Nvidia cuts out reviewers for the GTS250

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I'd trust a site more that was late because they wanted to do a review properly than one that agreed with company marketing on how to make the product look good.

Its not so much reviewing properly or not, its more like HardOCP, or any other site accepting review samples and agreeing to do a review, then not doing it. That's very different than doing a review and giving your opinion based on whether or not its good or it sucks.

I'm sure the references in these cases were with regard to HardOCP tacitly agreeing to review CUDA/PhysX and then sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Wouldn't be a surprise at all given Kyle's recent reaction when Nvidia asked him to review 3D Vision. At least in that case though he outright declined instead of saying he'd review it, only to publish nothing.

Yes it is.

Its up to the reviewer to write the review, the company should have no say in what goes into it. If they want an advert they can pay for one like everyone else.

I agree with you 100%

Exactly. Does Nvidia think that just because they aren't shipping a GTS250 to HardOCP that it won't ever be reviewed there? Kyle can pick one up the day they hit the streets and have a review up the next day. And I'm pretty sure it'll be even less flattering than if Nvidia would have just shipped him one like they did for the other large sites.

Not a very bright idea, Nvidia.

Less flattering because Kyle was "slighted" by not being given a review sample? Or less flattering because his review will not be done with a review sample but with a retail bought GPU? Clockspeed is clockspeed. If Kyle buys a retail GTS250 whether it be stock or o/c model, his findings would be the same if he had a review sample at those same clocks, whatever that may be. I guess Kyle may not care that some consumers actually do and will consider CUDA and/or PhysX when purchasing a GPU. Some won't have a care in the world about that stuff, and most don't even know what it is yet. I don't see what the big deal is. He should include CUDA and PhysX in that review because it is indeed part of what these GPU's are. IMHO. And I don't see a problem with what Nvidia did whatsoever. If I had a hot product, and wanted to show off what it can do, and I was giving samples out to review sites, I'd want the whole gammit run on it. Games, CUDA, PhysX, other.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mmnno
The only bias showing is your own. There is no ATi rebrand. So what if they incremented the chip designation? What do you see in that move?

Huh? They not only gave it a completely different product designation, HD 4970, but they also renamed the chip to RV790 when its the same exact 55nm RV770 with a clockspeed bump. That'd be like.....Nvidia sanctioning a rebrand of their overclocked GTX 285 models and calling the core GT212 or GT250 or GT299 and calling them GTX 290 etc. But of course you'd have to see past your own hypocrisy and bias to understand this ATI rebrand is no different than the GTS 250 that everyone is crying about.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I'd trust a site more that was late because they wanted to do a review properly than one that agreed with company marketing on how to make the product look good.

Its not so much reviewing properly or not, its more like HardOCP, or any other site accepting review samples and agreeing to do a review, then not doing it. That's very different than doing a review and giving your opinion based on whether or not its good or it sucks.

I'm sure the references in these cases were with regard to HardOCP tacitly agreeing to review CUDA/PhysX and then sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Wouldn't be a surprise at all given Kyle's recent reaction when Nvidia asked him to review 3D Vision. At least in that case though he outright declined instead of saying he'd review it, only to publish nothing.

Yes it is.

Its up to the reviewer to write the review, the company should have no say in what goes into it. If they want an advert they can pay for one like everyone else.

I agree with you 100%

Exactly. Does Nvidia think that just because they aren't shipping a GTS250 to HardOCP that it won't ever be reviewed there? Kyle can pick one up the day they hit the streets and have a review up the next day. And I'm pretty sure it'll be even less flattering than if Nvidia would have just shipped him one like they did for the other large sites.

Not a very bright idea, Nvidia.

What you three don't seem to understand is that the companies are essentially paying advert space by providing review samples, along with support and actual paid advertising, so when the receiver of those benefits doesn't deliver by reviewing and promoting (positive or negative) their products, its no surprise they'd rescind those benefits and refocus their resources elsewhere.

Also, why would the GTS 250 be reviewed at HardOCP? Kyle's said numerous time he and his readers have no interest in such a dated, irrelevant part. Again, I don't see what Kyle and HardOCP were trying to accomplish here, there's only bad outcomes here for them. Instead of just taking their medicine and sucking this one up on a product launch he admittedly didn't care about, he's put the future support of Nvidia and the viability of his site in doubt.

