Nvidia Attempting to Censor Critical Reviews?

[rawrdaysgoby]

Not sending him a card isn't exactly censoring critical reviews... since people can still buy one... 

[cj09beira]

6 hours ago, EnergyEclipse said:

 

i gotta say i have seen dozens of these videos, but dam they crack me up every f** time, thanks for sharing

[cj09beira]

the shady thing here is giving him a different nda for another day, as that makes him think that he has time and probably means he will make less money from the review as it will be quite a bit late

[laminutederire]

5 hours ago, maartendc said:

 

The situation with gamer nexus is a bit different to me. First of all they're bigger and in NA. And more importantly, they have a community which make them rather independent, which is why the fact that Nvidia would cut them off wouldn't hurt their bottom lines and just piss them while they're there for the long haul.

With hardware unboxed they probably are trying to kill them off because they're not Nvidia shills, and are in the situation where Nvidia thinks they can busy them.

[jasonc_01]

meh

[Terryv]

44 minutes ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Not sending him a card isn't exactly censoring critical reviews... since people can still buy one... 

It sort of is, most of what comes up in searches are launch reviews.

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, laminutederire said:

The situation with gamer nexus is a bit different to me. First of all they're bigger and in NA. And more importantly, they have a community which make them rather independent, which is why the fact that Nvidia would cut them off wouldn't hurt their bottom lines and just piss them while they're there for the long haul.

With hardware unboxed they probably are trying to kill them off because they're not Nvidia shills, and are in the situation where Nvidia thinks they can busy them.

Well gamers nexus doesn't shill for anyone,and he still gets cards to review so i'm not sure how anyone would assume they're shilling for Nvidia.  I don't see how it matters where they are located, if Hardware Unboxed would work with Nvidia on the issue before making a "OMG we didn't get one we got screwed" video they would have probably gotten one to review.

[Tech_Dreamer]

is anyone surprised? i mean not just NVIDIA , Major companies does this shit very often to get a clean image from a third party viewer/potential customer.

[S w a t s o n]

3 hours ago, Đỗ Đức Huy said:

*sigh

680 get rebranded with more clocks to be 770

760 is actually not a 670 but is a in between of a 660ti and a 670. 670, 680, 660ti are all GK104 part cut up differently. 760 is still GK104 but cut up in between the 660ti and 670. the 670 actually got rebranded into the 760ti that is only available to large OEM.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review

GTX 960 is a new Maxwell part designed to replace the 760 in performance but at a lower power draw of 120W vs the 170W of the 760, making it more accessible to the masses.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/8923/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-960

So yeah, I know my stuff. I actually have used all them cards personally for at least a month each. I know what they are capable of and their relative performance and power needs.

Except that 960 competes with 770 and 680 not 760

 

I am aware it's all GK104 though GK104 was supposed to be GTX 660ti until AMD kind of shit the bed

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

if Hardware Unboxed would work with Nvidia on the issue before making a "OMG we didn't get one we got screwed" video they would have probably gotten one to review.

They did, there is an RTX 2060 shipping to them right now which was organised and sent before that video. In fact they contacted Nvidia more than once, knowing reviewers had the cards.

 

What were they supposed to do, fly to Nvidia HQ and knock on the door?

[Carclis]

4 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

His bitching and raging at Linus (and others) on twitter, twitch AND YouTube for not instantly agreeing with his stupidly oversensationalized anger over Intel 'allowing the Principle Technologies' report.

I can't say I disagree with his stance there. Linus was extremely dismissive of the fact that the information released was under the false pretense of being independent, had heavily flawed testing, had reviewers hushed via NDA and also the fact that preorders were already open before any "real" reviews could be published. Try this:

 

"You can have an early review sample if you test under these conditions."

 

It doesn't seem like a big step at all, does it? The only difference is somebody got paid to be deceptive here so that it didn't look like Intel was the one doing it.

6 hours ago, Ravens said:

So basically Nvidia just wants their cards reviewed, benchmarked, and lavished with praise.. Not have the card torn apart, disassembled, heatsinks removed, die exposed, PCB design/layout made public and/or scrutinized, and high resolution photos posted online showing off all the components used, etc.

