MSI GeForce RTX 2070 GAMING Z Performance Review @ [H]

[Flogger23m]

Its too expensive still, 2nd hand 1080 is a better value at under $400.

Indeed. Performance is great, but more than $450 and it seems pointless. If we're in that price bracket we're kind of screwed. I'm sure a GTX 2060 (doubt it will have RTX) will come along eventually but if it is $400-450 one has to wonder how much of a performance improvement it will be over a 1070. Certainly wouldn't be a worthwhile upgrade though if it trades blows with a 1080.

Unless Nvidia decides to be nice and make the RTX 2060 a 2070 minus ray tracing support / specific cores but otherwise performs almost exactly the same in non-RTS/DLSS games... yeah that isn't happening.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

With this logic, all new cars would be priced at used car prices so that they would fit into that pricing framework. But then wouldn't used car prices just drop and create some sort of wormhole?

I totally get buying something used because it makes more sense for YOU, but expecting manufacturers to build that logic into their pricing doesn't make sense.

i think the bigger problem with the price is more to do with the fact that they're charging a premium based on heavily advertised features the card has that can't even be used.. in that sense AMD should of been charging out the ass for years just because the cards have technically had the hardware built into their gpu's to support Asynchronous Computing since GCN 1.0 but it wasn't until Ashe's of Singularity in 2016 that ended up being the first "game" to support it. until ray tracing and DLSS is available it's hard to justify their cost except maybe the 2080ti just due to the fact that it's the fastest card on the market right now.

 

[FrgMstr]

Kyle, can you test against the 2080 and 1080 Ti so we can see exactly how it compares?

Thanks.

I was talking to Brent about adding 2080 Ti to the data we have. We will discuss it more tomorrow after we both get some good rest. I think it would be interesting to look at as well.

 

[lostin3d]

Kyle thanks for getting this out there. For all those complaining about it's price they should really take a deeper read of your preview, particularly the bottom line:

"At $599 the MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z is less expensive than the ASUS ROG STRIX RX Vega 64 OC Edition’s price of $649.99. The MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z also performs 20-30% faster, and therefore is a no brainer bang-for-the buck buy over a factory overclocked Radeon RX Vega 64 video card.

The MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z is also faster than our MSI GeForce GTX 1080 GAMING X, but that 1080 is actually less expensive at $509.99 after $20 rebate.

The big question is a $100 premium worth the performance. If you are playing at 4K, then absolutely yes, go for it. At 1440p though the money savings on a highly overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 may be preferred. It just isn’t fast enough to warrant the price difference of $100 for a 10-20% performance difference.

You are better off saving some bucks and going with a highly overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 for 1440p right now. The only reason you may want to consider the new RTX 2070 then is if you are upgrading from a much older video card, and the jump in performance is worth it, or you want to play with RTX features when they are enabled in games. We would not consider a reference clocked GeForce RTX 2070 at all for gaming, we think the 2070 GPU needs the boost of a high factory overclock to make it worth the money and certainly the MSI card serves this up in spades."

I really thought you covered all the bases from comparisons, to application(1440p vs 4k), to reality of particular budgets.

I haven't closely followed all of NV's gens as much as other's here but it does seem common that each successive gen and tier level equals or surpasses the previous tier and gen. I.E. 1070~>980, 1080~>980TI, etc. With these RTX's I've already seen the 2080TI~Titan, 2080~1080TI, and now 2070~1080 and price comparison between each of these on their respective release dates are nearly identical. I paid around $599(about same month as release) for my 1080's 3 years ago so I'm not remotely shocked. I went thru shock with my 560TI's, then SC780, then G1 970's, G1 1080's, Strix 1080TI.

 

[northrop]

Great review as always, thank you Kyle!


//Grammar Nazi mode ON

we also wanted to see where it’s real-world gaming frequency is at.

it's != its

Page 3, first paragraph directly below the second image for 1080 Gaming X.

//Grammar Nazi mode OFF

 

[FrgMstr]

Kyle thanks for getting this out there. For all those complaining about it's price they should really take a deeper read of your preview, particularly the bottom line:

"At $599 the MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z is less expensive than the ASUS ROG STRIX RX Vega 64 OC Edition’s price of $649.99. The MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z also performs 20-30% faster, and therefore is a no brainer bang-for-the buck buy over a factory overclocked Radeon RX Vega 64 video card.

The MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z is also faster than our MSI GeForce GTX 1080 GAMING X, but that 1080 is actually less expensive at $509.99 after $20 rebate.

The big question is a $100 premium worth the performance. If you are playing at 4K, then absolutely yes, go for it. At 1440p though the money savings on a highly overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 may be preferred. It just isn’t fast enough to warrant the price difference of $100 for a 10-20% performance difference.

You are better off saving some bucks and going with a highly overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 for 1440p right now. The only reason you may want to consider the new RTX 2070 then is if you are upgrading from a much older video card, and the jump in performance is worth it, or you want to play with RTX features when they are enabled in games. We would not consider a reference clocked GeForce RTX 2070 at all for gaming, we think the 2070 GPU needs the boost of a high factory overclock to make it worth the money and certainly the MSI card serves this up in spades."

I really thought you covered all the bases from comparisons, to application(1440p vs 4k), to reality of particular budgets.

I haven't closely followed all of NV's gens as much as other's here but it does seem common that each successive gen and tier level equals or surpasses the previous tier and gen. I.E. 1070~>980, 1080~>980TI, etc. With these RTX's I've already seen the 2080TI~Titan, 2080~1080TI, and now 2070~1080 and price comparison between each of these on their respective release dates are nearly identical. I paid around $599(about same month as release) for my 1080's 3 years ago so I'm not remotely shocked. I went thru shock with my 560TI's, then SC780, then G1 970's, G1 1080's, Strix 1080TI.

I know some folks have an issue with the award....they always do. Awards are subjective, take it or leave it. The conclusions we drew I would consider very objective and based on the data that we put together. GPP, NDAs, and NVIDIA's actions to paint HardOCP in a bad light do not seep into those conclusions. Hardware is hardware, and business is business, and we keep those things seperate. The ultimate question of whether or not the 2070 holds value for you, the reader and possible buyer of a 2070, is surely only yours to answer.

 

[Raendor]

Kyle thanks for getting this out there. For all those complaining about it's price they should really take a deeper read of your preview, particularly the bottom line:

"At $599 the MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z is less expensive than the ASUS ROG STRIX RX Vega 64 OC Edition’s price of $649.99. The MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z also performs 20-30% faster, and therefore is a no brainer bang-for-the buck buy over a factory overclocked Radeon RX Vega 64 video card.

The MSI RTX 2070 GAMING Z is also faster than our MSI GeForce GTX 1080 GAMING X, but that 1080 is actually less expensive at $509.99 after $20 rebate.

The big question is a $100 premium worth the performance. If you are playing at 4K, then absolutely yes, go for it. At 1440p though the money savings on a highly overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 may be preferred. It just isn’t fast enough to warrant the price difference of $100 for a 10-20% performance difference.

You are better off saving some bucks and going with a highly overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 for 1440p right now. The only reason you may want to consider the new RTX 2070 then is if you are upgrading from a much older video card, and the jump in performance is worth it, or you want to play with RTX features when they are enabled in games. We would not consider a reference clocked GeForce RTX 2070 at all for gaming, we think the 2070 GPU needs the boost of a high factory overclock to make it worth the money and certainly the MSI card serves this up in spades."

I really thought you covered all the bases from comparisons, to application(1440p vs 4k), to reality of particular budgets.

I haven't closely followed all of NV's gens as much as other's here but it does seem common that each successive gen and tier level equals or surpasses the previous tier and gen. I.E. 1070~>980, 1080~>980TI, etc. With these RTX's I've already seen the 2080TI~Titan, 2080~1080TI, and now 2070~1080 and price comparison between each of these on their respective release dates are nearly identical. I paid around $599(about same month as release) for my 1080's 3 years ago so I'm not remotely shocked. I went thru shock with my 560TI's, then SC780, then G1 970's, G1 1080's, Strix 1080TI.

Except 1060 (not 1070) was ~980 and 1070 (not 1080) was ~>980ti, while 1080 was > 980ti. Similar to how 900 series stacked against 700. But now we see 2080 ~>1080ti and 2070 slightly > 1080. So only this time it moved one level with significant price increase. Many 1080 boost above 2000 out of the box and could potentially match out of the box 2070 btw.

 

[FrgMstr]

Great review as always, thank you Kyle!


//Grammar Nazi mode ON



it's != its

Page 3, first paragraph directly below the second image for 1080 Gaming X.

//Grammar Nazi mode OFF

Fixed! Thanks. We appreciate Grammar Nazi mode. There are no English majors around here assuredly.

