UPDATE: NVIDIA backtracks - Hardware Unboxed blacklisted from receiving GeForce FE review samples over “focus on rasterization over ray-tracing”

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nvidia could call their product what ever they like, has nothing to do with the review process.

 

Next AMD CPU line: AMD Ryzen Cinebench 6000 series. "Checkmate, Intel!"  

 

46 minutes ago, Nex6 said:

Still looking for some good arguments and I'm sure some of you do have good arguments.

Dude, you've been flooded by logically sound arguments. The only reason you're not feeling the water is you built an mind ark of your own.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

I think the reason behind the restrictions could be due to them already pushing their cards to the limits as it's atypical for AMD to have things locked.

Possibly but it didn't seem like it when watching the OC videos for it, memory clock is very easy and I haven't seen a card not be stable at the limit AMD put in place. Core clock is a bit different but on the bigger cards like the Red Devil it also easily hits the core clock limit. My personal feeling is that it was originally put in place for the 6800 XT to keep that gap between the 6900 XT and it was carried over in to the 6900 XT firmware.

 

I'm fairly sure these limits will be removed, very confident of that for 6900 XT but not so sure about 6800 XT. I'm expecting/hoping that AIB 6900 XT cards come with higher board power limits and also those clock restrictions removed.

[D13H4RD]

20 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

I'm never the first to jump on a card either, that is a worst idea than per-ordering a game imo because you can't simply get updates for the card if it's a hardware issue

What was it the 3070 that had the issue because some of the companies got cheap?

Buying any major electronics product on Day One isn't a fantastic idea because launch-day electronics tend to have issues and such. I can wait a bit if it means early foibles and issues/kinks get ironed out and fixed. It also helps that the extra time allows me to watch reviews from different sources alongside deep-dives in order to learn more about a product I may potentially be purchasing.

 

And it was the 3080/3090 that were having issues like the cards crashing when boosting alongside OCP being tripped on PSUs that are 650W/750W. Initially, it was believed to be capacitors but ultimately proved to just be a combination of faulty drivers and an issue in the release vBIOS. An updated driver and new vBIOS solved both the crashing and current-overdraw issue.

 

Funnily enough......it was Hardware Unboxed who showed that the issue was linked to faulty drivers.....and they were thanked by NVIDIA for it.

[SolarNova]

Nvidia like the vast vast majority of large corporations/businesses, have no fking idea what the average joe customer actually think.

As per usual THEY are the ones out of touch. They live in their little bubble, their echo chamber, and all this 'feedback' we the community are giving them is nothing but a minority of haters and trolls in their eyes, hence they will never learn.

 

This is the fate of most businesses, once u get big, u loose touch of the people you sell your products or services to.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Next AMD CPU line: AMD Ryzen Cinebench 6000 series. "Checkmate, Intel!"  

Intel GeekBench i9 1200 Series with PrincipalTechnology^TM

[Egg-Roll]

 

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Funnily enough......it was Hardware Unboxed who showed that the issue was linked to faulty drivers.....and they were thanked by NVIDIA for it.

Oh that's what that part was about, ok. Tho I would rather buy the better built cards driver issues or not.

 

4 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Buying any major electronics product on Day One isn't a fantastic idea because launch-day electronics tend to have issues and such. I can wait a bit if it means early foibles and issues/kinks get ironed out and fixed. It also helps that the extra time allows me to watch reviews from different sources alongside deep-dives in order to learn more about a product I may potentially be purchasing.

The only time I ever bought something on launch day was the Halo 3 Xbox 360. Also got the legendary edition of the game too

 

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Possibly but it didn't seem like it when watching the OC videos for it, memory clock is very easy and I haven't seen a card not be stable at the limit AMD put in place. Core clock is a bit different but on the bigger cards like the Red Devil it also easily hits the core clock limit. My personal feeling is that it was originally put in place for the 6800 XT so keep that gap between the 6900 XT and it was carried over in to the 6900 XT firmware.

 

I'm fairly sure these limits will be removed, very confident of that for 6900 XT but not so sure about 6800 XT. I'm expecting/hoping that AIB 6900 XT cards come with higher board power limits and also those clock restrictions removed.

