Newegg is Desperate: Dumping GPUs with "JustGPU"

[Music] newegg which is a website that sells a multi-year warranties for your double a batteries and also video cards has just launched a brand new website for selling video cards and it's called just gpu just gpu features suspicious benchmarks in an attempt to move stale inventory ahead of future launches with full greater fool theory coming into play here except in this scenario the greatest fool is the one left holding a bag of gpus ahead of the launch of the next generation of video cards now of course presented with some neatly packaged marketing the argument from new ag might be that this is supposed to be a tool to help people make their purchasing decisions and choose the correct video card for them offering up selections for purchase on newegg of course once you click through the interface uh we're going to dig into this and get into some of the inner workings of just gpu and talk about why it's pointless and appears very desperate before that this video is brought to you by be quiet and the silent base 802 case the silent base 802 got high accolades in our review for its high build quality and its versatility in both science focused and airflow focused built the 802 comes with swappable mesh panels or noise damped panels so you have options for either approach the silent base 802 case is able to fit larger builds as well without being overbearing and it stands out for its mechanics quality and assembly quality learn more about be quiet's new case at the link in the description below our biggest problem with just gpu is that it's misleading at the worst end of things and it may lead people to purchase video cards that don't really make sense for their system or for what they want to do with it because what newegg is doing is it's trying to take the job of a reviewer and package all these benchmarks into a website or an effective review and tell you what's best except for two main problems one new excel's the video cards so that's a conflict but that's okay and then two to doing all of the review process without any of the benchmarking or the review and so you end up with these bar charts that represent actually nothing and you have fps results that come from wherever the gpu supply came from previously the landing page has buttons for shop all gpu and benchmark gpu maybe they didn't get the memo that there's more than one now it also has a button that links to a 5 000 gleam giveaway below these are buttons for top brands which initially excluded sapphire and still excludes power color but some reason includes asrock which is much newer in the gpu space on the other hand asrock is not new to trying to buy marketing favor and blacklisting reviewers so let's look back at the website clicking on benchmark gpu brings us to some of the best benchmarks we've ever seen like this one showing slot width on a bar charge as a bigger bar is better triple slots that means three and dual slots that one means two are depicted on the bar graph and they're shown as again bigger is better above these the gpu length again bigger bar better new egg also falls into the trap of comparing cuda cores and clock speeds on a graph which is pointless think about it if you compare the rtx 3080 which is better to the rtx 3060 newegg makes it look like the rtx 3060 is better the clock speed of higher end gpus often drops to accommodate the bigger and more packed in core as it does between these two but the 3080 is still better between the two and then of course you throw an amd card and a new annuity card and of course then you compare an amd card to an nvidia card and some of the metrics go out the window and disappear from the chart because you can't cross compare them and also intro comparing them like nueck is doing here is irresponsible and somewhat reckless because it will lead people to the wrong conclusions without knowing anything about what they're looking at the worst part of all of this is because newegg is rebranding this as a different entity just gpu despite their name being very small print at the bottom it might make buyers think that this is an independent site maybe like well i'm not going to name them but like any number of other affiliate links spam websites that actually don't provide any value and just kind of guess at the hierarchy people might think that these are useful websites trying to rank the products and not just a retailer trying to sell the products to them directly of course when you click on the gpu link it does eventually take you to newegg but it looks exactly the same as an affiliate link spam website so let's go through some more of the website clicking on shop all gpu all one of them takes you to a focused product list that currently features only the nvidia rtx 30 series and the amd rx 6000 series gpus several filters are available on the left hand side to narrow down the surge and what's more interesting is the benchmarks on each product newegg wait sorry just gpu seems to be pulling data from 3dmark and using it to show time spy scores this will come back into play later technically this is a service that ul sells as well below the time spy score is an fps count for call of duty specifically warzone running at quote 2k resolution nobody calls it that newegg just gpu don't don't call it that it's not the word we use clicking that text brings us to some suspiciously clean benchmarks choices for resolution include 1080p 2k and 4k and things start to get weird with the cpu selection because the choices are simply five seven or nine and both the intel and ryzen flavors not specific cpus not even generations just the marketing tiers presumably because this will be abandoned by the time the next generation launches because they just need to sell all these 30 and 6000 series cards now and move along so making changes to these cpus sometimes changes the fps numbers of the various titles below them but not always we notice that new x data is bizarrely bound in several places where it really shouldn't be for a gpu benchmark additionally we notice that