nVidia Blacklists Hardware Secrets

[sneekypeet]

sorry, but if Gabe had to go retail or to a 3rd party vendor for his cards, NV wouldnt give two shits what Gabe wrote (excuse my french). If Gabe got himself blacklisted, it wasnt for the lack of mentioning Cuda in a review that he paid for.

 

[DannibusX]

As far as I know, reviewers get free samples of the product, but have to return the samples. I believe there is legislation in the US to force reviewers to disclose if they were given a free sample and allowed to keep it.

 

[sneekypeet]

Not even close to the truth.

 

[cadaveca]

Man you miss the starting point.

Unfortunately, I did NOT miss that...and the fact of the matter is, that makes it even more infantile for them to be complaining. Fact is he even says he screwed it up when nV contacted them...if he would have played his cards right, he WOULD be getting free cards.

I mean, if he was really paying for everything, nV contacting him, and things working out the way they did, wouldn't even matter...but here it does...why? If he wasn't getting any support, why complain? He stands in a better position NOT getting support.

 

[phanbuey]

i feel like someone needs to email Nvidia PR about this thread... I dont think they are realizing what they are doing.

Unfortunately, I did NOT miss that...and the fact of the matter is, that makes it even more infantile for them to be complaining. Fact is he even says he screwed it up when nV contacted them...if he would have played his cards right, he WOULD be getting free cards.

I mean, if he was really paying for everything, nV contacting him, and things working out the way they did, wouldn't even matter...but here it does...why? If he wasn't getting any support, why complain? He stands in a better position NOT getting support.

"playing your cards right" is not the point of journalism. Sure, he can kiss some butt and get free cards... that takes no talent and that doesnt benefit us, the consumers of review.

 

[cadaveca]

Exactly my point...so I don't understand what the article is about in the first place.

It seems to me, Gabriel contacted nV about getting GTX480/470/465 for review, they told him no, as he wasn't covering the software side of things, and things went downhill from there.

But he doesn't mention that...he simply says the reason for the "article" was to explain why he didn't have those reviews...because of a lack of nV support.

I am posting this to explain why we didn’t cover the Fermi architecture launch (we weren’t invited for the presentation) nor reviewed any of their DirectX 11 video cards (they didn’t send any samples even after we requested samples a few times). This also explains why we are reviewing more AMD/ATI-based products and why our video section is kind of slow.

He stated there that if they don't give him cards, he's not covering them...

So yes, I have "jumped to conclusions" about a few things here, but there HAS to be more to this than he is presenting.

I would very much like for nV to comment about this, becuase I'd like to hear thier side of things as well...this whole thing is a bit fishy...I can see the smell bothers you as well, phanbuey.

 

[erixx]

maybe thats why wizzard puts those cuda and physx support in the reviews as cons or plusses when he does reviews of video cards nvidia you motherf........ !!!

of course they do, of course they fucking do!!!! career oportunities!!!! LOL

 

[jagd]

Probably he has been close to lose his mind because fanboys blaming him ? ( not putting nvidia reviews ). This is not the first time nvidia doing this , they did same thing to anandtech and hardocp did not send GTS250 samples ,because they would not talk nice about re-naming king

So yes, I have "jumped to conclusions" about a few things here, but there HAS to be more to this than he is presenting.

 

[(FIH) The Don]

.........

 

[cadaveca]

Probably he has been close to lose his mind because fanboys blaming him ? ( not putting nvidia reviews ). This is not the first time nvidia doing this , they did same thing to anandtech and hardocp did not send GTS250 samples ,because they would not talk nice about re-naming king

Yeah, possibly, but he contradicts himnself, saying he published reviews without any support...yet then says he contacted them for review samples? So if he knows who to contact...how is he doing this without any help at all?

Like burebista mentioned, he started off with one tact, and then changed his tune in the paragraph I quoted above...stating he asked for help, and didn't get it, so won't cover it.