Lets hope those limits do get removed, it would help sell the 6900 XT better and could force nvidia to lower their 3090 price too.

 

15 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Next AMD CPU line: AMD Ryzen Cinebench 6000 series. "Checkmate, Intel!"  

AMD We're Sorry It's Over 9000 Series introducing the "Bye Bye Intel 9069 Unlocked Special Gold Edition"

[WhitetailAni]

1 hour ago, Nex6 said:

Well, it doesn't matter if you put a big no or a small no, it doesn't add anything to strength of your argumentation. I checked through your arguments again and it looks to me like you are just saying no all the time. There's nothing for me to argue about, we could just go yes no yes no yes no like two kids for 3 weeks. Not my style. So I will thank you for presenting your opinion and leave it at that.

 

If anyone else wants to tackle my points, please do. Still looking for some good arguments and I'm sure some of you do have good arguments. So far I got one and a half good point from the first person who responded and no good points from the second.

You're not really arguing. You're stating an opinion as fact and then getting annoyed when it's shot down with actual fact.

[GDRRiley]

3 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

Pretty sure his reply was sarcasm ... right?

I think not but IDK

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Also slowly dying of old age here waiting for that haha. I'll likely get serious about buying a GPU late Jan to Feb probably, I pray things are better buy then. Also I hope the clock limits on the core and memory are removed by then too. I'll be water cooling my card(s) and I find it odd even the 6900 XT also has those restrictions, maybe AIB 6900 XT won't but none of them are out yet. Would rather buy an unrestricted 6800 XT though.

there will be AIB cards fully unlocked. no way a TOXIC 6900XT won't be insane, maybe they'll 2x the memory again.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 hours ago, pas008 said:

Didn't Intel push for it with larrabee and amd and nvidia pushed it out?

 

Because of the unique nature of Larrabee, it would have been really good at it compared other other GPUs, but Raytracing has been used professionally for decades. It's just slow. Why we talked about "Real Time Raytracing" so much for about a year there.

[ewitte]

Expected that from them the bigger streamers would prefer to buy it themselves or vs meeting any demands from either company. I know GN has other methods of getting cards ...

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, Nex6 said:

Well, it doesn't matter if you put a big no or a small no, it doesn't add anything to strength of your argumentation. I checked through your arguments again and it looks to me like you are just saying no all the time. There's nothing for me to argue about, we could just go yes no yes no yes no like two kids for 3 weeks. Not my style. So I will thank you for presenting your opinion and leave it at that.

 

If anyone else wants to tackle my points, please do. Still looking for some good arguments and I'm sure some of you do have good arguments. So far I got one and a half good point from the first person who responded and no good points from the second.

I wanted to, but I dislike the notion of tag-teaming someone. I myself enjoy it, but others might not enjoy responding to several people at once. Since you've extended the invitation however, I'll take you up on the offer.

 

As echoed by others in the thread (myself included), marketing does not dictate how a product is used by a consumer. The notion that because the R in RTX stands for Raytracing means that the card is designed for Raytracing and must be used for said purpose is silly. If this logic were applied universally, developers would not be allowed to use "gaming" hardware for their software development or workloads that benefit greatly from the hardware acceleration offered by these "gaming" GPU's. We could go much deeper with several more analogies on this subject, but I'll settle with the low hanging fruit for now.

 

If your issue is with the test suite or quality of the testing methodology, I'd love to hear your opinion on the subject. Part of my daily activity at work involves testing hardware with a methodology that I've developed, so I never shy away from insight on this subject. If your issue stems from reviewers deviating from reviewing a product as it is marketed, I am afraid you'll find no quarter from me on this subject. I have an extreme distaste for marketing and how they pervert what is given to them by their engineering teams, as does anyone that has worked in this industry for any amount of time. I do not blame the individuals that work in marketing, as it's their job to make the product as appealing as possible, but for most of us, we see it as predatory towards consumers. If my interpretation of your posts thus far are accurate, I'd say the predatory nature of marketing in this context is well founded, given that you've come to believe in the narrative they've created around these GPU's in spite of how consumers intend to use them. If the majority of consumers intend to use these GPU's for rasterized-based gaming (as evidenced by the polling Hardware Unboxed did beforehand), then no amount of marketing and buzzword placement in the product name/feature list can change that.

