# AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review by TPU...Not



## btarunr (Sep 4, 2015)

There won't be a Radeon R9 Nano review on TechPowerUp. AMD says that it has too few review samples for the press. When AMD first held up the Radeon R9 Nano at its "Fiji" GPU unveil, to us it came across as the most promising product based on the chip, even more than the R9 Fury series, its dual-GPU variant, and the food-processor-shaped SFF gaming desktop thing. The prospect of "faster than R9 290X at 175W" is what excited us the most, as that would disrupt NVIDIA's GM204 based products. Unfortunately, the most exciting product by AMD also has the least amount of excitement by AMD itself. 

The first signs of that are, AMD making it prohibitively expensive at $650, and not putting it in the hands of the press, for a launch-day review. We're not getting one, and nor do some of our friends on either sides of the Atlantic. AMD is making some of its tallest claims with this product, and it's important (for AMD) that some of those claims are put to the test. A validated product could maybe even convince some to reach for their wallets, to pull out $650. 






Are we sourgraping? You tell us. We're one of the few sites that give you noise testing by some really expensive and broad-ranged noise-testing equipment, and more importantly, card-only power-draw. Our reviews also grill graphics cards through 22 real-world tests across four resolutions, each, and offer price-performance graphs. When NVIDIA didn't send us a GeForce GTX TITAN-Z sample, we didn't care. We didn't make an announcement like this. At $2,999, it was just a terrible product and we never wished it was part of our graphs. Its competing R9 295X2 could be had under $700, and so it continues to top our performance charts. 

The R9 Nano, on the other hand, has the potential for greatness. Never mind the compact board design and its SFF credentials. Pull out this ASIC, put it on a normal 20-25 cm PCB, price it around $350, and dual-slot cooling that can turn its fans off in idle, and AMD could have had a GM204-killing product. Sadly, there's no way for us to test that, either. We can't emulate an R9 Nano on an R9 Fury X. The Nano appears to have a unique power/temperature based throttling algorithm that we can't copy.

"Fiji" is a good piece of technology, but apparently, very little effort is being made to put it into the hands of as many people as possible (and by that we mean consumers). This is an incoherence between what AMD CEO stated at the "Fiji" unveil, and what her company is doing. It's also great disservice to the people who probably stayed up many nights to get the interposer design right, or sailing through uncharted territory with HBM. Oh well.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Sep 4, 2015)

So let me get this straight. They don't even have enough cards for reviews and at the same time expect us to believe we will be able to buy them shortly!? Sound a lot like a bunch of BS.

I’m having less and less of faith in anything AMD related.


----------



## Jack1n (Sep 4, 2015)

Lisa Su needs to be replaced ASAP, AMD's decent has only been accelerated by her appointment.


----------



## Alphadark (Sep 4, 2015)

I haven't seen a review for this yet. They may actually be in that short of supply due to the fury, fury x, and the nano all using HBM. I wouldn't take it so personally that you weren't able to get one right away.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 4, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Are we sourgraping?


I think AMD's own rhetoric speaks for itself. No, I don't think you are. If AMD's yields are so bad that they can't even give TPU one for a review (something the AMD PR machine would typically be all over if the claims were true,) then there must only be enough to sell to the *uninformed public*. This tells me what I think I already knew before, that Fiji was not ready for production and isn't seemingly a huge leap over what already existed. Honestly, I see this as AMD back peddling and hoping to sell some of them before reviews can come out before people realize how slow the card really is in comparison to their claims.

You know, I like AMD's products (usually.) It's why I got a 390, and 6870s before it but, this rhetorical nonsense has to end and it ends with factual information and reviews provide that.

If they don't have enough GPUs for reviews, then they don't have enough to sell IMHO. This smells of desperation and it irritates me.


----------



## 64K (Sep 4, 2015)

AMD doesn't have enough Nano for samples for even the larger sites to review? Horse shit. They do. I suspect they don't want them thoroughly tested and found to not be worth $650. They want to sell as many as possible before word gets out.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 4, 2015)

Wow, that few that they cannot even send out review samples (or at least one to TPU).  That says they are in very short supply which could also mean they are making the Fury Nano a low priority.  It could also be that they are not only having to deal with HBM yields, but the Fiji core yields that are at the level they are willing to use them on the Nano.


----------



## manofthem (Sep 4, 2015)

That's just lame and horrible!


----------



## Midgetguy (Sep 4, 2015)

Bad choice IMO. With high-end GPU purchases on the rise again (slightly) and the progression of people wanting smaller but equally powerful rigs, AMD should be getting this thing out to EVERYONE. As much coverage as possible to show off how capable and complete of a rig someone can have using a mATX or Mini-ITX system powered by their new Nano.


----------



## TheGameTechnician (Sep 4, 2015)

Alphadark said:


> I haven't seen a review for this yet. They may actually be in that short of supply due to the fury, fury x, and the nano all using HBM. I wouldn't take it so personally that you weren't able to get one right away.



I would. AMD specifically told press they were using the buffer between the Nano reveal last week and the review embargo to "bulk up" on supply to prevent any shortages. If they can't even get a sample to TPU, that's a serious problem. 

By the way, one major AIB only had 2 Fury samples to go around between the US and Canada. So I'm inclined to fear the worst unfortunately.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 4, 2015)

and yet people will still ride the hype train


----------



## TheGameTechnician (Sep 4, 2015)

btarunr said:


> We're one of the few sites that give you noise testing by some really expensive and broad-ranged noise-testing equipment, and more importantly, card-only power-draw.



Tin foil hate time ;-)


----------



## Furunomoe (Sep 4, 2015)

R9 Nano. Nano cards. Nano performance*. Nano Availability. Nah, NO Pricing.

*) Not yet confirmed.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 4, 2015)

So, the performance of R9 Nano is measured at 0 fps in ALL categories. Good job AMD...


----------



## LightningJR (Sep 4, 2015)

yikes. this is... well... wow.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 4, 2015)

^ picture is worth 1000 words.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Sep 4, 2015)

Well, this is shocking. I thought reviewers bought each card with their own resources. 

Anyway, I do not see a problem. The only problem I see is on AMD's side.


----------



## Sihastru (Sep 4, 2015)

Naaah... they have enough cards for reviews. They just don't want unbiased reviews. AMD continues to amaze me. In a bad way. Fanboys to the rescue!


----------



## esrever (Sep 4, 2015)

That is rather disappointing.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

What is AMD afraid of anyways? Where's the sample unit for major reviewing sites like TPU? Are you (AMD) worry that unbiased benches & real world testing proved too much for your so-called "new GPU?"


----------



## crmaris (Sep 4, 2015)

Their loss (AMD)...


----------



## v12dock (Sep 4, 2015)

Designs GPU-Z but doesn't get video cards to review...


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 4, 2015)

TPU is mostly NEGATIVE to AMD. Just look at GPU-Z which is mostly dominated by nvidia-only features and look that W1zzard doesn't even care to add Boost support for AMD cards.

Those typos in AMD reviews don't help either.

I fully support AMD in this decision. It is perfectly just.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

1st of all, R9 Nano has an absurd price tag ($650), 2ndly, with that money, you can either buy a perfectly overclocked 980Ti with custom cooler, backplate & the ability to play 4K games without breaking a sweat OR 2 overclocked GTX970 in SLI to tackle 4K resolution for less. If TPU's testing methodology is proved as "100% unbiased, no BS", then something is holding AMD back. GPU-Z has nothing to do with being biased with Nvidia as AMD cards do not have shaders or a Boost profile as they're thermal-limited speeds unlike Nvidia, which as of GPU Boost 2.0 protocol, has a ceiling limit of 82C & will hit at ANY frequency so long it doesn't reach the ceiling limit, in which custom cooled cards can go more than 1.2GHz with stock settings. AMD cards however are thermally throttled based on temps, not loads so they do not have a proper/solid Boost profile. If your AMD card reaches 80C, it throttles down a lot to keep it cool, which is not good for consistent performance.


----------



## dj-electric (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> TPU is mostly NEGATIVE to AMD. Just look at GPU-Z which is mostly dominated by nvidia-only features and look that W1zzard doesn't even care to add Boost support for AMD cards.
> 
> Those typos in AMD reviews don't help either.
> 
> I fully support AMD in this decision. It is perfectly just.


You're fully supporting knowing less about a product through a detailed review.

That's very clever. Just tell me why you decided to sign up to TPU again?


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 4, 2015)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> You're fully supporting knowing less about a product through a detailed review.
> 
> That's very clever. Just tell me why you decided to sign up to TPU again?



Because I didn't know what they are doing.

About knowing less - that's not clever by you because there are obviously many more web sources or real events where to get all the information required.


----------



## Sihastru (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I fully support AMD in this decision. It is perfectly just.



Your mind works in mysterious ways.


----------



## jigar2speed (Sep 4, 2015)

First TR, Hardcorp and now TPU, - AMD's PR department needs overhaul... Best websites excluding Hardcorp are not getting Sample to review is a big fail. PERIOD.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 4, 2015)

Sihastru said:


> Your mind works in mysterious ways.



I don't see anything mysterious to support the correct way to deal with bad press. What is so mysterious again?
That AMD and me have the same opinion ?



jigar2speed said:


> First TR, Hardcorp and now TPU, - AMD's PR department needs overhaul... Best websites excluding Hardcorp are not getting Sample to review is a big fail.



Instead of blaming AMD, tell us please why or how much you receive from nvidia to keep their image up and AMD's down?


----------



## Kumitsu (Sep 4, 2015)

64K said:


> AMD doesn't have enough Nano for samples for even the larger sites to review? Horse shit. They do. I suspect they don't want them thoroughly tested and found to not be worth $650. They want to sell as many as possible before word gets out.



That's the first thing that came to mind: i have relied on techpowerup reviews for many years to choose my product of choice. This is sad news and i do hope that AMD provides one.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 4, 2015)

If you guys didn't get one... we didn't. At least they told you so... they don't seem to return my emails or calls unless they want to have us publish something... which we do... 

Thanks for wasting my time flying me out to L.A to learn about Fury X. Thanks for inviting me to the conference call before Nano's release, and yet we still didn't get a thing. I don't mind hearing "No". What I do mind is being played out... 

THAT, people, is sour grapes, LOL!


----------



## manofthem (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> TPU is mostly NEGATIVE to AMD. Just look at GPU-Z which is mostly dominated by nvidia-only features and look that W1zzard doesn't even care to add Boost support for AMD cards.
> 
> Those typos in AMD reviews don't help either.
> 
> I fully support AMD in this decision. It is perfectly just.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I don't see anything mysterious to support the correct way to deal with bad press. What is so mysterious again?
> That AMD and me have the same opinion ?


The only thing you and AMD have in common is really bad decisions. Maybe they (AMD) didn't send TPU a sample (or anyone for that matter) because they didn't have any to send? I know that's an amazing reach back for such a brilliant person as yourself but in a world of quantum mechanics anything is possible..........like me giving a shit you agree with me or not.

Good Day Sir.



EarthDog said:


> If you guys didn't get one... we didn't. At least they told you so... they don't seem to return my emails or calls unless they want to have us publish something... which we do...
> 
> Thanks for wasting my time flying me out to L.A to learn about Fury X. Thanks for inviting me to the conference call before Nano's release, and yet we still didn't get a thing. I don't mind hearing "No". What I do mind is being played out...
> 
> THAT, people, is sour grapes, LOL!


Don't lie Earthdog. Sony Xperia S said its because W1zzard.....someone who makes money of advertisement doesn't like AMD. Not because AMD doesn't have any.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

@Sony Xperia S Maybe, maybe not... perhaps you're just a typical simpleton, following where the wind blows... perhaps you should overhaul that massive heater of yours to the polar bear friendly Maxwell + Haswell combo & see how it performs...


----------



## nem (Sep 4, 2015)

i glad see TPU don have nano, in the review of fury asus , the reviwer wizzard uses catalist 15.5 when there was available 15.7 , then wich be the poitn if tpu gives advantage to nvidia cards...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2015)

nem said:


> i glad see TPU don have nano, in the review of fury asus , the reviwer wizzard uses catalist 15.5 when there was available 15.7 , then wich be the poitn if tpu gives advantage to nvidia cards...


You need to reinstall your spelling module at Skynet. Its failing.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 4, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The only thing you and AMD have in common is really bad decisions.



Nothing is lost tho. When TPU fixes their mistakes (not only in GPU-Z), then they will get the cards.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Nothing is lost tho. When TPU fixes their mistakes, then they will get the cards.


Mistake of not receiving something AMD doesn't have? Seems legit.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

reason why he uses older drivers is to set a reasonable, sound benchmark with stable release in order to gauge them on even playing field. sometimes newer drivers fixes some of the game's relative problems in which it might give the card a slight edge over others, in which isn't in their books & deemed as unfair.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 4, 2015)

I have that clown (SOny) on ignore... I suggest you all do it too until the management at TPU realizes what a forum disease that kid is...

Anyhoo, I just would have like the common courtesy to be told I wasn't getting any.. That way, I wouldn't have to bug them.


----------



## Maban (Sep 4, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You need to reinstall your spelling module at Skynet. Its failing.


Also needs to reinstall his reading module as the Fury was benched with 15.7.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 4, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Mistake of not receiving something AMD doesn't have? Seems legit.



No, the mistake of not presenting AMD's products in the correct light. You can't be mean to Radeon and its features and at the same time to expect them to be nice to you.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 4, 2015)

nem said:


> i glad see TPU don have nano, in the review of fury asus , the reviwer wizzard uses catalist 15.5 when there was available 15.7 , then wich be the poitn if tpu gives advantage to nvidia cards...



Not true. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/6.html


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

@Sony Xperia S since when GPU-Z's faultless chip profiler has to do with AMD's end for not sending a nice card for unbiased, no BS benching? you sir are high.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 4, 2015)

AMD needs to hire some better shills...


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 4, 2015)

They can't even produce few tens to low hundreds of cards for the press? Well that is beyond ridiculous. That's not even laughable, that's pure WTF. Is AMD really trying to cut the branch it's sitting on?


----------



## nem (Sep 4, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Not true. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/6.html


Read the comments after some ones asking about why use 15.5, they just change the data of test system by using 15.7.. 0_0"




birdie said:


> *Drivers:    AMD: Catalyst 15.5 Beta*
> 
> This kinda invalidates the whole review.
> 
> Please, retest all AMD GPUs using Catalyst 15.7 (which contains a whole lot of optimizations and fixes).



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/asus-radeon-r9-fury-strix-4-gb.214194/page-3


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

@Octopuss and here I am thinking AMD would redeem itself from oblivion by letting right-minded folks of common sense & send them the card so that their punishment wouldn't be in vain... well... instead of asking a helping hand, they've just signed their death warrants & saving them is a little too late.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 4, 2015)

At least TechReport have now confirmed one of the apparently handful people that will actually own one will lend it to them for review.

http://techreport.com/news/28971/wanted-for-review-amd-radeon-r9-nano?post=935038

HBM seems to be the noose around AMD's neck.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I think AMD's own rhetoric speaks for itself. No, I don't think you are. If AMD's yields are so bad that they can't even give TPU one for a review (something the AMD PR machine would typically be all over if the claims were true,) then there must only be enough to sell to the *uninformed public*. This tells me what I think I already knew before, that Fiji was not ready for production and isn't seemingly a huge leap over what already existed. Honestly, I see this as AMD back peddling and hoping to sell some of them before reviews can come out before *people realize how slow the card really is in comparison to their claims.*
> 
> *You know, I like AMD's products (usually.) It's why I got a 390, and 6870s before it but, this rhetorical nonsense has to end and it ends with factual information and reviews provide that.*
> 
> If they don't have enough GPUs for reviews, then they don't have enough to sell IMHO. This smells of desperation and it irritates me.


despite our differences I signed in to say thanks because I totally agree.   
I like AMD products (except Cayman) always had AMD chipsets, and at one time even liked the company.  
But last 3-4 yrs of AMD's perpetual marketing machine: (read: Bullshit Machine) has pretty much made me lose any respect for them.... 
The overhyped blogs, sensationalized powerpoint charts,  overhyped 3DM drawcall benchmarks using a simulated API, and all amount to nothing, it's like being on a never ending roller coaster ride, up, down, up, down... lol   
What particularly grates me though is the community marketing...a little BS I can tolerate, but at times it feels like Hallock just ordered an invasion force to take over a small country.  


I better shut up now, before I rant.....


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Sep 4, 2015)

nem said:


> check the comments after some ones asking about why use 15.5, they just change the data of test system by using 15.7.. 0_0"


two and a half pages in, one person complains and is promptly shown he cant read. Methinks you may have some screws loose.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I have that clown (SOny) on ignore... I suggest you all do it too until the management at TPU realizes what a forum disease that kid is...
> 
> Anyhoo, I just would have like the common courtesy to be told I wasn't getting any.. That way, I wouldn't have to bug them.


Meh. He's using LED fans on his cooler. That should have been my first warning.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

@Pill Monster take the chill pill before it happens mate. it helps =)


----------



## btarunr (Sep 4, 2015)

nem said:


> check the comments after some ones asking about why use 15.5, they just change the data of test system by using 15.7.. 0_0"



Because we had put the note about 15.7 below 15.5, and some people didn't read the whole 3 lines before posting. We then neanderthal-proofed that table by pushing the 15.7 bullet-point up and adding more redundant words.


----------



## Bansaku (Sep 4, 2015)

Jack1n said:


> Lisa Su needs to be replaced ASAP, AMD's decent has only been accelerated by her appointment.



Women running tech companies......sigh.......Soon AMD and Reddit can share war stories over coffee in the unemployment line.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

If you want lighting, get an LED strip, not fancy fans with bulbs in it. Only use those for casing fans.


----------



## Frick (Sep 4, 2015)

I'm betting my tits Toms Hardware is getting one.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

Being an all-green fan after making the switch, I have to say that AMD has lost it's fighting spirit against Intel & Nvidia across all levels of marketing, be it tablets, laptops, desktops or office PCs.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Sep 4, 2015)

so this is either AMD trying to avoid reviews and hoping people will buy without one, or it truly is super limited in quantity and only a few will exist.

wasn't going to buy one but it does seem to be a carrot on a stick type situation


----------



## vega22 (Sep 4, 2015)

when they said earlier in the year that they were cutting back review samples to cut cost it was obvious what they were doing.

i thought the fury x samples would be an indication of who would continue to get samples.

but to not send fucking w1zzard one....

poor show amd, poor show.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @Pill Monster take the chill pill before it happens mate. it helps =)


Hehe....but I feel so much better now....


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

AMD's Fury X was one of the card I got on the hype train. Was looking forward to it's smaller equivalent; the R9 Nano. But when I read this when it was posted on FB, my expectations crushed me along with the hype train. Now it's a train wreck & it breaks my heart. No more competition, no more sideline support.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 4, 2015)

Is the ban hammer not required for two AMD semi professional marketeers or is it TPU protocol to be ass toundingly tolerant in the face of overwhelming consensus?
Nem's going on my ignore list, Sony already is but even with that it's hilarious because the gaps in communication in my version of this thread clearly show the little insects staggeringly bewildering presence.
As far as Nano goes, it doesn't matter anymore, Hawaii is just as good at DX12 as Fiji.  Just need a bigger SFF case....ummm...


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 4, 2015)

I just sold all my AMD shares.  The company is only going one way...


----------



## jigar2speed (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Instead of blaming AMD, tell us please why or how much you receive from nvidia to keep their image up and AMD's down?



Come on mate, seriously, did you even check my history before posting ???


----------



## buildzoid (Sep 4, 2015)

AMD's PR department needs to be taken out back and shot. Instead of giving real reviewers GPUs we've been getting all the news about the Nano for no-name modders and youtubers that somehow got into the AMD Red Team Plus program. 

Red Team Plus is a giant waste of money. Like seriously I didn't know that Red Team Plus was a thing until it was announced on their youtube. I still don't know any of the people who are actually in Red Team Plus and supposedly representing the company. 

Give a damn Nano to people who are already well known. Don't try to create your own team of marketing zombies.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 4, 2015)

This whole topic makes me nauseated.  Both companies don't send out every single SKU to reviewers.  I suspect why this is making waves (to contrary belief if you read the other Nano threads) because *people are interested in it one way or the other*.

Most reference skus don't get sent out and sites have to improvise and test AIB OC cards to reference numbers. Never an up roar on those cards because they don't generate interest one way or the other.

Not sending review samples to review sites is less marketing for them good or bad.  It also reduces potential revenue for sites and a product that generates this much attention good or bad will bring in traffic to sites.

To me it equates to getting upset your free lunch card doesn't work because the lunches ran out but you still want your free lunch meal.

This is in general not specific to TPU.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 4, 2015)

Frick said:


> I'm betting my tits Toms Hardware is getting one.



Tom's, and Anandtech, the two review sites that were sold to marketing companies. Which kind of leaves us as the largest independent review site around the globe.

Oh, and we'll see AMD staffers on Twitch using the cards, too, and they'll give away one a couple of weeks after that "launch".

