Charlie was claiming the that G84/86s and G92/94/98s were affected. Now while I see the 84/86s listed, I dont see any G9x, matter fact, it lists mostly older chips, so what the hell does he deserve an appology for? The guy is still a tool and personally, I think OEMs are simply trying to recoup some of their loses on older chips for there own stupidity in modifying NV cooling solution mins to fit their wants/needs.
- Status
Charlie was claiming the that G84/86s and G92/94/98s were affected. Now while I see the 84/86s listed, I dont see any G9x, matter fact, it lists mostly older chips, so what the hell does he deserve an appology for? The guy is still a tool and personally, I think OEMs are simply trying to recoup some of their loses on older chips for there own stupidity in modifying NV cooling solution mins to fit their wants/needs.
When is Charlie going to apologise for spewing out all of his nonsensical tirades?
I dunno Chris. I haven't had that many problems following his story on this and I am a bit of a thicky.... :|
Silent_Buddha
Legend
OEM's, at least the big ones aren't about to do anything to risk the stability of their systems as their largest buyers tend to be corporations. And once you have a bad reputation, it's hard to lose that.
OEM's will pretty much follow manufacturer's guidelines to the letter and not deviate from it. If a IHV says X chip will only operate under Y conditions then an IHV won't purposely design an environment where it will operate out of those conditions.
Now if said chip fails when used under those conditions provided by the IHV then the IHV will be held liable. However, Customers of the OEM's don't care whose fault it is, their machines have failed and thus it's always the OEM's who will take the blame from their customers. And about all an OEM can do is award more contracts to the competition. Which some appear to be doing.
Thus, to reword what you said. It's NV's supidity for not releasing more realistic minimums to the OEM's for designing their cooling solutions.
Regards,
SB
I didn't say he was incomprehensible. I said he doesn't understand what he writes. We've got some selective memory going on around here. Charlie said the entire G9x series was bad including the desktop lineup.
Nothing has changed from charlies reporting style. Nothing. You throw a dozen water balloons and you may get something right. I find it pretty humerous that whenever charlie may get something right. He's owed an apology. But for all the times he's wrong. He isn't accountable. Pretty humerous double standard there.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1045751/nvidia-55nm-parts-bad
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1038400/nvidia-g92s-g94-reportedly
It's funny. The only thing he actually got right was what we already knew. The G86 and G84 cards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, sorry then...my bad, I misunderstood ya. 
When this issue was first reported, didn't Nvidia claim it was an isolated case, and that it was the OEM's fault for running the chips out of spec? How long have these chips been out, that are confirmed to be defective, before we found out about it, though Nvidia had known it and continued to sell them? Now can you honestly tell me the G9x's won't have the same issues?
Thus far we are completely in agreement.
However, Charlie brought the issue to public light. This was a good thing indeed, for everyone involved except possibly nVidia. Isn't this what journalism is about? I have a hard time with his tone, with his attitude of knowledge even when it is lacking, and so forth. Doesn't stop me recognizing the value of someone who actually pulls something out into the open that the powers that be would rather we weren't aware of. And that value is by far greater than the passers-on-of-press-releases.
A misdirected spotlight doesn't really help anyone. Saying all the G92's were bad. How was that good for the consumer? Charlie made a storm about it because he doesn't like Nvidia. Not because he thought he was protecting anyone.
No a good journalist looks for facts. If he hadn't spent all his time trying to prove every Nvidia chip was bad. ((which he didn't even do a good job of)) despite his so called "sources". And instead focused on the actual issue. Read the "All 55 NM and all 65 NM chips are bad" article and tell me thats "Bringing the issue" into the light. What he actually did was put up a giant smoke screen that made it impossible to seperate fact from fiction. To call charlie a journalist is laughable to say the least. Charlie uses drama and smoke screens to generate hits. Not facts.
If you want good journalism examples. Check out true professionals like CNN.com. Nothing of what Charlie does is called quality journalism.
