BigDamn

If you're new to the channel, I understand why you might not know this, but we are extremely committed to improving our accuracy to the point where we are building out a $10M+ facility jam-packed full of equipment and engineering know-how. It's taking time, and this kind of aggressive expansion has been a learning curve for us, but to frame our recent actions as "sacrificing accuracy" is misleading at best. 

We need to make a lot of process changes to get to the point where everything is water-tight. That's a big part of why we added our new CEO Terren to our leadership team, but once again... things take time. He's been full time on the job for less than a single quarter and he's getting up to speed on all the things we are doing right... and yes... all the things we are doing wrong.
 
Trust me, we know. But we are making major investments in improving all of this and we won't stop.

contacting linus personally, and resolving it quietly. is the exact opposite of "proper journalistic practices", what an absolute narcasistic arrogant buffoon

Specifically responding to this and while I don't expect a reply, this just is an excuse to me.
 
How many times have you done something extreme just for the sake of doing it? Or because you wanted the absolute best price be damned?
 
Whole home water cooling. Water chiller. Mineral oil PC etc etc.
 
If it was the best waterblock money could buy, someone will buy it.
 
You shouldn't have accepted the review if you weren't going to at least commit to doing it right. If you weren't comfortable with the expense of doing it right, then you should have declined.
 
All you did was damage a fledgling companies image.

Billet sent us a quote. I don't know or care how they arrived at the value. If they're good, I'm good.

As for what steps we're taking, you're talking about an outlier issue that has happened once in 10+ years of operation. There won't be a new SOP to ensure we don't accidentally auction stuff. We just need to tighten up some documentation.

There won't be a big WAN Show segment about this or anything. Most of what I have to say, I've already said, and I've done so privately.

To Steve, I expressed my disappointment that he didn't go through proper journalistic practices in creating this piece. He has my email and number (along with numerous other members of our team) and could have asked me for context that may have proven to be valuable (like the fact that we didn't 'sell' the monoblock, but rather auctioned it for charity due to a miscommunication... AND the fact that while we haven't sent payment yet, we have already agreed to compensate Billet Labs for the cost of their prototype). There are other issues, but I've told him that I won't be drawn into a public sniping match over this and that I'll be continuing to move forward in good faith as part of 'Team Media'. When/if he's ready to do so again I'll be ready.

To my team (and my CEO's team, but realistically I was at the helm for all of these errors, so I need to own it), I stressed the importance of diligence in our work because there are so many eyes on us. We are going through some growing pains - we've been very public about them in the interest of transparency - and it's clear we have some work to do on internal processes and communication. We have already been doing a lot of work internally to clean up our processes, but these things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day, but that's no excuse for sloppiness.

Now, for my community, all I can say is the same things I always say. We know that we're not perfect. We wear our imperfection on our sleeves in the interest of ensuring that we stay accountable to you. But it's sad and unfortunate when this transparency gets warped into a bad thing. The Labs team is hard at work hard creating processes and tools to generate data that will benefit all consumers - a work in progress that is very much not done and that we've communicated needs to be treated as such. Do we have notes under some videos? Yes. Is it because we are striving for transparency/improvement? Yeah... What we're doing hasn't been in many years, if ever.. and we would make a much larger correction if the circumstances merited it. Listing the wrong amount of cache on a table for a CPU review is sloppy, but given that our conclusions are drawn based on our testing, not the spec sheet, it doesn't materially change the recommendation. That doesn't mean these things don't matter. We've set KPIs for our writing/labs team around accuracy, and we are continually installing new checks and balances to ensure that things continue to get better. If you haven't seen the improvement, frankly I wonder if you're really looking for it... The thoroughness that we managed on our last handful of GPU videos is getting really incredible given the limited time we have for these embargoes. I'm REALLY excited about what the future will hold.
 
With all of that said, I still disagree that the Billet Labs video (not the situation with the return, which I've already addressed above) is an 'accuracy' issue. It's more like I just read the room wrong. We COULD have re-tested it with perfect accuracy, but to do so PROPERLY - accounting for which cases it could be installed in (none) and which radiators it would be plumbed with (again... mystery) would have been impossible... and also didn't affect the conclusion of the video... OR SO I THOUGHT...
 
I wanted to evaluate it as a product, and as a product, IF it could manage to compete with the temperatures of the highest end blocks on the planet, it still wouldn't make sense to buy... so from my point of view, re-testing it and finding out that yes, it did in fact run cooler made no difference to the conclusion, so it didn't really make a difference.
 