As far as I see it, the card is likely to do well, performance-wise. Price doesn't matter on halo products, and all the Fury cards, Fury, Fury-X and Fury Nano, are just that... halo products. Halo products don't really sell, so don't need wide-spread reviews... it serves companies better to offer exclusivity, like all the multi-million dollar super cars.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> No, the mistake of not presenting AMD's products in the correct light. You can't be mean to Radeon and its features and at the same time to expect them to be nice to you.



Time to remove my pleasant attitude.

Get the Fuck out of here!  You have to be kidding me.  Either you're ignorant at such an extreme level that simply typing in English is proof you're some type of savant, or you're a troll that needs to be put down with extreme prejudice.


That's the short response I can offer.  Post ellipses, I'll elucidate.
.......

So, what you're implying is that TPU doesn't kiss the ground that AMD walks on they shouldn't receive a product for the purposes of review.  Let's repeat that one more time, to give you another opportunity to come to your senses.  In your world the only reviews that should be allowed to exist are those controlled by the  people who make the products.  To say you are defending the point of a mental retard is putting it lightly.  I'm talking an IQ somewhere south of the 50 line.  An individual who is incapable of linking the results of an action to the action which caused those results.  To understand my point, let's go over why the idea is stupid.

What is the point of a review?  An objective third party tests the claims of an entity, based upon what they can factually reproduce.  Underwriters Laboratory, the people who give out UL certification on electronics, are reviewers.  Movie critics are reviewers.  Likewise, TPU has a branch for reviews.  All of the cited people take into consideration their observations, measure them against what was sold to them, and then report to consumers.  Said consumers use the reviews to become informed on products, so they can make good purchasing decisions.  Movie reviewers may pan a movie, but by telling you why they don't like it you may decide to go out and watch the movie anyways.  Cult classic movies exist for this very reason.  Reviewers can't offer a 100% unbiased opinion, but they can inform you of their results.  It is still your choice to go out and buy a product, so reviews can't strip you of that ability.

Now, why not have the companies responsible for selling the products guide reviews?  As you seem to forget, that sort of crap is what cleverly hid the 970 memory issue.  That sort of crap is responsible for quotations on movies reading that they are unparalleled masterpieces, because of cherry-picked and quote snippets out of context.  That sort of crap is basically why gamergate happened.  A press, biased by greed and relationships, forced consumers to flip them the bird.  If you can't make the leap of understanding here I suggest you stop writing anything.

Is the TPU team unbiased? No.  They eat, breathe, and think so they must be human.  Humanity, by its nature, holds biases.  Despite this, the only time a TPU review reveals bias is in the conclusions page.  This is after they present objective performance numbers, a reasonable comparison to other similar items, and once they've made the devices do whatever they can get them to do (overclocking).  If you wanted to stretch, you could claim there is a bias based upon what is a "similar" product, but you're reaching there.  If you skipped the conclusions page you'd be reasonable to say TPU reviews are as unbiased as is humanly possible.


Let's, against my better judgement, assume you're a reasonable person.  You aren't a fanboy, you've got a reasonable argument, and you've done anything but fling crap in every discussion you've been in for the past several weeks.  Answer me one question, or acquiesce to being an idiot.  If AMD was making claims which could be objectively tested and proven, and the lack of review units was not actually due to a shortage of units, what does AMD gain by denying test cards to TPU and other sites?


Now, before I hear a stream of crap, let's answer some of that question.  If TPU, as you claim, is biased and AMD is on the level they lose sales.  If a biased reviewer has to say that AMD was right, it would be a PR win at AMD.  If TPU claimed that they failed performance, and AMD could prove TPU was lying, it would both bouy AMD and hurt TPU.  If AMD was lying, and TPU caught them with their pants down, it would be a blow for AMD.  Assuming AMD is on the level, as much as you evangelize them, then there's only upside for AMD.  This theoretical media blackout is crap for AMD, and for consumers.  To somehow view this as a righteous AMD lumping scorn on its haters is...let's call it as it is, a paranoid delusion of someone unplugged from reality.




Allow me one closing statement.  I buy AMD products when they make sense.  I've got a Intel processors in my PCs, and because of when I built them I've got AMD GPUs powering them.  Despite this, every time you speak about AMD it makes me regret not being an Nvidiot.  Every time you post I will do my best to punch holes in all of your arguments, because it's both necessary and fun.  Whenever you approach these posts with logic, I'll gladly admit you are right.  For now though, consider me your own person shadow.  If you could please be reasonable, it would make my life so much easier, and I wouldn't have to be the counter-weight to your growing delusion and insanity.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 4, 2015)

64K said:


> AMD doesn't have enough Nano for samples for even the larger sites to review? Horse shit. They do. I suspect they don't want them thoroughly tested and found to not be worth $650. They want to sell as many as possible before word gets out.


At this point a lot of people that expected a company saver outta the Fury X are gonna be very gun shy after those reviews dropped.



Sony Xperia S said:


> TPU is mostly NEGATIVE to AMD. Just look at GPU-Z which is mostly dominated by nvidia-only features and look that W1zzard doesn't even care to add Boost support for AMD cards.
> Those typos in AMD reviews don't help either.
> I fully support AMD in this decision. It is perfectly just.


Problem is AMD made performance claims of 20% faster then 980TI in games. Well when you seen the settings used, It was clear AMD used settings that Tilt'ed the field in their favor Badly. They used settings that were Shader based and turned everything else off aka no AA and AF to start with.  Techreport did a break down of the "benchmarkers review guide" AMD put out and talked about settings they used and explained it pretty well (Linked below). So when they claim Performance of X and you get Y and Y is good 25-30% SLOWER then they claimed, its pretty hard to spin that as a positive.
https://youtube.com/watch?t=2185&v=O0sLUWlvU18



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> AMD's Fury X was one of the card I got on the hype train. Was looking forward to it's smaller equivalent; the R9 Nano. But when I read this when it was posted on FB, my expectations crushed me along with the hype train. Now it's a train wreck & it breaks my heart. No more competition, no more sideline support.


AMD Hyped the heck outta it, as well did AMD fanboyz. When it hit the fan it was pretty funny truthfully that people expected so much.



Sony Xperia S said:


> No, the mistake of not presenting AMD's products in the correct light. You can't be mean to Radeon and its features and at the same time to expect them to be nice to you.



Wow sad you expect review sites to kiss AMD's ass when AMD has done nothing but LIED about performance since fury was announced. As much as AMD fans would love site to kiss AMD ass, said site will lose respect and views if they were biased in that way.


----------



## Aretak (Sep 4, 2015)

yogurt_21 said:


> so this is either AMD trying to avoid reviews and hoping people will buy without one, or it truly is super limited in quantity and only a few will exist.


Hilbert over at Guru3D has one, and he's the best and most impartial graphics card reviewer around IMO. If AMD were looking to avoid reviews, I doubt he'd have one.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 4, 2015)

@btarunr , will TPU do a review after release?


----------



## Steevo (Sep 4, 2015)

What I have read in the original post tells me that AMD.

1) has a GPU/manufacturing process problem that is a stone around its neck. 
2) Is getting terrible yields
3) is cash poor
4) has been put on a strict diet of needs VS wants 


While we all may feel this is a slight against our community, perhaps AMD is really that hard up right now. No major recent cash infusions, declining market share, poor yields on a process that in the world of tech is a antique and is holding back their hardware cycles.

Insanity is doing the same thing again and again but expecting different results. They got where they are at by being cocky and perhaps giving too much away.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 4, 2015)

james888 said:


> @btarunr , will TPU do a review after release?


HardOCP said they would buy the card if they had to, would expect TPU would do same.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

@arbiter as a full-on Green fan, seeing AMD failing is just a sight I do not want to see.


----------



## mouacyk (Sep 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Time to remove my pleasant attitude.
> 
> ... rant...



Good rant.  I never read TPU conclusion sections and don't intend to.  Their graphs speak plenty of the quality work they do.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 4, 2015)

Aretak said:


> Hilbert over at Guru3D has one, and he's the best and most impartial graphics card reviewer around IMO. If AMD were looking to avoid reviews, I doubt he'd have one.


Impartial isn't posting AMD-only marketing, like the mantle review Hilbert did. AMD's only using marketing-friendly companies for reviews it seems. We have a larger reach than GuRu3D (according to the public info available by Alexa), so this definitely isn't about AMD getting the widest exposure for their products, it's about getting the reviews they want. Tech Report not getting one is not surprising, since the whole frame pacing stuff, and HardOCP not getting one is weird, since I think HardOCP has always been very AMD-friendly.

So the idea that sites with anti-AMD bias aren't getting cards seems wrong, to me. There's another reason why only certain sites are getting cards for launch day.

BTA posting this news item isn't about complaining about it for W1zz... something very weird is going on for sure.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Impartial isn't posting AMD-only marketing, like the mantle review Hilbert did. AMD's only using marketing-friendly companies for reviews it seems. We have a larger reach than GuRu3D (according to the public info available by Alexa), so this definitely isn't about AMD getting the widest exposure for their products, it's about getting the reviews they want. Tech Report not getting one is not surprising, since the whole frame pacing stuff, and HardOCP not getting one is weird, since I think HardOCP has always been very AMD-friendly.
> 
> So the idea that sites with anti-AMD bias aren't getting cards seems wrong, to me. There's another reason why only certain sites are getting cards for launch day.
> 
> BTA posting this news item isn't about complaining about it for W1zz... something very weird is going on for sure.


Illuminati confirmed.


----------



## truth teller (Sep 4, 2015)

uh? so who got the sample that was meant for tpu?
i tought tpu was a major player in the review field, in fact the major player

what the hell amd press folks


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 4, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> This whole topic makes me nauseated.  Both companies don't send out every single SKU to reviewers.  I suspect why this is making waves (to contrary belief if you read the other Nano threads) because *people are interested in it one way or the other*.
> 
> Most reference skus don't get sent out and sites have to improvise and test AIB OC cards to reference numbers. Never an up roar on those cards because they don't generate interest one way or the other.
> 
> ...



So you're saying TPU is pissed (not specific to TPU you say but inclusion compiles them as a component of this) because they wont get traffic now?  Not that one of the largest independent tech sites is 'snubbed' which is very unusual?

The reason Guru3D is getting one is because their decibel reviews are constantly "yeah man, we totally cant hear this card".  I've said to W1zzard in the past that Hilbert's reviews are always contradictory to his.  If anything, W1zzards testing usually reflects poorly on most cards noise (inc Maxwell) compared to other places.  I'll put my chips on this factor.  If so it means Nano isn't as quiet as they are saying or that to be quiet, it'll throttle like crazy.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 4, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Impartial isn't posting AMD-only marketing, like the mantle review Hilbert did. AMD's only using marketing-friendly companies for reviews it seems. We have a larger reach than GuRu3D (according to the public info available by Alexa), so this definitely isn't about AMD getting the widest exposure for their products, it's about getting the reviews they want. Tech Report not getting one is not surprising, since the whole frame pacing stuff, and HardOCP not getting one is weird, since I think HardOCP has always been very AMD-friendly.
> 
> So the idea that sites with anti-AMD bias aren't getting cards seems wrong, to me. There's another reason why only certain sites are getting cards for launch day.
> 
> BTA posting this news item isn't about complaining about it for W1zz... something very weird is going on for sure.



Tech Report might of started the frame pacing but Ryan over at PCPerspective took it further collaborating with Nvidia to bring FCAT.  If AMD wanted to avoid anyone it would be PCPerspective I would think but he has one and said he would look at it closely from all sides.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 4, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I have that clown (SOny) on ignore... I suggest you all do it too until the management at TPU realizes what a forum disease that kid is....


 
Yeah that's all well and good, until I'm reading through page 2 and scratching my head wondering WTF everyone is getting on about, LOL! It literally made no sense until I got to your post and had to show ignored content.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 4, 2015)

Steevo said:


> While we all may feel this is a slight against our community, perhaps AMD is really that hard up right now.


You would have to have a pretty screwed up business model if the revenue from a few cards outweighs the marketing impact of having the card reviewed and appearing in future benchmark review charts.
We are already at the point where other sites reviews now lack Fury/Fury X results because the site had to return the review samples...so, no PR, no ongoing marketing, and a ton of negative press. That doesn't seem like a fair trade-off for the revenue of a few retail sales to me.


arbiter said:


> HardOCP said they would buy the card if they had to, would expect TPU would do same.


HardOCP stated that their review would be conducted under the conditions that AMD have been marketing the card for - namely, the review test system would be enclosed in a SFF build. Maybe AMD got cold feet.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 4, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> The reason Guru3D is getting one is because their decibel reviews are constantly "yeah man, we totally cant hear this card".  I've said to W1zzard in the past that Hilbert's reviews are always contradictory to his.  If anything, W1zzards testing usually reflects poorly on most cards noise (inc Maxwell) compared to other places.  I'll put my chips on this factor.  If so it means Nano isn't as quiet as they are saying or that to be quiet, it'll throttle like crazy.


You do realize that proper sound measurements require math, not just a dB meter? I've taken proper courses on acoustic analysis and management, and very few sites and almost no companies report real dB numbers.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 4, 2015)

Why the fuss really? No one in their right mind is going to buy these things. The moment AMD announced the price and gave the basic info on Nano, it was doomed. People expected a different product than what they delivered. Mostly this was AMD's fault for confusing the public with their PR statements.

So TPU doesn't get a Nano? Who cares! Nano is a lame duck, let it go.


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 4, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> Tech Report might of started the frame pacing but Ryan over at PCPerspective took it further collaborating with Nvidia to bring FCAT.  If AMD wanted to avoid anyone it would be PCPerspective I would think but he has one and said he would look at it closely from all sides.


So in other words, this is just an angry TPU rant, for not getting a card, while others have.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 4, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> You do realize that proper sound measurements require math, not just a dB meter? I've taken proper courses on acoustic analysis and management, and very few sites and almost no companies report real dB numbers.



The masses don't care about that.  They just want to know what the numbers say on the doo-hickey noise probe thingy-ma-jig

All said and done - nobody should actually see this thread as a stab at the Nano card itself.  Once more it's a criticism of AMD's PR dept.



ShurikN said:


> So in other words, this is just an angry TPU rant, for not getting a card, while others have.





> When NVIDIA didn't send us a GeForce GTX TITAN-Z sample, we didn't care. We didn't make an announcement like this.



Try again.


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 4, 2015)

This is AMD preparing for damage control.
This is AMD knowing that the R9 Nano will completely suck in the performance/dollar chart TPU make.
This is AMD knowing that the R9 Nano will be measured extremely close to GTX 970 Mini ITX in 1080p and 1440p and they will not be able to defend the BS $650 price point for the card when the GTX 970 Mini ITX cost $300. 

You saw the same damage control when they refused to give TechReport samples, because TR measured frame times where 980Ti did much better overall than Fury X. And you saw the same damage control with refusing HardOCP any samples because they said that a factory overclocked GTX 980 with much better cooling than stock 980 can compete against Fury (non X) in most cases.

You saw the signs that the R9 Nano will be quite slower than Fury and Fury X in the pre release Far Cry 4 benchmark from AMD where they didnt seem to test the Nano with BS 0xAF settings. We all know Fury and Fury X are quite close, and since Nano is so far behind Fury X here, one can suspect the Nano of falling down to GTX 980 level, perhaps slower. Which ultimately moves it towards GTX 970 ITX performance. Which cost under half the price.

AMD know the Nano is overpriced beyond almost anything out there, and try to do damage control by handpicking biased reviewers or those that doesnt make accurate graphs which is easy to conclude with, like TPU does. 

We all know what you are trying to pull on us AMD. The truth will unfortunately for you come out eventually. And just like Fury X, it will be another overpriced card. Its not our fault that you decided to use HBM before yields was good enough to drive the price down. The expense should come out of your pocket, not from the customers. Ultimately the HBM didnt show much gains if any vs GDDR5 cards, so this is entirely your fault. Just like the missed GPU launch time times, the failed CPU architectures, and the reputation wrecking decision to think you could cover up the handpicking of reviewers.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 4, 2015)

ShurikN said:


> So in other words, this is just an angry TPU rant, for not getting a card, while others have.



Not an angry rant by TPU.  The post clearly states the reason they aren't getting one in the second sentence.



btarunr said:


> There won't be a Radeon R9 Nano review on TechPowerUp.* AMD says that it has too few review samples for the press.*



Btarunr just posed the question.



btarunr said:


> Are we sourgraping? *You tell us*.



The rant is by the posters.

TPU is just stating what they can provide to their community through a review.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 4, 2015)

*not a rant* If AMD is afraid of TPU's testing methods, they should have told them so & rely on overnight IT gurus by releasing horrible results as per instructions from them (AMD) via the whatever the program they came up with, attracting a lot of gamers thinking AMD is the way to go because of botched benches stating the 970 ITX is an underpowered BS of a card not worth purchasing despite selling for half the price. Seriously... a $650 card that's relying on crapped benches aren't going to get sales from the consumers or getting a +1 from right-thinking, budget-conscious reviewers.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

Aretak said:


> Hilbert over at Guru3D has one, and he's the best and most impartial graphics card reviewer around IMO. If AMD were looking to avoid reviews, I doubt he'd have one.


Guru3D also has an AMD rep present who operates anywhere from 15-20 or more  ghost accounts.  I know this for a fact. So do the admins at G3D..   Any relevance?


----------



## Frick (Sep 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Time to remove my pleasant attitude.



Thanked for the .

Anyway the constant lesson from all the crap surrounding Fiji and AMD in general is a) fanboyism sure is stupid, and b) there aren't as many fanboys as forum arguments indicates and c) omg it feels like it's been going on forever.



Pill Monster said:


> Guru3D also has an AMD rep present who operates anywhere from 15-20 or more  ghost accounts.  I know this for a fact. So do the admins at G3D..   Any relevance?



"Fact" or fact?


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

Frick said:


> Thanked for the .
> 
> Anyway the constant lesson from all the crap surrounding Fiji and AMD in general is a) fanboyism sure is stupid, and b) there aren't as many fanboys as forum arguments indicates and c) omg it feels like it's been going on forever.
> 
> ...


I don't understand the question? If you're taking the piss I can assure you it's true. I was there for 9 years, almost became an admin.    No need to say any more.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 4, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Guru3D also has an AMD rep present who operates anywhere from 15-20 or more  ghost accounts.  I know this for a fact. So do the admins at G3D..   Any relevance?


Stop sniffing that soap and reading up on chemtrails.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Stop sniffing that soap and reading up on chemtrails.


That's pretty funny.  What would u know...? Nothing. 

Oh fwiw I did  prevent you from becoming banned once, no need to say thanks.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 4, 2015)

could just buy one and then when it falls flat on there face give them a nice scathing


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 4, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> I don't understand the question? If you're taking the piss I can assure you it's true. I was there for 9 years, almost became an admin.    No need to say any more.


What were the content of the posts from this AMD reps multiple accounts?

Right now we have the AMDRTP cult which seems to plague the internet they seem like the biggest fanclub that exists. Members that monitor any forum and news articles, and is quick to go berzerk against any negative post toward AMD products. I bet AMD give cheap cards to these guys every now and then just to get their "protection".

AMD_Roy is the biggest joke around with his constant low blow attacks against Nvidia and reposting of any tweet from a random guy saying "Love my R7 360X, AMDRTP 4 life". That is one of the higher ups in the system and he is a clown.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 4, 2015)

.....hey Jay of Jay's Two Cents tech you-tube channel has one...... he teased and showed it at the end of the Mionix Castor video.   HE HASN'T DONE A REVIEW YET  though........if it gives the performance......people will buy it....however Amd's product  Launch seems to be snatching defeat out of the jaws of Victory again........


----------



## Phobia9651 (Sep 4, 2015)

buildzoid said:


> AMD's PR department needs to be taken out back and shot.



You've got issues... Despicable post.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I don't see anything mysterious to support the correct way to deal with bad press. What is so mysterious again?
> That AMD and me have the same opinion ?
> Instead of blaming AMD, tell us please why or how much you receive from nvidia to keep their image up and AMD's down?



Oh *fuck right off* and stop pretending that you don't know what he's getting at. Whatever banhammer that TPU has is not strong enough for an acutely obstinate, inflammatory shit like you. Ain't gonna be no more painstakingly written rebuttals from myself and a lot of other users after this; you, my friend, are going to have the thread all to yourself. That other little monkey is doing just fine on my ignore list, and I can't believe that I've simply forgotten about the existence of the Ignore button since I had to deal with the other turd all those weeks ago. Good riddance. Today, I am going to take the advice that I should have listened to a long time ago.


And...I'll be back to my old self in no time.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 4, 2015)

I always find it amusing when some very ill informed and often ignorant members make rash claims like this is an anti AMD site or NVidia biased...... I can only assume that they are not aware that the owner of this site for many many years has been writing/coding and producing overclocking and tweaking software for AMD only cards, both independently for the wider communities and also in direct support for the very biggest AMD Graphic Card players with their overclocking software and as far as I am aware still does, the fact that he may not climb upon his soapbox and shout to the world about it is a lesson that one or two of us here might learn...... but I doubt that sadly.

