Silverforce11
Lifer
- Feb 19, 2009
- 10,457
- 10
- 76
I'm not sure this will have any measurable effect on their stock price anyway.
Such a bold statement.
Put your money where your mouth is and go buy a load of NV shares.
I'm not sure this will have any measurable effect on their stock price anyway.
Such a bold statement.
Put your money where your mouth is and go buy a load of NV shares.
The most important question is, did they know about differences before, or after the GTX 970 was released?
Thoses guys are not crazy, they have the right to sell stock options that have reached maturity, wich is surely the case of the sold stocks, if sold at peaks it point to inside knowledge used for the purpose but you can be sure taht they sold only part of what was allowed as a cover, legaly nothing can be made against them.
Just throwing some numbers up here...
![]()
Peak share price for 2014 occurred on 12/03
This thread is just gonna get locked like the other one anyway
Ok, i ll do you a short analysis.
On 12/03 certainly that it was a peak but then it s logical to sell since the price is at an historical high of 21$, as such this transaction cant be considered as exceptional and is even rather logical.
Next transaction, 12/22, is just after a recovery, it s logical that one wait for the price to get close to previous levels but admintingly the timing seems quite too opportunistic, but as i told you thoses people are not crazy, next trade is 01/03 and this one occur while the stock has plunged, this transaction will exonerate the previous one of any insider info being used previously, it s quite possible that it was made on purpose.
The two next transactions follow the previous scheme, that is at different prices, wich says that there was no insider info used.
I m not denying that they could have used some infos marginaly but what is sure is that this curve and the price points are not enough for a regulatory body to justify even one minute of investigation.
This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once on the read side. GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but not both at once; it is a true XOR situation. Furthermore because the 512MB segment cannot be read at the same time as the 3.5GB segment, reading this segment blocks accessing the 3.5GB segment for that cycle, further reducing the effective memory bandwidth of the card. The larger the percentage of the time the crossbar is reading the 512MB segment, the lower the effective memory bandwidth from the 3.5GB segment.
I knew that much, seems pretty logical and common sense to me
I'm just not smart enough to gamble with my money![]()
No it isn't, Nvidia released wrong specs (fake really) for the 970, the only reason they admitted this now is because a number of users caught them lying, can't see how this can be equated with 290/290x spec differences :hmm:What I want know is this issue common from both camps. I bought the 680 over the 670 because I had very bad experience with the Gtx 560ti. Does 290 suffer vs 290x etc. and cutdown chips from both camps? Would really like to see results?
No it isn't, Nvidia released wrong specs (fake really) for the 970, the only reason they admitted this now is because a number of users caught them lying, can't see how this can be equated with 290/290x spec differences :hmm:
What I find strange is - how are the threads that seem to put NVIDIA in a negative light conveniently locked "for review," without any hint of what is under the review? The issue was big enough to get on the front page of this site with many pages of analysis as well as a promise of further investigation by the author.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2418466
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2416150
It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.
But what is under the review? Granted only reason I came here this time around was because of the aforementioned front page article by Ryan Smith. Then I saw both the related threads locked with no indication of what the beef is.
If you do not want something to be recurring, you have to give fair notice. If Mantle-related thread is inexplicably locked for "review," then that also does disservice to the community.
What I find strange is - how are the threads that seem to put NVIDIA in a negative light conveniently locked "for review," without any hint of what is under the review? The issue was big enough to get on the front page of this site with many pages of analysis as well as a promise of further investigation by the author.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2418466
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2416150
It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.
Or it could be that a large lot of people here are absolute jerks who are looking for reasons to fight...It's as if the forum wants to buy time for NVIDIA. This is not the first time I noticed these inexplicable happenstances.
OP has single post, with name about the 970... Hmmm... WWYBYWB?![]()
Compensation?
I ask nvidia in a chat if they would take their card back and exchange it for a 980 but let me the pay difference.
They say they will get back with me. So we will see.