Topic: Defective Inno3d P106-090 cards (Nvidia GTX 1060) (Read 306 times)

Yes, in fact we understand well all the difficulties, that's why we're searching on the forum another owners of these Inno3d systems in order to combine all claims into the class action which will increase our chances to win.

I will add more details of the situation for Your understanding: when the problem occurred we spent several weeks for finding of decision by our own means, when we failed, our friends, who serve more than 0.5 TX, were requested by us for the help - they also failed to solve the problem with the decrease of the hashrate on P106-090 cards.
Realizing that it is not possible to solve this case locally, we've contacted Inno3d and requested them for 2 possible way of situation settling:
1. Providing us with optimized drivers for these specific cards that must be either written by Inno3d or together with Nvidia.
2. The replacement of P106-090 cards for the closest model which has no problem with hashrate, viz. P106-100 (although P104-100 we also agreed only immediately abandoned replacement for P102-100) in such a way so the total hashrate of replaced cards should match total declared, during the shipping, hashrate of our systems.

We absolutely agree with You that there are tons of factors which can influence on final hashrate, however in our case all and any possible combinations of drivers/OCs/miners were tried.
Also as i've written in previous message problem of performance fall takes place only when DAG file is, roughly, above 2,5 GB, for earlier ethash performance remains the same as it was declared.

On earlier ethash performance is the same as it was initially declared from Inno3d side (and as it was on ETH at February-April 2018).
However if we talk about earlier Ethash it means that 6GB memory (for which we paid much higher than 3 GB solutions) is useless plus these systems could be used only for Ethash with DAG size below, roughly speaking, 2,5 GB which very seriously limit area of usage and lifetime of the systems.
As we deliberately paid almost 30% on top of the cost of self-assembled rigs for modularity and possibility of long-term use on ETH (6 GB Samsung memory on board) it means that these particular systems are completely useless for our purposes and this situation fully resulted owing to Inno3d fault.

There are no problems at all with P106-100 6gb cards of either Inno3d or Manli or any other brands - performance is the same as it was initially on any Ethash.
As we understand the problem in P106-090 cards is in 2 times reduced number of CUDA cores (up to 640 comparative to 1280 on P106-100), but our position is that we, as the Buyer, shouldn't bear responsibility for either Inno3d or Nvidia mistake in cards design and release on sale.

Also we have (as well notarized) correspondence with Inno3d employees (from their corporate e-mails) in which They confirm that performance of the system is to be 200 mh and recognize the existence of a problem with the falling hashrate on these specific map models, but can not offer solutions that suit us.

Inno3d mother company is registered in Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in the list of Countries for which fulfillment of Stockholm Arbitration decision is obligatory.

It is difficult to win anything in almost any court of the world when the topic of cryptos is covered there. You are accusing the company of not providing the hash rate claimed. I am with you but I know that the Ino3D company will be favoured by any court in the world as they are famous enough for their GTX modified product line.

I have doubts about your company comparing to them. I am afraid you will lose a lot of money during trial if you decide to go that route.

Actually in initial specification on Inno3d site was mentioned 200 mh +-5%, so it means that in any case MINIMAL possible performance on ETH/ETC must be 190 mh while even now it's already lower than 180 mh on ETC, but the main problem, as i've written above, is in the fact that performance has been dropping with each next epoch.
From the date of filing of the arbitration case and before the court hearings there takes several months (we focus on 3-4) and taking into account the speed of the fall of the hashrate, due to the growth of the DAG file, after 3-4 months one system will issue less than 160mh on ETC, which will be difficult to argue from Inno3d side as about 200 +-5% (yes, even about 190 which are now stating on their site).

Good day.
First of all we would like to draw Your attention to the fact that hasharate of 1 system isn't the figure which was expected by us, but the figure which was declared by Inno3d in their commercial offers and in the detailed specification on their web-site.
Our claim is in the fact that hashrate is dropping together with the rise of DAG file on each next epoch.
Taking into consideration the situation that only P106-090 cards with 2 time reduced CUDA cores (up to 640) comparing to reference (GTX 1060 or P106-100) have such kind of a problem it means that from Inno3d side no relevant testes were made before the launch of the product to the sale.

