Tag: Gamers Nexus

  • Counterfeit AMD 9800 X3D CPU Scam: Rising Threat of Fake Processors

    Counterfeit AMD 9800 X3D CPU Scam: Rising Threat of Fake Processors

    Key Takeaways

    1. A counterfeit AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D was found to be a fake after inspection, lacking any real components.
    2. The fake CPU was bought as new on Amazon, highlighting return fraud where tampered items can be resold.
    3. Key signs of counterfeit CPUs include unusual weight, mismatched PCB numbers, and poor engraving quality.
    4. AMD’s verification process is less efficient than Intel’s, lacking a quick online serial number check.
    5. Buyers are advised to inspect CPUs immediately upon delivery, especially from third-party sellers, due to the rising sophistication of counterfeits.


    The Gamers Nexus team recently discovered a remarkably crafted but completely non-working fake AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D. They only identified it as a counterfeit after removing the lid and looking at it closely under a microscope. What initially appeared to be a genuine chip — with the right weight and retail packaging — was actually just an empty shell lacking any silicon, solder, or real CPU die.

    Return Fraud Exposed

    This counterfeit was bought on Amazon as a new item, but it had clearly been tampered with and returned by a previous customer. It managed to pass through Amazon’s system without being detected and was sold again to another buyer, exemplifying a common case of return fraud. The packaging seemed untouched, and even the heat spreader was altered to imitate the internal structure of a real 9800X3D, including fake indentations beneath the IHS to replicate the appearance of a die.

    Deception Uncovered

    Attempts to boot the processor failed, and removing the lid confirmed the fraud. There were no signs of indium solder, no CCDs, and no IO die — just a blank substrate alongside a modified IHS. The only early hint was a weight difference of about 7 to 8 grams compared to a real CPU. A closer look revealed mismatched PCB numbers, incorrect SMD layouts, missing coating on components, and slight but noticeable font differences on the labels.

    Gamers Nexus pointed out several warning signs that buyers should be on the lookout for: unusual weight, differences in the arrangement or finish of components, unreadable or unscannable data matrix codes, serial numbers that don’t match between the box and chip, poor engraving quality, and signs of tampering with the packaging. Many of these issues can only be spotted once the CPU is physically inspected — or even delidded — showcasing the weaknesses of AMD’s current four-step verification process. In contrast to Intel, AMD does not provide a quick online serial number check but relies on a slower support form method.

    A Warning for Buyers

    Despite being an intricate fake, the processor was able to navigate through Amazon’s logistics system. This situation highlights how even large retailers are susceptible to fraudulent returns. Gamers Nexus advises consumers to inspect CPUs right after they are delivered, especially when purchasing from third-party sellers or open-box options. Although these counterfeits are still rare, they are becoming increasingly convincing and more difficult to detect.

    Source:
    Link

  • Gamers Nexus Exits PayPal Class Action for Viewer Privacy Updates

    Gamers Nexus Exits PayPal Class Action for Viewer Privacy Updates

    Key Takeaways

    1. Capital One issued a subpoena for sensitive viewer information from Gamers Nexus, despite the channel no longer being involved in the lawsuit.
    2. Gamers Nexus successfully contested the subpoena to protect the identity of its audience and sources, sacrificing future claims for better audience protections.
    3. The Capital One case is advancing quickly in court, with some claims allowed to proceed while others were dismissed, raising concerns about data access laws.
    4. Other companies face similar legal challenges regarding browser extensions that may redirect affiliate earnings from creators to themselves.
    5. Gamers Nexus plans to continue independent reporting on lawsuits and will donate profits from merchandise to organizations focused on digital rights and community initiatives.


    According to Gamers Nexus, Capital One has issued a subpoena requesting sensitive viewer information, such as names, addresses, and possibly traceable purchase histories linked to affiliate clicks. This action took place despite the channel not being involved in the Capital One lawsuit anymore. The bank’s request for “the identity of consumers” who clicked affiliate links would have put unrelated individuals and sources in jeopardy, those who interacted with GN through product recommendations, warranty checks, and other story tips. Gamers Nexus managed to contest the subpoena and completely exited all legal activities to stop any future demands for user information, sacrificing the ability to pursue similar claims later to ensure better protections for its audience and sources.

    Speedy Legal Developments

    The Capital One case has moved along quicker than other similar cases, utilizing Virginia’s fast-track “rocket docket” system and leading to a series of initial rulings. The judge allowed the case to advance on some important issues, including the assertion that Capital One might have overstepped its authorization to access users’ computers, while dismissing other matters regarding property and ownership of tracking data. Gamers Nexus criticized the dismissal of claims under California’s data access law, saying the court did not fully appreciate the time and expense involved in establishing affiliate links—especially when creators utilize tools like Genius Link to manage and localize their tracking systems.

