# nVidia Blacklists Hardware Secrets



## TIGR (May 28, 2010)

Hardware Secrets said:
			
		

> This time we have NVIDIA blacklisting us. After we published a review – without any support from them, N.B. – they complained that we didn’t talk about CUDA or PhysX.





			
				Hardware Secrets said:
			
		

> After this e-mail exchange they simply put us in their black list and thus we stopped being invited to their latest product presentations, we were dropped from the list of websites that get products before the release date and we stop getting any kind of support from them. Any e-mail I sent to NVIDIA asking for anything is completely ignored.



Full Article


----------



## Phxprovost (May 28, 2010)

seems like today is a fun day for nvidia


----------



## phanbuey (May 28, 2010)

nvidia PR department should be taken out back and clubbed.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2010)

I've never even heard of this site...so I'm guessing it isn't a big loss for nVidia.

And judging from the first line of the article, nVidia isn't the only company they've pissed off and been blacklisted from.


----------



## TVman (May 28, 2010)

maybe thats why wizzard puts those cuda and physx support in the reviews as cons or plusses when he does reviews of video cards  nvidia you motherf........ !!!


----------



## WSP (May 28, 2010)

so nvidia blacklisting websites which does an independent review?
then what about those websites which supported by nvidia? are those reviews objective? counting out reviews on TPU off course.

well, I always a big fan for review by owner published on a forum with screenshots and not just graphs


----------



## TIGR (May 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I've never even heard of this site...so I'm guessing it isn't a big loss for nVidia.
> 
> And judging from the first line of the article, nVidia isn't the only company they've pissed off and been blacklisted from.



I don't know how popular it is compared to other sites of the type, but HS does some excellent reviews with good testing methodology, and I like the layout of the articles.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I've never even heard of this site...so I'm guessing it isn't a big loss for nVidia.
> 
> And judging from the first line of the article, nVidia isn't the only company they've pissed off and been blacklisted from.



You may have never heard of this website but it's been around for sometime now.  It was popular back in the day but I'm not sure what happened to their popularity now a days.


----------



## wahdangun (May 28, 2010)

wow, i hope TPU list phisyx as pros not because of this.

i like independent journalist, because they don't give a shit what company said.


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

WSP said:


> so nvidia blacklisting websites which does an independent review?
> then what about those websites which supported by nvidia? are those reviews objective? counting out reviews on TPU off course.
> 
> well, I always a big fan for review by owner published on a forum with screenshots and not just graphs



This is nothing new. In fact, personally, i tihnk this is just a cover-up, and in a few months time, they'll be posting nV-favoring articles.


Of course, if you beleive that now they don't like nV, and then all of a sudden, they like nV again, you can pretty much guarantee this was all a set-up to "build credibility".


Garbage article...I can't really beleive we even have a thread about it, and I'm an ATI fanboy, through and through.


Doesn't even belong in this section, as it has nothing to do with hardware.

It's funny..even I personally get invited to these events they are complaining about, and I don't have a website. Sounds like they expect everything to be paid for, airfare included.


----------



## TIGR (May 28, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> ....I can't really beleive we even have a thread about it, and I'm an ATI fanboy, through and through.
> 
> 
> Doesn't even belong in this section, as it has nothing to do with hardware.



I feel it _is_ hardware-related. I can't post in the News section anyway. But if you feel this is so inappropriate, report my original post.


----------



## wahdangun (May 28, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> This is nothing new. In fact, personally, i tihnk this is just a cover-up, and in a few months time, they'll be posting nV-favoring articles.
> 
> 
> Of course, if you beleive that now they don't like nV, and then all of a sudden, they like nV again, you can pretty much guarantee this was all a set-up to "build credibility".
> ...



i got your point

but if they do that i think it will destroy their credibility even further.


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

TIGR said:


> I feel it _is_ hardware-related. I can't post in the News section anyway. But if you feel this is so inappropriate, report my original post.



Nah nah..just stating my opinion...you are entitled to yours as well.

As an aside, I suggest you read "Art of War", and then things like this don't seem too doom and gloom...

One question though..how does it relate to hardware? This is about a website's interaction with a manufacturer. Sure, the website reviews hardware, but that's not even what the article is about.

Personally, I don't know where else it would go anyway.


----------



## TIGR (May 28, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Nah nah..just stating my opinion...you are entitled to yours as well.
> 
> As an aside, I suggest you read "Art of War", and then things like this don't seem too doom and gloom...
> 
> ...



[irrelevant]I have read most of the thirteen chapters of _Art of War_ several times, though not for years.[/irrelevant]

This topic is relevant to the Hardware section because:

*1*. It is related to a hardware manufacturer's business practices, which are relevant to an informed computer hardware hobbyist.
*2*. There is also a bit of info on the GTX 465 near the end of the article.

Quite a few others seem to have considered it interesting enough to comment on in the short time it's been posted.


----------



## burebista (May 28, 2010)

Stupid nVidia. First this PhysX "bug" now blacklisting Gabe. Wonderful! What's next? Censoring forums for users speaking bad about their Ferminators?


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

TIGR said:


> I have read most of the thirteen chapters of _Art of War_ several times, though not for years. It's not really relevant here.
> 
> However, I feel this topic is relevant to the Hardware section as:
> 
> ...



Dude, you need to calm down. I called that article garbage, not your thread. Please re-read my post.

I also stated I posted my opinion and you are entitled to yours..there's no need for you to defend yourself here. I'm glad you posted this, as I'll be paying attention to them a bit more now, and I like Gabriel's writing. I jsut don't think it's hardware related, that has no reflection on you posting it..I said I didn't know where else it would go.

Sounds like nV has pissed ya off a bit...but don't take it out on me. I don't like 'em very much either.

EDIT: you edited, but my point remains. None of my comments reflect on you or your posting the info, don't take it personally.


----------



## phanbuey (May 28, 2010)

this kind of douchebaggery really does nothing but lose you clients... its like they have a department that pays people to lose them clients.

I really wanted to buy a 470 and OC that bad boy, but now atfer the PhysX thing and this at least I have an excuse to save my money for a while.


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

Review sites shouldn't be getting hardware for free, nor should they complain that they don't. I don't care how much traffic they have...if they cannot turn that huge traffic into revenue to support the site and purchase of review materials, then they need to take free hardware, and then do the work to be entitled to that pay...which would mean reporting what the person paying them asks for.

"LOOK, 7 million people read my words, you must pay me" is all i get out of that article. 

They'll get no pity from me.

I mean seriously, if Wizz started a thread and said "Look, i need cash to buy reivew hardware", how many of us would be lined up to help him out?...probably most of us. Lack of free goods is a poor excuse for not reporting relevant info. I mentioned before about sites wearing thier hearts on thier sleeves...it's unprofessional.

They didn't do the job they were paid to do, so now have lost that job, and are complaining? PLEASE.


----------



## DRDNA (May 28, 2010)

THATS IT! THE LAST STRAW FOR ME! I am never buying another Nvidia card again in my life!

Oh wait, thats right I have never purchased an Nvidia card or used one ...lol


----------



## burebista (May 28, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> "LOOK, 7 million people read my words, you must pay me" is all i get out of that article.


Knowing Gabe's PSU reviews I get this from that article:" LOOK, idiots from nVidia ban me because I do not praise their useless stuff like PhysX".

And TBH knowing how nVidia PR is acting in my country I fully believe Gabe.


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

Oh, I do not doubt any of that one bit...but the fact remains that he got free hardware to do a specific job, and didn't do that job...so now he doesn't get hardware. It's not surprising...

That free hardware comes out of marketing budgets. He's not providing the proper marketing, so he lost his freebees.

I mean, I've said it before..nV is a sfotware house, not a hardware house...so they want you to hype the software. How come I can understand this, but he doesn't?

And maybe me understanding this is why I get the invites, and he doesn't.


