Kyle's new thread @[H]

[jjayb]

They've been working on the story, maybe, but the story was published after the D3 benches were publish was it not? 2 Facts, ET didn't get to bench D3, ET published after D3 benches. Yes/No? Do you not think that affected ET's decision to publish? Of course it did. It's human nature. If I were in ET's shoes, it would affect me too, and like them, I would have published. Now I believe that they published out of a desire to get the facts out, but Kyle was pointing out that ET aren't angels walking on water. GASP!!! You don't say??!

No maybe about it. It is fact. ET was working on this before they knew anything about the doom3 benches. For proof of this just look through these forums. Hints were dropped that an article was coming on this up to a week before it was published. Does Kyle really think if there were no doom3 benches ET would have just cancelled the article they were working on? I don't think for one minute that Kyle even remotely believes that. If you can't disprove the message, attack the messenger.

Another little fact, Kyle was one of Only 3 sites that was allowed to bench doom3. Do you think that affected his decision on his thoughts on Nvidia cheating? Of all the websites out there, he was one of only 3 chosen.

Another fact, Kyle was not chosen to be a beta member for 3dmark. Could that have affected his decision?

Who needs proof? I've got those 2 facts right there.

Common now, let's be adults about this. Everyone in this whole mess has an agenda. Nvidia, 3dMark, ET, Kyle, Ati, etc. Kyle came out and said what he thought in the midst of a shit storm. That's why I applaud him.

You seriously applaud this behavior? Insinuating things with nothing to support it. And don't give me the same old, "it's a fact et wasn't involved in benching doom 3". It doesn't hold water. That fact alone, means nothing. Almost all Nv35 reviewers were not allowed the opportunity to bench doom3. If ET had not published this story it would have been irresponsible.

ET wasn't allowed to take a ride on a space shuttle either. I wonder why they haven't written an article about NASA cheating?[/quote]

 

[Althornin]

Kyle said that he didn't care about it. He didn't make a judgement on whether it was okay or not.

I beg to differ. He passes judgement constantly. He proclaims that it is impossible to cheat on a worhtless benchmark, and 3dmark is worthless (implication: nVidia isnt cheating). Thats ont he first page of that thread. Try again.


Fallacy:

How is that so? ET started working on the story on day 1, which was before the D3 reviews came out. Then, on day X, they published. Evidently, on day X, there was a decision made to put the story up. Why didn't ET wait for 3DMark to further investigate? Why didn't it wait for Nvidia? Do you not think that the D3 review might have had some impact? That doesn't make ET shady. That's saying that ET also has their agenda. They can be good people even though they have their own agenda! Is is really that hard to grasp?

Is it so hard to grasp that some companies might NOT be affected by not being included in the Doom3 benchies? Is it really that hard to grasp that there are people out there who stand up for things because they believe int hem, not for some petty agenda (using your implicit definition of agenda)? I think it is rediculous to imply (and he did imply it, please read his original posting) that the reason ET comes out with this article is lack of Doom3 benchies. Of course, the fact that they had noticed this issue before hand must mean that the Doom3 benchies could have shut them up, because they are as easily bought as kyle. Or at least, thats what you seem to be saying (once i take your views to an extreme). You also fail to note that B3D was aware of these cheats at some point. And as for waiting, why should they wait for Futuremark's announcement? They did the hard work, they deserve credit.


And if it is so obvious that NOT getting to bench Doom3 caused ET to publish, isnt it just as obvious that , as one of the limited number of websites aLLOWED to bench doom3, HardOCP and Kyle might be following their agenda? A particularly nVidia suited one? That this benchmark might have swayed kyles opinions on the matter?
Repeated assertion:

OMG, you said it TWICE!!! I must be wrong.

And now you have said some sarcastic stupidity twice, as if that lessens the impact of people pleading for you to actually read and comprehend.

 

[boobs]

You seriously applaud this behavior? Insinuating things with nothing to support it. And don't give me the same old, "it's a fact et wasn't involved in benching doom 3". It doesn't hold water. That fact alone, means nothing. Almost all Nv35 reviewers were not allowed the opportunity to bench doom3. If ET had not published this story it would have been irresponsible.

ET WAS acting responsibly overall, but the D3 thing probably DID affect their behavior. These things are not at odds at all.

