Slashdot Mirror
MSI and ASUS Accused of Sending Reviewers Overpowered Graphics Cards (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Verge: TechPowerUp discovered that the MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming X card they were sent for review was running at faster GPU and memory clock speeds than the retail version. This was because the review card was set to operate in the OC (overclocking) mode out of the box, whereas the retail card runs in the more regular Gaming mode out of the box. This may result in an unobservant reviewer accidentally misrepresenting the OC performance numbers as the stock results from the card, lending MSI's product an unearned helping hand. The site found this was a recurring pattern with MSI stretching back for years. Fellow Taiwanese manufacturer ASUS, in spite of having better global name recognition and reputation, has also show itself guilty of preprogramming review cards with an extra overclocking boost. Needless to say, the only goal of such actions is to deceive -- both the consumer and the reviewer -- though perhaps some companies have felt compelled to follow suit after the trend was identified among competitors. The Verge notes that TechPowerUp revealed its finding on Thursday of last week, and has not received any official response from either MSI or ASUS. They did update their story to note that MSI addressed the matter, in a comment provided to HardOCP Editor-in-Chief Kyle Bennett, back in 2014.
I've seen this endlessly excused on sites like reddit by people claiming that it just saves the reviewers time since we'd all go into the drivers and overclock them anyways and other variations of that. I don't buy that one bit personally.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
A good reviewer should buy things anonymously for their review, lest they tempt the producer to send them a higher quality product. Of course, it's harder to buy things anonymously when you want the producer to gift it to you. This has been obvious for a long time.
And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
It's not "sites like reddit" claiming it.
It started with techpowerup article, mentioning exactly what was wrong: cards running at higher frequencies than normal retail versions: Here is it:
MSI and ASUS have been sending us review samples for their graphics cards with higher clock speeds out of the box, than what consumers get out of the box. The cards TechPowerUp has been receiving run at a higher software-defined clock speed profile than what consumers get out of the box. Consumers have access to the higher clock speed profile, too, but only if they install a custom app by the companies, and enable that profile. This, we feel, is not 100% representative of retail cards, and is questionable tactics by the two companies. This BIOS tweaking could also open the door to more elaborate changes like a quieter fan profile or different power management.
http://www.techpowerup.com/for...
Dunno if you've ever played with overclocking but the relation between speed increases past a chip['s normal limits and heat increases are not linear. So if you don't need/want the extra power, it is not a good idea to run your card harder than needed, particularly since those fans can get noisy when they spin up.
Support and stability are another reason. If a company rates a chip to a given level, they'll support/replace it there. Past that, maybe there's problems, maybe there's failures.
There can be a difference between what you normally design for and what something can actually do. Like my processor is spec'd to 140 watts TDP. What that means is Intel certifies that at standard operating frequency and voltage it will never dissipate more than that amount of heat, so if my thermal solution can handle that, I'm good. However the chip itself can survive more power, if there's a good enough solution. I can push it past that limit, if I want. If I do though, it is on me with regards to cooling and stability. If the chip messes up, they won't replace it.
No, they have a "we guarantee this performance and if your card burns up, we'll replace it" mode and a "we don't guarantee this performance, and if your card burns up, you'll need to replace it" mode. The latter is faster. Usually. Unless it fries your card.
The clocks vary by 1-2% between the review and retail products. I can think of far more important issues to froth over on the internet.
The retail products even have an option to kick up to that performance level. Granted, it's not the default, but it's supported and very easy to change.
Manufacturers make far more outlandish claims by carefully selecting benchmarks, and no one even pays attention to that anymore.
Is it bullshit on some fundamental level? Yeah, maybe it's dishonest, and I'm not going to give corporations the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives. But it's barely a blip on the bullshit meter.
If the user didn't have the ability to adjust the clocks, then I could understand getting angry. At a 1-2% clock difference, it would still be a minor point. We can adjust the clocks though, so we get the same level of performance at home.
I'm in the market for a video card during this product cycle (waiting for Vega details), and this just doesn't matter enough to affect my decision at all.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
How about instead of sending cards, the manufacturers send rebate forms (worth 100% of the total price) to the professional reviewers. Assumedly the reviewers are getting some revenue, so they'd only have to cover the gap between card purchase and rebate submission.
That or have a buy-back program for cards used in reviews where the cards can be returned.