AMD’s second-generation Ryzen processors are now available for preorder

[Razor01]

9 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

No they're not. Have you never seen one? They have nothing to do with a fair field for the press. AMD, Intel and any other company couldn't give a rat's arse about whether the press have a fair field.

 

A reviewer NDA?  Yes

 

A company to company NDA trying to get into a partnership?  Yes

 

Two different NDA's two different purposes.

 

The second one is the one you seem to be talking about.

 

The second one has contingencies based on a partnership contract which allows, or disallows the ability to talk about trade secrets.

 

Reviewers don't get any info about trade secrets lol.

 

9 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

First off, as someone who works as a journalist, I can tell you that no, we don't make money off these companies. That would be corrupt and in fact illegal in many countries. Secondly, again no, the NDA gives no real rights to any other party than the company concerned, in exchange for free stuff. That's it. But do feel free to produce an NDA from Nvidia, Intel or AMD that gives anyone any rights other than them. You can do that right? 

 

I can show you NDA's from Microsoft, if you like?  but its going to be business to business NDA's, I can show you my BTU games NDA which is business to business as well.  All of them have time limits based on what is talked about and shared what can be repeated what can't be stated outside of between the parties.

 

Different NDA's.  Trade secrets are different.  Reviewers don't need to worry about those types of things.

 

9 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Much of this doesn't make sense but, from what it seems you are trying to say, no, reviews have already been published of the new Ryzen CPU's, so do tell exactly what great difference it has made to those who will be reviewing on the nineteenth of April?

 

First off a paper publication is different they need to get things done based on their schedule, that is what "leaked" so far and they probably got premision to publish it in their monthly periodically at a specific date which was OKed by AMD.

 

And the other one not sure but didn't they buy their own CPU?  Or did both the leaks buy their own CPU?

 

9 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Now here you are absolutely correct. It is indeed an arrangement that is in place to get good press for the company (though not always in reality it turns out) and to make a few extra bucks for the tech tuber. Which is exactly what I said it is about. Thanks for helping to make my case for me.  I can't wait though to see an example of an NDA from Intel or AMD that gives rights to anyone besides them though, as you claim. I'm quite excited to see that as I have never seen one (and I've seen several) that does that.

 

 

Oh any contract has rights to both parties.  Contracts protect both sides.  Otherwise there is no need for a contract. 

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Exactly this. Companies have no business telling reviewers how to review their products and, if they do so, then that's not a review, it's a commercial. It seems that some don't quite seem to understand what an NDA actually is.

Yes but you're implying the NDA is telling how to conduct their review when it is not.

 

You have two choices: quality information and reviews on product launch or a race to first publish of review full of mistakes and lacking in substance.

[johnukguy]

13 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

A reviewer NDA?  Yes

 

A company to company NDA trying to get into a partnership?  Yes

 

I can show you NDA's from Microsoft, if you like?  but its going to be business to business NDA's, I can show you my BTU games NDA which is business to business as well.  All of them have time limits based on what is talked about and shared what can be repeated what can't be stated outside of between the parties.

We're talking about reviewers here not business NDA's between corporations. And that was made clear at the start. So, again, as requested, do show us an NDA from any of these companies with tech tubers, that gives tech tubers any rights at all. That's what we're talking about, that is what you were asked to show. You can either do that or you can't. It's very simple.
 

Quote

First off a paper publication is different they need to get things done based on their schedule, that is what "leaked" so far and they probably got premision to publish it in their monthly periodically at a specific date which was OKed by AMD.

It has nothing to do with print media as opposed to online media and no, journalists in print media do not ask for permission to publish their stories from corporations. That isn't how journalism works, at least in countries that have any sort of free press left.
 

Quote

Oh any contract has rights to both parties.  Contracts protect both sides.  Otherwise there is no need for a contract. 

