To be clear, Steve does not score products (he doesn't on HUB) but historically we've always scored products in TechSpot reviews (Steve's and others, for years), so that's an (always subjective) layer of editing after Steve wraps up his testing and before we publish the review.
With that said, I will add this...
* We usually score a product based on features, performance, value, competitors, innovation, etc.
* A 90/100 score doesn't mean everyone should buy it, but rather where we believe the product slots among its direct competitors.
I agree that under normal circumstances this logic is flawless. However in this case, it doesn't yet have any direct competitors to which it can be properly compared. I realise that this is a serious handicap when trying to score an item in an incomplete marketplace and I don't envy the task of scoring an item with that much guesswork involved.
Now, if the score on the article changes when it actually does have direct competitors, that would mitigate the problem. I must admit that I don't know if you do that already and if you do, I apologise for my ignorance of it.
The reason this is important is that in the future, someone could read this review and see that 90% (let's be honest, many people just read headlines or conclusions) which would mislead them into thinking that purchasing it would be a good decision. That would be bad for the reader and if they discover that it was a bad decision, they might not trust a techspot review going forward. I like techspot and I don't want that to happen.
* In the case of the RTX 4080, it's a very fast GPU, it's just too expensive for most. In terms of value it's not horrible, but it's not great either. As of writing, there is nothing else that delivers that level of performance (from the competition).
Sure, but being too expensive for most is a pretty big drawback, isn't it? To be fair, I can understand ignoring the price of a halo product (because those are supposed to be pie-in-the-sky) but this is not a halo product. The RTX 4090 is the halo product and this is nowhere near that level of performance. Thus, the value of the item should be addressed in how it's scored. That's just my opinion but I don't think that my logic is flawed.
* It's up to the consumer to decide if they want it/can pay for it. If not, there are alternatives. You will see us scoring other products (GPUs or otherwise) lower if we think they don't perform where they should within its segment/intended market, if they are not well built, are buggy, etc.
I agree that those are all important criteria but it's just as important to assess whether or not they perform where they should at their price point vis a vis other products of the same type in the marketplace. If a consumer sees a 90% score, they're more than likely going to believe that the asking price is justified. Then if they read the article and see that it's not, they're going to be confused. It's just a fact that people are still far more ignorant about computers than they are knowledgeable, on average.
* Needless to be said, we try to write fair reviews and don't play favorites with any company. If you don't like company A or company B, that's fine but we won't judge a product based on that kind of sentiment.
I completely agree with this. This is
exactly how it should be done. I may have a hate-on for Intel and nVidia but if I were a reviewer, I would judge products completely on their objective merits and nothing else. This is something that I've always respected about techspot. This is something that I believe everyone here has always respected about techspot. The backlash here I think is because the optics of giving the RTX 4080 a 90% score doesn't exactly give the appearance of impartiality when the RTX 4080 has been almost universally panned by other reviewers.
One last comment not related to the review but GPUs in general (current and next generation)... GPU makers got spoiled by mining and scalpers pricing.
Yes they did, but not equally. One is definitely more spoiled than the other.
My hope is that kind of distortion won't return for the foreseeable future and if that happens the pricing and lifecycle of these products will have to change and possibly go back to where it was 3+ years ago. In other words, we'd nothing but love if these 4080/4090s and $1000+ GPUs become a thing of the past and we go back to the days where a mainstream GPU cost $200-250 and a high-end one would set you back no more than $500-600 (and less than that months after launch). But that's not true today.
Well said! We don't know if that's still not true today because if AMD continues the trend of cards being $100 less than their last-gen counterparts (7900 XTX = 6950 XT, 7900 XT = 6900 XT), then perhaps we'll see the RX 7800 XT at $550 which would pretty much guarantee that AMD wins this generation and prices would be almost back to normal (The Radeon HD 7870 was $412 so not too far off).
However, if they **** around and shoot themselves in the foot, that would suck for everyone. The RX 6000-series was their best chance but their pricing only served to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This time however, nVidia has really left themselves vulnerable and open to an AMD counterattack with this pricing structure. AMD hasn't had an opportunity like this since Fermi was delayed. Let's hope that they make the most of it, for all our sakes.