The specification (which is going in addition to our contract with Inno3d) indicates the alphanumeric designation of the system, the performance of this system (with an alphanumeric name) is listed on the inno3d website, link below:
http://www.inno3d.com/products_detail.php?refid=340
 
Now Inno3d changed the hashrate of the system on the site to a lower one (190mh), and put the disclaimer that the performance is guaranteed until the end of 2017, BUT we have a notarized page of the site with the original characteristics (200mh) and without disclaimer of validity (we did it in advance before the start of the claim negotiations with Inno3d).
For this notarized page an apostille is made for submission to international courts.
Hopefully we provided enough details to substantiate a causal relationship.

Did you try to mine a coin with a smaller dagger buffer? Musiccoin / expanse etc..

The difference is: those cloned cars and other knockoffs from China were exclusively distributed and sold inside the country.
There's a huge difference when the products have an international market or produced by a non local-based company.

OP however, didn't seemed to have a strong allegation against Inno3d (I'm not qualified to judge by the law though).

wasting time and money ....
Yeah i have some of the Inno3d P106-100/6GB cards from alibaba, not the mining rig built, just the cards,  but never had any problem with them ,they hashing just like when they was brand new ) with my settings , in my built under windows 10
I dont have any personal experience with Inno3d P106-090 6GB cards.
And just a thought
... when you bought that mining system, it was hashing with the "declared hashrate of 200mh on ETH/ETC"
as you said:  "that was correct for the period February - April 2018."

Did you read somewhere something like : the  "declared hashrate of 200mh on ETH/ETC" for the product is guaranteed through the product lifetime
when i bought my Inno3d P106-100/6GB cards from alibaba, i checked inno3D website, and there was a note about he hashrate with a +/-5% little "side note "

if its a china company save your $.  Nothing happens and you spen much cash.  Look at landrover and all the other car giants that get their cars cloned, YES CLONED over there and sold actively for 1/4 of the price and they cant get anything done. 

Actually that will go perfectly in court. Misrepresentation and breach of contract. If it is stated 200mh, then it needs to be 200mh, but generally when these are advertised i always saw statements that were 200mh +/- 10%. So if it states +/- then they will not win, but if their contract does not state those specifications or the original pages when purchased didnt then they are in good standings.

If your only claim is that they cannot hold the expected hashrate which is not in hands of Inno3d this will not go well in court.

Dear Sirs, good day.

At the current moment our Company is starting preparation of the lawsuit to the Stockholm Arbitration against the Inno3d in relation to the significant discrepancy between the quality of the delivered product with the declared characteristics - viz, falling continuously, with the growth of the DAG file, ETH/ETC hashrate on the cards P106-090 6gb and systems based on them (MC3865-9-090–6gb).
The problem essence is following: systems MC3865-9-090-6gb were shipped by Inno3d with the declared hashrate of 200mh on ETH/ETC, that was correct for the period February - April 2018, but thereafter continuous decrease of card performance, at each change of epoch, combined with an increase of DAG file, have started.
At the beginning of September 2018 performance of 1 system with 9 cards is only 182-184mh on ETH and 178-179mh on ETC, these parameters are obtained by overclocking the cards at +200 on core and +600 on  memory, which is recommended by Inno3d.

Taking into consideration the fact that cards P106-090 6GB are completely specialized product intended for ETH/ETC mining, non-fulfillment of their main function is considered by us as an irreparable defect admitted in the design and release of goods for sale by Inno3d.

In addition to preparing of the standard lawsuit, we are considering the possibility (and chances) of reclassifying a claim into a class action to Inno3d/Nvidia or filing two claims in parallel (main and group).
If there are owners of the above products which were purchased either directly from the Inno3d plant in Hong Kong or from local distributors by Bank transfer with a full set of official supporting documents (regardless of the country of your location and, accordingly, the purchase) we invite you to join the filing of a class action for the entire cost of the purchased products and lost, due to the decreasing hashrate, profit.
All the costs related to the work of lawyers, payment of Arbitration fees and hearings in the amount of up to 100.000 EUR inclusive, will be incurred at our expense, in case the costs exceed the amount of 100.000 EUR they will be divided proportionally between the participants who filed the lawsuit based on their claim amounts (since costs for hearings at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce are directly depend from the amount of the claim).

On top of all earlier mentioned - if on the forum there are owners of cards Manli P106-090 6gb and systems M-P106L9-N6G also get in touch with us, because in case of the class action to Inno3d success it (lawsuit) can be submitted directly to the parent Company PC Partner which owns brands Inno3d and Manli (they also own the brands Zotac and, partially, Sapphire).
In fact, these cards and systems are made in the same production plant but for different markets (Inno3d – Europe/USA, Manli – Asia).

With best regards,