Support TechPowerUp on Patreon, Unlock New Features

[Soy]

I was posting on bulletin board systems since the mid 80s. I consider that to be online.





I can't see ads anymore but when I did they weren't intrusive. Probably the least intrusive ads that I have seen on most sites.

I think the ads on the site are done well. I've got TPU whitelisted in the adblocker. It is the "sponsored" illegal software key posts that I take issue with for ethical reasons.

I like how all these "new" members are in this thread. Which means they are actual TPU users who dont want to throw their name into the fire.

I"m not another user. Been viewing this site for well over a decade and have been looking for a way to support it as I well know the costs of running an active community. However I've got to agree with the decision-making of the operators. The illegal keys are a sticking point for me.

As far as your problem with "new" members, Wizzard will be able to spend their money just as he can yours. You'd be surprised how in communities the silent, "less active" ones come through in a big way with financial support. So your comment may very well be costing Wizzard money in the end.

 

[bogami]

And so we lost the internet! everyone makes membership fees, including antivirus upgrades, every year! Abuse of the position is nothing new !!! The pigs are multiplying, and it will be bursting somewhere ...

 

[NRANM]

Sure, but if you're complaining about things, this is an easy way to show that you're willing to put your wallet where your mouth is and contribute something towards getting what you want.

One can definitely give TPU (or whatever creator/reviewer/channel/site/etc.) the benefit of the doubt, and pledge a certain amount, hoping that things will change, and if they don't, simply cancel said pledge. Seems reasonable.
However, it also seems reasonable, to support something/someone only if a certain criteria is met. After all, that how it is usually done. I don't purchase a piece of software, hoping that it would one day have the feature I need.
Both seem perfectly sensible approaches to me. Different people have different views.

Besides, if TPU is already doing really well, that would mean that any additional funds from Patreon would not be critically important to the site's survival, so there is little incentive for the TPU staff to listen to the Patrons for feedback, which is perfectly fine, as it is W1zzard's project, and he isn't obliged to change things, unless he wants to. However, that also means that if people have an issue with the site and/or its staff that is a deal-breaker when it comes to donations, and they don't think their pledge would change anything (as outlined above), they have every right to withhold said donations.

I'm generally for this change, as (like I already stated earlier) I believe the additional funds can help the site grow and/or be not as constrained by various written or unwritten rules, restrictions, limitations, NDAs, etc. in the industry.
However, everyone decides how to spend their money.

 

[Imouto]

Benchmarking is about testing everything on equal grounds. Of course no one in their right mind is going to use a 1650 Super to play at 4K. You do need, however, a common baseline for all your testing, in order to compare performance. That comes in the form of using the same platform (CPU, RAM, etc), as well as the same graphical settings. You could argue for testing at High settings instead of Ultra but testing one GPU at High and another at Ultra invalidates the results.

What is the point of the comparison then? They are just numbers thrown around.

Going back again to the Borderlands 3 review I honestly don't know how in the world does it help saying that a RTX 2080 Ti gets 43.4 FPS at 4K Ultra when no one in their right mind would play at those settings. Or, for instance, those not working at all in the lowest end.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I was posting on bulletin board systems since the mid 80s. I consider that to be online.

Daim! You're old
Used a few myself, but even that was in the early 90's.

One can definitely give TPU (or whatever creator/reviewer/channel/site/etc.) the benefit of the doubt, and pledge a certain amount, hoping that things will change, and if they don't, simply cancel said pledge. Seems reasonable.
However, it also seems reasonable, to support something/someone only if a certain criteria is met. After all, that how it is usually done. I don't purchase a piece of software, hoping that it would one day have the feature I need.

Both seem perfectly sensible approaches to me. Different people have different views.
Besides, if TPU is already doing really well, that would mean that any additional funds from Patreon would not be critically important to the site's survival, so there is little incentive for the TPU staff to listen to the Patrons for feedback, which is perfectly fine, as it is W1zzard's project, and he isn't obliged to change things, unless he wants to. However, that also means that if people have an issue with the site and/or its staff that is a deal-breaker when it comes to donations, and they don't think their pledge would change anything (as outlined above), they have every right to withhold said donations.