these numbers always end in zero or five this to us is a gigantic red flag of credibility rounding to five or zero first of all serves no purpose here secondly if you're dealing with numbers as low as say 30fps which newegg still considers to be playable then going from 30 to 35 fps because you wanted to round it to make it cleaner can make a big difference because i just 30 to 35 itself is a 17 change so you chip away some part of that for where they're rounding and it starts making the gap look much larger than it potentially actually is it's also just weird because why would you round to zero or five if you have presumably an actual number that came from an actual benchmark anyway we'll get to the answer in a second it won't surprise you i'm doing clickbait wrong it will shock you so if you're at 34.3 sure round it to 34. but why round it to 35 or to 30. it just doesn't really add any value here and so the problem for us is more of the red flag indicator of where did the do these numbers actually exist or were they random number generated we also noticed something peculiar if you take a cross section of some of the results on newegg's website we sorry just gpu's website we spotted that the percentage scaling or the percent improvement from a lower end card to a higher end one often identically lands at a clean at 20.00 25.00 50.00 and so on these numbers are suspicious again to us and it sounds like they're approximating a result based on non-sequitur benchmarks or number sources in fact if you scroll down just below these comparison bars nueck just gpu has a disclaimer on its website that states this quote disclaimer benchmarks including frames per second fps and time spy score are estimations based on system configurations data is provided by 3dmark directly and not newegg actual performance may vary they even say their estimations we don't have to jump to the conclusion that we assume to us this means fake hasn't completely fabricated but nuage doesn't make it clear which data is provided by 3d mark so even if we're being generous and we say the time spy score is provided by 3dmark where do all these game benchmarks come from because 3dmark as great of a tool as it is especially for overclocking and competition it doesn't give you a great overall picture of how a product performs versus its competitors because they change game to game and based on the scenario and by the way time spy alone is not sufficient to make these comparisons so and and it's not even clear that that data comes from 3dmark nuece could be pulling that from its database based on random people with random configurations that are running these gpus a 3dmarks company does sell benchmarking services their parent company is ul or underwriters laboratories and that's fine it doesn't sound like something that newegg has used but it's not very clear and it's unethical for a media outlet to do that but for ul it doesn't really matter because they're just a lab they don't present to the consumer they present for companies they do testing for companies and they sell the data to those companies to use in marketing or in certification processes to meet iso standards or whatever it may be let's look at some of the data and see if it's any good so first clicking through the website we notice that they're bound heavily or really fudging the numbers with some cpus some of these games don't move between cpu choices even at the lower resolutions where a cpu bind is likely we saw instances where results were the same across the board to make this easier to compare we made our own chart with newegg's own data we just pooled it all in one place to get a quicker evaluation instead of clicking through a clumsy interface for example the rx 6600 xt the rx 6800 the rx 6700 xt and the rx 6800xt all showed 275 fps average for cs go at 1080p with an intel i7 yet suspiciously they're all locked to 260 fps average at 1440p so we somehow switched from an alleged yet very unlikely cpu bind at the on a 6600 xt at 1080p to a gpu bind at 1440p this is technically possible with things like driver overhead and really specific scenarios but given the context it seems more likely that it's just bad testing or faked results or improperly approximated fake results moving to nvidia we noticed much the same rainbow six is entirely cpu bound even at the rtx 3060 ti level and so is cs go by the way and far cry 6 which is miraculously also cpu bound at 1080p cyberpunk isn't far from a cpu bind down the stack as well these benchmarks are worthless if we produced this many numbers this the same on this many gpus with this many games we would throw out all of the data it's a gpu benchmark you have to know which gpu you want to buy by knowing the differences when all the numbers are identical there's a problem sometimes it's the testing process sometimes you're trying to demonstrate a gpu bind or a cpu bind somewhere else by looking at what other parts limit the component you're testing in this instance sure maybe they're just trying to give a demonstration of bad data and improper benchmarking techniques by ruining about half of the data we would normally limit that to one chart to make a point but you could also do it to all of them either way so we would rerun these and throughout the original data they're just showing them all to be the same product here 1080p with higher settings is still plenty to produce differences and we can look at some comparisons we're going to show a few charts to demonstrate the percent increase in performance from one gpu to another so that would be the improvement the percent increase in gpus from a versus b and we're taking those two percentages from new x comparison a to bgbus gn's comparison a to b gpus where we've hand tested them so we know where the data came from what benches they came off of and additionally some data is missing between the two of us different groups and we don't test the same games or the same way so there will be a few blank spots but even though testing methodology and graphic settings may differ between two outlets what really