Those people need to move out of their parents' basement and either get some proper STEM education or a get a job. Sending death threats over brand loyalty, man that is some seriously twisted brain.
You are literally admitting you don't need the performance beyond what a 1070 has to offer. So the middle finger to Nvidia only applies because you don't 'need them'.. What happens when AMD cannot offer the performance you want? Still going to remain loyal? I doubt that. Or will you pick up on Raja's advice to crossfire a number of AMD cards to rival the competition ? Some food for thought I think... And its not directed at you personally but more in a broad sense: with all those people having principles, we still see Nvidia monopolizing the market. How is that possible, simple: people are hypocrites.
I can't see how I'm being hypocritical. I'm being something. But I don't think that's it. Not in this case anyway. I do agree that people are hypocrites though. Myself included. What I do know, for sure, is GPP royally pissed me off. And, believe it or not, I'd be just as pissed at AMD if they'd done it.
As far as AMD not coming up with something that I can buy that works good enough for me...that hasn't happened yet. Almost. But not quite. As I wouldn't settle for anything less than a Vega 56 ATM. Anyway, I'm still getting a Vega 64. Mostly because I think anyone would be stupid not to(it's a considerably better card for not very much, if any, more money). But if they don't release something in about 3-4 years that's at least 2x as good as that...then no. I'm not very likely to even consider buying it as a reasonable upgrade. They probably will though.
I must be strange since I love my Vega. Paid the same for it as 1070 Ti and it runs my 3440x1440 really well. 180Watts and quiet, and cool.
As far as I am concerned, AMD made the right decision to not focus on gamers because gamers gave them a big FU when they had products that were on par or better than the competition. However, it is arguably their fault because their PR team sucks.
The fact of the matter is that people need to just buy what works for them. The majority of companies don't care about you, at least until your warranty runs out anyway. Nvidia, AMD, Intel, etc, all of them.
No. You know, my comment is more about the competitive nature of how business is run in general, and how when you reach the height of competitiveness, you MUST expect things to take this shape, NO MATTER WHAT COMPANY. We have executives from all those companies going from one to the next on a regular basis, which is who should be taking the blame for things like this, not the company itself. It is the executives that approve and OK such tactics, and these people work for their competition often.
This isn't a problem with NVidia; it's a problem with every company out there, and until you realize that, there's no point, from where I sit, in complaining about it. It is better to invest that energy into actually doing something abut it, rather than hoping you rile up others to do it for you.
Me I'm doing something about it. Notice I don't cover many brands in my reviews... and I constantly tell people, if we didn't cover it, you shouldn't buy it.
There's a difference from actively working towards a better future, and simply complaining about it. You'll note I'm not denying there is a problem here, I am merely stating that this problem is far bigger than any, including yourself, seem willing to admit. With that in mind, you can't fix things by just approaching a little part of it.. you have to approach the entire problem and not its fingertips.
"You'll note I'm not denying there is a problem here"
I find that to be something of an about-face, given that your previous post attempted to justify by implying or outright stating that this behaviour (Which you have just described as a problem) is known as "success" and "reality" - which is to say, something inherent to both of those things and therefore cannot or indeed should not be challenged or changed.
There is an answer to these issues and it is not only to vote with your wallet, it is to take part in not only encouraging others to vote with theirs, but also making direct commentary to companies doing unacceptable things, to show that they are unacceptable. It is voting for government that is willing to legislate against these excesses. It is in being, as a human being, consistent in your condemnation of it and forming part of a larger whole that can and will enact change. For some issues that will simply be words, and for other issues that will be larger actions, according to your particular investment and your particular resources and ability.
There are many things, I am quite sure, within your life, that you vocally disagree with but simply do not have the time, resources, or energy to devote the same level of focus to, compared to this issue where you are very much needlessly touting your credentials regarding your contributions to TPU and it's reviews. They may take the form of any throwaway comment about, let's say, wasteful plastic packaging, or you may see a product that doesn't justify it's price in another field - who hasn't told someone they know "That's not worth the money, buy this instead" to someone who has nevertheless bought the inferior product anyway for some facile reason?
