NVIDIA Bans Reviewer for Concentrating on Rasterization Instead of Ray Tracing

Whalter12

n00b
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
33
You can't ask for honest reviews when the person is getting it for free. All influencers try to convince their audience their opinions are not influenced but they all make sure not to violate the terms of their agreements. Everything on YT is for views and attention, not for truth. Fake outrage always get the view numbers high, JayTwoCents is go for that, outrage video but continues to review Nvidia cards...because he needs them for his channel and he too signed the contract.
So nothing that HardOCP received for free was ever honestly reviewed? This is such a stupid take. Every article on HardOCP was for views and attention too, Youtube is just a different platform and format for reviews. Just because you don't like watching videos reviews doesn't mean everyone else is the same. The sad reality is that it's cheaper and easier to do a video review than to run an entire website for reviews.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,590
It's not necessarily a question of being "honestly" reviewed, but I am damn sure that reviewers who want to continue receiving free hardware/software/whatever are careful with what wording they put out about features/performance/whatever.

If they buy the product themselves, they can do and say whatever the fuck they want.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,519
Nvidia doesn't need Youtube reviewers. They don't. The channels need company products to be relevant, not the other way around. If Unbox Therapy has nothing to Unbox, his ability to get attention will decrease. When I got into PC building, I came here, Anandtech and Overclock.net. None of them had YT review channels.
Ahh the ol "because I don't do it, no one else does" defense of logic! But seriously, do they NEED it? No. But is it helpful? You'd be an idiot to think otherwise. Millions of potential viewers all for what? Something that they could charge $500, 700 & 1500 for? Yeah that's a fucking bargain for advertising.

GPU write ups give better information on GPU performance. Videos are for entertainment. Most Youtubers can't do a written review to save their life.
YT channels are personalities that get attention so Nvidia gives them cards, but video cards were selling out way before YT influencers. It's about attention, flooding YT with review samples makes people want to buy.
I'm not going to deny that actual written words are better, I love them too as it very easily allows me to find the information I need without having to put much time into all the fluff, but come on man. Put down the rotary telephone, put the book of stamps back into chest of drawers, in today's age Vlogs are just as, if not more influential for products than written word. And if you don't think written articles don't try to get any sort of funding through their work, whether it's free product, paid advertisement or paid subscriptions to locked channels.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
I'm not going to deny that actual written words are better, I love them too as it very easily allows me to find the information I need without having to put much time into all the fluff, but come on man. Put down the rotary telephone, put the book of stamps back into chest of drawers, in today's age Vlogs are just as, if not more influential for products than written word. And if you don't think written articles don't try to get any sort of funding through their work, whether it's free product, paid advertisement or paid subscriptions to locked channels.
The problem is most "readers" skip to the graphs browse them fast read the conclusion then move on, time spent on page maybe 2-3 minutes. No add revenue on that, nothing to market or brand. Not going to cover any actual costs on that maybe the domain and SSL certs if you're lucky.
 

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,772
Nvidia just makes it easier for me to buy an AMD product every time they do something like this.

I get that free hardware to be reviewed is a privilege. However, I think it's unreasonable to request a skewed/favorable review in exchange, especially for something as niche as this, and especially at the prices these things command. That person is putting their credibility on the line. Asking them to BS their audience is messing with that person's bread and butter. You're not keeping commas in their bank account for positive reviews. You're letting them get first dibs on something that they can grab off the shelf a week or two later, and eventually return it/sell it/donate it/bring it to the shooting range. That's it. If you don't like being called out on your bullshit, try being honest and up front.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
Nvidia just makes it easier for me to buy an AMD product every time they do something like this.

I get that free hardware to be reviewed is a privilege. However, I think it's unreasonable to request a skewed/favorable review in exchange, especially for something as niche as this, and especially at the prices these things command. That person is putting their credibility on the line. Asking them to BS their audience is messing with that person's bread and butter. You're not keeping commas in their bank account for positive reviews. You're letting them get first dibs on something that they can grab off the shelf a week or two later, and eventually return it/sell it/donate it/bring it to the shooting range. That's it. If you don't like being called out on your bullshit, try being honest and up front.
Now if only AMD would make it easier to buy an AMD product.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,519
The problem is most "readers" skip to the graphs browse them fast read the conclusion then move on, time spent on page maybe 2-3 minutes. No add revenue on that, nothing to market or brand. Not going to cover any actual costs on that maybe the domain and SSL certs if you're lucky.
Do ads sense how long you are on a page? I thought it was just about page loads
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
Do ads sense how long you are on a page? I thought it was just about page loads
Analytics tracks how long you are on a page, what parts of the page are on screen, mouse movements, what you highlight, what you copy and paste, what you click. Just about everything.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,407
Nvidia just makes it easier for me to buy an AMD product every time they do something like this.

