Kyle throws a [H]issy fit about CrossFire shipping late

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that bit-tech's views on this are a little bit on the strong side (to put it mildly). Yes, ATI felt that comparing a X850 Crossfire to next-gen nVidia solutions was not proper. But it being a prequisite to get a board and samples? I will flat out say 'no'. Driverheaven used both a 7800GTX and a 7800GT SLI setup, which nV provided for the said review, and I believe ATI had no problems with that.
 
9 pages on this?!?!?!? You guys make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Almost as warm as getting those huge under the table checks for millions from ATI....or NVIDIA, or whoever it is this week. I think I am on AMD's payola roll this product cycle as well, but I will have to check with my accountants. You know when you whore it out this much it gets hard to keep up with.

And just so none of you super-spy-guys that know everything that goes on behind the scenes would not be able to prove any of it, I shredded all my emails. I just wish I would have printed them out first, that new shredder was expensive. But you know, money is no object over here, not when you get it for free! ;)
 
:eek:

I think Kyle just... won? I still think not (p)reviewing the X1800XT is a load of crap and sets a horrible precedent that will eventually bite him in the ass, but... that post was hilarious.
 
I dunno - he tells people not to read his website if they don't like what they see, and yet he feels the need to come here and defend himself.

Personally I think it just another nail in the coffin of his (and by extension [H]'s) reputation. It's not like it isn't already known he has a heavy Nvidia bias. He has done so for years, so nothing has changed there.

I used to visit there at least once a day, but haven't done for about five years because of that obvious bias - it's the way he wants to run his site, and so I don't trust what gets posted there, because his affiliations and emotions colour his words so much.
 
Well, I always respect those who are "Lord of their own domain" and have the cojones to stop in here on a controversial subject. They don't have to, and they know up front it probably isn't going to be pleasant.

No one has ever, to my knowledge, faulted Kyle for a lack of intestinal fortitude. At least not seriously --maybe in an effort to p*ss him off.

But given gas prices these days, I'm thinking he couldn't get him and his ego in the same hybrid. . .
 
I would've preferred a logical explanation as to why no XT testing and how that impacts future [H] articles and review standards--or is it a one-time, let's punish a specific IHV situation--rather than more immature, condescending comments.
 
But he'll settle for borrowing your XT for a couple weeks since you aren't using it.

:cool:
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
I dunno - he tells people not to read his website if they don't like what they see, and yet he feels the need to come here and defend himself.

But I love what I see here, that is why I visit! Peeple that do not like what they see on HardOCP are welcome to leave at any time. I am certainly not gong to change my style just because some folks have issue with my actions. But you know what, if you don't like what you read here, you can leave too! ;) (Now that was humor.)

And I was not defending myself, I was simply making fun of the posters who think there is a big conspiracy. I find it quite funny. You know funny as in, "Haha!"
 
FrgMstr said:
I gave that answer yesterday morning at 8:30AM CDT.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1028340286&postcount=16

Heh. The Euro boys are reporting they'd have given a non-critical body part to have had the amount of time the North Americans got.

But, yeah, that doesn't look all that unreasonable (tho that 500mhz memory difference is the real kicker there; 50% is whopping big to breezily writeoff as "just clocks") for that 1/2. . .but the reasonable implication is we'd see an X1800xt review from y'all in another week or so --will that happen? If not, when will it?

And it would have been a good idea to be that forthcoming on the point in the review itself.
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
That doesn't answer the question: is this new stance at [H] of not reviewing a product that is not yet shipping (because it's not yet shipping) going to apply to all future hardware reviews? Or was this just for ATI's benefit?

Your question is a bit different and I will be happy to answer it as well.

First off, on what you are referring to, where exactly is this policy put in place and exactly who executed it? Please link me to what you are looking at in print so I can explain to you what it means as I think you are confused as to what our policy is. That is understandable though as this topic has been approached from any angles, so seriously, it would help me answer your question knowing what exactly you are referring to.

Here is my overall stance on this, since you are interested. Also, and please take this to heart, we generally apply different standards to different areas of the site (Yes, we are expanded to four distinct areas of coverage later this year.) I wish I could rubber stamp one policy to every bit of content that we created, but that simply is not applicable in terms of both coverage and fiscal responsibility. (Yes, HardOCP is a business with currently around 9 editors working for us and that should expand to about 20 by Q2 of next year.) But back on topic and I will get to the simple ones first.

