HardOCP refuses to review GTS 250

[Rangers]

Thats my thought aswell. I'm a big Nvidia fan, but this rebranding will only fool those who dont follow the industry/market. I say good for Kyle for not wanting to try to fool those who might visit his site.


On a side thought, he could have agreed but started his whole review with something to the likes of "We reviewed these exact same cards before here, here and here only now they have a different name but still taste the same." in like 24pt font to include the links.

Whats wrong with rebranding? Who really cares?

Especially as Nvidia's architecture is basically the same on all it's GPU's. I mean I compare my 128 SP's in 9800GTX+ to GT 260 or whatever just fine. It's basically the same architecture.

I guess, would people be happy if Nvidia made a "true" GT250 an all new sku and die..that would end up performing exactly like G92 anyway, with similar SP's, rops, and everything else? Simply because then it's "new"?

However, Nvidia seems the target of a lot of ire lately, and I have to wonder if being the last GPU only company really is going to start being a problem for them (although the two things arent related, it just seems like they're struggling).

 

[trinibwoy]

I guess, would people be happy if Nvidia made a "true" GT250 an all new sku and die..that would end up performing exactly like G92 anyway, with similar SP's, rops, and everything else? Simply because then it's "new"?

Yep, they would.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Yep they they would. But there would be very little benefit for the consumer (if any) and negative benefit for NV (which they would pass on to he consumer).

I really don't see the issue with this rebranding. It makes the product line much simpler to understand IMO and as Rangers said, G92 is already little more (or less) than a cut down GT2xx anyway.

A GT250 review has its merits. Its nice to see how that card sits in the current NV product range (next to the 240, 260 and 285). Its also nice to see how it performs in the latest titles at image quality settings that are expected from a midrange card.

Sure we can work this out from older reviews and +/- 10% to account for image quality settings etc.... or we can just read a nice convenient new review that tells us everything we need to know without the effort of having to dredge through 6 month old reviews.

One thing is certain though, they should absolutely make it very clear in every review that this is a re-branded 9800GTX+. But then, if anything, as a consumenr I would see that as a bonus. Afterall, it was pretty recently that that was an ultra high end GPU.

 

[ChrisRay]

Thats exactly my thoughts. With the exception of geometry shader improvements. The performance benefits would be small. If any at all..

 

[willardjuice]

Not in cuda though! For developers it's disappointing.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I suspect that Kyle would quite clearly complain that it's nothing more than a rebrand of an old model to sell old stock. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nvidia reviewer guidelines tell the reviewers to specifically not mention that fact, and this is where the conflict arises. If Nvidia can't control what HardOCP publishes, they've decided to prevent Kyle from publishing anything by blocking any form of review sample. H fights back by revealing such behind the scene tactics to his audience and the rest of us.

 

[ChrisRay]

Hehe I'm sorry that conspiracy theory is obsurd. Nvidia couldn't hide it or control the web like that if they wanted too. 90% of the time reviewer guides get published anyways. Reviewers Guides are typically on Nvidia's press website and not watermarked and they really aren't as devious as you might think. They are just general guides with typically useful data on recent games, software, specs, ect. And occasional suggestions on how to benchmark new titles((such as Mirrors Edge and PhysX processing and multiple cards)). They typically have a comparison chart ((typically the type everyone here loves!)) of their own internal benchmarks as well.

 

[Davros]

So there are no "orders" in these guides ?

 

[CarstenS]

So there are no "orders" in these guides ?

Orders like "Thou shalt not name GTS 250 a 9800 GTX++"?

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Hehe I'm sorry that conspiracy theory is obsurd. Nvidia couldn't hide it or control the web like that if they wanted too. 90% of the time reviewer guides get published anyways. Reviewers Guides are typically on Nvidia's press website and not watermarked and they really aren't as devious as you might think. They are just general guides with typically useful data on recent games, software, specs, ect. And occasional suggestions on how to benchmark new titles((such as Mirrors Edge and PhysX processing and multiple cards)). They typically have a comparison chart ((typically the type everyone here loves!)) of their own internal benchmarks as well.