 

[Crystoff]

What about load (and idle) power, and noise? We can guess, based on 2080 reviews, but actual measurements would be a lot better.

 

[Derangel]

Great review Brent and Kyle.

This is a pretty interesting card. The price/performance numbers at anything 1440 and below doesn't really seem to work out, but at 4K this could be a fairly interesting contender. Prior to this the entry-level 4K card had an MSRP of $700 and only recent has come down to more reasonable levels. Barring the occasional good deal, 1080 tis are still going for $700+ new (good deals to be found on used ones if you want to risk getting a card previously used for mining) $100 less for a 10-15% (guesstimating) performance drop might make the 2070 worth recommending to folks looking for an entry-level 4K card.

I'm not expecting the 2070 to worth a crap at all when it comes to ray-tracing, but DLSS has the potential to increase the card's value a bit. Depending, of course, on how it all comes together in games and how game support grows over time.

 

[techie81]

Been missing out on some geek drama and this fit the bill. Thanks for the review Kyle.

 

[Mylex]

The problem is that in order for you to "source" your card someone along the way (must have) broke a legal contract. Even if you didn't break a contract yourself, you were enabled by something that was legally wrong. It is like buying stolen property and saying "I wasn't the one who stole it".

I think the other thing is that you're totally mischaracterizing NDAs as some sort of muzzle. Instead, an NDA is a FAVOR offered to allow people to "sneak peek" something in order to get time to properly participate in the reveal.

Imagine you were an artist that worked for 5 years on a sculpture that is going to be revealed to the world on a specific date, and then a "friend" asks if they can take a peek before that date. It is entirely reasonable for you to say "okay, you can take a peek but you can't tell anyone about it" and "if you can't promise to not say anything about it then you can wait like everyone for the public unveiling".

Basically your whole position is that you have the right to take a sneak peek (especially one you got via people breaking their contracts). Is that really your position?

Do you really not understand how stealing the "reveal" of something people worked for years on isn't ethically wrong? Especially in order to make money with the scoop?

This has nothing to do with stealing. For you to equate NDA's as laws being broken is just an exaggerated stretch. NDA's are a binding contract between two parties. (period) If one party breaks it they are responsible for if the other party sues and wins. Key word is win, just like other deals that are broken frequently it isnt on Kyle to verify what deal his source has with NVIDIA. No laws were broken get off the high horse, if you don't like that he posted a view a head of other people that made a deal with NVIDIA too bad. How about you don't support the site with more clicks.

 

[FrgMstr]

The problem is that in order for you to "source" your card someone along the way (must have) broke a legal contract. Even if you didn't break a contract yourself, you were enabled by something that was legally wrong. It is like buying stolen property and saying "I wasn't the one who stole it".

I think the other thing is that you're totally mischaracterizing NDAs as some sort of muzzle. Instead, an NDA is a FAVOR offered to allow people to "sneak peek" something in order to get time to properly participate in the reveal.

Imagine you were an artist that worked for 5 years on a sculpture that is going to be revealed to the world on a specific date, and then a "friend" asks if they can take a peek before that date. It is entirely reasonable for you to say "okay, you can take a peek but you can't tell anyone about it" and "if you can't promise to not say anything about it then you can wait like everyone for the public unveiling".

Basically your whole position is that you have the right to take a sneak peek (especially one you got via people breaking their contracts). Is that really your position?

Do you really not understand how stealing the "reveal" of something people worked for years on isn't ethically wrong? Especially in order to make money with the scoop?

That is a very interesting take and I can appreciate your angle on that. Your analogy, while appreciated, is however just a bit off. We are talking about a civil contract, not a law, upstream from my position. I have no legal reason in any way, shape, or form, to honor someone else's civil contract. Ethically I am not bound by agreements by others either. Sources happen in this fashion in journalism every single day. I would argue that using sources that you have access to is the backbone of journalism. Suggesting a card review is "journalism" is a bit of a stretch, but it does rely on the same foundations.

We would have signed a "normal" NDA for a specific product as we have done for years with NVIDIA, and we did ask NVIDIA to negotiate on its 5 year blanket NDA. They never replied to those requests.

NVIDIA made its bed, and it can sleep in it. I have no issues either ethically or legally with HardOCP publishing a review of a product that we had legal possession of on our own timeline.

