ahah bro, that is the very definition of bias.The thing is, sites like pcper, and TR are not bias in their reviews. It's pretty hard to fake data and get away with it. However, the people at some of those sites are pro-Nvidia. They are hyper-critical of AMD and very dismissive of Nvidia's fault. That's what I notice by reading those sites. Their opinions are skewed; but their reviews aren't bias. Their conclusions usually cast AMD in a negative light whenever they get a chance to; while, Nvidia is exaggeratedly praised for their strengths and dismissive of their faults.
The thing is, sites like pcper, and TR are not bias in their reviews. It's pretty hard to fake data and get away with it. However, the people at some of those sites are pro-Nvidia. They are hyper-critical of AMD and very dismissive of Nvidia's fault. That's what I notice by reading those sites. Their opinions are skewed; but their reviews aren't bias. Their conclusions usually cast AMD in a negative light whenever they get a chance to; while, Nvidia is exaggeratedly praised for their strengths and dismissive of their faults.
ahah bro, that is the very definition of bias.
think of it this way. race car A got great acceleration but horrible at turns. race car B is opposite. the race track is just a straight road without turns which car do you think would win?
it is hilarious! :biggrin:
You understand hypocrisy?
Why is Dirt Showdown removed because of poor NV performance, but Project Cars included and praise when it perform poorly on AMD?
I understood his point perfectly. what I was trying to said was testing methodology matters how you test, what you test with would give you very different results. that is where the bias shows.I think you missed his point. I believe he was saying that you can't fake the data on performance, but the subjective bits you can be extremely critical. Heat, noise, power usage. This is assuming there are no glaring driver issues to speak of. So you can browse more than one site to make an informed decision.
Why is Dirt Showdown removed because of poor NV performance, but Project Cars included and praise when it perform poorly on AMD?
AMD should just admit their legendary PR department shot themselves hard in the foot again, boo-bloody-hoo.
why not test more games? and who determines those 5 are "top" games? you? me? the supposed objective reviewer? :awe:
edit: if their readers are 100% nv customers, there is nothing wrong with the catering/pantering. But then why all the stupid fuss about why amd refusing them samples? hahahahaa, hilarious.
I'm betting you have zero proof of this statement.
We chose to exclude DiRT Showdown, since the results skewed the average pretty badly and since AMD worked very closely with the developers on the lighting path tested.
I'm betting you have zero proof of this statement.
Our overall performance numbers come from the geometric mean of the scores across five of the six games we tested. (We chose to exclude DiRT Showdown, since the results skewed the average pretty badly and since AMD worked very closely with the developers on the lighting path tested.)
haahahaa, I can't wait for phynaz's response.Some of you guys must be incapable of doing a google search?
http://techreport.com/review/23527/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-graphics-card/11
That took me all of 2 minutes to find...
Some of you guys must be incapable of doing a google search?
http://techreport.com/review/23527/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-graphics-card/11
That took me all of 2 minutes to find...
Kind of hard to claim bias, if they gave a perfectly legitimate reason for why they did it, and made no attempt to hide it.
Anandtech used to use that game but removed it two years ago and replaced it with Grid Autosport. Seems obvious to me that Anandtech is anti AMD as they didn't even bother to give a reason.
Stating the reason for the bias doesn't make it unbiased. Also if they think it is a legit reason then would need to apply same to all games, which they don't. The conclusion is obvious.Kind of hard to claim bias, if they gave a perfectly legitimate reason for why they did it, and made no attempt to hide it.
Nope: http://wccftech.com/amd-squashes-rumors-hbm-ip-licensing-fees-memory-standard-free/
Giving stuff away for free so competitors can take advantage of it is great for consumers. Meanwhile, AMD continues to bleed and shrink. So from a purely business standpoint, it's an extremely poor decision.
- AMD is not involved in collecting any royalties for HBM, said Iain Bristow, a spokesman for AMD. We are actively encouraging widespread adoption of all HBM associated technology on [Radeon R9] Fury products and there is no IP licensing associated."
I'm betting you have zero proof of this statement.
Stating the reason for the bias doesn't make it unbiased. Also if they think it is a legit reason then would need to apply same to all games, which they don't. The conclusion is obvious.
So, do you understand their hypocrisy now?
They remove a game that was sponsored by AMD due to claims of working closely with AMD to give them an advantage over NV... ok fine, if their stance is for neutral games...
But no, they have no problems at all including games that are sponsored by NV, working closely with NV to give them an advantage over AMD... they even praise it.
welcome, cause you are now one of usI said a legitimate reason. Stop changing what I say to fit your argument. If you benchmark 5 games, and one company wins 4 by 8% and the other wins one by 35%, the average win will go to the 2nd company. Is that an accurate result? Most people would say no. Any game that significantly skews the overall picture should be removed.
On the flip side, I don't think an average difference should be posted in a review. I don't see how it would be of any use. I don't play multiple games at once, and I don't care about games I don't play. All I care about is how the card performs in the games I actually play, an average of what they tested is useless.
welcome, cause you are now one of us
Define significant. I personally don't think any game should be excluded but only if 10+ games are tested, using 5 games and 4 of those being GameWorks titles is not good review practice.Any game that significantly skews the overall picture should be removed.
If what you bolded indicated to you that AMD is run by a bunch of morons, and they should fire everyone including the CEO who isn't on the engineering team then, yes we are in agreement.
hahahahaa, that is some amazing jump at conclusions. wowIf what you bolded indicated to you that AMD is run by a bunch of morons, and they should fire everyone including the CEO who isn't on the engineering team then, yes we are in agreement.
I said a legitimate reason. Stop changing what I say to fit your argument. If you benchmark 5 games, and one company wins 4 by 8% and the other wins one by 35%, the average win will go to the 2nd company. Is that an accurate result? Most people would say no. Any game that significantly skews the overall picture should be removed.
On the flip side, I don't think an average difference should be posted in a review. I don't see how it would be of any use. I don't play multiple games at once, and I don't care about games I don't play. All I care about is how the card performs in the games I actually play, an average of what they tested is useless.
haahahaa, I can't wait for phynaz's response.