 

As for the rest of your claims, I'll tackle those individually.

On 12/13/2020 at 10:06 AM, Nex6 said:

I think that is wrong again. Surely there has to be a time frame obligation? If a 3080 is provided and the review comes in July 2021, that can't be right?

This depends entirely on the terms of the NDA. If it is the blanket NDA that we all sign when Nvidia releases a new product, no such publication deadline exists. There is the usual embargo date that specifies the exact date and time that a review can go live, however it does not state that it must go live by any given point in time. With that said, I am not sure if HWUB signed something different to what the rest of us get, and if they did, that is between Nvidia and themselves.

On 12/13/2020 at 10:06 AM, Nex6 said:

As for your second point, I think that the review was not fair and I have stated my arguments why I think so.

Nobody can (or should) argue against a subjective opinion. If you believe the review is unfair, you are well within your right to believe so. Anyone that disagrees with you are also well within their right to believe so. I am pretty sure we all understand this, so I won't really go into details on how this works.

On 12/13/2020 at 10:06 AM, Nex6 said:

Will have to disagree again, although I do leave a possibility of either misunderstanding from your side or a word being misused from my side. Manufacturer does decide what the desired selling points are. The consumers will have a final say whether that decision was successful or not. This is how I use the word selling point, but you are free to change it to whatever you think is more appropriate for the meaning that I described.

Your choice of words here is interesting, and I respect your understanding that the difference in opinion could stem from a simple miscommunication. This is why we have to clarify as best we can when dealing with written text as emphasis is often difficult to convey in this medium. That said, I do side with Leadeater on this part as stated in my reasoning above. Manufacturers can list features and market those features as selling points, but those selling points do not dictate how a product should be used. I won't bore you with repetition of the same point I already attempted to make, so I'll leave it at that.

 

On 12/13/2020 at 10:06 AM, Nex6 said:

I also disagree about the first quoted point. When someone buys a product, he has no obligations at all, and he can review it any way he wants. But if you are provided the product by the manufacturer, then there are obligations. For example if somebody is provided with a product (described as "Product received for free") to review on Amazon, he can't just write "DDF3 ££54 SS£¬``". However if you actually bought it, nothing prevents you from posting exactly that review.

While I myself have signed a few Nvidia NDA's in my time, none of them have come with any terms or clause in regards to how their products are to be used or reviewed. My NDA's also come with a reviewers guide, despite me not being a hardware reviewer. I also do not know if reviewers sign another agreement outside of the blanket NDA that dictate terms of the review, but I can say that such a document would largely defeat the purpose of sourcing independent third party reviews in the first place if you wanted to control and dictate what could and couldn't be discussed as well as the volume of coverage a specific feature got during the review. A paid ad or sponsorship would make more sense in that situation. If a manufacturer believes strongly in their product, then they need to have enough faith in it that it can stand on its own merits without their intervention. The last thing they want to do is pervert the integrity of reviewers and the trust consumers have in them by trying to control everything during the review process.

On 12/13/2020 at 10:06 AM, Nex6 said:

I will give you an analogy (and to others, because it doesn't look like we are going to agree on this).

- Suppose I review cars and you are a car manufacturer

- You manufacture a completely new model and I ask you for an exclusive review (or at least to be one of the selected few that could get the car for a preview)

- We agree on NDA, we agree on when I can publish the review.

- You tell me that this car was made to be the fastest car ever made by your company and you make claims that it has faster acceleration than any of its competitors.

- I check the car and post a review on day 1. In the review I show the exterior and interior, I say that I like the colour, but I dislike the shape. I also compare the interior to the one from another car you made, which costs only 50% of this car's price. And yet, I say, that car's interior is better, it's more luxurious, more comfortable to spend long hours driving.

- You watch the review. You watch the review again, checking whether maybe you haven't missed the part where I drive the car... oh I do actually mention that the drives is quite fast at the end. And that's all.

- Well, I'd think that you are not going to send me another car next time, because obviously I am not really interested in your talking points.

 

That's exactly how I see this situation.