So he starts by giving himself a halo, and then tarnishes it...I don't get it...

After we published a review – without any support from them, N.B. – they complained that we didn’t talk about CUDA or PhysX. I replied saying that we weren’t going to talk about these subjects because we thought they were not relevant to the average user, and we usually don’t re-write reviews. I think this is funny, we have to make a lot of effort to get samples because NVIDIA doesn’t help us and then when we publish the review they complain?

Of course they complained...he was asking for free stuff!

I mean, if I call up Bryan Del Rizzo, and say "I'd like to aquire some hardware for review purposes", what do you think he will say?


Bryan: "What website do you work for, and can you show me some of your work?"

Gabriel: "Sure, check out this review here..."

Bryan: "How come you aren't covering CUDA and Phys-X"

Gabriel: "We are simply covering the hardware side of things, becuase that's what our readers prefer"

Bryan: "I'm sorry, but that's not what we are looking for at this time."



And here we are.

Of course, I made all that up, but that seems to be the only plausible explanation right now.

 

[jagd]

He said "after we published a review without help " it does not mean all reviews published without help .

Yeah, possibly, but he contradicts himnself, saying he published reviews without any support...yet then says he contacted them for review samples?

 

[newtekie1]

@cadaveca

Agreed. The whole article seems off to me.

We have the auther bitching about not getting free shit from nVidia out of one side of his mouth, then patting himself on the back for doing unbiased unsupported reviews out of the other. Well, if your reviews are unsupported, then you shouldn't be bitching about nVidia not giving you free shit. And if you want to keep getting free shit, throw a short mention of the features nVidia asks you to. Would it really hurt the integrity of the article to put "The card support nVidia's propriatary hardware accelerated physics engine known as PhysX" in the first page where you are describing the card? You don't have to say it is good, you don't have to say it is bad, you just throw the information in there.

And it doesn't seem like ATi is all that willing to throw him a bone either, he's done a total of 5 HD5000 series reviews, 3 of which the cards were supplied by XFX and the other 2 HIS, so not a single card direct from ATi...

And even more so, he makes a big stink on how he refuses to mention PhysX because gamers aren't interested in it, yet mentions EyeFinity in the HD5000 series reviews he does... I think gamers are less interested in Eyefinity then they are with PhysX, though interest in both is pretty damn low. So why throw in a blurb about Eyefinity without a thought, but flat out refuse to even mention PhysX? How hard is it to just throw in a blurb about the card supporting PhysX and make nVidia happy, he did it for Eyefinity.

 

[aCid888*]

I'm sure this thread will turn in to some form of hating before the days out......maybe it already has?

 

[TVman]

@cadaveca

Agreed. The whole article seems off to me.

We have the auther bitching about not getting free shit from nVidia out of one side of his mouth, then patting himself on the back for doing unbiased unsupported reviews out of the other. Well, if your reviews are unsupported, then you shouldn't be bitching about nVidia not giving you free shit. And if you want to keep getting free shit, throw a short mention of the features nVidia asks you to. Would it really hurt the integrity of the article to put "The card support nVidia's propriatary hardware accelerated physics engine known as PhysX" in the first page where you are describing the card? You don't have to say it is good, you don't have to say it is bad, you just throw the information in there.

And it doesn't seem like ATi is all that willing to throw him a bone either, he has done a total of 5 HD5000 series reviews, 3 of which the cards were supplied by XFX and the other 2 HIS, so not a single card direct from ATi...

And even more so, he makes a big stink on how he refuses to mention PhysX because gamers aren't interested in it, yet mentions EyeFinity in the HD5000 series reviews he does... I think gamers are less interested in Eyefinity then they are with PhysX, though interest in both is pretty damn low. So why throw in a blurb about Eyefinity without a thought, but flat out refuse to even mention PhysX? How hard is it to just throw in a blurb about the card supporting PhysX and make nVidia happy, he did it for Eyefinity.

grammar nazi strikes again

 

[cadaveca]

He said "after we published a review without help " it does not mean all reviews published without help .