Furthermore, what are you implying about Kyle posting a negative review if he had to pay for a sample? That Kyle would compromise whatever journalistic integrity and professionalism he had by giving a disingenuous and purposefully vindictive account of the GTS 250? The card is what it is and will perform as such, if he reported differently it'd be obvious his results would be the outlier in that case. If his agenda and motives weren't transparent before, they certainly would be if he published such a slanted review that inaccurately reflected the GTS 250's performance and features.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'd far prefer a Review site that went out(Internet or B&M), grabbed the card they wanted to review and paid for it at a counter. Just like the rest of us.

I have to agree with sandorski. I think sites should move away from using ES as review basis. they are hand picked parts that we can never hope to buy at retail. if sites want, they can give a preview based on ES samples from manufacture then buy a retail card and do a full review when it comes out.

Not only is that completely impractical if you actually want to see reviews on launch day, its also completely unnecessary. Review sites just need to verify the ES aren't any different with regard to performance and specifications once they actually get retail parts from board partners. The only major concern would be if overclocking was emphasized (as seen with the recent and past CPU launches and the heavy use of ES, and the motherboard industry at times), but in the case of Nvidia, they've already clearly established a long history of highly overclockable reference parts. This is of course reinforced again by the availability of retail boards that are either sold at those clock speeds or clock to similar max speeds. For AMD its been a non-issue as their retail parts typically don't overclock well so ES wouldn't be misleading unless it actually overclocked well.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'd far prefer a Review site that went out(Internet or B&M), grabbed the card they wanted to review and paid for it at a counter. Just like the rest of us.

I have to agree with sandorski. I think sites should move away from using ES as review basis. they are hand picked parts that we can never hope to buy at retail. if sites want, they can give a preview based on ES samples from manufacture then buy a retail card and do a full review when it comes out.

the rebranding of 8800gt parts are getting ridiculous. they are down right deceiving consumers with that scheme. trying to sell something old with a new name to boost sales. considering they already done it once before, NV's should be ashamed of themselves.

not their fault idiots refuse to buy a perfectly good and cheap card because "it has, like, a lower number". If changing the number is all it takes, then the fault lies with the consumer.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'd far prefer a Review site that went out(Internet or B&M), grabbed the card they wanted to review and paid for it at a counter. Just like the rest of us.

I have to agree with sandorski. I think sites should move away from using ES as review basis. they are hand picked parts that we can never hope to buy at retail. if sites want, they can give a preview based on ES samples from manufacture then buy a retail card and do a full review when it comes out.

the rebranding of 8800gt parts are getting ridiculous. they are down right deceiving consumers with that scheme. trying to sell something old with a new name to boost sales. considering they already done it once before, NV's should be ashamed of themselves.

not their fault idiots refuse to buy a perfectly good and cheap card because "it has, like, a lower number". If changing the number is all it takes, then the fault lies with the consumer.

I particularly feel this sentiment is appropriate in this specific day and age where information is literally seconds away thanks to the internet.

This isn't the 1980's where getting electronic hardware review information requires a trip to the right store in town that carries the right review magazine (computer shopper FTW) and the consumer has to know what store and what magazine to buy (and if the info/review is in a back-issue then you are screwed too).

In this day an age an ignorant consumer is a willfully ignorant consumer. The barrier to accessing information is practically non-existent at this stage in the information revolution.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: nyker96

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'd far prefer a Review site that went out(Internet or B&M), grabbed the card they wanted to review and paid for it at a counter. Just like the rest of us.

I have to agree with sandorski. I think sites should move away from using ES as review basis. they are hand picked parts that we can never hope to buy at retail. if sites want, they can give a preview based on ES samples from manufacture then buy a retail card and do a full review when it comes out.

the rebranding of 8800gt parts are getting ridiculous. they are down right deceiving consumers with that scheme. trying to sell something old with a new name to boost sales. considering they already done it once before, NV's should be ashamed of themselves.

not their fault idiots refuse to buy a perfectly good and cheap card because "it has, like, a lower number". If changing the number is all it takes, then the fault lies with the consumer.

