Nvidia cuts out reviewers for the GTS250

[Idontcare]

Nvidia cuts out reviewers for the GTS250

Not only that, but the flat-out dishonesty is that Nvidia gave its board partners 'special' boards to send to reviewers. They are not allowed to give out their own vanilla cards, they MUST use the special set supplied by Nvidia.

Why is this dishonest? Want to bet that those boards have cherry-picked chips and RAM that clocks to the moon? That they will do everything better than any card you will ever be able to buy? Basically, Nvidia supplied ringers to the press that are not representative of what you can buy, and forced OEMs to give them to review sites without telling them. The technical term is 'mushrooming', feed them [scatological reference deleted] and keep them in the dark.

Remember now, this is the same 55nm G92 that you have been able to buy for six months or more, there is NO difference between that and the 9800GTX+. Nvidia has to show a difference to avoid their new hare-brained branding/stupid fanboi-fleecing scheme from tanking, so they are stacking the reviews.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inq...-cuts-reviewers-gts250

Now I did see Kyle's rant about this the other day and didn't think anything further about it. But this tidbit that groo is going on about is intriguing. I am MOST interested in what Anand has to say about this when/if he gets a review sample. He didn't hold back on AMD over the Lake Tahoe thing, so if there is any credibility to groo's article I'd expect the AT review to ooze with sarcasm and nuggets of vitriol.

 

[AmberClad]

Yeah I read that this afternoon, and it seemed awfully familiar and reminiscent of the rant that he or someone else at the INQ did a while back for the 9800GT rebrand.

As far as Kyle goes, there was a photochopped image that someone posted over at [ H]ard|forum that I got a bit of a laugh out of .

 

[Tempered81]

Good find, IDC - wouldn't doubt they would stoop this low. fighting rv770 with an invisible sword is tough.

i didn't figure a g92 had much more after the 9800gtx+'s clocks.

 

[chizow]

Not sure what the problem is here, as Nvidia isn't claiming the GTS 250 performs any different than a 9800GTX+ from what I read. Its not like they're saying the GTS 250 is 10% faster or overclocks better than the 9800GTX+. Its a simple rebrand where the designation makes sense and falls in line with the rest of their 200-series parts.

As for the spat between HardOCP and NV, its somewhat interesting, but nothing new. I've felt for some time Nvidia (and ATI) hold launch samples over review site's heads and punish sites that don't comply with their rules by witholding future review samples. A recent example was here when AT didn't get a GTX 295 preview sample following their lackluster Rel 180 review.

In the end, HardOCP can't win here. Big mistake on their part. They can try and rely on partner samples, but they're still going to be horribly behind on launch/NDA day. Nvidia is always going to get their reference ES out the door about the same time board partners start getting their stock.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: chizow
Not sure what the problem is here, as Nvidia isn't claiming the GTS 250 performs any different than a 9800GTX+ from what I read. Its not like they're saying the GTS 250 is 10% faster or overclocks better than the 9800GTX+. Its a simple rebrand where the designation makes sense and falls in line with the rest of their 200-series parts.

As for the spat between HardOCP and NV, its somewhat interesting, but nothing new. I've felt for some time Nvidia (and ATI) hold launch samples over review site's heads and punish sites that don't comply with their rules by witholding future review samples. A recent example was here when AT didn't get a GTX 295 preview sample following their lackluster Rel 180 review.

In the end, HardOCP can't win here. Big mistake on their part. They can try and rely on partner samples, but they're still going to be horribly behind on launch/NDA day. Nvidia is always going to get their reference ES out the door about the same time board partners start getting their stock.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: chizow
Not sure what the problem is here, as Nvidia isn't claiming the GTS 250 performs any different than a 9800GTX+ from what I read.

but they're still going to be horribly behind on launch/NDA day.

Then why should anyone give a damn?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
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.

No, its not.

Did you read the back and forth jabs and dirty laundry?

The rumor sources cited HardOCP's evaluation support lacking in the areas of PhysX, and CUDA. AIBs were instructed to not sample HardOCP GTS 250 evaluation cards.

That along with the cartoon Amber linked shows Nvidia is upset at HardOCP for not reviewing PhysX or CUDA and probably had an understanding, tacit or explicit, that HardOCP would review PhysX or CUDA by accepting review samples. That's very different than publishing a review and giving an honest opinion, the point is that no review was done at all when the expectation was that HardOCP would do a write-up having accepted review product over the last 6-8 months since CUDA PhysX launched.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: chizow
At least in that case though he outright declined instead of saying he'd review it, only to publish nothing.

See that seems like it would be a no-harm no-issue outcome to me, but NV would appear to have taken a bit of an over-reaction to it.

NV sends an extra presskit out that doesn't generate a review. They might lose a $100 in shipping, plus an advance on the cost of owning one more review board.

