Toms hardware now getting payed by Nvidia?

[laszlo]

last off-topic

@notb i saw you wrote a lot since i was out..

reading all make me wonder why you quantify time so hardly and even translate it in money; is this the way you live? counting minutes/hrs as lost income? honestly i see you're smart but you can't expect that everyone else should check the watch every minute and calculating how much time was lost by reading/hobby and than banging the wall because it was used without making any productive thing which may be an income...

sorry but i can't hold myself and must ask: are you a robot ? if yes press on keypad * ; please press # for calculating lost time in the last 24 hr; please press *# for knowing lost income; please press ... , i like joking hope you didn't take it personally, but if yes press ##

i loose a lot of time by reading ,pc related news hardware-reviews etc, and other stuff which i consider interesting ,from my point of view; i decide how much time i'm willing to spend for this;to answer you i "loose" maybe average 2 hrs daily ; i don't loose financially because a lot of this time is at work ; break, coffee break etc...+ there i organize my time as i want as the only important thing is the result

guess what i gain ? information- i like to learn and develop my knowledge as doesn't hurt to know more even i'm aware that i'll never know enough....but that is being human and not an inferior species

we're all different and i think is a good thing otherwise we'll had no chance...

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I just write fast. And with rare mistakes, despite English being a second language.

You're giving us by far the sloppiest posts on this forum (among the worst I see anywhere). Maybe you should consider spending a bit more time writing? And maybe read once afterwards? Just in case...

If only there was a similar place sponsored by AMD, where you could finally find some friends... ;-)

I find friends in the real world more appealing ,and your getting personal , hurt much .
I prefer unbiased everything ,,that's why your biased writing tend's to spark a response but , please , keep the personal opinions of me to yourself or feel free to pm me for that discussion , it is'nt anymore on topic is it, Susan.

3 intel sytems On and in use in my home right now , one AMD f**k your biased ideolgy , your wrong.

 

[mtcn77]

Please, recuse your words. Nobody trumps the "AMD friendship call" wildcard except for me. Lol we are witnessing some high level wizardry here.

 

[erocker]

Yeah, must be paid by Nvidia! lol. Came here looking for a story about Nvidia paying review sites. Nope.

 

[cucker tarlson]

one can either be paid or stupid,getting paid for being stupid is just too good to be true.

 

[dirtyferret]

one can either be paid or stupid,getting paid for being stupid is just too good to be true.

I give you example A of getting paid to be stupid is a real

 

[EdInk]

After such headlines? Is it even a question?

View attachment 118508

That's because it "just works"

 

[Bones]

Sadly the meaning/perception of "It just works" can differ between folks like when speaking of, for example what one might call a fast auto.
One's definition of fast can vary based on the vehicle being discussed and what they themselves have personally experienced before.
Some might say it's fast, others might say "Well.... It's OK.... I guess".

You obviously worry about money.

E-peen? Nah, for performance. You are using a FX CPU for gods sake.

Why do you think rich people blows money on cars etc? They can afford it. It does not matter to them.

This does not apply to everyone that's so-called "Rich", esp the "It does not matter to them" part.

While it is true for many that are or could be called rich, with some it's a different story.

I personally know plenty of guys that even though they have plenty of money and could build a killer system for the sake of doing it, they don't because they count every penny right along with everything else they spend money on. You'd think they would be driving the higher models of autos for example but some of these guys drive around in basic to almost basic models and do so everyday like it's nothing.

As I've heard it said before, "Getting money is one thing, keeping it is another and harder to do too" and these guys understand one of the essentials of having money isn't in getting it but in holding onto it once it's theirs.

You could think of it as trying to catch and hold water in your hand.
Getting the water in your hand is the easy part, the other not so much and if you're not careful it will leave your hand just as quickly as it got there.

On topic:
As for Tom's, I'm not THAT suprised since review sites like Tom's are just that - A medium to speak well/not well of a piece potential buyers refer to for such info. Throw in all the popups and that's a flag saying someone's marketing dept has a hand in what goes on there.

Sites like Toms are basically advertising in themselves to a point - No secret there.
As long as the info given is accurate and honest it's fine but we know once money gets involved it can become something else too.

 

[John Naylor]

Sadly, THG and Anand were historically between my first sites for PC related information. I had to give up of them after their transformation, mainly because of moderation that silence any "dissidence". More power to them.

Mainly that's how I started coming here more...

I had around 50,000 post there as I recall before I left. The way it's run now has a striking resemblemce to current American politics where no other PoVs are permitted. Take issue with a statment ... no big deal ... include 5 published references, bye bye.

 

[Caring1]

So Toms Hardware recommends the GTX 1050 as "the best budget" card even though the RTX 570 can be bought for a simular/lower price with two AAA games included.
And yes the performance per watt is not as great but when it comes to performance per dollar there is no better card on the market. The RX 570 is 50-60% faster than the GTX 1050.
I think everyone, green team, red team or blue team can agree on this, no?

No!
Perhaps you are confusing best budget card with best budget gaming card.
It seems this site is littered with gamers with a one track mentality.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Picking a 1050 over a 570 is pretty stupid at least since mining died in my opinion. I know plenty of people irl who will not buy AMD anything regardless of how much better value it is for them at least the article is accurate. Personally I'm pretty sad Tom's has gotten to where it is now back in the mid 2000s it was my go to site for tech related stuff.

 

[remixedcat]

tomshardware deleted all my posts as well as others about that thermal paste that messed up cpus and cpu cooler ceo that loves to throw tantrums.... stopped going there since

 

[Assimilator]

The problem is Purch. It is a predatory company run by unethical weasels that ruined THG and are currently ruining AnandTech.

Toms is was and has been an Nvidia shell Pr puppet for a while, Ngreedias ,shill and review puppet spending plus forum shill puppet fund must be massive.

You know how to make yourself look like a logical, rational, adult when putting forth an argument or opinion?

By calling the company you don't like "Ngreedia". Just like how Linux fanboys use "M$" or any of the billion other variants that they think make them look clever. Guess how well that worked out for them.

 

[mtcn77]

Don't mind the poster above, personally he is chill unless you attack his base.

 

[64K]

It was 2012 when I finally had to give up on Tom's. The GTX 680 just come out and some guys with GPU badges were touting it as the gaming Kepler Flagship in the forums. It was certainly not. They were advising to buy it because there wouldn't be a faster gaming Kepler coming. Nothing about the fact that Nvidia was setting the MSRP for a mid-range card at $500. That was the same price as the 480/580 which were the gaming Fermi Flagships.

One only had to read W1zzard's review here to see that the 680 wasn't the gaming Kepler Flagship. From the Conclusion page:

"Technically we'd have to compare it to GTX 560 Ti, not GTX 580."

 

[silentbogo]

LoL. Not this again.
@JRMBelgium , I understand that you really like RX570 and that it's faster than 1050Ti, but it's probably a good time to stop beating the dead horse on a monthly basis (or at least switch to something fresh, like "why people buy RTX if RVII is harder/better/faster/stronger").

 

[Assimilator]

Don't mind the poster above, personally he is chill unless you attack his base.

Ah yes, the old "I don't have any counter-argument so I'll accuse the other person of bias" tack. You're pretty good at that, not so good at forming actual coherent arguments - you should probably consider going away to work on that, instead of annoying the adults here.

It was 2012 when I finally had to give up on Tom's. The GTX 680 just come out and some guys with GPU badges were touting it as the gaming Kepler Flagship in the forums. It was certainly not. They were advising to buy it because there wouldn't be a faster gaming Kepler coming. Nothing about the fact that Nvidia was setting the MSRP for a mid-range card at $500. That was the same price as the 480/580 which were the gaming Fermi Flagships.

One only had to read W1zzard's review here to see that the 680 wasn't the gaming Kepler Flagship. From the Conclusion page:

"Technically we'd have to compare it to GTX 560 Ti, not GTX 580."

The review page: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/32.html

One had only to read W1zzard's comment in context to understand that he is making a point of the fact that the GTX 680's "midrange" GPU was able to perform at the same level as its competitor's "high-end" GPU, the HD 7970. Product stacks are segmented by performance, not the model number of the GPU die. Thus, the $ 500 price is justified for the performance.

No, GTX 680 wasn't the fastest Kepler GPU, but it was the fastest single-GPU card in the 600 series, so the guys in the THG forums were 100% correct: it was, at the time, the flagship Kepler and nobody - including you - had a crystal ball to tell them that GK110 would be released at a later date. But that's irrelevant anyway, since GK110 was the flagship of the 7 series.

 

[Vayra86]

Ah yes, the old "I don't have any counter-argument so I'll accuse the other person of bias" tack. You're pretty good at that, not so good at forming actual coherent arguments - you should probably consider going away to work on that, instead of annoying the adults here.



The review page: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/32.html

One had only to read W1zzard's comment in context to understand that he is making a point of the fact that the GTX 680's "midrange" GPU was able to perform at the same level as its competitor's "high-end" GPU, the HD 7970. Product stacks are segmented by performance, not the model number of the GPU die. Thus, the $ 500 price is justified for the performance.

No, GTX 680 wasn't the fastest Kepler GPU, but it was the fastest single-GPU card in the 600 series, so the guys in the THG forums were 100% correct: it was, at the time, the flagship Kepler and nobody - including you - had a crystal ball to tell them that GK110 would be released at a later date. But that's irrelevant anyway, since GK110 was the flagship of the 7 series.