matters is the relative percent scaling that should be about the same especially between two gpus and should be predictable with different sets of results if you have sufficient data to start drawing those conclusions and we do the rx 6400 versus rx 6600 is up first shown at 1080p here newegg saw an 82 improvement with the 6600 whereas we saw a 117 percent improvement in our testing that's a pretty large difference newegg saw a 78 improvement in far cry 6 to the 6600 from the 6400 but we saw a 115 improvement in gta 5. we saw almost a doubling of performance but newegg was down at 67 percent in the very least between the first two games in gta we both saw percent increase reduction uh so that lines up but what's truly unlikely or bizarre is new x rainbow six result which loses step with the scaling and lands at 47 percent droplets for a 6600 over a 6400 so to be clear if you're a random consumer you've never really seen benchmarks before you look at this website the takeaway you get is that the 6600 which is a 280 card right now versus the rx 6400 which is a 160 card is anywhere from 47 to 82 percent better uh and we're saying that it's anywhere from about 100 to 117 better obviously it can be a little bit outside those ranges but based on the numbers we're looking at today big difference in the conclusions that we're both drawing here and we're not a retailer and also we don't have a big disclaimer that says benchmarks are pulled out of thin air and approximated that's probably the part that matters more checking data from other reviewers we noticed similar differences against newegg's results so it's not just us the next one looks at the 3060 ti versus the rtx 3080 at 1080p here newegg has the 3080 only 50 percent better than the rtx 360 ti and tomb raider where we saw an 81 percent improvement and new x uplift was a clean 50.00 that's suspicious likewise in rainbow six we saw a 39 improvement where newegg saw a 2.8 percent uplift in far cry 6 we saw an 18 improvement to new exit 9 so a doubling of the relative improvement the only believable result here is from cyberpunk although for us that's data that's a year old now because we haven't continued benchmarking that game newegg's numbers here they're so chaotic and random that it really looks like they did some kind of weird rng spreadsheet like an equals rand between zero and a hundred percent and then multiplied it against some base result like time spy or whatever we're really not sure how they're approximating these where they're getting it uh but approximating benchmarks in general is not a great practice and doing it when you have no basis in reality is a very bad practice which is what's happening here so these are completely useless the point is apparently to help consumers to pick between products the real point is to sell products because they're stuck with them and especially stuck with them looking at the rtx 40 series and the amd rx 7000 series coming out it's not bad we don't begrudge a retailer for trying to retail things that's what they do it's okay to want to sell products but they should do it in a responsible way and not dance around like they're reviewers when actually what they're doing is probably faking the results or either they're not close enough to reality to it's just misleading that's where we are with this now let's look at another one just for fun the rtx 390 ti versus the rx 6800 xt at 4k this time newag reported a clean 25 improvement to the 39 dti and tomb raider in cyberpunk which we don't have data for and in rainbow six siege amazing how it just happens to be 25 exactly between these games and we've seen this with multiple of their gpus against each other when taking all their numbers and dumping it into one spreadsheet now we saw 22 in tomb raider so that's closer to nueck but we saw 44 in gta and rainbow six far different than newegg's results now finally at the end of all this we got curious about where is newegg pulling these numbers and so we took their time spy number that they had for each gpu and started just calculating percentages against the time spy numbers between themselves we ran some math against these lo and behold in the most recent example here the rtx 390 ti just happened to have a time spy score that was approximately 25 percent higher than the 6800 x t's times pi score that doesn't mean that's how the games scale time spy is a synthetic benchmark it's a great tool it's not for making gaming comparisons and that it looks like that 25 magical number here came from time spy and they might be doing that for the other ones as well that might be the source of the approximation but the one thing we know for fact no need for speculation is that new egg is approximating because it's told us as much so our belief here the whole point of this video is just to say look this site just gpu it's owned by newegg they don't hide it it's not particularly obvious but until you click the links and see they're all newegg and then you scroll down to the bottom and see newegg.com it is entirely branded as something else and it starts to look like one of the gpu or cpu or ssd comparison sites that are out there that we're not going to name because a lot of them also act in what we think is bad faith and this is an irresponsible representation of the products that they're selling it's irresponsible to show things like bar charts where you have slot count and size designated as bars on a graph where it's assumed that larger is better and it's also irresponsible to basically in our eyes fabricate your testing data and present numbers which don't seem to align with reality so that's it for our review of newegg's new just gpu website if you want to buy gps from new egg whatever but don't use their benchmarks to make your decision they're not going to help you thank you for watching subscribe for more you can go to store.gamersnexus.com to help us out directly like by grabbing one of these t-shirts which we'll we are almost out of stock of by the way on the store or you can go to patreon.comgamersnexus we'll see you all next time

