In recent months, NVIDIA, the tech giant renowned for its cutting-edge GPU technologies, has found itself embroiled in controversy.
Multiple reports have surfaced alleging that the company has been employing coercive tactics to influence media coverage of its latest products, particularly focusing on the inclusion of favorable benchmarks for features like Multi-Frame Generation (MFG4X).
Allegations of Media Manipulation
Multiple outlets report that NVIDIA has leveraged access to hardware samples and internal engineers to shape review narratives. According to Gamers Nexus, NVIDIA demanded inclusion of MFG4X performance figures—regardless of actual game support—threatening to revoke hardware access if outlets refused to comply. Notebookcheck corroborates that NVIDIA escalated threats by warning that respected engineers (e.g., thermal specialist “Malcolm” and latency expert “Gamm0”) would no longer be available for interviews unless Gamers Nexus highlighted MFG4X performance in their reviews.
Specific Examples of Pressure
RTX 5060 Review Units and Drivers
- Withholding Pre‑Release Drivers: Reports say NVIDIA will only supply RTX 5060 drivers to reviewers on May 19, the launch date, effectively preventing any independent testing beforehand.
- Controlled Benchmarks: Early RTX 5060 “preview” articles were restricted to three NVIDIA‑selected titles (Doom: The Dark Ages, Cyberpunk 2077, Marvel Rivals) at fixed settings, emphasizing DLSS and MFG to showcase up to 25 percent gains over the RTX 4060 .
- Driver Access for Compliant Media: VideoCardz notes that only outlets willing to publish NVIDIA‑approved previews received RTX 5060 drivers ahead of launch.
Leveraging Engineer Interviews
NVIDIA reportedly told Gamers Nexus that access to its engineers and technical interviews would be withdrawn unless GN included more DLSS 4 and MFG content in their charts. Tech4Gamers says that interviews and driver updates were made contingent on positive coverage of NVIDIA’s AI‑driven features.
Gamers Nexus’s Stance
Gamers Nexus has openly rejected these tactics, emphasizing their commitment to honest, data‑driven reporting. In an editorial, they stated they “refuse to compromise [their] journalistic integrity for access to NVIDIA’s resources,” pointing to their extensive, independent benchmarks of MFG and DLSS technologies and questioning the impartiality of other outlets influenced by NVIDIA’s “transactional” approach . GN’s investigations into “fake frame” counts further underscore their insistence on transparency.
NVIDIA’s Reported Practices
Industry observers describe NVIDIA’s media relations as overtly transactional, with a history of “vindictive” actions against critics and partners:
- GeForce Partner Program (2018): NVIDIA’s GPP forced add‑in board (AIB) partners into exclusive branding agreements, threatening to withhold GPU allocations from those who didn’t comply. The program was widely condemned as anti‑competitive and ultimately canceled after two months.
- Hardware Unboxed Ban (2020): The GPU giant briefly banned Hardware Unboxed from receiving review samples over editorial disagreements, only reversing course after public backlash. This incident raised alarm about journalistic independence when manufacturers supply products for review.
- PC Gamer blacklist(2025): The company decided not to provide review samples or pre-release drivers to certain media outlets, including PC Gamer, seemingly to block day one critiques from these specific sources.
Sources: PC Gamer, Notebook Check, Android Headlines, Wikipedia, Tom’s Hardware