----------



## phanbuey (May 28, 2010)

Its more than just entitled review sites. thats not the point really... NV is not smart with their PR, and never have been.  Ever since they dropped 3dfx like a rotting egg and alienated all the hardcore 3dfx fans now they're going to poopoo all these review sites who have forums and forum community members which buy their products in droves.

you gotta ask yourself... for what?  they could send this guy one card with a note, saying - please review physX we feel it is a really cool feature if you give it a shot.  cost to them? Nothing.  Alienation factor: 0.  Hell they might even get a good bit of advertising.

I understand your point about the guy not doing a good job - but there are many ways to handle it.  They always seem to pick the one that looks the most douchy


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

Providing the card, shipping, and the marketing person's time to arrange it, all cost money. Sure, it may generate sales, and THAT might offset any expense, but it still costs nV money.

Doing a good job has nothing to do with it...it's about doing the job you were paid to do. He didn't do part of that job...that's not doing a bad job..that's never completing it! Like why even bother?

I get what you are saying too, but I gotta side with nV on this one. Trying to bully nV into providing more in this fashion does noone any good.


----------



## burebista (May 28, 2010)

Man you miss the starting point. 


			
				Gabe said:
			
		

> *After we published a review – without any support from them*, N.B. – they complained that we didn’t talk about CUDA or PhysX. I replied saying that we weren’t going to talk about these subjects because we thought they were not relevant to the average user, and we usually don’t re-write reviews. I think this is funny, *we have to make a lot of effort to get samples because NVIDIA doesn’t help us and then when we publish the review they complain?*


----------



## TIGR (May 28, 2010)

For consumers/hobbyists and for the review sites, it's about credibility, honesty, and accurate information. For nVidia, it's about marketing. But the whole independent reviewing process works toward the objectives of everyone involved. Manufacturers like nVidia provide samples of their products to be tested by entities that have the public's trust—thus we get to see how a product really stacks up according to an entity we consider "objective." If said product does well, we buy and nVidia's investment in sending the free sample pays off. But that hinges on us trusting the entity reviewing the product and nVidia's alleged shortsighted actions here boost HS' cred while making nVidia look corrupt and dishonest. So this works against them doubly—given that the alleged actions are exposed to the public.

I posted the link to this article to get it some attention and let people decide for themselves.

Personally I could not care less about ATI vs nVidia FWIW. Before you accuse me of being displeased with nVidia, cadaveca, take a look at the video cards in my sig rigs.

For what it's worth—I don't think any products should be reviewed based on samples sent by the manufacturer. This allows manufacturers to cherry pick the products to be tested. This is why when I personally test components for my computer business, I do so by buying up to six of each product, from different sources (and never from the manufacturer). Doesn't need to be done for things that don't vary much, but for CPUs, memory, PSUs, video cards, etc. ... it makes a difference.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 28, 2010)

sorry, but if Gabe had to go retail or to a 3rd party vendor for his cards, NV wouldnt give two shits what Gabe wrote (excuse my french). If Gabe got himself blacklisted, it wasnt for the lack of mentioning Cuda in a review that he paid for.


----------



## DannibusX (May 28, 2010)

As far as I know, reviewers get free samples of the product, but have to return the samples.  I believe there is legislation in the US to force reviewers to disclose if they were given a free sample and allowed to keep it.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 28, 2010)

Not even close to the truth.


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

burebista said:


> Man you miss the starting point.



Unfortunately, I did NOT miss that...and the fact of the matter is, that makes it even more infantile for them to be complaining. Fact is he even says he screwed it up when nV contacted them...if he would have played his cards right, he WOULD be getting free cards.

I mean, if he was really paying for everything, nV contacting him, and things working out the way they did, wouldn't even matter...but here it does...why? If he wasn't getting any support, why complain? He stands in a better position NOT getting support.


----------



## phanbuey (May 28, 2010)

i feel like someone needs to email Nvidia PR about this thread... I dont think they are realizing what they are doing.



cadaveca said:


> Unfortunately, I did NOT miss that...and the fact of the matter is, that makes it even more infantile for them to be complaining. Fact is he even says he screwed it up when nV contacted them...if he would have played his cards right, he WOULD be getting free cards.
> 
> I mean, if he was really paying for everything, nV contacting him, and things working out the way they did, wouldn't even matter...but here it does...why? If he wasn't getting any support, why complain? He stands in a better position NOT getting support.



"playing your cards right" is not the point of journalism.  Sure, he can kiss some butt and get free cards... that takes no talent and that doesnt benefit us, the consumers of review.


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

Exactly my point...so I don't understand what the article is about in the first place.

It seems to me, Gabriel contacted nV about getting GTX480/470/465 for review, they told him no, as he wasn't covering the software side of things, and things went downhill from there.

But he doesn't mention that...he simply says the reason for the "article" was to explain why he didn't have those reviews...because of a lack of nV support.



> I am posting this to explain why we didn’t cover the Fermi architecture launch (we weren’t invited for the presentation) nor reviewed any of their DirectX 11 video cards (they didn’t send any samples even after we requested samples a few times). This also explains why we are reviewing more AMD/ATI-based products and why our video section is kind of slow.



He stated there that if they don't give him cards, he's not covering them...

So yes, I have "jumped to conclusions" about a few things here, but there HAS to be more to this than he is presenting.

I would very much like for nV to comment about this, becuase I'd like to hear thier side of things as well...this whole thing is a bit fishy...I can see the smell bothers you as well, phanbuey.


----------



## erixx (May 28, 2010)

TVman said:


> maybe thats why wizzard puts those cuda and physx support in the reviews as cons or plusses when he does reviews of video cards  nvidia you motherf........ !!!



of course they do, of course they fucking do!!!! career oportunities!!!! LOL


----------



## jagd (May 28, 2010)

Probably he has been close to lose his mind because  fanboys blaming him ? ( not putting nvidia reviews ). This is not the first time nvidia doing this , they did same thing to anandtech and hardocp did not send GTS250 samples ,because they would not talk nice about re-naming king 



cadaveca said:


> So yes, I have "jumped to conclusions" about a few things here, but there HAS to be more to this than he is presenting.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (May 28, 2010)

.........


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

jagd said:


> Probably he has been close to lose his mind because  fanboys blaming him ? ( not putting nvidia reviews ). This is not the first time nvidia doing this , they did same thing to anandtech and hardocp did not send GTS250 samples ,because they would not talk nice about re-naming king



Yeah, possibly, but he contradicts himnself, saying he published reviews without any support...yet then says he contacted them for review samples? So if he knows who to contact...how is he doing this without any help at all? 

Like burebista mentioned, he started off with one tact, and then changed his tune in the paragraph I quoted above...stating he asked for help, and didn't get it, so won't cover it.




So he starts by giving himself a halo, and then tarnishes it...I don't get it...



> After we published a review – without any support from them, N.B. – they complained that we didn’t talk about CUDA or PhysX. I replied saying that we weren’t going to talk about these subjects because we thought they were not relevant to the average user, and we usually don’t re-write reviews. I think this is funny, we have to make a lot of effort to get samples because NVIDIA doesn’t help us and then when we publish the review they complain?



Of course they complained...he was asking for free stuff!

I mean, if I call up Bryan Del Rizzo, and say "I'd like to aquire some hardware for review purposes", what do you think he will say?


Bryan: "What website do you work for, and can you show me some of your work?"

Gabriel: "Sure, check out this review here..."

Bryan: "How come you aren't covering CUDA and Phys-X"

Gabriel: "We are simply covering the hardware side of things, becuase that's what our readers prefer"

Bryan: "I'm sorry, but that's not what we are looking for at this time."



And here we are.

Of course, I made all that up, but that seems to be the only plausible explanation right now.


----------



## jagd (May 28, 2010)

He said  "after we published a review  without help " it does not mean all  reviews published without help .



cadaveca said:


> Yeah, possibly, but he contradicts himnself, saying he published reviews without any support...yet then says he contacted them for review samples?


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2010)

@cadaveca

Agreed.  The whole article seems off to me.

