How nVidia blacklists review sites: example Hardware Secrets

[Tsavo]

They just need nVidia approved review sites with a special logo..

They used to have that. Tomshardware had theirs up for a while.

edit: just read the pic op put in...LOL funny

 

[SlowSpyder]

Keysplayer actually made this point about Wreckage once.

I have to admit, Wreckage actually did turn me off to Nvidia... whether that is rational or not, somehow in my mind I associated him with Nvidia and it had a negative feel in my mind. If he is some kind of AMD double agent, well done.

 

[Seero]

It sounds like a twisted road you're going down Seero. The reviewers should have the freedom to review the cards as they see fit, the maker of the reviewed product should be the last person to be dictating the review bullet points as you appear to suggest.


nVidia should create a card they think will do well, and they can go about doing this however they please with whatever bullet points they want to put on the box and advertise on the web. When they release the card to review sites, it's up to the review sites to decide what is relevant to their reader base, I think that's a very important freedom for the review sites to hold. If nVidia starts cherry picking the review sites for whom to release early their hardware based on the criteria that the review sites do as nVidia pleases, then your going to have nasty issues with the integrity of those reviews.

This loosly parrallels what was going on with hedgefunds and CDO's, where hedgefunds were implicitly structuring the CDO's while not being held accountable for it. If nVidia is only going to put cards to review sites that they deem are following an nVidia targeted structure, then consumers should be aware of it and decide how to view those review sites.

I don't think it makes sense for review sites to have to adhere to nVidia's agenda if we are arguing for what's best for the readers and consumers.

lol, cherry picking is necessary my friend, else companies will have to stop sending reviewer's demos and media samples all together. If there are only 10 demo cards and 100 reviewers who want to write reviews on them, who should they give them out to? Are you saying that they should simply take turn or randomly select like a lucky draw? If so, we can all apply for those and see if we are lucky enough to get a freebee. If we don't get a ATI, then we hope to get a Nvidia. If we can't get 5970, 5770 is still good.

It doesn't work like that. Vendors do pick, not only Nvidia. The question is who will get picked. In your opinion, Nvidia only select those that says good things about them, but that is simply a biased rumor. The fact is, there are lots of reviewers who get the pass without sugar coating stuffs. The very fact disproved that biased rumor completely.

Again HS didn't get banned because they say bad things about Nvidia as the review only compare MSI card with the reference card. Technically speaking, this kind of reviews are in favor of Nvidia and therefore if Nvidia is cherry picking those reviewers that favors Nvidia, then HS should not have got pick out. This is another disprove to that particular biased rumor above.

Look at how Anandtech's reviews on varies 5870 cards. Not only there are compared to the referenced card, but also against other cards that use the same referenced card, not to mention a few that uses a completely different chip. Not only one test, but a good several tests on varies areas and settings. At the end, Anandtech's conclusion may not favor the card they review upon, which is okay as the data presented is enough for viewers to derive their own conclusion, which is the true meaning of freedom. HS failed to do that part and refuse to correct it. What else is there to say?

Now of course some viewers may agree with HS's decisions, but that doesn't mean they are doing good to viewers at all. The purpose of media samples are so that others can see what it is about before their purchase, not because they simply give out free stuffs so people write good things about it.

 

[nemesismk2]

I have it on good authority that the situation between Hardware Secrets and Nvidia has been resolved. It would appear that Hardware Secrets was never blacklisted by Nvidia and it was all a big misunderstanding. That is good news because I like reading reviews by Hardware Secrets of Nvidia Hardware.

 

[Soleron]

I have it on good authority that the situation between Hardware Secrets and Nvidia has been resolved. It would appear that Hardware Secrets was never blacklisted by Nvidia and it was all a big misunderstanding. That is good news because I like reading reviews by Hardware Secrets of Nvidia Hardware.

That would be the second happy coincidence - when Charlie reported on the GTS 250 blacklist with Anandtech, that was resolved quite quickly as well.

Glad to see that Nvidia hates S|A being right more than they love blacklists. Any other sites hit this problem, you know who to call to make it turn out to be just a 'big misunderstanding'.

