Why is this dishonest? Want to bet that those boards have cherry-picked chips and RAM that clocks to the moon? That they will do everything better than any card you will ever be able to buy? Basically, Nvidia supplied ringers to the press that are not representative of what you can buy, and forced OEMs to give them to review sites without telling them. The technical term is 'mushrooming', feed them [scatological reference deleted] and keep them in the dark.
Remember now, this is the same 55nm G92 that you have been able to buy for six months or more, there is NO difference between that and the 9800GTX+. Nvidia has to show a difference to avoid their new hare-brained branding/stupid fanboi-fleecing scheme from tanking, so they are stacking the reviews.
They cut out anyone they thought would be critical and gave the rest cards that are nothing like what anyone can buy. They shut up OEMs, and forced them to give out cards that were flat out fantasy parts in the hopes that it would generate some good press. If they don't, well, you can always cut them out of the next round.
This behaviour on Nvidia's part is not only unethical, but it is purposefully dishonest. They are knowingly giving out parts that are not representative of retail pieces, and doing so without telling the reviewers. Readers won't know, sites may or may not know, and in general, it hurts everyone but Nvidia. Unless the word gets out, then hilarity ensues.
Spread the word guys, and don't trust any of the upcoming reviews where the part was not purchased at a retail outlet using real money.
Atomic Note: We'll be keeping our eyes peeled for incredibly high-clocking samples in the future, and we'll not be very impressed if we get one - we review what you'd expect to get, not what they'd like us to.
theinquirer.net (c) 2010 Incisive Media
Issue: 137 | June, 2012