AMD Nano Blacklist Situation

[SimianR]

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.

 

[Goatsecks]

The easiest way to get your head around Fury 4k performance is to read Fury 4k performance reviews, which show it doing quite well. Not so much at 1440 and definitely not so much at 1080....

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.

 

[Pariah]

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.

The whole point of the Nano (according to the AMD backers here) is that you are supposed to be able to squeeze it into the smallest cases that don't support standard sized cards (despite not being able to come up with any of these cases when asked to list some). For that reason, the testing should be designed to simulate conditions that the card are supposedly optimized for. If you have a typical mid size tower or full tower with decent cooling and plenty of space, you would have to be a total idiot to buy a Nano, when you can get a 980Ti for less.

 

[SimianR]

The whole point of the Nano (according to the AMD backers here) is that you are supposed to be able to squeeze it into the smallest cases that don't support standard sized cards (despite not being able to come up with any of these cases when asked to list some). For that reason, the testing should be designed to simulate conditions that the card are supposedly optimized for. If you have a typical mid size tower or full tower with decent cooling and plenty of space, you would have to be a total idiot to buy a Nano, when you can get a 980Ti for less.

Yep - but who is buying full sized cards to run them outside a case? Not many people. That's my point. If you're going to go on a rant about warming cards up to make sure that they aren't dynamically throttling clocks down the line - make sure you're doing appropriate testing (by putting them inside a case) on all the cards you review to make sure that isn't happening - not just one specifically that you assume is going to throttle.

From Brent's 980 Ti review on Sept 9th:

 

[Headfoot]

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.

Because for a few games its the fastest stock single gpu card at 4k???

The 980 Ti is better on the whole. But the Fury X certainly gives it a run for its money at 4k at least. Its a price cut away from being a real contender.

And before kids RAGE at me for cherry picking the only games that the Fury X is faster at. Yes I know I did that. The point is that it is the fastest in a few corner cases, which shows why it is being pushed as a 4k card by AMD marketing. If Fiji does anything well, it is 4k.

 

[Pariah]

Yep - but who is buying full sized cards to run them outside a case? Not many people. That's my point. If you're going to go on a rant about warming cards up to make sure that they aren't dynamically throttling clocks down the line - make sure you're doing appropriate testing (by putting them inside a case) on all the cards you review to make sure that isn't happening - not just one specifically that you assume is going to throttle.

From Brent's 980 Ti review on Sept 9th:

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.

 

[SimianR]

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.

And yet in Brent's guide he's suggesting that hardocp goes above and beyond by warming up GPU's for 30 minutes.. in an open bench.. to make sure that if there is throttling they would see it (as if an aftermarket cooled GPU is going to throttle in an open bench setting). And he specifically stated that this guide wasn't just about the Nano.

 

[Pariah]

Also, you're still missing the point. You don't put a Nano in a tiny case because you assume it will throttle. You put it in one because that is the very specific scenario it was intended for and you are testing to confirm that it doesn't throttle.

 

[Zstream]

Good points. AMD's lineup is a bit schitzo. AMD is perhaps being a bit of a baby over their own failures or confusions with the Fury and Hawaii Rebrands. [H] honestly comes across as a bit over the top in this entire thing, but Kyle has always been straight up and Brent is solid as well. [H] along with Anandtech remain my only two trusted review sites, but i'm definately having a longer look at [H] after the Nano thing.

Beyond all this, the Fury Nano looks great as a 1440P or under card and priced at $499. I think AMD is trying to jam a square into a circle peg and then getting a bit upset that folks realize and say "hey guys, that doesn't fit where you are trying to place it". The Nano is still the most efficient card and is very powerful, big props there, AMD just IMO was trying to control the narrative toooooo much with the release.

Emmm no! The post was unprofessional in so many ways. There is no excuse.

 

[Pariah]

And yet in Brent's guide he's suggesting that hardocp goes above and beyond by warming up GPU's for 30 minutes.. in an open bench.. to make sure that if there is throttling they would see it (as if they would anyway?). And he specifically stated that this guide wasn't just about the Nano.

I don't the get the warming up thing in the first place. Has he given actual examples of performance drops using this testing method?

 

[SimianR]

Also, you're still missing the point. You don't put a Nano in a tiny case because you assume it will throttle. You put it in one because that is the very specific scenario it was intended for and you are testing to confirm that it doesn't throttle.