If they really dislike it so much here they are welcome to close the door on their way out and hand in their keys at the gate.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

Cloudfire said:


> What were the content of the posts from this AMD reps multiple accounts?
> 
> Right now we have the AMDRTP cult which seems to plague the internet they seem like the biggest fanclub that exists. Members that monitor any forum and news articles, and is quick to go berzerk against any negative post toward AMD products. I bet AMD give cheap cards to these guys every now and then just to get their "protection".
> 
> AMD_Roy is the biggest joke around with his constant low blow attacks against Nvidia and reposting of any tweet from a random guy saying "Love my R7 360X, AMDRTP 4 life". That is one of the higher ups in the system and he is a clown.


What do mean content? Starting promo threads then bumping them with sock puppets. stuff like that.  Not Roy either..


Idk if it still goes on now but it was happening frequently, it got to the point admins asked him to tone it down...was still tolerated though. The  thing was it was so obvious as to be funny...lol


----------



## erocker (Sep 4, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Instead of blaming AMD, tell us please why or how much you receive from nvidia to keep their image up and AMD's down?



I have to be honest... That's such a stretch a really did laugh a little. AMD seems to be doing a fine job on their own with their "image". For me personally as a shareholder AMD has done nothing but disappoint. It's sad for several reasons and I can only hope they turn things around.


----------



## m0nt3 (Sep 4, 2015)

Seems to me that this should have been expected. I would venture a guess that the nano is a cherry picked Fury X that can operate at perhaps slightly lower voltage to fit within the power envelope. On top of the fact that the Fury cards are in short supply and then cherry picking from an already low supply (there aren't many AIB's with Fury cards, I think only Asus and Sapphire have Fury vanilla cards). It's a completely new design with HBM and the interposer, it is innovation that will benefit APUs as much as discrete GPUs. Intel also has a low supply of Skylake CPU's, probably because of the new manufacturing process. I am not an electrical engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but 3D stacked memory chip with a 4096bit bus on an interposer seems like a lofty task and an expensive one, therefore it comes with a price. 

Why and by what standards AMD is choosing its reviewers, is speculation at this point. Perhaps give AMD the opportunity to comment? I am sure the decisions are not made lightly.

Calling for the removal of Dr. Lisa Su also seems absurd, she hasn't even been CEO for 1 year (1 year this October). Unreasonable expectations that she could do a complete turn around of a company in 11 months when development cycles can take in excess of 5 years. My 2 cents anyway.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 4, 2015)

AMD are putting in some fine efforts to become irrelevant. They will be missed.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Impartial isn't posting AMD-only marketing, like the mantle review Hilbert did. AMD's only using marketing-friendly companies for reviews it seems. We have a larger reach than GuRu3D (according to the public info available by Alexa), so this definitely isn't about AMD getting the widest exposure for their products, it's about getting the reviews they want. Tech Report not getting one is not surprising, since the whole frame pacing stuff, and HardOCP not getting one is weird, since I think HardOCP has always been very AMD-friendly.
> .


Idk about that, Guru3D is ranked around 7000 on Alexa.  I don't really have a problem with Hilbert, though he is is a bit arrogant imho. Mainly just the stuff that's allowed to go on on there.

Shame as there are a lot of very nice members on the site.....if it was irl I'd call them my friends.


----------



## natr0n (Sep 4, 2015)

Oh well indeed.

Many users here have shitloads of money to blow. When a nano is bought they will post benches regardless.

So why worry...


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 4, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Idk about that, Guru3D is ranked around 7000 on Alexa.  I don't really have a problem with Hilbert, though he is is a bit arrogant imho. Mainly just the stuff that's allowed to go on on there.
> 
> Shame as there are a lot of very nice members on the site.....if it was irl I'd call them my friends.


Yeah, we're at about 5000. Just a bit higher. Guru3d and us have swapped positions many times, with us being the higher in the rankings more often than not.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 4, 2015)

Cloudfire said:


> What were the content of the posts from this AMD reps multiple accounts?
> Right now we have the AMDRTP cult which seems to plague the internet they seem like the biggest fanclub that exists. Members that monitor any forum and news articles, and is quick to go berzerk against any negative post toward AMD products. I bet AMD give cheap cards to these guys every now and then just to get their "protection".


They do get handouts, but I suspect some of these people are just overburdened with spare time. Listening to them tends to scream NEEDY (and creepy in some cases - check out the psychotic stare!)








Cloudfire said:


> AMD_Roy is the biggest joke around with his constant low blow attacks against Nvidia and reposting of any tweet from a random guy saying "Love my R7 360X, AMDRTP 4 life". That is one of the higher ups in the system and he is a clown.


He was just as much a clown when he worked for Nvidia. Remember his cringe-worthy " *No one cares about ATI and AMD*" rant? At least RTP do it out of some sense of community (I assume) - Roy just spouts whatever OTT garbage he thinks will get him invited to the company picnic.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 4, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> They can't even produce few tens to low hundreds of cards for the press? Well that is beyond ridiculous. That's not even laughable, that's pure WTF. Is AMD really trying to cut the branch it's sitting on?


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 4, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah, we're at about 5000. Just a bit higher. Guru3d and us have swapped positions many times, with us being the higher in the rankings more often than not.


Yeah but do you realize Guru3D members don't need to visit the site to read replies to subbed threads, or pm's?  The replies are contained in the email notifications.
I could sit at my desk and read an entire thread without going to the forum This means a lot of the members don't show up as traffic.

On a good day there are about 100 members on the forum 700 guests and 4500 for the site... TPU is great but the forum is def not as busy as Guru's forum, I don't know about the main site though.

Not trying to  argue, just putting things into perspective.  TBh Hilbert said the forum only just broke even....wasn't really a priority for him afaik.....  Maybe it's the same for wiz?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 4, 2015)

natr0n said:


> So why worry...


Journalistic integrity.  Consistency.  Reassurance.  So on and so fourth.  It was bad enough that AMD announced the Nano price of $649.99 and now this.  FFS, if the problem with Fiji supply, leading to this...vaporware...situation was HBM, then why doesn't AMD put out a press release saying it is?  AMD goes through delaying rebranding (that's funny but it, unfortunately, is not a joke) for Fiji, delays Nano to build up supply, and Fiji cards are still as rare as 4-leaf clovers.  It does not compute.  And what does AMD have to say about it?  Apparently nothing. You'd think investors would have the right to know about this stuff.


Why worry?  Fuck ups like this is more proof AMD is going in the crapper and that's not what anyone needs.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 4, 2015)

> TPU the site owned by the person that spent years making overclocking tools for AMD/ATI is biased against AMD/ATI


I want new friends to go back to /g/ with their conspiracy bullshit.

The nano was the only interesting card based off Fiji, at the price of a 980ti it was dead on arrival in my eyes anyway.
At this point it seems console chips are the only thing keeping AMD from bankruptcy, their CPU's haven't competed with anything since the core series launched and the only GPU's they have worth buying are 3 year old cards that can deliver acceptable performance for their price 7970/7950

By the time DX12 becomes relevant Nvidia will have new cards out that will walk all over AMD like they currently do in DX11.

Sincerely, an AMD fanboy.


----------



## jabbadap (Sep 4, 2015)

Yeah what next, releasing a card as oem only. Though I lost the interest on the price announcement, 14/16nm can't come fast enough.


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 4, 2015)

What should have been:

Fury X: $550
Fury: $450
R9 Nano: $400

imo


----------



## bogami (Sep 4, 2015)

Everything caution AMD development team to keep everything under their control raises in a lot of dust.
NVIDIA just waiting when will AMD again come in such big problems when they can easily bought this knowledge.  Some developers will jump to another ship and  AMD has developed new technology for NVIDIA without gratitude but for breadcrumbs. NVIDIA to the largest customer  behave disrespectful and sells scrap cutout processor as best gameing product, and many do not even know it. Horror


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 4, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Yeah but do you realize Guru3D members don't need to visit the site to read replies to subbed threads, or pm's?  The replies are contained in the email notifications.
> I could sit at my desk and read an entire thread without going to the forum This means a lot of the members don't show up as traffic.
> 
> On a good day there are about 100 members on the forum 700 guests and 4500 for the site... TPU is great but the forum is def not as busy as Guru's forum, I don't know about the main site though.
> ...


Yeah, that's it, our forum isn't the main source of traffic at all; it's all front page. Which, as you said, is pretty obvious by the member/post count.

Either way, we are neck-and-neck often. And I'm talking using Amazon's metrics, not our own, which may be far different.


----------



## john_ (Sep 4, 2015)

With this stupid tactics, they will manage to give more reasons to the tech sites to attack them in the future. If they have 100 cards, they should send all of them to the press and none at retail. Not 5 at the press and 95 at retail.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 4, 2015)

If anything, TPU is by far the least biased review site. Maybe they make tiny mistakes here and there (like everyone else), but they certainly aren't biased. I've seen highly favorable reviews of AMD products, but only when they deserved it. And same goes for NVIDIA products. Saying TPU is biased is just silly. They are just honest and some apparently don't like that...


----------



## truth teller (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> With this stupid tactics, they will manage to give more reasons to the tech sites to attack them in the future. If they have 100 cards, they should send all of them to the press and none at retail. Not 5 at the press and 95 at retail.



pretty sure its not lack of cards that made them refuse to send sample to some reviewers, besides, if lack of samples was a problem they could just as easily rotate the cards amongst reviewers a bit early so all can review them before launch date (pretty sure wizz, and most, would have no problem shipping the card back and/or to another reviewer)

if amds marketing team continues with tactics like this, they will be no different from the nvidia marketing team moves

very fishy moves, shiet will hit the fan if there is something wrong with the cards, and people *will* find out, sooner or later, this kind of moves only delay the blow


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

I don't think AMD is trying to hide anything. Fury and FuryX are still OOS or pre-order here. BTA said simply, AMD is low on stock.

At the same time, AMD doesn't sell cards directly... their board partners do. SO the idea that AMD doesn't have stock makes a lot of sense, since all ASICs are going to meet orders by those board partners... probably direct from whomever is assembling the packages. AMD probably doesn't get any dies themselves other than what they already had on-hand.

The sites they have chosen to give cards to, who cares? The point of the news post is educational... you guys want our review, but we will not have one. So on launch day, please go look at other sites for reviews. No big deal, and this saves us having to deal with all of this on launch day.

Why not TPU? How about our lack of a social media presence, and lack of youtube presence? That's enough reason...


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 5, 2015)

Erghh... Please Samsung or Microsoft just buy AMD already please


----------



## Nordic (Sep 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> HardOCP said they would buy the card if they had to, would expect TPU would do same.


I think tpu gives the best gpu reviews. By reading the news post, I am not surprised to see that it seems TPU agrees with me.

I would expect them to do the same as HardOCP, but that does not mean they will. They don't have to. So I asked the question hoping for a confirmation.


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 5, 2015)

Amd is dropping the ball again! It's what they do


----------



## NC37 (Sep 5, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> If anything, TPU is by far the least biased review site. Maybe they make tiny mistakes here and there (like everyone else), but they certainly aren't biased. I've seen highly favorable reviews of AMD products, but only when they deserved it. And same goes for NVIDIA products. Saying TPU is biased is just silly. They are just honest and some apparently don't like that...



Because many TPU reviews are far too nice. Ratings over 8 or 9 for so-so products. I've looked at them and seen many noting some glaring issues with a product, then that product getting a TPU recommendation/etc. It's like...seriously TPU? You state it has some major issues then you highly recommend it? I thought they might be getting some pay for good reviews but I've just seen it too many times that it is clear some of the people are just too lenient here.

The content of the reviews are good, but the TPU rating system and such is often crap. If a product has a major issue, it should reflect greatly in the score and also not garner a recommendation.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I don't think AMD is trying to hide anything. Fury and FuryX are still OOS or pre-order here. BTA said simply, AMD is low on stock.
> 
> At the same time, AMD doesn't sell cards directly... their board partners do. SO the idea that AMD doesn't have stock makes a lot of sense, since all ASICs are going to meet orders by those board partners... probably direct from whomever is assembling the packages. AMD probably doesn't get any dies themselves other than what they already had on-hand.
> 
> ...


I definitely agree with AMD just not having enough to go around. The news hit that Fiji had gone into full production, what was it, like a month after Fury X launched. And I'm guessing it takes a really good bin to qualify for Nano. So there just isn't a lot of them.

That being said, it really shows how desperate they are to try to make any money they possible can. They had to launch as early as possible and sell of anything they could to try to generate some cash.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Sep 5, 2015)

Let's see, HardOCP and TPU both denied review samples, and tomshardware having no word on it that I'm aware of?..

Well AMD, I am disappointed.  I may not have been looking at getting one, but this is just.. one hell of a BS paper launch.


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> The sites they have chosen to give cards to, who cares? The point of the news post is educational... you guys want our review, but we will not have one. So on launch day, please go look at other sites for reviews. No big deal, and this saves us having to deal with all of this on launch day.
> 
> Why not TPU? How about our lack of a social media presence, and lack of youtube presence? That's enough reason...


Why not write that instead of the War and Peace from the original post


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 5, 2015)

NC37 said:


> Because many TPU reviews are far too nice. Ratings over 8 or 9 for so-so products. I've looked at them and seen many noting some glaring issues with a product, then that product getting a TPU recommendation/etc. It's like...seriously TPU? You state it has some major issues then you highly recommend it? I thought they might be getting some pay for good reviews but I've just seen it too many times that it is clear some of the people are just too lenient here.
> 
> The content of the reviews are good, but the TPU rating system and such is often crap. If a product has a major issue, it should reflect greatly in the score and also not garner a recommendation.



So...what you're saying is that you should come and do the reviews instead. Because according to you, the reviewers' opinions are invalid and you consider their highly-rated products to be so-so. You know, you could just read the review here and then go sample some reviews from other sites. No one's forcing you to make a decision based on what w1zzard or dave is saying about the product. Reviewers try to be objective, but there's always a certain degree of opinion mixed in there as well. I, for one, love Noctua coolers. Am I going to go around and condemn @crazyeyesreaper because he criticizes every Noctua product for its colours? No.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Its going to be about similar performance to a GTX 980 with similar or better power consumption, be that as it may whats wrong with that?

AMD are often expected to be much cheaper than Nvidia by reviewers, regardless of performance, they are often treated as the punch-bag among reviewers, yes AMD are not always perfect by Nvidia suffer a lot of problems with their products too and yet every little thing on the AMD side is pulled up and pastured all over the internet while Nvidia are seemingly always perfect, being an ex 290 owner and now a GTX 970 owner i know they are not, they have a lot of driver problems ecte and yet reviewers never tell you about any of it.

AMD are about to go bust, there will be no more competition, just one GPU Vendor in Nvidia.

AMD have them selves to blame for a lot of it but i also think reviewers have some responsibility in AMD's impending demise and they need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Lets hear about some Nvidia shit when it happens, including Windows 10 Driver problems, DX12 issues, random stuttering in their current drivers... if this was AMD it would be the biggest story on the net.
I have found a lot of what are to me some very unkind things said about AMD, and some very unfair reviews.... in the past yeah, i'm pointing not a finger at TPU i happen to think you are one of the better reviewers... but some of the reading around AMD in this past year looks almost like trolling, and this from apparently professional reviewers. its not good.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> That being said, it really shows how desperate they are to try to make any money they possible can. They had to launch as early as possible and sell of anything they could to try to generate some cash.


It is a timing thing, but I don't think the (basically inconsequential in the greater scheme of things) revenue from the cards is the reason. AMD basically paper launched the Fury X just before the end of Q2. AMD is now doing basically the same thing with Nah,no now that the end of Q3 looms close. The company seems pretty desperate to keep to their announced timetables - whether it is a pride thing (unlikely), or whether the company is trying to turn around its unwanted "Master of the Missed Launch Date" title (vendor confidence), or contract fulfillment (OEMs including Origin and Maingear would want a secure supply) - who knows...but AMD is putting itself under a lot of undue pressure if it were just about selling a few cards. I suspect that gross margins on the Fury line are pretty slim, so I doubt the revenue does little in that regard.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Its going to be about similar performance to a GTX 980 with similar or better power consumption, be that as it may whats wrong with that?
> 
> AMD are often expected to be much cheaper than Nvidia by reviewers, regardless of performance, they are often treated as the punch-bag among reviewers, yes AMD are not always perfect by Nvidia suffer a lot of problems with their products too and yet every little thing on the AMD side is pulled up and pastured all over the internet while Nvidia are seemingly always perfect, being an ex 290 owner and now a GTX 970 owner i know they are not, they have a lot of driver problems ecte and yet reviewers never tell you about any of it.
> 
> ...



That's pretty funny. You own a GTX 970 (and actually went from a 290 *to* the 970), but the 3.5GB controversy wasn't big enough for you? If I remember correctly, it was *plastered* all over tech news sites. Pasture is not the word you're looking for.

Also, your signature banner is not working properly.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

tabascosauz said:


> That's pretty funny. You own a GTX 970 (and actually went from a 290 *to* the 970), but the 3.5GB controversy wasn't big enough for you? If I remember correctly, it was *plastered* all over tech news sites. Pasture is not the word you're looking for.
> 
> Also, your signature banner is not working properly.



Whats so funny about it? *i have had the 290 for nearly two years* and fancied a change, a GTX 980 or R9 Fury is above my pay grade so i opted for the GTX 970.


----------



## Darller (Sep 5, 2015)

Exactly zero people were surprised by this news.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Whats so funny about it? *i have had the 290 for nearly two years* and fancied a change, a GTX 980 or R9 Fury is above my pay grade so i opted for the GTX 970.


That's not much of an upgrade.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

tabascosauz said:


> That's pretty funny. You own a GTX 970 (and actually went from a 290 *to* the 970), but the 3.5GB controversy wasn't big enough for you? If I remember correctly, it was *plastered* all over tech news sites. Pasture is not the word you're looking for.


Interesting. Given the option between a 970 and a 390, I took the 390. I'm sure that in 1080p that the 970 would be a clear winner but, I think the 390 has more umfph in surround. It will be interesting to see how that 8GB pans out going forward. The fact that Far Cry 4 is playable at full graphics and SMAA blows my mind. So depending on what you're going to use the card for, one or the other might be better. The whole 3.5Gb debacle really turned me off though with the 970 and I didn't really want to get a 980 for the price I could get a 390 at with more VRAM.


abundantcores said:


> Whats so funny about it? *i have had the 290 for nearly two years* and fancied a change, a GTX 980 or R9 Fury is above my pay grade so i opted for the GTX 970.


That's kind of like a side-grade though. If I was in that position, I would have got a second 290. In fact that's what I did with my 6870s and what I'll probably end up doing with the 390. Video cards are too expensive to keep buying the fastest single GPU card. It's not like NVidia is without driver issues as well. I think I recall someone mentioning the number of hotfixes they've done since March.

Either way, hopefully the GPU is treating you well but, with that kind of money CFX starts getting incredibly enticing for the kind of performance is can give you back.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's not much of an upgrade.



Its no upgrade, its a side grade but what else is there for the same money the 290 cost me 2 years ago? this is ridiculous. just think what will happen once AMD are completely out of it.


----------



## Nkd (Sep 5, 2015)

what fuckin pr nightmare. I used to cheer for amd as an underdog. Although I am sure there are some good folks working hard there but heir Marketing department is a PR nightmare. New CEO is sleeping at the wheel, if there is one thing you can do when you are failing already is to get the pr right and get on the good side of the people that wanna support you as company. I really think they should be cheering at their design for the nano, but I do truly believe fury is just a test product for them and they are pricing it so unlike their previous products. I dont think they plan on making many or selling many but to make an excuse that they don't have enough for press is pure bull. I hope they get their shit straight before they launch zen and hbm 2 based cards. They should be proud of their product and their achievement being the first with HBM even if they cant destroy the competition. But to deny press a sample is just a big failure on its own. I already knew they are pricing these high because they plan on selling only so many. But this just makes me hate amd's marketing team and I hope someone is strong enough to make a change when it comes to this mess.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Nkd said:


> what fuckin pr nightmare. I used to cheer for amd as an underdog. Although I am sure there are some good folks working hard there but heir Marketing department is a PR nightmare. New CEO is sleeping at the wheel, if there is one thing you can do when you are failing already is to get the pr right and get on the good side of the people that wanna support you as company. I really think they should be cheering at their design for the nano, but I do truly believe fury is just a test product for them and they are pricing it so unlike their previous products. I dont think they plan on making many or selling many but to make an excuse that they don't have enough for press is pure bull. I hope they get their shit straight before they launch zen and hbm 2 based cards. They should be proud of their product and their achievement being the first with HBM even if they cant destroy the competition. But to deny press a sample is just a big failure on its own. I already knew they are pricing these high because they plan on selling only so many. But this just makes me hate amd's marketing team and I hope someone is strong enough to make a change when it comes to this mess.