In each of those interactions you are nevertheless in some small way an agent for change, and it's, frankly, a bit rich, to be telling other people that when they make their own comments or contribute however they see fit, to any sort of effort to enact change as a consumer, that they are somehow doing it incorrectly simply because they have not elected to (or don't have the opportunity to, after all, we all have our lives to live and they're all quite different in their demands) go out of their way to the same degree you have, in order to make the same point or a similar point to the one you are making.
Also, I must admit, "if we don't review it don't buy it" may work for sites that ruthlessly champion the consumer's interest, like Gamer's Nexus, who are willing to throw themselves under the bus of a manufacturer's spite in order to call out bullshit as they see it, (Resulting in them being shut out by Cooler Master for a time, and not being sampled on recent AMD launches) but TPU has always taken a rather safe and placating stance towards product. In some instances the information must be pulled out of a review by the reader to note a flaw. In the case of TPU case coverage, it's barely more than an advertisement, as Darksaber seems incapable of having a bad word to say about any product, even that which contemporaries have already reviewed and found lacking.
There's no about-face at all. I stated earlier that it was normal, and welcome to the real world, to shorten what I said. I simply didn't say why I felt this way. Nice try though.
There are many things, I am quite sure, within your life, that you vocally disagree with but simply do not have the time, resources, or energy to devote the same level of focus to, compared to this issue where you are very much needlessly touting your credentials regarding your contributions to TPU and it's reviews. They may take the form of any throwaway comment about, let's say, wasteful plastic packaging, or you may see a product that doesn't justify it's price in another field - who hasn't told someone they know "That's not worth the money, buy this instead" to someone who has nevertheless bought the inferior product anyway for some facile reason?
Actually, you could not be more wrong about this either. We can start with me complaining about ASUS's forcing an boosted turbo profile when XMP is enabled on many boards, and we can see now that they don't, without giving you the option of running a normal Turbo profile. These companies actually listen to us as enthusiasts. There's lots that goes on in the background, too. There are several products on stores shelves today that were either designed by or largely affected by staff here at TPU. I'm rather proud to be surrounded by such success, success that you don't hear about. That makes it even more awesome.
Also, I must admit, "if we don't review it don't buy it" may work for sites that ruthlessly champion the consumer's interest, like Gamer's Nexus, who are willing to throw themselves under the bus of a manufacturer's spite in order to call out bullshit as they see it, (Resulting in them being shut out by Cooler Master for a time, and not being sampled on recent AMD launches) but TPU has always taken a rather safe and placating stance towards product. In some instances the information must be pulled out of a review by the reader to note a flaw. In the case of TPU case coverage, it's barely more than an advertisement, as Darksaber seems incapable of having a bad word to say about any product, even that which contemporaries have already reviewed and found lacking.
Criteria for reviews won't be the same from site to site, never mind from reviewer to reviewer. I agree that there should be some sort of standard, yet at the same time, if we all just did the same review, the whole review side of the industry would be nothing but an echo-chamber. So the fact that we might sometimes have a different perspective here at TPU rather than at other, much smaller sites, is exactly what I want to see, and I am glad you can find what you are looking for elsewhere if you find certain reviews to be lacking. After all, we link as many reviews from other sites on our front page every day, because we aren't competing with any other site. There's plenty of room for all of us, and more.
The perfect example of this is the current RGB fad. I really like it. I know many do not. But companies are making these products all RGB because RGB is helping them sell, even if the popular opinion given on forums is that RGB LEDs are horrible. If everyone felt that way, these companies would not be making every single thing they can RGB... so clearly there is room for differing ideas of what's right when it comes to hardware design... along with how a business should, is, and could be, run.
I'm also not one that buys into the idea of "if they had more money for R&D they could make better products" either. But then, I'm also one of those people that makes money on the internet and makes my own hours, so my opinion isn't ever going to be a common one.
