So people liking or watching something is a measure of its quality now?
Value of Hardware Unboxed benchmarking *spawn
- Thread starter Phantom88
- Start date
That's what you've said as a reply to someone who was criticizing their reviews?So people liking or watching something is a measure of its quality now?
No, it means people like their content even when you don't. It doesn't say anything about their quality, but pretty sure their results are accurate too, which would indicate quality review.
Review of a GPU is buyers advice, and its quality isn't only in their numbers accuracy but also in benchmark selection.
What you "like" or not is completely irrelevant.
You seriously can't live in black'n'white world where only your view matters and everything else is wrong.
Reviews choice of benchmarks CAN affect quality but doesn't necessarily do so. If your review is saying it's doing retro deep dive to the '90s and only shows fresh AAA titles in benchmark section it surely is horrible quality review for what it claimed to be. If it shows those 90's titles it is quality even you don't give a rats bottom about it. Not every review is written for those thinking about buying newest and most expensive hardware to play only the newest AAA-titles.
For the quality, yes, it's irrelevant just like I said it is. For review itself what someone likes or doesn't is very relevant, if people don't like it they won't watch it.
I think one of the problems with this type of review is they only retested the cards mentioned in the video title "RX 5700 XT vs. 7700 XT". I think there would be performance increases all around for most cards had they decided to throughly test any gpu comparisons made in the review.
With this type of review why not avoid competitor comparisons entirely and instead focus on the AMD generational differences mentioned in the video title? Any comparisons to old benchmarked IHV cards is somewhat meaningless. Based on a review Steve made 2 weeks ago I had hopes the quality and content of their reviews would get better.
With this type of review why not avoid competitor comparisons entirely and instead focus on the AMD generational differences mentioned in the video title? Any comparisons to old benchmarked IHV cards is somewhat meaningless. Based on a review Steve made 2 weeks ago I had hopes the quality and content of their reviews would get better.
Only new games matter when you discuss how a card runs today games, this also has nothing to do with what you or I like.
It doesn't, but it does complicate matters and introduces reason to question the bias of the material. Furthermore, given typical human nature we'd expect someone to be influenced in favour of returns on their work unless either exceptionally principled to accept sacrifice, or have enough that the gains aren't worth the compromises in integrity. Is there reason to think HUB has either the principles or financial security to be above influence? Or are the difference between nVidia and AMD content not actually that large to warrant skewing content? Any other arguments against this influencing factor being present in HUB's content choice?
That's not entirely true. People buy new cards still with a view to playing old games in better quality. That's a primary reason to upgrade. Reviews should cover both old and new titles if they want to be comprehensive, although course a creator can choose to focus on one or the other for their content. Maybe two separate videos is better for the channel than one combined video, say.
Completely disagree. The primary reason to upgrade anything in a PC is when a new game doesn't work as well as you want on it.
The review in question was made specifically to showcase how a 2019 5700XT is doing in modern games. I honestly don't understand what we're even discussing. The point @Dampf made is 100% correct, the review doesn't show how the card is doing in modern games at all, Steve is just hunting for likes/views which to him prove that his original point was correct.
I bought a 3090 to play old games.
I play mostly old games on my 4070. It's great, I can max them out with >100fps and super clean IQ. I will eventually play games like Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk once I have a GPU that can run the path tracing comfortably. So yea, I buy new GPUs to play old games.
Subtlesnake
Regular
The two things are not mutually exclusive.
And I feel like if we're making a claim about what people in general do, we should have to back it up with data.
The two things are not mutually exclusive in a sense that you can and definitely do play old games on a new GPU. However actually buying a new GPU to play old games is not what drives the market. I'm not sure what "data" you expect here.
No you didn't. You've bought a new GPU to play new games - which you haven't played before. The fact that these games were released some time ago doesn't make them "old" for you personally.
Last edited:
What about old games that do not work as well? Old games that you always had to play at second/third tier fidelity settings and want to experience everything maxed out.
People rarely replay games IMO (don't tell me how many times you've replayed Doom please; there are several hundreds of games released every year and the fact that one game per year gets oft replayed later doesn't mean much) and when they do it comes mostly as a free bonus on a h/w bought to play something new.
How many years gone by does a game have to be defined as old? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Many people have a 5 - 10 year old game installed that they revisit periodically (ie Skyrim, Xcom2) simply because it offers open ended play.
Subtlesnake
Regular
I don't think Shifty needs to claim that it "drives the market". Just that it is a significant benefit and therefore that there is an audience for comparisons using older titles.
It is up to you to prove they don't.
Sorry, this comment is at the level of I need to leave this forum stupid.
Did Jesus walk on water? Well prove she didn't.
Similar threads
- Locked