Adam and I were talking about this today. He advocated for re-testing it regardless of how non-viable it was as a product at the time and I think he expressed really well today why it mattered. It was like making a video about a supercar. It doesn't mater if no one watching will buy it. They just wanna see it rip.  I missed that, but it wasn't because I didn't care about the consumer.. it was because I was so focused on how this product impacted a potential buyer. Either way, clearly my bad, but my intention was never to harm Billet Labs. I specifically called out their incredible machining skills because I wanted to see them create something with a viable market for it and was hoping others would appreciate the fineness of the craftsmanship even if the product was impractical. I still hope they move forward building something else because they obviously have talent and I've watched countless niche water cooling vendors come and go. It's an astonishingly unforgiving market.
 
Either way, I'm sorry I got the community's priorities mixed-up on this one, and that we didn't show the Billet in the best light. Our intention wasn't to hurt anyone. We wanted no one to buy it (because it's an egregious waste of money no matter what temps it runs at) and we wanted Billet to make something marketable (so they can, y'know, eat).
 
With all of this in mind, it saddens me how quickly the pitchforks were raised over this. It also comes across a touch hypocritical when some basic due diligence could have helped clarify much of it. I have a LONG history of meeting issues head on and I've never been afraid to answer questions, which lands me in hot water regularly, but helps keep me in tune with my peers and with the community. The only reason I can think of not to ask me is because my honest response might be inconvenient. 
 
We can test that... with this post. Will the "It was a mistake (a bad one, but a mistake) and they're taking care of it" reality manage to have the same reach? Let's see if anyone actually wants to know what happened. I hope so, but it's been disheartening seeing how many people were willing to jump on us here. Believe it or not, I'm a real person and so is the rest of my team. We are trying our best, and if what we were doing was easy, everyone would do it. Today sucks.
 
Thanks for reading this.

Any laptop or small form factor desktop with Intel CPUs WILL have this problem. This isn't exclusive to HP. My Dell XPS has an 11th gen i7 that runs above base clock for all of two seconds before throttling (at full load). Why do you think Apple switched to their own silicon? Apple was in the exact same boat as HP, Dell, etc. until they had the balls to bet on themselves and produce their own chips.
 
The real question is, why are OEMs so reluctant to utilize lower power AMD chips? Of all the CPUs available on the Z2 Mini, none of them are AMD. Same goes for XPS laptops from Dell (though the cheaper Inspirons' do have Ryzen offerings). OEMs would still need to engineer proper cooling solutions (which they seem to struggle with), but working with a ~120w 5950x is far more manageable than a 250w+ 12900KS.

I believe he is referring to toned down CCDs that are 8 cores at the maximum. They are disabling a couple defective cores to make it a 10C with 2 CCDs. 

Because 🤦‍♀️
Nobody plugging an RTX4090 into their existing PSU is using the 12VHPWR connector on the PSU because there isn't one. If you bought the RTX4090 with the intent of using the 12VHPWR connector, you also bought a new PSU with such a connector. Reusing the cables, not applicable, cause there aren't any to reuse in either scenario, the GPU doesn't have 8-pin PCIe cables.
 
Now will an AIB that decided to put 4 PCIe connectors on the card have this happen? Maybe. Has anyone done so? The cards are far too new. 
 
All those posts, both the ones I posted and the ones you posted, none of them were "brand new PSU, brand new GPU, cable melted within a few weeks" like what's going on with the 4090.
 
This is why I don't reply to you. You turn everything into a personal attack. If you do not like what I say. Do not reply. It's that simple.

First the connectors are only rated for a like 30 insertions or whatever it was.
Then the cables start melting.
Now the connectors start melting.
 
Seems to me like a garbage product. Should be replaced asap with 8-pins.

It doesn't matter how much USB-IF states what the marketing terms should be, if they don't have any way to enforce it.  Going back to the previous comparison about HP and AMD, I'm quite sure that AMD has specific contractual obligations surrounding the marketing terms HP is and is not allowed to use.  This is what any responsible company would do.  If USB-IF doesn't want to get blamed for lousy marketing, then they need to take greater control over this and ensure all companies conform to the same terminology.  The current system only serves to engender confusion for the end users, and it's only going to get worse if they don't do something about it.

Why doesnt usb 3.2 mean that is the point you are intentionally missing. 
Superspeed USB 20Gbps is an awful name for marketing. 