I'm generally for this change, as (like I already stated earlier) I believe the additional funds can help the site grow and/or be not as constrained by various written or unwritten rules, restrictions, limitations, NDAs, etc. in the industry.
However, everyone decides how to spend their money.

Considering the content is "free" unlike your comparison with software, I can't really make the connection you're trying to make.

Survival vs. adding more/new types of content aren't the same thing though, are they?
I would look at this as an opportunity to influence the site, as on top of the money, you have now an exclusive channel to contact the site and give them your opinions. It's also much more likely they'll care about those opinions from someone that's contributing financially to the site, no? Unlike what you're trying to insinuate.
But then again, I guess you know nothing about @W1zzard since you are relatively new here and don't seem to spend much time here.
I've known him since before TPU even existed, but hey, who's counting...

You're right though, the whole patreon thing is voluntary, but if people are going to come and claim that they want X, Y and Z before they're willing to contribute financially, then I think I have the right to call them out and ask on what grounds they feel they're entitled to ask for said features, if they're not willing to contribute.

 

[EarthDog]

See, that last line in your comment, right there, tells you exactly why things aren't changing. You now have a chance to financially support a rather small publication that is asking for contribution, but you say no, because a few things aren't up to your standards.

Many of the concerns I have with the site can't be helped by money. It's a big, extremely polarizing, and generally toxic (which yes, clearly I'm not an angel and part of that - which is the problem... the toxic live on, lol) community behind the blog and reviews. Copy/paste news, off base and/or poorly/not researched news pieces...mobo reviews done well below the base memory spec (w/o editors knowing?). It seems like a lack of editorial oversight.

Would this pay for an editor? If so, I'll put my money where my big yap is too... not a monthly thing, naaaa, but I'll drop some coin if it reels in some of the excess and tighten things up. GPU reviews are second to none. Motherboard reviews are, now, solid (since he was urged to run them properly - but not like when Dave did it), case reviews are borderline yikes (they are unboxings and the author doesn't seem to respond to many posts at all). A lot of this can be improved without additional money.

The sky is the limit here, and I am ready to see TPU go to the next level...hopefully patreons can help MTPUGA.

With the amount of traffic this site gets...is monetization of the current assets optimal?

 

[Rahnak]

What is the point of the comparison then? They are just numbers thrown around.

Going back again to the Borderlands 3 review I honestly don't know how in the world does it help saying that a RTX 2080 Ti gets 43.4 FPS at 4K Ultra when no one in their right mind would play at those settings. Or, for instance, those not working at all in the lowest end.

The point is precisely being able to compare different GPUs. If you bench a RX570 at High and a RX590 at Ultra, you can no longer compare the performance difference between them because your baseline isn't equal.

Now, I get your point, you want GPUs tested in their optimal/intended use cases so you know what performance you are going to get when playing games. But doing so would be a tremendous amount of work, because not only would you not use an RX 570 at Ultra, you most likely wouldn't pair it with a 9900k either. In an ideal world, you'd have both sets of tests, but that's not realistic. Imo, the comparison between different GPUs is more beneficial to the buyer than benching for the ideal setting.

 

[W1zzard]

that would mean that any additional funds from Patreon would not be critically important to the site's survival

you have now an exclusive channel to contact the site and give them your opinions

Correct

 

[TheLostSwede]

What is the point of the comparison then? They are just numbers thrown around.

Going back again to the Borderlands 3 review I honestly don't know how in the world does it help saying that a RTX 2080 Ti gets 43.4 FPS at 4K Ultra when no one in their right mind would play at those settings. Or, for instance, those not working at all in the lowest end.

Dude, you clearly don't know the first thing about benchmarking hardware if that's your comment to his very logical explanation.
I've spent about a decade of my life testing hardware for various publications and although test methodologies improve and new tests are being used, you need to compare apples with apples, otherwise you're just wasting your time and come up with flawed conclusions.
You seems to want some kind of testing that would just end up being nonsense.

If anything, it seems like what you want, is a new addition to the tests that tells you what quality settings and resolution in each games gives you playable frame rate with whatever card is being tested at the various resolutions. But this is an entirely different thing and doesn't involve comparative benchmarks.