Kyle came out swinging AGAINST 3dMark, but he did not try to defend Nvidia. He chose to NEITHER defend nor judge Nvidia because that would detract from his purpose, which is to reduce the influence of 3dMark. He came out and SAID this.

I like people who are straightforward, hence, I lauded Kyle for coming out and stating his intentions clearly.

I couldn't care less about the side issues.

In general:

Companies will do what benefits themselves if they can get away with it.
People will try to manipulate issues to their own purposes.
No one is perfectly pure and virtuous.
Just because someone isn't perfectly pure and virtuous doesnt' mean that he didn't do the right thing.
Just because someone has been wronged doesn't mean that his work is beyond repproach.

This is not rocket science.

 

[jjayb]

Hmmm, Kyle "I hate 3dmark" Bennets benchmark numbers for the 9700 upon release:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzQwLDI=

(*note* this is by Kyle himself. Not Brent or Pelly)

Guess what benchmark he uses? Oh, I don't know, could it be..................
3DMARK?!? (best read in a Dana Carvey church chat lady voice)

Not only does he use 3dmark2001, he uses the final score. The thing he is so vehemently fighting now. Even though 3dmark2001 scores exactly the way 3dmark03 does. You can't run all the tests, you end up with a lower score than a card that can.

So what happened between then and now? The only thing that happened was Nvidia coming out and saying they don't like 3dmark anymore.

By Kyle's methods which you support:

Fact: For a good portion of 3dmark2001's existence, only Nvidia could run all of the tests in it.
Fact: For a good portion of it's existence, Nvidia led the scores in 3dmark2001 due to being the only card that could run all of the tests.
Fact: Nvidia liked 3dmark2001.
Fact: Kyle liked 3dmark2001.
Fact: Kyle used 3dmark2001 in his reviews.
Fact: Kyle used the final score numbers in his reviews.
Fact: 3dmark03 came out.
Fact: Nvidia cards performed poorly on 3dmark03
Fact: Nvidia denounced 3dmark03.
Fact: Kyle denounced 3dmark03, siting the EXACT same reasons as Nvidia.
Fact: Kyle was allowed to bench doom3.
Fact: Another website shows strong evidence that Nvidia may be cheating in 3dmark.
Fact: Kyle dismisses allegations of Nvidia cheating while continuing to blame the whole situation on the benchmark Nvidia was cheating in.


Front page of beyond3d tommorow:

"Even though a lot of evidence has been shown that Nvidia was cheating at 3dmark, Kyle staunchly continues to defend Nvidia. We need to look at his motives. I've heard Kyle was very grateful to Nvidia for being given the red carpet treatment while being allowed to benchmark doom3. Could the reason be because he was bribed by being allowed to bench doom3? A little quid pro quo? Kyle defends them and Nvidia let's him bench doom3?

Disagree with me? I've got proof right there above the statement. Those are all true facts. It doesn't matter that they are irrelevant to suggesting he took a bribe. By your logic, as long as Kyle being allowed to bench doom3 is true, I can sling whatever mud I want, no matter how little substantiation I have.

 

[Tim]

Kyle said that he didn't care about it. He didn't make a judgement on whether it was okay or not.

...
So to directly answer your question, I am not sure how one can cheat at altering the score of a benchmark that obviously has no value to begin with.
...

Fallacy:

He is completely ignoring the fact that ET was working on the 3dmark article long before the Doom 3 testing was done. This makes the argument that ET might not have posted the 3dmark article if they had been allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks has completely backward.

How is that so? ET started working on the story on day 1, which was before the D3 reviews came out. Then, on day X, they published. Evidently, on day X, there was a decision made to put the story up. Why didn't ET wait for 3DMark to further investigate? Why didn't it wait for Nvidia?

Why should they wait, they had some pretty indisputable evidence. They asked nVidia for a comment they did't answer. An you completely fail to address the point.

Would ET have posted the 3dmark article if there had not been any Doom 3 benchmarks whatsoever? Nothing indicates that they would not?

You go on claiming that it has any relevance if ET had acted differently if they had had access to the Doom 3, which basically means that they should cancel their 3dmark article because some else are posting some completely on related Doom 3 benchmarks. You claim that this is not illogical, but you have not in any way accounted for why the that the fact that someone else gets access to Doom 3 should affect the release of an already planned article.

Do you not think that the D3 review might have had some impact? That doesn't make ET shady.