 

[taltamir]

"it never happened" is the most effective way to backtrack out of a bad situation...
forget about admitting what you did was wrong and a mistake... deny it ever happened... "blacklisted? why we would never do that! you must have misunderstood!"

 

[SirPauly]

That would be the second happy coincidence - when Charlie reported on the GTS 250 blacklist with Anandtech, that was resolved quite quickly as well.

Glad to see that Nvidia hates S|A being right more than they love blacklists. Any other sites hit this problem, you know who to call to make it turn out to be just a 'big misunderstanding'.

Charlie to the rescue.

Here are some of the comments from Hardware secrets:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/blog/NVIDIA-breaks-up-with-Hardware-Secrets-Problem-Solved/174

 

[jvroig]

Here are some of the comments from Hardware secrets:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/blog/...lem-Solved/174

That read terrible, he had so many "UPDATE:" lines inserted in between the original post, aside from the long one up top. It was as if he was too apologetic; then again, why didn't he just make a new blog entry explaining the situation. That would have been a lot better and a lot less confusing as the flow of this thoughts would not have been disturbed every few seconds by a repetitive "UPDATE" line that just basically says the same thing.

That would be the second happy coincidence - when Charlie reported on the GTS 250 blacklist with Anandtech, that was resolved quite quickly as well.

Amazing, yes. It could be because of Charlie, or maybe it was the fallout from it (in general, not just because of Charlie's article on it), or maybe it was them realizing how big the influence of Gabriel Torres actually was compared to what they first thought... or maybe it was really the mix up nVidia says it was. I don't really know, although drawing that parallel with what happened to AnandTech (which was also resolved quite amicably, all a big misunderstanding) does seem quite apt.

However, if I recall correctly, Anand (or was it Derek or Ryan?) gave a shout-out and thanked Charlie for raising a stink. I guess it wouldn't kill Gabriel Torres to do likewise, and perhaps start making the whole "misunderstanding -> Charlie article -> amicable resolution -> Shout out and thanks to Charlie" saga as a tradition for future occurences.

 

[tincart]

Assuming this was a case of black-listing, it will happen again.

 

[railven]

I just wanted to add my two cents on this since I see a lot of reviewing sites do something similar.

This review was focused on what made the Lightining different then the run of the mill GTX 260. Because of that, there really is no need to review what the GTX 260 does already, a simple link to their previous vanilla GTX 260 review would be sufficied (AT does this a lot.)

I thought reviews are solely based on opinions which are based on perception of products in the market. As a reviewer I examine a product and mark the pros and cons (based on my judgement - ie opinion) and then post that as my suggestion to my readers.

Hell, the new SSD article on AT ends with an opinion (paraphrase "wait, better is coming.")

It is the reader's job to identify with the reviewer and continue to visit or find someone else who may have a more similar thinking pattern.

Only thing I saw with the HS article he refered to was he didn't link to his vanilla GTX 260 article (if there is one.)

I thought the Lightining article was a good review of what MSI was trying to do to make that card stand out. He didn't like it, that's his opinion, agree or disagree.

 

[SirPauly]

That read terrible, he had so many "UPDATE:" lines inserted in between the original post, aside from the long one up top. It was as if he was too apologetic; then again, why didn't he just make a new blog entry explaining the situation. That would have been a lot better and a lot less confusing as the flow of this thoughts would not have been disturbed every few seconds by a repetitive "UPDATE" line that just basically says the same thing.


Amazing, yes. It could be because of Charlie, or maybe it was the fallout from it (in general, not just because of Charlie's article on it), or maybe it was them realizing how big the influence of Gabriel Torres actually was compared to what they first thought... or maybe it was really the mix up nVidia says it was. I don't really know, although drawing that parallel with what happened to AnandTech (which was also resolved quite amicably, all a big misunderstanding) does seem quite apt.

However, if I recall correctly, Anand (or was it Derek or Ryan?) gave a shout-out and thanked Charlie for raising a stink. I guess it wouldn't kill Gabriel Torres to do likewise, and perhaps start making the whole "misunderstanding -> Charlie article -> amicable resolution -> Shout out and thanks to Charlie" saga as a tradition for future occurences.

