nVidia Blacklists Hardware Secrets

[TIGR]

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/05/30/how-nvidia-blacklists-sites-hardware-secrets/

Guys, just to let you know, Charlie's opinion........

Thanks—a good read—and welcome to TPU!

 

[Kaiser Kraus]

Thanks for the welcome.....Just trying to help fellow enthusiasts like myself.

 

[Jeffredo]

I know the guys who own Digital Trends, another small review site, and to stay on the free hardware gravy train you have to plug the features a bit. You don't have to brown-nose them totally, but you can't write scathing reviews consistently or go against the grain of the marketing department without eventually getting on the bad side of them. If you want to be completely unbiased you get the hardware from your own budget for testing (just like Consumer Reports does). I guess no one ever explained that to Gabriel.

 

[TIGR]

If you want to be completely unbiased you get the hardware from your own budget for testing (just like Consumer Reports does).

Absolutely. To ensure "special samples" aren't tested, this has to be done anyway. It's why I do all my own testing (with products purchased through regular retail channels). Perhaps I should start my own review site....

Still ... in my book it's a strike against nVidia in the "integrity" department.

 

[TIGR]

Resolved!

"Internal mess-up?" What do you all think?

 

[newconroer]

[irrelevant]I have read most of the thirteen chapters of Art of War several times, though not for years.[/irrelevant]

This topic is relevant to the Hardware section because:

1. It is related to a hardware manufacturer's business practices, which are relevant to an informed computer hardware hobbyist.
2. There is also a bit of info on the GTX 465 near the end of the article.

Quite a few others seem to have considered it interesting enough to comment on in the short time it's been posted.

It is not about any actual hardware...and there is a place for it, the news section, since it's relevant to hardware of a type discussed frequently on this forum(for better or worse).

However if this 'news' was of any real merit, then the news team would have posted it.

Maybe you deemed it harmless, though time and time again, we've seen that anything of this nature always spirals downwards, and the knowledge gained therein wasn't worth all the drama that ensues.


On the subject itself, who the hell cares? 99% of reviewers are trash anyways simply in their methodology as well as their lack of attention to the appropriate detail(S). These guys were no different.

 

[TIGR]

It is not about any actual hardware...and there is a place for it, the news section, since it's relevant to hardware of a type discussed frequently on this forum(for better or worse).

However if this 'news' was of any real merit, then the news team would have posted it.

Maybe you deemed it harmless, though time and time again, we've seen that anything of this nature always spirals downwards, and the knowledge gained therein wasn't worth all the drama that ensues.


On the subject itself, who the hell cares? 99% of reviewers are trash anyways simply in their methodology as well as their lack of attention to the appropriate detail(S). These guys were no different.

With complete respect and zero animosity:

1. I can't post in the news section.
2. It's up to those posting to determine whether or not topics go downhill, not the responsibility of OPs to refrain from posting any topic that might. Topics that "spiral downward" get closed anyway. The mods are very good at what they do.
3. Some people are interested in the subject, and if you're not, then you're just wasting your [and our] time by posting about how irrelevant it is to you.
4. If you feel the topic is inappropriate or misplaced, report the OP.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic, please don't clutter the thread.

 

[cadaveca]

Resolved!

"Internal mess-up?" What do you all think?

I said my thoughts before...I'm not surprised in the least.

Of course, if you beleive that now they don't like nV, and then all of a sudden, they like nV again, you can pretty much guarantee this was all a set-up to "build credibility".

Crappy marketing moves at best. Do you actually beleive nV said:

"Oops, we're so sorry, must have been a mix-up! Here, have a card to review..."

 

[newtekie1]

I said my thoughts before...I'm not surprised in the least.





Crappy marketing moves at best. Do you actually beleive nV said:

"Oops, we're so sorry, must have been a mix-up! Here, have a card to review..."

Honestly, after reading his shit reviews, and hearing him throw a hissy fit about not getting free stuff, I'm surprised anyone would give him review samples.

Man, really makes you realize how easy it is to setup a crappy reviews site, then get free samples, I really should do this myself...

 

[TIGR]

Honestly, after reading his shit reviews....

What problems did you find in the reviews you read at HS?

 

[erocker]

Honestly, after reading his shit reviews, and hearing him throw a hissy fit about not getting free stuff, I'm surprised anyone would give him review samples.

Man, really makes you realize how easy it is to setup a crappy reviews site, then get free samples, I really should do this myself...

He was justified in what he did. Nvidia fucked up, the problem has been rectified.

Yes you should start your own website, Nvidia would love your loyalty in reviewing their products.

 

[newtekie1]

What problems did you find in the reviews you read at HS?

Oh god...do I have to restate myself? I'll just quote what I already said to make it easier.

In some of the reviews I looked at:

They only have 5 or 6 cards total, only use 4 real-world game benchmarks, and 2 synthetic, talk nothing about noise, nothing about power consumption.

the review of the GTX260 and nVidia was "unhappy" with...[t]hey used a whole 1 game and 1 benchmark!

I've read even more of their reviews, and there are some real shit ones(there are some decent, but that doesn't make up for the absolute shit reviews, especially since the recent reviews have been the worst).

Just look at the HD5830 review he did. Again, only 4 game benchmarks and 2 synthectic benchmarks. But also only comparing it to two other cards, a GTX260 and a GTX275? That's helpful, how about comparing it to an HD5850 or an HD5770 and make the review actually useful.

I have similar issues with the HD5670 review(3 other cards, only one from the same generation), the GT240, and HD5570. In fact, it seems those last three reviews could have been combined into one. Why? Because he uses the exact same performance tests for all three. He just compared them to eachother, and threw a 9800GT in the mix for the hell of it. It was like he did the work for one review, and stretched it into three. He could have just lumped the first few pages from each review together, then moved on to the performance numbers.

And it seems like his reviews have only gotten worse recently, because when I look back at some of the earlier reviews, they are decent, not great but decent. They still use a limitted test set, but at least it is 6 real world games not not 4. But he included a much larger number of cards. I mean the GTX295 review he did at least had 17 cards to compare against, that is pretty good, but that is still no excuse for the poor quality of his recent reviews.

He was justified in what he did. Nvidia fucked up, the problem has been rectified.

Yes you should start your own website, Nvidia would love your loyalty in reviewing their products.

No, with his shit reviews, he wasn't justified in throwing a hissy fit because nVidia cut him off.

 

[erocker]

No, with his shit reviews, he wasn't justified in throwing a hissy fit because nVidia cut him off.

Well, if Nvidia gave the reason that his reviews were shit and cut him off that would be one thing. You're taking your opinion and basing it off of Nvidia's decision which makes no sense to me. If you think his reviews are shit, fine, that's your opinion but has nothing to do with the situation.

 

[cadaveca]

I kinda agree with you on that erocker, however....

If his last nV review was a GTX260....on launch day....it's been how long?

A Year? Why wait this long to complain??


I guess if teh entire story was spelt out, it wouldn't leave room for people to make up ideas as to what the truth is. Truth is a powerful tool everyone should use.

 

[newtekie1]

Well, if Nvidia gave the reason that his reviews were shit and cut him off that would be one thing. You're taking your opinion and basing it off of Nvidia's decision which makes no sense to me. If you think his reviews are shit, fine, that's your opinion but has nothing to do with the situation.

Sure it does. He posted his little hissy fit to gather public outcry, the topic here was created to do the same. I'm part of the public, and I say he is full of himself.

I kinda agree with you on that erocker, however....

If his last nV review was a GTX260....on launch day....it's been how long?

A Year? Why wait this long to complain??


I guess if teh entire story was spelt out, it wouldn't leave room for people to make up ideas as to what the truth is. Truth is a powerful tool everyone should use.

You know I didn't even notice that...and you bring up a good point.

The GTX260 review that he claims nvidia cut him off about was from May of 2009!

He just did a review of a GT240 in March of 2010!(where the hell did he get this card?)

So the problem obviously just came up after March of this year, so a month or two, and he is claiming it is from a review over a year old? So nVidia hasn't contacted him in a month, so he flips out and assumes it is because of a review from over a year ago? That makes even less sense...

Yeah, this guy is full of crap.

 

[AsRock]

Serves them right, good on NV black listing them as they give them cards to review the card and they failed to fully review it.

Common sense should of told them to do a full review.

 

[Mr McC]

Resorting to bully-boy tactics suggests that they are not convinced that their current hardware can compete in today's market without "buying" praise in on-line reviews.

 

[newtekie1]

Resorting to bully-boy tactics suggests that they are not convinced that their current hardware can compete in today's market without "buying" praise in on-line reviews.

The review he claims got him blacklisted isn't for their current hardware, it is for hardware that is quite old actually, and a review that is over a year old. So this is hardly nVidia bullying anyone to praise their current hardware...

 

[Mr McC]

The review he claims got him blacklisted isn't for their current hardware, it is for hardware that is quite old actually, and a review that is over a year old. So this is hardly nVidia bullying anyone to praise their current hardware...

I see, so they've stopped blacklisting reviewers in relation to Fermi?

 

[newtekie1]

I see, so they've stopped blacklisting reviewers in relation to Fermi?

I don't know, I don't think they ever did, but I do know that it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Mr McC]

I don't know, I don't think they ever did, but I do know that it has nothing to do with this topic.

The creedence we ought to place in on-line reviews has nothing to do with the topic? The level of input Nvidia wishes to have in terms of review content has nothing to do with the topic? Take the 465 for example, do you think the variance evident in on-line review conclusions is simply the product of a healthy plurality of opinions or Nvidia ensuring that certain reviews mentioned Cuda and PhysX, amongst other "benefits"? Why do you wish to downplay the fact that Nvidia feels a need to censor review sites?

 

[cadaveca]

Any site worth it's reputation would be outside nV's circle of influence, IMHO. It's called PAYING for your review goods. Sure, you don't get stuff pre-launch, but who cares?


I'd prefer an accurate review over a timely one....

Like really, how is it possible for nV to censor a site that is privately owned?

Far too much in this situation doesn't add up. Whether it's the blog writer(as this was posted on his blog), or nV, isn't exactly clear...but I can pretty much guarantee that the full details of this situation aren't out in the open.

 

[Jeffredo]

The creedence we ought to place in on-line reviews has nothing to do with the topic? The level of input Nvidia wishes to have in terms of review content has nothing to do with the topic? Take the 465 for example, do you think the variance evident in on-line review conclusions is simply the product of a healthy plurality of opinions or Nvidia ensuring that certain reviews mentioned Cuda and PhysX, amongst other "benefits"? Why do you wish to downplay the fact that Nvidia feels a need to censor review sites?

I read several reviews of the GTX 465 and I don't see any of them sugar-coating its deficiencies. Again, for review sites to get the free review hardware they are expected to mention exclusive features. It doesn't mean they have to conclude the card is great when its average at best (and I haven't seen that yet concerning that card - reviewers have been a bit "underwhelmed" and are saying so).

I place little if any confidence in Gabriel's gripe - its ancient (and apparently unfounded by his own admission) history.

 

[newtekie1]

The creedence we ought to place in on-line reviews has nothing to do with the topic? The level of input Nvidia wishes to have in terms of review content has nothing to do with the topic? Take the 465 for example, do you think the variance evident in on-line review conclusions is simply the product of a healthy plurality of opinions or Nvidia ensuring that certain reviews mentioned Cuda and PhysX, amongst other "benefits"? Why do you wish to downplay the fact that Nvidia feels a need to censor review sites?

I just haven't seen any proof of it, other than off the wall review sites that no one has ever heard of trying to get some traffic.(Hardwaresecrets being a case in point.)

And now, this topic is about nVidia supposedly blacklisting hardwaresecrets about generation old hardware. So their supposed blacklisting over Fermi has nothing to do with this thread.

And if nVidia wants the features of the card mentioned in the reviews in exchange for free samples, how is that really bad. I know it is so terrible that nVidia makes sure the reviewers put all the features of the card in the reviews, because you know if they didn't the reviews would be so much better...

 

[Mr McC]

Any site worth it's reputation would be outside nV's circle of influence, IMHO. It's called PAYING for your review goods. Sure, you don't get stuff pre-launch, but who cares?


I'd prefer an accurate review over a timely one....

Like really, how is it possible for nV to censor a site that is privately owned?

Far too much in this situation doesn't add up. Whether it's the blog writer(as this was posted on his blog), or nV, isn't exactly clear...but I can pretty much guarantee that the full details of this situation aren't out in the open.

Agreed; however, how much pressure is a privately owned site put under if it is unable to publish reviews at the same time as its competitors?

BFG has stated that he experienced similar blacklisting as a result of unfavourable comments in AlienBabelTech 470 reviews.

I read several reviews of the GTX 465 and I don't see any of them sugar-coating its deficiencies. Again, for review sites to get the free review hardware they are expected to mention exclusive features. It doesn't mean they have to conclude the card is great when its average at best (and I haven't seen that yet concerning that card - reviewers have been a bit "underwhelmed" and are saying so).

I place little if any confidence in Gabriel's gripe - its ancient (and apparently unfounded by his own admission) history.

Mussels posted a thread on PhysX and the conclusion, with which I agree, is that it is in fact largely irrelevant.

Alienbabeltech is also griping.

I just haven't seen any proof of it, other than off the wall review sites that no one has ever heard of trying to get some traffic.(Hardwaresecrets being a case in point.)

And now, this topic is about nVidia supposedly blacklisting hardwaresecrets about generation old hardware. So their supposed blacklisting over Fermi has nothing to do with this thread.

And if nVidia wants the features of the card mentioned in the reviews in exchange for free samples, how is that really bad. I know it is so terrible that nVidia makes sure the reviewers put all the features of the card in the reviews, because you know if they didn't the reviews would be so much better...

It doesn't appear to be an isolated incident:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2078922