But the penalty here just doesn't seem comparable to the cost involved.

At any rate as I mentioned in the OP the Kyle/NV spat wasn't what intrigued me, it was the claims leveled by Charlie that NV is intentionally seeding the reviewers with cherry-picked samples.

Charlie can claim air is OK to breath and it would suddenly make me suspicious of whether breathing air is really OK, so I'm not taking Charlie's word on this one iota, but it has now peaked my interest to see what Anandtech comes out to say about this when (if) their review debuts.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
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.

No, its not.

Did you read the back and forth jabs and dirty laundry?

The rumor sources cited HardOCP's evaluation support lacking in the areas of PhysX, and CUDA. AIBs were instructed to not sample HardOCP GTS 250 evaluation cards.

That along with the cartoon Amber linked shows Nvidia is upset at HardOCP for not reviewing PhysX or CUDA and probably had an understanding, tacit or explicit, that HardOCP would review PhysX or CUDA by accepting review samples. That's very different than publishing a review and giving an honest opinion, the point is that no review was done at all when the expectation was that HardOCP would do a write-up having accepted review product over the last 6-8 months since CUDA PhysX launched.

Why would HardOCP review CUDA? Hard are primarily a gaming site.

How much control do you think manufacturers should have over reviews? Should they be able to say which games to use, or what system to put the card in? Should they say what settings to benchmark them or what competitors cards to compare them to?

Whether NV are butthurt at Kyle for not reviewing PhysX or CUDA is pretty irrelevant to my point. If the manufacturers have too much control over a review its not a review but becomes an advertisement.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
See that seems like it would be a no-harm no-issue outcome to me, but NV would appear to have taken a bit of an over-reaction to it.

NV sends an extra presskit out that doesn't generate a review. They might lose a $100 in shipping, plus an advance on the cost of owning one more review board.

But the penalty here just doesn't seem comparable to the cost involved.

Well the 3D Vision press kit was like $600 IIRC, $200 glasses + $400 monitor, so that would've really pissed them off if they accepted that kit and sat on it. But it sounds like its a culmination of many offenses more than anything else. Still, not sure what Kyle is hoping to accomplish through this, its clearly going to hurt his site more than its going to hurt Nvidia.

At any rate as I mentioned in the OP the Kyle/NV spat wasn't what intrigued me, it was the claims leveled by Charlie that NV is intentionally seeding the reviewers with cherry-picked samples.

Charlie can claim air is OK to breath and it would suddenly make me suspicious of whether breathing air is really OK, so I'm not taking Charlie's word on this one iota, but it has now peaked my interest to see what Anandtech comes out to say about this when (if) their review debuts.

Ya I didn't really see any evidence of that though. Sounds like Charlie is insinuating that merely rebranding and relaunching by itself is a sin by implying additional performance. Personally I'd be shocked if any review site that reviewed this part came to any conclusion other than it performed identically to a 55nm 9800GTX+. Based on that level of performance the GTS 250 name fits fine within the current 200-series naming scheme, as would a GTS 240.

The only area he might have a point is cherry-picked overclocking samples, but so few sites do any in-depth OC'ing benches that its pretty much irrelevant, not to mention the 55nm 9800GTX+ has always been an adept overclocker.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Idontcare
See that seems like it would be a no-harm no-issue outcome to me, but NV would appear to have taken a bit of an over-reaction to it.

NV sends an extra presskit out that doesn't generate a review. They might lose a $100 in shipping, plus an advance on the cost of owning one more review board.

But the penalty here just doesn't seem comparable to the cost involved.

Well the 3D Vision press kit was like $600 IIRC, $200 glasses + $400 monitor, so that would've really pissed them off if they accepted that kit and sat on it. But it sounds like its a culmination of many offenses more than anything else. Still, not sure what Kyle is hoping to accomplish through this, its clearly going to hurt his site more than its going to hurt Nvidia.

At any rate as I mentioned in the OP the Kyle/NV spat wasn't what intrigued me, it was the claims leveled by Charlie that NV is intentionally seeding the reviewers with cherry-picked samples.

Charlie can claim air is OK to breath and it would suddenly make me suspicious of whether breathing air is really OK, so I'm not taking Charlie's word on this one iota, but it has now peaked my interest to see what Anandtech comes out to say about this when (if) their review debuts.

Ya I didn't really see any evidence of that though. Sounds like Charlie is insinuating that merely rebranding and relaunching by itself is a sin by implying additional performance. Personally I'd be shocked if any review site that reviewed this part came to any conclusion other than it performed identically to a 55nm 9800GTX+. Based on that level of performance the GTS 250 name fits fine within the current 200-series naming scheme, as would a GTS 240.