I particularly feel this sentiment is appropriate in this specific day and age where information is literally seconds away thanks to the internet.

This isn't the 1980's where getting electronic hardware review information requires a trip to the right store in town that carries the right review magazine (computer shopper FTW) and the consumer has to know what store and what magazine to buy (and if the info/review is in a back-issue then you are screwed too).

In this day an age an ignorant consumer is a willfully ignorant consumer. The barrier to accessing information is practically non-existent at this stage in the information revolution.

I agree 100%. Many of these ignorant consumers not only don't know what to choose themselves, but many retail locations steer them wrong too. The clerk might say something like, "You should pass on the 4870 512BM card because it is more expensive than this 8500GT with 1GB or memory. This is much better." It is the same with buying a car, if you are happy to know nothing about what you want or need, don't expect to be directed to what you need by the salesman.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If I had a hot product, and wanted to show off what it can do, and I was giving samples out to review sites, I'd want the whole gammit run on it. Games, CUDA, PhysX, other.

I'm sure you would. But it should still be up to the individual reviewer to determine what tests to run, what resolutions to run, what features to test, etc. It's his website, not Nvidia's.

The whole point to having websites review products using their own methodology is to provide multiple independent benchmarks so that end users can compare performance and reach their own conclusions. If a reviewer feels that CUDA or PhysX isn't important to them or their readers, why should they be forced to run those tests simply to be in Nvidia's good graces? And why should reviewers be forced to only run certain games that show the card in the best possible light?

Website reviews are there primarily for the benefit of their readers, not for the company providing the sample.

Originally posted by: chizow
What you three don't seem to understand is that the companies are essentially paying advert space by providing review samples, along with support and actual paid advertising, so when the receiver of those benefits doesn't deliver by reviewing and promoting (positive or negative) their products, its no surprise they'd rescind those benefits and refocus their resources elsewhere.

No, they're not. Paying for advertising space is totally separate from having a product reviewed. A paid advertisement can say anything the parent company wants it to say. A product review should say anything the website owner wants to say about the product being reviewed.

The two concepts are totally different.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
No, they're not. Paying for advertising space is totally separate from having a product reviewed. A paid advertisement can say anything the parent company wants it to say. A product review should say anything the website owner wants to say about the product being reviewed.

The two concepts are totally different.

You still don't seem to get it. If a company provides a review site with product, they're certainly expecting certain expectations to be met. The most basic would be that the reviewer would in fact review the product and adequately cover all of its features. At its most basic level, they are paying for press/media coverage by providing review samples, this is a basic marketing concept. In return, the review site also benefits as they gain access to new products at no cost, which drives up readership and ad revenue.

For example, if Sony sent a Blu-Ray player to Blurayplayers.com to review, they'd certainly expect the review to include a review of all of its features. Obviously you'd expect a comparison of its capability of playing actual Blu-Rays, but if a feature like profile 1.1/2.0 and BD+ or USB support was touted, Sony would certainly expect those features to be covered as well.

That is very different than Nvidia, or Sony, dictating to the review site what their impression of the product should be, its simply expecting the review site to fulfill whatever agreement or understanding was agreed upon, explicitly or tacitly, to extensively review the product.

If HardOCP felt like Nvidia was trying to influence their opinions or conclusions about a feature that'd be one thing, but that's clearly not the case here. All links and blurbs involved indicate Nvidia is upset because they don't feel the features of their products are being adequately covered, and as such, see no reason to continue supplying review products to HardOCP.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If I had a hot product, and wanted to show off what it can do, and I was giving samples out to review sites, I'd want the whole gammit run on it. Games, CUDA, PhysX, other.

I'm sure you would. But it should still be up to the individual reviewer to determine what tests to run, what resolutions to run, what features to test, etc. It's his website, not Nvidia's.

The whole point to having websites review products using their own methodology is to provide multiple independent benchmarks so that end users can compare performance and reach their own conclusions. If a reviewer feels that CUDA or PhysX isn't important to them or their readers, why should they be forced to run those tests simply to be in Nvidia's good graces? And why should reviewers be forced to only run certain games that show the card in the best possible light?

