Yes - but that's assuming they were cherry picking reviews. It doesn't actually look like that since they gave cards to some sites that have been fairly critical of AMD (hardware canucks, pcper?). Linus got one and said he think's its just a rotation since they did not receive a 295x2 to review.
So then there is nothing to be concerned about then? Nothing to see here?
The problem with Brent's guide on properly warming up cards is that you can warm a GPU up all you want but if he's going to test it on an open bench it likely won't throttle anyway. Put it in a closed case and it's much more likely that it will (especially if it's an open air cooler vs blower). He wanted to test the Fury nano in a closed case setup but tests every other card in an open bench. Interesting. The fact that he wrote that guide - assuming that the Nano would throttle hard and that no other site would properly test it - sort of just further hints at what most here already knew - he had already come to some pretty negative conclusions about the Nano before ever receiving a card to test himself and regardless of what the benchmarks said the conclusion was already written.
hehe this thread is wonderful. so many "fanboys" being used and no one getting wacked by mods yet.
So back to the original subject, the dipweed in marketing that thought of this strategy will be looking for a job soon.
I definitely have got my head around the fury performance figures. My problem is that given these performance figures, as well as its specifications, I don't understand why it is being pushed as a 4K card.
I wonder if including Fury and Fury-X results at 1080p is considered a 'fair review'? This is my point.
A closed case may affect max overclocking results, but no card with an aftermarket cooler as pictured is going to throttle at stock clocks in a standard case.
That's the only card I can recall that throttles like that. AT found it drops by 100MHz or so, and several reviews mentioned that the card takes a while to really hit maximum heat saturation on the heatsink to the point where the fan can't keep up, at which point it starts throttling.There's not many aftermarket cards that I can imagine will throttle as much as 200mhz in an open bench setting, even after 30 minutes of "warm up". Maybe a reference R9 290X?
He's speaking in hypotheticals and not giving actual examples. Without listing specific cards and what performance drops they experience the whole thing is meaningless babbling on this part.
The point is they don't ever do it for any card. The reference 780/ti and 980ti and all versions of Titan throttle in a case. Did [H] EVER show us that?
Boost clocks going down by hitting power or temp limits (which you can control manually with software) isn't the same as overheating and throttling to prevent cooking.
The chart you posted above is great info for interested buyers. Boost clocks are weird to me, sometimes they hold high clocks, sometimes they don't and the temps aren't the issue in each situation. I find it hard to pinpoint the boost clocks.
Hardware.fr tests cards in a case and shows the drop, if any, in clocks after the card has warmed up.
The top row is before the cards warm up. Then they show actual game play clocks after the card reaches it's stable operating temps.
The obvious answer is they are intentionally trying to make Nano look bad. But would a review site really do that? And if so who is pulling the strings to make this happen? Or is personal bias getting in the way of proper testing. Either way I highly doubt we will ever get answers from [H] about any of it.Why would [H] decide to try and show Nano in the worst possible conditions when they don't do that for all cards (or any other cards actually)?
The obvious answer is they are intentionally trying to make Nano look bad. But would a review site really do that? And if so who is pulling the strings to make this happen? Or is personal bias getting in the way of proper testing. Either way I highly doubt we will ever get answers from [H] about any of it.
One thing they need to clarify is why they do open bench testing but said Nano is to be tested in an ITX (I think) enclosure. This is a blatant double standard.
I think that chart just tells us which ones are water cooled. :biggrin:
Two points. 1) adjusting software to stop throttling can definitely be done but at the expense of heat and noise. We have to be consistent and not move goal posts when it suits us. 2) The difference in boost clocks hot and cold does matter if we are going to throw the result charts around as a reason to purchase these cards. As you can see there's about a 10% loss in clocks on average. That's often less than the difference in performance shown on these 30-60 second benchmarks. There are many "wins" that would instead be "losses". (Although I'm firmly in the club that most of the differences would be completely unnoticeable in real life. None the less, it's how people base their buying decisions.)
It's actually pretty simple. Tom's Hardware does something similar in testing once AMD changed their clocking from boost to throttling. Because AMD's cards have no guaranteed clocks, and start at their max clock rate, and throttles, many sites prefer to do a warm up and test to see how the clocks hold up. With Nvidia's cards, they boost from a guaranteed clock.
Given Nano is designed around tight small cases, it makes sense to want to see just how much they throttle, as there is no guaranteed speed.
Is that really the Nano's only competition? Such a lopsided matchup would only interesting from a price/performance standpoint, since the absolute victor should be self-evident.The Nano should be tested similarly to any card it is tested against. Whether it be open bench or enclose micro ATX case. All variables should be 100% the same or at minimum what is physically possible. I'd like to see the Fury Nano vs. the mini 970. Would be interesting.
The Nano should be tested similarly to any card it is tested against. Whether it be open bench or enclose micro ATX case. All variables should be 100% the same or at minimum what is physically possible. I'd like to see the Fury Nano vs. the mini 970. Would be interesting.
Is that really the Nano's only competition? Such a lopsided matchup would only interesting from a price/performance standpoint, since the absolute victor should be self-evident.
To some here, perf/$ is the ONLY thing that matters. I think they would appreciate the comparison...
To some here, perf/$ is the ONLY thing that matters. I think they would appreciate the comparison...
Hardware.fr tests cards in a case and shows the drop, if any, in clocks after the card has warmed up.
The top row is before the cards warm up. Then they show actual game play clocks after the card reaches it's stable operating temps.
Did they do this before the fury X? Cause only after it launched did we start seeing SLI results from reference cards inside cases.....at least on forums, we all of a sudden seen several of these charts which put the 980ti in its worst light.
Before hand, the usual: open bench method with no regard.
I am all for real results and real case environments but if these sites only decided to do this just special for the fury X.....then oh the irony, you would think the vocal people speaking up would notice. So who was behind all those fury x CF vs throttling 980ti reference SLI reviews that popped up. Sites all of a sudden using cases?
The Nano should be tested similarly to any card it is tested against. Whether it be open bench or enclose micro ATX case. All variables should be 100% the same or at minimum what is physically possible. I'd like to see the Fury Nano vs. the mini 970. Would be interesting.