nVidia Blacklists Hardware Secrets

[El Fiendo]

For all those concerned.


Not blacklisted!

 

[cadaveca]

For all those concerned.


Not blacklisted!

Yesterday's news, and hence us talking about again.



MrMcC, as far as I am concerned, there is no website that has any legitimate claims to being "blacklisted". Any site that puts up such claims is run by a bunch of immature kids, as far as I am concerned. Sites that get stuff early, or for free, are providing marketing for the companies that provide the stuff. I don't need marketing..I need facts.

I was accused of complaining about a lack of free stuff landing in my hands in the past...however, at the time, that wasn't my gripe...the issue at hand was something far more complex, and now, a year and such alter, it seems that people are opening thier eyes to what I was REALLY complaining about.

Of course, I didn't give full info, so my comments were taken out of context. Oh well.

The same could be said here, however, I was complaining about guys with access to TONNES of hardware(working for OEMs), binning parts, and then using the binned parts to win overclocking competitions. These weren't "THE TOP" guys either..merely those with better access. Now, today, we see far more people winning competitions...and those with the real skill...just seem to stay out of it.

Now, I'm gonna stay out of this one, now...I've said my piece, and I'm done. Hardware Secrets is on my personal blacklist...my own kids don't rant lie that, and what I expect my kids to do..I think it's reasonable to ask the same of an adult.

 

[niko084]

They are getting spanked by ATI right now, of course they have to throw a fit about not mentioning their abilities that .1% of users utilize.

***
Now after seeing that post about them not being blacklisted any longer really makes me wonder about what "REALLY" went down and why.

 

[Paintface]

Im wondering if the pressure from nvidia is the reason that on ATI card reviews on TPU "no cuda/physx" is cited as a negative. Cause i cant understand that someone who decides to buy a card for its price/performance for gaming will ever need or even consider cuda or physx, not to mention cuda or physx isnt an option for board manufactures, it was never an option for them when manufacturing them, so criticising the card or manufacturer every single time on this when they make an ATI card simply doesnt make sense to me.

 

[cadaveca]

I see it as a negative as well, as the lack of functionality is kind of a sore point with me, being one of the few people that actually bought an Ageia card.

I'd love to run an nV card with my ATi cards, and while technically possible, it takes more effort than the average consumer would generally put into it. Until this is rectified, I won't take those steps to get what I want...and I very clearly understand why nV has made things this way.

I mean, we don't see nV stomping on the sites that provide the "hacks" to get Phys-X working with ATi cards, so W1zz putting that as a negative really doesn't seem like pressure from nV...if anything, he's trying to pressure ATi into adopting CUDA.

I mean, ATi cards haven't seen a FAH client update in like 2 years now, in 2008. Ati really seems to have dropped the ball when it comes to GPGPU; they talked about GPU physics first(havoc), and that has never come to fruition, and many developers have already jumped on the Phys-X bandwagon, and most likely, due to a lack of ATi support when it comes to those technologies. ATi really seems to be doing nothing in this GPGPU field, and that's how W1zz has chosen to highlight this big fault on ATi's part.

 

[newtekie1]

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.

And I agree, it isn't really that relevent. However, as I already said, it wasn't like nVidia is asking them to do a multi-page write-up about PhysX and CUDA, just list them in the specs of the cards. A reviewer shouldn't be leaving out features of a card just because they don't find them relevent, a good review will at least mention them, and let the reader/customer decide on the relevence.

If a review was listing the features of a card and completely ignored the fact that it had a VGA port on it, I'd laugh in the reviewers face. And if they responded with "I don't think VGA is relevent anymore, so I ignored it" I'd laugh harder.

It doesn't appear to be an isolated incident:

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

Like I said, I only seem to hear it from off the wall sites that want to make a name for themselves. The only exception seems to Anandtech and according to The Inquirer also HardOCP. Of course Anandtech wasn't blacklisted, as they did actually get invited to a GTS250 briefing and given a GTS250 sample. Of course nothing actually came from HardOCP about the issue, and the same Inquirer article was full of anti-nVidia lies(such as the price of the GTS250 being jacked up, while the Anandtech article even states it is actually $50 cheaper), so can we even believe that HardOCP was ever blacklisted? Oh, and what do you know the Inquirer article was from out favorite anti-nVidia full of shit author - Charlie Demerjian...

Im wondering if the pressure from nvidia is the reason that on ATI card reviews on TPU "no cuda/physx" is cited as a negative. Cause i cant understand that someone who decides to buy a card for its price/performance for gaming will ever need or even consider cuda or physx, not to mention cuda or physx isnt an option for board manufactures, it was never an option for them when manufacturing them, so criticising the card or manufacturer every single time on this when they make an ATI card simply doesnt make sense to me.

The same logic could be used to say that ATi was pressuring W1z to put "No Support for DX11" on ever nVidia review in the ~6-months between the launch of the HD5000 series and Fermi's launch. And before that, listing "No support for DX10.1". And really both features, to this day, are pretty much irrelevent. In fact I think there might be more PhysX games at this point then there are DX11 games...

Oh, and on his reviews of the GTX295's he puts "Built on SLI technology" as a negative! Holy shit, he's bad mouthing an nVidia technology! That is worse then not even putting it in the review. Why has nVidia not blacklisted him? And in ever review of a GTS250 he says "No real product innovation"! If your theory is correct, that nVidia puts pressure on reviewers to give them good reviews, and blacklists them for saying anything bad, how has W1z not been blacklisted?

 

[Paintface]

I agree its fine if cuda etc is listed in the features, as it should.

But as you said physx is irrelavent, i cant see how someone would buy an nvidia card just cause of physx when the comparable ATI card is faster/cheaper/less power use.

I know the positive/negative list would be quite small if the main focus goes to performance/price/power usage/cooling although that is what is important about 3D cards.

Physx=Nvidia in the end, everyone who knows about physx and thinks its important knows he has to buy a Nvidia card to have it. Everyone who wants UVD knows its an ATI only feature, i dont see "no UVD" as a negative on Nvidia card reviews.
If nvidia adds a network connection to every videocard of theirs, will we see "no network connection" as a negative on every ATI review?

I let those reviews go for what they were in the past cause they were professionally conducted and i still read every single one and will continue to do so, but this article about how those nvidia "features" had to be focused on or they wouldnt get anymore review samples makes all of the above make alot more sense.

 

[cadaveca]

nV has a UVD equivalent. I'm sure it(lack of CUDA and Phys-X) wouldn't be listed as a negative if ATi had comparable technology to CUDA and Phys-X...sure, you can say ATIStream...but tell ya what...CUDA is far better.

And I definately don't like nV one bit. But I can see things pretty clearly here.