So why did Nvidia organise a boycott of HardOCP with every Nvidia partner that might supply them with a review sample? Kyle seems to be saying it's for fear that HardOCP might say something about the card just being a rebadge of an older card.

If that's not a problem, and if there's no sanction against saying it's an older rebadge, then why alienate one of Nvidia's biggest friends in the hardware website world?

A company like Nvidia only tries to lock out someone like Kyle because (a) Kyle won't toe the party line, or (b) punishment for past offences.

 

[John Reynolds]

If you think NV PR isn't aggressive, bullish, or willing to hold grudges over many years, you're sadly mistaken. You also do not generally get sampled by AIB partners unless NV PR/marketing has you on their 'approved' list.

I write the above without any intentional criticsm, it's just the nature of how they operate.

 

[ChrisRay]

Oh I know that Nvidia will suggest, Mention, and encourage testing of CUDA/PhysX every chance they get. I am simply pointing out that original conspiracy theory you posted was hog wash about sealing an identity about a product like that. Its not something they could hide it anyway. Anyone with a screw driver and 10 minutes could look under the heatsink.

As far as any sorta political clash between HardocP and graphic vendors. Wouldn't be the first time. But I wouldn't know the personal details either.


*Edit* I was pretty tired last night. I just thought what you were saying about reviewers guides to be fairly funny. Thats all.

 

[ninelven]

The problem with the rebranding is that it gives the uneducated consumer the false sense of innovation.

If it were truly just about consolidating the naming scheme, they could have / should have done that when the GTX280 and GTX260 first launched. The 9800 "brand" still carried weight at the time so they stuck with it, now that it is losing steam (simply due to being around for so long) they have the motivation to change it.

It is just a gimmick to help spark more sales, but that is (and always has been) the nature of Nvidia. They are in business to make $$$, and they are good at it.

 

[homerdog]

They are in business to make $$$, and they are good at it.

I couldn't resist.

 

[ninelven]

And yet, they could buy AMD...

 

[Jawed]

G92b will be GTX280M too

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12222&Itemid=1

Jawed

 

[Arun]

Oh. My. God. I know mobile branding has always been a mess, but that takes the trophy. And come on, the 9800M GTX already had 112 SPs...

 

[Jawed]

No, taking the trophy would be calling it GTX285M. Maybe there's a hint in there somewhere that in fact GTX285M is coming a little later?...

And, shouldn't we be expecting GTX295M too?

Jawed

 

[Tridam]

Here are NV's guidelines to boards partners regarding the GTS 250 launch :

3/3 – Reviews go live of GTS 250 1GB fast boards (738/1100)

3/10 – GTS 250 1GB fast boards (738/1100) and 512MB boards available for sale.

3/17 – GTS 250 1GB slow boards (738/1000) available for sale.

NOTE: The older slow 1GB (1000MHz memory) boards should not go on sale till after 3/17. The only exceptions are if partners can overclock the memory on these to hit 1100MHz.

The 1GB GTS 250 will be released with 0.8ns memory or 1.0ns memory, just like the 9800 GTX+. Nvidia AFAIK never mentioned this slower memory but is bundling it with the G92b to board partners.

I guess part of the rebrand strategy is to associate the "new" GTS 250 with better PhysX and CUDA marketing. Nvidia doesn't have "great" products these days (doesn't mean they're bad either) so they have aggressive marketing trying to get these to look as best as possible. That of course includes trying to get most of the reviews done the way they like -> insist on the extra value brought by CUDA and PhysX.

It's not a big new product launch so they can afford ignoring some major websites which are reluctant to do that and could have a significant negative impact on the product image at launch. Nvidia and AMD always check with their partners who get the boards and ask them to send boards in priority to some website and not to some other. That being said somebody knowing people in the industry (such as Kyle) doesn’t need Nvidia or AMD support to get a board…

Nvidia’s strategy is always pissing off the uncooperative press when its products are not obvious winners. That’s why Kyle reacted I guess.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Charlie is also claiming that Nvidia are silently sending out overclocked & cherry picked cards to reviewers that are not representative of the retail product:

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.