Watched it and learned a few things (especially early NVIDIA history). Their corporate culture is worse than I thought.
I hope the FTC is continuing to investigate GPP. NVIDIA is long past due for trust busting.
Maxwell is literally the first good architecture NVIDIA ever made. I can't help but wonder if those stolen documents had something to do with that. AMD could have and should have had a new architecture by now but Ryzen development so drained AMD's coffers they couldn't afford to do it. Now that AMD is on a more solid financial foundation, here's hoping a brand new, fantastic architecture will debut in several years.
NVIDIA had quite few good architectures in the past as well. RivaTNT, RivaTNT2, GeForce 256, GeForce 2, 3 and 4, GeForce 6000, 7000 and 8000 series were excellent. Things got a bit meh (not bad, just "meh") when they started using GTX up till GTX 700 series which were very good and then GTX 900 which was really excellent.
ATI (now AMD) was a bit rubbish up till the release of Radeon series which were a breakthrough for ATi and they really started excelling when they made a right decision with pixel shaders during Radeon 9000 era (the GeForceFX thing). Then they had X1800 and X1900 which were superb and then some meh till amazing HD4000 and HD5000 series. HD6000 was a bit meh except the HD6900 which had VLIW4 instead of VLIW5 which gave it a nice boost over HD6800 series. And of course the legendary HD7000 series and R9-290. Polaris is by no means bad or a flop. I'd certainly count it with the best of AMD. R9 Fury and RX Vega however, I wouldn't say they are bad, they were quite capable cards, but they were just like first few generations of GTX. "Meh".
So, bottom line, they both had ups and downs. It's just that NVIDIA is at the "ups" phase right now and AMD isn't. Things can change and most likely will.
R300 was the chip that got me into ATi. X800,X1900, HD4870, 5870 and 6870 were all decent GPUs
Navi will still be GCN without MCM, which has already been confirmed by David Wang. So don’t expect RTG to be competitive until 2020 when the completely new design is ready
The obvious answer is that making all these comments is how they intend to get the fast video cards. Hoping to attract the attention of big green for some of that sweet marketing money maybe?
My 2 cents on the video:
I gave up watching after a few minutes. I just can't take this too seriously. There's so much hatred and raw incitement that no wonder that fanboys get so fanatic and radical these days.
I'm afraid this video does way more harm than good.
There's no about-face at all. I stated earlier that it was normal, and welcome to the real world, to shorten what I said. I simply didn't say why I felt this way. Nice try though.
Actually, you could not be more wrong about this either. We can start with me complaining about ASUS's forcing an boosted turbo profile when XMP is enabled on many boards, and we can see now that they don't, without giving you the option of running a normal Turbo profile. These companies actually listen to us as enthusiasts. There's lots that goes on in the background, too. There are several products on stores shelves today that were either designed by or largely affected by staff here at TPU. I'm rather proud to be surrounded by such success, success that you don't hear about. That makes it even more awesome.
Criteria for reviews won't be the same from site to site, never mind from reviewer to reviewer. I agree that there should be some sort of standard, yet at the same time, if we all just did the same review, the whole review side of the industry would be nothing but an echo-chamber. So the fact that we might sometimes have a different perspective here at TPU rather than at other, much smaller sites, is exactly what I want to see, and I am glad you can find what you are looking for elsewhere if you find certain reviews to be lacking. After all, we link as many reviews from other sites on our front page every day, because we aren't competing with any other site. There's plenty of room for all of us, and more.
The perfect example of this is the current RGB fad. I really like it. I know many do not. But companies are making these products all RGB because RGB is helping them sell, even if the popular opinion given on forums is that RGB LEDs are horrible. If everyone felt that way, these companies would not be making every single thing they can RGB... so clearly there is room for differing ideas of what's right when it comes to hardware design... along with how a business should, is, and could be, run.
I'm also not one that buys into the idea of "if they had more money for R&D they could make better products" either. But then, I'm also one of those people that makes money on the internet and makes my own hours, so my opinion isn't ever going to be a common one.
