New [H] editorial...

[digitalwanderer]

Everyone who can objectively observe the results and who has read hardocp.com for a number of years, including all there video card reviews would never come to the conclusion that Kyle is monetarily tied with Nvidia. And I would hardly try compare this with any field of science.

I have absolutely NO clue how you could possibly make this statement, truly. It just boggles me.

If you don't want people to put words in your mouth next time, learn to clarify your posts, rather then posting ambiguous sarcastic remarks.

What else am I supposed to conclude from your post above? I'm not psychic here.

Kyle IS monetarily tied to nVidia, DoomTrooper explained it very nicely, and has been for quite some time. It's been over the top for the last 6 months though, how else do you explain his almost-trilinear justificationomercial he did for UT2k3 for nVidia?

 

[Slides]

Using doomtroopers definition, every single website which uses advertising is monetarily tied to some manufacturer and should not be trusted.

 

[Matt]

Everyone who can objectively observe the results and who has read hardocp.com for a number of years, including all there video card reviews would never come to the conclusion that Kyle is monetarily tied with Nvidia. And I would hardly try compare this with any field of science.

I have absolutely NO clue how you could possibly make this statement, truly. It just boggles me.

If you don't want people to put words in your mouth next time, learn to clarify your posts, rather then posting ambiguous sarcastic remarks.

What else am I supposed to conclude from your post above? I'm not psychic here.

Kyle IS monetarily tied to nVidia, DoomTrooper explained it very nicely, and has been for quite some time. It's been over the top for the last 6 months though, how else do you explain his almost-trilinear justificationomercial he did for UT2k3 for nVidia?

Visiontek, BFG, & MSI do not equal NVIDIA. Monetarily tied? How can money be tied to anything? So if the money came from Point A and came from Point B and Point B got it from Point C, then that must mean the money is tied to A, B, and C? You guys come up with some really silly stuff to go along with your agendas.

 

[WaltC]

Well in that case I accuse Dave of being paid off by ATI. I have no proof, but it's my gut feeling based on Dave's words.

OK, but why say this even teasingly? Is there an opinion of Dave's that he has failed to ground in empirically demonstrable fact? That is precisely what has been wrong with frgmstr's opinions of the last several months--they have not been grounded in demonstrable fact. Hence the criticisms abound. Indeed, his latest statement simply proves how ungrounded in fact his previous opinions actually were, does it not?

In Dave's case the criticisms are nearly non-existent. It is one thing to state an opinion which seems partial to a product but is well-grounded in fact--quite another to present biased opinions for which very little, if any, proof is provided to support such opinions.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with saying "I like product X better than product Y," provided you have solid justification for your point of view. However, if you fail to provide solid justification for your point of view then you may rightly be accused of bias. That's the root of this entire issue, IMO.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Ahhh yes they do, give me a break. Nvidia does not manufacture cards and their products are produced by AIBs. Try to fool some of the less informed people out there Matt.

BFG is partly owned by Nvidia with the Visiontek split, and if money comes from there it comes from Nvidia.
Simply put, their is Nvidia powered GPU's on those cards, which are bought from Nvidia by the AIBs. If the AIBs fail, so does Nvidia.

You guys come up with some really silly stuff to go along with your agendas

Coming from someone famous for editorials that border on laughable, I wouldn' talk much

 

[Slides]

Walt, it's upto you to prove that Dave is not paid of by ATI because I see him as one of ATI's strongest supporters in the hardware community and he has a special relationship with them bla bla...

I don't really believe that, but if I wore a tin-foil hat, I could run with this very silly logic.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Dave didn't have strong relations with ATI a year ago, a few people helped out. Me being one of them, but I take no credit for the sucess and relationship that has grown between ATI and B3D. That was all done after a few emails I made.
ATI saw what we all see, Dave Baumann and the crew are knowlegable, honest people...always have been since the original B3D days where they got accused for 3DFX bias.

Dave prefers the superior hardware presently, you would be a fool to say otherwise...