Car analogies, a man after my own heart. I've used my truck in a few (even in this very thread). On the surface, your analogy seems pretty sound and dare I say, downright reasonable. The problem with it is that it falls victim to the same issues I've highlighted previously. The manufacturers intent behind the product / marketing of the product does not dictate how consumers will use or view the product. The reviewers job is to put themselves in the shoes of consumers. This requires a level of empathy that companies (as a corporate entity) cannot possess. This is why the company/reviewer relationship is symbiotic and why we as consumers benefit from both coexisting in harmony. A company might feel their product is better geared towards X audience and markets it as such, prices it as a premium, and forecasts it to perform well in said market. The reviewer might disagree based on actual user feedback and a connection with the community that the product was originally marketed for, and instead highlight the pros and cons of the product and offer their personal insight of the product and why it may better serve Y community instead. I quote Past MageTank often, but he is right when he said:

On 12/11/2020 at 1:56 PM, MageTank said:

To get an objective opinion on where you need improvement, from someone that isn't directly under your employ and would lie to your face to keep their jobs or earn promotions.

On 12/11/2020 at 1:56 PM, MageTank said:

At their core, product reviews exist to give consumers an objective understanding of the product they are intending to purchase. These reviews can be quite favorable or negative, or even both if they are truly objective and unbiased, taking both the good and bad as they come. The reviewer must maintain a level of integrity and honesty or risk losing their audience, as they rely on the views/traffic brought about by their audience for their livelihoods. If they compromise on their integrity and honesty, they risk losing this audience and the traffic/revenue that follows.

On 12/11/2020 at 1:56 PM, MageTank said:

The second facet that these reviews serve is product improvement, and this benefits both consumers and the manufacturers. As mentioned before, it's difficult to get an objective opinion from those working directly on a product as their views may be inherently biased given the months/years of effort put in throughout the various stages of development. People are often less receptive to criticism when they themselves are directly involved, and others are scared to be honest with their criticism when they are employed by the very people they are critiquing. Third party reviewers do not have this fear, nor do they have the inherent bias or consumer mistrust that first party companies often have in regards to their own products and data. Product manufacturers rely on reviewers to help market their products to consumers without the fear of first party bias and to help offer constructive feedback on how to improve their products going forward.

I believe all of this is applicable to your analogy, and explains why a reviewer might deviate from how a company may feel about their product, and why third party reviews are important to consumers as a result.

 

As for your perception of @leadeaterand whether he was being reasonable, I'd say he was given the context of both of your posts. I've had quite a few discussions on this forum with him, not all of which involved he and I coming to an agreement on a given matter, but I've never once considered him unreasonable. Often times, it's easier to dismiss others as unreasonable or "stubborn" simply because they cannot see things your way, but it's often ironic that the issue stems from oneself. I'd say you might find him more reasonable if you entertain the thought that there might be more to his point and that he might be right about some of the things he is discussing with you. 

 

If you do firmly believe that you were right in your discussion, yet are failing to understand why it is people are not gravitating towards your way of thinking, let me give you some advice from a man that has been as abrasive as you currently are on this very forum. People in this community respond better to sources and information to corroborate claims. This can be difficult when arguing things of a superfluous or subjective nature, but your points could have absolutely used some data to bolster the claims made. Lead with that next time. If you feel that the person(s) with whom you are speaking are not convincing you, then kindly ask that they provide some sources to help better educate you as well. It works both ways, and is extremely effective. You'll find that when others cannot back up their claims, they are left to admit that they may not be seeing the entire picture, or they'll look foolish in the court of public opinion. Either way, it's a lot better than going on a crusade against everyone and expecting to come out on top.

[mariushm]

25 minutes ago, ewitte said:

Expected that from them the bigger streamers would prefer to buy it themselves or vs meeting any demands from either company. I know GN has other methods of getting cards ...

The problem is that in some cases nVidia (or AMD) send their own reference designs a week or so BEFORE AIBs (third party video card manufacturers) are even allowed to send cards to reviewers, and before the embargo (the moment everyone's allowed to publish content. 

This way people get the chance to run all benchmarks and prepare the review and maybe even record the video and in some cases it gives a company like nVidia or AMD the ability to get feedback and fix bios issues if they occur. 