Sacrificing the truth to get more page hits, does not make them shady? You don’t think the truth is a important part of journalism?

That's saying that ET also has their agenda. They can be good people even though they have their own agenda! Is is really that hard to grasp?

Their agenda should be deliver good investigative journalism, if their agenda are something else they might still be good people in the grand scheme of things but they are certainly not good journalists.

Utter irrelevance:

But these facts has no relevans, it is basicly saying that it wrong to post the article because they might not gave posted if they had received a bribe.

And no matter what exposing cheaters can never be wrong thing to do, not exposing cheaters because you are allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks is highly immoral.

Nice one, claiming something that directly addresses your point is irrelevant without any argument whatsoever.

I was lauding Kyle for being upfront with his agenda instead of pretending to take the high road. How is what you said relevant to what I was saying?

I have seen no indicayion that Kyle is being upfront when he claims agenda is provide better benchmarking. His first attack against 3dmark was after the anti 3dmark whitepaper from nVidia, he keeps claiming that 3dmark is bad benchmark wihtout providing any arguments to support his claims.

I addressed your points one by one how can that not have relevance to what you where writing.

Assertion:

So do we, the only difference is hat you fail to see how illogical his arguments are.

OMFG that demolishes my arguments.


That is no assertion, I had already pointed out why the his arguments where illogical. And yes I demolished your arguments or are their some other reasons why your are avoiding to address my points?

Repeated assertion:

It is you that fails to understand.

OMG, you said it TWICE!!! I must be wrong.

Wow, I answered your assertion with an assertion damn I am evil.

 

[MrGaribaldi]

boobs>
Did Nvidia organize the D3 benchmarks so they would coincide with the Gf FX 5900U? Yes/No?
Did Nvidia release new drivers with/shortly after the launch of the Gf FX 5900Y? Yes/No?
Would it make sense for ET to publish their findings before the drivers were officially out? Yes/No?

It wouldn't make much sense to release a story about cheating drivers before anyone but reviewers had access to them...
So they waited for the drivers to be released (which according to nvidia's download page was May 14th), and publish the day after (May 15th)...

Now, can you please tell me how ET would have been able to release the story after the new drivers came out, but without it being after the D3 benches?

ET WAS acting responsibly overall, but the D3 thing probably DID affect their behavior.

How did it affect their behaviour? You keep on saying that it did, but in no way say how...
You could argue that if ET had been chosen to bench D3, they might not have released the story... But since they were allready underway with the story when the announcement of the benches came, how did it affect them?

The only way I can see that their behaviour was affected in any way, is that they didn't have to wrangle with their conscience about Nvidia trying to bribe them by letting them bench D3....
(I'm not saying the other sites who did D3 benches were bribed, only that to ET it could have felt like a bribe if they'd gotten the offer (and nvidia knew about the story beforehand)...)

 

[Reverend]

After a short exchange with Dave, we have decided to move this thread to the "3D Graphics Companies" forum, which has been re-titled "3D Graphics Companies and Industry" as well as an updated description which now reads "For views and discussions on 3D IHVs and industry including other websites".

 

[kyleb]

props Rev. i thought your argument for general dissusion was a bit silly but i really dig the solution it led to.

 

[Solomon]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

 

[rwolf]

Even though I think Kyle's argument here is wacko. HardOCP is a great website and deserves every penny they make.

Most other topics Kyle is bang on.

 

[gokickrocks]

although it may be hard to believe, but lately, i find tomshardware more informative than hardocp (excluding brent and pelly's reviews)

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

How much do you make?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

Exactly, but it is time for selective reviewing...just because you have webspace doesn't make you a authority, it is the content and credability that should determine if PR wants to send a review site a card.

ATI PR dissapoints me

 

[Solomon]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

How much do you make?

I don't mind sharing how much I make. I'm through UGO and not through private contracts like HardOCP and Anandtech. I bring roughly around $300.00 to $500.00 a month depending on traffic and what banners are fed through to the site. Server costs are around $250.00 (due to us being a file server). Anandtech makes roughly $10,000.00 dollars a month just for their first page alone. Scary!!! Hehe

When you go private you can make a ton of cash. Private is a hard sell unless you have a good amount of traffic. It's not a coincidence that the reviews you see at HardOCP are coupled by banners from that company.

We all remember the Matrox Parhelia and [H] debacle.