1 - You omitted a detailed description of your personal view, is your claim here, and therefore everyone should have assumed that by criticising the position of "Consumers should be vocally unhappy with any company that competes in an unfair way", you were in fact making no excuse for them. Frankly I believe this claim is dubious at best given the way you phrased your response (Condescendingly towards those making that point), and the context in which you posted it.
As for " could not be more wrong" - the entire paragraph of your response appears to have been placed after a quote of a paragraph of my post, to which your words are inapplicable. My paragraph states that consumers are not duty bound to take DIRECT action against companies whose business practices they disagree with, as, quite simply, nobody on earth has the time to be able to take such action in every instance. This is in response to YOUR criticism of "complaining", which characterises complaining as a useless and ineffectual act.
For you to then quote that paragraph, and then provide an example of your own in relation to it that only bolsters my exact point, betrays a fundamental misreading of my argument, by you.
Finally, you then present TPUs reticence to criticise product in any meaningful way as a positive.
I put it to you that the purpose of reviews, review sites, and the entire segment of the industry of which TPU is a part, is to enable customers to wisely spend their money on product that fits their needs as closely as possible and with the fewest compromises.
That aim is not achieved by glossing over or ignoring clear flaws with a product - doing so only harms the consumers ability to wisely spend their money, and I frankly consider any reviewer that is reticent to criticise product, to be complicit not in the creation of a meaningful and useful review, but in a marketing effort at best, and at worst, guilty of throwing the consumer to the lions for their own benefit.
Clearly there is room for debate about what constitutes a flaw, but it should be a warning sign that if the vast, vast majority of coverage is jot just positive, but positive in a glowing manner, that the review is no longer fulfilling that original purpose of assisting the consumer in making a better decision than they would have been able to without the review, as they are now forced to read between the lines and cross reference reviews in order to extract useful information - put simply, the review can no longer be trusted in its conclusions - instead it becomes something out of which the truth must be sieved, never a lie but neither the whole truth it purports to be.
1 - You omitted a detailed description of your personal view, is your claim here, and therefore everyone should have assumed that by criticising the position of "Consumers should be vocally unhappy with any company that competes in an unfair way", you were in fact making no excuse for them. Frankly I believe this claim is dubious at best given the way you phrased your response (Condescendingly towards those making that point), and the context in which you posted it.
As for " could not be more wrong" - the entire paragraph of your response appears to have been placed after a quote of a paragraph of my post, to which your words are inapplicable. My paragraph states that consumers are not duty bound to take DIRECT action against companies whose business practices they disagree with, as, quite simply, nobody on earth has the time to be able to take such action in every instance. This is in response to YOUR criticism of "complaining", which characterises complaining as a useless and ineffectual act.
For you to then quote that paragraph, and then provide an example of your own in relation to it that only bolsters my exact point, betrays a fundamental misreading of my argument, by you.
Finally, you then present TPUs reticence to criticise product in any meaningful way as a positive.
I put it to you that the purpose of reviews, review sites, and the entire segment of the industry of which TPU is a part, is to enable customers to wisely spend their money on product that fits their needs as closely as possible and with the fewest compromises.
That aim is not achieved by glossing over or ignoring clear flaws with a product - doing so only harms the consumers ability to wisely spend their money, and I frankly consider any reviewer that is reticent to criticise product, to be complicit not in the creation of a meaningful and useful review, but in a marketing effort at best, and at worst, guilty of throwing the consumer to the lions for their own benefit.
Clearly there is room for debate about what constitutes a flaw, but it should be a warning sign that if the vast, vast majority of coverage is jot just positive, but positive in a glowing manner, that the review is no longer fulfilling that original purpose of assisting the consumer in making a better decision than they would have been able to without the review, as they are now forced to read between the lines and cross reference reviews in order to extract useful information - put simply, the review can no longer be trusted in its conclusions - instead it becomes something out of which the truth must be sieved, never a lie but neither the whole truth it purports to be.