 

[WaltC]

Walt, it's upto you to prove that Dave is not paid of by ATI because I see him as one of ATI's strongest supporters in the hardware community and he has a special relationship with them bla bla...

I don't really believe that, but if I wore a tin-foil hat, I could run with this very silly logic.

So you think it's "silly" to prove your points. I'm amazed that you could read my post above and not understand its extremely simple logic.

Frankly, I could care less where Dave's, Kyle's, or your paycheck comes from. None of you is running for office and so you aren't required to submit public financials. What I care about is bias. If you prove your points with demonstrable, repeatable data that validates the information you provide--whether one product turns out better than another because of that data is entirely beside the point. There is a difference between products of all types in the marketplace, from TV's to dishwashers to automobiles to 3d cards. Differences do exist. Am I to fault a hardware reviewer because he discovers those differences, reveals them to me, and proves the validity of his assertions? Hardly. Rather, I will thank him for doing so. The criticism lodged against frgmstr in recent months comes from the fact that he has been very strong on assertions and very weak on proving them valid. This lead many to believe his assertions were therefore invalid--something frgmstr's recent statement proves beyond doubt. That's 180-degrees out from Dave, IMO.

 

[jb]

jb:

Sooner according to your views? I didn't realize there was a timetable to stand up and voice an opinion. I better start making schedules. ... Whether or not he is timely with the opinion is a moot point, if you ask me.

Matt,
thanks for the reply. However Kyle him self stated in his forms that he knew of this trilinear filtering issue months before the Beyond 3D Police broke the story (his exact words). However in that time 4 or more hardware reviews that had ATI and NV cards compaired side by side we done by HardOCP in this time frame. It was not unit ATI complianed that they did that tri-linear artical and then made it more public. Question is if you KNOW PRIOR that there is an issue, then shouldn't you make that known in your review? But no he sitting on it till now. Thats what I ment by sooner. He should have hade a little side note or something as soon as he knew it was different but he did not. Thus we have faulty review information that has been made public that he knew about. Thats not helping the community. He then blew off all regaurds to nV cheating in 3dmark. Even accused ET of doing the article in revenge because ET did not get to do a Doom3 test. He said in his forums who cares its a worthless benchmark. But now he cares? What he did the other day was a good thing. But too little too late. If you really want to get the point accross stop posting UT2k3 scores in reviews. Say public unitl NV gives up proper Trilinear we will not post review scores. I am sure if HardOCP, FS and a few others did that you would have your fix with in days not months

 

[Slides]

So you think it's "silly" to prove your points. I'm amazed that you could read my post above and not understand its extremely simple logic.

LOL, that's EXACTLY what I'm asking of people who accuse Kyle of being monetarily rewarded for his opinions to do, but they have failed to do so. And everyone has biases, it's just that some people (like Dave) do not let it get in the way of reporting the truth.

 

[digitalwanderer]

it's upto you to prove that Dave is not paid of by ATI because I see him as one of ATI's strongest supporters in the hardware community and he has a special relationship with them bla bla...

Uhm, no Dave isn't....I am! Dave is just better respected since he's all educated and not a flaming lunatic all the time.

Frankly, I could care less where Dave's, Kyle's, or your paycheck comes from. None of you is running for office and so you aren't required to submit public financials. What I care about is bias. If you prove your points with demonstrable, repeatable data that validates the information you provide--whether one product turns out better than another because of that data is entirely beside the point. There is a difference between products of all types in the marketplace, from TV's to dishwashers to automobiles to 3d cards. Differences do exist. Am I to fault a hardware reviewer because he discovers those differences, reveals them to me, and proves the validity of his assertions? Hardly. Rather, I will thank him for doing so. The criticism lodged against frgmstr in recent months comes from the fact that he has been very strong on assertions and very weak on proving them valid. This lead many to believe his assertions were therefore invalid--something frgmstr's recent statement proves beyond doubt. That's 180-degrees out from Dave, IMO.