We have the auther bitching about not getting free shit from nVidia out of one side of his mouth, then patting himself on the back for doing unbiased unsupported reviews out of the other.  Well, if your reviews are unsupported, then you shouldn't be bitching about nVidia not giving you free shit.  And if you want to keep getting free shit, throw a short mention of the features nVidia asks you to.  Would it really hurt the integrity of the article to put "The card support nVidia's propriatary hardware accelerated physics engine known as PhysX" in the first page where you are describing the card?  You don't have to say it is good, you don't have to say it is bad, you just throw the information in there.

And it doesn't seem like ATi is all that willing to throw him a bone either, he's done a total of 5 HD5000 series reviews, 3 of which the cards were supplied by XFX and the other 2 HIS, so not a single card direct from ATi...

And even more so, he makes a big stink on how he refuses to mention PhysX because gamers aren't interested in it, yet mentions EyeFinity in the HD5000 series reviews he does...  I think gamers are less interested in Eyefinity then they are with PhysX, though interest in both is pretty damn low.  So why throw in a blurb about Eyefinity without a thought, but flat out refuse to even mention PhysX?  How hard is it to just throw in a blurb about the card supporting PhysX and make nVidia happy, he did it for Eyefinity.


----------



## aCid888* (May 28, 2010)

I'm sure this thread will turn in to some form of hating before the days out......maybe it already has?


----------



## TVman (May 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> @cadaveca
> 
> Agreed.  The whole article seems off to me.
> 
> ...



grammar nazi strikes again


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

jagd said:


> He said  "after we published a review  without help " it does not mean all  reviews published without help .



Yeah, I hear ya...but newtekie covered what i meant there. The contradiction comes from highlighting how he doesn't need help, but then complaining that when he asks he doesn't get it...you know what I mean?


I mean, I hate to even be talking about it, but he put it out there, and as you can see, seems to be a hot topic, so let's discuss!  





TVman...lol..some humour is always welcome in subjects liek this...heh.


----------



## phanbuey (May 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> @cadaveca
> 
> Agreed.  The whole article seems off to me.
> 
> ...




  so true. :/ didnt catch that.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2010)

TVman said:


> grammar nazi strikes again



I've been doing that a lot today, either typing the complete wrong word or spelling words totally wrong, I think I need more coffee.


----------



## angelkiller (May 28, 2010)

I don't like how this turned out. The fact that Nvidia would do this worries me. If they spent more time creating a better product, they wouldn't have to deal with this...

@ the people upset with that guy:

While I certainly respect your opinion and all, I think the author is right. When it comes down to it, I think the author is complaining that he isn't getting free stuff/pre-released stuff because he isn't willing to write what Nvidia wants.

Just because you get a free product doesn't mean you have to like it or review it favorably. You see what I mean? You can be 'sponsored' or whatever you want to call it without sucking up to your sponsor.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> And even more so, he makes a big stink on how he refuses to mention PhysX because gamers aren't interested in it, yet mentions EyeFinity in the HD5000 series reviews he does...  I think gamers are less interested in Eyefinity then they are with PhysX, though interest in both is pretty damn low.  So why throw in a blurb about Eyefinity without a thought, but flat out refuse to even mention PhysX?  How hard is it to just throw in a blurb about the card supporting PhysX and make nVidia happy, he did it for Eyefinity.




Part of this could be because eyefinity has just been introduced, Physx has been around for a while now. Physx is just a check in the box, Eyefinity is something new.

And personally, Im more interested in eyefinity stuff than Physx. Because I actually use the eyefinity. Physx has proved to be relatively worthless, since Nvidia had been poo pooing the use of a secondary card dedicated to it. nvidia has nothing but themselves to blame for lack of interest.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2010)

angelkiller said:


> I don't like how this turned out. The fact that Nvidia would do this worries me. If they spent more time creating a better product, they wouldn't have to deal with this...
> 
> @ the people upset with that guy:
> 
> ...



Yes, but nVidia didn't ask him to review the product favorably, they didn't ask him to put any opinion on PhysX in the review at all, they just ask that he mention that the card support it, and not completely ignore it.

And his reason for not mentioning it was total crap.  He doesn't feel they are relevent to an average user...when reviewing a gaming graphics card...he doesn't feel a technology that affects games isn't relevent...

It might not be a major issue with the average users of gaming graphics cards, AKA Gamers, but it certainly isn't totally irrelevent.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> Part of this could be because eyefinity has just been introduced, Physx has been around for a while now. Physx is just a check in the box, Eyefinity is something new.
> 
> And personally, Im more interested in eyefinity stuff than Physx. Because I actually use the eyefinity. Physx has proved to be relatively worthless, since Nvidia had been poo pooing the use of a secondary card dedicated to it. nvidia has nothing but themselves to blame for lack of interest.



It could be that Eyefinity is new.  However, it is BS to say the Eyefinity is relevent to gamers and PhysX isn't, which is exactly what he is saying by including a blurb about Eyefinity in his reviews and ignoring PhysX with the excuse that he doesn't feel it is relevent.

Beyond that, he mentions Eyefinity on a damn HD5750 review...a card that struggles to maintain playable framerates with one monitor...forget two or three.  Eyefinity on a card of that class is not relevent to gamers.

And personally, I'm not interested in either.  An Eyefinity setup is way too expensive, and PhysX isn't used in enough games and doesn't improve games enough to make it worth spending any money on.


----------



## angelkiller (May 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but nVidia didn't ask him to review the product favorably, they didn't ask him to put any opinion on PhysX in the review at all, they just ask that he mention that the card support it, and not completely ignore it.
> 
> And his reason for not mentioning it was total crap.  He doesn't feel they are relevent to an average user...when reviewing a gaming graphics card...he doesn't feel a technology that affects games isn't relevent...
> 
> It might not be a major issue with the average users of gaming graphics cards, AKA Gamers, but it certainly isn't totally irrelevent.


Ok, I can go with that. In order for him to get free stuff he has to mention Physx. Even I'm not 100% ok with that, I can certainly live with it. I don't think the article would have been biased if the author had mentioned PhysX and I don't consider the article unbiased because he didn't.

But I think his reasoning is valid. Quite frankly, PhysX doesn't matter. When I go to buy a graphics card, is PhysX even on my list of considerations? No. Not at all. Not even a little bit. How many games support PhysX now, like three?

What I'm saying is that to the majority of even gamers, PhysX doesn't affect them. I'll admit it's a very promising and interesting technology.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2010)

angelkiller said:


> Ok, I can go with that. In order for him to get free stuff he has to mention Physx. Even I'm not 100% ok with that, I can certainly live with it. I don't think the article would have been biased if the author had mentioned PhysX and I don't consider the article unbiased because he didn't.
> 
> But I think his reasoning is valid. Quite frankly, PhysX doesn't matter. When I go to buy a graphics card, is PhysX even on my list of considerations? No. Not at all. Not even a little bit. How many games support PhysX now, like three?
> 
> What I'm saying is that to the majority of even gamers, PhysX doesn't affect them. I'll admit it's a very promising and interesting technology.



Really, I don't even consider PhysX, it is an after thought.  My main rig doesn't even support it, and I don't miss it.

However, I don't feel that completely ignoring PhysX and CUDA support, when it does in fact affect games, when reviewing cards directed at Gamers is a poor practice.  Just as I would think ignoring Eyefinity would be a poor practice.

But the main point I was trying to make was that he is very hypocritical, on more than one issue.  PhysX isn't relevent, but Eyefinity is.  We have to make a lot of effort to get samples because nVidia doesn't help us, pat us on the back, but we want to bitch about it at the same time, while it is obvious ATi isn't really up to helping us either, but we won't mention that.

And while we are on the subject of them talking out of both sides of their mouth; he goes on about how he has to go through so much effort to get samples because nVidia won't supply them, yet his 3rd to last nVidia review is of a non-branded GTX260 Core 216, that was published on the day of the card's launch.  Now I wonder where he got that?


----------



## cadaveca (May 28, 2010)

Ah yes, Newtekie sees it all...

Which is why I called bullshit in the first place. He's had cards on launch day, so while he may like to paint the picture he doesn't get free stuff, he's obviously blatantly lying about it.


----------



## Regeneration (May 29, 2010)

I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.


----------



## TIGR (May 29, 2010)

Regeneration said:


> I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.



