Nacimota

oh my god do you even watch LTT eveytime Linus on the wan show talks about loyalty he always says "corporation are not friends" 



-------------------------------------------------------------

This is a flimsy argument my friend. Marketing doesn't dictate how products are used, nor does marketing dictate how products are reviewed. Chevy advertises off-road performance and a high towing capacity for my truck. If I am looking up a review on highway fuel economy, is the review invalid because they failed to review the product's other marketed features as dictated by Chevy? No, because I as the consumer knew what I was looking for, and chose a source that conveyed the information I deemed relevant to me.
 
Your problem with Hardware Unboxed's limited test suite doesn't automatically invalidate their results, nor does it make Nvidia's reasoning behind the termination of their reviewer relationship any less petty in this context. If you want to show me where it's written that a review has to be concisely written to cover every possible facet of a product before it can be published, I'd be happy to take a look at it. Frankly, I am not certain such a rule/law exists anywhere, nor would it make sense to.

I wanted to highlight this type of post because of discussions I've had around here about what marketing manipulation looks like. This post is just specific enough while being just ignorant enough that it's practically impossible to tell whether it's real user that's clueless or manipulation marketing by a bot marketing agency. It's fascinating to behold because you can't really tell, but this is what it looks like. It's also what happens on every social media platform.
 
As for the topic at hand, no, HUB isn't AMD biased. They just spent a week ripping AMD over the marketing around the 6800 launch. Nvidia just barely didn't Paper Launch a new generation of cards and is trying to do something to make everyone look away.
 
As for Ray Tracing, sorry to bust anyone's bubble, but the current generation of RT performance is just a downpayment for what it'll eventually be. RTX Gen 1 really was a Tech Demo. The barely improved RTX Gen 2 is only not a tech demo when you throw a massive amount of units at it. AMD's implementation appears to be significantly better as a matter of silicon space for performance, but we need to wait for optimization passes to get an appreciation if it's just a downpayment or there might be something useful in this generation. Reality is that it's just a fun feature for at least another 2 generations. That's the way it is. This is something of a Chicken & Egg issue, which is why it was Microsoft that kicked off the slow transition. And it's going to be really slow.
 
There's only 3 things that matter in GPU sales for the next several years: Raster performance per price tier, Hardware Accelerated Media Encoders and Hardware-based Streaming. Nvidia can easily leverage their advantages in the second two without being knuckleheads about things. There's some deep irony that a lot of the negative angles we've seen on the Navi 21 launch stems from about a decade of AMD's North American PR departments pissing off reviewers, and now it's suddenly Nvidia that's in foot-shooting mode.

You aren't turning Ray Tracing on when your VRAM buffer is exceeded, that's why 16GB actually does matter and is worth mentioning. Games already push hard the 8GB to 10GB usage using the highest detail settings and resolutions. So this is where the next part of what you are saying matters directly for this.
 
And this will result in even more VRAM usage further making the 16GB point even more important.
 
Something being the future does not make a GPU with that feature capability now better. Both Nvidia and AMD have cards on the market that are inadequate for any such future of game rendering of Ray Tracing, these changes in the industry will go hand in hand with each generation of GPU technology release so anyone with a current generation card of today will not have cards that can support this future state whenever that happens. What will happen sooner is needing more VRAM than many of the Nvidia GPUs offer right now.
 
Also you are casting your judgement far too soon in regards to AMD Ray Tracing performance and usage. Every game on the market right now that has Ray Tracing in it was designed around Nvidia and RTX. Future games made with AMD GPUs in mind, as they now actually exist, are much less likely to have performance drops seen so far. Now the difference is that may also mean lesser quality or lesser demanding Ray Tracing effects are used and you can turn these up higher on Nvidia GPUs but you will still equally be left in a few years time with GPUs that are not performant enough for future Ray Tracing efforts, going with RTX 30 series now will not make you immune to that.
 
There is going to be a huge amount of game development ongoing from now for this generation of consoles which will have Ray Tracing in the games, all built around AMD hardware technology and that will equally apply to AMD GPUs in computers.
 
TL;DR To say AMD does not have good Ray Tracing based off zero games developed for the hardware is far too premature, try waiting for some games to come out that were actually made for these GPUs, if you can't tell if they were or not simply wait for a cross platform console/PC game that has Ray Tracing support on all platforms. Any games like that would have to be developed with AMD hardware and technology in mind.

I mentioned this before on someone’s status update here and on the Discord.
 
But what I think will happen is someone else from NVIDIA (likely higher in the exec chain) contacts HUB privately and goes along the lines of “kk sorry”, then everything goes back to the way it was before......then it all happens again. Rinse and repeat.
 
At this point, I really shouldn’t be surprised. 

It's not even about Hardware Unboxed getting hurt in the first place; it's about NVIDIA attempting to strong-arm reviewers to only focus on the things NVIDIA approves of.

In case you have forgotten, this happens every year with some winner. I'll find the crowd favorites later to point it out.
 
All winners are prepped before filming, and these aren't vlogs either. So they aren't as uncomfortable and shy as one could be in that situation. That, and the fact that some are Linus fans/viewers who "know" what his style is will make them look like they are trashing Linus.
 
However, apart from Riley, Linus doesn't hire people to be in front of the camera. Every employee in front of the camera has been introduced as assistant in another video (or multiple ones) or as co-host of the WAN show. And even then viewers liking of them has been split, with Linus making decisions based on how he feels like person did. Just search for criticism of James for example.
 