As for your Borderlands 3 question, it tells people that they shouldn't expect to be able to play said game at said resolution with said hardware. It's as simple as that. See again above, as that seems to be what you're asking for and not benchmark figures.

Many of the concerns I have with the site can't be helped by money. It's a big, extremely polarizing, and generally toxic (which yes, clearly I'm not an angel and part of that - which is the problem... the toxic live on, lol) community behind the blog and reviews. Copy/paste news, off base and/or poorly researched pieces...mobo reviews done well below the base memory spec (w/o editors knowing?. It seems like a lack of editorial oversight.

Would this pay for an editor? If so, I'll put my money where my big yap is too... not a monthly thing, naaaa, but I'll drop some coin if it reels in some of the excess and tighten things up. GPU reviews are second to none. Motherboard reviews are, now, solid (but not like when Dave did it), case reviews are borderline yikes (they are unboxings and the author doesn't seem to respond to many posts at all. A lot of this can be improved without additional money.

The sky is the limit here, and I am ready to see TPU go to the next level...hopefully patreons can help MTPUGA.

Now see, this is at least some constructive criticism and I even agree on a lot of those points. But the difference is that you never said you want those things before you'd be willing to contribute, which is what my point was.

 

[R-T-B]

send me your resume and some sample posts

and take it from me: It's not as easy as it sounds.

If I thought it was just w1zzard and not that journalism frankly is just hard work, I'd still be sending out resumed. I'm not.

 

[TheLostSwede]

and take it from me: It's not as easy as it sounds.

It was actually a LOT easier back in the magazine days, as you had a whole month to produce the content before it went to print. These days, you need multiple articles a day or the readership goes elsewhere. I believe this is also why there's so much crap content online and why no-one does any real copy editing any more. Reading far bigger publications than TPU has me in tears at times and English is not my first language...

 

[EarthDog]

But the difference is that you never said you want those things before you'd be willing to contribute, which is what my point was.

Well, I've said that before in public as well as to stakeholders over the years... so, I did (assuming I didn't misunderstand). And, these changes are free anyway.

But yeah, I'd throw down a dono if I knew the cash is going towards an editor to clean up some of the content. Otherwise, its the same thing. I don't care about the features being a patreon brings... as a EIC/editor/reviewer and site owner myself, the blog content and toxic AF back-end is what needs cleaned up (for me).

 

[Kinestron]

I like Patreon, and I plan to pledge for TPU. But not until Feb 1st. And just my 2 cents, you should've held off on this post until Feb 1st. You see, Patreon always bills on the 1st of the month. No matter when you pledge/subscribe, you're next charge will be the 1st of the next month. For instance, if you pledge today it will renew and charge again in only a couple days. It's really dumb that they operate this way, and to me it means Patreon account holders should refrain from enticing signups toward the end of any given month. People new to Patreon that don't understand this can be very put off by it.

Just putting it out there in case there are folks here new to Patreon.

Thanks, I didn't know that and would have been peeved seeing the charge again so soon. I plan on pledging for a couple months here and there. I just hope what happened to HardOCP doesn't happen here where just a few months after I started donating(due to their coverage of Nvidia GPP that no one else was confronting), they shut down to pursue other ventures.

 

[NRANM]

Considering the content is "free" unlike your comparison with software, I can't really make the connection you're trying to make.

The principle remains the same. People don't usually spend money on something/anything, hoping that the issue they have with that thing would be resolved in the future.

Survival vs. adding more/new types of content aren't the same thing though, are they?
I would look at this as an opportunity to influence the site, as on top of the money, you have now an exclusive channel to contact the site and give them your opinions. It's also much more likely they'll care about those opinions from someone that's contributing financially to the site, no? Unlike what you're trying to insinuate.

I never argued that surviving and adding more content were the same thing.
If Person X starts a Patreon for some bonus funding to an already well functioning project, why would that Person X care much about the opinion of Person Y if Person Y's contribution is insignificant? Who cares about that one-digit amount from a single person? It's a drop in the ocean.