As for those suggesting we should "respect" other reviewers because they have entered into a civil contract with NVIDIA is idiotic. Their contract is with NVIDIA. Their NDA has nothing to do with HardOCP. If they should be upset with anyone, they should be upset with NVIDIA for not fully controlling their supply chain. These few cries of wanting them to have their cake and eat it too is just sour grapes.

Edit: Worth mentioning as well, is that we have not been on Intel's NDA press list for years until recently. I never saw any cries about "respect" for reviewers when we went days early with all those reviews. I think there is a bit of Team Green shilling going on here. And that is OK. I would expect no less when it comes to fanboys of particular products or hardware review sites/channels.

 

[Derangel]

The problem is that in order for you to "source" your card someone along the way (must have) broke a legal contract. Even if you didn't break a contract yourself, you were enabled by something that was legally wrong. It is like buying stolen property and saying "I wasn't the one who stole it".

I think the other thing is that you're totally mischaracterizing NDAs as some sort of muzzle. Instead, an NDA is a FAVOR offered to allow people to "sneak peek" something in order to get time to properly participate in the reveal.

Imagine you were an artist that worked for 5 years on a sculpture that is going to be revealed to the world on a specific date, and then a "friend" asks if they can take a peek before that date. It is entirely reasonable for you to say "okay, you can take a peek but you can't tell anyone about it" and "if you can't promise to not say anything about it then you can wait like everyone for the public unveiling".

Basically your whole position is that you have the right to take a sneak peek (especially one you got via people breaking their contracts). Is that really your position?

Do you really not understand how stealing the "reveal" of something people worked for years on isn't ethically wrong? Especially in order to make money with the scoop?

No, NDAs are a way for companies to control marketing and dictate when people who sign them are allowed to talk about a product. NDAs are part of product marketing. NDA's a not a favor. They can also help to create level playing field, but there is nothing ethically wrong with not abiding by a NDA if you did not sign one. There is no law requiring a retailer to sell a product at a specific date. They are legally able to sell products the moment they get them. They might face a CIVIL lawsuit or risk no longer working with the supplier, but there is no legal requirement for them to wait until the contract says so. If Nvidia has a problem with a retailer breaking street date, it is up to Nvidia to handle it. Neither customer nor reviewers need to or should give a damn about it, it is no one's problem except the retailer and Nvidia.

 

[[Spectre]]

The problem is that in order for you to "source" your card someone along the way (must have) broke a legal contract.

This presupposes that a contract is legal.

Even if you didn't break a contract yourself, you were enabled by something that was legally wrong. It is like buying stolen property and saying "I wasn't the one who stole it".

If that is going to be your arguement and you are using a web browser right now than you are enabled by something that is legally wrong.

I think the other thing is that you're totally mischaracterizing NDAs as some sort of muzzle. Instead, an NDA is a FAVOR offered to allow people to "sneak peek" something in order to get time to properly participate in the reveal.

That is 100% not what a NDA is. It is a legal restraint, not a favor. It grants you no special standing as the signee. It only restrains you from doing something until a certain point. People not a party are not restrained and may do as they wish before you can.

Do you really not understand how stealing the "reveal" of something people worked for years on isn't ethically wrong? Especially in order to make money with the scoop?

Why don't you explain it?

 

[JulianCA]

No, NDAs are a way for companies to control marketing and dictate when people who sign them are allowed to talk about a product. NDAs are part of product marketing. NDA's a not a favor. They can also help to create level playing field, but there is nothing ethically wrong with not abiding by a NDA if you did not sign one. There is no law requiring a retailer to sell a product at a specific date. They are legally able to sell products the moment they get them. They might face a CIVIL lawsuit or risk no longer working with the supplier, but there is no legal requirement for them to wait until the contract says so. If Nvidia has a problem with a retailer breaking street date, it is up to Nvidia to handle it. Neither customer nor reviewers need to or should give a damn about it, it is no one's problem except the retailer and Nvidia.

I didn't say there is something wrong about not abiding by an NDA you didn't sign. I said there is something ethically wrong with doing anything where you know another person broke a contract to enable it. I have lots of analogies -- it's like dating a married woman, technically she's the one that is cheating right?

There absolutely is a law for retailers to not sell something before a certain date. Not sure where you got the idea they can sell things the moment they get them. It is called contract law. NVIDIA certainly has contract in place with MSI which then has contracts in place with resellers that control all that.

And of course NDAs are to control marketing. I'm just saying a person/company has the right to control their marketing. People do not have a right to sneak peaks.