That's not the point of reviews. Their sole purpose is for criticism. Do they perform well? Do they do what they are advertised to do? Are they competitive? Are they priced well compared to the competition? Plus there's nothing wrong with teardowns (I think your opinion is targeted at GN Steve here, not HUB Steve) because they show exactly what your getting. In most, if not all cases the product reviewed should be final as that would represent what the consumer will get. If it isn't the final design then it's on the supplier (Nvidia) to state that the PCB isn't the final version, not cut off the reviewer because they don't like criticism.

[Uttamattamakin]

IF this is what it looks like it is not such an unusual thing.  Most companies want good reviews. SO they'd send out products for review by people who are likely to give positive reviews.  Most people are savvy to this fact and so do not put too much stock in such positive reviews.  If I am wrong then answer me this.  When you buy something on line do you read the positive reviews or the negative reviews?  (I read the negative and decide if they are reasonable credible complaints.)

[TetraSky]

This sort of shit is pretty common in the video game review business so I'm not that surprised Nvidia would be doing this.

It's not a good thing by any means, but still not surprising.

[Carclis]

2 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

This sort of shit is pretty common in the video game review business so I'm not that surprised Nvidia would be doing this.

It's not a good thing by any means, but still not surprising.

Coincidentally that industry is going down the toilet now as far as quality is concerned.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Not sending him a card isn't exactly censoring critical reviews... since people can still buy one... 

They did send him a card. It just doesn't arrive until the 15th. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

34 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I can't say I disagree with his stance there. Linus was extremely dismissive of the fact that the information released was under the false pretense of being independent, had heavily flawed testing, had reviewers hushed via NDA and also the fact that preorders were already open before any "real" reviews could be published. Try this:

 

"You can have an early review sample if you test under these conditions."

 

It doesn't seem like a big step at all, does it? The only difference is somebody got paid to be deceptive here so that it didn't look like Intel was the one doing it.

That's not the point of reviews. Their sole purpose is for criticism. Do they perform well? Do they do what they are advertised to do? Are they competitive? Are they priced well compared to the competition? Plus there's nothing wrong with teardowns (I think your opinion is targeted at GN Steve here, not HUB Steve) because they show exactly what your getting. In most, if not all cases the product reviewed should be final as that would represent what the consumer will get. If it isn't the final design then it's on the supplier (Nvidia) to state that the PCB isn't the final version, not cut off the reviewer because they don't like criticism.

So what exactly is the difference between AMD pushing out cherry-picked benchmarks for Fury-X, Vega 64, Zen, Zen+ before reviews of other sources came out. Those reviews which btw were not available before pre-orders launched.

 

Nothing is different. Hell. What PT did was better because they were extremely explicit about what settings they did (as flawed as they are.) Their rigor in documentation was better than literally every single tech reviewer on the market. INCLUDING HARDWARE UNBOXED. Their rigor in documentation is what I'd consider commendable as an actual published scientist in multiple respected journals.  

 

Yes the testing was flawed. Yes the testing was sponsored. The sponsorship was disclosed, and the methodology was also disclosed. That's 1000x better than these black box cherry picked crap that literally everyone else normally does at release benchmarks (including Intel most of the time), where they make outrageous claims, that everyone knows are massively cherry picked, fail to disclose how they got the data, and then don't even try to fix the mistakes when they get called out on it.

 

Hardware Unboxed not understanding that is fine. Its disappointing, but fine. His actions taken trying to shit on anyone and everyone that disagreed with him were not. And that is where the real issue with his channel and works are. 

[leadeater]

46 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

What PT did was better

Geez that was frustrating, took ages for me to remember what the P was in PT.

[Wildosvt]

Damn near every single 2060 review gave the darn thing a 5 out of 5. It made me sick how bad many reviewers were choking down on the green goblin. JayzTwoCents really surprised me with his, The only thing missing was green pom poms. This is the first time that I can think of to not like a Jay video. I love the guy.

 

Tech Jesus did it right. Went straight to the 1060. And noted the price hike.

[Carclis]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

So what exactly is the difference between AMD pushing out cherry-picked benchmarks for Fury-X, Vega 64, Zen, Zen+ before reviews of other sources came out. Those reviews which btw were not available before pre-orders launched.

