cirabarnet4

I still remember trying to play the original Rome Total War on my P4 HT
 
"This is fine"
*billion archers fire*
"This is NOT fine"

Thread locked. Rich people not paying their fair share of taxes is not tech news (or even news).
 
Tech News means news regarding technology or gaming. Please don't post topics in this forum that don't have a strong relation to technology/games.
 

I have to say, I do find the dislike number useful for telling me right away that the tutorial video I'm about to watch is trash and not worth my time.

I could see how clicking a video and immediately looking at the like/dislike ratio to determine if you should watch it would be the actual driving force behind this.
 
They can increase the amount of time people watch videos by decreasing the information they have going into them. Just get people to the first ad break before they know how much the video sucks. Thats probably their real goal here

>internet discussion
> mature discussion
Nope. can't be it.

Yes allow our AI onto your PC, its ONLY to listen to stuff to ONLY filter out cuss words.

actually... football requires manufacturing of the ball and the land used for a football field isnt small either so... there's still quite a significant environmental impact
 
the best way to reduce energy use is to murder every living being on earth, because metabolism is a thing and it uses a lot of energy
 
now you may argue that human life is worth way more, but your life means nothing to me unless i get to know you, i couldnt care less if you died today or tomorrow, to be absolutely frank.
so you being alive is a waste of energy in my eyes 👀 
that doesn't mean i want you dead though
 
and by 'you' i mean the general population, not the person i quoted ❤️ though you may or may not fall into that category as well, and yes im chaotic neutral

My fear is that when Linus address this fumble, he'll pull the same thing he did with RAID. And I personally did not appreciate how he tried to deflect blame and imo blame people for taking issue with the sponsor.
 
I am saying this while I have zero opinion regarding NiceHash, mining, or miners. I mean it sucks not being be able to find stock. but It is disheartening to see Linus go from dropping TunnelBear due to the bad optics from the Buyout to defending shady sponsorships under the guise of no sponsor will be left to deal with.
 
Cases in point how he handled PIA buyout and RAID.
 
I get it, LMG is a company and its main goal is to make money. but for me Their product was their credibility as he himself used to say.
 
All I can say is that, I dread the WAN show when he will address this. As I am expecting to him to lose the credibility he built over the years in regards to sponsorships and endorsements to me personally.

I'm curious why you chose now to post. 
 

Hey how else am I supposed to play cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p. 

This reminds me of FX.
Lots of heat for not an amazing a lot of performance.
 
How the tables have turned.

Me checking Intel's latest "benchmarks" out:

I should have also mentioned one of the games on the list that's actually released and supports DLSS is Anthem. 

I wanted to, but I dislike the notion of tag-teaming someone. I myself enjoy it, but others might not enjoy responding to several people at once. Since you've extended the invitation however, I'll take you up on the offer.
 
As echoed by others in the thread (myself included), marketing does not dictate how a product is used by a consumer. The notion that because the R in RTX stands for Raytracing means that the card is designed for Raytracing and must be used for said purpose is silly. If this logic were applied universally, developers would not be allowed to use "gaming" hardware for their software development or workloads that benefit greatly from the hardware acceleration offered by these "gaming" GPU's. We could go much deeper with several more analogies on this subject, but I'll settle with the low hanging fruit for now.
 
If your issue is with the test suite or quality of the testing methodology, I'd love to hear your opinion on the subject. Part of my daily activity at work involves testing hardware with a methodology that I've developed, so I never shy away from insight on this subject. If your issue stems from reviewers deviating from reviewing a product as it is marketed, I am afraid you'll find no quarter from me on this subject. I have an extreme distaste for marketing and how they pervert what is given to them by their engineering teams, as does anyone that has worked in this industry for any amount of time. I do not blame the individuals that work in marketing, as it's their job to make the product as appealing as possible, but for most of us, we see it as predatory towards consumers. If my interpretation of your posts thus far are accurate, I'd say the predatory nature of marketing in this context is well founded, given that you've come to believe in the narrative they've created around these GPU's in spite of how consumers intend to use them. If the majority of consumers intend to use these GPU's for rasterized-based gaming (as evidenced by the polling Hardware Unboxed did beforehand), then no amount of marketing and buzzword placement in the product name/feature list can change that.
 
