Scott had me working on another, non-editorial project last week, and I simply didn't see the Nvidia/Ubi story. If I had seen it (or if someone had e-mailed it in), I or another TR editor probably would have written it up.
Would we have used the same tone as in the EA story? Probably not. In that story, which has since been refuted, IGN asserted that Nvidia wouldn't get a chance to "develop and distribute updated drivers" until after the release of each game covered under the alleged AMD-EA partnership. That would have been an unusual clause for a partnership between a GPU vendor and game publisher, and it would have been bad for the PC as a gaming platform. It would have potentially forced a broad swath of the PC gaming population to wait days, perhaps weeks after a game's release before getting a smooth, bug-free experience.
The Nvidia-Ubisoft partnership announcement is different. Nothing in it mentions any such clause, and as far as I'm aware, Nvidia's TWIMTBP program in general doesn't bar AMD from accessing pre-release game code or optimizing drivers ahead of time. Many games join the TWIMTBP program each year, just like many games join the AMD Gaming Evolved program each year. In the vast, vast majority of cases, all that means is an extra logo in the intro sequence and some vendor-specific bells and whistles, like PhysX, being added to the mix. There has been occasional foul play, but nothing on the scale of what IGN claimed in its June story.
These are very different stories that each warrant a very different response. The fact that we didn't cover the Nvidia-Ubisoft announcement may speak to our limited resources as a publication, but it's absolutely not an indicator of underlying bias.