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

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

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. 

 

You can still be objective.  Ask Linus here, Kyle at [H], Steve at GN, Ryan at Pcper, they will all tell you the same thing.  Getting the product from the company at no cost doesn't mean they aren't objective.  NDA's don't stop them from being objective.

 

I don't know if you were around when nvnews.net was around.  Even they were objective with the FX launch.  As was Rage with the launch of the r600!

[mr moose]

Just now, johnukguy said:

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. If 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. 

Maybe the possibility escapes you but you seem to be confused between being wrong and other people not understanding.  We all understand what you are trying to say, you are just wrong.  

[johnukguy]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

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.

Again, you are perfectly free to copy and paste exactly where I said that. I'll save you some time though, as I didn't say that. Nowhere did I say that one type of review was substantively more accurate or less accurate than others. I made the simple point that if you are dependent on the good will of corporations and material gifts from them, in order to make a living, then you are not completely objective when it comes to that corporation. Can you seriously not understand this very simple point, or are you just arguing for the sake of it, as you seem to be? Also, where is that NDA that you claimed to know about that gives rights to tech tubers? It should be very easy to produce if you're correct. If you can't, then why make the claim?

[johnukguy]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Maybe the possibility escapes you but you seem to be confused between being wrong and other people not understanding.  We all understand what you are trying to say, you are just wrong.  

Then do point out how a person who is dependent on a corporation's good will can be always objective about that corporation.  I would love to see that.

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Again, you are perfectly free to copy and paste exactly where I said that. I'll save you some time though, as I didn't say that. Nowhere did I say that one type of review was substantively more accurate or less accurate than others. I made the simple point that if you are dependent on the good will of corporations and material gifts from them, in order to make a living, then you are not completely objective when it comes to that corporation. Can you seriously not understand this very simple point, or are you just arguing for the sake of it, as you seem to be? Also, where is that NDA that you claimed to know about that gives rights to tech tubers? It should be very easy to produce if you're correct. If you can't, then why make the claim?

 

 

That is just wrong man. 

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

You can still be objective.  Ask Linus here, Kyle at [H], Steve at GN, Ryan at Pcper, they will all tell you the same thing.  Getting the product from the company at no cost doesn't mean they aren't objective.  NDA's don't stop them from being objective.

 

I don't know if you were around when nvnews.net was around.  Even they were objective with the FX launch.  As was Rage with the launch of the r600!

 

Repeating myself here.

[Razor01]

Just now, johnukguy said:

Then do point out how a person who is dependent on a corporation's good will can be always objective about that corporation.  I would love to see that.

There are no ties to give the product a good review or not to point out weakness of that product to getting the sample for testing.......

[johnukguy]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

You can still be objective.  Ask Linus here, Kyle at [H], Steve at GN, Ryan at Pcper, they will all tell you the same thing.  Getting the product from the company at no cost doesn't mean they aren't objective.  NDA's don't stop them from being objective.

 

I don't know if you were around when nvnews.net was around.  Even they were objective with the FX launch.  As was Rage with the launch of the r600!

Oh you mean Ryan at PCper who was caught double dipping and giving favourable reviews to those who paid him? Thanks for making my point (again). By the way, word of advice, if you're trying to prove that reviewers who are materially dependent on a company are objective, try not to use someone who was busted providing favourable reviews to companies that were paying him. 

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Oh you mean Ryan at PCper who was caught double dipping and giving favourable reviews to those who paid him? Thanks for making my point (again). By the way, word of advice, if you're trying to prove that reviewers who are materially dependent on a company are objective, try not to use someone who was busted providing favourable reviews to companies that were paying him. 

 

Oh you are one of those Adored cronies.  Ok I'm done with you.  Can't have discussion with a person that even looks at Adored crap and takes his word with any seriousness.  .  PS he was never caught, if you knew anything about Pcper, you would have already know what they were doing lol.  They just didn't put a disclaimer up in the article.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, Razor01 said:

They just haven't changed that much since CS6 lol,  

Yeah, they have. Creative Cloud supports higher resolution monitors much better, there's quite a bit of reworking with the brushes, and touch support, going from CS6 to CC2015, was a huge improvement.

[johnukguy]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

That is just wrong man. 

 

Repeating myself here.

What's wrong exactly? You made a concrete claim, that NDA's with tech tubers give them certain rights. I asked you to show a single example of any such NDA. You still haven't been able to do so. So where is an example of such an NDA that you claimed exists? Just one example will do.  A single example. You can do that right? 

[johnukguy]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

Oh you are one of those Adored cronies.  Ok I'm done with you.  Can't have discussion with a person that even looks at Adored crap and takes his word with any seriousness. 

Oh you mean when I ask you for a single example of an NDA that you claim to exist that you can't in fact provide? And when you give as an example of an objective reviewer, someone who was caught providing favourable reviews to companies that paid him. That's when you decide not to talk anymore? How amusing. No surprises at all of course, but it was great fun playing with you.