I've learned a long time ago that some people will read what they want to read; see what they want to see; hear what they want to hear. No matter what is exactly written; even if there is clarity - doesn't matter.

 

[Lonyo]

I've learned a long time ago that some people will read what they want to read; see what they want to see; hear what they want to hear. No matter what is exactly written; even if there is clarity - doesn't matter.

"Clearly" at some point between the launch of the GTX480/470 and the GTX465 (about 9 weeks), there was a change in procedure in some manner at NV which allowed a large tech site to 'slip through the gaps'.

 

[jvroig]

I've learned a long time ago that some people will read what they want to read; see what they want to see; hear what they want to hear. No matter what is exactly written; even if there is clarity - doesn't matter.

While that may be true to an extent, there is nothing in the HS-nVidia "breakup/misunderstanding" that shows absolute or clear-cut clarity. To say so would mean reducing things to be simpler than they actually are, no matter how simple or complex the reality (most of which probably happens behind the scenes).

It could certainly be an honest-to-goodness misunderstanding. Unless we are in nVidia's PR departments (USA or Latin America), we cannot say for certain.

But given how complicated the dynamics between manufacturer/producer/brand owner and reviewers are (e.g., how much to give; who to give; what to give; how to react; how to review fairly, without bias despite seeming generosity or lack thereof; ad deals, promos, etc), and how it might seem that this has happened before (AnandTech), it is entirely not unreasonable to suspect perhaps something more did happen. It could be back-pedalling, it could be a PR-disaster containment move, it could be an aggressive and ill-deserved move or tantrum from HS... who knows, the dynamics of the business is complex enough that these things and more are quite possible and not so outlandish at all.

So yes, it could be as simple as claimed. It could also quite reasonably as complicated as some may suspect. Pushing for either extreme ("Definitely this simple, duh, tinfoil much?", or "OMG nVidia the devil tried to screw saintly Gabe!!!!111!!") would not be as reasonable, but no one here seems to be going quite that far, and instead just offering some possibilities based on observed dynamics of the company-and-reviewer relationship and/or past events.

 

[SirPauly]

While that may be true to an extent, there is nothing in the HS-nVidia "breakup/misunderstanding" that shows absolute or clear-cut clarity. To say so would mean reducing things to be simpler than they actually are, no matter how simple or complex the reality (most of which probably happens behind the scenes).

It could certainly be an honest-to-goodness misunderstanding. Unless we are in nVidia's PR departments (USA or Latin America), we cannot say for certain.

But given how complicated the dynamics between manufacturer/producer/brand owner and reviewers are (e.g., how much to give; who to give; what to give; how to react; how to review fairly, without bias despite seeming generosity or lack thereof; ad deals, promos, etc), and how it might seem that this has happened before (AnandTech), it is entirely not unreasonable to suspect perhaps something more did happen. It could be back-pedalling, it could be a PR-disaster containment move, it could be an aggressive and ill-deserved move or tantrum from HS... who knows, the dynamics of the business is complex enough that these things and more are quite possible and not so outlandish at all.

So yes, it could be as simple as claimed. It could also quite reasonably as complicated as some may suspect. Pushing for either extreme ("Definitely this simple, duh, tinfoil much?", or "OMG nVidia the devil tried to screw saintly Gabe!!!!111!!") would not be as reasonable, but no one here seems to be going quite that far, and instead just offering some possibilities based on observed dynamics of the company-and-reviewer relationship and/or past events.

Don't consider the actual web-site explaining point-by-point as simple or an extreme side.

 

[jvroig]

Don't consider the actual web-site explaining point-by-point as simple or an extreme side.

I realize this is going nowhere, and while I can complain about it and argue with you, I would rather excuse myself from the thread as I have made my point already (for whatever it is worth, which is not really much as I am no insider) and have no desire to start/continue an argument that I see will have no end anyway. I will make no further explanations as I would simply be repeating the walls of text of my previous post. If you have something further to offer, please have the last word between us.