Website reviews are there primarily for the benefit of their readers, not for the company providing the sample.

Originally posted by: chizow
What you three don't seem to understand is that the companies are essentially paying advert space by providing review samples, along with support and actual paid advertising, so when the receiver of those benefits doesn't deliver by reviewing and promoting (positive or negative) their products, its no surprise they'd rescind those benefits and refocus their resources elsewhere.

No, they're not. Paying for advertising space is totally separate from having a product reviewed. A paid advertisement can say anything the parent company wants it to say. A product review should say anything the website owner wants to say about the product being reviewed.

The two concepts are totally different.

Creig I'm sure you can appreciate that there is a difference between the way you think the world should operate versus the way it might actually be operating.

From your perspective you appear to believe that the industry of hardware reviews should be separate from the industry of advertisement revenue. Nothing wrong with being of that opinion. But surely you can accept the possibility that this isn't the way the real-world works 100% of the time?

Take this quote from you for instance:

Website reviews are there primarily for the benefit of their readers, not for the company providing the sample.

That is a noble and valiant desire on your part to believe that the owners of review sites, and the author's working for those website owners, are waking up everyday and going to work on a review for you to read out of the kindness of their heart and general concern for your well being.

I too wish the world operated that way. But it simply doesn't.

Website reviews do NOT exist for the benefit of the reader. The reviews and the websites exist for the benefit of the owner of the website that publishes the review.

Do you think Anandtech.com is a non-profit organization? Anand is motivated by personal cash-flow interests to maintain this website, something which I can appreciate and do not hold against him in any manner. But it would be ludicrous for me to believe the reviews on the AT frontpage are there for my benefit.

It is true the reviews are crafted with the hopes that they provide me some form of value, be it educational or merely entertainment, so that I keep coming back for more page hits so Anandtech.com gets more advert revenue.

The last time I visited a hardware review website which gave me the impression it was owned and operated solely for the benefit of consumers like me was when Thomas Pabst still owned and managed the daily operations of tomshardwareguide where 100% of his reviews were from personally purchased retail items, no press review kits, no ES's, just the real-deal. But the Pabster sold out long ago, the early days didn't last for more than about a year before he saw the money opportunities.

I envy your passion to want to live in a world where money is not THE motivating factor in educational materials such as online hardware reviews, but until people are willing to Anand free BMW's, free internet bandwidth and website hosting, free electricity, free rent, etc etc, we should not be blind to the fact that the people who are going to be attracted to the industry of owning and operating their own review websites are, at the end of the day, in this industry to take home a paycheck in exchange for writing us our beloved review articles.

 

[RobertR1]

nvidia should just run their own tests and buy adspace on sites to show the results.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
nvidia should just run their own tests and buy adspace on sites to show the results.

Why would they do that when they can choreograph a scripted review to be orchestrated for nearly free across review site after review site?

If it were cheaper, or necessary, than their current review-for-advertising model then I believe free-market capitalism would see NV doing precisely as you detail.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Creig I'm sure you can appreciate that there is a difference between the way you think the world should operate versus the way it might actually be operating.

From your perspective you appear to believe that the industry of hardware reviews should be separate from the industry of advertisement revenue. Nothing wrong with being of that opinion. But surely you can accept the possibility that this isn't the way the real-world works 100% of the time?

Take this quote from you for instance:

Website reviews are there primarily for the benefit of their readers, not for the company providing the sample.

That is a noble and valiant desire on your part to believe that the owners of review sites, and the author's working for those website owners, are waking up everyday and going to work on a review for you to read out of the kindness of their heart and general concern for your well being.

I too wish the world operated that way. But it simply doesn't.

Website reviews do NOT exist for the benefit of the reader. The reviews and the websites exist for the benefit of the owner of the website that publishes the review.

Do you think Anandtech.com is a non-profit organization? Anand is motivated by personal cash-flow interests to maintain this website, something which I can appreciate and do not hold against him in any manner. But it would be ludicrous for me to believe the reviews on the AT frontpage are there for my benefit.

It is true the reviews are crafted with the hopes that they provide me some form of value, be it educational or merely entertainment, so that I keep coming back for more page hits so Anandtech.com gets more advert revenue.

