Has a review ever done this before?

[tajoh111]

http://www.sapphirepgs.com/presentat...&articleID=460

Basically sapphires has took tom's slides, taken out about a good half of the slides where the quadro 6000 wins and only puts the slides where the w9000 wins. Took out the most positive wording from toms review and call it a review.

Of course they source back to toms, but this type of review seems dirtier/lazier than any review that I have ever seen. The fact that tomshardware didn't ask them to take it down for misrepresenting his review and copying and pasting stuff to turn into a marketing piece makes me think the original Tomshardware review was paid for by sapphire. This wouldn't be overly a surprise considering the websites past and some of the wording in his conclusion that don't represent the data in the entirety of his graphs.

If I was a website and someone did this to one of my articles, I would be super pissed.

[BeepBeep2]

This is a media presentation...
You've never seen companies cherry pick slides/results for themselves?

People do it all the time here in the forum too, of course they don't matter as much as a large company or website but the AMD fanboys here often leave out 70% of a review to show how great Bulldozer was.

[Ket]

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, such things is why I never visit toms and the mere mention of that site offends me. This kind of thing has always gone on, but in the past many more websites had more ethics and would get this kind of stuff removed. Now websites are afraid of upsetting the people that send them review samples. Sadly, that isn't something that factors in really its simply trying to stop the spread of false information - something which bought and paid for review sites don't care about.

[tajoh111]

This is a media presentation...
You've never seen companies cherry pick slides/results for themselves?

People do it all the time here in the forum too, of course they don't matter as much as a large company or website but the AMD fanboys here often leave out 70% of a review to show how great Bulldozer was.

Sure they cherry pick. But fanboys don't need to have any accountability(as they are not making any money off the post). This is a professional company that is copying and pasting a review and skewing the results to make it look like a total domination and transforming it into a marketing review.

Sometimes we see a performance slide or two or the most positive sentence about the product from the review(as the rest wouldn't fit on the box). But never the whole collection of excel graphs(the ones showing the performance advantage) and rewriting the conclusion to this level.

If I was a reviewer I would be disgusted and asked for my work to be taken down immediately.

[BeepBeep2]

Sure they cherry pick. But fanboys don't need to have any accountability(as they are not making any money off the post). This is a professional company that is copying and pasting a review and skewing the results to make it look like a total domination and transforming it into a marketing review.

Sometimes we see a performance slide or two or the most positive sentence about the product from the review(as the rest wouldn't fit on the box). But never the whole collection of excel graphs(the ones showing the performance advantage) and rewriting the conclusion to this level.

If I was a reviewer I would be disgusted and asked for my work to be taken down immediately.

Tom's is usually off-base anyway, their tech news, reviews and articles are best suited for the wanna-be enthusiast with a dual core CPU that instantly thinks they know everything about every behavior about every platform or part after reading it somewhere on the internet.

I agree that Sapphire should not have done this, but AMD has done it too, and NVIDIA, etc...
Think about Bulldozer PR charts that came out and the leaked ones showing better gaming than 980X and all that other bull. They were grasping for straws and when the product was released the enthusiasts knew better, along with most reviewers and in-turn, consumers.