But then again, I guess you know nothing about @W1zzard since you are relatively new here and don't seem to spend much time here.
I've known him since before TPU even existed, but hey, who's counting...

Your smugness kind of proves my point, I think.
Maybe some users don't know W1zzard as well. Maybe they are more recent members/users who have seen multiple gaffs from TPU, and maybe they believe they could've been handled better, so they wouldn't be as confident in TPU's staff as more frequent and/or long-time users.

You're right though, the whole patreon thing is voluntary, but if people are going to come and claim that they want X, Y and Z before they're willing to contribute financially, then I think I have the right to call them out and ask on what grounds they feel they're entitled to ask for said features, if they're not willing to contribute.

There is nothing wrong with asking those people why they wouldn't contribute. There is something wrong with trying to shame and/or guilt them into donating. Their reasons for not donating are their own. To you, their reasons may be silly; to them, they are not.

 

[Cheeseball]

... how in the world does it help saying that a RTX 2080 Ti gets 43.4 FPS at 4K Ultra ...

It brings up three points:
"Borderlands 3 is quite stressful at Badass settings on the currently most powerful consumer card at the moment"
"to get a playable, yet enjoyable experience, you would need to lower your settings"
"this video card is better than this one when at these settings"

Off-topic, but FWIW, I can get around 100 to 120 FPS on a mix of High and Ultra settings on a reference RX 5700 XT. I can pound on 144 FPS on mostly Ultra settings on a RTX 2080 Super. If I use the RX 5700 XT settings on the 2080 Super, I only get drops to around 114 FPS (from what I remember) in extremely crowded fights.

The only thing I keep at "Medium" is the stupid volumetric fog. No real visual changes when setting this higher or such.

 

[R-T-B]

It was actually a LOT easier back in the magazine days, as you had a whole month to produce the content before it went to print. These days, you need multiple articles a day or the readership goes elsewhere. I believe this is also why there's so much crap content online and why no-one does any real copy editing any more. Reading far bigger publications than TPU has me in tears at times and English is not my first language...

Indeed. I was trained in a college newspaper... that had a real printing press in the basement.

It was a scary place that smelled bad. But it was home, and I miss it.

 

[Blitzr]

Hey W1zzard.

What patreon unlocks will affect the mobile TPU app? "Reviews" tab is already formatted to a single-page layout.

 

[TheLostSwede]

The principle remains the same. People don't usually spend money on something/anything, hoping that the issue they have with that thing would be resolved in the future.


I never argued that surviving and adding more content were the same thing.
If Person X starts a Patreon for some bonus funding to an already well functioning project, why would that Person X care much about the opinion of Person Y if Person Y's contribution is insignificant? Who cares about that one-digit amount from a single person? It's a drop in the ocean.


Your smugness kind of proves my point, I think.
Maybe some users don't know W1zzard as well. Maybe they are more recent members/users who have seen multiple gaffs from TPU, and maybe they believe they could've been handled better, so they wouldn't be as confident in TPU's staff as more frequent and/or long-time users.


There is nothing wrong with asking those people why they wouldn't contribute. There is something wrong with trying to shame and/or guilt them into donating. Their reasons for not donating are their own. To you, their reasons may be silly; to them, they are not.

Again, you clearly don't seem to grasp the idea behind this, nor the fact did you see that @W1zzard stated that the point of the closed forum was that the Patreon supporters would have a more direct line of communication with him and the team. But please, keep making up your own ideas if that makes you happy instead of actually bothering to try and understand what it is they're trying to do here.

 

[NRANM]

Again, you clearly don't seem to grasp the idea behind this, nor the fact did you see that @W1zzard stated that the point of the closed forum was that the Patreon supporters would have a more direct line of communication with him and the team. But please, keep making up your own ideas if that makes you happy instead of actually bothering to try and understand what it is they're trying to do here.

Having a more direct line of communication does not in any way guarantee that any criticisms or suggestions would be addressed or even acknowledged.

And since it would seem I am incapable of understanding the situation (or maybe you know something I don't), care to enlighten me, kind sir?

 

[Imouto]

The point is precisely being able to compare different GPUs. If you bench a RX570 at High and a RX590 at Ultra, you can no longer compare the performance difference between them because your baseline isn't equal.