The last time I visited a hardware review website which gave me the impression it was owned and operated solely for the benefit of consumers like me was when Thomas Pabst still owned and managed the daily operations of tomshardwareguide where 100% of his reviews were from personally purchased retail items, no press review kits, no ES's, just the real-deal. But the Pabster sold out long ago, the early days didn't last for more than about a year before he saw the money opportunities.

I envy your passion to want to live in a world where money is not THE motivating factor in educational materials such as online hardware reviews, but until people are willing to Anand free BMW's, free internet bandwidth and website hosting, free electricity, free rent, etc etc, we should not be blind to the fact that the people who are going to be attracted to the industry of owning and operating their own review websites are, at the end of the day, in this industry to take home a paycheck in exchange for writing us our beloved review articles.

I think you've missed my point. I never said money was not the motivating factor for a website owner. But the primary source of his funding comes (AFAIK) from large numbers of visits to pages containing banner advertisements and not from the companies providing review samples.

I don't really care whether a site receives their sample directly from the manufacturer or purchase them using their own funding. What I do care about is that the reviewer conduct his tests in a manner that shows the card's overall performance throughout a range of games/settings of his choosing and not in a manner dictated by the company that sent the sample. Doing so can only serve to skew the results in favor of the manufacturer.

 

[JSt0rm]

All I know is Chizow certainly cares a lot about all of this. Too much infact. Carry on, just making observations.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Creig I'm sure you can appreciate that there is a difference between the way you think the world should operate versus the way it might actually be operating.

From your perspective you appear to believe that the industry of hardware reviews should be separate from the industry of advertisement revenue. Nothing wrong with being of that opinion. But surely you can accept the possibility that this isn't the way the real-world works 100% of the time?

Take this quote from you for instance:

Website reviews are there primarily for the benefit of their readers, not for the company providing the sample.

That is a noble and valiant desire on your part to believe that the owners of review sites, and the author's working for those website owners, are waking up everyday and going to work on a review for you to read out of the kindness of their heart and general concern for your well being.

I too wish the world operated that way. But it simply doesn't.

Website reviews do NOT exist for the benefit of the reader. The reviews and the websites exist for the benefit of the owner of the website that publishes the review.

Do you think Anandtech.com is a non-profit organization? Anand is motivated by personal cash-flow interests to maintain this website, something which I can appreciate and do not hold against him in any manner. But it would be ludicrous for me to believe the reviews on the AT frontpage are there for my benefit.

It is true the reviews are crafted with the hopes that they provide me some form of value, be it educational or merely entertainment, so that I keep coming back for more page hits so Anandtech.com gets more advert revenue.

The last time I visited a hardware review website which gave me the impression it was owned and operated solely for the benefit of consumers like me was when Thomas Pabst still owned and managed the daily operations of tomshardwareguide where 100% of his reviews were from personally purchased retail items, no press review kits, no ES's, just the real-deal. But the Pabster sold out long ago, the early days didn't last for more than about a year before he saw the money opportunities.

I envy your passion to want to live in a world where money is not THE motivating factor in educational materials such as online hardware reviews, but until people are willing to Anand free BMW's, free internet bandwidth and website hosting, free electricity, free rent, etc etc, we should not be blind to the fact that the people who are going to be attracted to the industry of owning and operating their own review websites are, at the end of the day, in this industry to take home a paycheck in exchange for writing us our beloved review articles.

I think you've missed my point. I never said money was not the motivating factor for a website owner. But the primary source of his funding comes (AFAIK) from large numbers of visits to pages containing banner advertisements and not from the companies providing review samples.

I don't really care whether a site receives their sample directly from the manufacturer or purchase them using their own funding. What I do care about is that the reviewer conduct his tests in a manner that shows the card's overall performance throughout a range of games/settings of his choosing and not in a manner dictated by the company that sent the sample. Doing so can only serve to skew the results in favor of the manufacturer.

And you missed the biggest point of all. These sites would not exist if it wasn't for the hardware. Nothing to write reviews on means no review site. I hope you didn't think that people go to H to see the wonderful banner ads there.