I'm absolutely fine with that. I completely understand what you're saying. But if the Nano is designed to be tested in a tiny case - then test the larger cards in mid to full tower cases and not in an open bench. Because no card is truly designed to be used 24/7 sitting on a cardboard box.

 

[SimianR]

I don't the get the warming up thing in the first place. Has he given actual examples of performance drops using this testing method?

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1875099

This is how GPU testing should be done:

A.) The very first thing should be to test and find out what the real-world in-game clock frequency is while gaming over time, not the base clock, not the boost clock. This requires usage of a third party utility like Afterburner. In Afterburner, you can enable an OSD on your screen that shows the actual GPU clock frequency. The first thing you need to do is play a game for 30 minutes and monitor this GPU frequency. You need to see what it starts off as, and how it changes over time, and the final clock speed it settles to consistently. It is the consistent clock speed you are looking for. This then needs to be reported in the review. This is the clock speed you need to test at.

B.) Then, when you do your testing, benchmarks, gaming, whatever, do it after this time period of playing games that have warmed up your GPU to its consistent real-world clock speed. This then results in your performance indicating the real-world performance regular gamers who install this video card, will get while gaming.

IF you do a short benchmark, say 5 minutes, this will show an inflated result. 5 minutes will not be long enough to warm up the card to its real-world frequency. 5 minutes will show you the high end 950MHz performance, but will not show you the performance when after gaming for 15-30 minutes it drops to 800MHz. The benchmark isn't long enough. Therefore, you must also have a test that lasts long enough to show the real-world performance. Testing from a "cold start" will always show inflated results.

and then

This is an important topic, and should not be swept under the rug, and something to look for in all reviews in regards to NVIDIA and AMD GPUs. It makes a big difference in the performance results shown. When video cards can dynamically change their clock speed, and it can vary as much as 200MHz in 30 minutes, you betcha it can make a big difference. It is easy to inflate results, it is harder and takes more time to show proper results.

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?

 

[Pariah]

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1875099



and then



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.

 

[AnandThenMan]

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.

Didn't H say something about them having a case to test Nano in? How come they don't test all their cards in a case I thought they were all about testing integrity? What gives.

Also if they play the games then there is no problem, unless they play a level for only 5 minutes and post the results but I was under the impression they'll play through a level several times this will be more than adequate to "warm up" the card.

 

[mohit9206]

From Anandtech's review of Nano, i see small performance difference between Nano and 970 Mini at 1080p. Who the hell will buy this card if want to play games at 1080p in an mini itx case when 970 mini is half the price for about 10% less performance at 1080p?
However if someone wants to play at 4k for some reason in a mini itx case then one Nano isn't going to be enough anyways for 60fps. You would need two which you can't do as mini itx mobos don't support two video cards not to mention $1300 price tag for two of them.
Looks like a lose lose situation for AMD.

 

[Stuka87]

The whole point of the Nano (according to the AMD backers here) is that you are supposed to be able to squeeze it into the smallest cases that don't support standard sized cards (despite not being able to come up with any of these cases when asked to list some). For that reason, the testing should be designed to simulate conditions that the card are supposedly optimized for. If you have a typical mid size tower or full tower with decent cooling and plenty of space, you would have to be a total idiot to buy a Nano, when you can get a 980Ti for less.

I would love to have the Sapphire Fury, but it wont fit in my case, its too long. There are some two fan cards that fit, but the Nano would be great in it.

Unfortunately the Nano cost way more then what I am willing to pay for it.

 

[Goatsecks]

Because for a few games its the fastest stock single gpu card at 4k???

The 980 Ti is better on the whole. But the Fury X certainly gives it a run for its money at 4k at least. Its a price cut away from being a real contender.

Just because the 980ti and the Fury-X are the current fastest 4K gpus do not automatically imply they are viable 4K cards. This is subjective, if you think they are then great. However I think many gamers would not be happy with an average of 45 fps.

 

[KingFatty]

A 30-minute warm-up time sounds to me like more of a ritualistic behavior/step that is not tied to real-world results when talking about air-cooled video cards, sort of like using a special ingredient/maneuver in magical thinking without considering what is the actual behavior of the video card and how it changes temperature over time?

I've not experienced a video card that needs 30 minutes to warm up, or cool down. It usually happens on the order of less than one minute? That's the point of air heatsinks, they transfer heat quickly to prevent build-up of heat on the GPU.

So maybe his 30-minute ritual is to ensure that the entire loop and reservoir of cooling fluid gets a chance to fully heat up? Like maybe he is very forward thinking and just went with the 30-minutes for all cards, even though it's excessive for air cooled but he thinks the future will be entirely water-cooled?

