You're obviously misreading what I'm saying.
But I think most people are, so either I'm doing something wrong... Or everyone is missing the entire point.
Either way it doesn't really matter, your reasoning on why [H] may or may not be in AMD's pocket is really poor though. Stating things that are blatantly obvious vs using misleading graphs are two different things. If [H] never did the i5-2500k vs 8150 SLI review would nobody have known how poorly bulldozer would have performed? No, of course not... It's common knowledge, just like AMD's poor driver support is. Stating something that is common knowledge isn't detracting from AMD at all, it's just making it easier for them to continue to make misleading graphs and doing awful stock vs max overclock reviews.
I can pull up some stock 7970 reviews @ 1080p and easily eclipse that performance by 70% or more who would that help though?
BF3 MSAA destroys performance in general... but it's pretty well known that it's worse on AMD cards.
[H] BF3 article shows it pretty clearly:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/02/battlefield_3_single_player_performance_iq_review/6
We found MSAA to have a greater-than-expected impact on performance in BF3.
[...]
Enabling 2X AA gave us a performance hit of 21.3% with the HD 6970. Going up to 4X AA knocked our frame rate down by another 17%. The total performance hit from no AA to 4X AA was therefore about 34.8% in Battlefield 3, with a Radeon HD 6970.
[...]
From no AA to 2X AA, we recorded a performance hit of 13.9% with the GeForce GTX 580. Going from 2X AA to 4X AA reduced performance by a further 9%. So from AA disabled to 4X AA, there is a performance cost of about 21.7%.
Overall, it seems GeForce GTX 580 is taking less of a hit with MSAA than the Radeon HD 6970 was. There is a much smaller hit enabling 2X AA with the GTX 580, whereas the Radeon HD 6970 takes a larger hit to performance.
It was all there in pretty agonizing detail. Anyone interested in BF3 already knows this.
This article isn't about 6970 vs. 580, it's about the 7970. I don't think I've ever seen [H] show a chart with more than 3 cards on it. It's probably a web design guideline they follow to keep those charts from getting too busy... since they're showing two 7970 lines, the only option is to split up the 580 and 6970 charts.
People looking for bias will find it anywhere, but when a review site shows different biases in different articles and is not consistent with it's bias... I tend to believe they aren't purposefully biased.
Take a look at their 6970 CFX vs. 580 SLI article, for example:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/22/battlefield_3_multiplayer_performance_iq_review/3
The AMD Radeon HD 6970 CFX did not feel as smooth as the data shows. We felt it had a significant drop in performance anytime we moved the mouse quickly. It also struggled more when buildings were blowing up and when debris was flying around. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 SLI did not have any of these issues. Each video card could handle Motion turned on, but we chose to disable it as it is a distracting 3D effect for Multiplayer gaming. It is also an easy way to gain a few FPS.
That was something that
didn't show in the graphs, but they chose to mention it anyway... this is someone biased towards AMD? If you were trying to favor a particular brand, would you give a subjective opinion
that isn't obvious from the hard data which paints that vendor in a poor light? Seems like they're not very good at being biased.