 

[Solomon]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

Exactly, but it is time for selective reviewing...just because you have webspace doesn't make you a authority, it is the content and credability that should determine if PR wants to send a review site a card.

ATI PR dissapoints me

I totally agree, reviewing hardware is a bitch and if you are going to do it right, do it right. You wouldn't believe how many bad reviews are out there. So many of these All-In-Wonder reviews are absolute crap. They talk about the A/V features and then go straight into benchmarking video games.

Doing bad reviews is a dis-service to the viewers who read them. But most of the webmasters can care less. They got the hardware and that's all that matters to them. From doing this for about 3 years now you run across some individuals that are just plain out doing it for the hardware. I can list a couple but that's just wrong.

Anyways, Doomtrooper is so right these companies PR people need to know what places deserve and will paint the honest picture of the card or hardware that they receive. These days it's hard to determine which review is solid (besides B3D of course ) The nV30 reviews showed which sites are loyal to nVidia. Sad... Brochure reviews suck!

 

[digitalwanderer]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

How much do you make?

I don't mind sharing how much I make. I'm through UGO and not through private contracts like HardOCP and Anandtech. I bring roughly around $300.00 to $500.00 a month depending on traffic and what banners are fed through to the site. Server costs are around $250.00 (due to us being a file server). Anandtech makes roughly $10,000.00 dollars a month just for their first page alone. Scary!!! Hehe

When you go private you can make a ton of cash. Private is a hard sell unless you have a good amount of traffic. It's not a coincidence that the reviews you see at HardOCP are coupled by banners from that company.

We all remember the Matrox Parhelia and [H] debacle.

Can I be in shock for just a second here?

10K/mos for front-page?!?!? WOW!

I was figuring you were talking more along the lines of what you're making here, a couple of hundred on a good month...but THAT much?!?!

Jeeze, now I'm wondering what DH's revenues were like...

 

[Solomon]

Hardware sites are a business, you are either a) In it for the money or b) In it to get free hardware. Some of ya would be shocked to know how much sites make. Anandtech for example makes a lot of money. I'm sure HardOCP makes a lot of money.

To think any of these big sites motives are purely opinionated has to see the big picture. It's a business so when business is mixed, money comes to mind.

How much do you make?

I don't mind sharing how much I make. I'm through UGO and not through private contracts like HardOCP and Anandtech. I bring roughly around $300.00 to $500.00 a month depending on traffic and what banners are fed through to the site. Server costs are around $250.00 (due to us being a file server). Anandtech makes roughly $10,000.00 dollars a month just for their first page alone. Scary!!! Hehe

When you go private you can make a ton of cash. Private is a hard sell unless you have a good amount of traffic. It's not a coincidence that the reviews you see at HardOCP are coupled by banners from that company.

We all remember the Matrox Parhelia and [H] debacle.

Can I be in shock for just a second here?

10K/mos for front-page?!?!? WOW!

I was figuring you were talking more along the lines of what you're making here, a couple of hundred on a good month...but THAT much?!?!

Jeeze, now I'm wondering what DH's revenues were like...

Going with an agency is and won't likely give you a lot of money. Most of the time you break even depending on the traffic. Yeah I don't make a lot of money, doesn't bother me as I'm not in it for the money. I do it because it's just fun and I like to voice opinions. Being a stand-alone site gives ya the luxury of just laying it out. I don't have to kiss-arse companies to please them or what not.

File servers don't make jack unless you are under private ads or some long term contract with a company (very rare these days)... You would be shitten bricks if you heard the amount Sharky was making awhile back a month.

 

[Socos]

If anand is making that kind of loot with the crap he publishes then I'm starting a web site tomorrow.. He rarely updates his page, and obviously gets mucho mula from Nivida seeings as the whole 3DMARK thing has gone completely unnoticed on his site. Geez it must not of happened. Amazing thing is the Quack thing made a big splash if I remember correctly.

So much for unbaised journalism.

 

[epicstruggle]

thats alot of loot.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Kasavin says he works to keep reviewers from these events as well, fearing that such familiarity has the potential to breed a conflict of interest. Unethical behavior, he says, “happens much more subtly. People become friends with people in the industry and then give more favorable coverage to their products.â€￾

That just about sums it up in Kyle's case.......

I think Kyle and ALOT of other webs sites should read this . It is definately applicable http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1049994303.php