ntoskrnl

I'm like 80% sure the answer is yes.

At 6:50 (https://youtu.be/_Ua-d9OeUOg?t=410). I'd love to have a source for that desktop background, that's too damn adorable 🙂

you aim for gaming*
your aim is gaming*
you're aiming for gaming*

I was a bit surprised there wasn't already a subforum for it, perhaps there just aren't enough posts about VR to justify it's own subform/topic whatever it is called?
 
Edit: I forgot to say I would also appreciate a subforum for VR/AR, but if there isn't enough support for it that is totally understandable. 

These TECHNICALLY aren't Faraday Cages. To be a Faraday Cage they would need to be grounded. I'd love to see a follow up video where you guys do ground them and see the impact on range.

Being an electrical engineer, I honestly don't know where to start here. The only useful thing you could do with that (besides using it as a paper holder as it was originally meant to) is to do another collab with ElectroBOOM...

Linus explained as much in considerable detail. Of course they send review samples as a form of marketing. It's still a different form of marketing from sponsor spots. Arguing that reviews of early samples should become sponsor spots (if they control the content, that's what it must be called) is destructive for the review industry as a whole. As Linus put it, there is a transaction, it's not that transaction.
 
There is no reason why they should, and as you can see, as a matter of fact they aren't.
 
There doesn't need to be. However (something Linus also said), providing a bad reason is a problem, and it's much worse than providing no reason at all. "We have a limited number of cards, and we allocated them to other outlets" or a plan "no" would not have caused such a response. But giving as a reason (and as you said, without having to give a reason) "you are not obeying our marketing guidelines, but you can return to the fold whenever you are ready to obey" is not only a crook move, it's also a threat to anyone else and a way to tell that other reviewers who continue to receive cards are Nvidia shills. Because Nvidia itself is saying that shill membership is required to receive the cards. All of the sudden, Linus will get called a shill even more for his genuine interest in RT and DLSS. That's what his rant is about. And it has nothing to do with any obligation to provide cards to anyone.

I think Linus wasn't necessarily attacking Nvidia for not sending them a sample, he reiterated that Nvidia (and other companies) frequently do not send review samples to media for a variety of reasons and they have every right to do so. Rather, the issue lies with the precedent set by the email. The email itself frankly, came across as extremely aggressive and disrespectful, it was really surprising to read.
 
I mean, is he wrong about how consumers after this will have noticeably less trust in media? I sure will. Clearly they are not afraid to do whatever it takes to ensure that media reviews say what Nvidia wants, not their honest objective opinion. Especially when its quite obvious HUB did spend entire videos discussing RT and DLSS (even being featured on Nvidia's website lol), yet they didn't say exactly what Nvidia wanted. 
 
If consumers think it's ok that companies leverage any power they want to control the media coverage of their products and censor negative coverage, then we have no trustworthy reviews left, and that doesn't sound too great to me.

time to sign up for their floatplane.

Guess who's going to be making a conscious effort to start supporting Hardware Unboxed the second they can.
 
Me.

wow thats not surprising but dam, like I already hated this RT push and knew it was BS. so salty

You have no idea this type of ideology is toxic. They want reviewers to highlight in what they do best. We can call it whatever name you want to call it. Ray Tracing in this case.
 
The issue is "Talk only good about my product" This is highly unethical. Rasterization performance is what 99% of games have.
 
Clearly AMD doesn't have a chance with Ray Tracing. If it was the reverse and AMD had the leading edge and Nvidia didn't I doubt they would say the same thing to HardwareUnboxed.

For once, I hope the Internet does shift its massive rear-end and crushes NVIDIA on this. This kind of tactics of attempting to force reviewers to focus only on the things you approve of should not be allowed to pass and NVIDIA definitely would deserve to land in a torrent of hot water over this.
 
Alas, with the above in mind, I expect this will just be covered by LTT with...a brief mention in a Techlinked - episode and then forgotten about.

Summary
NVIDIA: No, you can’t just review our RTX FE cards by focusing on the stuff 95% of gamers care about and treating ray-tracing as a bonus feature!
 
Steven Walton & Tim Schiesser: Haha, rasterization goes “weeeee!” 
 
Not too long ago, the Hardware Unboxed Twitter posted a tweet revealing that NVIDIA has blacklisted them from receiving review samples of GeForce FE cards apparently over their focus on covering rasterized performance over ray-tracing performance. While this is unlikely to affect overall GeForce coverage (AIBs will provide them with the relevant products and the revenue from both views, sponsorships alongside Patreon should help as well), the move strikes as odd.
 
 
My thoughts
 I think NVIDIA PR is just trying to poke a sleeping (but not hibernating) bear in the form of the internet with this one. While the GeForce RTX 30 series cards are indeed exceedingly powerful, RT still remains as a “nice to have” feature due to how games like CP2077 can look stunning with it enabled, at the cost of halving frame-rates, not to mention the number of supported titles is still limited. 
 
I also find it funny that Hardware Unboxed has nothing but praise for the RTX 30-series lineup but NVIDIA PR somehow still finds it salty that RT isn’t covered.....and that is despite other outlets like Gamers Nexus also focusing much more on rasterization rather than ray-tracing.....because very few games make use of it...
 
Sources
Hardware Unboxed’s Twitter post
 
UPDATE
NVIDIA has, according to Hardware Unboxed's words, "apologized" for the previous email and has walked back on previous demands and restrictions applied.
 

140k PPD isn't much, but it'll add up over time I get 700k on my 1070, but that only runs when I'm using my system, which is far from 24/7. So those probably balance out.

I've been running FAH for a while now (well before the pandemic), and as of this morning I got a bizarre issue that one of the GPU cores needed an update, and it got stuck trying to update the core. In order to solve this, I completely uninstalled FAH and all of the associated data in order to see if a fresh installation would work. However, when reinstalling, I've got a new problem: Trying to add a GPU slot does not work and doesn't save.

Exact steps:
1. Have a fresh installation of FAH, with default installation and data directories (I had it custom, tried default, it didn't make a difference).
2. Open advanced control, and go into the Slots tab
3. Create a new Slot, select GPU, and save.
4. No GPU is added to the list, and the log doesn't show it saved the new configuration.

I would include logs....but literally nothing shows up in the log during any of that (default level 3). I have the GPUs.txt file, I have working drivers. It was working quite literally this morning, and I haven't rebooted it since.
 
I also attempted to manually add a GPU slot in config.xml: <slot id='1' type='GPU'>
However, then FAH wouldn't even start with that in.

Any ideas?