You don't seem to actually know what an NDA is, nor about what constitutes a contract under law. There is no requirement under law that a contract gives rights to anyone in particular, just that they be within the law. NDA's are not technically contracts either. They are, as Leadeater pointed out, simply an agreement that, in return for free products, the recipient doesn't post any reviews or give out any information ahead of an agreed date. There is no exchange of goods, services or monetary consideration, as defined by law in most jurisdictions, involved in the NDAs between tech tubers and companies such as AMD, nor can they dictate how reviews are done. You might want to look up what an NDA actually is as it seems, from what you're writing, that you don't know. 

[johnukguy]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes but you're implying is the NDA is telling how to conduct their review when it is not.

 

You have two choices: quality information and reviews on product launch or a race to first publish of review full of mistakes and lacking in substance.

I didn't say that or imply that. That was Razor1 in case there is some confusion. I will however agree that I cannot see how any tech tuber can be completely objective when they rely on getting free stuff from the companies that they review products from and that is a fair point that should be made and bought up far more frequently than it is. Also, abiding by an NDA is no guarantee, as seems to be implied here, that any given review will be necessarily better, more accurate or more substantive. Look at the recent debacle with one or two tech sites recently that it turned out were being paid by the companies that they were reviewing products for and reviews from tech tubers such as Joker, as just two examples. 

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

I didn't say that or imply that. That was Razor1 in case there is some confusion. I will however agree that I cannot see how any tech tuber can be completely objective when they rely on getting free stuff from the companies that they review products from and that is a fair point that should be made and bought up far more frequently than it is.

 

It sounded like you were implying that lol.

 

Look you have some of the bigger sites that go out and buy products that they don't get for free.  Look at the Titan V reviews.  nV didn't even send them out to reviewers because they didn't want to the card to be shown as a gaming card.  But we had at least 3 or 4 sites and youtubers do reviews on them.

 

Now if nV sent them an NDA and gave them the card, what would be the difference?  Not much other than the fact nV now can say to them directly its not a gaming card, but those reviewers stated that too.  But why send it to those guys anyways then?  really defeats the purpose of a 3k AI card right?

 

Smaller guys yeah they need those review samples for their business again back to what I stated, its money for both sides of the field.  Going out and spending 500 bucks for 1 card, and then another 500 bucks for another companies card, then cost of the test bed, the software.  Its not cheap. 

[johnukguy]

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

It sounded like you were implying that lol.

No but please do copy and paste exactly where I said that. You can do that when you post your example of an NDA with a tech tuber that gives them rights in any substantive way, as you claimed earlier and yet still haven't managed to provide a single example of.

Quote

Look you have some of the bigger sites that go out and buy products that they don't get for free.  Look at the Titan V reviews.  nV didn't even send them out to reviewers because they didn't want to the card to be shown as a gaming card.  But we had at least 3 or 4 sites and youtubers do reviews on them.

 Again, are you sure you're replying to the comments or posters that you think you are, as your point is irrelevant? What has this got to do with reviewers who do get free stuff from AMD for example? We know this. Great! I'm glad that some do this, but the issue here is with reviewers who agree with NDA's in order to get free stuff, which naturally leads to this little gem... 

Quote

Now if nV sent them an NDA and gave them the card, what would be the difference?  Not much other than the fact nV now can say to them directly its not a gaming card, but those reviewers stated that too.

You don't understand the difference between being given thousands of dollars worth of products and having to go and buy them yourself? Seriously? Of course if you're so wealthy that you truly don't understand the difference, that would explain a few things. But most of us in the real world know all too well the difference between being given thousands of dollars worth of stuff and having to go and buy it ourselves. 

[Razor01]

13 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

No but please do copy and paste exactly where I said that. You can do that when you post your example of an NDA with a tech tuber that gives them rights in any substantive way.

 

 Again, are you sure you're replying to the comments or posters that you think you are as your point is irrelevant? What has this got to do with reviewers who do get free stuff from AMD for example? We know this. Great. I'm glad that some do this but the issue here is with reviewers who agree with NDA's in order to get free stuff, which naturally leads to this little gem... 
 