HardOCP should continue the journalistic fight to expose behind the scenes things to help consumers. But I don't see how scooping other reviewers with information that will be publicly available falls in that category.

 

[JulianCA]

This presupposes that a contract is legal.



If that is going to be your arguement and you are using a web browser right now than you are enabled by something that is legally wrong.



That is 100% not what a NDA is. It is a legal restraint, not a favor. It grants you no special standing as the signee. It only restrains you from doing something until a certain point. People not a party are not restrained and may do as they wish before you can.



Why don't you explain it?

Sorry but this is all sorts of backwards thinking. An NDA is a favor because like ALL contracts it gives something in return. It gives you plenty of special standing as the signee -- you get access to physical hardware, driver updates, support and information that helps you prepare and participate in the launch activities. You also get the benefit of the launch marketing to generate overall interest in the topic that will benefit the reviewer.

 

[[Spectre]]

Sorry but this is all sorts of backwards thinking. An NDA is a favor because like ALL contracts it gives something in return. It gives you plenty of special standing as the signee -- you get access to information that helps you prepare and participate in the launch activities. You also get the benefit of the launch marketing to generate overall interest in the topic that will benefit the reviewer.

No. No its not. If I have whatever information outside of an NDA, how does being a party to an NDA that keeps me from disclosing that information give me special standing relative to the person who is outside of the NDA? Same information held by both parties. One restrained. One not.

 

[FrgMstr]

HardOCP should continue the journalistic fight to expose behind the scenes things to help consumers. But I don't see how scooping other reviewers with information that will be publicly available falls in that category.

I would agree and tell you that these do not fall into the same category. But here are the facts. NVIDIA penned that new 5 year blanket NDA in response to GPP. That NDA is NOT for "reviewers" as I have stated many time. Reviewers don't care, and should not care if that is all they are in our industry. NVIDIA changed its normal product NDAs into this NDA that is in place to control what journalists can actually talk about, especially when it comes to information leaked out of NVIDIA. GPUs have long been the lifeblood of HardOCP page views, plain and simple. This was NVIDIA's attempt to cut HardOCP out and financially damage us, or get its way and muzzle us under threat of going to court to defend ourselves the "next time" something big breaks. Plainly put NVIDIA attempted to stop our business if we did not bend the knee to its NDA, which would have very likely put us at risk in the future. What you got today was a symptom of that action. NVIDIA did not want to play nice, fine. Let's not act like there are not ramifications from those actions.

 

[cjcox]

I have more respect for someone that reports news than somebody waiting for the accolades of reporting "controlled news" collectively.

 

[FrgMstr]

Sorry but this is all sorts of backwards thinking. An NDA is a favor because like ALL contracts it gives something in return. It gives you plenty of special standing as the signee -- you get access to physical hardware, driver updates, support and information that helps you prepare and participate in the launch activities. You also get the benefit of the launch marketing to generate overall interest in the topic that will benefit the reviewer.

And as we showed, you do not need to sign its NDA to get a lot of those things. I have said for years, all we need for a performance review is the hardware and the driver, just like the customer would need.

 

[Surly]

Sorry but this is all sorts of backwards thinking. An NDA is a favor because like ALL contracts it gives something in return.

That is a pretty one-sided spin of what an NDA in reality is. I could take the extreme opposite angle and say an NDA is essentially extortion. Neither portrayal is accurate.

Between two reasonable parties an NDA can be a fair and measured construct where both parties benefit. I would argue however that the way Nvidia has recently been wielding NDA's is anything but fair and measured.

 

[JulianCA]

Regarding the idea that NDAs are evil, it is important to contrast that with the alternative -- a free-for-all where reviewers scramble to get publicly available stuff.

With NDA: Hey reviewers -- you get preview hardware (possibly cherry picked so use grain of salt) and two weeks to write up thoughtful reviews and you can all publish at the same time along with all the excitement the company is trying to generate around the launch. All they ask is you coordinate the date.

Without NDA: Launch date arrives and reviewers wait, like everyone else, for their orders to arrive. Reviewers in far-flung places like Australia might get theirs days later than others. Then journalistic integrity will be sorely tested because you want to do a thorough review but are under intense pressure to not be scooped by other review sites. Even end customers are are scooping you with reviews before you get to publish yours.

Now certainly NDAs can be weird and onerous. I'm just saying the general hate and suspicion around NDAs is unwarranted.