Channel: Gamers Nexus

Views: 527,794

Keywords: gamersnexus, gamers nexus, computer hardware, Newegg, JustGPU, Newegg GPUs, newegg interview, newegg misleading, newegg benchmarks, newegg justgpu

Id: iywx09SVETE

Length: 19min 21sec (1161 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 05 2022

Reddit Comments

[u/TerriersAreAdorable]

If Newegg wasn't fabricating their FPS data, this would be a handy website for semi-technical gamers who want to know how well a parts combo would run their favorite games.

Actually doing that costs money (either to license benchmark data from, for example, Gamers Nexus, or to run their own), so it's unsurprising they're not willing to go that far.

[u/Silly-Weakness]

Most of us here are fairly well tapped in, at least compared to the average consumer... Was this site completely off anyone else's radar? Bravo to the GN team for bringing it to light.

[u/ASuarezMascareno]

If they want to include ballpark estimates of performance, they could just take the performance ranking of Techpowerup. Add some tolerance (maybe ~5%?) and it should be good enough.

[u/SirActionhaHAA]

They can hire GPUPro to do benchmarking for JustGPU

[u/vianid]

Reeks of desperation. "Luckily" people aren't doing well enough financially to reward this sleazy effort. Also "Luckily" no new games are coming out worthy of a desperate upgrade.

Enjoy your mountain of depreciating GPUs Newegg.

[u/CaptainPlummet]

I’ll admit I thought this was a little rage-baity at first, then I saw the performance comparisons from Newegg vs GN. That’s pretty bad. I can understanding some rounded numbers but Newegg messed up. They can absolutely afford to invest in better testing and they should.

That said, I like what they’re going for. It has tons of potential but they have a long way to before it’s truly reliable.

[u/IceBeam92]

At 3:28 mark on the video Steve says Newegg comparing core count and core frequency is pointless. As far as I know, such a comparison between AMD and Nvidia would indeed be pointless since they are essentially different architectures.

However, In the video, both video cards shown are Nvidia 3000 series namely 3080 and 3060, this kind of comparison should still be valid. He also says from the data it looks as if 3060 is better , Now since GPUs are massively parallel processors, when both core count and clock frequency combined, data in fact shows 3080 to be better as it should. So the language seems a little weird here.

I agree with the his assessments of putting bar graph on every metric is ridiculous, as it makes seem very silly stuff like triple slot is better than dual slot.

[u/InvincibleBird]

I know it's not really an important point but if they go out of their way to call 1440p "2K" then why did they keep 1080p as "1080p"? If you want to use the XK marketing names for resolutions then go all the way and call 1080p "1K".

[u/marklarECHO]

Just another sign of how poor New Egg management is and how disconnected they are from the type of people who buy their products. This website looks like something designed to appeal to kids who got ahold of their parents credit card.