Gamer Nexus 'and consumer at heart'... come on man. Surely you too can see how todays' 'influencers' are exactly that - they are being used to influence us. Honestly, any Youtube 'reviewer' should be taken with a truckload of salt and most of the reviews are questionable all over the place in one way or another. Let's just face it... almost no one is free of bias in that sense. They even say so themselves and those who don't... really aren't all that credible. You become part of an ecosystem of suppliers, users and colleagues and its just like working within any kind of business: there is a culture and its hard to escape that culture entirely. The longer you stay in it, the more it infects your brain. There is but a tiny handful (and those are not the ones shouting it out loud, mind you) that can withstand that and really remain true to their principles for 100%.
You can literally point to each 'Youtuber' and see the flaws in their reasoning, their montage or even things that are factually wrong. AdoredTV, by the way, is leading the pack along with Linus in that sense. Its almost like real TV - the motivation for 90% of its content is getting as many viewers as possible, because subs and views = $$$. This Adored video is 100% in that category too and frankly, a product review, even if it gets a 9+ no matter what (TPU style), really isn't even close to that. To drive that home: go compare a random Youtube review with a TPU written one, especially the amount of data you get on each one. It should tell you more than enough, and numbers simply don't lie. I don't need a reviewer telling me something's bad, I can tell by the benchmarks.
The problem with people criticizing TPU reviews in general is because they've insta-scrolled to the conclusion, read a 9+, and ran out of attention span. Its a trend you see everywhere and the problem is with the reader, not the content.
I didn't watch entire video, but eh. One part in the video he states, "which shows Nvidia is merciless in dealing with in competition". I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that is the very definition of capitalism and free markets. lol, no big surprise for me here. Just the way of the world.
I personally am just waiting for a 2019/2020 AMD GPU that can manhandle 4k 60 FPS, and I have every intention of doing Ryzen 3800x and Vega 2 or 3, full AMD just like the glory days of my teenage years.
ATI was cheap enough to allow me to game as a teenager 18 years ago, and for that I will always be thankful, that is the single and only reason I intend to return to the red team someday.
Gamer Nexus 'and consumer at heart'... come on man. Surely you too can see how todays' 'influencers' are exactly that - they are being used to influence us. Honestly, any Youtube 'reviewer' should be taken with a truckload of salt and most of the reviews are questionable all over the place in one way or another. Let's just face it... almost no one is free of bias in that sense. They even say so themselves and those who don't... really aren't all that credible. You become part of an ecosystem of suppliers, users and colleagues and its just like working within any kind of business: there is a culture and its hard to escape that culture entirely. The longer you stay in it, the more it infects your brain. There is but a tiny handful (and those are not the ones shouting it out loud, mind you) that can withstand that and really remain true to their principles for 100%.
You can literally point to each 'Youtuber' and see the flaws in their reasoning, their montage or even things that are factually wrong. AdoredTV, by the way, is leading the pack along with Linus in that sense. Its almost like real TV - the motivation for 90% of its content is getting as many viewers as possible, because subs and views = $$$. This Adored video is 100% in that category too and frankly, a product review, even if it gets a 9+ no matter what (TPU style), really isn't even close to that. To drive that home: go compare a random Youtube review with a TPU written one, especially the amount of data you get on each one. It should tell you more than enough, and numbers simply don't lie. I don't need a reviewer telling me something's bad, I can tell by the benchmarks.
The problem with people criticizing TPU reviews in general is because they've insta-scrolled to the conclusion, read a 9+, and ran out of attention span. Its a trend you see everywhere and the problem is with the reader, not the content.
Firstly, their youtube video review of the Fractal Define R6 (A case they liked), is literally thumbnailed with big bold text that reads "FINALLY SOMETHING DECENT".
Secondly, here are some quotes from the BODY of their article on the Bitfenix Enso (Not the conclusion, to which someone may scroll and read a 9+ as you put it):
"The front panel is a mess of filters, LEDs, wires, plastic reinforcement, and steel. It’s surprisingly heavy for an otherwise lightweight case, and it’s certainly sturdy, bordering on overbuilt--there’s even a thick reinforcing frame of plastic behind the steel. In other words, the front panel has had a lot of design work and presumably money put into it, but somehow nobody thought to put a vent in. We’ll elaborate more on this in the thermal section, but this is where the Enso’s problems really begin."