You don't understand the difference between being given thousands of dollars worth of products and having to go and buy them yourself? Seriously? Of course if you're so wealthy that you truly don't understand the difference, that would explain a few things. But most of us in the real world know all too well the difference between being given thousands of dollars worth of stuff and having to go and buy it ourselves. 

 

 

Look I'm going to point to one thing you stated.

Quote

 

^ This. It's beyond irritating when tech tubers all bow down to a company and go by embargos, ultimately just in order to get free stuff and to be approved by those companies. Their first 'duty,' if they consider themselves to be in any way serious as journalists, is to the viewers, to their audience and users of the products, not to any corporation. Any tech tuber who does this has lost credibility for me.

 

 

 

Why would they lose credibility of a reviewer if the NDA is just about when they can release the information they have gathered from their testing at a certain date?  That is what an NDA is for, Don't give out information prior to the close of a particular date.

 

They don't even need to share data they gathered to the company in the first place prior to publication if they don't want to lol. 

 

The work they do does not need to be "approved" by the company.  That is why some reviews we can sit around and talk about how badly or how good they their work was.  All those Max IQ or 4k reviews for Ryzen, sorry but they were crap.  That isn't testing for CPU performance that would be testing for GPU performance.  Those are the reviewers you should be wary about, easy to spot them too if you have been around hardware and know what to look for with benchmarks.

 

What is beyond irritating are those reviewers that follow what these companies want them to test.  There are a few of those.  And we have seen people try to use them to make a point.  That point falls badly because those reviews don't give us anything meaningful.

 

In this example, if you are going to test for CPU performance, test for it by making sure the CPU is the bottleneck.

 

If you are testing for GPU performance, make sure the GPU is the bottleneck.

 

If you are testing for RAM performance.  Make sure your bottleneck is situated on the main board and not the GPU or HD transfer speeds.

 

Lets take a generic site for example if they choose to use the three most popular games to test with for a graphics cards, which are not part of the "recommended" guidelines for a certain company because those games they don't fair well in.  They can do that.  They don't need to share that data with the company prior to release.  Its up to them.  Now another site takes the review guide as gold and does their tests based on that.  The results are going to be night and day right?  Which one is more important to you?  well for me I take the one that is most pertinent to me the games I play.  Most likely for most people they will take that one with the three most popular games right?

[johnukguy]

16 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Look I'm going to point to one thing you stated.

 

 

My point is very very simple and it's kind of sad that I even have to explain this to people. It's just this - if a techtuber depends on companies giving them free stuff in order to make a living, and hence agrees to NDA's in order to get that free stuff, then they are not as objective as someone who doesn't get those products for free. It's nice to believe that everyone on YT who is given thousands of dollars worth of products from some companies, are always going to be completely objective, but believing doesn't change the facts. People can believe in unicorns for all I care, it doesn't make them real or change the facts.

And the facts are that those who are dependent on the good will of such corporations are not going to be completely objective. Nothing to do with contracts, nothing to do with Titans, or 'giving rights to tech tubers.' None of that. It really is very simple. If you depend on a corporation's good will and material gifts from them, in some way to make a living, you are not as objective as someone who does not. And my position is that I give little credibility to those who are not objective but somehow make out that they are. It really is very very simple.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

My point is very very simple and it's kind of sad that I even have to explain this to people. It's just this - if a techtuber depends on companies giving them free stuff in order to make a living, and hence agrees to NDA's in order to get that free stuff, then they are not as objective as someone who doesn't get those products for free. It's nice to believe that everyone on YT who is given thousands of dollars worth of products from some companies, are always going to be completely objective, but believing doesn't change the facts. People can believe in unicorns for all I care, it doesn't make them real or change the facts. And the facts are that those who are dependent on the good will of those corporations are not going to be completely objective. Nothing to do with contracts, nothing to do with Titans or 'giving rights to tech tubers.' None of that. It really is very simple. If you depend on a corporation's good will and material gifts from them, in some way to make a living, you are not as objective as someone who does not.