Ouch, hope it doesn't go that far with HS (or anyone else in the future).

Thanks for posting—I didn't know about NGOHQ before and am checking it out now. Always good to find another source for tech reviews, to double check findings in a world where the integrity of manufacturers and even review sites is sometimes called into question.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2010)

Regeneration said:


> I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.



Didn't ATi blacklist NGOHQ also after the PhysX stuff came about?  Which is the reason NGOHQ claimed they couldn't test on HD4000 series hardware, because ATi refused to provide any samples?


----------



## Regeneration (May 29, 2010)

TIGR said:


> Ouch, hope it doesn't go that far with HS (or anyone else in the future).



Nvidia is probably angry because they published it.


----------



## Regeneration (May 29, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Didn't ATi blacklist NGOHQ also after the PhysX stuff came about?  Which is the reason NGOHQ claimed they couldn't test on HD4000 series hardware, because ATi refused to provide any samples?


 
AMD just failed to provide PR support in our region (Israel), but they solved that problem for now. Some PR people aren't skilled.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 29, 2010)

TVman said:


> maybe thats why wizzard puts those cuda and physx support in the reviews as cons or plusses when he does reviews of video cards  nvidia you motherf........ !!!



no, cuz w1zzard always do complete review


----------



## Tatty_One (May 29, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I've never even heard of this site...so I'm guessing it isn't a big loss for nVidia.
> 
> And judging from the first line of the article, nVidia isn't the only company they've pissed off and been blacklisted from.



It's good beleive me, and pretty big, I am surprised you don't know them, I have been reading some of their reviews for 4 years.



TIGR said:


> Ouch, hope it doesn't go that far with HS (or anyone else in the future).
> 
> Thanks for posting—I didn't know about NGOHQ before and am checking it out now. Always good to find another source for tech reviews, to double check findings in a world where the integrity of manufacturers and even review sites is sometimes called into question.



NGOHQ have been serving the gfx driver modding community (amongst other things) for a number of years now (not sure if they still tweak though), I have had the pleasure of using some of their "tweaked" drivers in the past.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> It's good beleive me, and pretty big, I am surprised you don't know them, I have been reading some of their reviews for 4 years.



I read through some of their stuff and it doesn't seem all that good to me.  Their video card reviews are completely shit.  They only have 5 or 6 cards total, only use 4 real-world game benchmarks, and 2 synthetic, talk nothing about noise, nothing about power consumption.* I've seen better reviews from random people on forums.  And then when a graphics card company asked them to throw in a blurb about a few features the card has...you know to make their shit review a little better...they basically tell the graphics card company to go fuck themselves.  These people are obviously not the hot shit graphics review site they seem to think they are...  If I was running a graphics card company, I'd cut them off because their reviews suck balls anyway, no wonder nVidia doesn't want to give them free shit.

*No, I'm not fucking joking, they use 4 games and 2 benchmarks, that is it.  Oh, and the review of the GTX260 and nVidia was "unhappy" with, was even more shit.  They used a whole *1 game and 1 benchmark!*  I'm not fucking joking, check it out for yourself.  And this guy wants to paint the picture like he is some kind of hot shit graphics card reviewer...give me a break, he is a fucking idiot is what he is.

You know, if I wrote an 8 page review, with only 2 fucking performance tests, I'd be happy to add as much filler as nVidia wanted to make the review less shittacular.:shadedshu


----------



## mastrdrver (May 30, 2010)

Anyone remember what was different about all the *initial* Fermi reviews? All the cards were from nVidia. No one had one from a AIB partner.

What did Anand complain about in the GTS 250 review last spring? That they couldn't get a card from one of the AIB partners. I think it was later revealed somewhere that Zotac was the one that gave them the card they reviewed and landed Zotac in trouble with nVidia (rumored).



Regeneration said:


> We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and *then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples.* After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.



I've always understood it too that review sites went to the partners, for what ever hardware they were wanting to review, to get samples.



> This time we have NVIDIA blacklisting us. After we published a review – without any support from them, N.B. – they complained that we didn’t talk about CUDA or PhysX. I replied saying that we weren’t going to talk about these subjects because we thought they were not relevant to the average user, and we usually don’t re-write reviews. I think this is funny, we have to make a lot of effort to get samples because NVIDIA doesn’t help us and then when we publish the review they complain? If they had given us any kind of support or talked to us clarifying why they think commenting these features would make any real sense to the average user we wouldn’t be so frustrated. But all the reasons they gave us were manufactured by their propaganda machine.



Yes he whines, but it is about having to take a lot of effort to get something because he has to get them "through the back door" of the AIB partner or needs to find some one, somewhere to do a review. Not because he is not getting a free sample. Then, after doing all this work to get something, no thanks to nVidia, they are at their "front door" complaining about the review. If nVidia didn't complain about the review I don't think he would care. The problem is they do! 

From the way I read the article, he's fed up with nVidia about their consistent complaining about his reviews when they are the ones making it difficult to get any of their stuff from their AIB partners whether they buy them from the partners or not. If he gets it for free I can understand cadaveca. Though, from the sounds of the article, I don't think that is the case even for the stuff he doesn't have to work at to get. Maybe he is just allowed to buy early from the AIB partners.

OT: Btw, cadaveca have a pm. I think I may have found a pdf of something from AMD you might be interested in.



> They must think that we are a small entity, forgetting that I am also the editor-in-chief of Clube do Hardware, the largest website about computers in Brazil, with 20 million pageviews and 7.5 million visitors per month – yes, this website is bigger than most North-American reviewing websites (all reviews posted on Hardware Secrets are also posted on Clube do Hardware).



Just in case anyone was wondering why some site no one really knows about anymore in the States gets so much flack from nVidia about their reviews.


----------



## wahdangun (May 30, 2010)

Regeneration said:


> I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.



wow, nvdia really hit a new low right now.

btw what do you mean 

"We are the on the blacklist too for being honest. Then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats.* By they way, did anyone notice that Guru3D and HardOCP haven't mentioned a single word on the latest PhysX development?*"


----------



## Mussels (May 30, 2010)

huh, i think i have a suspicion as to why ATI card reviews here get a negative for not supporting cuda/physx...



sneekypeet said:


> sorry, but if Gabe had to go retail or to a 3rd party vendor for his cards, NV wouldnt give two shits what Gabe wrote (excuse my french). If Gabe got himself blacklisted, it wasnt for the lack of mentioning Cuda in a review that he paid for.



back when i reviewed for 3chipset, antec had a go at me for giving a negative review for one of their cases that i purchased myself. I didnt cover some things they thought important (water cooling tube hole things) and did cover stuff they didnt like - such as certain PSU's (those with 120mm fans) not working well in the case.




angelkiller said:


> Ok, I can go with that. In order for him to get free stuff he has to mention Physx. Even I'm not 100% ok with that, I can certainly live with it. I don't think the article would have been biased if the author had mentioned PhysX and I don't consider the article unbiased because he didn't.
> 
> But I think his reasoning is valid. Quite frankly, PhysX doesn't matter. When I go to buy a graphics card, is PhysX even on my list of considerations? No. Not at all. Not even a little bit. How many games support PhysX now, like three?
> 
> What I'm saying is that to the majority of even gamers, PhysX doesn't affect them. I'll admit it's a very promising and interesting technology.



in order to get support from them AT ALL, you have to mention them in a good light. even if the product sucks you have to sing its praises as best you can, without making it seem like a bad product.



newtekie1 said:


> Really, I don't even consider PhysX, it is an after thought.  My main rig doesn't even support it, and I don't miss it.
> 
> However, I don't feel that completely ignoring PhysX and CUDA support, when it does in fact affect games, when reviewing cards directed at Gamers is a poor practice.  Just as I would think ignoring Eyefinity would be a poor practice.
> 
> ...



CUDA means nothing to gamers, and physX only has ~15 titles that even support it (and less than 5 big name titles). it really is irrelevant to gamers.