I think people are getting confused between these NDAs (embargo to a specific, near-term date) and NDAs that apply forever (like a Stormy Daniel's hush contract).

 

[Derangel]

I didn't say there is something wrong about not abiding by an NDA you didn't sign. I said there is something ethically wrong with doing anything where you know another person broke a contract to enable it. I have lots of analogies -- it's like dating a married woman, technically she's the one that is cheating right?

There absolutely is a law for retailers to not sell something before a certain date. Not sure where you got the idea they can sell things the moment they get them. It is called contract law. NVIDIA certainly has contract in place with MSI which then has contracts in place with resellers that control all that.

And of course NDAs are to control marketing. I'm just saying a person/company has the right to control their marketing. People do not have a right to sneak peaks.

HardOCP should continue the journalistic fight to expose behind the scenes things to help consumers. But I don't see how scooping other reviewers with information that will be publicly available falls in that category.

Contract law is a civil matter, not a legal one.

Companies have a right to control marketing, everyone else has a right not to care about arbitrary marketing bull. Nvidia's contracts being breaches is not the problem of anyone expect Nvidia and the entity that breached the contract. Why should customers or reviewers care? The card is for sale right now. Customers have a right to this information. We should not be defending a company trying to encourage people into making blind purchases.

Nvidia is only throwing a temper tantrum about this because it is [H[ardOCP and because of their batshit NDA. I highly doubt you'd see AMD or Intel (well, maybe Intel) throwing this kind of hissy fit over an early review, especially a very positive one.

 

[JulianCA]

No. No its not. If I have whatever information outside of an NDA, how does being a party to an NDA that keeps me from disclosing that information give me special standing relative to the person who is outside of the NDA? Same information held by both parties. One restrained. One not.

You're confusing the points. This article author had no NDA and we're not talking about his case. However, for the people like MSI's resellers they did (presumably, very likely) had an NDA in place and they certainly did get special standing. People who are offered an NDA are being offered special standing. They get things they could not get normally.

 

[JulianCA]

Contract law is a civil matter, not a legal one..

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Law = legal. No one is saying anything criminal happened.

Breaking contracts is breaking the law.

 

[Algrim]

And of course NDAs are to control marketing. I'm just saying a person/company has the right to control their marketing. People do not have a right to sneak peaks.

HardOCP is not disseminating nVidia's marketing, which is the only scenario where your words make any sense at all. You must be new here to believe that HardOCP is a marketing extension of AMD/RTG, nVidia, Intel, etc.

 

[[Spectre]]

You're confusing the points.

No, no I am not.

This article author had no NDA and we're not talking about his case.

Then why did you post here?

People who are offered an NDA are being offered special standing. They get things they could not get normally.

Apparently not.

 

[JulianCA]

HardOCP is not disseminating nVidia's marketing, which is the only scenario where your words make any sense at all. You must be new here to believe that HardOCP is a marketing extension of AMD/RTG, nVidia, Intel, etc.

I'd bet that the NDAs do in fact cover the information of the type in the article, and therefore that information does in fact constitute the marketing of the product. What would you consider marketing then, if not performance numbers relative to your competition?

Anyways guys I'm not specifically defending NVIDIA. I'm just saying all the hate and suspicion over NDAs is misplaced. Creators of anything significant have a right to enjoy a "reveal", and providing previews to people before that reveal can provide a level playing field for reviewers.

NDAs can also be used for nefarious purposes, but you can't argue that an NDA that embargoes for only a couple weeks before everything becomes public is nefarious. This isn't hush money to never talk about an illicit activity.

I posted above a serious question: what is the alternative to using NDAs to provide fair time period for reviewers to participate in a launch?

 

[FrgMstr]

I'd bet that the NDAs do in fact cover the information of the type in the article, and therefore that information does in fact constitute the marketing of the product. What would you consider marketing then, if not performance numbers relative to your competition?

Anyways guys I'm not specifically defending NVIDIA. I'm just saying all the hate and suspicion over NDAs is misplaced. Creators of anything significant have a right to enjoy a "reveal", and providing previews to people before that reveal can provide a level playing field for reviewers.

NDAs can also be used for nefarious purposes, but you can't argue that an NDA that embargoes for only a couple weeks before everything becomes public is nefarious. This isn't hush money to never talk about an illicit activity.

I posted above a serious question: what is the alternative to using NDAs to provide fair time period for reviewers to participate in a launch?