And yes, I suppose you're right about results being skewed in favor of the manufacturer if they show superiority is some way shape or form. In this case, beyond only gaming. Gaming isn't the only thing these cards are about anymore. Things are changing much faster than anyone has ever anticipated it would change. Suddenly, the GPU became a threat to the CPU. That was very fast and gaining momentum. You can't ignore these things.

 

[josh6079]

For AMD its been a non-issue as their retail parts typically don't overclock well

I had an X1900 XTX that reached 750 just fine on stock cooling.

In fact, during the 78-7900 series era it was more difficult to overclock nVidia GPU's as there was no software voltage control.

If I can swing the money soon, I think a GTX 260 would be a great buy, but hearing them cut back features like the Volterra chip hurt the capability that card has in overclocking.

This is a point you've argued in the past though, and it seems you won't consider ATi to supply good overclocking parts until they sell them as such - even if consumers say otherwise.

All I'll say is that ATi typically doesn't sell factory overclocked variants, no matter if the GPU could reach factory overclocks.

Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps its the marketing differences between vendors. Just like how ATi will introduce a new budget card instead of relabeling existing SKUs to jump families.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: josh6079
I had an X1900 XTX that reached 750 just fine on stock cooling.

Had? So what happened to it? It wasn't the same super overclocking sample producing artifacts all over your QW screenshots in the 9.2 driver thread is it?

In fact, during the 78-7900 series era it was more difficult to overclock nVidia GPU's as there was no software voltage control.

It wasn't difficult to get a significant overclock at stock voltages on those parts, voltmodding was only necessary for "Extreme" overclocks.

If I can swing the money soon, I think a GTX 260 would be a great buy, but hearing them cut back features like the Volterra chip hurt the capability that card has in overclocking.

Possibly, but you'll be able to quickly tell from what kind of OCs variants the OEMs are offering. I think its safe to say they'll be faster than the 4870 Brown Samples, YYY and WTF editions with 20MHz overclocks.

This is a point you've argued in the past though, and it seems you won't consider ATi to supply good overclocking parts until they sell them as such - even if consumers say otherwise.

All I'll say is that ATi typically doesn't sell factory overclocked variants, no matter if the GPU could reach factory overclocks.

Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps its the marketing differences between vendors. Just like how ATi will introduce a new budget card instead of relabeling existing SKUs to jump families.

And its a point that has been backed by historical fact. Again, not only is there a lack of overclocked parts, there haven't been rebrands or refreshes to close the gap in performance. This of course makes no sense as ATI has been trailing the competition so leaving performance on the table makes absolutely no sense at all.

But in this case I wasn't referring only to ATI parts, I was also referring to AMD parts as most recently emphasized with the heavy dose of ES and LN2.....

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
All I know is Chizow certainly cares a lot about all of this. Too much infact. Carry on, just making observations.

As an enthusiast, of course I take great interest. Beyond that, its all in good sport.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: mmnno
The only bias showing is your own. There is no ATi rebrand. So what if they incremented the chip designation? What do you see in that move?

Huh? They not only gave it a completely different product designation, HD 4970, but they also renamed the chip to RV790 when its the same exact 55nm RV770 with a clockspeed bump. That'd be like.....Nvidia sanctioning a rebrand of their overclocked GTX 285 models and calling the core GT212 or GT250 or GT299 and calling them GTX 290 etc. But of course you'd have to see past your own hypocrisy and bias to understand this ATI rebrand is no different than the GTS 250 that everyone is crying about.

So what? It's a new card in the same series, is marketed to be 20-30% faster (whatever the actual performance will be) and will probably carry the standard price premium. It's not a rebrand.

GTS 250 is not a minor rebrand either. This is a chip that has busted three naming conventions over two years. Regardless of what kind of value the card has (I doubt anyone will really be unhappy if they buy it), nVidias constant brand wizardry is getting annoying.

So your accusations of hypocrisy look spastic. There's no parallel between ATi and nVidia's marketing here.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mmnno
So what? It's a new card in the same series, is marketed to be 20-30% faster (whatever the actual performance will be) and will probably carry the standard price premium. It's not a rebrand.