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yeah, they have. Creative Cloud supports higher resolution monitors much better, there's quite a bit of reworking with the brushes, and touch support, going from CS6 to CC2015, was a huge improvement.

 

 

True, I was talking about better functionality mostly, UI, acceleration and stuff like that.  Over all though, when I think about software updates, I expect things to improve my workflow dramatically, updated CS's don't do that for me lol.  To the point I don't even use Adobe CS to touch up my textures anymore lol.  I have better results and faster results using 3d painting programs even for 2d needs now.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, johnukguy said:

Oh you mean when I ask you for a single example of an NDA that you claim to exist that you can't in fact provide? And when you give as an example of an objective reviewer, someone who was caught providing favourable reviews to companies that paid him. That's when you decide not to talk anymore? How amusing. Thanks for making my case for me. 

 

 

Yeah we have a thread about that very topic, might want to go there and spew that stuff out there

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Then do point out how a person who is dependent on a corporation's good will can be always objective about that corporation.  I would love to see that.

I already have, but you aren;t listening:

14 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.

 

41 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.

 

 

 

20 minutes 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.

 

 

There are 5 people here telling you you are wrong, but you refuse to listen.

 

[johnukguy]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

Yeah we have a thread about that very topic, might want to go there and spew that stuff out there

Hate to burst your bubble but you did bring up Ryan's name initially. You might want to not do that next time if you are discussing objective reviews. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

was talking about better functionality mostly, UI, acceleration and stuff like that.

UI and basic functionality hasn't changed much since CS2. Acceleration has been improved, by varying amounts, with each new release. CC2017 is a remarkable improvement over CC2015 on the i5 Surface Pro 4.

[johnukguy]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I already have, but you aren;t listening:

 

 

 

 

There are 5 people here telling you you are wrong, but you refuse to listen.

 

Ten people can tell me that unicorns exist, and I'm sure I can find a hundred people that want to deposit a million dollars into my account in return for a small favour for a Nigerian prince, it doesn't change the facts. But nice try.  I bet you've bought a few bridges in your time lol.  Plus, listen to what exactly? You saying that most reviews agree and that BS eventually surfaces? That doesn't disprove my point, which is, again, very simple - there is a reason why journalists are not allowed to accept gifts under their professional code of ethics, and are not allowed to be dependent on any outside corporations that they are then supposed to treat objectively. If you don't understand why that is, or why it matters, here's a little test for you, I can give you the name of an officer of the court, if you are in the US or the UK, within a reasonable distance of your home, go and offer them a gift and see how it works out for you.

[mr moose]

Just now, johnukguy said:

Ten people can tell me that unicorns exist, and I'm sure I can find a hundred people that want to deposit a million dollars into my account in return for a small favour for a Nigerian prince, it doesn't change the facts. But nice try.  I bet you've bought a few bridges in your time lol.

Do you think that means something? It barely makes sense let alone addresses anything I have said.

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

Well, not really. Indeed, disagreeing is the only rational thing to do, because a qualifier is missing

 

If 15 reviewers randomly drawn from a common distribution of reviewers tells us product A is good and product B not so good, and then  2 other reviewers randomly drawn from a common distribution of reviewers tells us the opposite, the 15 are significantly more likely to be right than the 2. 

If, however, reviewers are heterogeneous, and their discrepancies don't arise randomly, it is actually irrational to just add reviewers on team A vs. reviewers on team B, especially if you do have the necessary information to dig on the source of the discrepancies and pass a judgment on whose methodology is actually more likely to yield a useful result.

Truth is not democratic, it doesn't depend on the number of people behind each idea.

 

Of course, it would be equally irrational to conduct the aforementioned judgment on pure assumptions ("this looks like a guy you can buy"), or no basis at all.

I also think that many reviewers have made a solid case about how little it means to receive the products for free, how being "on time" is more important, and how maintaining their credibility in the long run is even more important, from a business survival perspective.

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

UI and basic functionality hasn't changed much since CS2. Acceleration has been improved, by varying amounts, with each new release. CC2017 is a remarkable improvement over CC2015 on the i5 Surface Pro 4.

I'll have to test that out.  I've been waiting for their 3d stuff to come out.....

[Razor01]

13 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Hate to burst your bubble but you did bring up Ryan's name initially. You might want to not do that next time if you are discussing objective reviews. 

So ask the others I have listed then.  You want to some more?  How about Anandtech?  These are the OLDest review sites on the web.  Or Techreport, or Tom's hardware?  All of them get hardware handouts and I don't see them doing what you are saying they will do since they get handouts.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble too, you picked one out of the 4 I mentioned.  How about the others?  But you picked the one that you could say something bad about.  What does that make you? You are picking a particular part of the argument that you can slant to your direction, your motivation, your thinking.  The rest of them you ignored.  What does that look like to others?  That is cherry picking.  What is your agenda for picking that one out of the 4?  Hmm I wonder...........