The NDA is linked in the review and you can read it in full there. No reason to make assumptions about it.

As for the NDA and those that signed it, I would suggest they are all on a level playing field. There is no reason for us to be on the same field as them since we have not enjoyed any of the benefits extended by the NDA.

As noted, we have not had issues with product specific NDAs from NVIDIA in the past. NV changed its product NDA into a 5 year blanket NDA and I feel as though if we would have signed it, it would have possibly put us in legal peril in the future. You need to get it out of your head that NVIDIA's NDA is about a product. It is not. NVIDIA decided to turn their product NDA into this blanket agreement. Now it is dealing with that.

 

[JulianCA]

No, no I am not.



Then why did you post here?



Apparently not.

Yes.

I'm posting here because there are multiple things to discuss. One of them is the general topic of NDAs.

You're totally mixing up the timing and the actors. There is no point in a reviewer signing an NVIDIA's NDA today (once boards are leaked). There was a point (getting hardware, drivers, support, etc.) to signing it previously. There especially is a point (get a quantity at launch) to MSI's resellers signing it previously.

A reviewer can choose to not sign the NDA and try to sneak equal privileges. But it is a risk, and relies on other people breaking contracts.

You really can't say that nothing was offered for these NDAs. I can totally agree that what is offered may not be worth it -- power to the people and journalists that resist these temptations. But these NDAs do offer something significant in return for towing the line.

 

[FrgMstr]

Yes.

I'm posting here because there are multiple things to discuss. One of them is the general topic of NDAs.

You're totally mixing up the timing and the actors. There is no point in a reviewer signing an NVIDIA's NDA today (once boards are leaked). There was a point (getting hardware, drivers, support, etc.) to signing it previously. There especially is a point (get a quantity at launch) to MSI's resellers signing it previously.

A reviewer can choose to not sign the NDA and try to sneak equal privileges. But it is a risk, and relies on other people breaking contracts.

You really can't say that nothing was offered for these NDAs. I can totally agree that what is offered may not be worth it -- power to the people and journalists that resist these temptations. But these NDAs do offer something significant in return for towing the line.

If you want to make this a general discussion about NDAs, please go make another thread. This thread is specific to our review. Thanks.

 

[euskalzabe]

Great review as expected. Plus the additional sweetness of Nvidia trying to push their NDA, your not signing it and still managing to publish your review before anyone else that's still waiting on Nvidia's deadline.

Good for you guys.

 

[Algrim]

I'd bet that the NDAs do in fact cover the information of the type in the article, and therefore that information does in fact constitute the marketing of the product. What would you consider marketing then, if not performance numbers relative to your competition?

Tailored 'facts': Cherry picking results to look good whilst the competition doesn't; telling only part of the truth instead of the whole truth, etc. Use your imagination. You seem to have a very active one.

Anyways guys I'm not specifically defending NVIDIA.

Yet here you are...

I'm just saying all the hate and suspicion over NDAs is misplaced.

Nope. (Look at my sig if you want any evidence or the lack thereof of anti-nVidia bias.)

Creators of anything significant have a right to enjoy a "reveal", and providing previews to people before that reveal can provide a level playing field for reviewers.

This may be true if nVidia were providing the cards directly to the reviewers in exchange for publicity free from pecuniary value.

NDAs can also be used for nefarious purposes, but you can't argue that an NDA that embargoes for only a couple weeks before everything becomes public is nefarious. This isn't hush money to never talk about an illicit activity.

Yet the specific NDA that nVidia chose to ask people to sign contains language that would constrain, either now or in the future, what a signer of that NDA could or could not disclose in regard to the information provided to the readers of the publications of said signers. There may not have been active encouragement of what reviewers will say today but the consequences of not posting a positive, if not raving, review, could be withholding hardware in the future for slights, perceived or real.

 

[Brackle]

Thanks for continuing to reply. I'm not actually criticizing your choice or anything. I just don't like the general "NDAs are evil" sentiment that seems to get fanned by convoluting the specific cases with the overall intention.

I agree that the blanket part is worrisome. And I think it is hugely important for you to reveal the terms to the public. THAT is the journalistic issue here.

Bad NDA = worth article. Sneakily reporting on something that is going to be public info anyway = no journalistic merit (except the scoop).

I also totally get the satisfaction of thumbing your nose at NVIDA!