"The PSU has to be inserted from the side, not the back, which made the cage’s placement even more inconvenient. If they haven’t already, Bitfenix undoubtedly plans to use this chassis as the basis for more enclosures, which is fine--but it’s frustrating to see evidence of missing features like this."
"Again, we’ve tested cases with worse stock deltas, but even the Antec P8 was capable of showing improvement with extra fans. The Enso doesn’t have this headroom, and as a result it’s stuck performing little better than the stock Spec-04 at GPU cooling, a case that came with only one fan and retails for $50."
Now compare their Bitfenix Enso conclusion to TPU's - And note that the in-line link leads to a video of GN criticising the entire case industry at once.
We’ve had concerns about the Enso for as long as we’ve been aware of it, but we were told that the version shown at Computex wasn’t necessarily final and that additional ventilation was being considered. We were also initially told that Bitfenix was shooting for a $60-70 price, which would be competitive even for a complete lemon. Instead, the Enso followed the exact trajectory of the Antec P8, another budget tempered glass case that we were told would cost $70, released at $90, had poor ventilation, and felt very much budget-tier. In fact, the P8 came with three (admittedly ineffective) fans and had a trickle of airflow, which could be increased by adding higher-quality fans. The Enso’s unique selling points are addressable RGB, glass, and a nicely done white paint job, which covers looks and nothing else. Even in that regard the Enso is pedestrian next to Bitfenix’s unique-looking Portal, Shogun, or Aurora cases.
Hell, they even made this video:
Wherein they not only swipe at a multitude of other youtubers who produced sponsored content, but also take a further swipe at the Cooler Master H500P, by literally calling it a large piece of trash.
And they're known for this even when referenced by the other youtubers who may be guilty of what you say - The recent computex booth coverage "controversy" for example - Luke on the WAN show literally *laughed* at the fact Gamers Nexus were included in the list that was tweeted, because (And I attempt to quote from memory) "They will savage anyone"
Firstly, their youtube video review of the Fractal Define R6 (A case they liked), is literally thumbnailed with big bold text that reads "FINALLY SOMETHING DECENT".
Secondly, here are some quotes from the BODY of their article on the Bitfenix Enso (Not the conclusion, to which someone may scroll and read a 9+ as you put it):
"The front panel is a mess of filters, LEDs, wires, plastic reinforcement, and steel. It’s surprisingly heavy for an otherwise lightweight case, and it’s certainly sturdy, bordering on overbuilt--there’s even a thick reinforcing frame of plastic behind the steel. In other words, the front panel has had a lot of design work and presumably money put into it, but somehow nobody thought to put a vent in. We’ll elaborate more on this in the thermal section, but this is where the Enso’s problems really begin."
"The PSU has to be inserted from the side, not the back, which made the cage’s placement even more inconvenient. If they haven’t already, Bitfenix undoubtedly plans to use this chassis as the basis for more enclosures, which is fine--but it’s frustrating to see evidence of missing features like this."
"Again, we’ve tested cases with worse stock deltas, but even the Antec P8 was capable of showing improvement with extra fans. The Enso doesn’t have this headroom, and as a result it’s stuck performing little better than the stock Spec-04 at GPU cooling, a case that came with only one fan and retails for $50."
Now compare their Bitfenix Enso conclusion to TPU's - And note that the in-line link leads to a video of GN criticising the entire case industry at once.