 

[Seero]

I just wanted to add my two cents on this since I see a lot of reviewing sites do something similar.

This review was focused on what made the Lightining different then the run of the mill GTX 260. Because of that, there really is no need to review what the GTX 260 does already, a simple link to their previous vanilla GTX 260 review would be sufficied (AT does this a lot.)

I thought reviews are solely based on opinions which are based on perception of products in the market. As a reviewer I examine a product and mark the pros and cons (based on my judgement - ie opinion) and then post that as my suggestion to my readers.

Hell, the new SSD article on AT ends with an opinion (paraphrase "wait, better is coming.")

It is the reader's job to identify with the reviewer and continue to visit or find someone else who may have a more similar thinking pattern.

Only thing I saw with the HS article he refered to was he didn't link to his vanilla GTX 260 article (if there is one.)

I thought the Lightining article was a good review of what MSI was trying to do to make that card stand out. He didn't like it, that's his opinion, agree or disagree.

I disagree that it is a good review. HS assumed that the performance of the card is similar to the referenced card, while often such cards out performs its referenced card. I am not saying MSI N260 GTX out performs Nvidia GTX 260, I am saying that the data is completely missing, and therefore we, as readers, can't determine that, which made the conclusion of that article looks like a biased claim even though it may turn up to be true.

What if MSI N260 GTX runs 100 times better than the reference card? Readers won't know after the read. What if MSI N260 GTX suck at physX? Again readers won't know. Readers will assume that performance of it will be exactly identical to its reference card, which is never true. Look at Anandtech's Roundup on 5870 and you can see the variations in performance on deferent areas on cards that referencing the same card.

That roundup article may be mostly copy and paste from older articles that Anandtech has done, but it serves as an overview and readers don't need to google around for missing information. Everything is in one place, and Anandtech actually spend time to put them all in one page, which makes it look professional and easy to read, while readers ain't forced to stick with the aurthor's conclusion as they can derive their own based on the data. So if you want to buy a 5870 card, you know which one to pick based on statistics rather than opinions. Manufacturers like it, and readers like it.

 

[SirPauly]

I realize this is going nowhere, and while I can complain about it and argue with you, I would rather excuse myself from the thread as I have made my point already (for whatever it is worth, which is not really much as I am no insider) and have no desire to start/continue an argument that I see will have no end anyway. I will make no further explanations as I would simply be repeating the walls of text of my previous post. If you have something further to offer, please have the last word between us.

Your view is as important as anyone else because it is yours.

 

[Seero]

While that may be true to an extent, there is nothing in the HS-nVidia "breakup/misunderstanding" that shows absolute or clear-cut clarity. To say so would mean reducing things to be simpler than they actually are, no matter how simple or complex the reality (most of which probably happens behind the scenes).

It could certainly be an honest-to-goodness misunderstanding. Unless we are in nVidia's PR departments (USA or Latin America), we cannot say for certain.

But given how complicated the dynamics between manufacturer/producer/brand owner and reviewers are (e.g., how much to give; who to give; what to give; how to react; how to review fairly, without bias despite seeming generosity or lack thereof; ad deals, promos, etc), and how it might seem that this has happened before (AnandTech), it is entirely not unreasonable to suspect perhaps something more did happen. It could be back-pedalling, it could be a PR-disaster containment move, it could be an aggressive and ill-deserved move or tantrum from HS... who knows, the dynamics of the business is complex enough that these things and more are quite possible and not so outlandish at all.

So yes, it could be as simple as claimed. It could also quite reasonably as complicated as some may suspect. Pushing for either extreme ("Definitely this simple, duh, tinfoil much?", or "OMG nVidia the devil tried to screw saintly Gabe!!!!111!!") would not be as reasonable, but no one here seems to be going quite that far, and instead just offering some possibilities based on observed dynamics of the company-and-reviewer relationship and/or past events.

I doubt that was the truth from those updates. The problematic article one year old and Fermi reviews are practically missing from HS. If it is communication issue, then who send them stuffs before, and why stopped for sometime without notice? A email was sent to HS, which department sends it, why didn't they reply?