Now, I get your point, you want GPUs tested in their optimal/intended use cases so you know what performance you are going to get when playing games. But doing so would be a tremendous amount of work, because not only would you not use an RX 570 at Ultra, you most likely wouldn't pair it with a 9900k either. In an ideal world, you'd have both sets of tests, but that's not realistic. Imo, the comparison between different GPUs is more beneficial to the buyer than benching for the ideal setting.

Wait. Are you telling me that the only point of these benchmarks is purely academic and with no real world usage? Because I don't need to be reminded with every single GPU review that the RTX 2080 Ti is 10 times better than a RX 570. Even less at pointless settings.

Because in the end that's what reviews at TPU feel like a ranking repeated over and over and over. The summary would be something like this: "This new YYY card is slightly better than XXX but slightly worse than ZZZ. Will you get a nice experience from it? Go figure it yourself".

It brings up three points:
"Borderlands 3 is quite stressful at Badass settings on the currently most powerful consumer card at the moment"

"Borderlands 3 is quite stressful at Badass settings on the currently most powerful consumer card at the moment but that won't stop us from running it at unplayable settings"

"Is the IQ improvement worth it? Don't ask me, my middle name is "Ultra".

"to get a playable, yet enjoyable experience, you would need to lower your settings"

"to get a playable, yet enjoyable experience, you would need to lower your settings. Now go and find them yourself"

"this video card is better than this one when at these settings"

"this video card is better than this one when at these pointless settings"

Off-topic, but FWIW, I can get around 100 to 120 FPS on a mix of High and Ultra settings on a reference RX 5700 XT. I can pound on 144 FPS on mostly Ultra settings on a RTX 2080 Super. If I use the RX 5700 XT settings on the 2080 Super, I only get drops to around 114 FPS (from what I remember) in extremely crowded fights.

The only thing I keep at "Medium" is the stupid volumetric fog. No real visual changes when setting this higher or such.

These couple sentences are more helpful than the whole BL3 review here.

 

[azngreentea01]

In my opinion, For me the price is a little high with little offer. If it start out at $2 bronze, 3$ silver, and $5 Gold then maybe.

 

[W1zzard]

What patreon unlocks will affect the mobile TPU app? "Reviews" tab is already formatted to a single-page layout.

The mobile apps haven't been updated for a long time, and are somewhat buggy atm. Not sure what to do with them. The site works perfectly in your mobile browser, so why duplicate the effort/maintenance/etc?

 

[Rahnak]

Wait. Are you telling me that the only point of these benchmarks is purely academic and with no real world usage? Because I don't need to be reminded with every single GPU review that the RTX 2080 Ti is 10 times better than a RX 570. Even less at pointless settings.

Because in the end that's what reviews at TPU feel like a ranking repeated over and over and over. The summary would be something like this: "This new YYY card is slightly better than XXX but slightly worse than ZZZ. Will you get a nice experience from it? Go figure it yourself".

You don't need anyone to tell you the 2080 Ti is on a very different level from the RX 570, no. But what if you're torn between buying the 1660 Super or the 1660 Ti? Do you know how big the gap is and if it's work the extra money to you? Or between the 1660 Ti and 5600XT? That's what these reviews aim to tell you, so you can get the best bang for your buck.
Figuring out how a particular GPU will perform on your system will then require some extrapolation. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes.

 

[trom89]

- $3000: Stop the clickbaiting and senseless rumors in the main site[...]

Here is an idea, on the same location of the new's that is used to announce if it is a review, announcement, press release, etc under the title, just mark the ones that are not confirmed as "LEAK", "WRITER OPINION", "RUMOR" and inside the article post in big red font "This information is NOT confirmed by the company bla bla bla."

Or just move the non facts from the news and create a new section...

 

[R-T-B]

And so we lost the internet! everyone makes membership fees, including antivirus upgrades, every year! Abuse of the position is nothing new !!! The pigs are multiplying, and it will be bursting somewhere ...

Yes, the pig always expects something for nothing. You can just go on as you have, you know. The payments are optional.