We’ve had concerns about the Enso for as long as we’ve been aware of it, but we were told that the version shown at Computex wasn’t necessarily final and that additional ventilation was being considered. We were also initially told that Bitfenix was shooting for a $60-70 price, which would be competitive even for a complete lemon. Instead, the Enso followed the exact trajectory of the Antec P8, another budget tempered glass case that we were told would cost $70, released at $90, had poor ventilation, and felt very much budget-tier. In fact, the P8 came with three (admittedly ineffective) fans and had a trickle of airflow, which could be increased by adding higher-quality fans. The Enso’s unique selling points are addressable RGB, glass, and a nicely done white paint job, which covers looks and nothing else. Even in that regard the Enso is pedestrian next to Bitfenix’s unique-looking Portal, Shogun, or Aurora cases.
Hell, they even made this video:
Wherein they not only swipe at a multitude of other youtubers who produced sponsored content, but also take a further swipe at the Cooler Master H500P, by literally calling it a large piece of trash.
And they're known for this even when referenced by the other youtubers who may be guilty of what you say - The recent computex booth coverage "controversy" for example - Luke on the WAN show literally *laughed* at the fact Gamers Nexus were included in the list that was tweeted, because (And I attempt to quote from memory) "They will savage anyone"
I have to agree. GamersNexus have even admitted they are losing money I think, which is why they are selling more and more stuff in their own store, because they are not being sent samples anymore.
I have to agree. GamersNexus have even admitted they are losing money I think, which is why they are selling more and more stuff in their own store, because they are not being sent samples anymore.
I don't recall that particular claim, although yes, they are attempting to become completely non-reliant on sponsor income and manufacturers, and the modmats and store are part of that.
Steve has also gone on record as saying he would rather piss off a manufacturer than his audience, and that he doesn't lose sleep over pissing off a company like Cooler Master, because their PR representatives cycle around the industry so much and so often that it will almost always be a temporary state of affairs, with that manufacturer eventually coming back to GN willing to work with them.
I believe that may already have happened with CoolerMaster in fact, as they seemed to have been sampled along with the rest of the tech press, for their review of the H500M, and their computex coverage included some conversations with CM staff where there seemed to be some remaining ice, but broadly speaking, a thawed attitude.
Firstly, their youtube video review of the Fractal Define R6 (A case they liked), is literally thumbnailed with big bold text that reads "FINALLY SOMETHING DECENT".
Secondly, here are some quotes from the BODY of their article on the Bitfenix Enso (Not the conclusion, to which someone may scroll and read a 9+ as you put it):
"The front panel is a mess of filters, LEDs, wires, plastic reinforcement, and steel. It’s surprisingly heavy for an otherwise lightweight case, and it’s certainly sturdy, bordering on overbuilt--there’s even a thick reinforcing frame of plastic behind the steel. In other words, the front panel has had a lot of design work and presumably money put into it, but somehow nobody thought to put a vent in. We’ll elaborate more on this in the thermal section, but this is where the Enso’s problems really begin."
"The PSU has to be inserted from the side, not the back, which made the cage’s placement even more inconvenient. If they haven’t already, Bitfenix undoubtedly plans to use this chassis as the basis for more enclosures, which is fine--but it’s frustrating to see evidence of missing features like this."
"Again, we’ve tested cases with worse stock deltas, but even the Antec P8 was capable of showing improvement with extra fans. The Enso doesn’t have this headroom, and as a result it’s stuck performing little better than the stock Spec-04 at GPU cooling, a case that came with only one fan and retails for $50."
Now compare their Bitfenix Enso conclusion to TPU's - And note that the in-line link leads to a video of GN criticising the entire case industry at once.
We’ve had concerns about the Enso for as long as we’ve been aware of it, but we were told that the version shown at Computex wasn’t necessarily final and that additional ventilation was being considered. We were also initially told that Bitfenix was shooting for a $60-70 price, which would be competitive even for a complete lemon. Instead, the Enso followed the exact trajectory of the Antec P8, another budget tempered glass case that we were told would cost $70, released at $90, had poor ventilation, and felt very much budget-tier. In fact, the P8 came with three (admittedly ineffective) fans and had a trickle of airflow, which could be increased by adding higher-quality fans. The Enso’s unique selling points are addressable RGB, glass, and a nicely done white paint job, which covers looks and nothing else. Even in that regard the Enso is pedestrian next to Bitfenix’s unique-looking Portal, Shogun, or Aurora cases.