I get that free hardware to be reviewed is a privilege. However, I think it's unreasonable to request a skewed/favorable review in exchange, especially for something as niche as this, and especially at the prices these things command. That person is putting their credibility on the line. Asking them to BS their audience is messing with that person's bread and butter. You're not keeping commas in their bank account for positive reviews. You're letting them get first dibs on something that they can grab off the shelf a week or two later, and eventually return it/sell it/donate it/bring it to the shooting range. That's it. If you don't like being called out on your bullshit, try being honest and up front.
Is it unreasonable to ask that a reviewer who is getting free product, review all of the features of said product?

That is what was asked, not a skewed/favorable review.

Lots of "I hate them too!" over shit that didn't happen... you are being led around by mob mentality and emotion. Which equates to letting someone else think for you... hell, that right there is the definition of a Youtube viewer.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
7,037
Is it unreasonable to ask that a reviewer who is getting free product, review all of the features of said product?

That is what was asked, not a skewed/favorable review.

Lots of "I hate them too!" over shit that didn't happen... you are being led around by mob mentality and emotion. Which equates to letting someone else think for you... hell, that right there is the definition of a Youtube viewer.
Nvidia admitted they were wrong, with two apology letters. And Hardware Unboxed did cover RTX and DLSS extensively on separate well laid out reviews. Nvidia was clearly wrong from the start is all. Nvidia did not like their overall take on usefulness, their opinion. Enough said.

There are many different types of games, RT is not useful for all of them either due to performance reasons, artistic reason or actual limitations to the game world RT can impose from a mechanical more accurate real lighting model. RT does not automatically make a game fun nor easier to create at this time.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
Is it unreasonable to ask that a reviewer who is getting free product, review all of the features of said product?

That is what was asked, not a skewed/favorable review.

Lots of "I hate them too!" over shit that didn't happen... you are being led around by mob mentality and emotion. Which equates to letting someone else think for you... hell, that right there is the definition of a Youtube viewer.

How they choose to review is up to them.

Nvidia could have declined them samples in the future not saying a word and I’d be fine with it.

However they didn’t and they admitted they were in the wrong.

Your premise of all the features hold no water due to what Nvidia said. I tend to believe that reviewers who have a ton of viewers respectively probably have a better sense of what their crowd wants reviewed than Nvidia.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,901
Is it unreasonable to ask that a reviewer who is getting free product, review all of the features of said product?

That is what was asked, not a skewed/favorable review.

Lots of "I hate them too!" over shit that didn't happen... you are being led around by mob mentality and emotion. Which equates to letting someone else think for you... hell, that right there is the definition of a Youtube viewer.
I guess you never watched the review videos nvidia claimed to be upset about. HUB covered ALL the cards features. (RT performance benchmarks where included in every Nvidia review since the 2000 cards) They just didn't say RT is the bestest thing ever and you should base your entire purchasing decision on this feature. They covered it in their review.... they covered it in their AMD review... and they even released multiple RT solo videos that covered directly the best RT settings in one of the hotest new RT games before they got the Nvidia email... and their RT cyberpunk video they had been working on for at least a few days dropped the same day they got the email. (so 2 separate videos covering RT performance for basically Nvidia and Nvidia only for 2 of the biggest holiday AAA PC titles.)

The mail they got from Nvidia made zero sense... as HUB was bordering on RT fixation as it was. (to be honest before all this happened I assumed they where a bought and paid for Nvidia marketing arm... with all their glowing praise for the BS dlss crap)
 

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,772
why are there STILL ppl defending nvidia on this???? Nvidia apologized already twice... and yet ppl still think what they did was ok?? seriously???

Because loyalists will always apologize for a company that couldn't care less about them as long as they keep feeding them money.

Is it unreasonable to ask that a reviewer who is getting free product, review all of the features of said product?

That is what was asked, not a skewed/favorable review.