They also give reviewers beta drivers and sometimes the only drivers that work are only available to people nVidia likes.

And about drivers... nVidia and AMD can be jerks sometimes, like releasing hot fixes and new drivers the day before the embargo end, after reviewers actually did all benchmarks and recorded the review, so sometimes reviewers have to come the day before or the night before and redo all benchmarks at the last minute.

 

So it's not really about paying nvidia or other companies for the review sample, it's about having the same fighting chance, starting from the same point as other reviewers, you can't post a video in the same day other channels post a video if you didn't have the card to review and run the benchmarks before.

 

Companies that make video cards have to send lists to nvidia or amd or whatever for approval, with who gets the cards, and the company can veto names, not allow video card manufacturers to send card to particular reviewers or organizations. If they don't conform suddenly they find themselves with lower amounts of gpu chips and ram chips or they're forced to make more lower profit cards before they receive the allotment of higher end gpu chips (which are more profitable)

 

Nowadays also like i said, they started to have separate release schedules... nvidia had founders edition before everyone else, there was embargo for founders edition so everyone could talk only about that model, then a few days later you were allowed to talk about cards from other manufacturers.

 

 

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, mariushm said:

The problem is that in some cases nVidia (or AMD) send their own reference designs a week or so BEFORE AIBs (third party video card manufacturers) are even allowed to send cards to reviewers, and before the embargo (the moment everyone's allowed to publish content. 

This way people get the chance to run all benchmarks and prepare the review and maybe even record the video and in some cases it gives a company like nVidia or AMD the ability to get feedback and fix bios issues if they occur. 

They also give reviewers beta drivers and sometimes the only drivers that work are only available to people nVidia likes.

And about drivers... nVidia and AMD can be jerks sometimes, like releasing hot fixes and new drivers the day before the embargo end, after reviewers actually did all benchmarks and recorded the review, so sometimes reviewers have to come the day before or the night before and redo all benchmarks at the last minute.

 

So it's not really about paying nvidia or other companies for the review sample, it's about having the same fighting chance, starting from the same point as other reviewers, you can't post a video in the same day other channels post a video if you didn't have the card to review and run the benchmarks before.

 

Companies that make video cards have to send lists to nvidia or amd or whatever for approval, with who gets the cards, and the company can veto names, not allow video card manufacturers to send card to particular reviewers or organizations. If they don't conform suddenly they find themselves with lower amounts of gpu chips and ram chips or they're forced to make more lower profit cards before they receive the allotment of higher end gpu chips (which are more profitable)

 

Nowadays also like i said, they started to have separate release schedules... nvidia had founders edition before everyone else, there was embargo for founders edition so everyone could talk only about that model, then a few days later you were allowed to talk about cards from other manufacturers.

 

 

I don't know about the first part, as I've received several AIB cards that coincided with the launch date for this series. That being said, you are absolutely spot on about the drivers. I didn't get a signed driver for the RTX 3080 or 3070 until after they went live on Nvidia's website. This doesn't sound like that big of a deal to most people as you can simply use unsigned drivers for testing, but good luck trying to pass HLK testing with an unsigned driver, lol.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, MageTank said:

I've had quite a few discussions on this forum with him, not all of which involved he and I coming to an agreement on a given matter, but I've never once considered him unreasonable.

 

6 hours ago, MageTank said:

from a man that has been as abrasive as you currently are on this very forum

 

 

Well I also have an unreasonable switch I can turn on when I feel the other side is being so too, but I strongly suspect you already know that 

 

6 hours ago, MageTank said:

People in this community respond better to sources and information to corroborate claims

True that, data is king and while we can all have different interpretations from sources of data at least there is a solid basis to discuss from.

[Moonzy]

So this happened @D13H4RD

 

I still have my doubts and questions.

[WhitetailAni]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

I still have my doubts and questions.

Wait - he signed it BDR?

What?

[D13H4RD]

20 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

So this happened @D13H4RD

 

I still have my doubts and questions.

That's weirdly informal coming from Bryan himself. 

 

I know it reads more like personal email rather than as one sent by a global PR representative, but it's still weirdly informal. 