There must be a lot of email exchange lately behind Nvidia and HS that we don't see. It is virtually impossible to find out what had happened as a "average reader". The bottom line is, it seems that the relation between the 2 parties have got fixed, which is all good.

 

[railven]

I disagree that it is a good review. HS assumed that the performance of the card is similar to the referenced card, while often such cards out performs its referenced card. I am not saying MSI N260 GTX out performs Nvidia GTX 260, I am saying that the data is completely missing, and therefore we, as readers, can't determine that, which made the conclusion of that article looks like a biased claim even though it may turn up to be true.

What if MSI N260 GTX runs 100 times better than the reference card? Readers won't know after the read. What if MSI N260 GTX suck at physX? Again readers won't know. Readers will assume that performance of it will be exactly identical to its reference card, which is never true. Look at Anandtech's Roundup on 5870 and you can see the variations in performance on deferent areas on cards that referencing the same card.

That roundup article may be mostly copy and paste from older articles that Anandtech has done, but it serves as an overview and readers don't need to google around for missing information. Everything is in one place, and Anandtech actually spend time to put them all in one page, which makes it look professional and easy to read, while readers ain't forced to stick with the aurthor's conclusion as they can derive their own based on the data. So if you want to buy a 5870 card, you know which one to pick based on statistics rather than opinions. Manufacturers like it, and readers like it.

In the HS article he benched it stock and OC'ed. Seems similar to the AT article of the 5870's. Is your cry of foul because he didn't use as many applications as AT did?

Aside the extensive application list AT used, the articles are very similar. Stock bench, max OC, max OC bench, and their conclusion on difference (he said 14.25% faster and that was his finding on the two apps.)

I didn't see an Eyefinity bench or a HD-codec decoding bench, or a OpenCL bench on the AT article. Clearly based on your opinion each card would perform differently in each of these functions as they are designed differently. AT isn't presenting us with all the info we need to know.

EDIT: Did you miss page 7 on the HS article where he benched a stock GTX 260/16 to the MSI GTX 260? Because he didn't just assume his conclusion, he based it on his benches.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/MSI-N260GTX-Lightning-Black-Edition-Video-Card-Review/719/7

The results you can see on the table below.

GTX 260/216
N260GTX
N260GTX (Max. O.C.)
CoD 4
94.9 FPS
103.3 FPS
103.3 FPS
3DMark Vantage (GPU Score)
4404
4805
5033
3DMark Vantage (Extreme Score)
X4608
X5027
X5265
Temp 1
62.3º C
51.9º C
52.9º C
Temp 2
52.2º C
46.9º C
48.3º C​

MSI N260GTX Lightning Black Edition was 8.85% faster than the standard GeForce GTX 260/216 on Call of Duty 4. Further overclocking this card didn’t improve performance on this game.

 

[SirPauly]

If that wasn't the truth and Hardware Secrets is lying or maybe disingenuous; what is the truth?

 

[Seero]

If that wasn't the truth and Hardware Secrets is lying or maybe disingenuous; what is the truth?

It will be great if "Truth" is always written down and its easy to find.

HS may not be lying as such claim needs to be proven. HS said they got blacklisted, and now they said it was their assumption, so they didn't lie as they are now saying that they did not know the truth. Now they are saying that they were not ignored, it was "mis-communication", but the term "communication" is hard to define. If you talk to me and I don't reply, you can say that I am ignoring you, or you can say that we are having communication issues. Neither of the answer is a "lie" as it can simply be "mis-understanding." The fact is Nvidia did not reply to HS. The cause can be:
a) Nvidia didn't want to reply
b) Nvidia has an internal issue on which department shall be responsible on such issue coming from HS.
c) Nvidia replied late, about one year late.
d) Reasons that I can't think of.

The fact is HS never receive any invitation of tech demos, or media samples on fermi products. The cause can be:
a) Nvidia didn't want to send them stuffs.
b) HS is to classified as the selected group of such information.
c) No one in Nvidia knows who to send those to because of communication issues.
d) Reasons that I can't think of.