Lots of "I hate them too!" over shit that didn't happen... you are being led around by mob mentality and emotion. Which equates to letting someone else think for you... hell, that right there is the definition of a Youtube viewer.

All of the features were reviewed. Nvidia got their panties in a twist for being called out on their shortcomings. They don't like to be seen as anything but the best at everything, no matter what the actual truth may be. Were you even paying attention when the whole review debacle with Nvidia even started? They haven't changed.

Nvidia could throw down a GPU today that runs like molasses in January compared to anything AMD has ever put on the shelf, ever, and they'd still demand to be given glorious reviews and threaten to take away future freebie review cards if anyone doesn't give it less than their max rating/best award.
 

warmon6

n00b
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
50
All of the features were reviewed. Nvidia got their panties in a twist for being called out on their shortcomings. They don't like to be seen as anything but the best at everything, no matter what the actual truth may be. Were you even paying attention when the whole review debacle with Nvidia even started? They haven't changed.

Nvidia could throw down a GPU today that runs like molasses in January compared to anything AMD has ever put on the shelf, ever, and they'd still demand to be given glorious reviews and threaten to take away future freebie review cards if anyone doesn't give it less than their max rating/best award.
With all this.... It make one wonder if Nvidia has a plan towards dealing with negative review(s) by reviewers that bought one of their products (instead of getting it by a review sample)....
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
This never made any sense to me. You read the Techspot review of the RTX 3070 vs. RX 6800 by the same author that came out the other day, and then after the RX 6800 is 10%+ faster than the 3070 in their own suite (higher at lower resolutions AND after leaving in benchmarks which are heavily skewed to Nvidia to minimize the difference), he says it's hard to justify the Radeon because it doesn't have better RTX performance and DLSS.

Sounds like he got the message from the Nvidia overlords...
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,223
With all this.... It make one wonder if Nvidia has a plan towards dealing with negative review(s) by reviewers that bought one of their products (instead of getting it by a review sample)....
Lose them among the reviews they sanctioned.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
Well Hardware Unboxed released (yesterday) a 3070 vs 6800 comparison video, and RTX was not used..

But in his conclusion (on the Techspot article), he said it is hard to justify the Radeon because of those features on the 3070. Seemed kind of strange that he would say that after he just demonstrated that the 6800 was 10%+ faster in a 40 some game suite.

I linked the article above. You can't help but wonder he's starting to tow the company line now after being chastised.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,519
But in his conclusion (on the Techspot article), he said it is hard to justify the Radeon because of those features on the 3070. Seemed kind of strange that he would say that after he just demonstrated that the 6800 was 10%+ faster in a 40 some game suite.

I linked the article above. You can't help but wonder he's starting to tow the company line now after being chastised.
I was kind of listening to the video so may not have caught all of it, but the gist of what I remember with that is he was doing dollar per frame comparison, and mentioned a couple times the 6800 was 16% more expensive (reference card prices) so in that sense yeah I can see that the 10% may not be worth the added value.

And ti be honest if one the 3070 gets 130fps at ultra 1080, I'm not going to care that the 6800 gets 150fps ultra 1080. There's a level of "future proofing" that I just am not going to buy into.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
I was kind of listening to the video so may not have caught all of it, but the gist of what I remember with that is he was doing dollar per frame comparison, and mentioned a couple times the 6800 was 16% more expensive (reference card prices) so in that sense yeah I can see that the 10% may not be worth the added value.

And ti be honest if one the 3070 gets 130fps at ultra 1080, I'm not going to care that the 6800 gets 150fps ultra 1080. There's a level of "future proofing" that I just am not going to buy into.

1080p ultra that might be true, but as you move up to 1440p and above, it might make more of a difference.

Honestly, I have both a 3070 and a 6800 (non-XT) for a 1440p monitor. I don't really have a dog in the fight as I can just swap either one in. The 6800 would be a much more compelling card at $499 or even $529. I'd have to look again and see if his rationale is based on the dollar per frame comparison or just in general. It certainly seems like the 6800 is a faster card in most applications, so his conclusion seemed a little off. He definitely didn't like the $579 price.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,343
But in his conclusion (on the Techspot article), he said it is hard to justify the Radeon because of those features on the 3070. Seemed kind of strange that he would say that after he just demonstrated that the 6800 was 10%+ faster in a 40 some game suite.

