They were under no requirement to do any testing at all. Maybe Nvidia paid them to the first time. Then they saw how long it took and all the data etc and says screw it. I know many sites refused to do it because it was too tedious.
First of all, you jumped to a conclusion about me, and points in my post based on only your view, what I have written.
This is your response to my post, where I did not wrote ANY SINGLE WORD about TR.
This is exact my post. Do you see there any word about TR?
What I meant in my post is that AMD does not say: "you will follow the guide or will not receive any GPUs from us to test, anymore!". And then you accused me for being a troll. And it was only misunderstanding. From your side, and not perfect "wording" what I was thinking of. I think jumping to conclusions about people you are responding to:
is at least not wise.
And if you want to discuss fairness of Techpowerup, remember this:
http://www.techpowerup.com/212724/its-now-been-over-160-days-since-a-catalyst-whql-release.html
This sounds naive.
We simply know that when the test showed AMD in negative light and nVidia in favorable light, the test was used and touted as critical to gameplay. When the roles in this test were reversed for AMD and nVidia, all of a sudden the test was no longer used....
Not a good place to be handing out benefit of the doubt IMO. Simple explanation is bias, because that's exactly what was shown here.
You sound like someone looking for bias without proof of it. There are some facts here, many sites never did that testing at all. Are they bias now as well?
This thread reminds me of a AMD fanboy circle jerk......and Nvidia is the middle man.
Just saying.....
Since this is a opinion based thread,that's my opinion.
I do know many sites used it a few times, and said it was very tedious and time consuming long before AMD fixed anything. Could there be bias? Yes, but just because they stopped using FCAT, doesn't mean there is bias.
It would work best if neither supplied cards, then they don't have to worry about what either company thinks.
Bystander36 you're a very smart fella. You really think there wasn't bias?? For starters, why use one competitors tech to analyse another's piece of hardware? Talk aboujt independent reviewers...
What if the testing equipment was simply made with Nvidia's optimizations?? They damaged HD7950 reputation at launch but we all know what a legendary card that was.
If it was such a good methodology to test why no one is testing today, regardless of how complicated it is? If it was introduced to educate buyers it should remain.
I could go on but it's a waste of time i guess
You sound like someone looking for bias without proof of it. There are some facts here, many sites never did that testing at all. Are they bias now as well?
Well it's worse than that since when FCAT was first used, the authors hid the fact it was NV supplied, they claimed it was an anonymous tool. It wasn't until after people found out it was an NV in-house tool, that they admitted to it. So, very shifty, which has no place in objective reviews.
TR has a lot of examples of bias, but nothing illustrates it so simply as their dismissal of Dirt Showdown because it was an AMD sponsored game than ran badly on NV hardware, but the praise & inclusion of Project Cars never even occurred to them how it highlights their bias & hypocrisy. They are obviously too bias to notice the double standards of their actions.
Well it's worse than that since when FCAT was first used, the authors hid the fact it was NV supplied, they claimed it was an anonymous tool. It wasn't until after people found out it was an NV in-house tool, that they admitted to it. So, very shifty, which has no place in objective reviews.
TR has a lot of examples of bias, but nothing illustrates it so simply as their dismissal of Dirt Showdown because it was an AMD sponsored game than ran badly on NV hardware, but the praise & inclusion of Project Cars never even occurred to them how it highlights their bias & hypocrisy. They are obviously too bias to notice the double standards of their actions.
If they used 5 games and 3 are GW titles and one game gives 40% performance hit just because, on one of the gpu being benchmarked.Aha, TR is biased because of a single game in their benchmark suite. Now I understand.
http://techreport.com/news/29011/updated-amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-apologizes
"I just received a very nice phone call from AMD's Roy Taylor. He apologized for his earlier comments on Twitter and says he doesn't think The Tech Report's reviews are unfair. He seems like a decent guy with perhaps a too-strong personality, and I can relate to that. So all is forgiven from my point of view."