The fact is, HS received replies from Nvidia. The cause can be:
a) Nvidia believes that HS have got the hidden message through the silence treatment.
b) Charlie's influence forces Nvidia to reestablishes communication to HS.
c) Nvidia's internal communcation problem has been resolved.
d) Nvidia is suffering serious damage without HS's reviews
e) The nagative publicity as got too serious.
f) Reasons that I can't think of.

I will not be lying doesn't matter what I select to say, but that doesn't mean all of the above are truths. Well actually there is one truth, and the truth is, I don't know.

 

[SirPauly]

But communication or mis-communication was defined here:

It seems that this was an internal mess-up rather than blacklisting. Basically I was listed in their system as being part of the Latin America region (as I am originally from Brazil and still run the largest website down there) and therefore NVIDIA USA was thinking that I was being handled by their Latin America team. At the same time, the Latin America team was not in touch with me since I live in the USA and thought I was being handled by NVIDIA USA. It seems that this glitch was fixed.

The key is does one believe this?

 

[Seero]

In the HS article he benched it stock and OC'ed. Seems similar to the AT article of the 5870's. Is your cry of foul because he didn't use as many applications as AT did?

Aside the extensive application list AT used, the articles are very similar. Stock bench, max OC, max OC bench, and their conclusion on difference (he said 14.25% faster and that was his finding on the two apps.)

I didn't see an Eyefinity bench or a HD-codec decoding bench, or a OpenCL bench on the AT article. Clearly based on your opinion each card would perform differently in each of these functions as they are designed differently. AT isn't presenting us with all the info we need to know.

EDIT: Did you miss page 7 on the HS article where he benched a stock GTX 260/16 to the MSI GTX 260? Because he didn't just assume his conclusion, he based it on his benches.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/MSI-N260GTX-Lightning-Black-Edition-Video-Card-Review/719/7

Different reviewers uses different methodologies on their reviews, the bottom line is those tests should be done on areas that the card was designed to do. No one test video cards by running a car over it, or check and see if it still work after abusing physically. This kind of tests isn't meaningful for an average user. However, when it comes to an Nvidia video card, CUDA and PhysX is indeed things that some Nvidia user will find useful.

I didn't miss that, but compare to the way Anandtech did it, i will say it isn't as good. If you must only pick one out of the 2 to invite, AT or NS will you pick?

 

[Seero]

But communication or mis-communication was defined here:

The key is does one believe this?

I personally don't believe that as my email address doesn't change wherever I live. It is stored as my contact in any database.

So I send you an email filled with complains, then you replied. After that, no more replies from me for a year, and the reason is "I don't know where you live?" or "I don't know which region I shall send my emails to?" Maybe it is more complicated than that, but I personally don't buy it.

 

[railven]

Different reviewers uses different methodologies on their reviews, the bottom line is those tests should be done on areas that the card was designed to do. No one test video cards by running a car over it, or check and see if it still work after abusing physically. This kind of tests isn't meaningful for an average user. However, when it comes to an Nvidia video card, CUDA and PhysX is indeed things that some Nvidia user will find useful.

I didn't miss that, but compare to the way Anandtech did it, i will say it isn't as good. If you must only pick one out of the 2 to invite, AT or NS will you pick?

Of course methodologies will differ and that is why we are offered different options and alternatives. Because one reviewer doesn't use a methodology of another all of a sudden they aren't reputable or "bias?" They just posted a new thread here about an article that uses a different methodology versus AT's - are they now less reputable or bias?

You claimed he assumed his conclusion which was misleading and ignoring the fact it was based on his test. If you don't like his review style that is your opinion and weighs as much as his opinion on the card.

The HS article was good in my opinion because as you said - "the bottom line is those tests should be done on areas that the card was designed to do." He reviewed an OC'ed card with a custom cooler. He checked its OC capabilities and its cooling functions. He rated them and then concluded based on price it wasn't worth.

Again, where is AT's comparison of Eyefinity on those custom/OC'ed cards because it seems this generation Eyefinity is ATI's whip cream as CUDA/PhysX is nVidia's. So, AT's article must also be invalidated.