I linked the article above. You can't help but wonder he's starting to tow the company line now after being chastised.
Better value was taking account the "pricing" as well I think going from memory, lowest 6800 in Canada seem to be around $900-965 can, this is extremely close to the cheapest 3080 and good step from the 3070 (710-750 for the cheapest one), a gap big enough to have them in different price tier completely. But I think they used announced MSRP pricing difference in their analysis.

10% faster at 20% more of the price make the best value a conversation even before taking into account features, (you get a lot of ram for that 20% premium too). At a 10% or less price premium it, the 6800 would be a non brainer, current market make it a hard one to fully justify, if it was possible to easily pick any current card.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
7,037
Well Hardware Unboxed released (yesterday) a 3070 vs 6800 comparison video, and RTX was not used..
Also SAM was not used, even though being tested on a Ryzen 5950x. lol. Maybe they are poking at both AMD and Nvidia or giving them both the middle finger. Sometimes it is best if the reviewer gives the data and tells you to figure out which one would better suite your needs. I would choose the 6800 but then would not, because the 6800 XT is not much more and being $150 more than the 3070 if MSRP actually was a real price and you could get the cards. 6800 XT would be the winner. Maybe in a couple of months I will pick up a 6800 XT.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,901
This never made any sense to me. You read the Techspot review of the RTX 3070 vs. RX 6800 by the same author that came out the other day, and then after the RX 6800 is 10%+ faster than the 3070 in their own suite (higher at lower resolutions AND after leaving in benchmarks which are heavily skewed to Nvidia to minimize the difference), he says it's hard to justify the Radeon because it doesn't have better RTX performance and DLSS.

Sounds like he got the message from the Nvidia overlords...
Ya AMD is charging to much for him. I mean really if your at 500 what is 580.... even if the performance was exactly = the ram is worth it... who buys a 500 card with 8 in 2021. (only morons) I figured this guy was a NV shill before... and perhaps I wasn't actually wrong.

AMD has double the ram... and is 10% faster in 95% of titles. 3700 is better at RT however is still isn't really fast enough to game with RTX on... and DLSS is trash, no matter what these shills say sorry it works in fewer games then RT and it any game I have seen it in its glitch and ugly. But clearly the Nvidia card is the best bang for the buck ? WTF lol Cheaper doesn't always = better bang for the buck.... that is what Nvidia has been singing for years now. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
20,093
It's not necessarily a question of being "honestly" reviewed, but I am damn sure that reviewers who want to continue receiving free hardware/software/whatever are careful with what wording they put out about features/performance/whatever.

If they buy the product themselves, they can do and say whatever the fuck they want.

In the "Disappointment Build 2020" video Steve from Gamer's Nexus straight up gave Nvidia the middle finger, twice. Smaller reviewers might have stuff like that in the back of their minds, but by the time anyone even reaches mid-size they're at a point where they don't need to worry that much about pissing off companies. Every reviewer worth their salt has been blacklisted from time-to-time by many of the major players in the market and they don't worry about it.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
I really like the people who complain the loudest about Nvidia and then go out and buy 3080’s and 3090’s anyways. I think a lot of people pretend to be outraged but deep down don’t care. I’ll buy whatever makes the most sense in terms of performance, features I use and/or price. AMD and Nvidia both are here to provide a product, fanboying for either one is stupid. If another competitor appears tomorrow and one of them disappears I couldn’t care less.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
I really like the people who complain the loudest about Nvidia and then go out and buy 3080’s and 3090’s anyways. I think a lot of people pretend to be outraged but deep down don’t care. I’ll buy whatever makes the most sense in terms of performance, features I use and/or price. AMD and Nvidia both are here to provide a product, fanboying for either one is stupid. If another competitor appears tomorrow and one of them disappears I couldn’t care less.

Well for the first time in a long time you actually have an option on the high end. Before people would say I don't like nvidia's practices but I want that level of performance and AMD had no answer. The real problem at this time is getting the cards in hand. Nvidia cards are somewhat easier to find right now.
 

somebrains

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
1,668
Buying a gpu is only a concern when I find a game I really want to play all weekend, to the wire weekday nights, I find myself firing it up for 1 good match before I gotta clock in.

Otherwise it’s nothing that bothers me.

I was irked by the HWU FE thing bc “frames win games” and all that.
Nvidia was pushing low latency something or other, 360hz monitors, all this stuff I’d actually enjoy.
RT and all that FPS sucking junk is not compelling.
 