Your entire perspective hinges on reviewers not being genuine to the product because of NDA or some other corporate agreement in exchange for free review samples.  This does not play out in reality because each review is within margin of error of most other reviews.  So unless you wish to extend this hypothesis to include all youtube and e-zine reviews to be, not only not objective, but somehow also all in cahoots with each other to ensure all their benchmarks support each other,  then it just doesn't hold much water.

 

When you have 15 different reviewers benchmark a product and score within 5-7% of each other and one other scores it significantly higher it would be fair to assume that one is the outlier, not the first 15.  So regardless of whether reviewers are under NDA, buy their products or get free samples on a loan basis, the results are what tells us how objective the testing was.

 

 

[Razor01]

14 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

My point is very very simple and it's kind of sad that I even have to explain this to people. It's just this - if a techtuber depends on companies giving them free stuff in order to make a living, and hence agrees to NDA's in order to get that free stuff, then they are not as objective as someone who doesn't get those products for free. It's nice to believe that everyone on YT who is given thousands of dollars worth of products from some companies, are always going to be completely objective, but believing doesn't change the facts. People can believe in unicorns for all I care, it doesn't make them real or change the facts.

And the facts are that those who are dependent on the good will of such corporations are not going to be completely objective. Nothing to do with contracts, nothing to do with Titans, or 'giving rights to tech tubers.' None of that. It really is very simple. If you depend on a corporation's good will and material gifts from them, in some way to make a living, you are not as objective as someone who does not. And my position is that I give little credibility to those who are not objective but somehow make out that they are. It really is very very simple.

 

 

So just read reviews from people that buy products and compare them to reviews that get products from companies for reviews then.  Is there a huge difference in results?  If there is then you will know who the slimy reviewers are lol.  I haven't seen many reviewers at least the reputable ones, that would go out of their way to stroke a companies product pun intended.

[johnukguy]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

So just read reviews from people that buy products and compare them to reviews that get products from companies for reviews then.  Is there a huge difference in results?  If there is then you will know who the slimy reviewers are lol.  I haven't seen many reviewers at least the reputable ones, that would go out of their way to stroke a companies product pun intended.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

[johnukguy]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your entire perspective hinges on reviewers not being genuine to the product because of NDA or some other corporate agreement in exchange for free review samples.  This does not play out in reality because each review is within margin of error of most other reviews.  So unless you wish to extend this hypothesis to include all youtube and e-zine reviews to be, not only not objective, but somehow also all in cahoots with each other to ensure all their benchmarks support each other,  then it just doesn't hold much water.

 

When you have 15 different reviewers benchmark a product and score within 5-7% of each other and one other scores it significantly higher it would be fair to assume that one is the outlier, not the first 15.  So regardless of whether reviewers are under NDA, buy their products or get free samples on a loan basis, the results are what tells us how objective the testing was.

 

 

And yet, multiple reviewers who get free stuff, have been shown to be off  in terms of real world usage before. Funny how that happens. But, if you seriously think that someone who depends on the goodwill of a corporation, and materially benefits from that goodwill, are going to be completely objective and only do it out of the goodness of their hearts to protect consumers, well have fun with that view. In the real world that's just not how it works. 

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

I don't need to pay attention to what you are typing in this instance, but I am that is why I'm responding to you lol, I read reviews, and I don't see that happening, not to any extent you are trying to say.

 

I can go into exactly the differences between Ryzen and Intel uarchs and pretty much know what the differences will be when it comes to performance across different benchmarks.  The moment that latency thing hit with Ryzen, I was THE FIRST person to state things about NUMA  and databases.  You can go to [H] and search for this if you like, I stated this around 1 to 2 weeks prior to any one in the review circle!  When everyone was focused on gaming performance I saw the bigger picture and implications of it.