[H] Consumer - Currently covering desktop and laptop computer systems. All of the machines we are evaluating here are being purchased by HardOCP from the company's website or over the phone the same way a normal consumer would. So in this instance, if it is not available in retail, we don’t evaluate it. We have not ruled out the possibility of doing some “just released†boxes, but that will never be the focus of this part of the site.

[H] Enterprise – Same thing as above in terms of evaluation policy, but with a focus on retail server solutions.

[H] Console – Still totally up the air here on policy. We simply do not have enough experience in this market to make a call yet as to how we should handle things.

[H] Enthusiast – This is obviously the one you are interested in….but the rules here sort of change product to product.

*Motherboards / Chipsets – For about two years now I have been of the mindset that we do not evaluate motherboards that are not available in the retail channel, and also we do not eval motherboards that are engineering or pre-retail samples. We just found that too many “review samples†we were covering, either never ended up being sold in North America or the samples we were evaluating in no way shape or form represented what the end user was purchasing off the retail shelf. So for about two years now, we have done our best to only eval motherboards that come from retail stock and are for sale. That is our goal, and I would say that we do a very good job of reaching it although it is tough to be perfect at it. Bottom line is we gave us “doing it first†for “doing it right.†And I think this had made our mobo product category stronger for it.

*CPUs – To put it simply, Intel and AMD keep to the launch dates they set when they provide us with samples for testing, for the most part. Availability is not usually and issue with these guys any more. And just to note, that there have been a few CPUs in the past that we have “skipped†evaluating in the past because we felt they were simply “for show†CPUs that were not widely available and simply being “launched†to one-up the competition. So us not covering a product is nothing new.

*Video Cards – Our policy here is very much like the CPU policy. We evaluate the video cards and usually the companies stick to their “for sale†dates or at least hit a window that is within reason. We will also not include cards, much in the same manner that we might exclude a CPU. The NVIDIA 6800 Extreme Ultra comes to mind ( I think that was the name.) It seemed to be an obvious “one-up†card that would never come to production. You did not see it included in our reviews, but you did see it included on other sites.

I would say that all outlines our policy. I am sure you will have a follow up question or two, so I will make sure to come back and look for those, or feel free to mail them to me.
 
geo said:
Heh. The Euro boys are reporting they'd have given a non-critical body part to have had the amount of time the North Americans got.

But, yeah, that doesn't look all that unreasonable (tho that 500mhz memory difference is the real kicker there; 50% is whopping big to breezily writeoff as "just clocks") for that 1/2. . .but the reasonable implication is we'd see an X1800xt review from y'all in another week or so --will that happen? If not, when will it?

And it would have been a good idea to be that forthcoming on the point in the review itself.

I don't think any of the "Euro boys" use the same evaluation system we do and you might find that our program is heavily time intensive.

Yes, we will do a X1800XT eval, likely timed to publish with the "on sale" date.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
FrgMstr said:
I don't think any of the "Euro boys" use the same evaluation system we do and you might find that our program is heavily time intensive.

I suspect a whole continent worth of professional reviewers just went :oops:

Edit: Which, btw, is not to denigrate [H]'s methods or time involved. For instance, I personally love those FPS graphs. I'm just suggesting that some of the European sites might think they put at least as much work in per card as y'all do. Like --and this is totally a guess-- this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
geo said:
I suspect a whole continent worth of professional reviewers just went :oops:


Do you really? I seriously doubt any of them are in shock because professional reviewers know just how much more time intensive our eval system is if they have ever even dabbled in it.

I speak from experience on this. It takes a ton more time to do video card evaluations the way we do now as compared to the reviews we used to do that included a bunch of timedemos. I wish I could slather a review with game timedemos and 3DMark benchmark numbers but the fact of the matter is that I do not believe in doing it that way any more. If it works for you or other people that is fine, but I only have one person that I have face in the mirror every morning.

Brent and I were on a plane on the way back from ATI one year and were discussing doing video card coverage differently. We dug into what it was really going to take in terms of man hours. It was then that I hired Brent full time.
 
FrgMstr said:
Your question is a bit different and I will be happy to answer it as well.

Well, I think you've answered it pretty comprehensively there. If those are your stated intentions and you apply them consistently across all hardware manufacturers, then I've not got any issue if that's how you want to run your site. What you've posted here is a much more compelling and professional argument than you saying you're going to "rip ATI a new one".
 
FrgMstr said:
Brent and I were on a plane on the way back from ATI one year and were discussing doing video card coverage differently. We dug into what it was really going to take in terms of man hours. It was then that I hired Brent full time.
How did you break him in :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top