Regeneration said:


> I'm not suprised at all. We (NGOHQ) got blacklisted too for being honest, and then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats. Only recently a few of their "partners" falsely accused us in hosting malware.



you guys do a few 'dodgy' mods every now and then  its no wonder they hate you (not that i think you're in the wrong )



wahdangun said:


> wow, nvdia really hit a new low right now.
> 
> btw what do you mean
> 
> "We are the on the blacklist too for being honest. Then they asked their OEM partners not to work with us and not to send us samples. After those tactics failed, they started knocking on our door with legal threats.*By they way, did anyone notice that Guru3D and HardOCP haven't mentioned a single word on the latest PhysX development?*"



no surprises there, boohoo3D has always been dubious at best, and filled with fanbois.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 30, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I read through some of their stuff and it doesn't seem all that good to me.  Their video card reviews are completely shit.  They only have 5 or 6 cards total, only use 4 real-world game benchmarks, and 2 synthetic, talk nothing about noise, nothing about power consumption.* I've seen better reviews from random people on forums.  And then when a graphics card company asked them to throw in a blurb about a few features the card has...you know to make their shit review a little better...they basically tell the graphics card company to go fuck themselves.  These people are obviously not the hot shit graphics review site they seem to think they are...  If I was running a graphics card company, I'd cut them off because their reviews suck balls anyway, no wonder nVidia doesn't want to give them free shit.
> 
> *No, I'm not fucking joking, they use 4 games and 2 benchmarks, that is it.  Oh, and the review of the GTX260 and nVidia was "unhappy" with, was even more shit.  They used a whole *1 game and 1 benchmark!*  I'm not fucking joking, check it out for yourself.  And this guy wants to paint the picture like he is some kind of hot shit graphics card reviewer...give me a break, he is a fucking idiot is what he is.
> 
> You know, if I wrote an 8 page review, with only 2 fucking performance tests, I'd be happy to add as much filler as nVidia wanted to make the review less shittacular.:shadedshu



Shit..... calm down to a frenzy..... if you read the Op piece, NVidia came back to them AFTER they did the review to complain that they should have mentioned the CUDA/Physx stuff, I would have thought that if a card company wanted reviewers to say or review certain things or make "specific" comment then they should make that clear from the offset?

The point is here, I am not defending or attacking either side.... why?  because at the end of the day, this is "3rd party" information, irrespective of your comments regarding the quality of their reviews, I have found that for both ATi and NVidia reviews, they largly tend to be un-biased, that for me in itself puts them in the top 20% of reviewing sites.  

I cannot disagree with your comments about the GTX260 review, however in contrast, if you look at the GTX295 review (of course I am not suggesting you were in any way selective in your example ), you will see a couple of synthetic benchmarks in there and 5 games popular at the time of release, the 295 was compared with about 15 other Gfx cards but I do take note of your comments, as I said, the honesty of a particular review is my most important feature, little point of selected 25 competative cards tested in 30 games if you only select 2 resolutions and detail levels to show off the strengths of a product...... I am sure you as well as me could name a couple of sites at least like that 

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Zotac-GeForce-GTX-295-Video-Card-Review/693/8

You know me well enough to know that I have a history of owning both ATi and Nvidia cards, so I would be grateful if you don't go into your "NVidia defensive mode" with me, you know I am no fanboi.


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 30, 2010)

GO AMD/ATI!!! Nvidia the End is near(at least in this gen)


----------



## mastrdrver (May 30, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> ...............



Your right because Guru was talking about 3D surround and some other Cuda app and [H] was talking out both sides of their mouth in their review. Where is 3D surround anyway? Think we will make it in June?

I couldn't figure out if [H] thought the 470/480 was good or not because in one sentence it was about how loud and little improvement over the 5850 and 5870 there was along with the higher price. Then, they hailed the 470/480 as the most awesome thing since it allowed you to use this setting on Metro because you have teh nVidia 480 card. Did you know it can do 9 billion x AA at 2560x1600?


----------



## Mussels (May 30, 2010)

mastrdrver said:


> in one sentence it was about how loud and little improvement over the 5850 and 5870 there was along with the higher price. Then, they hailed the 470/480 as the most awesome thing since it allowed you to use this setting on Metro because you have teh nVidia 480 card.



the clearest sign of a sponsored review.


----------



## LiveOrDie (May 30, 2010)

lol that's just Hardware Secrets tiring to get free video cards out of both ATI and NVIDIA and there crying about it because nvidia dont give away freebies haha how about go out a buy one you bunch off sooks.


----------



## Mussels (May 30, 2010)

Live OR Die said:


> lol that's just Hardware Secrets tiring to get free video cards out of both ATI and NVIDIA and there crying about it because nvidia got give away freebies haha how about go out a buy one you bunch off sooks.



no its not. they asked for samples, got refused... and now that they did an independent review which DIDNT praise every feature of the cards, nvidia has shunned them.

you cant expect people to give you bonus points if you refuse to even send them samples.


----------



## wahdangun (May 30, 2010)

Mussels said:


> huh, i think i have a suspicion as to why ATI card reviews here get a negative for not supporting cuda/physx...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yeah i don't go to guru3d because of that, too many fanboy.

btw why wizz never mention eyefinity,stream in his review ? and i hope TPU still independent because i trust wizz than any other site


----------



## LiveOrDie (May 30, 2010)

NVIDIA send out samples all over the place its up to nvivdia who they send them to.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

Mussels said:


> CUDA means nothing to gamers, and physX only has ~15 titles that even support it (and less than 5 big name titles). it really is irrelevant to gamers.



Hey, PhysX is used in more big name titles then he uses in his reviews...

Anyway, I've said it is pretty irrelevent already, but not totally as he wants to say.  It is in games, current games use it, so just mention it.  It isn't that hard to add the line in at the end of the features page, is it?  He writes a whole paragraphs about eyefinity, on graphics cards that aren't powerful enough to use it, but flat out refuses to even mention PhysX and CUDA?  That is just hypocritical bullshit.



Tatty_One said:


> Shit..... calm down to a frenzy..... if you read the Op piece, NVidia came back to them AFTER they did the review to complain that they should have mentioned the CUDA/Physx stuff, I would have thought that if a card company wanted reviewers to say or review certain things or make "specific" comment then they should make that clear from the offset?
> 
> The point is here, I am not defending or attacking either side.... why?  because at the end of the day, this is "3rd party" information, irrespective of your comments regarding the quality of their reviews, I have found that for both ATi and NVidia reviews, they largly tend to be un-biased, that for me in itself puts them in the top 20% of reviewing sites.
> 
> ...



It isn't that I'm in nVidia defensive mode, if he was talking about ATi doing it my comments would be the same.  He is an idiotic jackass that thinks he's hot shit, and he really sucks at what he does.

Even the best of his reviews, yes I picked a few of the more recent really shittacular ones, was pretty poor.

Yes, nVidia came back after he wrote ther review, a review with a whole 1 game banchmark at 1 resolution and 1 synthetic benchmark at 1 resolution, and asked for him to mention PhysX and CUDA, and they didn't even provide the sample.  And what did he do.? He put on his hot shit reviewer pants and told nvidia to go fuck themselves.  Yeah, what did he really expect?

And his responsces were complete BS, which probably pissed nVidia off even more.

PhysX and CUDA isn't relevent:  Ok, I can sort of buy that, _if_ you didn't put an entire paragraph in your ATi reviews about eyefinity, which is just as irrelevent to the average user.  On top of that, when you are expecting support from a company, don't insult them by telling them their techology is useless.  You don't bite the hand that feeds.

We don't go back and re-write reviews:  Ok, that is total bullshit.  How is slipping in one sentence re-writing the review?  Watch, "This card also supports CUDA, nVidia's GPGPU technology, and PhysX, nVidia's propriatary physics engine."  Bam, done.  I'll even give him permission to copy and past that into his review.  Do that, problem solved, nVidia gives you free shit again.  See, no need for a big whiney blog post about how nVidia doesn't want to give a crappy reviewer more free samples.

Please do not take this hostility as me being hostile towards you.  I have a huge respect for you Tatty.  However, hypocritical crap like this really gets under my skin, and it is made even worse when people act like they are huge hot shots, and they aren't.  Those two things are my biggest pet peeves, put them together and it pisses me off to no end.  My hostility is for him, not you.