ALL usb IF had to do was make bigger number = better
3.0 into 3.1 into 3.2

the whole renaming 3.0 into 3.2 gen 1x1 or whatever it was was unnecessary and confusing.
When 3.1 Gen 2 is faster then USB 3.2 Gen 1, that just confuses people for no good reason.
Is USB 3.2 Gen 2 faster then USB 3.2? Nope. 3.2 is faster, why? consumers dont know.

USB IF just had to say "we defined the spec", and manufactures can then go, this port MEETS or EXCEEDS that spec (if they want to do their bullshit of adding half of a newer specs features)
No one knows the difference between Superspeed, High speed, and Full speed. Cause those all are fucking synonyms when used outside of this technical use case.
Also you are partially wrong on SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps (the correct way to type it sure), There IS "SuperSpeed+ USB 20 Gbps" there IS a + in there in the logo
 

So there you go, another inconsistency that will again throw people off for no good reason. 

That's only in the production of the media that it might come into play.  After which, downsampling to lower realistically will not make a difference.
 
I am well aware of Nyquist-Shannon theorem, but that doesn't mean distributing a 192 kHz makes any sense; as by that stage you already have filtered out any frequency higher than 20khz.  4 kHz buffer actually isn't that bad either, and is even bigger when you realize that anything over 16 kHz the loudness of a signal to be audibly heard goes through the roof...so you could effectively have a filter from 16 khz and higher and you wouldn't notice.
 
Even ignoring that though, I get back to the point that 48 kHz is all you need to reproduce any frequency that we could hear.  There is no real benefit from releasing it as 192 kHz, but not down-converting to 48 kHz.  In a perfect world (where you could store numbers more than 24-bits) it makes no difference, as if you look at a Fourier transform of the 192 kHz signal, you shouldn't be getting any frequencies above 20kHz.  48 kHz/44.1 kHz was chosen back in the day because the filters they used could work effectively within that range.
 
  
The antenna will be the biggest limiting factor.  In theory I guess they can create almost a synthetic antenna based on multiple sats...but I doubt that that will happen.  That requires a lot more computing.  Given how they are talking about compressing text messages in order to send stuff, I think it's safe to assume that Apple's implementation is limited by what is possible to reliably be sent.
 
The thing is when referring to the other vendors.  The LEO sats that will be launched by the competitor will have a really huge antenna, which compensates for the smaller signal from the cell phone.  The cell phone will be limited legally how strongly it could broadcast at.
 
*edit* Side note, looking it up GlobalStar's sats are 7.5 year lifespans but instead of de-orbiting they move them into a graveyard orbit.  That is pretty bad.  On another note, the LEO is 1500km vs the competitors is sub 600km apparently.  So that is also how the competitors are able to get away with higher bandwidth.

But why bring it up if you don't actually know if it applies?
Does the Shannon-Hartley theorem actually prove that the iPhone is incapable of transmitting data at a higher speed? 
 
It's like saying "there is no way a human can run at 10 km/h. Ever heard of this thing called gravity? It doesn't allow us to go that fast". Gravity will limit how fast a human can run, just like the Shannon-Hartley theorem will tell us the physical limit of data transmission. But bringing up either of these things without knowing the actual limit or how close we are to the limit just seems pompous. Especially when you are condescending and telling others that they believe Apple works with magic.
 
 
We already have other vendors talking about offering MMS and some data for "select messaging apps".
I think we will see quite a bit of progress in this field over the next 5-10 years. I don't think the iPhone 14 is already capped at what the laws of physics allows.
Remember, the technology used for the iPhone 14 is essentially built on a very limited number of satellites that were built like 15 years ago. The jump from gen 1 to gen 2 GlobalStar satellites bumped up the speed from 9.6kbps to 256kbps. An increase of 2566% in 10 years. 

Yes actually, I would.  The company behind the product is responsible for controlling the marketing of it.  If they let the other companies using their product advertise them however they want, then the brand gets diminished and it helps no one.
It's not about being a dictator, but it is about controlling the marketing.

Seems like you lack some understanding.  Are you sure you should be commenting on this?
 
Hyperbolic joke aside, the USB group could have forced those using the spec to follow a certain naming scheme, yet they didn't.  That makes it their fault, period.
 
Also, you can think all you like that so-and-so (myself included, it seems) shouldn't be commenting, but it's a good thing you're not in charge of deciding who gets to post their thoughts.