GTS 250 is not a minor rebrand either. This is a chip that has busted three naming conventions over two years. Regardless of what kind of value the card has (I doubt anyone will really be unhappy if they buy it), nVidias constant brand wizardry is getting annoying.

So your accusations of hypocrisy look spastic. There's no parallel between ATi and nVidia's marketing here.

Rofl is that a joke? Nvidia's three-generational rebrand has greater differences than the RV790/4970 rebrand at every step. There is no difference between the RV770 on the 4870 and the RV790 and 4970 other than clockspeed and voltage. Now compare that to Nvidia's rebrands:

8800GTX to 9800GTX saw 90nm to 65nm
9800GTX to 9800GTX+ saw 65nm to 55nm with a clockspeed increase from 675 to 738.
9800GTX+ to GTS 250 is rumored to see 512MB to 1GB RAM with a clockspeed increase.

Clearly a bigger difference with each of Nvidia's incremental rebrands compared to ATI's. Even ATI's latest rebrand of the RV770LE to the RV740 has more difference than the RV790 rebrand. There's absolutely nothing spastic about my accusations, as anyone criticizing random, arbitrary naming conventions will undoubtedly play the part of hypocrite at some point or another.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: chizow
Now compare that to Nvidia's rebrands:

8800GTX to 8800GTS G92 -> 90nm -> 65nm, 575 -> 650Mhz, 768MB 384bit -> 512MB and 1GB 256bit.
8800GTS to 9800GTX -> 650 -> 675mhz, and tri sli support
9800GTX to 9800GTX+ -> 65nm -> 55nm, and 650 -> 738Mhz
9800GTX+ to GTS 250 -> increased clocks ?

Mind you I had no problems hitting 800mhz with my 8800GTS. Also the 55nm core offered little in power savings ( 3% ).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3340&p=2

Can't blame nVidia for milking this chip for so long, but it's really getting old. Now if GTS 250 has GDDR5 and increased the memory bandwidth in the 100 range it would be nice card to see.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: mmnno
So what? It's a new card in the same series, is marketed to be 20-30% faster (whatever the actual performance will be) and will probably carry the standard price premium. It's not a rebrand.

GTS 250 is not a minor rebrand either. This is a chip that has busted three naming conventions over two years. Regardless of what kind of value the card has (I doubt anyone will really be unhappy if they buy it), nVidias constant brand wizardry is getting annoying.

So your accusations of hypocrisy look spastic. There's no parallel between ATi and nVidia's marketing here.

Rofl is that a joke? Nvidia's three-generational rebrand has greater differences than the RV790/4970 rebrand at every step. There is no difference between the RV770 on the 4870 and the RV790 and 4970 other than clockspeed and voltage. Now compare that to Nvidia's rebrands:

8800GTX to 9800GTX saw 90nm to 65nm
9800GTX to 9800GTX+ saw 65nm to 55nm with a clockspeed increase from 675 to 738.
9800GTX+ to GTS 250 is rumored to see 512MB to 1GB RAM with a clockspeed increase.

Clearly a bigger difference with each of Nvidia's incremental rebrands compared to ATI's. Even ATI's latest rebrand of the RV770LE to the RV740 has more difference than the RV790 rebrand. There's absolutely nothing spastic about my accusations, as anyone criticizing random, arbitrary naming conventions will undoubtedly play the part of hypocrite at some point or another.

Yes undoubtedly, except you managed to miss the mark completely in this thread.

The problem with random, arbitrary naming conventions is that when you're breaking them once or twice a generation, they're no longer conventions. Yeah they're just names and shuffling them around isn't going to be a serious obstacle to purchasing them, but it definitely seems like an attack on me as a potential customer.

Incrementing the designations at the top of the line in concert with a high-percentage performance increase doesn't so much. The 9800GTX was annoying because it flubbed the second half of that routine. GTS 250 may not be any different from R200, but since that was in the non-gamer segment (also contemporary with GF4MX, a far greater transgression) it wasn't seen as objectionable. As you said the names are arbitrary, so there's a combination of factors that makes this scheme irritating.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And you missed the biggest point of all. These sites would not exist if it wasn't for the hardware. Nothing to write reviews on means no review site. I hope you didn't think that people go to H to see the wonderful banner ads there.