I think you are confusing all NDA's are evil to Nvidia NDA is evil. One is evil, and the other isn't. It isn't hard to figure out which one is bad to sign.....He's a secret, Kyle didnt sign it!

 

[FrgMstr]

Sneakily reporting on something that is going to be public info anyway = no journalistic merit (except the scoop).

If publishing a review on the front page our website is "sneaky" I think you have an issue. Using lifelong industry resources is exactly that, using my resources. Just because all of these guys want to be hand fed their cards, their drivers, and their review guides, let them deal with it. I OWE THEM NOTHING. They could have done exactly what I did and that was to get the product and review it without NVIDIA's help. They chose to take the easy route, and they will get afforded no benefits from me for them doing it their way. Yeah, I scooped them. That is part of this business if you have the balls to do it. I am not hear to make sure site X does not get their feelings hurt. I publish for our readers and no one else.

 

[JulianCA]

Tailored 'facts': Cherry picking results to look good whilst the competition doesn't; telling only part of the truth instead of the whole truth, etc. Use your imagination. You seem to have a very active one.



Yet here you are...



Nope. (Look at my sig if you want any evidence or the lack thereof of anti-nVidia bias.)



This may be true if nVidia were providing the cards directly to the reviewers in exchange for publicity free from pecuniary value.



Yet the specific NDA that nVidia chose to ask people to sign contains language that would constrain, either now or in the future, what a signer of that NDA could or could not disclose in regard to the information provided to the readers of the publications of said signers. There may not have been active encouragement of what reviewers will say today but the consequences of not posting a positive, if not raving, review, could be withholding hardware in the future for slights, perceived or real.

Tailored 'facts': Cherry picking results to look good whilst the competition doesn't; telling only part of the truth instead of the whole truth, etc. Use your imagination. You seem to have a very active one.



Yet here you are...



Nope. (Look at my sig if you want any evidence or the lack thereof of anti-nVidia bias.)



This may be true if nVidia were providing the cards directly to the reviewers in exchange for publicity free from pecuniary value.



Yet the specific NDA that nVidia chose to ask people to sign contains language that would constrain, either now or in the future, what a signer of that NDA could or could not disclose in regard to the information provided to the readers of the publications of said signers. There may not have been active encouragement of what reviewers will say today but the consequences of not posting a positive, if not raving, review, could be withholding hardware in the future for slights, perceived or real.

Yes, it is a bad NDA. I'm not talking about this specific NDA, I'm talking about NDAs generally because people are throwing out the baby with the bath-water. These types of NDAs do provide compensation in return for the non-disclosure. Whether or not it is worth it is for individuals to decide.

I think you missed the progression in my posts but let me summarize: I've never said NVIDIA NDA is specifically good or worth it. But they have a right to ask people to sign it. NDAs in general have more benefit than people are giving credit for.

 

[JulianCA]

I think you are confusing all NDA's are evil to Nvidia NDA is evil. One is evil, and the other isn't. It isn't hard to figure out which one is bad to sign.....He's a secret, Kyle didnt sign it!

Actually that is the same point I'm trying to make. I don't think NVIDIA's NDA is good at all and never said so anywhere above! All I'm saying is that they have a right to ask for one, and that NDA's (even an onerous one) do in fact give something in return. And I do feel that doing something that is enabled by others breaking a contract (even one you personally didn't want to engage in) is ethically gray area. That's it!

 

[Brackle]

Actually that is the same point I'm trying to make. I don't think NVIDIA's NDA is good at all and never said so anywhere above! All I'm saying is that they have a right to ask for one, and that NDA's (even an onerous one) do in fact give something in return. And I do feel that doing something that is enabled by others breaking a contract (even one you personally didn't want to engage in) is ethically gray area. That's it!

O yea they have a right to ask you to sign. If you don't then you don't need to follow any rules. Kyle didn't sign got his video card with his own [H]ard cash and posted a review. Nothing Nvidia can do about it.....

 

[FrgMstr]

BTW I found the fact that you gave them an very favorable review despite this ongoing saga was an extremely cool thing for you to do. So you're right, on second thought my questioning of your integrity was misplaced. Sorry.

(Now I'll really shut up.)

Being cool had nothing to do with it. A review is a review and Brent and I always handle those in an objective manner. The worst thing we could every do is slant a hardware review based on the way companies act. If our data pointed to it sucking we would have said that, but it did not. Value is a whole other question. And whether or not NVIDIA is an immoral and unethical company is yet another question.