As for the rest of your claims, I'll tackle those individually.
This depends entirely on the terms of the NDA. If it is the blanket NDA that we all sign when Nvidia releases a new product, no such publication deadline exists. There is the usual embargo date that specifies the exact date and time that a review can go live, however it does not state that it must go live by any given point in time. With that said, I am not sure if HWUB signed something different to what the rest of us get, and if they did, that is between Nvidia and themselves.
Nobody can (or should) argue against a subjective opinion. If you believe the review is unfair, you are well within your right to believe so. Anyone that disagrees with you are also well within their right to believe so. I am pretty sure we all understand this, so I won't really go into details on how this works.
Your choice of words here is interesting, and I respect your understanding that the difference in opinion could stem from a simple miscommunication. This is why we have to clarify as best we can when dealing with written text as emphasis is often difficult to convey in this medium. That said, I do side with Leadeater on this part as stated in my reasoning above. Manufacturers can list features and market those features as selling points, but those selling points do not dictate how a product should be used. I won't bore you with repetition of the same point I already attempted to make, so I'll leave it at that.
 
While I myself have signed a few Nvidia NDA's in my time, none of them have come with any terms or clause in regards to how their products are to be used or reviewed. My NDA's also come with a reviewers guide, despite me not being a hardware reviewer. I also do not know if reviewers sign another agreement outside of the blanket NDA that dictate terms of the review, but I can say that such a document would largely defeat the purpose of sourcing independent third party reviews in the first place if you wanted to control and dictate what could and couldn't be discussed as well as the volume of coverage a specific feature got during the review. A paid ad or sponsorship would make more sense in that situation. If a manufacturer believes strongly in their product, then they need to have enough faith in it that it can stand on its own merits without their intervention. The last thing they want to do is pervert the integrity of reviewers and the trust consumers have in them by trying to control everything during the review process.
Car analogies, a man after my own heart. I've used my truck in a few (even in this very thread). On the surface, your analogy seems pretty sound and dare I say, downright reasonable. The problem with it is that it falls victim to the same issues I've highlighted previously. The manufacturers intent behind the product / marketing of the product does not dictate how consumers will use or view the product. The reviewers job is to put themselves in the shoes of consumers. This requires a level of empathy that companies (as a corporate entity) cannot possess. This is why the company/reviewer relationship is symbiotic and why we as consumers benefit from both coexisting in harmony. A company might feel their product is better geared towards X audience and markets it as such, prices it as a premium, and forecasts it to perform well in said market. The reviewer might disagree based on actual user feedback and a connection with the community that the product was originally marketed for, and instead highlight the pros and cons of the product and offer their personal insight of the product and why it may better serve Y community instead. I quote Past MageTank often, but he is right when he said:
I believe all of this is applicable to your analogy, and explains why a reviewer might deviate from how a company may feel about their product, and why third party reviews are important to consumers as a result.
 
As for your perception of @leadeaterand whether he was being reasonable, I'd say he was given the context of both of your posts. I've had quite a few discussions on this forum with him, not all of which involved he and I coming to an agreement on a given matter, but I've never once considered him unreasonable. Often times, it's easier to dismiss others as unreasonable or "stubborn" simply because they cannot see things your way, but it's often ironic that the issue stems from oneself. I'd say you might find him more reasonable if you entertain the thought that there might be more to his point and that he might be right about some of the things he is discussing with you. 
 
If you do firmly believe that you were right in your discussion, yet are failing to understand why it is people are not gravitating towards your way of thinking, let me give you some advice from a man that has been as abrasive as you currently are on this very forum. People in this community respond better to sources and information to corroborate claims. This can be difficult when arguing things of a superfluous or subjective nature, but your points could have absolutely used some data to bolster the claims made. Lead with that next time. If you feel that the person(s) with whom you are speaking are not convincing you, then kindly ask that they provide some sources to help better educate you as well. It works both ways, and is extremely effective. You'll find that when others cannot back up their claims, they are left to admit that they may not be seeing the entire picture, or they'll look foolish in the court of public opinion. Either way, it's a lot better than going on a crusade against everyone and expecting to come out on top.

Yea going to go with a big no there, this is the exact same point as before but instead of Nvidia's marketing points it's now somehow the name of the product that dictates how it should be reviewed? That's a no on that one too.
 
Percentage of content is irrelevant to whether or not you got the required information to make an informed purchase discussion as a consumer. Was there data in the review that pertained to DLSS and RT, yes. Were you told that for more information if you want it then it will follow soon, yes. Did you have other alternative reviews you could have turned to to get the information you were after, also yes.
 