 

Nothing is different. Hell. What PT did was better because they were extremely explicit about what settings they did (as flawed as they are.) Their rigor in documentation was better than literally every single tech reviewer on the market. INCLUDING HARDWARE UNBOXED. Their rigor in documentation is what I'd consider commendable as an actual published scientist in multiple respected journals.  

 

Yes the testing was flawed. Yes the testing was sponsored. The sponsorship was disclosed, and the methodology was also disclosed. That's 1000x better than these black box cherry picked crap that literally everyone else normally does at release benchmarks (including Intel most of the time), where they make outrageous claims, that everyone knows are massively cherry picked, fail to disclose how they got the data, and then don't even try to fix the mistakes when they get called out on it.

 

Hardware Unboxed not understanding that is fine. Its disappointing, but fine. His actions taken trying to shit on anyone and everyone that disagreed with him were not. And that is where the real issue with his channel and works are. 

The difference is we expect those results to be cherry picked and have some level of bias because they come from the company doing the testing. Also note that AMD discloses their test systems when they make performance claims which also puts the onus on them to make the testing somewhat fair or risk looking like idiots. I don't recall a third party review coming out for any PC hardware before the NDA has lifted that has managed to get so many things wrong.

 

I don't really agree that it's any better than Intel doing their own tests. If they're in full control of the whole thing and paying someone else to add credibility to do testing that is intentionally flawed then what is the point of getting the third party to do it? Isn't it still an outrageous claim? Then you have other publications who don't know any better report on it as if it is a legitimate third party result which perpetuates the problem and you have a situation where the people who can refute it are censored by an NDA.

As far as I'm aware he left one comment on the WAN show which simply said that they missed the majority of the points raised (which they did).

[BuckGup]

11 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Why him and not Tech Jesus who is far more obnoxiously critical?

It's not obnoxious it is thorough and much better than Linus spewing clickbait ehhh it sucks here's a penis joke well it's not that bad another joke and then Nvidia could do better but you decide. Gamers Nexus actually shows you important things like specific models of power delivery. memory, thermal pads, and other factors that actually should be considered before buying

[Chett_Manly]

That is not censorship.

 

No one is entitled to early review hardware, and those that take it clearly have conflicts of interest, and you as the viewer must gauge that conflict of interest in how it affects their work.

 

 

[Carclis]

1 minute ago, Chett_Manly said:

That is not censorship.

 

No one is entitled to early review hardware, and those that take it clearly have conflicts of interest, and you as the viewer must gauge that conflict of interest in how it affects their work.

 

 

It's promoting reviews that will only get you positive reception and hence hiding criticism by only allowing it to become available after launch when everyone has seen all the other reviews. How is that not censoring criticism? As Steve mentioned, he has been receiving hardware to review early for Techspot for a very long time. What has changed over the past few months to have changed that? Other smaller channels are still getting samples.

[Chett_Manly]

1 hour ago, Carclis said:

It's promoting reviews that will only get you positive reception and hence hiding criticism by only allowing it to become available after launch when everyone has seen all the other reviews. How is that not censoring criticism? As Steve mentioned, he has been receiving hardware to review early for Techspot for a very long time. What has changed over the past few months to have changed that? Other smaller channels are still getting samples.

Because the criticism has to be created before it can be censored. Nvidia cannot censor what does not exist. They are preventing the creation of criticism aided by their product. They have no obligation to provide their product, at cost to them, to people so they can attack that product.

 

On a side note if Nvidia is able to tell in advance who is going to review the card negatively, does that not mean that person clearly already has made up their mind on it, and doesn't actually need the review card to be able to express their opinion. 

 

I think the solution to this is that the tech media simply share performance data with the people who do not get cards and then let them use that data alongside their own thoughts. This could also reduce workload as one team could test 1 card with different CPUs, another SLI, another RTX... then compile the data on GitHub publicly.

 

But even that solution is bound to fail as some tech outlets would sign an agreement to not share data for even earlier access. As in the end this is not about Nvidia its about tech media being able to compete each other, and how far they are willing to go for Nvidia's or AMD's or Intel's or Apple's... favor to do so.

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 hours ago, Carclis said:

The difference is we expect those results to be cherry picked and have some level of bias because they come from the company doing the testing. Also note that AMD discloses their test systems when they make performance claims which also puts the onus on them to make the testing somewhat fair or risk looking like idiots. I don't recall a third party review coming out for any PC hardware before the NDA has lifted that has managed to get so many things wrong.