Mussels said:


> no its not. they asked for samples, got refused... and now that they did an independent review which DIDNT praise every feature of the cards, nvidia has shunned them.
> 
> you cant expect people to give you bonus points if you refuse to even send them samples.



The thing is nVidia didn't ask him to praise anything, they just asked him to mention it.  Slip a little blurb in saying the cards support it.  No opinion necessary.  Hell, he probably could have even followed it up with a sentence saying he doesn't find either technology particularly relevent to the average users if he really wanted to.

I think the reverse situation is more accurate, when you're putting your hand out trying to get something for free, don't expect to get much when you refuse to even make an accurate feature list.


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 30, 2010)

Live OR Die said:


> NVIDIA send out samples all over the place its up to nvivdia who they send them to.



yeah but nvidia didn't send sample to them and they made a independent/self-bought unbiased review and nvidia became unrightfully mad them.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 30, 2010)

Live OR Die said:


> lol that's just Hardware Secrets tiring to get free video cards out of both ATI and NVIDIA and there crying about it because nvidia dont give away freebies haha how about go out a buy one you bunch off sooks.



Cause by the time they are available retail we'll have them also so we will know the performance I guess.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2010)

That's where this reeks thought Tatty One...a review doesn't need to be on launch day, unless you are concerned about that traffic that sort of thing brings.

I can't see any reason for that "article" to have been published, that wasn't quite selfish in nature. It's not like it's gonna build any bridges with nV...

I wish it wasn't so, but that's typical of all whining..."I didn't get what I want" is what I hear from my kids. Now this guy is acting like my little kids...not the 9 or 7 year olds...the 2 and 3 year olds.

It doesn't realyl matter why he actually feels this way...his article very clearly states he feels entitled to more, however, he's even pointed out why he really ISN'T entitled to anything that he is complaining about.

A honest, impartial site, wouldn't really worry about page hits from not having hardware on launch day...doesn't seem to be something W1zz is complaining about...TPU doesn't always have stuff on launch...

I mean, look at all the disagreement here in this thread...this guy's like some old hag sitting at the cauldron, stirring up a stinky mess...everyone knows it stinks, but it's hard to place the source...


----------



## Tatty_One (May 30, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> That's where this reeks thought Tatty One...a review doesn't need to be on launch day, unless you are concerned about that traffic that sort of thing brings.
> 
> I can't see any reason for that article to ahve been published, that wasn't quite selfish in nature.
> 
> I wish it wasn't so, but that's typical of all whining..."I didn't get what I want" is what I hear from my kids. Now this guy is acting like my little kids...not the 9 or 7 year olds...the 2 and 3 year olds.



I agree, but the reviews most read, certainly by enthusiasts is before everyone has the opportunity to buy one.


----------



## cadaveca (May 30, 2010)

Yeah...so for that, I understand his issue...but at the same time, there's much better ways to deal with things like this.


I mean, I'm very much anti-nV...but I find myself on thier side...that's pretty sad.

I mean, if that is whatthis is truly about...missing traffic due to lack of launch articles...and ergo a lack of page hit revenue to buy more goods...then he should just say so.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> I agree, but the reviews most read, certainly by enthusiasts is before everyone has the opportunity to buy one.



I definitely agree with that.  However, I don't think that is a priority for him, otherwise he would be whining about ATi also, since all of his HD5000 reviews came weeks after launch of the cards.

In fact, of the few graphics card reviews I read of his, the only one that was published on launch day, was of the nVidia GTX260 Core216 that obviously came as a sample direct from nVidia.


----------



## Kaiser Kraus (May 31, 2010)

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/05/30/how-nvidia-blacklists-sites-hardware-secrets/

Guys, just to let you know, Charlie's opinion........


----------



## TIGR (May 31, 2010)

Kaiser Kraus said:


> http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/05/30/how-nvidia-blacklists-sites-hardware-secrets/
> 
> Guys, just to let you know, Charlie's opinion........



Thanks—a good read—and welcome to TPU!


----------



## Kaiser Kraus (May 31, 2010)

Thanks for the welcome.....Just trying to help fellow enthusiasts like myself.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 1, 2010)

I know the guys who own Digital Trends, another small review site, and to stay on the free hardware gravy train you have to plug the features a bit.  You don't have to brown-nose them totally, but you can't write scathing reviews consistently or go against the grain of the marketing department without eventually getting on the bad side of them.  If you want to be completely unbiased you get the hardware from your own budget for testing (just like Consumer Reports does).  I guess no one ever explained that to Gabriel.


----------



## TIGR (Jun 1, 2010)

Jeffredo said:


> If you want to be completely unbiased you get the hardware from your own budget for testing (just like Consumer Reports does).



Absolutely. To ensure "special samples" aren't tested, this has to be done anyway. It's why I do all my own testing (with products purchased through regular retail channels). Perhaps I should start my own review site.... 

Still ... in my book it's a strike against nVidia in the "integrity" department.


----------



## TIGR (Jun 2, 2010)

Resolved!

"Internal mess-up?" What do you all think?


----------



## newconroer (Jun 2, 2010)

TIGR said:


> [irrelevant]I have read most of the thirteen chapters of _Art of War_ several times, though not for years.[/irrelevant]
> 
> This topic is relevant to the Hardware section because:
> 
> ...




It is not about any actual hardware...and there is a place for it, the news section, since it's relevant to hardware of a type discussed frequently on this forum(for better or worse).

However if this 'news' was of any real merit, then the news team would have posted it.

Maybe you deemed it harmless, though time and time again, we've seen that anything of this nature always spirals downwards, and the knowledge gained therein wasn't worth all the drama that ensues.


On the subject itself, who the hell cares? 99% of reviewers are trash anyways simply in their methodology as well as their lack of attention to the appropriate detail(S). These guys were no different.


----------



## TIGR (Jun 2, 2010)

newconroer said:


> It is not about any actual hardware...and there is a place for it, the news section, since it's relevant to hardware of a type discussed frequently on this forum(for better or worse).
> 
> However if this 'news' was of any real merit, then the news team would have posted it.
> 
> ...



With complete respect and zero animosity:

*1*. I can't post in the news section.
*2*. It's up to those posting to determine whether or not topics go downhill, not the responsibility of OPs to refrain from posting any topic that _might_. Topics that "spiral downward" get closed anyway. The mods are _very_ good at what they do.
*3*. Some people _are_ interested in the subject, and if you're not, then you're just wasting your [and our] time by posting about how irrelevant it is to _you_.
*4*. If you feel the topic is inappropriate or misplaced, report the OP.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic, please don't clutter the thread.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 2, 2010)

TIGR said:


> Resolved!
> 
> "Internal mess-up?" What do you all think?



I said my thoughts before...I'm not surprised in the least.




cadaveca said:


> Of course, if you beleive that now they don't like nV, and then all of a sudden, they like nV again, you can pretty much guarantee this was all a set-up to "build credibility".




 Crappy marketing moves at best. Do you actually beleive nV said:

"Oops, we're so sorry, must have been a mix-up! Here, have a card to review..."


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> I said my thoughts before...I'm not surprised in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly, after reading his shit reviews, and hearing him throw a hissy fit about not getting free stuff, I'm surprised anyone would give him review samples.

Man, really makes you realize how easy it is to setup a crappy reviews site, then get free samples, I really should do this myself...


----------



## TIGR (Jun 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Honestly, after reading his shit reviews....



What problems did you find in the reviews you read at HS?


----------



## erocker (Jun 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Honestly, after reading his shit reviews, and hearing him throw a hissy fit about not getting free stuff, I'm surprised anyone would give him review samples.
> 
> Man, really makes you realize how easy it is to setup a crappy reviews site, then get free samples, I really should do this myself...



He was justified in what he did. Nvidia fucked up, the problem has been rectified. 

Yes you should start your own website, Nvidia would love your loyalty in reviewing their products.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

TIGR said:


> What problems did you find in the reviews you read at HS?



