Wow, Nvidia have banned Hardware Unboxed from receiving review samples...

[mattyfc]

RTX is snake oil in my view, slightly better reflections and shadows for 50% performance hit. RTX Just invented to keep selling GPUs because reaching point of diminishing returns for rasterisation. Little point in upgrading. Nvidia and AMD don't want that.

Hardware unbox point this out, which Nvidia not happy about and get banned (and now unbanned) from founders cards.

Pretty clearly it's hard for review sites to say what they actually think due to this kind of pressure, not just from Nvidia. FTC should get on the hardware manufacturers to stop it. If a product is awful review sites should be allowed to say so without being blacklisted!

 

[Stu999]

Nvidia have caved:

https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1337885741389471745?s=20

Idiots at Nvidia.

Pretty much of a non story, what I find more of an issue is the so called "independent" reviewers preaching about how whiter then white they are.

I mean Jay's video was....[snip]

I won't even get in to Linus who will take money to say pretty much anything, lets not forgot he got on the fake 8K gravy train the moment Nvidia flashed the cash

Yeah, I didn't think Jay needed to make that video at all. He was clearly just looking for views and that sweet YouTube money (another corp with ***** practices that I haven't seen him moan about). He did make a reasonable point about the PR speak in the e-mail meaning that it probably went through a few layers of sign off rather than just being sent from that one guy.

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

Idiots at Nvidia.



Yeah, I didn't think Jay needed to make that video at all. He was clearly just looking for views and that sweet YouTube money (another corp with ***** practices that I haven't seen him moan about). He did make a reasonable point about the PR speak in the e-mail meaning that it probably went through a few layers of sign off rather than just being sent from that one guy.

In this day in age, silence is compliance. If he didn't put something out then people would have doubled down on him being a shill.

 

[Stu999]

In this day in age, silence is compliance. If he didn't put something out then people would have doubled down on him being a shill.

He did have his tweets. I personally think that was enough but I get where you're coming from, some people would have ranted at him.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

Nvidia should stop giving reviewers free cards and give them the option of buying the cards insted.
Dont like that i have to buy hardware and reviewers get it for free.

 

[Richdog]

Nvidia should stop giving reviewers free cards and give them the option of buying the cards insted.
Dont like that i have to buy hardware and reviewers get it for free.

Are you seriously telling us that you do not understand the clear difference between yourself and a professional reviewer with a userbase of millions?

 

[jonneymendoza]

Are you seriously telling us that you do not understand the clear difference between yourself and a professional reviewer with a userbase of millions?

LOL I was about to say the exact same thing

 

[henson0115]

Are you seriously telling us that you do not understand the clear difference between yourself and a professional reviewer with a userbase of millions?

i agree with him, free stuff potentially means the company/ies sending the free stuff has a vested interest and potential control over it. imo reviewers should source there own cards like in the old days. way less interference then. and less of this type of issue happening.

are you seriously telling us you condone that type of behaviour from any company?

 

[Journey]

The Hi-Fi industry sits head and shoulders above for this type of behaviour, and has done so as long as I can remember. It's not a new thing, just that it is now finally easier to call out the behaviour since we are moving away from the printed press to online texts and video reviews, and as such it is harder to get away with as this incident had demonstrated. The amount of money made from having a good review cannot be underestimated, speaker manufacturers would attest to this given some form of truth serum.

 

[Richdog]

i agree with him, free stuff potentially means the company/ies sending the free stuff has a vested interest and potential control over it. imo reviewers should source there own cards like in the old days. way less interference then. and less of this type of issue happening.

are you seriously telling us you condone that type of behaviour from any company?

So let me get this straight... you're implying that because I understand why major reviewers get sent cards for free to review, that this means that I condone grossly biased and impartial reviews? Interesting leap of logic you are making there.

What I am suggesting is that it's ok for reviewers should be sent cards for free AND still be able make unbiased and impartial reviews. They are sent cards for free obviously because they have access to and influence over millions of customers, so Nvidia and AMD want to make damn sure that they get their hands on one.

Nvidias's latest move and the resulting backlash shows that reviewers like HWU et al are not toe-ing Nvidias corporate line just because they get free cards to review.

 

[Nablaoperator]

He did have his tweets. I personally think that was enough but I get where you're coming from, some people would have ranted at him.

I saw his tweets.. too personal for my taste, namecalling and stuff
maybe thats what "professional" reviewers are supposed to do.

I couldnt like the kind of unionised behaviour of the reviewer-cartel.
Dont have a card fvkin buy it.. but thats not the real problem is it?
its abt having those cards in time for maximising your channel's revenue potential..
.. and here they are telling us how they are supposed to be unbiased journalists doing god's work

 

[Nablaoperator]

Nvidias's latest move and the resulting backlash shows that reviewers like HWU et al are not toe-ing Nvidias corporate line just because they get free cards to review.

You are counting those chicks too early..
it could be a successfully negotiated PR move by nvidia..

Nvidia: you got to take RT/DLSS more seriously
HU: Yes, but give me something that looks like a win
Nvidia: Formal apologies sent

 

[henson0115]

So let me get this straight... you're implying that because I understand why major reviewers get sent cards for free to review, that this means that I condone grossly biased and impartial reviews? Interesting leap of logic you are making there.