 

I don't really agree that it's any better than Intel doing their own tests. If they're in full control of the whole thing and paying someone else to add credibility to do testing that is intentionally flawed then what is the point of getting the third party to do it? Isn't it still an outrageous claim? Then you have other publications who don't know any better report on it as if it is a legitimate third party result which perpetuates the problem and you have a situation where the people who can refute it are censored by an NDA.

As far as I'm aware he left one comment on the WAN show which simply said that they missed the majority of the points raised (which they did).

 

 

They missed 0 of the points raised. They (and I, and for example @leadeater) simply disagreed with the value matrix that somehow came with these conclusions. Linus literally pointed out all of the same things, came to a different conclusion, and rant everywhere.

 

1. They weren't in control of the whole thing. We know this, we knew this then, it has been confirmed since then. Intel (as in marketing...) signed off on it (guess what, the results are in FACT TRUE for the dumb settings), but did not in fact run or supervise the running of the tests. Hanlon's Razor. 2. AMD doesn't disclose their test systems to nearly the same standard that PT did and still got chewed out for. Where ANYWHERE in the Radeon VII launch was details of the test system with respect to coolers, xfr/turbo boost settings, PL settings, MCE settings, or almost all the other stupid bullshit (minus dram timings) people wanted to harp on? Does AMD state that they make sure to close all their background processes? Below is an example of AMD's standard disclosures (and those are on slides that most press don't even bother including).

 

 

Let me be frank. A good 98%+ of the problems with the data were the result of Game Mode.

 

AMD SHOULDN'T HAVE A SETTING CALLED GAME MODE THAT GIMPS GAMING.

It isn't that flipping hard to disable the bios setting for processors that shouldn't be using it. AMD has done very little advertising to the general populous or the consumers of their chips letting them know 'game mode' is only beneficial (and only sometimes) on threadripper. Like I'm honestly serious here. I guarantee you that thousands of consumers did the exact same thing that PT has done, in seeing a setting called 'game mode' and knowing they want to game, then enabling it for processors it never should have been an option for.

 

Like seriously. Why does AM4 even have that option? How stupid can you get? 

 

From AMD's User Manual: 'The Game Mode profile is pre-configured for optimal performance for most modern and legacy games with these fixed settings'. That is IT. That is all they say about it in their own documentation for consumers.

 

You want to complain about misleading the public? ^ That is misleading the public. I am in no way, shape, or form surprised that an organization who isn't literally breathing cpu news 24/7 would mess that up.

[Carclis]

11 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

Because the criticism has to be created before it can be censored. Nvidia cannot censor what does not exist. They are preventing the creation of criticism aided by their product. They have no obligation to provide their product, at cost to them, to people so they can attack that product.

 

On a side note if Nvidia is able to tell in advance who is going to review the card negatively, does that not mean that person clearly already has made up their mind on it, and doesn't actually need the review card to be able to express their opinion. 

 

I think the solution to this is that the tech media simply share performance data with the people who do not get cards and then let them use that data alongside their own thoughts. This could also reduce workload as one team could test 1 card with different CPUs, another SLI, another RTX... then compile the data on GitHub publicly.

 

But even that solution is bound to fail as some tech outlets would sign an agreement to not share data for even earlier access. As in the end this is not about Nvidia its about tech media being able to compete each other, and how far they are willing to go for Nvidia's or AMD's or Intel's or Apple's... favor to do so.

I think you're missing the whole point. Nvidia knows what makes a product good and what will go down well with the public and they also know which reviewers are critical of their products, not necessarily being negative for no reason and there is a HUGE difference there. What I'm implying is that Nvidia knows it has a bad product, because of the price point, price increase generation over generation, absent features and features that work incredibly poorly because the technology is immature and they're using that knowledge to ensure that the people who will call a spade a spade do not get their hands on it. The same thing is done in the games industry where "influencers" are hired or sponsored to play the game as well as promote it through positive videos and content. Then there are instances like this where players have something they don't like it and they get banned/unsponsored instantly. As mentioned in a comment earlier, take a look where that industry is going with as few real critics as it has right now. Do you really see no problem with this?