Gikaseixas
Platinum Member
- Jul 1, 2004
- 2,836
- 218
- 106
ThisQuestion is what is worse from AMDs point of view. The bad PR from the review or the bad PR from not sending them a card.
ThisQuestion is what is worse from AMDs point of view. The bad PR from the review or the bad PR from not sending them a card.
Silverforce, what is load? Last night on the Pc
Perspective live podcast there was some mention that Nano actually runs UP to 1000 Mhz But goes as low as 800 Mhz to stay within the 175 W threshold. I'm anxious to see what performance truly is.
Silverforce, what is load? Last night on the Pc
Perspective live podcast there was some mention that Nano actually runs UP to 1000 Mhz But goes as low as 800 Mhz to stay within the 175 W threshold. I'm anxious to see what performance truly is.
GOLD!!
http://techreport.com/news/28971/wanted-for-review-amd-radeon-r9-nano
These same guys who repeatedly find results that are so much worse for AMD than most other sites...
These same bunch who threw out Dirt Showdown for "bias" due to poor NV performance... but lavish praise on Project Cars..
The same site that finds XDMA CF stutters worse than SLI when every other site find the opposite...
About time AMD. Well played you guys, now you're catching on!
This is laughable and embarrassing. If you can't afford $650(probably a tax deductible expense too) then you have no business running a hardware review site. Begging the public for help makes them look like a little Mickey Mouse operation.
As a consumer I'm even more annoyed I have less reference points. I want to say I'm 100% used market at this point but I still want a nano/furyx lol....Question is what is worse from AMDs point of view. The bad PR from the review or the bad PR from not sending them a card.
You realize that this is not good PR, right?
What happened to 175W?
Now we are going to have the same performance with only 150W?
I guess that's great, but why was it 175W in all the release articles?
Do you actually care whether or not Tech Report gets a review sample? I remember the hack job they did with the 7950. I don't know if that had anything to do with AMD's decision, but I'm not concerned that they don't seem to be on the top of AMD's review partner list.
They've obviously worked in consort with nVidia in the past. Maybe that's where they got their info on frame times and ways to make Nano look bad. Because that's exactly what happened with the 7950, IMO. Considering they changed their entire review suite for that review.
Oh, check this out: This is gold too.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041819470&postcount=6
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041819539&postcount=15
Who says [H] isn't biased? A few years ago they were quite neutral. Now it seems like NV $ has reached them.
AMD better not give these fools a Nano sample.
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/08/27/amd_radeon_r9_nano_video_card_paper_launch#.VejoGxGqpBc
"Today is just a paper launch as is AMD's new habit."
If you read through the thread at (H) you'll see that except for the performance graphs the review has been written.
AMD's TDP is always above their gaming power usage. R290X TDP was 300W. Avg gaming load: 230-250W.
Fury X is 275W TDP, avg gaming load is less than R290X.
175W Nano TDP => ~150W gaming load sounds spot on.
I've basically said that since last year. They write their article with conclusion already made, then fill in blanks.
Their Asus Fury Strixx for example, they claim it wasn't power efficient compared to their 980. But their own results show the Fury Strixx uses ~11% more power, it delivers ~15% more performance (with GameWorks off in Dying Light & Witcher 3). It is therefore MORE power efficient.
And they are trolling AMD on their forums, editors, trolling.. and they want AMD to give them a sample?
They clearly are butthurt it shows by reading that thread. So juvenile LOL
AMD did well to not send them a sample when everybody already know the outcome.
I've basically said that since last year. They write their article with conclusion already made, then fill in blanks.
Their Asus Fury Strixx for example, they claim it wasn't power efficient compared to their 980. But their own results show the Fury Strixx uses ~11% more power, it delivers ~15% more performance (with GameWorks off in Dying Light & Witcher 3). It is therefore MORE power efficient.
And they are trolling AMD on their forums, editors, trolling.. and they want AMD to give them a sample?
I linked to read. Exited when he said at at 450 th fury would give the 980 a run for its money.exactly. I have said the same too. Recent hardocp reviews on Fury X and Fury look like they have written the conclusion first and then try to give justification for that. Moreover their current game suite is pathetic and heavily Nvidia biased given its small size. Moreover they make it a point to use Gameworks features which are known to run poorly on AMD cards.
Here is what brent had to say about how he would redesign AMD's product lineup. It was completely devoid of logic. He wanted a highly binned ultra low volume Nano SKU to be priced at USD 329. Does he even realize that the Fiji die size is right on par with GTX 980 Ti. This is why people like him should not give advice as they have no proper logical thinking.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041820972&postcount=201
This was my reply
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041835077&postcount=601
That guy Brent has no idea that pricing is not determined arbitrarily. It is determined by the cost structure of your product and that of the competition. AMD's pricing on Fiji is determined by both the manufacturing cost and the limited supply situation. Right now I am very disappointed with AMD's products this year but the last thing AMD want to do is get into a price war. Nvidia has the better cost structure (better perf/sq mm and perf/transistor) and the more efficient architecture (perf/watt). AMD cannot afford to get into a price war this gen. That was possible in the past like in 2008 when AMD had a massive perf/sq mm advantage and the HD 4870 at 260 sq mm beat the 576 sq mm based GTX 260 and the 282 sq mm HD 4890 competed well with the 470 sq mm GTX 275.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_200_series
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556/2
But right now all AMD can do is try and keep the market share loss as low as possible since I don't think AMD can gain back market share this gen.
I linked to read. Exited when he said at at 450 th fury would give the 980 a run for its money.
At 450 it's a stupid amazingly good deal it's not even funny. That was a post written as if he had never seen a gpu before.....