Nside

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
400
Fools.

Companies can never control the narrative. In the history of marketing I can't think of a single occurrence where it worked.

Try to steer the conversation too much and all you get is ridicule and derision.
I can think of one off the top of my head...
images.jpg
 

Nside

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
400
But in his conclusion (on the Techspot article), he said it is hard to justify the Radeon because of those features on the 3070. Seemed kind of strange that he would say that after he just demonstrated that the 6800 was 10%+ faster in a 40 some game suite.

I linked the article above. You can't help but wonder he's starting to tow the company line now after being chastised.
I highly doubt that was coerced. You're talking about cards that are $100 MSRP apart, but only average 10% in rasterization...
That depends on the suite of games you choose, of course, but even if you knock out the old relatively unplayed games that haven't been optimized on AMD's new drivers yet, you get maybe 15%. So at best they're tied in a value metric.
So of course the tie-breaker is going to be other features people use. I would argue more DLSS 2.0 than Ray-tracing, but to me DLSS 2.0 is more compelling. A performance improvement for almost no perceivable visual difference VS a big performance hit for slightly better shadows and lighting. To me, turning RT on is like setting volumetric clouds on ultra, you only do it temporarily if you are trying to take screenshots of a game and don't care about the framerate.

When I bought the 2060 I currently use, it was because AMD didn't have anything that really competed at the time for my target performance/budget. $300-ish was my ideal budget, and the 2060 was the best option at the time.
That said, I started using DLSS 2.0 fairly recently on games that support it like Cyberpunk, and it's pretty good once you find the right balance of render-to-target resolution. It doesn't affect games that don't support it, obviously, but it's helped me squeeze a little more life out of this card while I wait for dust to settle on this generation's offerings. I'm not going to ignore a feature I actually use, even if I didn't originally buy it 2 years back with anything other than rasterization performance in mind. Ray-tracing is still too resource-heavy to consider IMHO, even on new better cards. I personally don't see enough of a visual improvement to justify the massive performance hit, but there are people who put aesthetics far above performance, and to them RT is a thing they consider now. I won't pretend to understand it, I just know they're out there... I've communicated with them... "Ray-Traced is the only way to play Minecraft!" I can't even tell what is sarcasm and what isn't anymore.

I hope to be able to spend my money with AMD this time around though, but I'm not going to do so just because I want a more even market share. They have to earn it. Nvidia being evil might help that decision along a little bit, but keep in mind that none of these companies are saints. Nvidia just looks like more of a bully because they currently dominate the market. AMD has been known to deny reviewers samples because they didn't like criticism, they just didn't send such a stupid letter to try to send a message... or at least I haven't seen any that went public.

Back to the report you were talking about though. Keep in mind that these are early-ish reviews. Those guys have a tendency to go back and re-test hardware months or even years after release. In that scenario, AMD has historically faired better than Nvidia with older hardware. That's where the "AMD fine-wine driver" theory comes from. However, you can't score a review based on what might (or even will) happen. You have to base it on what you can currently do. That's why, 2 years ago, most reviewers ignored ray-tracing and DLSS altogether, or made little pieces showing why customers should ignore it, but now they have both improved and gained a little ground (DLSS more-so IMHO)... So they should talk about those features. Not even close to every game uses RT or DLSS, so it gets kind-of tricky, but I think it would be fair to use them as a tie-breaker.
 
Last edited:

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,519
Also SAM was not used, even though being tested on a Ryzen 5950x. lol. Maybe they are poking at both AMD and Nvidia or giving them both the middle finger. Sometimes it is best if the reviewer gives the data and tells you to figure out which one would better suite your needs. I would choose the 6800 but then would not, because the 6800 XT is not much more and being $150 more than the 3070 if MSRP actually was a real price and you could get the cards. 6800 XT would be the winner. Maybe in a couple of months I will pick up a 6800 XT.
Probably wanted to do an apples to apples comparison, with nothing that gives either card an edge in one thing or another. I can respect that, break down the cards to their basics, and then decide if the cost difference (and performance difference) with the different bells make one better than another.