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, not really. Indeed, disagreeing is the only rational thing to do, because a qualifier is missing

 

If 15 reviewers randomly drawn from a common distribution of reviewers tells us product A is good and product B not so good, and then  2 other reviewers randomly drawn from a common distribution of reviewers tells us the opposite, the 15 are significantly more likely to be right than the 2. 

If, however, reviewers are heterogeneous, and their discrepancies don't arise randomly, it is actually irrational to just add reviewers on team A vs. reviewers on team B, especially if you do have the necessary information to dig on the source of the discrepancies and pass a judgment on whose methodology is actually more likely to yield a useful result.

Truth is not democratic, it doesn't depend on the number of people behind each idea.

 

Of course, it would be equally irrational to conduct the aforementioned judgment on pure assumptions ("this looks like a guy you can buy"), or no basis at all.

I also think that many reviewers have made a solid case about how little it means to receive the products for free, how being "on time" is more important, and how maintaining their credibility in the long run is even more important, from a business survival perspective.

That is true, and I believe mostly the case, because all reviewers publish their testing methodology and anyone can reproduce it to either verify or show where they went wrong.  I believe that has happened a few times, and that's how you can tell the legit reviewers because they admit when something was wrong and explain why and do the testing all over again.   Which further adds to what I am saying, you can tell who is legit by their results, not by how they get their samples.

[johnukguy]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

So ask the others I have listed then.  You want to some more?  How about Anandtech?  These are the OLDest review sites on the web.  Or Techreport, or Tom's hardware?  All of them get hardware handouts and I don't see them doing what you are saying they will do since they get handouts.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble too, you picked one out of the 4 I mentioned.  How about the others?

What did I say they will do exactly? I didn't say they will do anything. I just made the point that nobody who calls themselves a journalist, can accept gifts, free stuff worth a lot of money, or payment of some sort, sign an NDA and expect to be taken credibly as a journalist. That's simply the way it is, not a matter of opinion. If you disagree, then come up with a single journalistic code of ethics that agrees with you. You won't find a single one. If people are so poorly informed that they don't understand that, then I feel sorry for them. If on the other hand some tech tuber, who doesn't claim to be a journalist, accepts freebies and signs an NDA, it's not a big deal.

I still don't give them much credibility of course, because, like I have said multiple times, you cannot expect to be objective when you are dependent on and materially benefit from a corporation that you are then supposed to be objective about. Again, not a matter of opinion. But tech tubers like that aren't a big issue, they're not journalists and wouldn't be able to be journalists. If people want to be gullible when it comes to such a commercial relationship, great, that's their problem and...there's one born every minute. Now, where's that NDA you claimed to exist that you still haven't been able to provide a single example of?

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

What did I say they will do exactly? I didn't say they will do anything. I just made the point that nobody who calls themselves a journalist, can accept gifts, free stuff worth a lot of money, or payment of some sort, sign an NDA and expect to be taken credibly as a journalist. That's simply the way it is, not a matter of opinion. If you disagree, then come up with a single journalistic code of ethics that agrees with you. You won't find a single one. If people are so poorly informed that they don't understand that, then I feel sorry for them. If on the other hand some tech tuber, who doesn't claim to be a journalist, accepts freebies and signs an NDA, it's not a big deal.

I still don't give them much credibility of course, because, like I have said multiple times, you cannot expect to be objective when you are dependent on and materially benefit from a corporation that you are then supposed to be objective about. Again, not a matter of opinion. But tech tubers like that aren't a big issue, they're not journalists and wouldn't be able to be journalists. If people want to be gullible when it comes to such a commercial relationship, great, that's their problem and...there's one born every minute. Now, where's that NDA you claimed to exist that you still haven't been able to provide a single example of?

http://techcontracts.yolasite.com/resources/MSFT NDASample.pdf

 

 

Pretty straight forward, MS can give info to a company, that company can release info to their affiliates at a certain date. And any info given to MS they can give to their affiliates.  IF either side breaches that they are screwed.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Ten people can tell me that unicorns exist, and I'm sure I can find a hundred people that want to deposit a million dollars into my account in return for a small favour for a Nigerian prince, it doesn't change the facts. But nice try.  I bet you've bought a few bridges in your time lol.  Plus, listen to what exactly? You saying that most reviews agree and that BS eventually surfaces? That doesn't disprove my point, which is, again, very simple - there is a reason why journalists are not allowed to accept gifts under their professional code of ethics, and are not allowed to be dependent on any outside corporations that they are then supposed to treat objectively. If you don't understand why that is, or why it matters, here's a little test for you, I can give you the name of an officer of the court, if you are in the US or the UK, within a reasonable distance of your home, go and offer them a gift and see how it works out for you.

I see you edited your post,

 

 Receiving gifts is not the same as receiving review samples when you are a reviewer.  They are two totally different things.   One is a product required to carry out a job the other is a payment to entice a preferred service.     The rest of your post still makes no sense.