The only area he might have a point is cherry-picked overclocking samples, but so few sites do any in-depth OC'ing benches that its pretty much irrelevant, not to mention the 55nm 9800GTX+ has always been an adept overclocker.

It is all a bit of a fuss about nothing as Kyle could just use a 9800GTX+ for his review, although that would probably really piss NV off.

 

[Barfo]

Will the rebadged card be cheaper or at least the same prce as the 9800s? I don't see that much of a problem if they are, as a consumer you learn to sort through the BS propaganda and read at least a few reviews and benchmarks before buying something.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Why would HardOCP review CUDA? Hard are primarily a gaming site.

Idk, but apparently Nvidia felt they should and was upset enough about it that they didn't they were willing to withold future review samples. Also, PhysX does relate directly to gaming.

How much control do you think manufacturers should have over reviews? Should they be able to say which games to use, or what system to put the card in? Should they say what settings to benchmark them or what competitors cards to compare them to?

Whether NV are butthurt at Kyle for not reviewing PhysX or CUDA is pretty irrelevant to my point. If the manufacturers have too much control over a review its not a review but becomes an advertisement.

Thing is, it goes both ways. Its still a business on both ends and clearly review sites are heavily dependent on receiving review samples. Besides the cost of hardware, having product on launch day drives traffic to a site, which builds readership over time. Just as not having product will result in declining readership over time.

As for how much control I think they should have, none, but if a review site agrees, explicitly or tacitly, to review or cover something by accepting samples, they should do it. Realistically though both vendors set guidelines and criteria for testing and those restrictions are more stringent for highly allocated/exclusive products and samples.

The GTX 295 and 4870X2 previews are good recent examples, where both IHVs dictated the number of titles that could be tested and only a select handful of reviewers got product worldwide. Nvidia went a step further and gave a list of titles that could be tested, but ultimately both NV and ATI were controlling the overall testing guidelines to limit their exposure to driver problems.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Why would HardOCP review CUDA? Hard are primarily a gaming site.

Idk, but apparently Nvidia felt they should and was upset enough about it that they didn't they were willing to withold future review samples. Also, PhysX does relate directly to gaming.

How much control do you think manufacturers should have over reviews? Should they be able to say which games to use, or what system to put the card in? Should they say what settings to benchmark them or what competitors cards to compare them to?

Whether NV are butthurt at Kyle for not reviewing PhysX or CUDA is pretty irrelevant to my point. If the manufacturers have too much control over a review its not a review but becomes an advertisement.

Thing is, it goes both ways. Its still a business on both ends and clearly review sites are heavily dependent on receiving review samples. Besides the cost of hardware, having product on launch day drives traffic to a site, which builds readership over time. Just as not having product will result in declining readership over time.

As for how much control I think they should have, none, but if a review site agrees, explicitly or tacitly, to review or cover something by accepting samples, they should do it. Realistically though both vendors set guidelines and criteria for testing and those restrictions are more stringent for highly allocated/exclusive products and samples.

The GTX 295 and 4870X2 previews are good recent examples, where both IHVs dictated the number of titles that could be tested and only a select handful of reviewers got product worldwide. Nvidia went a step further and gave a list of titles that could be tested, but ultimately both NV and ATI were controlling the overall testing guidelines to limit their exposure to driver problems.

Being the manufacturers bitch is going to lose you readers as well, particularly at HardOCP as kyle has made a lot of fuss over his way of reviewing and how its better than everyone else's :roll:


I know both ATI and NV do this but it should be noted and they should be discouraged from going 'a step further' each time.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Being the manufacturers bitch is going to lose you readers as well, particularly at HardOCP as kyle has made a lot of fuss over his way of reviewing and how its better than everyone else's :roll:


I know both ATI and NV do this but it should be noted and they should be discouraged from going 'a step further' each time.

Yep I agree, just saying if you agree to the rules of the game then you should play by them. As readers we shouldn't really care what rules are set as long as the rules are generally fair for all involved.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Being the manufacturers bitch is going to lose you readers as well, particularly at HardOCP as kyle has made a lot of fuss over his way of reviewing and how its better than everyone else's :roll:


I know both ATI and NV do this but it should be noted and they should be discouraged from going 'a step further' each time.

Yep I agree, just saying if you agree to the rules of the game then you should play by them. As readers we shouldn't really care what rules are set as long as the rules are generally fair for all involved.

Well if the review is crafted/corralled to be less of an independent review and more of a seeded viral marketing advert then yeah you can count me in with the crowd of readers who do care about the "rules" of engagement that have been agreed to by the mercenary reviewer looking to make a paycheck by being a shill in disguise.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Well if the review is crafted/corralled to be less of an independent review and more of a seeded viral marketing advert then yeah you can count me in with the crowd of readers who do care about the "rules" of engagement that have been agreed to by the mercenary reviewer looking to make a paycheck by being a shill in disguise.