They denied SOME press Fiji Samples because the articles that press wrote about AMD and Fiji before it was even released was nothing short of cringe worthy trolling.


----------



## etayorius (Sep 5, 2015)

I don`t blame them TPU tend to give much lower scores to AMD GPU`s.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Its no upgrade, its a side grade but what else is there for the same money the 290 cost me 2 years ago? this is ridiculous. just think what will happen once AMD are completely out of it.


Blame TSMC.  NVIDIA and AMD have been pretty much twiddling their thumbs for the past two years because process tech hasn't improved.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> They denied SOME press Fiji Samples because the articles that press wrote about AMD and Fiji before it was even released was nothing short of cringe worthy trolling.


So, AMD said that where, exactly? And we did that where? That's the puzzling part...


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

etayorius said:


> I don`t blame them TPU tend to give much lower scores to AMD GPU`s.



I think TPU are one of the better reviewers, i don't think they are unfair to AMD and they tend to stay out of all the mud slinging on both sides, i also like the large list of games they test and the combined results at the end.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Impartial isn't posting AMD-only marketing, like the mantle review Hilbert did. AMD's only using marketing-friendly companies for reviews it seems. We have a larger reach than GuRu3D (according to the public info available by Alexa), so this definitely isn't about AMD getting the widest exposure for their products, it's about getting the reviews they want. Tech Report not getting one is not surprising, since the whole frame pacing stuff, and HardOCP not getting one is weird, since I think HardOCP has always been very AMD-friendly.
> 
> So the idea that sites with anti-AMD bias aren't getting cards seems wrong, to me. There's another reason why only certain sites are getting cards for launch day.
> 
> BTA posting this news item isn't about complaining about it for W1zz... something very weird is going on for sure.


I meant to reply but forgot...  

The Mantle review (if it's the one I'm thinking of) came about after AMDMatt started a thread which was basically a copy of AMD's Marketing Blog on Mantle..  
I told Hilbert who immediately removed it then said he would do his own review, which he did about a week later.  Make of that what u will.........


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

On Mantle, not one reviewer tested that properly, some even went as far as to use the most powerful overclocked CPU they could find and test the least CPU intensive scenario they could and then concluded "Mantle doesn't do anything"

i mean really????????? quite obviously being deliberately dumb for an uneducated reader because they didn't want to upset Intel, Nvidia or Microsoft, or all.....

Mantle doesn't do anything? check this out.....


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

Btw TPU is the only reason I got a 7950, after seeing the overclocking headroom in Wizz's review I could hardly believe it.  After spamming  his results all over the forum  I bought a VaporX a week later and wouldn't shut up about it.  I maybe convinced 5 people to go Tahiti?  

My point is it was only because of Wizzard and TPU that happened, so I find it ironic people would think this site was bias against AMD...  I def don't think so....or Nvidia.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

To be clear i made my feelings about TPU clear on post #143, i have no issue with TPU.

but i do think some in the reviewers world are _partly _responsible for what is about to happen with AMD.

Like many great GPU vendors of the past we will soon be reminiscing about another and what they did for the industry and how much of a loss they are to us all, by then its too late.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> To be clear i made my feelings about TPU clear on post #143, i have no issue with TPU.
> 
> but i do think some in the reviewers world are _partly _responsible for what is about to happen with AMD.
> 
> Like many great GPU vendors of the past we will soon be reminiscing about another and what they did for the industry and how much of a loss they are to us all, by then its too late.



I don't think it's time for that yet. Although I am sure that Apple can switch GPU vendors whenever they want, I believe that the switch to _all AMD GPUs in all their products _wasn't a small decision. I think they've got a bit of fight left in them. All the better for Hackintoshers like me.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> but i do think some in the reviewers world are _partly _responsible for what is about to happen with AMD.


Don't hate the reviewer, hate the product (or lack of product in this case) that warrants poor reviews.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Don't hate the reviewer, hate the product (or lack of product in this case) that warrants poor reviews.



Unquestionably AMD have had problem, made mistakes. deserved to be at the wrong side of a reviewers conclusion.....

Yet Nvidia's problems are far less reported, they have issues with Drivers right now, you would not know it outside of their own forums which has been going crazy about issues these past few months.

Aside from that AMD have put a lot of work and money into a lot of good things, HBM and Mantle to name the most recent, As i have already said Mantle (Now Vulkan) was a pretty big and important thing and yet its reception among almost all reviewers was conspicuously underwhelming or outright dismissive of it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

Straw man argument.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Unquestionably AMD have had problem, made mistakes. deserved to be at the wrong side of a reviewers conclusion.....
> 
> Yet Nvidia's problems are far less reported, they have issues with Drivers right now, you would not know it outside of their own forums which has been going crazy about issues these past few months.
> 
> Aside from that AMD have put a lot of work and money into a lot of good things, HBM and Mantle to name the most recent, As i have already said Mantle (Now Vulkan) was a pretty big and important thing and yet its reception among almost all reviewers was conspicuously underwhelming or outright dismissive of it.


Ehm, the GTX 970 3.5 GiB issue was heavily reported.  The fact Maxwell does async compute synchronously where GCN does async compute asynchronously is also being heavily reported.

Driver issues are nothing new.  They're not unique to NVIDIA nor AMD.  WDDM 2.0 exposed problems neither side was prepared for.  NVIDIA just happened to be less prepared than AMD this time around.

It was hard for reviewers to get excited about Mantle when only a few games support it.  The technology ending up in Direct3D 12 and Vulkan was AMD's doing.  AMD could have milked that cash cow for a while but elected not to.  Personally, I applaud AMD for it but that doesn't help AMD's bottom line.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Straw man argument.



Call it what you will i'm not wrong.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Call it what you will i'm not wrong.


If you're wearing rose-coloured glasses, than sure.

And yes, I know how to spell. Welcome to Canada, Eh?

Go back through the past 5 years of motherboard reviews I've done, and see both AMD and NVidia cards used. I dropped AMD cards from my personal rigs because NVidia didn't have the same driver problems. I've seen far less problems on NVidia than AMD (and yes, I still use a 7970 daily, before you even go there). The 7970 is nothing but problematic, my 780 Ti's work great.



That's the thing, most driver problems are highly dependent on complete system configuration, and installed software. You can't exactly pin every problem in video rendering on the videocard. I still have issues with video rendering on the 7970, the same problems I've had for the past 3-4 years that I've had the card.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> If you're wearing rose-coloured glasses, than sure.




So where am i wrong?


----------



## arbiter (Sep 5, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> Tech Report might of started the frame pacing but Ryan over at PCPerspective took it further collaborating with Nvidia to bring FCAT.  If AMD wanted to avoid anyone it would be PCPerspective I would think but he has one and said he would look at it closely from all sides.


Ryan did share all results of the FCAT with AMD so really they did AMD a favor showing them what issue AMD had with CF setup's. If you remember it was going on for years people complained of issues of micro stutter when using CF.


Cloudfire said:


> This is AMD knowing that the R9 Nano will be measured extremely close to GTX 970 Mini ITX in 1080p and 1440p and they will not be able to defend the BS $650 price point for the card when the GTX 970 Mini ITX cost $300.


Well even a 4k i bet it will be pretty close as well maybe 10%, gotta remember the settings AMD used to claim the 30% are settings that are shader based settings. They used same settings to compare a 980ti vs fury X when they claimed 20%


Cloudfire said:


> What should have been:
> Fury X: $550
> Fury: $450
> R9 Nano: $400
> imo


Well Rumored price was starting at 850$. Problem is 2 weeks before hand Nvidia dropped the 980ti on the market for 650$ and that forced AMD to price match. In likely hood AMD is barely even making a profit or even breaking even.


abundantcores said:


> AMD are often expected to be much cheaper than Nvidia by reviewers, regardless of performance, they are often treated as the punch-bag among reviewers,


Well if you look at AMD's offerings and claims last few years, well they have claimed more then they end up giving end user. Most recent one is Fury X claimed 20% faster then 980ti but turned in to being 5-10% slower.


abundantcores said:


> On Mantle, not one reviewer tested that properly, some even went as far as to use the most powerful overclocked CPU they could find and test the least CPU intensive scenario they could and then concluded "Mantle doesn't do anything"
> i mean really????????? quite obviously being deliberately dumb for an uneducated reader because they didn't want to upset Intel, Nvidia or Microsoft, or all.....
> Mantle doesn't do anything? check this out.....


I think that shows More and Ashes game how BAD AMD's drivers are for DX11. Reason they use super powerful cpu is to eliminate any bottle next of the cpu from the review.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> So where am i wrong?


AMD problems are reported more often because they are more prevalent, and driver releases are less often. Used to be the other way around. That has NOTHING to do with reviewers.



arbiter said:


> Ryan did share all results of the FCAT with AMD so really they did AMD a favor showing them what issue AMD had with CF setup's. If you remember it was going on for years people complained of issues of micro stutter when using CF.



I was probably the first to complain about it, too.  I can find the posts if I look a little.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> AMD problems are reported more often because they are more prevalent, and driver releases are less often. Used to be the other way around. That has NOTHING to do with reviewers.


Pretty much any time AMD's PR opens their mouth there is a problem.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Pretty much any time AMD's PR opens their mouth there is a problem.


Yes and no. AMD's PR is actually doing a really good job in the grand scheme of things, currently, in my opinion. Yes, they have some problems, but every single one of those problems is very obvious. AMD has a huge social media presence, and that's a good thing.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Ryan did share all results of the FCAT with AMD so really they did AMD a favor showing them what issue AMD had with CF setup's. If you remember it was going on for years people complained of issues of micro stutter when using CF.
> 
> Well even a 4k i bet it will be pretty close as well maybe 10%, gotta remember the settings AMD used to claim the 30% are settings that are shader based settings. They used same settings to compare a 980ti vs fury X when they claimed 20%
> 
> ...



AMD DX11 drivers are not as good as Nvidia but having both i know Mantle destroys Nvidia DX11 performance.
Ashes has nothing to do with Mantle, what it does show is problems Nvidia have with DX12 and the fact that despite all the noise about having better DX12 support than AMD they don't have Hardware ASync while AMD do. and that actually matters.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> and that actually matters.


If game devs actually use that feature


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> If game devs actually use that feature



Its a good point and there is no way of telling if they will.
One argument is: given AMD own all the consoles which all have their GCN ASync hardware devs will use it.
Another argument is given that AMD only have a 20% PC market share (and falling) with Nvidia owning 80% devs are not going to bother.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> AMD DX11 drivers are not as good as Nvidia but having both i know Mantle destroys Nvidia DX11 performance.
> Ashes has nothing to do with Mantle, what it does show is problems Nvidia have with DX12 and the fact that despite all the noise about having better DX12 support than AMD they don't have Hardware ASync while AMD do. and that actually matters.


Funny you say it destroy's DX11 in performance but yet no one ever noticed that in reviews. The performance AMD claimed mantle gave them in theif for example using a 290x. My lowly gtx780 at the time was only 2-3fps slower. Mantle never really destroyed DX11, it only looked that way cause AMD's DX11 drivers were so bad.


abundantcores said:


> One argument is: given AMD own all the consoles which all have their GCN ASync hardware devs will use it.
> Another argument is given that AMD only have a 20% PC market share (and falling) with Nvidia owning 80% devs are not going to bother.


Another arguement would be cause console hardware is pretty weak compared to most desktops that is why they would use it on a console but cause desktop hardware is so powerful they could turn it off if it makes debugging easier.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Another argument is given that AMD only have a 20% PC market share (and falling) with Nvidia owning 80% devs are not going to bother.


That and Nvidia will push DX12 gameworks on developers saving devs time and money and further screwing AMD


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Yeah, ^^^^ probably. great for us all that....



arbiter said:


> Funny you say it destroy's DX11 in performance but yet no one ever noticed that in reviews.



The answer to that is simple, an overclocked i7 powering a throttling reference 290 on game test that puts no strain what-so-ever on the CPU isn't going to make a blind bit of difference DX11 to Mantle.

This however, does. 








Anyone who has even the faintest idea what Mantle is and does would not test it in the way 90% of reviewers did, the conclusion they came to was utterly inevitable with their testing methodology.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

hurr hurr.


abundantcores said:


> Yeah, ^^^^ probably. great for us all that....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All of which has nothing to do with why TPU isn't going to have a nano review on launch day.

More straw man stuff. Nobody is going to fall for your misdirection.

Also, reviewer's won't kill AMD, their lies in PR and product availability will. I used to get AMD samples direct from AMD, they fired the staff that I dealt with, then never contacted me again, and getting in touch with the right people is damn near impossible.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Yeah, ^^^^ probably. great for us all that....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Problem with your video, there is 0 credibility behind it. so DX11 seems to run slow on 8350 and 290. problem is hundreds of reviews debunk that mantle is that much faster. if DX11 is that slow then something wrong with machine its on, but then again you are talking about an AMD cpu, AMD gpu, AMD sponsored game, so maybe AMD didn't even bother to spend any time with DX11 drivers for it?


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Mantle smashes Nvidias DX11 performance on the same rig on the same run ^^^^ nothing but the GPU is different. R9 290 to GTX 970.



cadaveca said:


> hurr hurr.
> 
> All of which has nothing to do with why TPU isn't going to have a nano review on launch day.



It kinda does, which is really why i'm at this, for a start AMD are broke, they are also paranoid, they have been unfairly treated by many reviewers and they cannot afford any more of it, its pushing them out of existence, they just don't know who to trust, they are in a state of panic.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Problem with your video, there is 0 credibility behind it. so DX11 seems to run slow on 8350 and 290. problem is hundreds of reviews debunk that mantle is that much faster. if DX11 is that slow then something wrong with machine its on, but then again you are talking about an AMD cpu, AMD gpu, AMD sponsored game, so maybe AMD didn't even bother to spend any time with DX11 drivers for it?


He's trying to say that Mantle only works in CPU-limited situations, like, when using a slow dualcore, or perhaps on a laptop. 8350 perforamcne can't be fixed due to cache problems in the chip.



abundantcores said:


> It kinda does, which is really why i'm at this, for a start AMD are broke, they are also paranoid, they have been unfairly treated by many reviewers and they cannot afford any more of it, its pushing them out of existence, they just don't know who to trust, they are in a state of panic.



AMD used to send me CPU samples...

Then they fired my contact, and getting a new one is nigh on impossible. See no AMD board reviews? Ever wonder why? It's because I won't buy chips to review them, and I shouldn't have to go to board makers to get one. AMD can afford the $25 to send me a CPU to have their boards covered here, but they won't. That's all it would cost them.. $25.

AMD pays a dude to sit on twitch and stream, and you claim they are broke? lol. They simply spend their marketing dollar the wrong way.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> He's trying to say that Mantle only works in CPU-limited situations, like, when using a slow dualcore, or perhaps on a laptop. 8350 perforamcne can't be fixed due to cache problems in the chip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Claim? they are broke, unless you have been under a rock for the last two years you should know that, they are loosing hundreds of millions a year and the coffers are now dry, they have had it.

Anyway. i need to get to bed.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Claim? they are broke, unless you have been under a rock for the last two years you should know that, they are loosing hundreds of millions a year and the coffers are now dry, they have had it.


That doesn't matter. They hold intellectual property that will keep them afloat. They've actually been doing good the past few years in my books, but a certain CEO decided to not focus on mobile products (for which he got fired), and that has left them in the state they are in now.

Not reviewers. It's their CEOs, and their marketing.

Nice try though. Still doesn't explain why they decided to not send me chips, and thereby minimizing their exposure...

AMD CPU reivews here on TPU, done by me:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Preview/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/A10-6800K/

If I wanted to take your way of saying things... oh look at the date since I've done a review... oh, look, that time period matches when you say they have been having issues... maybe they should have kept ME happy? Maybe their lack of sending me samples fucked them over, and now they are paying the price?

NOw here again we have an issue of not sending samples... whose fault is that?

A..M...fukin..D.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> That doesn't matter. They hold intellectual property that will keep them afloat. They've actually been doing good the past few years in my books, but a certain CEO decided to not focus on mobile products (for which he got fired), and that has left them in the state they are in now.
> 
> Not reviewers. It's their CEOs, and their marketing.
> 
> ...



They stopped sending you samples because there was no change in performance except increased power consumption.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> They stopped sending you samples because there was no change in performance except increased power consumption.


LuLz. really though, it was because they fired my contact, and none of the new staff would give me the time of day.


BE that as it may, abundantcores has been trying to say that AMD isn't sending samples out because reviewers fucked them over, so much so that they are now bleeding millions. Reviewers made them fail.

I think not.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Nice try though. Still doesn't explain why they decided to not send me chips, and thereby minimizing their exposure...


They send you a chip and they get a review.
They don't send you a chip and they hope you go out and buy one - and they get a review. They're hoping for the sale *and* the review....probably the same strategy they're hoping for with Nah,No! 


cadaveca said:


> BE that as it may, abundantcores has been trying to say that AMD isn't sending samples out because reviewers fucked them over, so much so that they are now bleeding millions. Reviewers made them fail.


It couldn't have anything to do with AMD having to service a $2bn debt that AMD's own BoD, including Hector Ruiz, managed to saddle the company with? The same debt servicing that's crushing the life out of their R&D budget? 
It's a pity AMD's board seem less interested in the company than the people who rally behind it - still, there isn't much incentive to succeed I suppose, Lisa will pick up her $11.5 million compensation either way - and with a raft of built-in excuses and apologists, they always have mitigating circumstances : Nvidia, Intel, reviewers, Microsoft, GlobalFoundries, TSMC, game developers, the buying public...basically anyone except the people who saddled them with a debt burden that is grinding the company down to dust.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 5, 2015)

We've moved on from one form of stupidity, to a conversation I think is worth having.

May I pose the question as such.  Is AMD trying to market their brand in an entirely new way, or better yet are they competently marketing the brand?



I'd like to offer the following.  I occasionally (upon release of new product lines) get e-mails from Nvidia about their latest and greatest cards.  I never seemed to get those e-mails from AMD, until the 3xx series cards had a date.  In the last three months I've been inundated with requests to follow AMD on Twitch, where they'd be giving away a brand new card after you were forced to watch somebody stream with it.  

AMD has limited the amount of people who were offered Fury and Nano samples.  You can argue this as AMD being paranoid, but it seems to be a stupid point.  Nvidia have said that they won't release an HBM1 powered card, because of a severe limitation on the available stock and the memory limits.  This is the company that proudly released a nearly 1600 USD card, that could be outperformed by an SLI setup with cards that were 1/2 the price and less.  If you're willing to place that kind of albatross around your neck, yet still pass on HBM1, what does that say about the maturity and availability of HBM1?

Is AMD pricing themselves out of the game?  It seems that way, but only because of incompetence of message.  Nvidia can put the 970 (340ish USD), 980 (520ish USD), and Titan Z (1600ish USD) into a generation and "win."  AMD on the other hand offers the 380 (200ish USD), 390 (320ish USD), and the Fury (650ish USD).  Rather than focus on the high resolution benefits of the current product stack, or perhaps working with a B or C level studio to get a competent DX12 coded game onto the market to demonstrate their technological prowess, AMD are demonstrating the fact that they offer an excellent price to performance ratio (even if the performance per watt is not great).  While that does get you something, the reality is that it doesn't translate to sales if you aren't marketing yourself as a value brand.  AMD is still trying to be the king of performance, when they could do so much better this generation by selling themselves as the king of value, which will be reaped in the next several years as DX12 actually gains traction.

Is AMD actually focused on the high-end market?  I have to ask the question, because it seems like everybody fails to do so.  Nvidia has released a high end card with each of the last few generations, which does nothing for most people.  Realistically, gaming on a console isn't as great, but when I could have two consoles for less than your single GPU, the cost to performance is pretty screwy.  Likewise, the Nano demonstrates a rather unique focus on GPU size, not on massively increased performance.   If, as was posed by the OP, Nano was stretched to Fury size and the pricing was reduced what would be on offer?  A card that performs very well of the price per watt metric, demonstrates a new memory technology, and might well compete with the 980ti favorably on overclocking performance.  Instead, what we receive is a lackluster Fury and a massively priced Nano.  It really seems like AMD targeted two traditional market segments, fired everything, and forgot that there might be someone in-between.  


In short, I think AMD marketing needs to be fundamentally reworked.  There's such a fundamental disconnect between what they are selling, and how they are selling it, that I can't understand how their PR doesn't go home each evening and drink themselves to sleep.  Social media pressure is great for low cost items.  Traditional reviews are great for higher cost items (this is why Consumer Report and Car & Driver still exist).  There's a fundamental stupidity demonstrated in trying to sell one with another though.  You won't see Consumer Report passing judgement on deodorant, yet Old Spice has a better marketing engine through viral videos than the objective quality of their product.  AMD is trying to be both a modern PR machine, and sell an expensive product.  That kind of disconnect is hurting their bottom line more than objective silence on products ever could.  Either support your expensive product with traditional reviews, or sell your cheap product with social media campaigns.  What you are doing now is just painful to watch.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

james888 said:


> @btarunr , will TPU do a review after release?