But then again, using an open bench kind of cuts against the warm-up - I could also see a 30 minute warm-up used to warm up the air inside your case and also the inside walls of the case, but if you have decent cooling for the case hmmm...

 

[ocre]

I'm absolutely fine with that. I completely understand what you're saying. But if the Nano is designed to be tested in a tiny case - then test the larger cards in mid to full tower cases and not in an open bench. Because no card is truly designed to be used 24/7 sitting on a cardboard box.

Absolutely!!!

Way to many reviews these days are open bench. Probably most everyone uses open benches. Its completely flawed. Not only can the fps and boost results be skewed, the acoustics measured from an open bench setup are completely useless.

I think reviewers just got lazy over the yrs or something. I mean, geez.

I have already heard sites testing the Nano in open bench setups. Its very unfortunate. The last time i remember a review being bragged on for actually using a real case was just after the FuryX launched, in several multi GPU shoot outs. The 980ti reference SLI vs Fury X CF in a real case at default settings, as much as i instantly want to bring up the power and temp slider for the SLI setup, I still love that this is a real world scenario. This is what to expect with out of box settings.

The fury nano should be tested in a case and so should every other card in that review. If there is a case that the other cards cant fit in but the nano can, then an automatic win. post the Nano results and all other cards with 0 in that case.

I dont get the drama over such a low volume card. All the sites being accused of shills and bias, that really has segmented and chopped the enthusiast market. AMD will only find support for this with the fans they already have, which going by dgpu marketshare, is limited. This more or less alienates and offends the rest. It is not a good move and I fell those that think so couldnt be more mistaken. This will just fester up and the water is already boiling

 

[Ranulf]

Heh, Kyle calling a whine not a whine while then going on to rant is amusing.

I'd say he has a right to gripe here a bit but not much. The PR flack being an idiot, is apparently par for the course with this guy. The action that makes Kyle look the worst though (aka petty/bitter) is the removal of the forum user's review/build log because their community doesn't have a "nano focus" in refernce to the PR rep's email response.

That all said, I'd say this no review sample situation with HOCP specifically has to deal with Brent Justice's recent coverage of AMD vs Nvidia. He's hardly been impartial on the gameworks stuff. That guide on review testing with warmed up cards then ignoring the open air bench vs case testing is just icing on the cake. That is an issue thats bugged me for awhile when it comes to temps/noise levels.

 

[tential]

Emmm no! The post was unprofessional in so many ways. There is no excuse.

If HardOCP didn't have a Max Settings test for GPUs, I'd be done with that site. That's the definition of unprofessional. I was ok with the rant even, but then he went on to pull the R9 Nano Build thread from their forums. Talk about petty. They come across as petty too.

I'm sure a lot of people won't care, but I mean for me anyway, I won't recommend people to use their site anymore as a reference point. I'll still look at their max settings chart, but that's just unacceptable for them to start silencing their own community no rules are broken.

 

[Ranulf]

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041846800&postcount=53


Brent_Justice [H] Video Card Managing Editor:

"There is no such thing as an "NVIDIA Title" or an "AMD Title." This is the kind of thinking that starts you off in the wrong place when looking at gaming performance.

This thinking is happening too much nowadays. "

Could've fooled me.

 

[DeathReborn]

I will admit to just lightly skimming this thread but to put it politely...

Cherry picking reviewers is just as bad as cherry picking benchmarks. It should be condemned by all and sundry, not lauded as "good business" or "good PR". Anyone without partisan blinders on will see this.

 

[tuskers]

[H] never made any claims of being professionals. They have always been a "community" site. Which makes it more OK, because being offended and talking colloquially map very closely to their community. Heck, they participate actively in their own forums. You don't go there if you want a professional evaluation. (Note that I don't say that as a negative. Professionals can be paid for reviews. They can churn out reviews for the heck of it instead of caring about the cards themselves. They hedge for the sake of never being called out for being "unfair".)

But yeah, I disagree that there aren't NV games and AMD games. Well, actually, I take that back-- there are NV games using GameWorks (i.e. code NV wrote, that AMD cannot see or modify) and other games.

 

[SimianR]

I will admit to just lightly skimming this thread but to put it politely...

Cherry picking reviewers is just as bad as cherry picking benchmarks. It should be condemned by all and sundry, not lauded as "good business" or "good PR". Anyone without partisan blinders on will see this.

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.