 

If you want me to talk about Volta's SM's I can do that too, at least from what I have gathered from the white papers and how its going to blow away anything to do with async compute based on my graphics programming experience.

 

The reviews just solidify what I already have in my mind lol.

[johnukguy]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

No only leaks/rumors have, leak != review.

This is a review, not rumours. It might be a flawed one (and it is) but it is nonetheless a review:

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/
 

Quote

No it would make a big difference. Advanced warning of actual product performance and pricing allows a competitor to time a counter offer, either price drops rebates or some kind of package deal that is only temporary. All you need to do is stop the launch momentum and the effects will last forever.

So do point out where this has happened as I've never seen it. I would agree if it were maybe a month before launch or longer, but two days, no way.

 

Quote

Pre-order only, you cannot buy any Ryzen 2 processors.

I can walk into several stores in Russia for example and buy them straight off the shelf. Not everybody lives in the US remember:

https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=590695

 

Quote

Absolutely no, most of them do claim to be journalists and FYI traditional journalists also sign NDAs. Without NDAs you think we'd get the same quality of information about upcoming products?

If you know any in the EU who have done this, by all means do name them, as most journalists found to have any material benefit in return for an NDA can be fired instantly. Nobody claiming to be a journalist should be signing an NDA, especially when they do indeed get a material benefit from the party that they are then supposed to be writing on. This is very clear in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics by the way:

 

"Journalists should: 
– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts. 

– Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment..."
 

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, johnukguy said:

You made my point. Thanks for that. It's about revenue for the tech tubers, not benefiting consumers at all and I could care less that some mediocre tech tuber makes a few bucks less. So what? Two days makes zero difference to most of us as consumers and has zero impact on sales of the CPUs, unless of course they turn out to be extremely disappointing, in which case the company deserves what it gets.

would you like to buy something and know nothing about it? its trying to stop that from happening. If they were forced to get it the day of other than live streaming results they wouldn't have anything for at least a day or 2. in LTT case maybe a week with how slow their pipe line is.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

And yet, multiple reviewers who get free stuff, have been shown to be off  in terms of real world usage before. Funny how that happens. But, if you seriously think that someone who depends on the goodwill of a corporation, and materially benefits from that goodwill, are going to be completely objective and only do it out of the goodness of their hearts to protect consumers, well have fun with that view. In the real world that's just not how it works. 

And we the consumers who read said reviews pay much less attention the the ones who are clearly not showing us an objective review.    That is how reputation works and in an industry like this one which is heavily analyzed by internet communities,  BS comes to the surface very fast and hangs around spoiling your rep for a very long time.  If you want to blanket throw everybody under the same banner then by all means, but the reality is you can tell who is dodgy and who isn't by their work regardless of how they get their review samples.

[johnukguy]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

And we the consumers who read said reviews pay much less attention the the ones who are clearly not showing us an objective review.    That is how reputation works and in an industry like this one which is heavily analyzed by internet communities,  BS comes to the surface very fast and hangs around spoiling your rep for a very long time.  If you want to blanket throw everybody under the same banner then by all means, but the reality is you can tell who is dodgy and who isn't by their work regardless of how they get their review samples.

And yet, the likes of PCper and Joker are still around and still have people believing that they're objective. That a lot of people don't dig deeper doesn't mean that people are more honest, just that there are a lot of poorly informed suckers out there. But then that's obvious right?

[Razor01]

9 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

This is a review, not rumours. It might be a flawed one (and it is) but it is nonetheless a review:

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/
 

So do point out where this has happened as I've never seen it. I would agree if it were maybe a month before launch or longer, but two days, no way.

