTLY of all, he says "expect to see", not "we promise" or "we guarantee"!

It is genuinely laughable that anyone would take this as some sort of basis for legal action against Nvidia if they don't see 35% improvement, really proper laugh out loud absurdity.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Peterson's quote is;

"...if you are on high-resolution and not CPU limited you could expect to see between 35 percent and 45 percent performance gains in existing games when you step up from a GTX 1080 to an RTX 2080."

First of all, what is high-resolution? No specifics given here. CPU limited... well there is MAHOOOSIVE wiggle room here if anyone attacks his statement from a legal perspective. He could mean an overclocked 8700K at 5Ghz! And MOST IMPORTANTLY of all, he says "expect to see", not "we promise" or "we guarantee"!

It is genuinely laughable that anyone would take this as some sort of basis for legal action against Nvidia if they don't see 35% improvement, really proper laugh out loud absurdity.

to be honest the biggest issue i have with the above quote isnt even missleading. i am pretty confident the 2080 WILL be upto 35-45% faster than a stock 1080........ the problem is no one in the real world will be comparing the 2080 to a 1080... they will be comparing it to a 1080ti as that is the card which is competing at a similar price point (even then the 1080ti is about 20% cheaper)

 

[jigger]

P Nvidia if they don't see 35% improvement, really proper laugh out loud absurdity.

I agree.

 

[five8five]

Peterson's quote is;

"...could expect........".

Case closed

 

[mid_gen]

I think you will struggle to find any court that won't dismiss the case out of hand as soon as you start trying to argue over the definition of ''light years" in the context of what is clearly a load of unquantifiable marketing guff.

Most people with a modicum of common sense wouldn't try to read anything into it, for that matter.

"So the card isn't light years ahead? What were your expectations in terms of distance? Have you measured it?"

 

[melmac]

I was just checking out the price of the 1080ti's on overclockers when at the top of the search for the 1080ti's was the rtx 2070 so I just wanted to see if any specs were listed in its description to compare them, that is when I noticed this in the description which I'm sure comes from Nvidia and not overclockers.

So if iwere to buy this card and find the 1080ti kicks it butt, where would I stand legally if I was dissatisfied and felt miss sold this product.
bearing in mind how old the 1080ti is.

Nothing in the sentence you quoted would be actionable. You have to take the whole sentence into consideration, not just the bit you highlighted. And you can see from the first part of the sentence it's purely in regard to Ray Tracing and realism and in both these things the 2070 will be light years ahead of older cards as the older cards don't have the necessary hardware.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I have been supporting Nvidia since the new cards were released and continue to do so - but if the information they have stated is not accurate it will be considered as misleading under the law - whether you like that or believe that, frankly I couldn't give a **** - your opinion means jack to me

I hope if a friend of your bought a GT1030 believing it would be fast enough to get solid 60fps for casual the games he wish to play after extensively reading reviews, and end up with a cards that can only deliver less than half the frame rate because they fell victim to Nvidia's bait and switch of the vram from GDDR5 to DDR4, you would have the balls to say "poor him" and it is his fault for falling for it to his face

 

[jigger]

Case closed

Didn't notice Nvidia had wheeled out fat fake Fermi guy.

 

[joedeath332]

If Nvidia come out on media day and say apologies we said a performance improvement of 35-45% earlier but due to unforeseen circumstances we are unable to achieve that and it's actually 15-25%. And then they put that in advertising blurb for the card. That isn't against the law.

Even if its not against any law surely its not good business to get a customers money when they pre ordering a product with the impression it will be of x, y, z standard but come release day its missing Y.

 

[aoaaron]

If you buy the card online you have 14 days to send it back for whatever reason you like under distance selling regulations. If you go beyond that deadline and then decide you don't feel the advertising was true you can file complaints under various consumer protection regulations and advertising standards.

does this apply if you've opened and installed the card ?

 

[andybird123]

does this apply if you've opened and installed the card ?

Arguable. You are allowed to inspect and handle the goods in a way that allows you to check the characteristics and function of the item. Traders are allowed to charge a fee "if handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop".

If you went to a retailers to buy a GPU, would you ask them to slap one in a PC so you could see it working? I know a shop near me that would aloow it, but most wouldn't so its a oretty grey area.

 

[Gregster]

the 35-45% was the number given by Nvidia in an interview - if the performance improvements like for like are not averaging at that level that would be misleading under consumer protection law. The law states that you cannot mislead consumers it doesn't say you can only mislead consumers unto 35% of the time lol

Have you got a link to that interview, as I have not heard or seen such claims.

:Edit

Never mind, I see where you got it from but seriously, you have to take the best case scenario for that statement and try taking that to a court of law. Remember the "Poor Volta" sign that AMD had when they were releasing Vega - Yer, enough said

 

[Legend]

does this apply if you've opened and installed the card ?

Yes, you are absolutely allowed to open and install the card. The regulations state that "the extent to which you can handle the goods is the same as it would be if you were assessing them in a shop." I don't know how on earth you would be expected to "assess" a GPU without installing it?! For example, a GPU could say "cool and quiet"... how are you supposed to assess that any other way?

It is important to note however that a deduction on your refund can be made if the value of the goods has been reduced as a result of you handling them more than necessary, so if during your 'assessment' of the card you scratch or damage it, then you would be liable for that. Which is fair.

 

[Legend]

Have you got a link to that interview, as I have not heard or seen such claims.

He's cherry picking his words... you can see and read the full content of the interview here... https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-tom-petersen-geforce-rtx,37727.html

Amongst other things, the mere fact he uses the phrase "could expect to see" makes any suggestion that you could use this interview as basis for some sort of legal action against Nvidia absolutely laughable beyond belief.