I'm not sure. Getting a sample after NDA isn't difficult. But it has to be worth the effort.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 5, 2015)

NC37 said:


> Because many TPU reviews are far too nice. Ratings over 8 or 9 for so-so products. I've looked at them and seen many noting some glaring issues with a product, then that product getting a TPU recommendation/etc. It's like...seriously TPU? You state it has some major issues then you highly recommend it? I thought they might be getting some pay for good reviews but I've just seen it too many times that it is clear some of the people are just too lenient here.
> 
> The content of the reviews are good, but the TPU rating system and such is often crap. If a product has a major issue, it should reflect greatly in the score and also not garner a recommendation.



Well, the fact that ASUS Strix (and MSI Gaming) cards are so freaking massive that they won't fit into all cases is a prety big problem and yet they didn't deduct score because of it. Why? Because this is so freaking good card regardless of that. I mean they managed to make R9-390X a passive graphic card in idle and harsly audible in load. Same for GTX 980. Granted, I had to buy a new case because of it (coming from a miniATX case), but I still think it was worth it. Some would disagree however since buying a new case for graphic card isn't exactly something people often have in mind.

Dunno, you have to understand what you read and apply it to your specific scenario to get a context. Otherwise score will be meaningless for you like you said.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> AMD DX11 drivers are not as good as Nvidia but having both i know Mantle destroys Nvidia DX11 performance.
> Ashes has nothing to do with Mantle, what it does show is problems Nvidia have with DX12 and the fact that despite all the noise about having better DX12 support than AMD they don't have Hardware ASync while AMD do. and that actually matters.


You sir, are an expert at strawman babblespeak. 

Translation:

*AMD DX11 drivers are not as good as Nvidia*
No shit.


*but having both i know Mantle destroys Nvidia DX11 performance.*
A 290X gets more fps in BF4 than a  GTX970.  All other things being equal. 

*
Ashes has nothing to do with Mantle,*
Ashes supports Mantle, now called DX12.




*what it does show is problems Nvidia have with DX12 *
Neither AMD or Nvidia fully support DX12, any feature supported will be GPU dependent. 





*despite all the noise about having better DX12 support than AMD they don't have Hardware ASync while AMD do. and that actually matters*
When Hallock & Co claimed DX12 support, they lied.  But all that doesn't matter now.....


----------



## qubit (Sep 5, 2015)

@btarunr Looks like AMD are in a death spiral to bankruptcy or being bought out. I'll bet this thing massively underperforms so they're afraid to let reviewers get their hands on it as they know they'll get a beating.

They've been overpromising and underdelivering for years now so I wouldn't expect this product to be any different.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

qubit said:


> @btarunr Looks like AMD are in a death spiral to bankruptcy or being bought out. I'll bet this thing massively underperforms so they're afraid to let reviewers get their hands on it as they know they'll get a beating.
> 
> They've been overpromising and underdelivering for years now so I wouldn't expect this product to be any different.


That's the thing... who cares if it "underperforms"? Given that it takes a fully enabled core and smashes into a tiny space, some concessions must be given, and price is not one of them. It will be interesting to see if heat is the only factor that holds it back, or if it is limited by power consumption. Either way, since it does fit a lot of power in a tiny space, a price premium makes sense. There's really nothing for AMD to fear here.

It's just a shortage of cards, and a paper launch, just like the Fury and FuryX. No big deal. It only makes sense that it's be a bit lower than the Fury at least... and optimized for 4k (hence the added shaders). If it ends up being more than that, AMD has a clear-cut winner that NVidia cannot answer. If not, it will still be a good card.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 5, 2015)

If you'll be able to buy it. If they can't supply few ten samples to reviewers, how will they to thousands of buyers!?


----------



## qubit (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> That's the thing... who cares if it "underperforms"? Given that it takes a fully enabled core and smashes into a tiny space, some concessions must be given, and price is not one of them. It will be interesting to see if heat is the only factor that holds it back, or if it is limited by power consumption. Either way, since it does fit a lot of power in a tiny space, a price premium makes sense. There's really nothing for AMD to fear here.
> 
> It's just a shortage of cards, and a paper launch, just like the Fury and FuryX. No big deal. It only makes sense that it's be a bit lower than the Fury at least... and optimized for 4k (hence the added shaders). If it ends up being more than that, AMD has a clear-cut winner that NVidia cannot answer. If not, it will still be a good card.


Ok cad, that sounds plausible and I sincerely hope you're right. Still, for bta to put out an official announcement like this doesn't bode well and we've seen many paper launches in the past, but reviewers still got cards. Dunno, gotta wait and see.


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Why not TPU? How about our lack of a social media presence, and lack of youtube presence? That's enough reason...


There was also an editorial that every tech site on the planet copied and pasted as news. That editorial was talking about a company and it's inability to publish a WHQL driver for 6 months. All that buzz started from here. From that editorial. I am not kidding. Everybody copied THAT editorial.
Just a thought.

Ah! yes, there was also that other editorial with the not so kind tittle about a company not trusting it's own CPUs, but choosing CPUs from the competition for it's little Quantum project.
Just another thought.

But I don't think that AMD's practices will help. They only guaranty more editorials in the future.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

I was wondering... did that Sony dude got silenced by the moderators or he just had enough that right-thinking forumers is considered too much to handle, with his knowledge he has lost the battle...?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I was wondering... did that Sony dude got silenced by the moderators or he just had enough that right-thinking forumers is considered too much to handle, with his knowledge he has lost the battle...?



Because their posts insult nobody else but themselves.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

@btarunr right... didn't like him from the start since all he blabbers is AMD AMD AMD... like a typical simpleton... bet his electricity bills goes double of mine on a yearly basis with that "massive heater" he has in his room/house...


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 5, 2015)

In terms of video cards reviews Tech Report and TechPowerUp are both tied at the top because they really complement each other.

While TR focuses only on a few games, they go thorough with it with the frame latencies/times and what-have-you.

For TPU, it's the sheer amount of video cards benchmarked at the same time, AND the number of benchmarks as well. Then there are the power consumption and noise values too.

So together, you can say you have a "complete picture".


Both are also bashed for being "pro-Nvidia" even after bta said that the Titan-Z isn't worth it at all, while Damage over at Tech Report aren't amused with Nvidia over G-Sync...lol


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Sep 5, 2015)

What a shame... TPU has some of the finest unbiased GPU reviews... In the mean time guru3d is getting a Nano.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

Titan Z was an exception because of it's price tag, in which it didn't get much sales despite being a completely new beast that has 2 full-blown chip sandwiched together on the same PCB, super-massive VRAM & a really broad pipeline (bus interface). AMD's case however was the unwanted price tag ($650) for something that's not as fast as the GTX980 & uses a very new tech on uncharted waters, aptly named "HBM". Sad to say however, that new tech isn't as fast compared to the current tech, GDDR5 chips.

G3D's testing methods aren't as good as TPU's IMO.... so no surprise to see AMD or anyone owning it sends them for testing. All I know is that the bench won't be realistic (or unbiased) like TPU & all the fanboys who are in a cringe will rejoice coz the Green Team's base 980 or ITX 970 got it's arse kicked in a botched benchmark where the settings used aren't as uniform as TPU's.


----------



## ypsylon (Sep 5, 2015)

At reported 650$ price tag it's so mad that only completely mental AMD fans will get it. I was interested in getting this, but simply NO. AMD behaves like many game developers. Gives us money first for pre-orders and subscriptions and we will perhaps give you software in semi-working order. After release you can kiss our corporate back side. 

Prefer half the price Maxwell and with Pascal round the corner Nano can be swan song from AMD, because Pascal really appears to be beast of the architecture from few leaks/presentations released so far.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 5, 2015)

This sounds just like how amped dealt with me... not enough to give me, one of thier biggest and comprehensive testers, review units after the whole rta15 fiasco (even for just a couple weeks), yet give out to soccer mom type "reviewers" that don't even bench them, and then when someone does, in fact bench them they are nothing special and in fact, have WORSE range then thier competition... I guess amped hired some amd people to manage thier company since this seems so the same in every way, shape and form and I track both companies religiously, as I am an IT consultant.


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Sad to say however, that new tech isn't as fast compared to the current tech, GDDR5 chips.


 It's faster. But memory bandwidth is not everything. You need a powerful GPU and perfectly optimized drivers to take advantage of the extra bandwidth.



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> G3D's testing methods aren't as good as TPU's IMO.... so no surprise to see AMD or anyone owning it sends them for testing. All I know is that the bench won't be realistic (or unbiased) like TPU & all the fanboys who are in a cringe will rejoice coz the Green Team's base 980 or ITX 970 got it's arse kicked in a botched benchmark where the settings used aren't as uniform as TPU's.


I think Guru3D got that card because of Afterburner software. They probably have strong contacts in the industry that will guaranty them to have an advantage over other sites. That being said, most people post benchmarks from TPU and Anandtech, rather than Guru3D.



ypsylon said:


> At reported 650$ price tag it's so mad that only completely mental AMD fans will get it. I was interested in getting this, but simply NO. AMD behaves like many game developers. Gives us money first for pre-orders and subscriptions and we will perhaps give you software in semi-working order. After release you can kiss our corporate back side.
> 
> Prefer half the price Maxwell and with Pascal round the corner Nano can be swan song from AMD, because Pascal really appears to be beast of the architecture from few leaks/presentations released so far.


Nano is like Titan X. If there are people spending $350 extra on a Titan X for those 12GBs of memory and the - how much? 10%? - extra performance, then there will be probably enough out there to spend $300 more for that 10-20-30% extra that Nano offers over GTX 970 ITX cards. Of course Nvidia only have to come out with a GTX 980 ITX.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> I think Guru3D got that card because of Afterburner software. They probably have strong contacts in the industry that will guaranty them to have an advantage over other sites. That being said, most people post benchmarks from TPU and Anandtech, rather than Guru3D.



W1zzard's OCTool SDK powers several AIB OC software too, including Sapphire's (much bigger Radeon volume than MSI).


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> W1zzard's OCTool SDK powers several AIB OC software too, including Sapphire's (much bigger Radeon volume than MSI).



I hope you guys will use the occasion to pay more attention on the drawbacks in GPU-Z too.

It was recently when I kindly ask to turn some work on improving the design of this application:



Sony Xperia S said:


> *It will be nice when added Boost frequency field instead of the blank faded Shader field for AMD cards.
> AMD cards come with Boost frequencies as well.
> 
> Also, it would be nice if you change somehow the Computing part - probably it would be better if you fade the CUDA and PhysX for AMD cards, and rearrange the order with putting the features present on ALL cards first (i.e first DirectCompute, then OpenCL and OpenGL, and then all the others like Mantle, Vulkan, TressFX, PhysX, CUDA).*
> ...



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gpu-z-feature-request.212644/


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> W1zzard's OCTool SDK powers several AIB OC software too, including Sapphire's (much bigger Radeon volume than MSI).


Thanks, didn't knew that. Then I can see one more reason for W1zzard to get a card in advance, for testing purposes at least if not benchmarking.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

today the Postman delivered My Nano for me to review !!!!   then i woke UP with an errection and realised it was just a wet Dream


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I hope you guys will use the occasion to pay more attention on the drawbacks in GPU-Z too.
> 
> It was recently when I kindly ask to turn some work on improving the design of this application:
> 
> ...



There's a forum dedicated to GPU-Z feedback. Post it there.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I hope you guys will use the occasion to pay more attention on the drawbacks in GPU-Z too.
> 
> It was recently when I kindly ask to turn some work on improving the design of this application:
> 
> ...


You make the assumption that because he has not stopped the hundreds of things he is doing to attend to your personal request that he 1.  Is not going to at least look at the feasibility and value of the suggestion  2. Is it is even possible.  All I am saying here is sometimes things like this go into a "to do list" usually that list is dictated by priorities, if the list has several hundred things on it then it may not happen for some time, damn I suggested to my work in 2012 a simplified system for some of the data capture and management of information we use on a daily basis, they introduced it last week!  Then again of course it may not ever happen, it's not often you find anything totally free being used by millions of people changed because just one or two think it should be, I suppose I would have to ask myself why it appears to matter so much to you when it does not to me?  At a guess I would think that I have probably owned far more AMD graphics card than many.


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 5, 2015)

First [H]ardOCP, now TPU... at this point I'm wondering if ANY review sites will be getting Nanos. I can only see one of three reasons for this, from least to most likely:


AMD is so badly in the poop, finances-wise, that they can no longer afford to send free samples to reviewers.

AMD has gone full retard and decided to shoot themselves in the foot, with a bazooka, by only sampling cards to sites that they believe will give positive reviews.
Fiji yields are far, _far_ worse than anyone has anticipated. Fewer Fijis = much fewer low-voltage Fijis suitable for Nano = massive supply problems.
Nano doesn't perform anywhere near as well as AMD has claimed.

Any which way you look at it though, this is a massive issue for AMD, and the root problem is that they just aren't honest with the press and their customers. Every time they delay a launch or release a product that doesn't perform as claimed, they lose more and more trust. Soon they won't have any left, and that will be the end.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 5, 2015)

so they'd rather save a few thousand bucks than possibly be out hundreds of thousands, if not, millions from unconfident customers not purchasing said products at all?


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Sep 5, 2015)

Something's fucky.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> more and more trust. Soon they won't have any left, and that will be the end.



Yes, and you will live happily thereafter with skyrocketing nviudia prices and progress only in your wet dreams. :LOL:

BTW, fyi, the German site PC Games Hardware will get a Nano sample. And people claim that it is one of the best, objective sites.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> BTW, fyi, the German site PC Games Hardware will get a Nano sample. And people claim that it is one of the best, objective sites.



Are You Getting A Nano Sample So you can Test it and Give an Honest UNBIASED REVIEW

yeh again i'm Taking the piss


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

Eh someone deleted my beautiful artwork... where should I post the pics?


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Yes, and you will live happily thereafter with skyrocketing nviudia prices and progress only in your wet dreams. :LOL:


Do all you know is how to personally attack people? I'm personally getting really tired of the bullshit your posting. You really do seem to be a special brand of moron. I'm surprised you haven't been given an involuntary vacation because I think you need another one...


Sony Xperia S said:


> BTW, fyi, the German site PC Games Hardware will get a Nano sample. And people claim that it is one of the best, objective sites.


I'm sure that's why we've all heard of them and why they're always referenced for reviews...


dorsetknob said:


> Are You Getting A Nano Sample So you can Test it and Give an Honest UNBIASED REVIEW


Unbiased? Sony? That's a joke, right?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Eh someone deleted my beautiful artwork... where should I post the pics?



May i say Sarcastically and in the best possible taste with no offense intended in general Nonsense thread


----------



## Recus (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Yes, and you will live happily thereafter with skyrocketing nviudia prices and progress only in your wet dreams. :LOL:
> 
> BTW, fyi, the German site PC Games Hardware will get a Nano sample. And people claim that it is one of the best, objective sites.



Why? You saint you want monopoly.

AMD fanboys are more extremist. They always bashing Nvidia for problems but in AMD case they trying to spin it in good light.



Sony Xperia S said:


> Why am I not surprised at all by this too ?
> 
> Nvidia is so dirty like pigs in the mud.
> 
> ...


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> That's the thing... who cares if it "underperforms"? Given that it takes a fully enabled core and smashes into a tiny space, some concessions must be given, and price is not one of them. It will be interesting to see if heat is the only factor that holds it back, or if it is limited by power consumption. Either way, since it does fit a lot of power in a tiny space, a price premium makes sense. There's really nothing for AMD to fear here.
> 
> It's just a shortage of cards, and a paper launch, just like the Fury and FuryX. No big deal. It only makes sense that it's be a bit lower than the Fury at least... and optimized for 4k (hence the added shaders). If it ends up being more than that, AMD has a clear-cut winner that NVidia cannot answer. If not, it will still be a good card.


dave, you can stop lobbying for one already.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

Recus said:


> Why? You saint you want monopoly.
> 
> AMD fanboys are more extremist. They always bashing Nvidia for problems but in AMD case they trying to spin it in good light.


It's just an example of how screwed up Sony is. Don't try to make sense of it, you'll just damage your brain.


----------



## Recus (Sep 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> It's just an example of how screwed up Sony is. Don't try to make sense of it, you'll just damage your brain.



Thanks, I won't buy PS4.


----------



## 64K (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I hope you guys will use the occasion to pay more attention on the drawbacks in GPU-Z too.
> 
> It was recently when I kindly ask to turn some work on improving the design of this application:
> 
> ...



So to recap. You made a request to make some changes to GPU-Z (which you didn't pay a penny for to begin with and don't have to use) two months ago and because what you want hasn't happened then that is proof that W1zzard is biased against AMD and therefore you are going to spam the news forum endlessly with nonsense to aggravate people until you get your way.

Another thought for you. If your intent is to promote AMD then try to conduct yourself a little better if you want people to listen to you at all and buy AMD.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> May i say Sarcastically and in the best possible taste with no offense intended in general Nonsense thread


Heh that made me laugh.  

I need to post them somewhere tho, as I'm half serious..


----------



## Enterprise24 (Sep 5, 2015)

AMD don't send sample to TPU simply because they know performance summary , performance per dollar , noise , overclocking , Temperature , Value and conclusion and probably negative feedback like throttle all of this will SUCK so hard LMAO


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 5, 2015)

It would be @W1zzard's greatest achievement if this had been an April fools!

Sadly it's not.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 5, 2015)

Well, full Fiji has a clock of 1050MHz and needs a big ass cooler in order to stay nicely cool. Nano is supposedly clocked at 1000MHz. Anyone who has ever overclocked a graphic card, do the math. There is no way just a 50MHz drop in clock will offset ENTIRE thermal output of a full Fiji core. It just doesn't compute on ANY level. Not with such tiny cooler that's not running at 20.000 RPM and 150 dB...


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> It's faster. But memory bandwidth is not everything. You need a powerful GPU and perfectly optimized drivers to take advantage of the extra bandwidth.
> 
> 
> I think Guru3D got that card because of Afterburner software. They probably have strong contacts in the industry that will guaranty them to have an advantage over other sites. That being said, most people post benchmarks from TPU and Anandtech, rather than Guru3D.


How does AB have anything to do with Hilbert getting an AMD review sample? AB is developed for MSI.   What advantage would he have...overcloking?


Btw on a side note that reminds me...not badmouthing, but I found out H outsources some of his reviews. (not the right word)  
A couple of motherboard tests which I read had dubious overclocking results.....when I asked who tested it he said the review was sent in.. lol I imagine he does the GPU tests tho. 


I stopped visiting AT when Tom's bought the site.


----------



## Basard (Sep 5, 2015)

Well, I made it to page five.....  The new guy "Cloudfire" pretty much summed it up on page four.

There are a little over 650 good reasons they aren't giving this site a card.  It will definitely be on the BOTTOM of the performance/dollar chart.

It's sad.  I've been humping AMD's leg for almost 20 years now.  I mean, honestly, SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS?


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> How does AB have anything to do with Hilbert getting an AMD review sample? AB is developed for MSI. What advantage would he have...overcloking?


If I am making the software for a major company and also I have a top tech site which gets a lot of traffic daily, especially traffic from people who are definitely interested for the products that that company produces, I might get some love from that company, like a Nano in a box. But based on btarunr's reply, that should have been the case also with W1zzard.



Aquinus said:


> I'm sure that's why we've all heard of them and why they're always referenced for reviews...


Because all the planet speaks German, at least as a second language? And yes, they do have an excellent reputation.

BTW, your post is wonderful. First you accuse the others of attacking and saying that you are tired of that. Then you make two comments full of irony in that same post.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> If I am making the software for a major company and also I have a top tech site whitch gets a lot of traffic daily, especially traffic from people who are definitely interested for the products that that company produces, I might get some love from that company, like a Nano in a box. But based on btarunr's reply, that should have been the case also with W1zzard.


Hilbert doesn't develop AB, a guy from Russia does.   It's his own Source Code and is built from RivaTuner.  Wizzard knows him, also helped him out at times.


----------



## Basard (Sep 5, 2015)

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!! I just figured it all out!

Start including a "performance/cm2" chart!


----------



## Frick (Sep 5, 2015)

Basard said:


> WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!! I just figured it all out!
> 
> Start including a "performance/cm2" chart!



That's actually not a bad idea, considering how small things are these days.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 5, 2015)

Recus said:


> Thanks, I won't buy PS4.




why would you when most of us on this site are pcmasterrace


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> why would you when most of us on this site are pcmasterrace


You sir, have been successfully trolled. I think you missed the reference to our resident extremist AMD fanboy.


john_ said:


> BTW, your post is wonderful. First you accuse the others of attacking and saying that you are tired of that. Then you make two comments full of irony in that same post.