    Broader Industry Implications

    Other significant companies are encountering comparable legal issues, with lawsuits alleging that browser extensions—like those found in Honey, Capital One Shopping, and Microsoft Edge—are intercepting purchases at checkout and replacing the original affiliate tag with their own. This disputed practice could shift earnings away from the creators who initially directed the sale. Most of these lawsuits are still at preliminary stages and are waiting for class action certification, but they may affect a wide array of creators and consumers if they progress. Although Ziff Davis, the parent company of RetailMeNot, is also mentioned, its gaming outlets like IGN and Eurogamer are not directly implicated.

    Now that Gamers Nexus is free from legal limitations, the organization intends to keep reporting on the lawsuits independently through its GNCA Tipline series, emphasizing consumer rights, privacy, and transparency. The profits from its Honeypot T-shirts, initially designed to help with legal expenses, will now be donated to organizations that advocate for digital preservation, consumer rights, and community computer reuse initiatives.

    Source:
    Link

  • Nvidia’s Media Tactics: Fallout from Gamers Nexus Exposé

    Nvidia’s Media Tactics: Fallout from Gamers Nexus Exposé

    Key Takeaways

    1. Nvidia’s Pressure Tactics: Gamers Nexus (GN) alleges that Nvidia has pressured them to include specific performance metrics (MFG4X) in GPU reviews, even for unsupported models, claiming this is misleading and unethical.

    2. Control Over Media Access: Nvidia reportedly threatened to restrict access to key engineers if GN did not comply with their editorial demands, indicating a desire to control media coverage rather than simply influence it.

    3. Erosion of Trust: GN argues that Nvidia’s tactics have eroded trust in media coverage of their products, making it difficult for audiences to discern whether metrics were included voluntarily or under pressure.

    4. Manipulative Corporate Culture: The article highlights concerns over Nvidia’s corporate culture, where executives may shift blame and use access to engineers as leverage against media outlets, impacting editorial independence.

    5. Commitment to Integrity: Gamers Nexus emphasizes their commitment to maintaining editorial independence, even at the risk of losing future access to Nvidia products, urging other media outlets to resist similar pressures.


    As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang shares news about artificial intelligence, Gamers Nexus has taken this opportunity to reveal what it calls Nvidia’s growing manipulative behavior towards the media. In an editorial characterized by Steve Burke’s distinctive tone, the piece highlights a troubling trend of editorial pressure, coercive tactics based on access, and retaliatory measures that the outlet claims exceed standard industry practices.

    Nvidia’s Demands

    Gamers Nexus alleges that for the past six months, Nvidia has pressured its team to include Multi-Frame Generation 4X (MFG4X) performance metrics in GPU reviews, even in cases where the graphics cards tested do not support this feature. GN refused, asserting that such inclusion would be misleading, unethical, and fundamentally dishonest.

    Threats and Access Control

    Instead of relenting, Nvidia reportedly intensified its approach by threatening to deny access to key internal engineers — notably thermal engineer Malcolm and latency expert Gamm0 — both of whom resonate well with GN’s audience. Even though these engineers have no direct link to MFG technology, their availability was allegedly made contingent on GN agreeing to Nvidia’s editorial stipulations.

    The main allegation from GN is that Nvidia is not just trying to influence coverage but is actively seeking to control it. This includes urging reviewers to depict the RTX 5070 as comparable to the significantly more powerful RTX 4090 by highlighting synthetic MFG-enhanced figures. Such comparisons risk misleading consumers by stripping away essential context.

    The Nature of Communication

    Burke argues that this behavior shifts Nvidia’s once-open communication with the media towards manipulation. While Nvidia has historically provided technical insights and briefings, GN contends that this access is now being leveraged to enforce compliance with corporate messaging. Once viewed as a hallmark of transparency, access to Nvidia’s engineers is increasingly seen as conditional and transactional.

    Gamers Nexus is not isolated in voicing concerns. Burke mentions that the outlet contacted other reviewers and media representatives globally, revealing a pattern of behind-the-scenes pressure to influence editorial content. This includes explicit or implied expectations regarding how products should be framed and which benchmarks should be highlighted. According to GN, these strategies indicate a broader company-wide approach that goes beyond regional public relations teams.

    Nvidia’s History of Controversy

    Nvidia has faced its share of media influence controversies. In 2020, it temporarily cut off Hardware Unboxed’s GPU sampling access due to the outlet’s unwillingness to emphasize ray tracing metrics. A similar situation reportedly surfaced again, with Nvidia pressuring GN to modify its editorial stance on MFG and DLSS coverage.