This is actually very much true and I even remember many people getting their panties in a bunch because Nvidia followed up the Titan with 780(ti)'s at a much lower price. At the same time we could have known better because Nvidia launched bigger dies / SKUs before, specifically with the GF110 that covered everything from the x60 to x90...

Realistically I think you can say it was Kepler and its refresh where Nvidia managed to get its product/SKU stack in order. Fermi was an utter mess, really. Since Kepler, they have a very predictable product stack and pricing structure, bar some exceptions here and there. Even their constant push to misdirect customers with model numbers between generations to drive up or normalize a price point is familiar, and as evident by this topic they even get tech sites to play along with that.

Yes you would. If PCs and hardware interrests you and money is not a problem, you would not care. This is why it's nice to have money. Less worries, more fun.

Leave the spoiled rich brat attitude at home, please. Its parents never did spend money quite the way you describe it, because then they would never have been rich.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Ah yes, the old "I don't have any counter-argument so I'll accuse the other person of bias" tack. You're pretty good at that, not so good at forming actual coherent arguments - you should probably consider going away to work on that, instead of annoying the adults here.



The review page: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/32.html

One had only to read W1zzard's comment in context to understand that he is making a point of the fact that the GTX 680's "midrange" GPU was able to perform at the same level as its competitor's "high-end" GPU, the HD 7970. Product stacks are segmented by performance, not the model number of the GPU die. Thus, the $ 500 price is justified for the performance.

No, GTX 680 wasn't the fastest Kepler GPU, but it was the fastest single-GPU card in the 600 series, so the guys in the THG forums were 100% correct: it was, at the time, the flagship Kepler and nobody - including you - had a crystal ball to tell them that GK110 would be released at a later date. But that's irrelevant anyway, since GK110 was the flagship of the 7 series.

Spoken like a Nvidia pr department bod , you realise your defending a company.
You like their sku sorting and pricing, many do not.

 

[Vayra86]

Spoken like a Nvidia pr department bod , you realise your defending a company.
You like their sku sorting and pricing, many do not.

He is absolutely correct, and just stating facts. Don't get all emotional over it.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

He is absolutely correct, and just stating facts. Don't get all emotional over it.

What emotion did i put into my words , none , don't quote me then imply intent that isn't there.

 

[Assimilator]

What emotion did i put into my words , none , don't quote me then imply intent that isn't there.

Yeah, because "Ngreedia" isn't emotive in any way shape or form.

 

[Vya Domus]

nobody - including you - had a crystal ball to tell them that GK110 would be released at a later date.

Only if you were completely oblivious to every technical aspect about the chip and everything that was going on in the industry. It was clear as daylight that GK104 wasn't the flagship and something bigger was on it's way.

The most accurate and reliable metric to predict performance/future products is and will always be die sizes.

 

[mtcn77]

He is absolutely correct, and just stating facts. Don't get all emotional over it.

He is literally distracting you with kepler series stating it worked then, why not now? Is this even relevant for you?

 

[64K]

Ah yes, the old "I don't have any counter-argument so I'll accuse the other person of bias" tack. You're pretty good at that, not so good at forming actual coherent arguments - you should probably consider going away to work on that, instead of annoying the adults here.



The review page: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/32.html

One had only to read W1zzard's comment in context to understand that he is making a point of the fact that the GTX 680's "midrange" GPU was able to perform at the same level as its competitor's "high-end" GPU, the HD 7970. Product stacks are segmented by performance, not the model number of the GPU die. Thus, the $ 500 price is justified for the performance.

No, GTX 680 wasn't the fastest Kepler GPU, but it was the fastest single-GPU card in the 600 series, so the guys in the THG forums were 100% correct: it was, at the time, the flagship Kepler and nobody - including you - had a crystal ball to tell them that GK110 would be released at a later date. But that's irrelevant anyway, since GK110 was the flagship of the 7 series.

I didn't need a crystal ball. All I needed was some history on Nvidia GPUs. The 6xx and 7xx were both Kepler architectures. The gaming Flagship of the Keplers was the 780 Ti. You don't go by the naming of the the chip GKxxx (although that's a big hint) or the price. You look at the Memory Bus and the die size/transistor count. The 780 Ti had a 384 bit Memory Bus versus the 680 with a 256 bit Memory Bus and the 780 Ti was 561mm² with 7 billion transistors and the 680 was 294mm² with 3.5 billion transistors.

These are clearly in 2 entirely separate categories and imo there is only 1 Flagship per architecture. If Nvidia had released the 2060 first would that have been the gaming Turing Flagship until the 2080 Ti was released?