That said, I'm kind of in the same boat but in the other direction, $500 is kind of my limit for what I want to spend for any video card, so that knocks the 6800 out of the picture and I'd have to look a bit more closely at the numbers but if that's the case maybe the 3060ti at $100 cheaper would be a much better value and long term replacement. Of course by the time one is available maybe AMD will release a 6700 or 6700xt and I can reevaluate based on price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
7,037
I highly doubt that was coerced. You're talking about cards that are $100 MSRP apart, but only average 10% in rasterization...
That depends on the suite of games you choose, of course, but even if you knock out the old relatively unplayed games that haven't been optimized on AMD's new drivers yet, you get maybe 15%. So at best they're tied in a value metric.
So of course the tie-breaker is going to be other features people use. I would argue more DLSS 2.0 than Ray-tracing, but to me DLSS 2.0 is more compelling. A performance improvement for almost no perceivable visual difference VS a big performance hit for slightly better shadows and lighting. To me, turning RT on is like setting volumetric clouds on ultra, you only do it temporarily if you are trying to take screenshots of a game and don't care about the framerate.

When I bought the 2060 I currently use, it was because AMD didn't have anything that really competed at the time for my target performance/budget. $300-ish was my ideal budget, and the 2060 was the best option at the time.
That said, I started using DLSS 2.0 fairly recently on games that support it like Cyberpunk, and it's pretty good once you find the right balance of render-to-target resolution. It doesn't affect games that don't support it, obviously, but it's helped me squeeze a little more life out of this card while I wait for dust to settle on this generation's offerings. I'm not going to ignore a feature I actually use, even if I didn't originally buy it 2 years back with anything other than rasterization performance in mind. Ray-tracing is still too resource-heavy to consider IMHO, even on new better cards. I personally don't see enough of a visual improvement to justify the massive performance hit, but there are people who put aesthetics far above performance, and to them RT is a thing they consider now. I won't pretend to understand it, I just know they're out there... I've communicated with them... "Ray-Traced is the only way to play Minecraft!" I can't even tell what is sarcasm and what isn't anymore.

I hope to be able to spend my money with AMD this time around though, but I'm not going to do so just because I want a more even market share. They have to earn it. Nvidia being evil might help that decision along a little bit, but keep in mind that none of these companies are saints. Nvidia just looks like more of a bully because they currently dominate the market. AMD has been known to deny reviewers samples because they didn't like criticism, they just didn't send such a stupid letter to try to send a message... or at least I haven't seen any that went public.

Back to the report you were talking about though. Keep in mind that these are early-ish reviews. Those guys have a tendency to go back and re-test hardware months or even years after release. In that scenario, AMD has historically faired better than Nvidia with older hardware. That's where the "AMD fine-wine driver" theory comes from. However, you can't score a review based on what might (or even will) happen. You have to base it on what you can currently do. That's why, 2 years ago, most reviewers ignored ray-tracing and DLSS altogether, or made little pieces showing why customers should ignore it, but now they have both improved and gained a little ground (DLSS more-so IMHO)... So they should talk about those features. Not even close to every game uses RT or DLSS, so it gets kind-of tricky, but I think it would be fair to use them as a tie-breaker.
To get RT looking right you have to crank up the number of rays to get a more accurate representation of the lighting, my experience and viewpoint. In reality, real light you have trillions+ (virtually infinite photons) Not enough information and you get noise and at times a lot of it. About the only RT experience I seen so far with the 3090 was Port Royal, I hope that does not remotely represent the quality level at this time. Denoising is a optimization cheat that can do some good or not. Anyways it to me was terrible, crawling noise everywhere. Everyone is different, I absolutely hate film grain, random noise, to me it is like to those that are sensitive to fingernails on a board (Which I don't mind), Port Royal did not impress with the lighting.

To early for me to say one way or another and may have to wait for my CPU to come back to really dig in what RT and DLSS has to offer. Point is different folks see things differently, like or hate things differently. TAA I don't like the blurriness of the textures but I like less aliasing of textures and objects so TAA is best option in many cases, for FS 2020 it does it magic beautifully. Some swear by DLSS others it takes away key details making the scene.
 

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,772
With all this.... It make one wonder if Nvidia has a plan towards dealing with negative review(s) by reviewers that bought one of their products (instead of getting it by a review sample)....

They're probably cooking that plan up as we speak, if they aren't already quietly rolling it out.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,407
Is it unreasonable to ask that a reviewer who is getting free product, review all of the features of said product?

That is what was asked, not a skewed/favorable review.