What I am suggesting is that it's ok for reviewers should be sent cards for free AND still be able make unbiased and impartial reviews. They are sent cards for free obviously because they have access to and influence over millions of customers, so Nvidia and AMD want to make damn sure that they get their hands on one.

who says they are unbiased and impartial, how do you know that? because they tell you, what and youtubers don't lie too? sure most of them are upfront about it but not all of them. why do you care that they get free cards? nothing in life is free, so why cant they rent them/pay for them like the rest of the world does, even if they get them first. you spend to accumulate and if that means a less biased system and if that means reviewers have to pay out of their own profit then so be it. the ones with millions; like Linus said will see no impact what so ever.

we have done this crappy system for 20 years now and it hasn't changed, but got worse, maybe its time for a change...

 

[Nablaoperator]

the ones with millions; like linus said will see no impact what so ever.

They arent too bothered about the price of the card.. but the millions that they might lose by not having a launch day or pre-release coverage
Linus is just making one-sided arguments, without pre-release CPU/GPU/Laptop videos his media biz might get downsized, thats his main concern
His attempts to hide this "commercial" aspect of his business are praiseworthy..
I find his methods deplorable

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

RTX is snake oil in my view, slightly better reflections and shadows for 50% performance hit. RTX Just invented to keep selling GPUs because reaching point of diminishing returns for rasterisation. Little point in upgrading. Nvidia and AMD don't want that.

Hardware unbox point this out, which Nvidia not happy about and get banned (and now unbanned) from founders cards.

Pretty clearly it's hard for review sites to say what they actually think due to this kind of pressure, not just from Nvidia. FTC should get on the hardware manufacturers to stop it. If a product is awful review sites should be allowed to say so without being blacklisted!

I think this is it. Allot of people say they can't see the difference between ray tracing on and off. When Steve said ray tracing wasn't worth it for slightly better shadows, I think they thought they could threaten him to stop that type of talk. I don't think they expected to get outed.

Nvidia have a history of bringing out witcher hair works and excessive tessellation that has a very tiny improvement in image quality but gimps the competitions card. Now I do think ray tracing can add to the image in some instances. But I think your point about raw rasterisation hitting high fps at 4k for a lower cost in the next generation is an issue for both GPU manufacturers. When a 5060 can do 4k 70fps, they need ray tracing to be a thing to sell a 5080 card

 

[Cyber-Mav]

Are you seriously telling us that you do not understand the clear difference between yourself and a professional reviewer with a userbase of millions?

So a pro reviewer should get free stuff? They should source it from a retail outlet like everyone else. That way they dont get the golden sample.

Look at adata ssd, bait and switch if you go by what reviewers get.

 

[Richdog]

So a pro reviewer should get free stuff? They should source it from a retail outlet like everyone else. That way they dont get the golden sample.

Ok, working by this kindergarten logic, if they "had to buy one at retail like everyone else" then how would they be able to review a card and let people know how it performs before it is released, if they can't get one at retail for weeks after launch?

who says they are unbiased and impartial, how do you know that? because they tell you, what and youtubers don't lie too? sure most of them are upfront about it but not all of them. why do you care that they get free cards? nothing in life is free, so why cant they rent them/pay for them like the rest of the world does, even if they get them first. you spend to accumulate and if that means a less biased system and if that means reviewers have to pay out of their own profit then so be it. the ones with millions; like Linus said will see no impact what so ever.

we have done this crappy system for 20 years now and it hasn't changed, but got worse, maybe its time for a change...

Your post just sounds like you are somewhat bitter that professional reviewers get cards for free whereas you have to pay for them and makes you seem less concerned with the journalistic integrity and instead more about your own financial situation vs theirs.

 

[Humbucker]

there's a reason all high end CG uses physically accurate rendering. traditional rasterization is a box of tricks that can make a very visually pleasing image, but simply can't accurately model light.

i've said this a few times but RT isn't designed to leap out at them like some overdone particle effect, it's about replacing the innacurate methods we're currently using with methods that conform to how your brain is used to seeing light act in reality. the effect in games is profound if done well and cyberpunk is a landmark title in this regard. it's not that the world looks "better", it's that it looks more convincing, and it's now a linear journey between where we are now and full path tracing. it's the opposite of snake oil.

i hate that it's become a GPU vendor partisan issue and hope AMD get their game together for the next generation of cards.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

Ok, working by this kindergarten logic, if they "had to buy one at retail like everyone else" then how would they be able to review a card and let people know how it performs before it is released, if they can't get one at retail for weeks after launch?



Your post just sounds like you are bitter that reviewers get cards for free and you have to pay for them. So, you seem less concerned with the journalistic integrity and instead more about your own financial comparisons.

Ok, working by this kindergarten logic, if they "had to buy one at retail like everyone else" then how would they be able to review a card and let people know how it performs before it is released, if they can't get one at retail for weeks after launch?

Let the hardware manufacturers charge the reviewer full price for the card. Then you get an unbiased review since hard earned has been spent

 

[Nablaoperator]

Ok, working by this kindergarten logic, if they "had to buy one at retail like everyone else" then how would they be able to review a card and let people know how it performs before it is released, if they can't get one at retail for weeks after launch?

Thats gotten into self-contradictory territory:

Scenario A: Reviewers are not able to buy a card for weeks after launch.
Conclusion: Theres no "real" demand for "professional" reviews as folks are anyhow buying hardware without looking at reviews

Scenario B: Theres's "real" demand for "professional" reviews. People will wait till those are published.
Conclusion: Reviewers will easily score a card on launch day or atmost in a week after that.

Have i counted all scenarios?