Just saying that I don't see Linus hiring people just based on how they performed in this style of video. They would need to additional skills, like writing, to be of use for current LMG needs.

Who actually bothers to read YouTube comments?
Why do you care?
 
He's a great host. People love him. So, they comment as such. What are you hoping to read?

Rest In Peace Kevin.

they're not shady, they just make mistakes
 
like any company ever

Good

How old are you? like 12? what a terrible response.

So the Disclaimer is finally up on the review.
 
Unfortunately, it's at the very bottom, where I suspect that many people will not even see it. But hey, at least it's there. Ideally it would be the first thing you read at the start of the review.

 
To me, this is an acceptable compromise between the two parties. Note: I said acceptable. It's not the ideal outcome, which is impossible (can't travel back in time: ideal outcome is that Allyn would have recused himself as per conflict of interest, and another PCPer employee would test the product and write the review).
 
Hopefully in the future, PCPer takes disclaimers more seriously, and also potential conflicts of interest, and proactively works to avoid situations like this.
 
All in all, I'm satisfied with the outcome, though there was a lot of drama bullshit (on both sides) that went with it.

Can you cite exactly where they disclosed that Allyn was also the author of the white paper, where a lot of their info and testing methodology came from? Post a screen shot of the link/disclaimer?
 
Because I've been reading through the PCPer review, and I haven't seen a single mention of it yet. It's definitely not on the first page or the last page, that I could see.
 
So, if the "disclosure" is hidden in a difficult to find location, then it's irrelevant, and not a proper disclosure. It should be at the very top of the first page of the review, in bold text, easy for anyone to see.
Eg:
BAM, problem solved. Ideally, I would still prefer Allyn to completely excuse himself from the review, and have another employee at PCPer perform the review - that would be the proper ethical way to handle this situation. But at least if a proper disclosure was present, we could objectively decide for ourselves if there was foul play.
 
Agreed - I cannot find the "disclosure" either.
So, in these situations:
1. LMG should disclose that the original video is sponsored (They're pretty good at this these days, little worry there).
2. If LMG later went on to review the same item: They should STRONGLY disclose that they previously did a sponsored video of the same item. They should re-do any testing/review/methodology, to ensure accuracy and reduce potential bias.
3. If they weren't reviewing the product, but just said passing positive comments (lets say on the WAN show), I don't think there's any problem there - though if they wanted to absolutely cover themselves, adding another disclosure doesn't hurt.
 
You and @Notional need to both cool your jets. You're essentially agreeing with each other, largely. @Notional did overlook the other comment, that was in fact claiming it was a paid review - this is fact. But no need to bite his head off because of it. A simple "You might have misread or misquoted" would have sufficed.

That's a different guy
 
Hey look at that, a bunch of videos with correct, sourceable information!
 
Incoming link dump
I have my own theory about why Jim decided to go this deep into PcPer's dirt and I don't think it's got anything to do with snatching views. It seems like there's some tension between PcPer and Adored, and the video's comment section mention a bit of a fight that happened between them on Twitter. I was unable to find this fight on the tweet history but it seems to have woken the Angry Scotsman inside Adored.
 

 
Maybe I got it wrong, but the video seemed to suggest that the review is at least partially a hard copy of the white paper. If that's correct, they didn't reuse the testing hardware and methodology from the white paper for their review, they used the white paper itself.
 
Again, if my understanding is correct, then they have presented to the consumer information which was written and designed to be presented to Intel, the company. The conflict of interest here is that you can surmise that PcPer would want to diminish the impact of any issues they encountered on their overall review because the data is straight for Intel's marketing. They could have been paid specifically to uncover these issues though, and relay them to the engineers.

Absolutely. It's the same issue Linus encountered when he started up FloatPlane and for that reason he placed Luke in charge (and made him leave Linus Media Group) so that there was no conflict of interest that could affect other channels that decided to use their platform.
 
May I ask where the relevant links are as I could not find them or disclosure within the review? This sort of information should have been in the introduction for the sake of integrity.

Without even watching the video I can tell you that this is a pretty clear cut issue. PCPer should have disclosed their relationship with Intel regarding the SSD. Anything that might give the perception of a conflict of interest should be disclosed. Shrout owning the company the did the white paper should have been disclosed, as should the fact that Allyn also works for Shrout Research and likely had a hand in the whitepaper. The fact that Allyn was likely paid to do work for Intel on the product he is reviewing is a huge potential conflict of interest and should have been made clear to readers of the review.

I'm saying that any conflict of interest generally disqualifies the review as objective. It doesn't have to, but it is suspicious and simply makes PCPer less credible.
 
Yes they have, and (by law) they have disclosed that in the videos. That is not the case in the 900p PCPer review. 
 
Because this does seem to be something new. The lack of disclosure might not only be journalistically unethically but might even violate laws of disclosure.

Some people are going to intentionally miss the point of this because it's coming from Jim.

"windows 10 is a good operating system" triggers the fhuck out of some people on this forum

Branch and merge. Have your main branch be stable like it should be. Have your current beta development branch as a clone of the master. When your changes are stable merge those stable changes back into the the master branch.

Just YouTube doing YouTube things...

Lol he does do that lol they are removed when the wan show is over

Scrapyard Wars Down Under
Linus and Luke vs Bryan from TechYesCity and Steve from Hardware Unboxed

microsoft won't do that. that makes no sense. 
 
the whole idea of Windows 10 is consistency with other products. think about the xbox ui, and hololens etc. to stick withthe Windows 7 looks would make no sense at all.