And yes, I suppose you're right about results being skewed in favor of the manufacturer if they show superiority is some way shape or form. In this case, beyond only gaming. Gaming isn't the only thing these cards are about anymore. Things are changing much faster than anyone has ever anticipated it would change. Suddenly, the GPU became a threat to the CPU. That was very fast and gaining momentum. You can't ignore these things.

I didn't miss anything. People go to the websites to read unbiased reviews about computer hardware. It is in the site's best interest to provide consistent, unbiased reviews that allow direct comparison to hardware from various manufacturers. By providing these reviews, they can generate traffic to their site which in turn provides revenue through banner ads.

If a company dictates the terms of the benchmarks, that site can no longer provide direct comparison between products as the results will most likely be skewed. Also, by compelling reviewers to benchmark certain features, they are trying to generate free buzz for something that may or may not interest the reviewer and his/her readers.

Nvidia should just leave well enough alone and let their cards speak for themselves. If there is enough public interest, the extra features like PhysX and CUDA will be benchmarked simply to satisfy the reviewers' audience desire to read about them and generate more website traffic. If not, then maybe those features simply aren't important.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
8800GTX to 8800GTS G92 -> 90nm -> 65nm, 575 -> 650Mhz, 768MB 384bit -> 512MB and 1GB 256bit.
8800GTS G92 to 9800GTX -> 650 -> 675mhz, and tri sli support
9800GTX to 9800GTX+ -> 65nm -> 55nm, and 650 -> 738Mhz, 1GB versions
9800GTX+ to GTS 250 -> increased clocks ?

The G92 GTS replaced the G80 GTS actually, so my comparison is correct. The only problem in the original transition from G80 to G92 was the 8800GT and GTS staying with 8800, they should've been 9800 but without a halo product that wasn't going to happen, which is why we had the addtional rebrand of G92 parts from 8800 to 9800.

Mind you I had no problems hitting 800mhz with my 8800GTS. Also the 55nm core offered little in power savings ( 3% ).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3340&p=2

Yep, Nvidia parts are adept overclockers, we know this because its been proven time and again. But thanks for confirming with your own experiences. The 55nm core shrink enabled higher clocks on both the core and shader rather than cutting down power draw, although later board revisions did require less power as demonstrated from the shift from 2x6 pin to a single 6 pin.

Can't blame nVidia for milking this chip for so long, but it's really getting old. Now if GTS 250 has GDDR5 and increased the memory bandwidth in the 100 range it would be nice card to see.

Why would they replace it when its still competitive in all market segments? As for the GTS 250, its not meant for the sub-$100 market, sounds like the GTS 240 may fill that role. GTS 250 looks poised to go somewhere inbetween the 4850 and 4870 512MB in both price and performance.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mmnno
Yes undoubtedly, except you managed to miss the mark completely in this thread.

The problem with random, arbitrary naming conventions is that when you're breaking them once or twice a generation, they're no longer conventions. Yeah they're just names and shuffling them around isn't going to be a serious obstacle to purchasing them, but it definitely seems like an attack on me as a potential customer.

Incrementing the designations at the top of the line in concert with a high-percentage performance increase doesn't so much. The 9800GTX was annoying because it flubbed the second half of that routine. GTS 250 may not be any different from R200, but since that was in the non-gamer segment (also contemporary with GF4MX, a far greater transgression) it wasn't seen as objectionable. As you said the names are arbitrary, so there's a combination of factors that makes this scheme irritating.

I haven't missed the mark, it is what it is, a rebrand just as the RV770/4970 is going to be a rebrand of old tech. As long as the naming conventions fall in-line with performance relative to their product designations, what's the problem? In the case of this rebrand, the change clarifies performance level, if anything.

The only problem with arbitrary naming conventions is when people like you try to claim one is intrinsically better than another, or that one makes more sense than another. For example, ATI just rolled out their RV770LE refresh which happens to perform better than their 4830. Yet they're naming it 4750 and RV740 on a 40nm process. Does it make sense? No, it doesn't. I guess we need a rebrand right? If not, ATI's naming convention is clearly flawed, right?