I asked if all he knew was to personally insult people. Second sentence said I'm sick of the *bullshit* not the personal attacks. I'm tired of Sony running his f*****g mouth, that's all.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

@Sony Xperia S  reason I choose Nvidia is not because I have the spending power, but it's the power efficiency that attracts me the most. Surely you can buy more AMD cards for less but in the long run you're at a loss by paying more for utility fees & making your room much warmer & your casing needs to have some sort of ram intake to keep things cool whether you're gaming or editing videos. With Nvidia in all my rigs, the biggest differences are:
a.) It runs much more cooler than most AMD chips & it's older brother; Fermi across ALL levels of loads
b.) Despite costing slightly more than a mid-range AMD card, it's a whole lot faster & doesn't hurt your utility bills on a yearly basis
c.) it's a real world performer than a vendor that relies heavily on paper benches where testing methods are irrelevant
d.) All Nvidia cards that has a Boost profile that hardly reach it's thermal ceiling of 82C & runs on stable, consistent boosted clocks well below the limit unlike AMD where it needs to throttle down a lot to prevent overheating.
e.) *not showing off* My main rig hardly eats 350W, 2nd one is barely 270W & NAS Box that can play MOBA games hardly eat 150W off the walls. On idle? all barely use 30W off the wall. Wattage is measured by whole system, not the card.

So tell me am I a blind supporter of the Green Camp since Day 1 OR you're just plain jelly that those who knows what's a good card & spend their money on them is pissing you off. Perhaps the whole Intel x NVIDIA setup rigs is making you cringe, whether it's single GPU or those high end SLI ones complete with custom watercooling kit from brands like EKWB built by renowned companies like Cyberpower PC, ORIGIN PC & Scan Computers?


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Sep 5, 2015)

Frick said:


> That's actually not a bad idea, considering how small things are these days.


Reviewers on TPU put "not shiny enough" in Cons when reviewing drives, ram, cooling etc. I'd rather they focused on important technical aspects rather than all that pointless shite.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Reviewers on TPU put "not shiny enough" in Cons when reviewing drives, ram, cooling etc. I'd rather they focused on important technical aspects rather than all that pointless shite.


Oh, I really like when W1zz puts "No VGA output" as a conn on high end GPU reviews.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You sir, have been successfully trolled. I think you missed the reference to our resident extremist AMD fanboy.
> 
> I asked if all he knew was to personally insult people. Second sentence said I'm sick of the *bullshit* not the personal attacks. I'm tired of Sony running his f*****g mouth, that's all.


maam ha ha I'mm a lady cat  

and hahahaha I just noticed sorry


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> maam ha ha I'mm a lady cat
> 
> and hahahaha I just noticed sorry


Sir is a generic pronoun for me, I don't tend to attach it to a gender. I guess I really should be saying ma'am though.  A lot of women I know *hate* being called ma'am though.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

@Aquinus it makes them feel rather... old. Not sure why xD


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> That doesn't matter. They hold intellectual property that will keep them afloat. They've actually been doing good the past few years in my books, but a certain CEO decided to not focus on mobile products (for which he got fired), and that has left them in the state they are in now.
> 
> Not reviewers. It's their CEOs, and their marketing.
> 
> ...




All good reviews....... and i will repeat:



abundantcores said:


> I think TPU are one of the better reviewers, i don't think they are unfair to AMD and they tend to stay out of all the mud slinging on both sides, i also like the large list of games they test and the combined results at the end.



Maybe they haven't sent you anything new because they don't actually have anything new to send you? having said that maybe you need to change that attitude apparent in the last few sentences if you want them to send you Zen next year?

What do you mean by "They hold intellectual property that will keep them afloat" ? that isn't stopping them from losing vast amounts of money, money they no longer have to lose as its all gone.

So what are you suggesting? that they sell their IP? Wouldn't you agree that for AMD to start selling IP is the same as them going out of existence? whose going to buy CPU and GPU technologies? Intel and Nvidia, with that AMD's existence would be totally at the mercy of Intel and Nvidia, and what then when the money from those sales runs out and Intel, Nvidia own everything while AMD have nothing?

You think their IP will save them?

You know what. if it comes to that i would rather AMD gave it away to some one like Samsung and close up shop.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> We've moved on from one form of stupidity, to a conversation I think is worth having.
> 
> May I pose the question as such.  Is AMD trying to market their brand in an entirely new way, or better yet are they competently marketing the brand?
> 
> ...



For AMD to make better products to better compete with Intel and Nvidia they need R&D for development.

They don't have any, they are losing massive amounts of money, not making it.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> So what are you suggesting? that they sell their IP? Wouldn't you agree that for AMD to start selling IP is the same as them going out of existence? whose going to buy CPU and GPU technologies? Intel and Nvidia, with that AMD's existence would be totally at the mercy of Intel and Nvidia, and what then when the money from those sales runs out and Intel, Nvidia own everything while AMD have nothing?
> 
> You think their IP will save them?


I think the only thing they can do with most of their IP is use it. Things like shader technology and x86 might have a harder time finding their way to another company. The problem is AMD has milked a lot out of GCN but, as you said, they don't have the R&D to move forward. So what do we get? The same old stuff. Not to say I don't like my 390 but, it's not a step forward. AMD has only been tweaking their stuff (like Intel has been but for different reasons,) since the failure of Bulldozer to live up to scrutiny.

AMD is stuck between a rock and a hard place and no matter how good management you get in there, the reality is that NVidia and Intel and wipe the floor with respect to R&D funding. So either someone really smart at AMD has to make a crazy breakthrough, or the ship is going to sink. I would hate to see AMD go the way of the dinosaur but, it's entirely possible that AMD is in a downward spiral that's being accelerated by poor management.

I would argue that the day AMD starting spiraling downhill was when they sold off their fabs and it has only been getting worse since. The more you outsource, the more problems you're going to have and, the slower it will be to correct them. In general, it's cheap up front, but costly down the road.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I think the only thing they can do with most of their IP is use it. Things like shader technology and x86 might have a harder time finding their way to another company. The problem is AMD has milked a lot out of GCN but, as you said, they don't have the R&D to move forward. So what do we get? The same old stuff. Not to say I don't like my 390 but, it's not a step forward. AMD has only been tweaking their stuff (like Intel has been but for different reasons,) since the failure of Bulldozer to live up to scrutiny.
> 
> AMD is stuck between a rock and a hard place and no matter how good management you get in there, the reality is that NVidia and Intel and wipe the floor with respect to R&D funding. So either someone really smart at AMD has to make a crazy breakthrough, or the ship is going to sink. I would hate to see AMD go the way of the dinosaur but, it's entirely possible that AMD is in a downward spiral that's being accelerated by poor management.
> 
> I would argue that the day AMD starting spiraling downhill was when they sold off their fabs and it has only been getting worse since. The more you outsource, the more problems you're going to have and, the slower it will be to correct them. In general, it's cheap up front, but costly down the road.




The best thing for everyone is for someone with a lot of cash to take ownership of AMD, someone other than Intel or Nvidia because if that happens we as consumers are screwed.

Someone like Samsung, they have big ambitions in the mobile market and AMD's IP can help them in that.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> The best thing for everyone is for someone with a lot of cash to take ownership of AMD, someone other than Intel or Nvidia because if that happens we as consumers are screwed.
> 
> Someone like Samsung, they have big ambitions in the mobile market and AMD's IP can help them in that.


The whole x86 license not being transferable is a thing though. Practicality also has to be weighed by law. Samsung can't simply acquire AMD and expect to get all of its IP. It doesn't work that way for all licenses.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> The whole x86 license not being transferable is a thing though. Practicality also has to be weighed by law. Samsung can't simply acquire AMD and expect to get all of its IP. It doesn't work that way for all licenses.



I know, you would think that given Intel needing AMD's x86_64 as much as AMD needs Intel x86 some sort of compromise could be reached but Intel has AMD over a barrel as the contract states AMD must be under their own ownership to continue their use of x86.

There was talk a while back of AMD spinning off its GPU department, if the CPU department remains AMD with the X86_64 IP while all the other IP gets transferd with the GPU spin-off then Samsung could take it over, the X86_64 IP can come later (if Samsung want it) once that contract is up for renewal.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> There was talk a while back of AMD spinning off its GPU department, if the CPU department remains AMD with the X86_64 IP while all the other IP gets transferd with the GPU spin-off then Samsung could take it over, the X86_64 IP can come later (if Samsung want it) once that contract is up for renewal.





Aquinus said:


> The whole x86 license not being transferable is a thing though.



Lets not drag that crock of shit up again its been done to almost death in other threads
lets stick to this crock of ..............................


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> I know, you would think that given Intel needing AMD's x86_64 as much as AMD needs Intel x86 some sort of compromise could be reached but Intel has AMD over a barrel as the contract states AMD must be under their own ownership to continue their use of x86.
> 
> There was talk a while back of AMD spinning off its GPU department, if the CPU department remains AMD with the X86_64 IP while all the other IP gets transferd with the GPU spin-off then Samsung could take it over, the X86_64 IP can come later (if Samsung want it) once that contract is up for renewal.



IMO this kind of suicidal and toxic corporate behavior is usually done by companies planning to go private. Bad for investors.

AMD has Fiji, but it's almost deliberately not monetizing it properly.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> IMO this kind of suicidal and toxic corporate behavior is usually done by companies planning to go private. Bad for investors.
> 
> AMD has Fiji, but it's almost deliberately not monetizing it properly.



You're putting AMD and Investors into the same sentence?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2015)

The question I have is why did JayztwoCents get one over the other review sites? I like his videos and all, but his GPU reviews are terrible compared to the others, especially TPU.  It makes no sense.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> The question I have is why did JayztwoCents get one over the other review sites? I like his videos and all, but his GPU reviews are terrible compared to the others, especially TPU.  It makes no sense.



I think this has been said before in this thread, AMD are investing in Social Media Reviews and (Correct me if i'm wrong) TPU generally don't do Youtube. JayztwoCents is all over it.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> I think this has been said before in this thread, AMD are investing in Social Media Reviews and (Correct me if i'm wrong) TPU generally don't do Youtube. JayztwoCents is all over it.



I think this is why W1zzard wanted YouTube candidates, to get a more visible presence.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> I think this has been said before in this thread, AMD are investing in Social Media Reviews and (Correct me if i'm wrong) TPU generally don't do Youtube. JayztwoCents is all over it.



We're grooming a YouTuber as we speak.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> dave, you can stop lobbying for one already.



I don't want a Nano. I want the CEO job.

And I'm not joking. I first called myself ATI's #1 fanboy, then it was AMD's #1 fanboy, when AMD bought ATI (and when everyone said no way to that, I was the one saying, "All day" like Kanye.")

That's really what's wrong with AMD. They hire executives with no passion for the industry. They really need to hire me. (this is also not the first time I've said that).



btarunr said:


> We're grooming a YouTuber as we speak.



And W1zz also made it plain with no plans for reviews. So...


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> We're grooming a YouTuber as we speak.




Looking forward to seeing him in action  now get onto AMD about it.....


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> Looking forward to seeing him in action  now get onto AMD about it.....



Sneak-peak. Very early, still working on a presentation, graphics package, and other technical stuff, so don't flame us.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> We're grooming a YouTuber as we speak.



"" OH THAT STATEMENT sounds so wrong ""  snigger on certain levels


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Sneak-peak. Very early, still working on a presentation, graphics package, and other technical stuff, so don't flame us.




Not bad, he's obviously reading from a script and that's hampering his camera presentation skills but a lot of potential there, he just needs more practice multitasking that


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I don't want a Nano. I want the CEO job.
> 
> And I'm not joking. I first called myself ATI's #1 fanboy, then it was AMD's #1 fanboy, when AMD bought ATI (and when everyone said no way to that, I was the one saying, "All day" like Kanye.")
> 
> ...


agree hire dave

and not doing reviews on youtube is frankly stupid thats shutting your self out of a pretty large segment of users


----------



## geon2k2 (Sep 5, 2015)

I wish they send me a Nano for review ...  
I promise I'll say only nice words about them and the card.

Performance graph will rock too ... for sure the Nano will be the fastest thing my PC has ever seen


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> agree hire dave
> 
> and not doing reviews on youtube is frankly stupid thats shutting your self out of a pretty large segment of users


I've tried broaching the subject of YouTube reviews with W1zz a few times. I had real high-end equipment including DAT decks and cameras, and full editing station (taken out of a TV studio), I've got proper media training so I know how to talk and about appearance in video, and I got the knowledge about hardware so that the videos have worthwhile content. But now the gear is sold, and I've moved into a house without the room, although if really needed I could find space to do it in. I have my own YouTube project now anyway (not tech related), and maybe more stuff in the future. Doing reviews for TPU is just a hobby (as per W1zz), and I have a family to feed. Anyone that's been on our TeamSpeak knows I can chat up just about anything. 


AS to working for AMD, I'd not be asking for several million in remuneration, either, and had AMD taken my seriously mayn years ago, they'd have saved literal millions, and maybe had a better presence in the market. Oh well.


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Sneak-peak. Very early, still working on a presentation, graphics package, and other technical stuff, so don't flame us.


OK, the AMD part is so negative that I have to ask if the video was made *after* learning that you will *not* get a Nano.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2015)

geon2k2 said:


> I wish they send me a Nano for review ...
> I promise I'll say only nice words about them and the card.
> 
> Performance graph will rock too ... for sure the Nano will be the fastest thing my PC has ever seen



You know that after doing the review, you need probably to return the card to her respective owners ?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> You know that after doing the review, you need probably to return the card to her respective owners ?



Ha Ha 
what happens if they go chapter 11 between sending the card for review  and the review being done ( or bankrupt )

you never answered my question fan boy   did you get a card to fan-review


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> OK, the AMD part is so negative that I have to ask if the video was made *after* learning that you will *not* get a Nano.


No, it wasnt. It was released on another thread several days ago, so I would imagine zithe recorded at least a week ago.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> OK, the AMD part is so negative that I have to ask if the video was made *after* learning that you will *not* get a Nano.



It was made before, but that's irrelevant. It's a test video.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 5, 2015)

I'd do YT reviews if it wasn't for my chronic bronchitis getting in the way and my constant coughing and stuff


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> you never answered my question fan boy   did you get a card to fan-review



Calling me "a fan boy" won't get you any answer.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> OK, the AMD part is so negative that I have to ask if the video was made *after* learning that you will *not* get a Nano.



I think that is an unfortunate mistake, it doesn't look like anything mollitious to me but rather an attempt to inject humour, which is a good thing but how it was done IMO was unwise.

They are right that GPU is a re-brand of a re-brand and the potential to make a wisecrack of it is there, with a different kind of thought process about how that would look to someone watching: it comes across as a bit derogatory toward the cards vendor (AMD) already the viewer gets the impression AMD are the but of jokes. that can be devastating for AMD.

The information is valid and should be included, but its no joke and perhaps a coment on whether or not the product is actually any good despite it being a re-brand, does the fact that it is a re-brand really matter? this is information that is important to the viewer.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Calling me "a fan boy" won't get you any answer.



Sorry, but we can't have your kind of posters on TPU. I gave you a long rope.


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 5, 2015)

AMD is afraid of the truth. Very afraid.

Notice power from these two cards. GTX 970 ITX pictured below is overclocked too 














Unfortunately for AMD the truth will come out with or without TPU review anyway. Worst case is that TPU borrow the card from someone within the industry. Everyone knows TPU is well known and respected among everyone.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Calling me "a fan boy" won't get you any answer.



calling you anything on this subject is a waste of e ink its pointless your so fan boy you put everyone else on the site to shame


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> The question I have is why did JayztwoCents get one over the other review sites? I like his videos and all, but his GPU reviews are terrible compared to the others, especially TPU.  It makes no sense.


Jayz is a system builder with great experience with case building and customization.
He might have cooked up a special rig for the Nano to showcase it. If he haven`t, he is still very good at explaining how it all fits together
Size is mostly the only selling point AMD have of this card, so they try to market it like that.
Too bad GTX 970 ITX is there to ruin the show


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Sorry, but we can't have your kind of posters on TPU. I gave you a long rope.


Not to digress but, does that mean a permanent vacation?


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Sorry, but we can't have your kind of posters on TPU. I gave you a long rope.



The kind who gets called a fanboy? man...way to victim blame...


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> The kind who gets called a fanboy? man...way to victim blame...


Victim blaming? Clearly you haven't read enough of Sony's posts which speak for themselves.


Sony Xperia S said:


> Why am I not surprised at all by this too ?
> 
> Nvidia is so dirty like pigs in the mud.
> 
> ...


----------



## Furunomoe (Sep 5, 2015)

Dear Intel,

Please start making graphics card again. Something like a 576 EU Gen 9 graphics might be pretty interesting.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 5, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> The kind who gets called a fanboy? man...way to victim blame...


WTH?! Clearly you have not seen the constant disruption of this site that Sony has committed on a daily basis.  Try searching out their posts for the last 6 months, and then decide if you still want to ask that question.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

Furunomoe said:


> Dear Intel,
> 
> Please start making graphics card again. Something like a 576 EU Gen 9 graphics might be pretty interesting.



Intel EUs are very big. I reckon a 576 EU discrete GPU would be about 750 mm2 die area on 14 nm.


----------



## Furunomoe (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Intel EUs are very big. I reckon a 576 EU discrete GPU would be about 750 mm2 die area on 14 nm.



I reckon it will be pretty big too. Perhaps a 432 EU flagship, 288/360 EU mainstream, and 144/216 EU entry level would sort of make sense. Now, will they ever make their re-entry to the consumer discrete graphics market?

Or perhaps something else. Maybe PowerVR?


----------



## Kissamies (Sep 5, 2015)

"You tell us. We're one of the few sites that give you noise testing by some really expensive and broad-ranged noise-testing equipment, and more importantly, card-only power-draw. Our reviews also grill graphics cards through 22 real-world tests across four resolutions, each, and offer price-performance graphs"

And that is why I think TPU's GPU review are the best!


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Intel EUs are very big. I reckon a 576 EU discrete GPU would be about 750 mm2 die area on 14 nm.


If it scales linearly. That would be one huge die as well, I can't imagine yields would be very good.


----------



## alucasa (Sep 5, 2015)

The catism is strong in this thread.

... Whatever that means.


----------



## abundantcores (Sep 5, 2015)

PCWorld got one http://www.pcworld.com/article/2979...-to-the-fury-a-tiny-gtx-970-and-a-pencil.html


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

Up to 1GHz core speed... no Boost profile whatsoever. When it barely reaches thermal limits, it'll bog down to even slower speed to "reduce temperature". That is a no go marketing campaign for a vendor that wants to make fast cards... unless the chip is an old one with little or no improvements over the HD7xxx release that's unveiled a few years ago... which it is...


----------



## cuneytcam (Sep 5, 2015)

Just checked the preliminary TPU youtube video. As an AMD product user (not that it affects my opinion). i can sense you guys seem to be a bit upset about not getting r9 nano review sample and i can understand that.* You guys should have gotten one to review.* However, with all my honest feelings that video seems to be an excuse to target AMD for not getting one to review and not in subtle way but in a noticable way.

         I have been a long stalker of TPU, but if you are going to use your media power for some weird agenda i highly doubt it will help you in the long run. For example rebranding comes with its own losses that would show up in results graphs no matter what your funny comments are. I dont want to listen a review editor bashing in a way for something that has no addition for a review. They could rebrand ATI 9500 PRO for 2016 lineup. Bash it for low performance, bash it for high P. consumption. Until then it seems to me like "OMG REBRAND LOL". R9 390 is an appealing product for me aswell as GTX970. (I will do my best to not to buy nvidia products just because they should not be confident about fecking customers over and get away with it.)

For rebranding I would rather like to hear possible downsides. Like;

-Still old Tech and not a new silicon which would hurt the user in the long run and might have shortcomings sooner than users could guess.
-They may be rebrands but prices have gone up more than 4GB memory addition so it has lower bang for buck ratio than original brand.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 5, 2015)

cuneytcam said:


> Just checked the preliminary TPU youtube video. As an AMD product user (not that it affects my opinion). *i can sense you guys seem to be a bit upset about not getting r9 nano review sample* and i can understand that.* You guys should have gotten one to review.* However, with all my honest feelings that video seems to be an excuse to target AMD for not getting one to review and not in subtle way but in a noticable way.
> 
> I have been a long stalker of TPU, but if you are going to use your media power for some weird agenda i highly doubt it will help you in the long run. For example rebranding comes with its own losses that would show up in results graphs no matter what your funny comments are. I dont want to listen a review editor bashing in a way for something that has no addition for a review. They could rebrand ATI 9500 PRO for 2016 lineup. Bash it for low performance, bash it for high P. consumption. Until then it seems to me like "OMG REBRAND LOL". R9 390 is an appealing product for me aswell as GTX970. (I will do my best to not to buy nvidia products just because they should not be confident about fecking customers over and get away with it.)
> 
> ...