Once again WaltC puts it in perspective and says it eloquently. I'm in total agreement with him.

The money issue isn't as important as the hypocrisy issue.

EDITED BITS: "better" for "betterered", I have no clue what me fingers were thinking.

 

[digitalwanderer]

LOL, that's EXACTLY what I'm asking of people who accuse Kyle of being monetarily rewarded for his opinions to do, but they have failed to do so. And everyone has biases, it's just that some people (like Dave) do not let it get in the way of reporting the truth.

Swell, but there isn't anyone here really pushing the "Kyle is a paid shill" agenda right now, we're just talking about his glaring hypocrisy and rampant egoism.

 

[WaltC]

LOL, that's EXACTLY what I'm asking of people who accuse Kyle of being monetarily rewarded for his opinions to do, but they have failed to do so. And everyone has biases, it's just that some people (like Dave) do not let it get in the way of reporting the truth.

But my point is that you can't make a case for Dave's being "paid off" because Dave doesn't make assertions he fails to prove; it's much easier for people to make such a connection in frgmstr's case because of the many assertions he's made over the last months which he doesn't even attempt to prove (let alone fails to prove after attempting to do so.)

You see the difference? If Dave was as lax and unconcerned about proving his opinions as frgmstr has been then you'd have a point--but since that's not the case at all, I can't see how you do.

I think whether we agree that the likelyhood of frgmstr being "paid off" in actuality is high or low, it's obvious that frgmstr has done far more to cause people to leap to that conclusion than anybody else that I'm currently aware of who purports to do hardware reviews. By making the kinds of declarative statements he's made over the past months without attemtping to prove them it is frgmstr himself who is ultimately the chief architect of such sentiments--even if you or I individually find them unlikely.

 

[Entropy]

The motivations of Kyle are really less interesting speculation material than trying to figure out what will happen next on the nVidia driver futzing front.
Will other large websites (Anand, Toms) start to actually inform their readers?
Will hell freeze over, and nVidia stop their practises and revoke the driver encryption decision?
What will antagonising parts of the enthusiast community cost nVidia, and do we have any means to actually gauge the cost/benefit of their methods?

Entropy

 

[Doomtrooper]

People need to realize that these websites are companies, especially Anand and the other big 2. The webmasters make good money doing it, they don't do it for the goodness of their heart

 

[Entropy]

People need to realize that these websites are companies, especially Anand and the other big 2. The webmasters make good money doing it, they don't do it for the goodness of their heart

People don't just go to one site though.
Wouldn't continued silence look very odd from sites that purport to protect the interests of their readers? On the other hand, how would they justify their sidestepping the issue for as long as they have?
For instance. This whole affair with all its ramification is excellent stuff for anyone wishing for some lost innocense among the hardware web-surfers, so you should be happy DT.

Entropy

 

[WaltC]

Will other large websites (Anand, Toms) start to actually inform their readers?

Is that seriously an issue for you? Honestly, if everybody was doing the job of B3d there'd be little need for B3d, would there?... I think that it's the difference in the quality and kind of coverage that distinguishes B3d from sites like Anand's and Toms. Different strokes for different folks, and so forth. Some people read Consumer Reports to get advice on an upcoming auto purchase while some people read Car & Driver and wouldn't be caught dead reading CR. Etc. Different sites serve different audiences with differing budgets, needs and desires. I think things should stay the way they are, because a nice thing about reading sites which approach their material from differing perspectives is that the reader can get a wider range of opinion. Like is true with any other product type, it's ultimately a consumer's personal experience which lets him separate the wheat from the chaff when reading a variety of website opinion generated from differing points of view. It's nice to have the variety. I mean, I guess that's what I think even though I rarely visit Anand anymore and haven't visited Tom's in recent memory... Perhaps I've just outgrown them.

Will hell freeze over, and nVidia stop their practises and revoke the driver encryption decision?