    Burke claims that Nvidia informed Gamers Nexus that integrating MFG into reviews was necessary to “secure budget” for interviews with engineers, even though GN incurs costs for traveling, filming, and editing those interviews without any financial compensation from Nvidia. This framing implies that Nvidia perceives all media interactions as fundamentally transactional, regardless of financial exchanges.

    The Ripple Effect on Media

    This framing also casts a shadow over other media organizations. Once Nvidia establishes precedent for linking access to editorial direction, every interview, performance graph, or editorial decision becomes questionable. GN argues that this not only undermines their credibility but also that of any reviewer discussing MFG or DLSS without full transparency regarding the nature of those discussions.

    Gamers Nexus emphasizes that their frustration is not aimed at Nvidia’s engineers. On the contrary, they regard professionals like Malcolm and Gamm0 as knowledgeable and trustworthy, conveying insights born from experience rather than marketing agendas. These individuals have cultivated genuine connections with GN and its audience. However, GN now believes that Nvidia is intentionally using that rapport to enforce compliance.

    Emotional Pressure Tactics

    Burke notes that Nvidia often references these engineers when discussing coverage requirements. This tactic seems designed to apply emotional pressure, knowing that GN values these relationships. GN describes this as a form of manipulation, suggesting that if restricting access to GPUs fails, perhaps restricting access to respected engineers will succeed.

    Despite producing over an hour of independent content on MFG and DLSS, including detailed analyses, GN states that Nvidia was still dissatisfied because the coverage was not integrated into review articles. The demand was explicit: include MFG4X in the charts or lose access.

    Erosion of Trust

    GN contends that this insistence has tainted any MFG or DLSS coverage presented by any outlet. Even if another reviewer includes those metrics out of genuine curiosity, audiences may question whether they did so voluntarily or under undue pressure. This erosion of trust harms both independent media and Nvidia’s own credibility.

    Gamers Nexus has a history of engaging with major companies. They have previously confronted Intel and AMD over similar matters, emphasizing that this isn’t personal. However, the outlet feels that Nvidia’s tactics have crossed a new line that now encompasses not just hardware access, but access to personnel and potential internal reprisal.

    Concerns Over Corporate Culture

    Burke cites prior reports from former Nvidia employees who described a corporate culture where executives frequently shift blame downwards. GN worries that by going public with these claims, they might inadvertently harm the engineers and PR contacts who have no influence over high-level policies. Nonetheless, the outlet believes that transparency is essential for progress.

    The article also recalls Nvidia’s contentious GeForce Partner Program (GPP) from 2018, which effectively required board partners to align their gaming brands exclusively with GeForce to retain Nvidia support. This program, widely criticized for being anti-competitive, was eventually withdrawn under public pressure and investigative scrutiny.

    A Call for Integrity

    In GN’s perspective, the current situation mirrors GPP in both approach and execution. The company is allegedly attempting to shape perception and limit coverage by using access and relationships as pressure points rather than relying on product quality and transparency. The message seems to be: adhere to the script, or risk exclusion.

    GN concludes with a firm statement: they will not yield. Even if it means sacrificing future review samples, interviews, or relationships, they are committed to maintaining editorial independence. They also urge other outlets to take a stand. “If you give Nvidia an inch, they’ll take a mile,” warns Burke.

    The piece finishes not by calling for a boycott, but by acknowledging that Nvidia produces remarkable products and its engineers offer valuable insights. However, both consumers and reviewers must be able to trust that coverage is accurate, independent, and not subject to corporate pressure.

    At the heart of this conflict lies more than just performance metrics or technologies; it concerns the role of the press in an industry where access has become a bargaining tool and transparency comes with strings attached.

    We will keep tracking this situation and provide updates as new information comes to light.

    Source:
    Link

  • RTX 5080 Lacks ROPs, Causes Gaming Performance Loss in Tests

    RTX 5080 Lacks ROPs, Causes Gaming Performance Loss in Tests

    Key Takeaways

    1. The RTX 5070 Ti shows a performance drop of over 10% due to having eight fewer Render Output Units (ROPs), suggesting similar issues for RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs.

    2. Gamers Nexus tested an RTX 5080 with 104 ROPs against one with 112 ROPs, revealing performance differences of up to 11% in various games at 4K resolution.

    3. In games like Baldur’s Gate 3 and Black Myth: Wukong, there was no performance difference between the two RTX 5080 models, while Dying Light 2 showed an 8.7% advantage for the model with full ROPs.

    4. At 1440p resolution, the performance gap is generally slight, but specific titles like Dying Light 2 still show notable differences, emphasizing game-dependent performance.

    5. The performance drop in ROPs affects the RTX 5080’s competitiveness against other GPUs, prompting users to ensure their cards have all ROPs intact or consider refunds/replacements.