So, care to answer why AMD themselves are now claiming they don't think TR is biased?
http://techreport.com/news/29011/updated-amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-apologizes
"I just received a very nice phone call from AMD's Roy Taylor. He apologized for his earlier comments on Twitter and says he doesn't think The Tech Report's reviews are unfair. He seems like a decent guy with perhaps a too-strong personality, and I can relate to that. So all is forgiven from my point of view."
So, care to answer why AMD themselves are now claiming they don't think TR is biased?
circle jerk is over......:thumbsup: at least in this thread it is.
I don't read all the opinions all that close on any of these reviews. I look at many, and kind of take note of anything important to me. I'm not sure if they are or not, but let's take a step back here.
1) Sure it would have been better if Nvidia had not given them the program to analyze the data, but they had tried unsuccessfully to create one of their own. Nvidia decided it would be great if they could succeed at their goal and provided them with their tool. The tool is accurate, no one has ever claimed it wasn't, so I personally think it was worth using as there is nothing better out there. Does it really matter that Nvidia gave them that tool if it is accurate? (I realize that it does give the possibility of showing bias, but it would have been a shame had we not known. I'm glad it surfaced).
2) Before they stopped using it, they had many reviews stating that once you get under X ms, it really didn't matter and both companies were beating the desired results. At some point, it is reasonable to assume that the work no longer made sense, as there was nothing worthwhile to report.
It is quite possible they are biased, but even someone unbiased would have taken the tool in their situation, as their own tools were not good enough to analyze something they thought was important to study. And after months of uninteresting data, it also made sense to stop analyzing it. There were a few months of good data from both companies, making that time spent a waste.
I'm personally going to make sure to see that site regardless. They are more likely to show something other sites will not, and that may be important to me when I make a decision. Alienating that site may backfire on them. Just as Nvidia giving the FCAT tool has backfired on Nvidia. Had they kept their mouth shut, AMD never would have fixed their CF issues, and Nvidia would have continued to receive free praise about superior multi-GPU performance.
In the end, I'm not too concerned about it. There are lots of sites out there and I'll browse several before I make my choice and I will visit those sites many claim as biased, as often time they are labeled biased because they notice things others did not report and might be important to know. The ones people deem neutral often ignore the flaws that I think are important. This goes for both companies.
http://techreport.com/news/29011/updated-amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-apologizes
"I just received a very nice phone call from AMD's Roy Taylor. He apologized for his earlier comments on Twitter and says he doesn't think The Tech Report's reviews are unfair. He seems like a decent guy with perhaps a too-strong personality, and I can relate to that. So all is forgiven from my point of view."
So, care to answer why AMD themselves are now claiming they don't think TR is biased?
If they used 5 games and 3 are GW titles and one game gives 40% performance hit just because, on one of the gpu being benchmarked.
that is biased bro. :awe:
@pariah to call those reviewers out publicly would be a dumb move by amd, no matter how obvious. by refusing them samples is telling enough.
why not test more games? and who determines those 5 are "top" games? you? me? the supposed objective reviewer? :awe:They can use any games they feel are relevant to their readers. If the top 5 games of the last 3 years are all GW titles I'm sorry but test those games because people are playing them.
@pariah to call those reviewers out publicly would be a dumb move by amd, no matter how obvious. by refusing them samples is telling enough.
Excellent post. There is no way to know which sites have an actual bias, and which don't. But the truth is they all do to some extent, and it doesn't really matter. It only matters if you are dumb enough to limit yourself to one review site. There is no one review site that does everything that all the other review sites do, so you are going to be missing something unless you visit multiple sites.
why not test more games? and who determines those 5 are "top" games? you? me? the supposed objective reviewer? :awe:
hehe, he could be the sacrificial amd pawn ^_^ dude takes all the heat for pointing out the obvious. and retracts. but the damage is done and msg delivered. :sneaky::biggrin:Common sense. However, since the same guy who called Tech Report had already called out sites for being unfair on his twitter account, it's not a valid answer in this case. Common sense and AMD are not 2 things that go together.
Aha, TR is biased because of a single game in their benchmark suite. Now I understand.