• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Why is Bit-tech so biased??

Shock as reviewer is biased towards a particular brand. They're all paid off either way.
 
Last edited:
Locky said:
Shock as reviewer is bias towards a particular brand. They're all paid off either way.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it's so obvious who bats for Nvidia or AMD just by looking at scores for each brand. Some also favour certain manufacturers of the cards such as MSI or Gigabyte.
 
Rroff said:
Not saying they are or aren't bias but often these reviews will be drafted up weeks or months before they are released (depending on the site they may also be sitting in a queue for editorial checking for a week or more before going live) and by the time they come out the prices can have changed considerably.
Click to expand...

Locky said:
Shock as reviewer is bias towards a particular brand. They're all paid off either way.
Click to expand...


Come on, BIASED, not "they are bias", BIASED.

Actually on topic though, bit-tech ARE biased and it's a joke. They weren't before they merged with Custom PC though. Custom PC were/are horribly biased as well.

Don't excuse them like you are, they have a choice to review the way they do, and they keep the selection of games down to such a minimum on purpose to help them with their biased reviews.
 
bemaniac said:
Well the review comments annoyed me enough to go spam them myself later. I would do the same to help nvidia if they were being poorly represented. In some years I prefer red some green, this year red gave me more satisfaction and that review is lies.
Click to expand...

I saw your comment - thanks!! Another person picked up on what I said,so they have now amended the summary.

"Conclusion
Slotting between AMD's 7800 cards, GTX 660 2GB fills a gap in that ever-important sub-£200 market. The HD 7850 2GB is 10-15 per cent slower but 10-15 per cent cheaper, while the HD 7870 2GB is, on average, seven per cent faster but ten per cent dearer at around £200. All three cards come out of the mix competitively then, each offering a healthy amount of additional performance the further up the pricing ladder you go.

The GTX 660 is solid value in comparison to Nvidia’s higher-end options too. Averaged across all our benchmarks, the GTX 660 2GB is around 25 per cent slower than the GTX 660 Ti 2GB. While this is a steep drop off (we’re used to around 10-15 per cent gaps between cards), the GTX 660 2GB’s £180 price is also, predictably, 25 per cent less than the £240 GTX 660 Ti 2GB. At least in this case, if you spend that much more, you'll get that much more.

All things considered then, it’s hard not to rate the GTX 660 2GB as the mid-range card of choice for this generation. Positioned precisely between the HD 7850 2GB and HD 7870 2GB by offering a competitve middle ground, at that key sub-£200 price point, it looks like it was worth the wait after all.

*ADDENDUM*
It's been pointed out to us by a number of readers that our initial pricing for the HD 7870 2GB was incorrect. As such, we've amended the final page of this review to reflect this."
 
Last edited:
Good for you. Can't say I'd have done anything about it, but I'm certainly not opposed to your making a fuss, and even if I had been I can't see it having been to a sufficient degree which would make me feel the need to post about it.

Jesus wept at the apathy he witnessed during his daily perusal of the OcUK forums. And remember, Jesus saves, by using ATI cards in his gaming rigs.
 
Jesus wept at the apathy he witnessed during his daily perusal of the OcUK forums. And remember, Jesus saves, by using ATI cards in his gaming rigs.
Click to expand...

And Satan's got a Quad GTX 480 setup powered by the fires of Hell.:D
 
Surely it's best to take the position of looking at performance for a given price?
Unless you have a specific level of performance you want to read then the reverse would be true.

Also, do you honestly read articles like that for opinion?
The review presents you with the facts (benchmarks), it's much quicker / easier to interpret them yourself.
 
Thank god there exists hardware sites where reviewers are paid 0 and get 0 stuff - they only review purely out of passion and interest to the hardware in hand supplied by the sponsors etc.
 
tbh I am inclined to believe they are not biased. I mean in one of the benchmarks they show the 660 losing out to a damn 570.
 
I posted in an article on tomshardware that their "news" item was 6 months out of date and that what they had posted was completely incorrect - with links to the most up to date information... they deleted my post, posted the new info as another news item and banned me from their forum.
 
spoffle said:
They are stupid as well as being biased. So many spelling mistakes in a lot of their articles.
Click to expand...
spoffle said:
Come on, BIASED, not "they are bias", BIASED.

Actually on topic though, bit-tech ARE biased and it's a joke. They weren't before they merged with Custom PC though. Custom PC were/are horribly biased as well.

Don't excuse them like you are, they have a choice to review the way they do, and they keep the selection of games down to such a minimum on purpose to help them with their biased reviews.
Click to expand...


Cry me a river :rolleyes:

I can see you lasting long round here.
 
Last edited:
spoffle said:
They are stupid as well as being biased. So many spelling mistakes in a lot of their articles.
Click to expand...

Now they have changed the summary after a few people agreed with me(and this despite after all that effort editing my posts,deleting them and threatening to ban me for just showing they were wrong).

OTH,I still like the fact that the original HD7850 and HD7870 reviews still don't have a score months after they were released. Also,I like the fact they seem to get the weirdest HandBrake results I have seen in almost any review. Was LOLing when they said my Core i3 2100 beats a 3.7GHZ Phenom II X4 in HandBrake,which is funny since my Q6600 at 3GHZ is slightly faster! ;)
 
Last edited:
Locky said:
Cry me a river :rolleyes:

I can see you lasting long round here.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You think it's not worthy of complaint when people who get paid to write for a living are making constant typos or mistakes?

If you're paid for your writing, you should at least have the basics down.

Who's crying?
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Now they have changed the summary after a few people agreed with me(and this despite after all that effort editing my posts,deleting them and threatening to ban me for just showing they were wrong).

OTH,I still like the fact that the original HD7850 and HD7870 reviews still don't have a score months after they were released. Also,I like the fact they seem to get the weirdest HandBrake results I have seen in almost any review. Was LOLing when they said my Core i3 2100 beats a 3.7GHZ Phenom II X4 in HandBrake,which is funny since my Q6600 at 3GHZ is slightly faster! ;)
Click to expand...

They have definitely declined significantly in the recent years, I've stopped reading custom PC as a result too.

They just seem to get so many things wrong, it's like they want people think they're rubbish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom