arandomguy
Veteran
Doesn't sentiment basically circle back to what started off the HUB/Nvidia controversy in terms of IHV hardware sampling and reviewer coverage focus?
Value of Hardware Unboxed benchmarking *spawn
- Thread starter Phantom88
- Start date
Doesn't sentiment basically circle back to what started off the HUB/Nvidia controversy in terms of IHV hardware sampling and reviewer coverage focus?
I've never had an issue with what they choose to test and not prioritizing ray tracing etc. As long as they're clear about what they're testing and not misrepresenting things, it's all fine.
arandomguy
Veteran
But that's only one side of the issue as the other is the what type of obligation IVHs have with respect to providing review samples.
If they are serving their audience and niche as you say, one of which doesn't align with Nvidia's, does Nvidia have an obligation to help them in doing so? Something I also find that's lost sometimes in these discussions is the seemingly lack of awareness that the media themselves are a business.
I think the IHVs should give review samples. I don't know if they're actually obligated to do so. Personally I'd prefer if review channels bought products to test them out because it removes any influence from the product company. I think the economics of youtube channels kind of forces people to pump out videos, which can make buying hardware difficult, especially if they're doing these comprehensive comparisons with 20 different gpus, or cpus. I actually find those kinds of reviews worthless. It probably wouldn't be easy, but buying and then selling hardware to viewers would be the ideal from an "influence" standpoint.
Not the trade off of DLSS IQ, the trade off to graphic settings and framerate. This class of cards struggle to maintain 1080p/60 and often requires lowering of settings as it is. Adding the overhead of DLSS to reconstruct up to 4k and you need to make even more sacrifices. Matching these GPUs up with a 4k monitor is not a wise decision.
Some specific titles have texture settings that use extra VRAM for little to no benefit. That is not the majority of games though. Their "agenda" to condemn 8 GB GPUs above a given price point is hardly unique to HUB.
DegustatoR
Legend
Nice balanced review but I disagree with the part of the conclusion that equates the base framerate requirement of 60fps for FSR3 with DLSS3. DLSS3 works absolutely fine at 40fps or more. In fact it's quite playable at even less IMO.
Sure you can question the value of 8GB cards from a pure price perspective. But in order to support their position they used low ROI IQ settings which is contrary to their position on RT. It speaks to a lack of consistency and arbitrary standards depending on what particular spin they’re on. Easiest thing for them to do is provide all the data and let customers decide.
I strongly disagree, DLSS frame generation at 40fps is very bad. You might not be sensitive to it but others are. Again opinions and what not.
Base frame rate of 40fps. Output of 80fps.
Interesting exchange between Tim and Steve on a recent Q&A. They clearly have different perspectives on RT/PT. Steve says outright that he's a multiplayer gamer and "raytracing sucks and he doesn't care about it". Tim on the other hand will be playing CP and Alan Wake with path tracing enabled on his 4090 and seems generally more interested in cutting edge graphics. Pretty much sums up the last few years of HWUB review conclusions given Steve does most/all of the benchmarking.
Just because they have personal opinions doesn't mean it's somehow 'tainted' the benchmarking, ffs.
And neither opinion is correct or wrong, either. Both are entirely reasonable. You are also allowed to have your own opinion when it comes time to the 'conclusion' stuff. Not that I think they're really unfair in those either the vast majority of the time, either. They tend to go out of their way to try and represent that people will have varying opinions about these things.
Also your quoted part is quite dishonestly taken out of context given he was giving a hyperbolic theoretical quote himself before saying he doesn't actually fully believe that. He just makes the case that he cares more about performance(actual performance) for his preference of multiplayer gaming. Which is.....super normal? Haven't PC gamers been saying 'performance is king' for a very long time? Heck, most PC gamers seemed to agree that 'Ultra' settings even in single player games were often wasteful because they cost more performance than they were worth. Well many people feel that same way about ray tracing, and I'd agree with them in most cases so far.
Seriously, if anybody wants to actually watch that whole segment, their comments are super reasonable and fair, much unlike the comment above is trying to present it. Steve even says that he gives Tim some editorial control in Steve's video conclusions.
People can watch the video for themselves but here is the literal direct quote. Where exactly did he say he doesn't actually fully believe that?
Steve: "I'm like yeah raytracing sucks and I don't care about it which isn't too far from the truth with me".
DegustatoR
Legend
It took two years for Steve to start benchmarking RT and I'm fairly sure that this was because his benchmarks were losing actual viewer engagement fast, not because he has changed this weird stance where "performance" matters to him more than "graphics" - while benchmarking GPUs nonetheless. If that's his actual view on how GPUs should be benchmarked then he should just use lowest settings everywhere - oh, wait, these benchmarks will be completely useless to everyone in that case since they would be CPU benchmarks. Well, guess benchmarking with maximum graphics load is the proper way to benchmark GPUs after all. Glad that Steve arrived at this conclusion, kicking and screaming, two years later than the rest of GPU reviewers.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
"...like I'm not playing multiplayer games with ray tracing even if it supports it". The 'raytracing sucks' is Steve making a joke about how people would fear what his mindset might be when doing a day1 review of card because for all intents and purposes, due to the games he actually plays when he's not making content, RT effectively may as well not exist for him. He's emphasizing that of course he wouldn't review a card like that, which is why as he says, he consults with Tim ("I weigh my opinion heavily on Tim's detailed analysis") to ensure he's not dismissing them too easily due to his own predilection for competitive shooters. I really don't have a problem with that. He's just stating yes, he has a bias like everyone - but his reviews, even if he's the sole presenter, incorporate Tim's single-player focus as well to ensure his viewpoint doesn't dominate.
Like sure I can find Steve annoying at points (well, often), but I actually found this conversation to be an eminently reasonable discussion of personal preference and how both members complement each other, at least in their own view. I think people are reaching a bit here.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Reaching in what way? It’s not necessary to try to read Steve’s mind. His words and the opinions that he shares in his reviews can speak for themselves. If your point is that his bias doesn’t influence his work well I wouldn’t put money on that.
That's what many of us have been saying since day one this HUB-hunt started, but for some it's not acceptable here, everyone needs to test only what they see fit, nothing more, nothing less.
DegustatoR
Legend
If you watch all their videos all the time they are.
If you've just read a review of theirs then not really.