Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#71

Post by gowld »

wtallis wrote: post #29
nebulous1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the video he portrays the decision as out of respect for the sources under NDA, not out of respect for Intel Not sure I fully get it though, a scoop is a scoop

The point of a review embargo is to prevent things from collapsing into a race to be first with the scoop, by encouraging/forcing everyone to take a reasonable amount of time to prepare their review. Cooperating with review embargoes is usually the best way to promote honest and fair coverage, which is what most professional tech journalists really want. NDAs that try to restrict the content of a review and not just…

Intel is violating the embargo in order to give primay to their false narrative. That's odious.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#72

Post by gowld »

wtallis wrote: post #70
cma wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't always the point of a review embargo. Take a game with heavy marketing that the corp realizes is going to get bad reviews. Sometimes they will delay reviews of things like that as long as possible, until day before or day of release.

The computer hardware market is pretty different from the video game market. Video games tend to be much more reliant on pre-orders and the first few weeks of sales, while computer hardware is subject to seasonal fluctuations but otherwise maintains strong ongoing sales throughout the product cycle. Games are also much less amenable to objective comparative analysis. In the computer hardware world, a review embargo t…

Anyone who pre-orders a video game is buying for some speial sense of status, not product quality.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#73

Post by Bartweiss »

cma wrote: post #56
wtallis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of a review embargo is to prevent things from collapsing into a race to be first with the scoop, by encouraging/forcing everyone to take a reasonable amount of time to prepare their review. Cooperating with review embargoes is usually the best way to promote honest and fair coverage, which is what most professional tech journalists really want. NDAs that try to restrict the content of a review and not just…

That isn't always the point of a review embargo. Take a game with heavy marketing that the corp realizes is going to get bad reviews. Sometimes they will delay reviews of things like that as long as possible, until day before or day of release.

Notably, the video game industry pioneered the conditional embargo - where you can publish a review freely as long as it's above a certain score. There's pretty much no explanation for this other than "we want to lie to customers", and there's pretty much no definition of journalistic integrity that would permit signing it, but it happens nevertheless.

(Which, interestingly, means some sites that don't issue numeric scores are barred-by-default from those games. I think that's sometimes been used to spot these embargoes?)

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#74

Post by brokenmachine »

gowld wrote: post #72
wtallis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The computer hardware market is pretty different from the video game market. Video games tend to be much more reliant on pre-orders and the first few weeks of sales, while computer hardware is subject to seasonal fluctuations but otherwise maintains strong ongoing sales throughout the product cycle. Games are also much less amenable to objective comparative analysis. In the computer hardware world, a review embargo t…

Anyone who pre-orders a video game is buying for some speial sense of status, not product quality.

I'm not a big gamer, but aren't they often cheaper if you pre-order?

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#76

Post by asr »

holtalanm wrote: post #68
stagger87 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the guidelines "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

I don't want to split hairs here, but the linked content is not an article. I understand the spirit of it, but it technically does not apply here.

Upvoted because you are correct that I didn't watch the video (and I usually hate commenters who don't look at the linked content so I get you). But I can't just start watching videos at work... and I posted my comment under a link to the related article, so I think it was fair to comment after reading the article but not watching the video.

I am interested to see your original comment if you want to repost (including whatever caused it to be flagged if you like, now that this thread is old I doubt anyone will care/notice).

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#77

Post by holtalanm »

asr wrote: post #12
cbg0 wrote: post #2

In text form: https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-990...

This article says that Techspot has obtained the 9900 (without being bound by an NDA, as others are), and that Intel is releasing misleading results while other reviewers are bound by an NDA, but that Techspot is not going to show their own benchmarks--which could refute the misleading results Intel has authorized for public release--out of a sense of "professionalism." Actually , any "professional" journalism outfit…

Reposting (without the inflammatory 'did you even watch the video' comment) at the request of asr:

the video doesn't dispute the benchmarks of the 9900, but rather they dispute the published compared benchmarks of the ryzen 7 2700X, which used default, unconfigured memory settings to push the benchmark down, while the 9900 benchmarks used configured memory settings (as it should)

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#78

Post by holtalanm »

asr wrote: post #76
holtalanm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to split hairs here, but the linked content is not an article. I understand the spirit of it, but it technically does not apply here.

Upvoted because you are correct that I didn't watch the video (and I usually hate commenters who don't look at the linked content so I get you). But I can't just start watching videos at work... and I posted my comment under a link to the related article, so I think it was fair to comment after reading the article but not watching the video. I am interested to see your original comment if you want to repost (includin…

I resubmitted my comment, without the 'did you even watch the video' bit.
Post reply on HN