Lots of "I hate them too!" over shit that didn't happen... you are being led around by mob mentality and emotion. Which equates to letting someone else think for you... hell, that right there is the definition of a Youtube viewer.
Refer to the above quoted post of mine.
Nvidia admitted they were wrong, with two apology letters. And Hardware Unboxed did cover RTX and DLSS extensively on separate well laid out reviews. Nvidia was clearly wrong from the start is all. Nvidia did not like their overall take on usefulness, their opinion. Enough said.

There are many different types of games, RT is not useful for all of them either due to performance reasons, artistic reason or actual limitations to the game world RT can impose from a mechanical more accurate real lighting model. RT does not automatically make a game fun nor easier to create at this time.
My post was about skewed/favorable reviews, not whether or not Nvidia was an asshole in how they handled it, nor about the usefulness or lack thereof of Raytracing.
How they choose to review is up to them.

Nvidia could have declined them samples in the future not saying a word and I’d be fine with it.

However they didn’t and they admitted they were in the wrong.

Your premise of all the features hold no water due to what Nvidia said. I tend to believe that reviewers who have a ton of viewers respectively probably have a better sense of what their crowd wants reviewed than Nvidia.
My post was about skewed/favorable reviews, not whether or not Nvidia was an asshole in how they handled it, nor about what some youtube reviewers' viewers 'want'.
I guess you never watched the review videos nvidia claimed to be upset about. HUB covered ALL the cards features. (RT performance benchmarks where included in every Nvidia review since the 2000 cards) They just didn't say RT is the bestest thing ever and you should base your entire purchasing decision on this feature. They covered it in their review.... they covered it in their AMD review... and they even released multiple RT solo videos that covered directly the best RT settings in one of the hotest new RT games before they got the Nvidia email... and their RT cyberpunk video they had been working on for at least a few days dropped the same day they got the email. (so 2 separate videos covering RT performance for basically Nvidia and Nvidia only for 2 of the biggest holiday AAA PC titles.)

The mail they got from Nvidia made zero sense... as HUB was bordering on RT fixation as it was. (to be honest before all this happened I assumed they where a bought and paid for Nvidia marketing arm... with all their glowing praise for the BS dlss crap)
My post was about skewed/favorable reviews, not whether or not Nvidia was an asshole in how they handled it, nor whether or not the youtube reviewer covered Raytracing.
All of the features were reviewed. Nvidia got their panties in a twist for being called out on their shortcomings. They don't like to be seen as anything but the best at everything, no matter what the actual truth may be. Were you even paying attention when the whole review debacle with Nvidia even started? They haven't changed.

Nvidia could throw down a GPU today that runs like molasses in January compared to anything AMD has ever put on the shelf, ever, and they'd still demand to be given glorious reviews and threaten to take away future freebie review cards if anyone doesn't give it less than their max rating/best award.
My post was about skewed/favorable reviews, not whether or not Nvidia was an asshole in how they handled it, nor whether or not the youtube reviewer covered Raytracing.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
I highly doubt that was coerced. You're talking about cards that are $100 MSRP apart, but only average 10% in rasterization...
That depends on the suite of games you choose, of course, but even if you knock out the old relatively unplayed games that haven't been optimized on AMD's new drivers yet, you get maybe 15%. So at best they're tied in a value metric.
So of course the tie-breaker is going to be other features people use. I would argue more DLSS 2.0 than Ray-tracing, but to me DLSS 2.0 is more compelling. A performance improvement for almost no perceivable visual difference VS a big performance hit for slightly better shadows and lighting. To me, turning RT on is like setting volumetric clouds on ultra, you only do it temporarily if you are trying to take screenshots of a game and don't care about the framerate.

When I bought the 2060 I currently use, it was because AMD didn't have anything that really competed at the time for my target performance/budget. $300-ish was my ideal budget, and the 2060 was the best option at the time.
That said, I started using DLSS 2.0 fairly recently on games that support it like Cyberpunk, and it's pretty good once you find the right balance of render-to-target resolution. It doesn't affect games that don't support it, obviously, but it's helped me squeeze a little more life out of this card while I wait for dust to settle on this generation's offerings. I'm not going to ignore a feature I actually use, even if I didn't originally buy it 2 years back with anything other than rasterization performance in mind. Ray-tracing is still too resource-heavy to consider IMHO, even on new better cards. I personally don't see enough of a visual improvement to justify the massive performance hit, but there are people who put aesthetics far above performance, and to them RT is a thing they consider now. I won't pretend to understand it, I just know they're out there... I've communicated with them... "Ray-Traced is the only way to play Minecraft!" I can't even tell what is sarcasm and what isn't anymore.