If the USB-IF enforces that companies use "USB4 20 Gbps" going forward, then I'm all for it. Just drop the silly, overly verbose "SuperSpeed" that adds nothing and enforce "USB3 20 Gbps" for the older stuff instead.
 
Just call it USBx yy Gbps from now on and rename the internal stuff to USB standard spec reversion x.y. Make internal stuff a really long boring name, so marketers don't pick up on it. The reason they used USB 3.2 in the first place is because it is short and memorable, while SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps is not.
 
In that case, the USB-IF is at fault for using short marketable names for their internal naming and super complicated names as the "official name".
 
Just take a look at what Wi-Fi has been doing. They've moved to Wi-Fi 1, 2, … for the official name and are using 802.11xyz as the internal name. The USB-IF should do the same. Use USB 1, 2, … as the official name and reserve the more awkward SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps as the internal name.

Your double standards are showing. Suggestion: Calm down and get your facts right. Maybe ask before accusing someone. Can be quite useful. 😉 

No it wasn't.
When USB 3.1 was released, it completely replaced USB 3.0.
Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.
 
No they didn't. They never changed the name of 5Gbps and 10Gbps.
What changed name was the standard, and it changed name when more transfer modes were introduced.
Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.
 
 
Are you seriously telling engineers to stop labelling their specifications because you use them incorrectly and get confused?
Holy shit the entitlement of some people. Stop using the incorrect terms and maybe you won't be so confused in the future.
Stop using the internal working names of the specifications when talking about a particular implementation of the specs.
 
This is seriously as stupid as if people started calling Zen4 processors "AM5 processors", and then got pissed when AMD released Zen5 processors that also used the AM5 socket because it's "confusing" that the same socket can support multiple processors with various capabilities.
Then when someone says "maybe we should refer to the CPU based on its capabilities and not the specifications of the socket" people get pissed because they don't want to do that for some reason.

The names clearly haven't been understood by everyone. That's why such a large amount of ignorant people whine about them. We see the same thing happening with HDMI 2.1 now. People assume things, use the incorrect terminology, and then get pissed when their assumptions and lack of knowledge bites them in the butt.
 
Your suggestion would also not work internally... Did you not read what I wrote?
That's the thing. They couldn't have gone with "USB 3.1 means 10Gbps, USB 3.2 means 20Gbps". 
 
 
Maybe, just maybe, the issue isn't the spec itself but rather than consumers and manufactures are using the incorrect terminology when referring to the ports? Maybe instead of blaming the USB-IF who is doing everything correctly and in a logical manner, we should blame the ones who fucks it up by misusing the terms in order to cause confusion?
 
Again, it is not the USB-IF that are doing things wrong. It's manufacturers, because they try to trick consumers. Stop being mad at the wrong people. 

Except those names have been used and understood by everyone since the USB 1.0 days. You're not going convince people to suddenly switch to SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. They could've simply gone with
USB 3.0 – 5 Gbps USB 3.1 – 10 Gbps USB 3.2 – 20 Gbps USB 4.0 – 40 Gbps USB 5.0 – 80 Gbps I get that they're trying to get there with "USB4® 40Gbps", but basically everyone else has long since decided to go with USB 4.0. Instead of trying to fight this hopeless fight, they should've accepted that and reserved things like SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, Gen 3x2 for their internal version/revision instead and kept USB 3.2, 4.0, etc as the marketing name.

Her Instagram views are about to skyrocket

Yep. Nice to see a blonde chick finally. The sexual tension between her and Linus is so thick you could cut it with a knife 🤣

FUD/payoffs. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM..."

If they used Ryzen and Radeon, probably should be running fine.

Honestly I never thought it would get this bad. I never thought Battlefield could get as bad as CoD MW3, BO3 & 4, AW, Ghosts and some of the others. And yet they somehow managed it. Even CoD was able to finally release a few good ones in recent years and the upcoming MW2 will likely be another good shooter.

EA really needs a major overhaul. They somehow managed to run everything they ever had into the ground:
Need for Speed
Battlefield
Fifa
Sims
Simcity
Medal of Honor
...
 
How? How do you even do that? Not even Ubisoft was able to get that done. And the worst part about it is, that no other company has it as easy as EA to make money. All they need is to get back to Battlefield 2, Need for Speed Most Wanted and some of the earlier MoH, Sims and Simcity titles and continue where they left off... It's insane how f*cking retarded this company is. Couldn't have Elon Musk tried to buy these idiots instead of Twitter? Even that moron would've been able to get more done with that dumbster fire of a company than the idiots that are currently in charge...