    We previously mentioned that the RTX 5070 Ti appears to experience a performance drop of over 10% due to having eight fewer Render Output Units (ROPs). From this, it was clear that the RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs would likely face similar performance issues.

    Latest Gaming Tests

    However, we lacked solid gaming tests to support this. That changed when Gamers Nexus tested a defective RTX 5080 that had only 104 ROPs against a normal one with all 112 ROPs across various games. The results could be concerning for certain gamers out there.

    Testing conducted by Gamers Nexus at 4K resolution shows that the RTX 5080 with full ROPs can have anywhere from no performance difference to an 11% gain. The smallest difference is found in games like Baldur’s Gate 3 and Black Myth: Wukong, where both cards perform the same. Nevertheless, the RTX 5080 with 112 ROPs has a 4.9% edge over the one with missing ROPs in Dragon’s Dogma 2. The gap widens to 8.7% in Dying Light 2 and reaches a notable 11% in Total War: Warhammer 3.

    Performance at Different Resolutions

    When looking at 1440p, the gap between a fully operational RTX 5080 and one that’s lacking 8 ROPs is slight in most games tested. Yet, in Dying Light 2, the RTX 5080 with 112 ROPs shows an improvement of 8.8%. In short, the decline in gaming performance varies by title. While some games perform the same on both cards, others reportedly lag on the RTX 5080 with fewer ROPs.

    Conclusion

    Not surprisingly, this drop in performance impacts the RTX 5080’s comparison with other GPUs in the titles where the most performance loss occurs. Gamers Nexus goes deeper into specific games and compares the performance results with the 5070 Ti and the RX 7900 XTX. Be sure to check out the full video, which is linked below.

    In summary, make sure your RTX 5090/5080/5070 Ti has all ROPs intact, and if not, consider asking for a refund or a replacement.

    Source:
    Link


  • GNCA: GamersNexus Consumer Advocacy YouTube Channel Launches

    GNCA: GamersNexus Consumer Advocacy YouTube Channel Launches

    Key Takeaways

    1. Item swap scams are a growing issue in Amazon’s return process, leading to customers receiving incorrect or used items instead of new ones.
    2. Amazon’s quality control measures are lacking, allowing swapped items to go undetected and be resold to unsuspecting customers.
    3. Gamers Nexus has experienced multiple instances of product swaps, highlighting a pattern in Amazon’s return policy that enables these scams.
    4. Customers should always check their orders upon arrival, especially for tech products, to ensure they received the correct items and specifications.
    5. If a wrong item is received, it’s important to document everything (photos, weights) and report the issue promptly to mitigate potential fraud.


    The latest video from Gamers Nexus on their YouTube channel brings attention to a troubling issue with Amazon’s return process: item swap scams. They recount an experience where they ordered a new Asus Loki 1000W power supply and ended up with a used Corsair SF 850 instead. Although the outer box was correct, the power supply inside was not what they expected, indicating a typical buy-and-return scam where a previous buyer exchanged the item for a less expensive one. Even more concerning is that Amazon’s system flagged the package for a weight difference, but it was still shipped. This raises questions about the effectiveness of Amazon’s quality control measures, which seem to be overlooked or ignored, resulting in defective or swapped items being sent to unsuspecting customers.

    Repeat Offenders

    Gamers Nexus has faced similar issues multiple times in the past. They have previously encountered mismatched CPU swaps and downgraded GPUs, and now a wrong power supply. The core of the problem is that these scams often remain undetected because the swapped items are returned in their original packaging, making it hard for Amazon’s warehouse staff or customers to notice the differences. The main problem lies in Amazon’s return policy, which allows these scams to continue thriving. Returned products are often repackaged and resold without proper inspections, which can result in them being sent back to other buyers. Because Amazon often accepts returns with minimal scrutiny, scammers exploit this loophole, passing the issue on to the next unsuspecting customer. While Gamers Nexus has had a smooth return process, newer accounts or infrequent buyers might struggle to prove they received the wrong item.

    Important Takeaways

    From the video, the message is straightforward: always check your orders as soon as they arrive. Even if you don’t intend to use the item immediately, opening the package and ensuring the correct items are inside can help you avoid a lengthy return process later. For tech products, it’s especially important to run software diagnostics to verify specifications. This is crucial for CPUs and GPUs, which are often altered through BIOS changes or label swaps. As Gamers Nexus points out, Amazon’s automated systems have flaws, and human checks are not always reliable. If you find you have received the wrong product, make sure to document everything—take photos, weigh the items, and report the issue right away. While Amazon might process a refund eventually, the increasing rate of these swap scams indicates that their return system is in dire need of improvement to protect honest customers from falling victim to someone else’s fraud.

    Source:
    Link