Hell, they even made this video:
Wherein they not only swipe at a multitude of other youtubers who produced sponsored content, but also take a further swipe at the Cooler Master H500P, by literally calling it a large piece of trash.
And they're known for this even when referenced by the other youtubers who may be guilty of what you say - The recent computex booth coverage "controversy" for example - Luke on the WAN show literally *laughed* at the fact Gamers Nexus were included in the list that was tweeted, because (And I attempt to quote from memory) "They will savage anyone"
Of course, and this is how GN sells itself now, as the nasty bugger that doesn't care about anything. Its another way to get views and subs and above all: stand out. The problem is, nuanced opinions don't get a lot of views, and generally, those are the most valuable opinions. Its not rocket science. These reviewers are about the show, not the content.
You see, that R6 review: even that is a full caps, and attention seeking headline. 'Finally' something decent. As if all other cases are shit, which they really aren't - far from it. Its the same screaming headline with the same unfounded type of statements. Everything is an extreme... even when its 'decent'. Spoiler: Fractal has made an R4, R5 and R6 and all you see here are small tweaks and improvements. 'Finally' something decent... just like all the ones that came before it
You have to understand these are all just business models. Every event has its controversy, so every influencer can take his stance on it and garner attention. Every product has its fans and haters, because strong opinions spark debate. Everything is yanked into overdrive. Just like this topic based on AdoredTV's little video. So yes, I lump GN right in there with the rest of them. They even had the gall to mimic HardOCP's recent statements on Nvidia to get their subs up - zero work, maximum exposure. Blegh.
Of course, and this is how GN sells itself now, as the nasty bugger that doesn't care about anything. Its another way to get views and subs and above all: stand out. The problem is, nuanced opinions don't get a lot of views, and generally, those are the most valuable opinions. Its not rocket science. These reviewers are about the show, not the content.
You see, that R6 review: even that is a full caps, and attention seeking headline. 'Finally' something decent. As if all other cases are shit, which they really aren't - far from it. Its the same screaming headline with the same unfounded type of statements. Everything is an extreme... even when its 'decent'. Spoiler: Fractal has made an R4, R5 and R6 and all you see here are small tweaks and improvements. 'Finally' something decent... just like all the ones that came before it
You have to understand these are all just business models. Every event has its controversy, so every influencer can take his stance on it and garner attention. Every product has its fans and haters, because strong opinions spark debate. Everything is yanked into overdrive. Just like this topic based on AdoredTV's little video. So yes, I lump GN right in there with the rest of them. They even had the gall to mimic HardOCP's recent statements on Nvidia to get their subs up - zero work, maximum exposure. Blegh.
So what you're saying is that by making it marketable to critically review product, thus providing the consumer with all of the viewpoints the manufacturers would prefer were not public, Gamers Nexus are in some way mistreating the consumer?
What insane planet are you living on? What GN have done is find a way to be fiscally viable as a business, without having to compromise their ethics or the function of a review in order to keep manufacturers happy. It is the exact model of what review sites and critics in every industry, not only computing, should be doing - Unhooking themselves from the teat of the people they are supposed to be criticising.
Edit: And as for "Mimicing HardOCP's statements" - They rather pointedly did not run a story of their own on GPP until *after* the program had been pulled, because they were corroborating their information with industry sources, rather than jumping the gun and simply regurgitating as truth, the single source that most people were working with, which was Kyle's article. Once the GPP had been pulled they released a video containing the information they had been able to corroborate from multiple sources. Before that, their GPP coverage had been limited to covering what other people were saying about it, and a couple of short Ask GN segments where he stated that GN were attempting to get more information from industry sources before running a more in-depth video.
In what way is any of that "Mimicing HardOCP's statements" ?
? Some food for thought I think... And its not directed at you personally but more in a broad sense: with all those people having principles, we still see Nvidia monopolizing the market. How is that possible, simple: people are hypocrites.