Can you honestly tell me they do? I have about 8 G9x type cards around here. Not a single failure. In both 65 NM and 55 NM flavor. At SLIZONE the G92 is without a doubt the most popular piece of hardware I see. And I dont see tons of "My G92 card is failing". Its actually one of the most reliable pieces of hardware I have seen.
Also theres only a few G92 based laptop products. And I havent heard of any serious issue with them. I have heard of a few bad apple laptops with mobile 9400. But I am not sure the issue is related as I have also heard of other bad mac designs using different GPUS. In the end none of these minor issues reported are equal to "All 65 NM and 55 NM GPUs are bad". If any of you think charlie does what he does for the consumer benefits then you are terribly gullible. Like I said before. Charlie isn't owed an apology. He should be accountable for all the misinformation he spreads.
I apologize if I seem a little snappy regarding this. But in regards to Charlie. The only thing hes remotely good for is stirring up speculation on lesser informed forums.
No a good journalist looks for facts. If he hadn't spent all his time trying to prove every Nvidia chip was bad. ((which he didn't even do a good job of)) despite his so called "sources". And instead focused on the actual issue. Read the "All 55 NM and all 65 NM chips are bad" article and tell me thats "Bringing the issue" into the light. What he actually did was put up a giant smoke screen that made it impossible to seperate fact from fiction. To call charlie a journalist is laughable to say the least. Charlie uses drama and smoke screens to generate hits. Not facts.
If you want good journalism examples. Check out true professionals like CNN.com. Nothing of what Charlie does is called quality journalism.
Can you honestly tell me they do? I have about 8 G9x type cards around here. Not a single failure. In both 65 NM and 55 NM flavor. At SLIZONE the G92 is without a doubt the most popular piece of hardware I see. And I dont see tons of "My G92 card is failing". Its actually one of the most reliable pieces of hardware I have seen.
Also theres only a few G92 based laptop products. And I havent heard of any serious issue with them. I have heard of a few bad apple laptops with mobile 9400. But I am not sure the issue is related as I have also heard of other bad mac designs using different GPUS. In the end none of these minor issues reported are equal to "All 65 NM and 55 NM GPUs are bad". If any of you think charlie does what he does for the consumer benefits then you are terribly gullible. Like I said before. Charlie isn't owed an apology. He should be accountable for all the misinformation he spreads.
I apologize if I seem a little snappy regarding this. But in regards to Charlie. The only thing hes remotely good for is stirring up speculation on lesser informed forums.
Last edited by a moderator:
And bringing to light a number of technical faults with a number of their chips, give him a few points for that too.
Well his first news post on the subject which was "G86/G84 are bad" is ok. Latter on he went with "G92/G94 are bad" and "55nm are bad" and "from the look of it, all G8x variants other than the G80, and all G9x variants are defective"...And bringing to light a number of technical faults with a number of their chips, give him a few points for that too.
From the info we have now we can tell that the only chips he was spot on are G86/G84 and C51.
If I read on CNN that US attacked Pakistan, India, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan and France would that be quality journalism?
I actually think this is a quite valid point. It is a diservice to the consumer to provide such information if it is bad.
Better is to say.
"The problem is confirmed in X, y, and z and other suggest it may effect Q, P and T as well though it is unclear." Or something like that if you want to get it out there first b4 data is good.
Well to be fair I can't remember that the Inq ever claimed being serious journalists, it's rather well-known as a rumour page. Just the title says it all (facts and "friction").
Perhaps, though facts and friction could just as easily be an indication that he likes dusting up trouble by saying inaccurate things as it could be that it is for rumors. It is his editorializing w/o backup that is often irksome. To be fair of the three discussed the only one I really look at is fudzilla. The name is nice if nothing else
hoom
Veteran
The expected (long) triumphal review from Charlie
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137385/nvidia-bad-bumps-worse
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137385/nvidia-bad-bumps-worse
- Status
Similar threads