It has been said earlier that the Video test was run before the news about Nano/review.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 5, 2015)

cuneytcam said:


> Just checked the preliminary TPU youtube video. As an AMD product user (not that it affects my opinion). i can sense you guys seem to be a bit upset about not getting r9 nano review sample and i can understand that.* You guys should have gotten one to review.* However, with all my honest feelings that video seems to be an excuse to target AMD for not getting one to review and not in subtle way but in a noticable way.


Video was made last week, we learned we're not getting a sample yesterday.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

and that poses a problem for newcomers who wanted something fast, efficient, cheap & doesn't kill their monthly/yearly utility bills while ensuring their bedroom won't ended up getting too warm coz of building a "portable heater". AMD has already lost the efficiency war against both Intel & Nvidia since the global release of 3rd Gen Core Series & Kepler chips. With Haswell, Skylake & Maxwell winning every benchmark tests done by honest, unbiased, no BS reviewers of notable reputation, AMD has cringe over & over again due to the lackluster of not releasing a completely brand new chips to the masses. Instead, they rely on an old, dying chip with lowly tactics, relying on paper sheets & sheer price slash to keep them afloat. Sorry to say but that's how AMD is now....


----------



## cuneytcam (Sep 5, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> It has been said earlier that the Video test was run before the news about Nano/review.



I did not want to mean that video is 100% kneejerk reaction to review sample things. You could have posted that video years back i would still say the same things except first paragraph.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> PCWorld got one http://www.pcworld.com/article/2979...-to-the-fury-a-tiny-gtx-970-and-a-pencil.html





Spoiler:  Epic Review :)



I think not


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

IMO, I would spend that $650 for either a 2nd GTX970 & a SLI capable board OR a heavily OCed GTX980Ti where it literally killed it's own big brother, Titan X & the whole suite of AMD's finest high end cards.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2015)

Cloudfire said:


> Jayz is a system builder with great experience with case building and customization.
> He might have cooked up a special rig for the Nano to showcase it. If he haven`t, he is still very good at explaining how it all fits together
> Size is mostly the only selling point AMD have of this card, so they try to market it like that.
> Too bad GTX 970 ITX is there to ruin the show



That is a very good argument.  I also think it is because he is very biased towards AMD, even though he claims not to be because he runs nVidia cards in his main computer(he also openly admits that he only runs those cards because they were given to him).  But if you look at some of his video card videos, he is very biased towards AMD.  The R9 285 ITX video is a great example of this.  He goes on and on praising the card for being so small, even going as far to say it is the only card on the market that small with that level of performance and that price point.  But at the time he released the video, the GTX960 had an ITX version out for months, it was/is cheaper than the R9 285 ITX, and performs the same.  Also, there has been GTX970 ITX versions from eVGA, ASUS, and Gigabyte for months as well, and it totally kills the R9 285 in performance.


----------



## Luore (Sep 5, 2015)

I really only signed up just to post this despite I would at some point.
This 'news' post does come out very ranting. Half of it could be removed and the message would be the same.
TPU is biased against AMD most likely unknowingly.
On the normal benchmarking. It is very strange to have something like Project Cars be placed into the mix knowing full well that it won't perform well against AMD. It is very well known that Project Cars developers do not care about any optimization for AMD hardware.
WoW for example is also very heavily biased towards Nvidia hardware. When you had to separate the Fury X's review with "w/o Project Cars and WoW", you guys should realize something is wrong with the test suite.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
Despite on Tomb Raider and Witcher 3 disabling the TressFX/Hairworks, the most obvious should've been those two games.

Second part however is power consumption the more recent (relatively) controversial thing.
While it is great for us to know the power consumption on the GPU side it is only half of the equation. It's been known and shown, especially recently, that Nvidia uses a lot of software interventions, especially in DX11 where it recompiles shaders to something more suited. Recently in Kepler and Maxwell they've axed a lot of hardware based functions for software based solutions. This in turn shows less power consumption on the GPU side however due to all the software intervention, it taxes the CPU more and in turn increasing power consumption on the CPU side.

AMD's hardware have essentially well, more hardware. This causes more GPU power consumption while being able to execute more on the hardware side. This is one reason why DX12 more favorable towards AMD due to not needing driver intervention, because there are next to nil while having more on the hardware to execute the needed function. This frees up developers to abuse the CPU more along with the GPU.

If it was me I'd remove the two games and include a full system power consumption along with GPU consumption. It'd really clear things up and add more needed information.

Unrelated but concerning CrossFire and SLI. Put it in spoiler to not be a gigantic link blob.



Spoiler



To clear up CF has worse frame time, Nvidia is now on that side of worse frame time as has been for the past year. Is AMD's perfect? No, but it is better and improved. Of course the damage is done except for the more informed.
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20216-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-i-sli/
http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/...4ZDFkZGVkOTkyNTZjNDMwMmRkZWM4ZjU1YWEzYmIwOSJ9
vs
http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/...zZTkzY2NjM2ZjMWU2Y2I4NDk4MmE4ODcxNTVlNzJjMyJ9
Just as an example.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> On the normal benchmarking. It is very strange to have something like Project Cars be placed into the mix knowing full well that it won't perform well against AMD. It is very well known that Project Cars developers do not care about any optimization for AMD hardware.
> WoW for example is also very heavily biased towards Nvidia hardware. When you had to separate the Fury X's review with "w/o Project Cars and WoW", you guys should realize something is wrong with the test suite.



The range of games is probably what the average Gamer plays  So its a FAIR REPRESENTATION of games  to bench mark with


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

If u think that TPU & other reputable reviewer's testing methods prove to be "biased" as what you claim, you are either high or just simply in a cringe that AMD isn't getting what it deserves... Then please do a more proper testing methods that would deemed as no BS in the eyes of the blinded fools.


----------



## Luore (Sep 5, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> The range of games is probably what the average Gamer plays  So its a FAIR REPRESENTATION of games  to bench mark with


Doesn't really work that well if you want to be unbias. You don't incorporate biased material while trying to be unbiased. This is also why I said unknowingly biased. If they had to show a different set of information without Project Cars and WoW it should've been suspect to begin with. Why bother having it if you have to remove it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

cuneytcam said:


> I have been a long stalker of TPU, but if you are going to use your media power for some weird agenda i highly doubt it will help you in the long run.



We have no agenda other than to give our readers the info they want, the way they want, while remaining 100% transparent and honest. Any "bias" from news postings is not our own... most often those are written by other sites, and we merely link to them. If our readers want to know, we try to inform them. It could be good, bad, or in-between, it's simply aggregation, not editorials. We very rarely post editorials, and every thing mentioned so far as being problematic in postings isn't our writing.

For me, this isn't a job. It's a hobby, 100%. It doesn't pay bills, it merely takes up some of my time, and lets me play with and write about hardware based on my experiences, which I love doing. I also get the chance to help others with problems, and in return, I get some support, and when I have problems, there's always someone to help me out in return.

If that's a weird agenda, well, I have to tell you, we're pretty successful at it already. 



Luore said:


> Doesn't really work that well if you want to be unbias. You don't incorporate biased material while trying to be unbiased. This is also why I said unknowingly biased. If they had to show a different set of information without Project Cars and WoW it should've been suspect to begin with. Why bother having it if you have to remove it.




That's not true, unfortunately. Those are titles with big followings, so using the benchmarks we do allows those that play those games to have an accurate representation of what they would get from a product, in the way they already use their current products. It's about providing relevant data, not about bias. We cannot help that certain software runs better on certain hardware. That's up to the devs, and suggestions that we might change benchmarks to remove bias and thereby not provide relevant info, kind of cancels each other out. Maybe you should ask the devs to write software without bias.

It also provides the opportunity for hardware makers to "show-up" the competition, if they were performing poorly before, and now they do well... it's a bar they should strive to achieve if they wish to increase market share.

*(this is my personal opinion, not the opinion of TechPowerUp as a whole. I can never speak for TechPowerUp as a whole, only W1zzard can.)*


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> Doesn't really work that well if you want to be unbias. You don't incorporate biased material while trying to be unbiased. This is also why I said unknowingly biased. If they had to show a different set of information without Project Cars and WoW it should've been suspect to begin with. Why bother having it if you have to remove it.



It's not like it affected the overall outcome for the Fury X...there was a figure with Pcars included but it obviously was dismissed in favor of the number excluding Pcars for the final score. Just because it's Gameworks doesn't mean that people don't play it. And it doesn't matter if AMD cards suffer as a result. Reviewer simply puts less emphasis on that benchmark for the AMD card.

If that's what you think constitutes a clear bias against AMD, it's apparent that you haven't been around long enough to read AMD reviews in the past. The 270X cards were given rather high scores, for one, because they were well designed.


----------



## IvanP91v (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> ...WoW
> [/spoiler]


great, now you got me posting on this thread/discussion.

Im only gonna focus on one thing: AMD and WoW.
They're not friends. AMD cards suck on WoW. Always did, always will [Maybe DX12 will save us? Gamon didn't]. So do their CPU/APU. (Tomshardware mentions the CPU part).
(i.e most basic intel parts "Pentium" and i3 perform well beyond AMD's comparable CPU/APU in regards to WoW.

Fact is, either blizz focuses on Nvidia (3d vision, Nvidia HBAO+ [actually says Nvidia in Settings] etc support - oh shit they do!) or AMD has some terrible implementation of DX11 drivers in regards to WoW.

When WoW with 390 or 290 gets less FPS in real life tests than 960. You know something up. But this is all besides the point.

Me? I'm an AMD fan, a big one. I will always be. I will always root for the "underdog". I want AMD to succeed and I need them to, we all do. Otherwise monopolies and shit like that.
The fact that they keep refreshing the same GPUs over and over and over again isn't doing them any favors. And overclocking their APUs and CPU offerings isnt doing anything at all.

I am looking forward to Zen, to new CPU/APU offerings on 16/14nm node and new videocards. AMD can make a comeback, but they are running out of time and money.
I may be running on a Core i7 at the moment, but I am always looking at AMD, I want them back.

*TL;DR version*
TPU isnt overly critical of AMD on games like WoW. Its just that AMD sucks in this department. And Nvidia and Blizz work together.
And its nice to see TPU use WoW in their reviews, no one besides them and TomsHardware do. Thank you TPU!

This whole damn thread has been derailed anyway.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 5, 2015)

Gonna rest this case once & for all. Will give these AMD fanboys like Sony time to get their shit together & think in a rational manner. Maybe one day they will slowly shift into the Green camp once all the lies AMD has been brainwashing them with is gone. Oh, the Blue camp would accept them with open arms & show them the beauty of power, efficiency & ingenuity in which AMD has failed to accomplish that.


----------



## Luore (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> That's not true, unfortunately. Those are titles with big followings, so using the benchmarks we do allows those that play those games to have an accurate representation of what they would get from a product, in the way they already use their current products. It's about providing relevant data, not about bias. We cannot help that certain software runs better on certain hardware. That's up to the devs, and suggestions that we might change benchmarks to remove bias and thereby not provide relevant info, kind of cancels each other out. Maybe you should ask the devs to write software without bias.


I understand that, but it shouldn't be showing up as part of the performance summary, something that a lot of people reference to. 
If it doesn't then by all means have it in the review but not in the relative performance.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 5, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Gonna rest this case once & for all. Will give these AMD fags like Sony time to get their shit together & think in a rational manner. Maybe one day they will slowly shift into the Green camp once all the lies AMD has been brainwashing them with is gone. Oh, the Blue camp would accept them with open arms & show them the beauty of power, efficiency & ingenuity in which AMD has failed to accomplish that.



You also show an extreme that is no more helpful and just as disruptive as Sony's extreme AMD zealotry.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> I understand that, but it shouldn't be showing up as part of the performance summary, something that a lot of people reference to.
> If it doesn't then by all means have it in the review but not in the relative performance.


Do you work for AMD?

To be fair to both parties, it DOES need to be included. Removing software that many people use, but favors a different brand, would be biased, the exact thing you are saying we shouldn't be. Just because one brand does poorly in a test, doesn't mean we exclude it, or 100% anyone could claim bias.

Since each tested app is on it's own page, we know which tests are popular, and what people read out of the reviews, and what they want to see, and what they ignore.


----------



## Luore (Sep 5, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Gonna rest this case once & for all. Will give these AMD fags like Sony time to get their shit together & think in a rational manner. Maybe one day they will slowly shift into the Green camp once all the lies AMD has been brainwashing them with is gone. Oh, the Blue camp would accept them with open arms & show them the beauty of power, efficiency & ingenuity in which AMD has failed to accomplish that.


That's not really helping your case by insulting people and hostility.
Personally I don't care for being aligned to any company nor do I find it helpful to ones' self and others. It's not being a fan of any sort. It's being reasonable and if something seems off to you it should be criticized. Doesn't matter what company or media it is. Whether you're on camp A, B, or C, or some guy down the street in the corner.


cadaveca said:


> Do you work for AMD?


I do? Cool, when did that happen.
No, I'm just someone that's interested in hardware and software of computers.


> to be fair to both parties, it DOES need to be included. Removing software that many people use, but favors a different brand, would be biased, the exact thing you are saying we shouldn't be.


Removing bias doesn't make bias, that's just fallacious at best. It fits into this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> I do? Cool, when did that happen.
> No, I'm just someone that's interested in hardware and software of computers.
> 
> Removing bias doesn't make bias, that's just fallacious at best. It fits into this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance



My job as a reviewer is to meet the needs of our readers, and provide relevant info to their uses, not cater to the hardware makers. We set the standard, and it is up to the hardware maker to meet or exceed our expectations, or to fail, and the reader to judge a product's merit based on that. Otherwise we aren't reviewing anything.. we would then be marketing shills. It is also my job to represent our readers to the companies, and ensure that what the end user wants is conveyed and understood, not to educate on reader on what they should want.

I did have to ask, since your statements seem more friendly to AMD than anyone else, and are contrary to what being a reviewer is about, in my books. If hardware doesn't show up on my door step, I simply tell me readers DO NOT BUY. I can only recommend what I have tried myself.  I could never get another piece of hardware, and it would not matter to me one bit. W1zzard could "fire" me, ban me, whatever... I do my job without fear of any repercussions.

That's not having bias, in my books.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> I understand that, but it shouldn't be showing up as part of the performance summary, something that a lot of people reference to.
> If it doesn't then by all means have it in the review but not in the relative performance.



How oh How do you judge whether AMD cards have improved if those games you say are unfaverable to AMD Cards are not used for comparasion bench marks

Use a Crystal Ball and Tarot cards
sorry but in order to pass judgment in review you have to use a wide range of games some favorable for AMD and Some for Not
Thats life and untill games are made Hardware neutral thats the way it will be


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> Removing bias doesn't make bias, that's just fallacious at best. It fits into this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance



A _slightly_ more logical Sony here, boys.

I don't understand why you cannot comprehend the fact that Pcars' presence in the benchmarks doesn't instantly assume Pcars' influence in the final score. I don't know why you can't figure this out. If you are oblivious to the fact that it's a Gameworks game and has a huge AMD disadvantage, and are unable to let it go as a result, then I'll leave it up to you to figure it out. The reviewers and the readers are all aware of this fact.

Again, just because Pcars fared horribly on the FuryX, you shouldn't be coming to the conclusion that the low overall score for the FuryX was due in part to Pcars. It was priced to beat the GTX 980 Ti, and it failed in that regard, not only in Pcars.


----------



## Osjur (Sep 5, 2015)

Here's the most likely reason why TPU didn't get a sample. They operate in Germany as a worldwide english site. There just isn't that many samples and they most likely went to the german sites.

Also, AMD is not directly sending these samples, they come from retailers and its not just a card they are sending. It's a whole ITX form factor computer.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

Um, I'm not in Germany? Only W1zzard and DarkSaber are in Germany AFAIK. We are a global website, with hosting and staff in many countries, with our primary readership being in the US.



Osjur said:


> Also, AMD is not directly sending these samples, they come from retailers and its not just a card they are sending. It's a whole ITX form factor computer.



Now that... THAT is relevant. So AMD wanted testing done their way only.


----------



## Kanan (Sep 5, 2015)

Wow, worst news article I read here ever and by far. 

1st: please stop the crying, its a new innovative tech thats in the childhoods, you sound like a NV-fanboy anyway, thats not an 7870, or GCN 1.0 product, you obviously think its easily produced, but its the exact opposite. Please go and search for some descriptions how Fiji is designed, how many steps and companys are involved to the finished product.

2nd: 350$ for Fiji? Are you serious? Again you sound like an AMD hater, 0 respect für their accomplishments and 350$ is just crazy, sorry. 

Please shut off this NV biased whining. You should delete the whole Newspost and accept that its not justified to cry that loud about things that are pretty normal considering a brand new tech, HBM + Interposer + connections etc. that is.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> That's not really helping your case by insulting people and hostility.
> Personally I don't care for being aligned to any company nor do I find it helpful to ones' self and others. It's not being a fan of any sort. It's being reasonable and if something seems off to you it should be criticized. Doesn't matter what company or media it is. Whether you're on camp A, B, or C, or some guy down the street in the corner.
> 
> I do? Cool, when did that happen.
> ...



You don't seem to understand the point of a review and the gaming market whatsoever.
The test suite at TPU includes a host of games that are very popular. To dismiss a game because of vendor intervention would be an unfair reflection of the state of affairs.  If game "x" is popular with a vast proportion of gamers, we like to know how it plays.  To remove that game is to deny the reviewers audience of information.
What you purport to do is censorship of intelligence by proxy of 'biased' coding.  It's not TPU's fault if a popular game has been coded favourably to a certain vendor.  Dice worked closely with AMD on BF4, perhaps that should be excluded just in case? BioShock series as well? Thief, Tomb Raider.  All AMD titles, surely must be filtered out. It's not TPU's problem that in DX9 or DX11, Nvidia managed to software optimise better.
No matter how cerebral your argument is put across and how civil you are (and thanks for being polite) your point is necessarily misguided.  The hypocrisy of asking for a title to be removed because it favours a vendor is denying the reality of gaming hardware outcomes.  DX12 will remove Nvidia's coding advantages so perhaps moving on we shouldn't need to care but frankly what you are suggesting is just as bad as Nvidia asking Star Dock to remove Async from the AoS bench...


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Osjur said:


> Here's the most likely reason why TPU didn't get a sample. They operate in Germany as a worldwide english site. There just isn't that many samples and they most likely went to the german sites.



Just in case you have not browsed the entire site


----------



## Luore (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> My job as a reviewer is to meet the needs of our readers, and provide relevant info to their uses, not cater to the hardware makers. We sent the standard, and it is up to the hardware maker to meet or exceed our expectations, or to fail, and the reader to judge a products merit based on that. Otherwise we aren't reviewing anything.. we would then be marketing shills.


I thought the job of a reviewer was to make an impartial judgement of a product. Not to meet the needs of anything nor is this anything to do with a shill, a word that is misused quite often.


tabascosauz said:


> A _slightly_ more logical Sony here, boys.


What's that have to do with anything other than a poor attempt to insult someone?


> I don't understand why you cannot comprehend the fact that Pcars' presence in the benchmarks doesn't instantly assume Pcars' influence in the final score. I don't know why you can't figure this out. If you are oblivious to the fact that it's a Gameworks game and has a huge AMD disadvantage, and are unable to let it go as a result, then I'll leave it up to you to figure it out. The reviewers and the readers are all aware of this fact.


That's something that W1zzard has to tell us in terms of overall summary.


> Again, just because Pcars fared horribly on the FuryX, you shouldn't be coming to the conclusion that the low overall score for the FuryX was due in part to Pcars. It was priced to beat the GTX 980 Ti, and it failed in that regard, not only in Pcars.


I never said anything about it performing up to expectations or not. I'm pointing out that the need to have a different bar in itself is an issue.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> I thought the job of a reviewer was to make an impartial judgement of a product. Not to meet the needs of anything nor is this anything to do with a shill, a word that is misused quite often.
> What's that have to do with anything other than a poor attempt to insult someone?
> 
> That's something that W1zzard has to tell us in terms of overall summary.
> ...



I pointed out that it was a Gameworks game. Gameworks games are optimized for Nvidia and run like trash on AMD. The inclusion of Pcars is necessary but skews the results a bit, so the figure is there to provide a rough estimate of performance in non-Gameworks games.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> I thought the job of a reviewer was to make an impartial judgement of a product. Not to meet the needs of anything nor is this anything to do with a shill, a word that is misused quite often.


Correct. But for that impartial judgment to be relevant requires setting a bar dictated by those that need the relevance. There are many review sites out there, and if we do not provide an accurate judgment based on a specific users needs, then they can look elsewhere. Being impartial means no bias, but all humans have bias based on their social status and upbringing.

Removing a benchmark because a brand does poorly in it is being biased, and a shill.

People play games because they like the game style, or something about the game, not because it runs faster on a certain hardware. They might base purchases upon performance in a specific title, so providing that sort of info is 100% required. We choose games and apps that people use often, not apps that favor one brand or the other. therein lies the motivation.. it's about what is relevant to the reader, not what's relevant to the hardware, since it's the reader that gets the benefit of the review, not the hardware. You've flipped it backwards.