Oh god...do I have to restate myself?  I'll just quote what I already said to make it easier.

In some of the reviews I looked at:



newtekie1 said:


> They only have 5 or 6 cards total, only use 4 real-world game benchmarks, and 2 synthetic, talk nothing about noise, nothing about power consumption.





newtekie1 said:


> the review of the GTX260 and nVidia was "unhappy" with...[t]hey used a whole *1 game and 1 benchmark!*



I've read even more of their reviews, and there are some real shit ones(there are some decent, but that doesn't make up for the absolute shit reviews, especially since the recent reviews have been the worst).

Just look at the HD5830 review he did.  Again, only 4 game benchmarks and 2 synthectic benchmarks.  But also only comparing it to two other cards, a GTX260 and a GTX275?  That's helpful, how about comparing it to an HD5850 or an HD5770 and make the review actually useful.  

I have similar issues with the HD5670 review(3 other cards, only one from the same generation), the GT240, and HD5570.  In fact, it seems those last three reviews could have been combined into one.  Why?  Because he uses the exact same performance tests for all three.  He just compared them to eachother, and threw a 9800GT in the mix for the hell of it.  It was like he did the work for one review, and stretched it into three.  He could have just lumped the first few pages from each review together, then moved on to the performance numbers.

And it seems like his reviews have only gotten worse recently, because when I look back at some of the earlier reviews, they are decent, not great but decent.  They still use a limitted test set, but at least it is 6 real world games not not 4.  But he included a much larger number of cards.  I mean the GTX295 review he did at least had 17 cards to compare against, that is pretty good, but that is still no excuse for the poor quality of his recent reviews.



erocker said:


> He was justified in what he did. Nvidia fucked up, the problem has been rectified.
> 
> Yes you should start your own website, Nvidia would love your loyalty in reviewing their products.



No, with his shit reviews, he wasn't justified in throwing a hissy fit because nVidia cut him off.


----------



## erocker (Jun 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> No, with his shit reviews, he wasn't justified in throwing a hissy fit because nVidia cut him off.



Well, if Nvidia gave the reason that his reviews were shit and cut him off that would be one thing. You're taking your opinion and basing it off of Nvidia's decision which makes no sense to me. If you think his reviews are shit, fine, that's your opinion but has nothing to do with the situation.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 3, 2010)

I kinda agree with you on that erocker, however....

If his last nV review was a GTX260....on launch day....it's been how long?

A Year? Why wait this long to complain??


I guess if teh entire story was spelt out, it wouldn't leave room  for people to make up ideas as to what the truth is. Truth is a powerful tool everyone should use.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

erocker said:


> Well, if Nvidia gave the reason that his reviews were shit and cut him off that would be one thing. You're taking your opinion and basing it off of Nvidia's decision which makes no sense to me. If you think his reviews are shit, fine, that's your opinion but has nothing to do with the situation.



Sure it does.  He posted his little hissy fit to gather public outcry, the topic here was created to do the same.  I'm part of the public, and I say he is full of himself.



cadaveca said:


> I kinda agree with you on that erocker, however....
> 
> If his last nV review was a GTX260....on launch day....it's been how long?
> 
> ...



You know I didn't even notice that...and you bring up a good point.

The GTX260 review that he claims nvidia cut him off about was from May of 2009!

He just did a review of a GT240 in March of 2010!(where the hell did he get this card?)

So the problem obviously just came up after March of this year, so a month or two, and he is claiming it is from a review over a year old?  So nVidia hasn't contacted him in a month, so he flips out and assumes it is because of a review from over a year ago?  That makes even less sense...

Yeah, this guy is full of crap.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 3, 2010)

Serves them right,  good on NV black listing them as they give them cards to review the card and they failed to fully review it.

Common sense should of told them to do a full review.


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 3, 2010)

Resorting to bully-boy tactics suggests that they are not convinced that their current hardware can compete in today's market without "buying" praise in on-line reviews.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mr McC said:


> Resorting to bully-boy tactics suggests that they are not convinced that their current hardware can compete in today's market without "buying" praise in on-line reviews.



The review he claims got him blacklisted isn't for their current hardware, it is for hardware that is quite old actually, and a review that is over a year old.  So this is hardly nVidia bullying anyone to praise their current hardware...


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> The review he claims got him blacklisted isn't for their current hardware, it is for hardware that is quite old actually, and a review that is over a year old.  So this is hardly nVidia bullying anyone to praise their current hardware...



I see, so they've stopped blacklisting reviewers in relation to Fermi?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mr McC said:


> I see, so they've stopped blacklisting reviewers in relation to Fermi?



I don't know, I don't think they ever did, but I do know that it has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't know, I don't think they ever did, but I do know that it has nothing to do with this topic.



The creedence we ought to place in on-line reviews has nothing to do with the topic? The level of input Nvidia wishes to have in terms of review content has nothing to do with the topic? Take the 465 for example, do you think the variance evident in on-line review conclusions is simply the product of a healthy plurality of opinions or Nvidia ensuring that certain reviews mentioned Cuda and PhysX, amongst other "benefits"? Why do you wish to downplay the fact that Nvidia feels a need to censor review sites?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 3, 2010)

Any site worth it's reputation would be outside nV's circle of influence, IMHO. It's called PAYING for your review goods. Sure, you don't get stuff pre-launch, but who cares?


I'd prefer an accurate review over a timely one....

Like really, how is it possible for nV to censor a site that is privately owned?

Far too much in this situation doesn't add up. Whether it's the blog writer(as this was posted on his blog), or nV, isn't exactly clear...but I can pretty much guarantee that the full details of this situation aren't out in the open.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 3, 2010)

Mr McC said:


> The creedence we ought to place in on-line reviews has nothing to do with the topic? The level of input Nvidia wishes to have in terms of review content has nothing to do with the topic? Take the 465 for example, do you think the variance evident in on-line review conclusions is simply the product of a healthy plurality of opinions or Nvidia ensuring that certain reviews mentioned Cuda and PhysX, amongst other "benefits"? Why do you wish to downplay the fact that Nvidia feels a need to censor review sites?



I read several reviews of the GTX 465 and I don't see any of them sugar-coating its deficiencies.  Again, for review sites to get the free review hardware they are expected to mention exclusive features.  It doesn't mean they have to conclude the card is great when its average at best (and I haven't seen that yet concerning that card - reviewers have been a bit "underwhelmed" and are saying so).

I place little if any confidence in Gabriel's gripe - its ancient (and apparently unfounded by his own admission) history.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mr McC said:


> The creedence we ought to place in on-line reviews has nothing to do with the topic? The level of input Nvidia wishes to have in terms of review content has nothing to do with the topic? Take the 465 for example, do you think the variance evident in on-line review conclusions is simply the product of a healthy plurality of opinions or Nvidia ensuring that certain reviews mentioned Cuda and PhysX, amongst other "benefits"? Why do you wish to downplay the fact that Nvidia feels a need to censor review sites?



I just haven't seen any proof of it, other than off the wall review sites that no one has ever heard of trying to get some traffic.(Hardwaresecrets being a case in point.)

And now, this topic is about nVidia supposedly blacklisting hardwaresecrets about generation old hardware.  So their supposed blacklisting over Fermi has nothing to do with this thread.

And if nVidia wants the features of the card mentioned in the reviews in exchange for free samples, how is that really bad.  I know it is so terrible that nVidia makes sure the reviewers put all the features of the card in the reviews, because you know if they didn't the reviews would be so much better...


----------



## Mr McC (Jun 3, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Any site worth it's reputation would be outside nV's circle of influence, IMHO. It's called PAYING for your review goods. Sure, you don't get stuff pre-launch, but who cares?
> 
> 
> I'd prefer an accurate review over a timely one....
> ...



Agreed; however, how much pressure is a privately owned site put under if it is unable to publish reviews at the same time as its competitors? 

BFG has stated that he experienced similar blacklisting as a result of unfavourable comments in AlienBabelTech 470 reviews.