That's a great question which I hope is asked of nVidia by someone--although candidly I'm afraid we'll get a stock "we do this to better provide our customers with stable drivers" answer in response. nVidia's doing it because they don't want a 3rd-party interfering with their driver agendas, which they would like to completely control.

What will antagonising parts of the enthusiast community cost nVidia, and do we have any means to actually gauge the cost/benefit of their methods?

Entropy

It will cost them nothing less than their former position of the #1 graphics supplier. Presumably, they will eventually see this and understand that "it's not nice to fool the enthusiast community"....

 

[Doomtrooper]

People need to realize that these websites are companies, especially Anand and the other big 2. The webmasters make good money doing it, they don't do it for the goodness of their heart

People don't just go to one site though.
Wouldn't continued silence look very odd from sites that purport to protect the interests of their readers? On the other hand, how would they justify their sidestepping the issue for as long as they have?
For instance. This whole affair with all its ramification is excellent stuff for anyone wishing for some lost innocense among the hardware web-surfers, so you should be happy DT.

Entropy

I am happy, in the last year the entire internet has been made aware...aware of the bias, aware of poor journalism, aware of the state of the industry. I don't like Anand much anymore, never really did for video card reviews. Their motherboard articles are OK etc..Tomshardware is blatantly biased with a Nvidia fan site webmaster doing video card reviews then stating great one liners like "X-box doesn't support PS 1.4, so why should developers support it".
[H] started coming around last year, doing better reviews until I saw the Nvidia connection there, then review quality dropped off significantly including IQ...the editors must have RMA'd their eyes.

Beyond3D has been my favorite site for years, and in the Dave Barron days did not post much as I didn't even know what FSAA was back then.
This site educates and doesn't pull punches, something the others could learn alot from.

 

[Entropy]

Will other large websites (Anand, Toms) start to actually inform their readers?

Is that seriously an issue for you?

Well, yes actually.
I have a long standing interest in benchmarking generally, and if you look at hardware reviews of computer systems, video cards, hard drives and whatnot, they are dominated by - benchmarks. It could be claimed that benchmarks are used in the industry both for product evaluation and to drive percieved need.

Cheating at benchmarks strikes at the heart of what drives much of the hardware scene. Not only does cheating at benchmarks remove the sole means for informed comparative shopping a consumer can realistically do, it is also an insidious way to have other hands do your deceptions for you, websites and magazines in this case. (Intel has successfully played that game through BAPCo, although that was by putting out a benchmark tailored for their product.) Even now, it may be that nVidia, if we could tally the final scores, have benefitted from their practise. And it would be too bad if systematically decieving their customers and using perfectly well meaning reviewers to endorse and recommend their products based on such false data actually paid off for nVidia. If that was allowed to happen, particularly now that the cat is out of the bag, it would be very depressing and a very sad testament to the state of reporting on the internet.

All IMHO.

Entropy

 

[WaltC]

Well, yes actually.
I have a long standing interest in benchmarking generally, and if you look at hardware reviews of computer systems, video cards, hard drives and whatnot, they are dominated by - benchmarks. It could be claimed that benchmarks are used in the industry both for product evaluation and to drive percieved need.

Cheating at benchmarks strikes at the heart of what drives much of the hardware scene. Not only does cheating at benchmarks remove the sole means for informed comparative shopping a consumer can realistically do, it is also an insidious way to have other hands do your deceptions for you, websites and magazines in this case. (Intel has successfully played that game through BAPCo, although that was by putting out a benchmark tailored for their product.) Even now, it may be that nVidia, if we could tally the final scores, have benefitted from their practise. And it would be too bad if systematically decieving their customers and using perfectly well meaning reviewers to endorse and recommend their products based on such false data actually paid off for nVidia. If that was allowed to happen, particularly now that the cat is out of the bag, it would be very depressing and a very sad testament to the state of reporting on the internet.

All IMHO.

Entropy

Excellent points all. Putting it that way I tend to agree with you. Thanks for reminding me of some basics I just don't think about much anymore which I should be thinking about.