I hope to be able to spend my money with AMD this time around though, but I'm not going to do so just because I want a more even market share. They have to earn it. Nvidia being evil might help that decision along a little bit, but keep in mind that none of these companies are saints. Nvidia just looks like more of a bully because they currently dominate the market. AMD has been known to deny reviewers samples because they didn't like criticism, they just didn't send such a stupid letter to try to send a message... or at least I haven't seen any that went public.

Back to the report you were talking about though. Keep in mind that these are early-ish reviews. Those guys have a tendency to go back and re-test hardware months or even years after release. In that scenario, AMD has historically faired better than Nvidia with older hardware. That's where the "AMD fine-wine driver" theory comes from. However, you can't score a review based on what might (or even will) happen. You have to base it on what you can currently do. That's why, 2 years ago, most reviewers ignored ray-tracing and DLSS altogether, or made little pieces showing why customers should ignore it, but now they have both improved and gained a little ground (DLSS more-so IMHO)... So they should talk about those features. Not even close to every game uses RT or DLSS, so it gets kind-of tricky, but I think it would be fair to use them as a tie-breaker.

Fair enough. Couple things... $100 MSRP isn't accurate. Technically it is $80 and that is only with reference cards that you can't buy from either camp. That 10% rasterization performance includes a couple games that are HEAVILY skewed toward Nvidia (Kingdom Come Deliverance for example favors Nvidia by some 36%). It's probably closer to 15% performance if you throw out the fringe games that are clearly optimized for one platform or the other. I don't think it's fair at all to use RT and DLSS as a "tie breaker." As you pointed out, not even close to every game uses RT or DLSS, but every game would benefit from an extra rasterization performance. If anything, the "tie-breaker" should be extra rasterization performance.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
Fair enough. Couple things... $100 MSRP isn't accurate. Technically it is $80 and that is only with reference cards that you can't buy from either camp. That 10% rasterization performance includes a couple games that are HEAVILY skewed toward Nvidia (Kingdom Come Deliverance for example favors Nvidia by some 36%). It's probably closer to 15% performance if you throw out the fringe games that are clearly optimized for one platform or the other. I don't think it's fair at all to use RT and DLSS as a "tie breaker." As you pointed out, not even close to every game uses RT or DLSS, but every game would benefit from an extra rasterization performance. If anything, the "tie-breaker" should be extra rasterization performance.
Also not fair to compare those prices considering AIB partners RX 6800’s are selling for $100+ over MSRP. Unless you can get the new AMD cards at or close to reference MSRP, they are a waste of money IMO. You’re basically paying extra because Nvidia hurt your feelings at that point.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,314
Why is it in any company's interest to seed samples to reviewers before public availability?

Glad you asked that.
Here are some reasons:
1. It shows the company's confidence in their product.
2. It allows reviews to be posted that are not from the company. (These have varying levels of trustworthiness.)
3. The reviews are available before/as the product is available. (Creating marketing momentum.)

If the reviews are not independent, then they are nothing more than a company commercial and have just as much weight.

Nvidia screwed up. Royally. Again. This is a trend.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
Also not fair to compare those prices considering AIB partners RX 6800’s are selling for $100+ over MSRP. Unless you can get the new AMD cards at or close to reference MSRP, they are a waste of money IMO. You’re basically paying extra because Nvidia hurt your feelings at that point.

You're right. There are a lot of those $499 3070's around also :rolleyes: . The one I ACTUALLY have in my computer right now cost me $609 for a "$499" card. The RX 6800 that I ACTUALLY have cost me $630 for a $579 card. For $20, the RX 6800 is a better card.
 
Last edited:

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,818
It's not necessarily a question of being "honestly" reviewed, but I am damn sure that reviewers who want to continue receiving free hardware/software/whatever are careful with what wording they put out about features/performance/whatever.

If they buy the product themselves, they can do and say whatever the fuck they want.

Lol, you've obviously never watched GamersNexus. Steve will shit on anyone, at anytime, for just about any reason. He's probably the most thorough and complete reviewers that is around(for what he reviews). He's definitely not an "influencer" like Linus and Jay.
 
Top