[Moonzy]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

That's weirdly informal coming from Bryan himself. 

 

I know it reads more like personal email rather than as one sent by a global PR representative, but it's still weirdly informal. 

I would imagine that's how they communicate?

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

That's weirdly informal coming from Bryan himself. 

Because Bryan wrote it. From the very beginning, it was clear that he hadn't wrote it. There was enough of his formal and normal writing around that it didn't fit his style. Early thoughts were someone above the Head of Global PR ordered it. Some VP/Jensen saw something they hated and it was ordered. It now looks far more like someone below BDR got him to approve an email that he'd never normally approve.

 

As a result, his name is on something he didn't write and didn't completely read. This is very common practice in a lot of big companies and organizations. Think of any CEO message you've ever seen. Someone wrote that and the CEO's name is on it. The discussion has leaned that way because the first two paragraphs in the first email were so much corporate PR boilerplate that an employee with bad intentions that knows their boss won't read the whole email for approval will get through the first paragraph, lose interest, and simply approve it.

 

So the emails are taking responsibility because his name is on them. By approving them, they are "his words", even if they never were and there's probably all Hell breaking out in the Nvidia PR Department because of all of this. It really does look like someone really dislikes HUB and are very likely now looking for a new job. We'll eventually hear more.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It now looks far more like someone below BDR got him to approve an email that he'd never normally approve.

Nothing quite like abusing Send As rights to get yourself fired lol.

 

It's pretty well common practice for the personal assistant of someone like this to have Send As rights to their mailbox and if I was a betting person the source employee of this likely got verbal approval to send the email via the personal assistant.

[Dutch_Master]

To spin it back, with a twist, the one thing I'm missing in the discussions is the notion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Makes me wonder if nVidia has done this deliberately to get more exposure for themselves. Under the pretence that any immediate negative fallout and other side-effects will be small and easily compensated by more sales because of exposure of the brand name. If you know human psychology, this might very well work well for them: who cares to remember this incident when they launch a new GPU next Spring? Most buyers wouldn't even be aware of this saga anyway, only those enthusiasts who follow tech news like us visitors to the LTT forums and channels. (as well as those following other tech YT-ers like Jay and GN-Steve to name a few) That's a minority, Jill&Joe Average, not so much

[Moonzy]

Just now, Dutch_Master said:

To spin it back, with a twist, the one thing I'm missing in the discussions is the notion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Makes me wonder if nVidia has done this deliberately to get more exposure for themselves. Under the pretence that any immediate negative fallout and other side-effects will be small and easily compensated by more sales because of exposure of the brand name. If you know human psychology, this might very well work well for them: who cares to remember this incident when they launch a new GPU next Spring? Most buyers wouldn't even be aware of this saga anyway, only those enthusiasts who follow tech news like us visitors to the LTT forums and channels. (as well as those following other tech YT-ers like Jay and GN-Steve to name a few) That's a minority, Jill&Joe Average, not so much

I did think about if they just wanted RT to gain more attention, but I'm not sure if it's a fair trade as this is a huge blow to their reputation, not that they have much (as a company) to begin with

[Video Beagle]

1 hour ago, Dutch_Master said:

n the discussions is the notion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

That's not really a truth in actual PR and Marketing. While proffesionals will manage bad publicity and spin it to be better (in this case, Nvidia's quick reaction, some apologies, some taken responsibility,,,these all go into the plus column.), it's much better if the bad doesn't happen at all.

 

While this is fairly minor story in a pretty small field, all it takes is one journalist at a mainstream source needing a quick topic, a slow news day, and/or an axe to grind and a small story can become a big stock drop.

[ewitte]

16 hours ago, mariushm said:

The problem is that in some cases nVidia (or AMD) send their own reference designs a week or so BEFORE AIBs (third party video card manufacturers) are even allowed to send cards to reviewers, and before the embargo (the moment everyone's allowed to publish content. 

 

I think his "sources" may be within Nvidia.  IDK I normally see AIB for Nvidia close to launch but AMD seems to take a few months.  That heavily pushes me towards Nvidia because I prefer AIB. Usually I like STRIX but their markup this gen was insane.