Yeah, I hear ya...but newtekie covered what i meant there. The contradiction comes from highlighting how he doesn't need help, but then complaining that when he asks he doesn't get it...you know what I mean?


I mean, I hate to even be talking about it, but he put it out there, and as you can see, seems to be a hot topic, so let's discuss!





TVman...lol..some humour is always welcome in subjects liek this...heh.

 

[phanbuey]

@cadaveca

Agreed. The whole article seems off to me.

We have the auther bitching about not getting free shit from nVidia out of one side of his mouth, then patting himself on the back for doing unbiased unsupported reviews out of the other. Well, if your reviews are unsupported, then you shouldn't be bitching about nVidia not giving you free shit. And if you want to keep getting free shit, throw a short mention of the features nVidia asks you to. Would it really hurt the integrity of the article to put "The card support nVidia's propriatary hardware accelerated physics engine known as PhysX" in the first page where you are describing the card? You don't have to say it is good, you don't have to say it is bad, you just throw the information in there.
.

so true. :/ didnt catch that.

 

[newtekie1]

grammar nazi strikes again

I've been doing that a lot today, either typing the complete wrong word or spelling words totally wrong, I think I need more coffee.

 

[angelkiller]

I don't like how this turned out. The fact that Nvidia would do this worries me. If they spent more time creating a better product, they wouldn't have to deal with this...

@ the people upset with that guy:

While I certainly respect your opinion and all, I think the author is right. When it comes down to it, I think the author is complaining that he isn't getting free stuff/pre-released stuff because he isn't willing to write what Nvidia wants.

Just because you get a free product doesn't mean you have to like it or review it favorably. You see what I mean? You can be 'sponsored' or whatever you want to call it without sucking up to your sponsor.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

And even more so, he makes a big stink on how he refuses to mention PhysX because gamers aren't interested in it, yet mentions EyeFinity in the HD5000 series reviews he does... I think gamers are less interested in Eyefinity then they are with PhysX, though interest in both is pretty damn low. So why throw in a blurb about Eyefinity without a thought, but flat out refuse to even mention PhysX? How hard is it to just throw in a blurb about the card supporting PhysX and make nVidia happy, he did it for Eyefinity.

Part of this could be because eyefinity has just been introduced, Physx has been around for a while now. Physx is just a check in the box, Eyefinity is something new.

And personally, Im more interested in eyefinity stuff than Physx. Because I actually use the eyefinity. Physx has proved to be relatively worthless, since Nvidia had been poo pooing the use of a secondary card dedicated to it. nvidia has nothing but themselves to blame for lack of interest.

 

[newtekie1]

I don't like how this turned out. The fact that Nvidia would do this worries me. If they spent more time creating a better product, they wouldn't have to deal with this...

@ the people upset with that guy:

While I certainly respect your opinion and all, I think the author is right. When it comes down to it, I think the author is complaining that he isn't getting free stuff/pre-released stuff because he isn't willing to write what Nvidia wants.

Just because you get a free product doesn't mean you have to like it or review it favorably. You see what I mean? You can be 'sponsored' or whatever you want to call it without sucking up to your sponsor.

Yes, but nVidia didn't ask him to review the product favorably, they didn't ask him to put any opinion on PhysX in the review at all, they just ask that he mention that the card support it, and not completely ignore it.

And his reason for not mentioning it was total crap. He doesn't feel they are relevent to an average user...when reviewing a gaming graphics card...he doesn't feel a technology that affects games isn't relevent...

It might not be a major issue with the average users of gaming graphics cards, AKA Gamers, but it certainly isn't totally irrelevent.

Part of this could be because eyefinity has just been introduced, Physx has been around for a while now. Physx is just a check in the box, Eyefinity is something new.