But again, as a tech site, you'd have to seriously question your neutrality and motives if you were unwilling to review new tech like PhysX and CUDA when provided the opportunity for free, would you not? Shouldn't be any different than any other new tech and I'd certainly say PhysX is as interesting as any recent development for PC gaming over the last 3-4 years.

I mean seriously, there's been enough of these threads recently where you'd think you were visiting forums.ludditetech.com rather than anandtech. No one should have to twist HardOCP's arm to review developing technology but I guess you can't really fault Nvidia either (as they're the ones supplying free hardware).

 

[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.

 

[NoStateofMind]

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.

Exactly. No BS , just the straight dope.

 

[AmdInside]

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.

The hardware companies are giving these websites free hardware and in essense, promoting their sites by giving them first samples of their products. So I think it is perfectly ok for hardware companies to demand/recommend certain features be tested or referenced but I don't think a hardware company should tell a website what they can't do as long as it doesn't break NDA (ie releaseing a review too early, ectc.)

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: chizow
Wouldn't be a surprise at all given Kyle's recent reaction when Nvidia asked him to review 3D Vision.

If anyone wants a review of 3D Vision, I can write one up. Don't worry, mine will be better than nRollo's thread.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: chizow
Not sure what the problem is here, as Nvidia isn't claiming the GTS 250 performs any different than a 9800GTX+ from what I read.

Then why should anyone give a damn?

IDK, guess it was a slow news day.

Originally posted by: Idontcare
the claims leveled by Charlie that NV is intentionally seeding the reviewers with cherry-picked samples.

They are yet they aren't.

GTX 250 is under embargo, so ask me again in a couple weeks and I'll explain.

Really though, Charlie is just putting his usual spin on all things NVIDIA. Nothing to see. Move along.

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
It is all a bit of a fuss about nothing as Kyle could just use a 9800GTX+ for his review, although that would probably really piss NV off.

You hush now! We had the idea first! :|

LOL, we were actually discussing that at work, supposing if we could find a reviewer with enough brass that had reviewed the 9800 GTX+ and perhaps bribing them to "review" the GTS 250 by reprinting their old article with the words "9800 GTX+" blatantly crossed out and "GTS 250" written in. We decided it, er, wouldn't be prudent.

Originally posted by: chizow
As for how much control I think they should have, none, but if a review site agrees, explicitly or tacitly, to review or cover something by accepting samples, they should do it.

Right. There are enough crappy "review" sites that are just a cover for scamming samples off manufactuers.

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.

That costs money, plus reviews obviously won't be completed by embargo date.

However, if that's what you want... just read my "mini reviews" in the motherboard forum. I paid for those motherboards out of my own pocket.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Well if the review is crafted/corralled to be less of an independent review and more of a seeded viral marketing advert then yeah you can count me in with the crowd of readers who do care about the "rules" of engagement that have been agreed to by the mercenary reviewer looking to make a paycheck by being a shill in disguise.

But again, as a tech site, you'd have to seriously question your neutrality and motives if you were unwilling to review new tech like PhysX and CUDA when provided the opportunity for free, would you not? Shouldn't be any different than any other new tech and I'd certainly say PhysX is as interesting as any recent development for PC gaming over the last 3-4 years.

Absolutely agree with you here. There is no passion in a HardOCP review, just bitch bitch bitch.

I look forward to review sites that are reviewing hardware because they want to see what it can do because they want to be there on the edge one of the first handful of sites who gets to watch history in the making someday.

Kyle's more the "we don't need no stinking newfangled technology" types...which does have a legitimate demographic and market-advert opportunity, so I don't fault him for portraying himself and his site as endeavoring to serve that demographic.

Originally posted by: chizow
I mean seriously, there's been enough of these threads recently where you'd think you were visiting forums.ludditetech.com rather than anandtech. No one should have to twist HardOCP's arm to review developing technology but I guess you can't really fault Nvidia either (as they're the ones supplying free hardware).

If I were to venture a guess as to why this observation may be developing it would be that more and more folks are having their attentions drawn to the GPU arena who haven't paid as close attention to it in the past. So they may not be new to computers but they are new to the existing drama that has been ongoing (and old news to industry watchers such as yourself) for some time now.

I'd take it as a good thing, better to have an audience willing to openly state the limitations in their knowledge on the background info than have a forum full of forever clueless lurkers.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I am curious to see if all the early reviews show this card as some kind of great overclocker, then the forums start to show it's not as good as those early reviews lead people to believe. I guess we'll have to wait a bit to see if Nvidia is playing dirty here.

For the record, I'm glad Nvidia is finally making a bit more sense with their naming schemes then they did with all the varients of the 8800, 9600, and 9800 cards. But at the same time, yet another respin...