There is no excuse for you putting your expectations above that of everyone else, if the majority put more weight in to rasterization then rasterization shall be emphasized. You have options, if you do not like Hardware Unboxed then turn to someone else. I and many others appreciate that they do very large sample sizes which helps to give a much more accurate picture of how products perform and whether or not outlier titles where performance above the normal average is skewing the results. For detailed information I go to Gamers Nexus, who focus on fewer games and go in to specific details and analysis. I get different things from different reviewers, I do not expect them to all do the same thing.
 
Nvidia could call their product what ever they like, has nothing to do with the review process.
 
Nvidia made a big deal out of VR and the USB-C connector on a previous new generation of cards and had developed specific technology to improve performance in VR titles, guess how much people cared about that? So why are you not also complaining that is is not tested, Nvidia went through all that effort to develop that technology and VR was the future of gaming so why is this not being tested? Because nobody cared and it gained little traction and the selection of VR games is small and it's very hard to benchmark VR games, it was not a lack of marketing by Nvidia because they had a huge dedicated section to VR in multiple press conferences.
 
Nvidia can yell in to the void as much as they like about how important they think something is, we do not have to care. Review content and methodology will change when consumers ask for it and there actually has been wider uptake in the industry, not when a company says so.

Aah yes, west Taiwan is getting salty again.

Imagine 720p being upscaled to 8K.

Okay, since you're doing that thing where you fail to understand absolutely basic concepts of argumentation, I'll be a little more direct.
 
1) Look at your chart.
2) Look at the line that has "Geforce RTX 3070" at 56 AVG FPS.
3) Look down to the X-Axis
4) Note how it is spaced in the bar between 100 and 120 FPS.
 
Now, do you see the problem? You've failed in your chart and thus are presenting false data. Your argument isn't worth dealing with until you fix the problem.
 
Further, your argument is that you lack the ability to lower the render resolution when you have an AMD card. There's a reason I said the talking points have changed. You look like this is your job to be annoying.

It's not so much about the product and more about the blackmailing of reviewers. "You better review the product the way we want or you get no product to review". This is a strong message to other reviewers to better speak positively about the features Nvidia wants, or else… If this takes root you can say bye bye to "independent" reviews as they are.

If ray tracing was a standard feature used by everyone, taking advantage of reflections and shadows to spot enemies better if you know how to take it to your advantage would also be a thing. I've used sound to such degree when I was playing competitive and I was using it so well to a point I've been accused multiple times of using wallhacks. Yet all I did was listen to their footsteps and positioned them in game's 3D space. Reflections that give away enemy positions could be not a visual only thing but a core gameplay element. Same for real-time shadows or just global illumination that would give away enemy position accordingly. But that won't happen for many many years because not all have graphic cards with RT and thus can't be used on gameplay level. Unless they use it in "software" where it's fast enough and can't be turned off.

EVGA can say whatever they want to say, what they want has no relevance on what will actually be published. You cannot tell someone to "focus" on one of the stronger features. That implies that you want it to be more prominent, potentially taking time away from less favorable aspects of your product. Like I mentioned earlier, they already provide this in reviewers guides, but in those very guides they do not consider their testing mandatory nor do they list requirements for what must be tested. That's simply not how a review works. You cannot tell someone that they can only have an opinion as long as their opinion is derived from a very specific set of standards controlled by you.
 
Also, if you are going to make an analogy, stop trying to make it seem so obvious by using things like thermals to bolster your point. You know full well that if I (MageTank) do a review, thermals is absolutely going to be included, regardless of whether a manufacturer says so. Your analogy would have been far more accurate had you asked if I would refrain from publishing thermal results if a manufacturer asked me to do so simply because I received free hardware. The answer would still be no, they'd be roasted as much as their product was roasted during the testing.

Just going to leave this here...as I go looking for a 3070...
 
 

Summary
Xilinx's announced that their FPGAs will also work under ROCm, enabling an open source stack capable of doing the integration between GPUs and FPGAs seamlessly
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
This now brings AMD to be on par with Intel's oneAPI, with the advantage of having much more powerful GPUs.
A stack that allows seamless communication between a GPU and a FPGA is a dream for HPC scenarios.
 
Sources
https://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xilinx-Xclusive-Blog/AMD-and-Xilinx-Demonstrate-Converged-ROCm-Runtime-Technology/ba-p/1175091