Nvidia giving free GPU samples to reviewers that follow procedure

The fact that you had to do a cross comparison with multiple different articles speaks volume about the poor quality of the original review.

Also the farce that is 6800XT review where they tested Dirt 5 with it's lackluster RT implementation and used it to gauge current AMD RT performance, this is outright deception and user manipulation right there, they can scream objectivity and fairness all they like, but they blatantly lied to their userbase in that review.
 
RTX 3070 review video (fast forwarded to discuss RT):

Cross-comparison benchmarks:
https://www.techspot.com/review/2124-geforce-rtx-3070/

Cyberpunk RT and DLSS benchmarks:
https://www.techspot.com/article/2165-cyberpunk-dlss-ray-tracing-performance/

EDIT: It's pointless engaging with you guys if you're going to be dishonest and intentionally dense.

yah so the review where he tests RT in one game, Tomb Raider, at two resolutions and then concludes the second gen RT cores have not improved which is “super disappointing to see” lol. I like HU but the RT coverage in this review is just plainly bad. If you think that’s dishonest of me to say then I don’t know what to tell you.
 
The fact that you had to do a cross comparison with multiple different articles speaks volume about the poor quality of the original review.

...you do know HUB = techspot, right?

EDIT: For clarity, I'm linking the techspot's charts because I can't link screenshots here. The data and reviewers are otherwise the same.
 
yah so the review where he tests RT in one game, Tomb Raider, at two resolutions and then concludes the second gen RT cores have not improved which is “super disappointing to see” lol. I like HU but the RT coverage in this review is just plainly bad. If you think that’s dishonest of me to say then I don’t know what to tell you.

OK, we're just going to agree to disagree.

But, you are taking the side of Nvidia on this, while myself and the others in this thread are siding with HUB, LTT, GN, J2C, and PH.

Peace out.
 
OK, we're just going to agree to disagree.

But, you are taking the side of Nvidia on this, while myself and the others in this thread are siding with HUB, LTT, GN, J2C, and PH.

Peace out.

I am not taking Nvidia's side! I do not think they should stop providing cards to HU. I like HU. I watch their videos, especially the monitor reviews. I just think it's completely dishonest to suggest HU has been covering RT adequately in their reviews. Their RT coverage in gpu reviews is actually just bad. I can understand why Nvidia doesn't want to send them cards. But I don't think they should stop working with them and giving them cards. This is a losing situation for Nvidia.

Also, LTT and J2C make garbage content so I'm ok not being on their side. I don't even know what PH is. Gamer's Nexus is good.

Edit:
Am I missing something here or did they not even show any RT data in their written 3070 review? They test both Metro and Tomb Raider but don't do a pass with RT on. On top of that, they don't even mention RT cores in the specs or talk about it as being an ampere feature. The words ray and tensor don't appear in the written article.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2124-geforce-rtx-3070/
 
Last edited:
Disagree.

If a reviewer said they were testing the 6900xt and their review had 6 games with RT settings and one game at non RT settings, do you believe that would be a fair review as long as the reviewer said, “I believe RT is the future of gaming, and if you want non RT data go to another high quality channel.”

I don’t think anyone would consider that fair. This is essentially what HU did with their 3070 and 3060ti FE reviews, but even more heavily skewed in the opposite direction to rasterization.

I am not sure how can one evaluate fairness here. More importantly, such a review wouldn't be informative as RT is hardly happening with the product.

Time will tell whether the selection was skewed. I am betting on it wasn't.
 
No, that's not giving people the information on RT performance so they can decide. That's the opposite. That's deciding what someone's usage is going to be, and how much they will value RT, and consequently offering only the minimum possible amount of information on RT performance.

If the tradeoffs of RT are consistent, covering more games isn't very helpful. I am glad there are reviewers not wasting time on talking points of particular sides.
 
I am not sure how can one evaluate fairness here. More importantly, such a review wouldn't be informative as RT is hardly happening with the product.

Time will tell whether the selection was skewed. I am betting on it wasn't.

Lol, so giving ray tracing performance data for currently available games (control, metro, tomb raider, world of warcraft, cod warzone, cod black ops, fortnite, cyberpunk, minecraft, battlefield v, watch dogs legion, ghost runner) wouldn't be informative because RT is barely happening and you think there's actually a possibility that ray tracing will not be supported more in the future ...
 
If the tradeoffs of RT are consistent, covering more games isn't very helpful. I am glad there are reviewers not wasting time on talking points of particular sides.

You think RT performance is consistent across multiple games, multiple settings, multiple resolutions and multiple gpus? You think showing that data would be wasting time on talking points of a particular side? LOL.
 
Showing RT performance is more relevant then talking about or showing benchmarks that includes SAM data. What percentage of the gaming population can currently enjoy the benefits of SAM?
 
Lol, so giving ray tracing performance data for currently available games (control, metro, tomb raider, world of warcraft, cod warzone, cod black ops, fortnite, cyberpunk, minecraft, battlefield v, watch dogs legion, ghost runner) wouldn't be informative because RT is barely happening and you think there's actually a possibility that ray tracing will not be supported more in the future ...

Nope, because it is barely usable. That is why increasing support in the future is not important today.
Please stop being silly. Listing games that do or don't is not useful.
 
Nope, because it is barely usable. That is why increasing support in the future is not important today.
Please stop being silly. Listing games that do or don't is not useful.

Barely usable by who? Maybe some gpu reviews could tell us how well those gpus run a variety of games at a variety of settings and resolutions.
 
Do you guys get kickbacks every time you use Nvidia keywords? Is that why there's so much constant vomit-inducing promotion here over the last couple of years?
Is that the best you can do to contribute to this thread? Nothing constructive? Just trying to stir the pot like a loving fanboy?
You know where the ignore button is ... use it.
 
Back
Top