And personally, Im more interested in eyefinity stuff than Physx. Because I actually use the eyefinity. Physx has proved to be relatively worthless, since Nvidia had been poo pooing the use of a secondary card dedicated to it. nvidia has nothing but themselves to blame for lack of interest.

It could be that Eyefinity is new. However, it is BS to say the Eyefinity is relevent to gamers and PhysX isn't, which is exactly what he is saying by including a blurb about Eyefinity in his reviews and ignoring PhysX with the excuse that he doesn't feel it is relevent.

Beyond that, he mentions Eyefinity on a damn HD5750 review...a card that struggles to maintain playable framerates with one monitor...forget two or three. Eyefinity on a card of that class is not relevent to gamers.

And personally, I'm not interested in either. An Eyefinity setup is way too expensive, and PhysX isn't used in enough games and doesn't improve games enough to make it worth spending any money on.

 

[angelkiller]

Yes, but nVidia didn't ask him to review the product favorably, they didn't ask him to put any opinion on PhysX in the review at all, they just ask that he mention that the card support it, and not completely ignore it.

And his reason for not mentioning it was total crap. He doesn't feel they are relevent to an average user...when reviewing a gaming graphics card...he doesn't feel a technology that affects games isn't relevent...

It might not be a major issue with the average users of gaming graphics cards, AKA Gamers, but it certainly isn't totally irrelevent.

Ok, I can go with that. In order for him to get free stuff he has to mention Physx. Even I'm not 100% ok with that, I can certainly live with it. I don't think the article would have been biased if the author had mentioned PhysX and I don't consider the article unbiased because he didn't.

But I think his reasoning is valid. Quite frankly, PhysX doesn't matter. When I go to buy a graphics card, is PhysX even on my list of considerations? No. Not at all. Not even a little bit. How many games support PhysX now, like three?

What I'm saying is that to the majority of even gamers, PhysX doesn't affect them. I'll admit it's a very promising and interesting technology.

 

[newtekie1]

Ok, I can go with that. In order for him to get free stuff he has to mention Physx. Even I'm not 100% ok with that, I can certainly live with it. I don't think the article would have been biased if the author had mentioned PhysX and I don't consider the article unbiased because he didn't.

But I think his reasoning is valid. Quite frankly, PhysX doesn't matter. When I go to buy a graphics card, is PhysX even on my list of considerations? No. Not at all. Not even a little bit. How many games support PhysX now, like three?

What I'm saying is that to the majority of even gamers, PhysX doesn't affect them. I'll admit it's a very promising and interesting technology.

Really, I don't even consider PhysX, it is an after thought. My main rig doesn't even support it, and I don't miss it.

However, I don't feel that completely ignoring PhysX and CUDA support, when it does in fact affect games, when reviewing cards directed at Gamers is a poor practice. Just as I would think ignoring Eyefinity would be a poor practice.

But the main point I was trying to make was that he is very hypocritical, on more than one issue. PhysX isn't relevent, but Eyefinity is. We have to make a lot of effort to get samples because nVidia doesn't help us, pat us on the back, but we want to bitch about it at the same time, while it is obvious ATi isn't really up to helping us either, but we won't mention that.

And while we are on the subject of them talking out of both sides of their mouth; he goes on about how he has to go through so much effort to get samples because nVidia won't supply them, yet his 3rd to last nVidia review is of a non-branded GTX260 Core 216, that was published on the day of the card's launch. Now I wonder where he got that?

 

[cadaveca]

Ah yes, Newtekie sees it all...

Which is why I called bullshit in the first place. He's had cards on launch day, so while he may like to paint the picture he doesn't get free stuff, he's obviously blatantly lying about it.

 

[Regeneration]

I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.

 

[TIGR]

I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.

Ouch, hope it doesn't go that far with HS (or anyone else in the future).

Thanks for posting—I didn't know about NGOHQ before and am checking it out now. Always good to find another source for tech reviews, to double check findings in a world where the integrity of manufacturers and even review sites is sometimes called into question.