Jeffredo said:


> I read several reviews of the GTX 465 and I don't see any of them sugar-coating its deficiencies.  Again, for review sites to get the free review hardware they are expected to mention exclusive features.  It doesn't mean they have to conclude the card is great when its average at best (and I haven't seen that yet concerning that card - reviewers have been a bit "underwhelmed" and are saying so).
> 
> I place little if any confidence in Gabriel's gripe - its ancient (and apparently unfounded by his own admission) history.



Mussels posted a thread on PhysX and the conclusion, with which I agree, is that it is in fact largely irrelevant. 

Alienbabeltech is also griping.



newtekie1 said:


> I just haven't seen any proof of it, other than off the wall review sites that no one has ever heard of trying to get some traffic.(Hardwaresecrets being a case in point.)
> 
> And now, this topic is about nVidia supposedly blacklisting hardwaresecrets about generation old hardware.  So their supposed blacklisting over Fermi has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> And if nVidia wants the features of the card mentioned in the reviews in exchange for free samples, how is that really bad.  I know it is so terrible that nVidia makes sure the reviewers put all the features of the card in the reviews, because you know if they didn't the reviews would be so much better...



It doesn't appear to be an isolated incident:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2078922


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 3, 2010)

For all those concerned.


Not blacklisted!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 3, 2010)

El Fiendo said:


> For all those concerned.
> 
> 
> Not blacklisted!



Yesterday's news, and hence us talking about again.



MrMcC, as far as I am concerned, there is no website that has any legitimate claims to being "blacklisted". Any site that puts up such claims is run by a bunch of immature kids, as far as I am concerned. Sites that get stuff early, or for free, are providing marketing for the companies that provide the stuff. I don't need marketing..I need facts.

I was accused of complaining about a lack of free stuff landing in my hands in the past...however, at the time, that wasn't my gripe...the issue at hand was something far more complex, and now, a year and such alter, it seems that people are opening thier eyes to what I was REALLY complaining about.

Of course, I didn't give full info, so my comments were taken out of context. Oh well.

The same could be said here, however, I was complaining about guys with access to TONNES of hardware(working for OEMs), binning parts, and then using the binned parts to win overclocking competitions. These weren't "THE TOP" guys either..merely those with better access. Now, today, we see far more people winning competitions...and those with the real skill...just seem to stay out of it. 

Now, I'm gonna stay out of this one, now...I've said my piece, and I'm done. Hardware Secrets is on my personal blacklist...my own kids don't rant lie that, and what I expect my kids to do..I think it's reasonable to ask the same of an adult.


----------



## niko084 (Jun 3, 2010)

They are getting spanked by ATI right now, of course they have to throw a fit about not mentioning their abilities that .1% of users utilize.

***
Now after seeing that post about them not being blacklisted any longer really makes me wonder about what "REALLY" went down and why.


----------



## Paintface (Jun 3, 2010)

Im wondering if the pressure from nvidia is the reason that on ATI card reviews on TPU "no cuda/physx" is cited as a negative. Cause i cant understand that someone who decides to buy a card for its price/performance for gaming will ever need or even consider cuda or physx, not to mention cuda or physx isnt an option for board manufactures, it was never an option for them when manufacturing them, so criticising the card or manufacturer every single time on this when they make an ATI card simply doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 3, 2010)

I see it as a negative as well, as the lack of functionality is kind of a sore point with me, being one of the few people that actually bought an Ageia card.

I'd love to run an nV card with my ATi cards, and while technically possible, it takes more effort than the average consumer would generally put into it. Until this is rectified, I won't take those steps to get what I want...and I very clearly understand why nV has made things this way.

*I mean, we don't see nV stomping on the sites that provide the "hacks" to get Phys-X working with ATi cards, so W1zz putting that as a negative really doesn't seem like pressure from nV...if anything, he's trying to pressure ATi into adopting CUDA.*

I mean, ATi cards haven't seen a FAH client update in like 2 years now, in 2008. Ati really seems to have dropped the ball when it comes to GPGPU; they talked about GPU physics first(havoc), and that has never come to fruition, and many developers have already jumped on the Phys-X bandwagon, and most likely, due to a lack of ATi support when it comes to those technologies. ATi really seems to be doing nothing in this GPGPU field, and that's how W1zz has chosen to highlight this big fault on ATi's part.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mr McC said:


> Mussels posted a thread on PhysX and the conclusion, with which I agree, is that it is in fact largely irrelevant.
> 
> Alienbabeltech is also griping.



And I agree, it isn't really that relevent.  However, as I already said, it wasn't like nVidia is asking them to do a multi-page write-up about PhysX and CUDA, just list them in the specs of the cards.  A reviewer shouldn't be leaving out features of a card just because they don't find them relevent, a good review will at least mention them, and let the reader/customer decide on the relevence.

If a review was listing the features of a card and completely ignored the fact that it had a VGA port on it, I'd laugh in the reviewers face.  And if they responded with "I don't think VGA is relevent anymore, so I ignored it" I'd laugh harder.




Mr McC said:


> It doesn't appear to be an isolated incident:
> 
> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2078922



Like I said, I only seem to hear it from off the wall sites that want to make a name for themselves.  The only exception seems to Anandtech and according to The Inquirer also HardOCP.  Of course Anandtech wasn't blacklisted, as they did actually get invited to a GTS250 briefing and given a GTS250 sample.  Of course nothing actually came from HardOCP about the issue, and the same Inquirer article was full of anti-nVidia lies(such as the price of the GTS250 being jacked up, while the Anandtech article even states it is actually $50 cheaper), so can we even believe that HardOCP was ever blacklisted?  Oh, and what do you know the Inquirer article was from out favorite anti-nVidia full of shit author - Charlie Demerjian...



Paintface said:


> Im wondering if the pressure from nvidia is the reason that on ATI card reviews on TPU "no cuda/physx" is cited as a negative. Cause i cant understand that someone who decides to buy a card for its price/performance for gaming will ever need or even consider cuda or physx, not to mention cuda or physx isnt an option for board manufactures, it was never an option for them when manufacturing them, so criticising the card or manufacturer every single time on this when they make an ATI card simply doesnt make sense to me.



The same logic could be used to say that ATi was pressuring W1z to put "No Support for DX11" on ever nVidia review in the ~6-months between the launch of the HD5000 series and Fermi's launch.  And before that, listing "No support for DX10.1".  And really both features, to this day, are pretty much irrelevent.  In fact I think there might be more PhysX games at this point then there are DX11 games...

Oh, and on his reviews of the GTX295's he puts "Built on SLI technology" as a negative!  Holy shit, he's bad mouthing an nVidia technology!  That is worse then not even putting it in the review.  Why has nVidia not blacklisted him?  And in ever review of a GTS250 he says "No real product innovation"!  If your theory is correct, that nVidia puts pressure on reviewers to give them good reviews, and blacklists them for saying anything bad, how has W1z not been blacklisted?


----------



## Paintface (Jun 3, 2010)

I agree its fine if cuda etc is listed in the features, as it should.

But as you said physx is irrelavent, i cant see how someone would buy an nvidia card just cause of physx when the comparable ATI card is faster/cheaper/less power use.

I know the positive/negative list would be quite small if the main focus goes to performance/price/power usage/cooling although that is what is important about 3D cards.

Physx=Nvidia in the end, everyone who knows about physx and thinks its important knows he has to buy a Nvidia card to have it. Everyone who wants UVD knows its an ATI only feature, i dont see "no UVD" as a negative on Nvidia card reviews.
If nvidia adds a network connection to every videocard of theirs, will we see "no network connection" as a negative on every ATI review?

I let those reviews go for what they were in the past cause they were professionally conducted and i still read every single one and will continue to do so, but this article about how those nvidia "features" had to be focused on or they wouldnt get anymore review samples makes all of the above make alot more sense.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 3, 2010)

nV has a UVD equivalent. I'm sure it(lack of CUDA and Phys-X) wouldn't be listed as a negative if ATi had comparable technology to CUDA and Phys-X...sure, you can say ATIStream...but tell ya what...CUDA is far better.

And I definately don't like nV one bit. But I can see things pretty clearly here.


----------