 

I can walk into several stores in Russia for example and buy them straight off the shelf. Not everybody lives in the US remember:

https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=590695

 

If you know any in the EU who have done this, by all means do name them, as most journalists found to have any material benefit in return for an NDA can be fired instantly. Nobody claiming to be a journalist should be signing an NDA, especially when they do indeed get a material benefit from the party that they are then supposed to be writing on.

 

 

Ok so what are you trying to say a reviewer that leaked out a review that seems to be retail samples with high game settings which seem to be GPU bound is a good or bad review?

 

I see it as a poor review because they should have used lower settings to see what is really going on lol.

 

Did it matter if he bought his system for review when he did the review most likely incorrectly?

 

That is a still a bad reviewer right?

 

Worse yet he is switching in and out different cpu's in different apps lol.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, johnukguy said:

, journalists in print media do not ask for permission to publish their stories from corporations.

They sure as hell do when given the product in question to review.

[johnukguy]

5 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

would you like to buy something and know nothing about it? its trying to stop that from happening. If they were forced to get it the day of other than live streaming results they wouldn't have anything for at least a day or 2. in LTT case maybe a week with how slow their pipe line is.

Do you seriously not know that it is possible to review something without it having to be given to you as a gift? Or do you think that every single review is written by someone who has been given a product? I can show you literally hundreds of examples on any given platform where people give reviews of products that they have bought themselves.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, johnukguy said:

And yet, the likes of PCper and Joker are still around and still have people believing that they're objective. That a lot of people don't dig deeper doesn't mean that people are more honest, just that there are a lot of poorly informed suckers out there. But then that's obvious right?

It appears you just have a bee in your bonnet.  It's really simple:

 

15 reviewers tells us product A is good and product B not so good. Then 2 other reviewers tells us the opposite.  Regardless of who those reviewers are, the 15 are significantly more likely to be right than the 2.   Disagreeing with this is just irrational.

[johnukguy]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Ok so what are you trying to say a reviewer that leaked out a review that seems to be retail samples with high game settings which seem to be GPU bound is a good or bad review?

 

I see it as a poor review because they should have used lower settings to see what is really going on lol.

 

Did it matter if he bought his system for review when he did the review most likely incorrectly?

 

That is a still a bad reviewer right?

Try and knock off the 'seem to be saying' bullshit. I either said something or I didn't. It really is very simple. So there's absolutely no need to  keep trying to obfuscate things in order to, it seems, bolster an almost non existent case. What I said was very clear. If you don't understand it, feel free to say so and I'll say it so that you can understand. Clear enough for you?

[johnukguy]

3 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

They sure as hell do when given the product in question to review.

Then, as with other claims here, do prove it. You can prove it of course since you seem so sure of that.  Should be easy to do if it's true. Of course, what would I know, I've only worked as a journalist. I am curious though, what outlets do you contribute to and write for exactly?

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Try and knock off the 'seem to be saying' bullshit. I either said something or I didn't. It really is very simple. So there's absolutely no need to  keep trying to obfuscate things in order to, it seems, bolster an almost non existent case. What I said was very clear. If you don't understand it, feel free to say so and I'll say it so that you can understand. Clear enough for you?

Yeah it is clear, and this guy went out and bought his test bed and cpu and did a bad review,   So what does that make him, a guy that went out and spent his own money to bring out crap.  That is a fool making others a fool.  That is exactly what you are accusing review sites of doing that get their products from companies at no cost.

[johnukguy]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It appears you just have a bee in your bonnet.  It's really simple:

 

15 reviewers tells us product A is good and product B not so good. Then 2 other reviewers tells us the opposite.  Regardless of who those reviewers are, the 15 are significantly more likely to be right than the 2.   Disagreeing with this is just irrational.

Yes it really is simple, if you are dependent on the goodwill of a corporation to make a living and are given free stuff by that same corporation, you are not completely objective.  Can you understand that basic point?  If not and if perhaps English isn't your first language, and you have problems with understanding that, I will happily say it in French, German or Spanish for you.