----------



## Osjur (Sep 5, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Just in case you have not browsed the entire site



I know pretty well that they have multiple reviewers who do not live in Germany but isn't it W1zzard who's doing most of the graphic card reviews and according to the map, he actually lives there?

And I didn't say that as a fact, only as a hypothesis. the other info (retail ITX package) comes from pretty reliable source.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

If memory serves this old e Warrior once  upon a time if you had a Motherboard with a nforce chipset  you were well and truly screwed if you were a ATi /AMD graphics card owner
Forums all over the web were full of hate and problems that came from Brand ? Drivers and graphics card
I'm sure others will confirm my failing degenerate Brain cells


----------



## Luore (Sep 5, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> You don't seem to understand the point of a review and the gaming market whatsoever.
> The test suite at TPU includes a host of games that are very popular. To dismiss a game because of vendor intervention would be an unfair reflection of the state of affairs.  If game "x" is popular with a vast proportion of gamers, we like to know how it plays.  To remove that game is to deny the reviewers audience of information.
> What you purport to do is censorship of intelligence by proxy of 'biased' coding.  It's not TPU's fault if a popular game has been coded favourably to a certain vendor.  Dice worked closely with AMD on BF4, perhaps that should be excluded just in case? BioShock series as well? Thief, Tomb Raider.  All AMD titles, surely must be filtered out. It's not TPU's problem that in DX9 or DX11, Nvidia managed to software optimise better.
> No matter how cerebral your argument is put across and how civil you are (and thanks for being polite) your point is necessarily misguided.  The hypocrisy of asking for a title to be removed because it favours a vendor is denying the reality of gaming hardware outcomes.  DX12 will remove Nvidia's coding advantages so perhaps moving on we shouldn't need to care but frankly what you are suggesting is just as bad as Nvidia asking Star Dock to remove Async from the AoS bench...


I understand what you mean, it's essentially off when it comes to overall performance. I've already stated that I don't mind if the benchmark is in there. By all means have it in there, but if it's so obviously biased towards a vendor it shouldn't come to the overall performance because it skews everything by a decent margin. If someone is looking for overall performance and have it shifted, to either vendor because of it, it gives a very off picture of the overall performance.
If someone is looking at a performance of a few specific games, then let them look at it. Maybe it should've been worded better than it shouldn't be removed at all from the entirety of the test, but it shouldn't reflect the overall performance. If w1zzard comes in and says it isn't reflected then I really have no problem with it.


----------



## 64K (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Um, I'm not in Germany? Only W1zzard and DarkSaber are in Germany AFAIK. We are a global website, with hosting and staff in many countries, with our primary readership being in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that... THAT is relevant. So AMD wanted testing done their way only.



At the end of the day it will probably be seen that AMD is cherry-picking review sites for the Nano review for a reason.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 5, 2015)

64K said:


> At the end of the day it will probably be seen that AMD is cherry-picking review sites for the Nano review for a reason.



I agree, and by that very decision it will hurt them. Their PR people are working overtime to try and outdo their predecessors' bumbles.


----------



## Helios (Sep 5, 2015)

Let us make a collective order for it... .


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Osjur said:


> And I didn't say that as a fact, only as a hypothesis. the other info (retail ITX package) comes from pretty reliable source.



I wonder what the spec of this so called ITX package that is supplied for the review
The Tpu reviewer sometimes uses different and multiple Cpu / motherboard combo's to give a Fair comparison

I Bet that This ITX Package is Intel powered and the only AMD Chip is in the Graphics card


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 5, 2015)

Luore said:


> I understand what you mean, it's essentially off when it comes to overall performance. I've already stated that I don't mind if the benchmark is in there. By all means have it in there, but if it's so obviously biased towards a vendor it shouldn't come to the overall performance because it skews everything by a decent margin. If someone is looking for overall performance and have it shifted, to either vendor because of it, it gives a very off picture of the overall performance.
> If someone is looking at a performance of a few specific games, then let them look at it. Maybe it should've been worded better than it shouldn't be removed at all from the entirety of the test, but it shouldn't reflect the overall performance. If w1zzard comes in and says it isn't reflected then I really have no problem with it.



I never use the performance summary but it is a meta data conglomerate.  I look at the games I play (benefit of W1zzards large test set) and judge on that. I know WoW for example is heavily NV leaning so I never look at it. I actually look at FC4 as I know Fiji was doing well in it (I still bought my 980ti).
Point is, TPU gfx card reviews provide a wealth of info for users to utilise. That the summary portrays AMD in a bad light is simply a reflection of one or two outliers (and/or a general trend favouring NV performance).
But this is all OT. The logical question is "How does AMD select review sites given limited supply?"
We're all assuming things without adequate info (why these threads exist frankly).  TPU has a large user base and by laws of exposure should have received one. Perhaps it is as simple as no YouTube/media outlet.  Let's face it, people are thick as mince these days and reading isn't as much fun as watching an animated reviewer tell us the bullet points.

Frankly, whatever way you look at it, AMD still can't produce enough of its halo product anywhere in the world.  That's more worrying than TPU not getting a sample.


----------



## midnightoil (Sep 5, 2015)

Prints a load of pro NVIDIA FUD - that ridiculous drivers 'editorial' is an example - then cries when the site doesn't get a review sample.

LOL.



dorsetknob said:


> I wonder what the spec of this so called ITX package that is supplied for the review
> The Tpu reviewer sometimes uses different and multiple Cpu / motherboard combo's to give a Fair comparison
> 
> I Bet that This ITX Package is Intel powered and the only AMD Chip is in the Graphics card



Wow, well deduced Einstein.  There aren't FX ITX boards.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

midnightoil said:


> Prints a load of pro NVIDIA FUD - that ridiculous drivers 'editorial' is an example - then cries when the site doesn't get a review sample.



""Oops   Misread that as midnightroll""


----------



## geon2k2 (Sep 5, 2015)

Like 10 years or more ago review sites used to do image comparison tests. 
Can we have those back? 

I guess it will be pretty hard to get exactly the same image from game a or b however I'm afraid all this driver "optimizations" are done at the expense of image quality, like disabling some post processing feature, rearranging draw order and so on. 

Without this how can one know if 8x SSAA anti-aliasing is being applied and not 2x, or even some form of edge, which looks well enough?

I'm sure both camps are doing shady things, however it will be interesting to see to what extent.


----------



## vega22 (Sep 5, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> For me, this isn't a job. It's a hobby





cadaveca said:


> My job as a reviewer is....



if it is a job things like buying cpu to test free mobo would not be an issue. they would be writes offs against your income.

if it's a hobby, does that mean your reviews hold less weight coming from a hobbyist?

sorry dave but i aint sure you can play both cards in the same thread.

meh, it matters not. looking back i blame bta for this. his articles are full of back handed compliments for amd.

i do find it funny how a site that was built on the back of atitools has become the breeding grounds for nvidia fanbois.

que the "marsey is an amd fanboi" posts while i go play on a maxwell gpu xD


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 5, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> if it is a job things like buying cpu to test free mobo would not be an issue. they would be writes offs against your income.
> 
> if it's a hobby, does that mean your reviews hold less weight coming from a hobbyist?
> 
> ...



But you are an AMD apologist (certainly in a lot of the threads I've seen you post in....)

On the semantic front:

Dave says *this is a hobby* not a job.  And he says *my job is*....

These aren't contradictory.  This is his hobby but when he does the review for TPU he has a 'job' (or a role, if you prefer) to perform.  So his 'job' (or task, or role) as a reviewer is A, B and C.  I build PC's as a hobby.  When I build a PC, especially for a friend or family, it is my 'job' to ensure it works, it's maintained etc etc.

And FTR, how can you not know Dave was an AMD activist for ages?  You've been a member longer than me and he must have spent about 3 years alone trying to get a crossfire issue working and was constantly loyal (while criticising).

That's Dave's (and so many people here) strong point.  Just because they own a brand, it doesn't make them blind to issues with it.


----------



## vega22 (Sep 5, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> But you are an AMD apologist (certainly in a lot of the threads I've seen you post in....)
> 
> On the semantic front:
> 
> ...



yea dave had no end of issues with the 7970, my 7950 was flawless.

that is the funny part, of late i have had very few issues (dx9 games had a lighting issue a while back, nothing else springs to mind) with my amd cards while my nvidia systems have been causing me headaches. when kepler came out i just stopped updating the drivers for my fermi cards as each one broke more than it fixed. maxwell drivers were less troublesome, it was 1 in 3 drivers which broke something then.

go back a few of years and it was the other way around, 3/4k series cards were the root of my headaches while the constant g92 rebands all worked flawlessly.

now the common theme as i see it (and that is all i can do, tell it how i see) is that back then nv had the better core and milked it for all it was worth. this continuity meant drivers were more stable as they already knew the core and how to make the most of it. back to today and it is amd rebranding old cores and having stable drivers while nv have pumped out new core after new core to try and catch up.

i mean shit, i aint going to lie, i am much more pro amd than nvidia myself these days. but when you look at how nvidia have been acting how could any sane person not be?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> that is the funny part, of late i have had very few issues (dx9 games had a lighting issue a while back, nothing else springs to mind) with my amd cards while my nvidia systems have been causing me headaches. when kepler came out i just stopped updating the drivers for my fermi cards as each one broke more than it fixed. maxwell drivers were less troublesome, it was 1 in 3 drivers which broke something then.
> 
> go back a few of years and it was the other way around, 3/4k series cards were the root of my headaches while the constant g92 rebands all worked flawlessly.



SIDE TRACK  and now win 10 is breaking both of them  Life's a Bitch inn'it


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2015)

Osjur said:


> Here's the most likely reason why TPU didn't get a sample. They operate in Germany as a worldwide english site.


Nope.
I suspect the reason that TPU didn't get a sample is because of the comprehensive nature of W1zz's reviews. Large number of games across multiple resolutions with price, power consumption, availability, and overclocking all factored in.
W1zz's charts are used across many tech forums to illustrate various posters arguments - especially the performance per watt, performance per $, and overall performance summaries.
AMD is keen to massage the Fiji message - focusing upon the points where Nano excels. AMD does not need the world+dog having ready access to perf/$ charts...especially at anything less than 4K.

I applaud AMD, or any company for that matter, strategizing for their product line - but the end result here is heavy handed and very short-sighted given that unit sales will be low and probably won't counter the negative press from a the company cherry-picking its product reviewers.


abundantcores said:


> PCWorld got one http://www.pcworld.com/article/2979...-to-the-fury-a-tiny-gtx-970-and-a-pencil.html


No surprise. Site that benches a handful of games exclusively at 4K, with more than half of them falling under AMD's Gaming Evolved development program.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 5, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> but when you look at how nvidia have been acting how could any sane person not be?



They make very good gfx cards.  It's like accepting Tom Cruise is a Scientology Wacko but you know what- his movies I enjoy.  Yes, Nv and JSH are arrogant and devious.  But they make great hardware.

AMD for it's part haven't done a single thing to enamour me since the 5870/5850.  I bought their 7970's but that was the start of AMD's (at least in recent years) move away from budget friendly.  As a company - why do people feel loyalty to them?  Because they're not doing so well?  They're the underdog?

And what is that about supporting the underdog?  Because you're not as good we have to support you? Because your business acumen has gone south and your ability to create profit for your investors is null?  Why support them?  They're not little tiger cubs or cute button nosed mammals.  They're not badgers FFS!  It's a company.  A cold hard company - just like Nvidia, but not as rich, or quite as evil.

Anyway - I digress.  FWIW, I've never had any real problems (apart from DX9 crossfire stutter) with either brand.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Just Googled
"" Nano Review ""
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Nano+review&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=RVzrVe7vN4q7atDVsfgG

Result 3 from top

Now that deserves a card for review   3rd most popular result  and the rest are about that indian car the Tata nano


----------



## truth teller (Sep 5, 2015)

Osjur said:


> Here's the most likely reason why TPU didn't get a sample. They operate in Germany as a worldwide english site. There just isn't that many samples and they most likely went to the german sites.
> 
> Also, AMD is not directly sending these samples, they come from retailers and its not just a card they are sending. It's a whole ITX form factor computer.



mmm, that seems plausible, so they cherry picked a whole itx configuration that "works best"?
also, are retailers shipping these whole systems pre-assembled? that can't be cheap nor easy

what a mess, next time, amd, allow reviewers to test the hardware and present the data they like the best way they see fit, customers, at least the smart ones, will make sense of it no need for cherry picking stuff (tpu already has power consumption, noise and heat test data gathering)



geon2k2 said:


> Like 10 years or more ago review sites used to do image comparison tests.
> Can we have those back?
> 
> I guess it will be pretty hard to get exactly the same image from game a or b however I'm afraid all this driver "optimizations" are done at the expense of image quality, like disabling some post processing feature, rearranging draw order and so on.
> ...



i second this motion, we really need this back again

preferable done in hardware video capture (from card output and not in software [screenshots] cause you know iq settings can change between frames if the driver detects such tactics)


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 5, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> yea dave had no end of issues with the 7970, my 7950 was flawless.




I wasn't just the 7970. It was the 5870's and 6950's and 7950's. And before that, the 4870's and 4850's and 3870x2's and 3870's and 2900XT's. And before that x1950XTX and X1900's and X1800's and X800's. All that history is here on TPU an on other forums like XtremeSystems. When I say I was ATi/AMD's #1 fanboy, I really mean it. All those VGAs I bought with my own money. In January 2014 I gave up on AMD videocards and drivers and bought triple 780 TIs, and my gaming experience has been far better since, although at times, there have been problems.

And the54thvoid already said more than enough for me; I need say little else. Like most do, I take my hobbies pretty seriously. 

What I will add, however, id that the fact it remains only a hobby is not my choice. That's W1zzard's choice, so to speak. If doing reviews would pay my bills, I'd do nothing but. Things like doing video reviews and social media focus would have been things I gladly would have done, and done well (and offered and asked for permission to do), in order to make this a job, but W1zz has chosen for it to be different. In the end, I'm glad he did, although, I could use a job right about now...


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> I think that is an unfortunate mistake, it doesn't look like anything mollitious to me but rather an attempt to inject humour, which is a good thing but how it was done IMO was unwise.
> 
> They are right that GPU is a re-brand of a re-brand and the potential to make a wisecrack of it is there, with a different kind of thought process about how that would look to someone watching: it comes across as a bit derogatory toward the cards vendor (AMD) already the viewer gets the impression AMD are the but of jokes. that can be devastating for AMD.
> 
> The information is valid and should be included, but its no joke and perhaps a coment on whether or not the product is actually any good despite it being a re-brand, does the fact that it is a re-brand really matter? this is information that is important to the viewer.


I can understand the humor about 370X. A comment about performance could help to balance the news report, but my problem wasn't 370X.

It was with the Nano. What does the video say about the Nano? Well nothing. It says that "Hey, there is a new card out there that costs twice as much as a 290X and offers 30% better performance. Why do you pay double price for only 30% performance? Because it is a nice display of a new tech. Here have Papermaster say something that no customer cares about". Should I add here the "let down about the price" and the sarcasm about "performance" in the end? No mention about the cards compact form factor, and please don't tell me about the two slides that no one will notice for the 5 seconds they appear, while concentrating to what the person on the video says.

Nano is for the ITX market what Titan X is for the gaming market(yes Titan cards are gaming and not gaming cards - usually whatever suits better). It offers 20-30% better performance compared to the competition (GTX 970 ITX) for a much higher price. 99 out of 100 people will not buy a Titan X or a Nano. But those cards target that 1 person that will consider it.


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> \
> 
> Nano is for the ITX market what Titan X is for the gaming market(yes Titan cards are gaming and not gaming cards - usually whatever suits better). It offers 20-30% better performance compared to the competition (GTX 970 ITX) for a much higher price. 99 out of 100 people will not buy a Titan X or a Nano. But those cards target that 1 person that will consider it.


No it does not. AMD own BS internal testing settings with 0xAF artifically boost Fiji cards up by a huge amount.

Remember the Fury X pre release benchmarks where they put it above 980Ti? That put it 20% above 980Ti in average? Most was with 0xAF.
Yeah that turned out to be 0% once real reviews came in.

Then its the Nano benchmarks. Looks like a true GTX 970 ITX killer right?
Also 0xAF and 0xMSAA.
That is on 4K. Which will maybe be +10% in reality.

We all know 4K is the Fiji`s strong suit. What happens in 1080p and 1440p? I expect 970 ITX and Nano to be very close.
Way different situation than Titan X +43% *real* performance over 290X (Click)


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> IMO, I would spend that $650 for either a 2nd GTX970 & a SLI capable board OR a heavily OCed GTX980Ti where it literally killed it's own big brother, Titan X & the whole suite of AMD's finest high end cards.


And you are going to put those two 970s in the same tiny box that someone will use for a Nano? Not to mention the power and heat from two cards compared to one card.
Nano is a very specific product for a very small percentage of buyers. Probably 0.1% of the market. Those would consider this card as the best available solution. 99.9% will go for anything else that will fit nicely in their full ATX case.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 5, 2015)

john_ said:


> And you are going to put those two 970s in the same tiny box that someone will use for a Nano? Not to mention the power and heat from two cards compared to one card.
> Nano is a very specific product for a very small percentage of buyers. Probably 0.1% of the market. Those would consider this card as the best available solution. 99.9% will go for anything else that will fit nicely in their full ATX case.


the thing is the form factor its marketed to most those mITX cases can fit a full sized gpu anyway like a gtx980ti or even a r9 fury. heck a lot of them even got space for least 1 rad so fury x would fit. So 0.1% of market is pretty generous number to say its targeted at.


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 5, 2015)

I had planned to read the review here. I trust this site's analysis and I can believe the posted results.
AMD is sucking hind teat and it's their own doing.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 5, 2015)

Fact is the last thing AMD want or need right now is super niche, ultimately it's going to do the square root of fuck all for their bottom line and their market share.

Although clearly the drama this Unicorn generates is delicious.


----------



## john_ (Sep 5, 2015)

Cloudfire said:


> No it does not. AMD own BS internal testing settings with 0xAF artifically boost Fiji cards up by a huge amount.
> 
> Remember the Fury X pre release benchmarks where they put it above 980Ti? That put it 20% above 980Ti in average? Most was with 0xAF.
> Yeah that turned out to be 0% once real reviews came in.
> ...



"Artificially boost"? Really? How? It's two of the settings that you use in the games. You accuse AMD for using benchmarks with options that suits their hardware? What do you expect them to do? Run Project Cars with all the GameWorks crap at highest options? Run Batman with PhysX at highest settings? Nvidia is doing the same thing. All companies do the same thing. Is Nvidia completely honest? Don't say "yes". You probably want to, but don't!

Now, if you want a card for 1080p or 1440p, no one stops you for going for a 380 ITX, 960ITX or 970 ITX. If you can live with -10%, -20% -50% performance, no one asks you to buy the top card.

The top product is always ridiculously expensive. Titan compared to 780Ti, Titan X compared to 980Ti(who is talking about 290X? and anyway if you really really REALLY NEED to compare Titan X with 290X, Titan's price is 320% higher), Intel I7 6920HQ costs $190 more than Intel I7 6820HQ and their only difference is 200MHz on the CPU.

If Nano offers 10%-20% better performance and there is no other card that can offer that performance, yes you can put a ridiculous price on that card. 999 buyers will laugh at that price. One will buy the card. You only target that one person.



arbiter said:


> the thing is the form factor its marketed to most those mITX cases can fit a full sized gpu anyway like a gtx980ti or even a r9 fury. heck a lot of them even got space for least 1 rad so fury x would fit. So 0.1% of market is pretty generous number to say its targeted at.



There are people who will buy that box that it is one centimeter smaller in just one direction compared to the next one. The specs wouldn't matter much. Yes I am talking about people who don't know what a benchmark is. But they do use dollars, or euros, or bitcoins or whatever like every other person out there.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

john_ said:


> "Artificially boost"? Really? How? It's two of the settings that you use in the games. You accuse AMD for using benchmarks with options that suits their hardware? What do you expect them to do? Run Project Cars with all the GameWorks crap at highest options? Run Batman with PhysX at highest settings? Nvidia is doing the same thing. All companies do the same thing. Is Nvidia completely honest? Don't say "yes". You probably want to, but don't!


First off All review sites turn gameworks and physx Off when doing testing. Problem with with AMD did was turned off game options that are not shader based. AA and AF for example are 2 they turned off. As for you claiming nvidia does it as well is hard kinda baseless since when they compare performance its vs their OWN cards. AMD is only one that puts up these shame of a benchmark's claiming their card is faster then nvidia which gets debunked when independent reviewers do their test using settings that are much closer to what a REAL customer would use for their game settings. AF is pretty much a standard that people run at least 8x or most time 16x.



john_ said:


> If Nano offers 10%-20% better performance and there is no other card that can offer that performance, yes you can put a ridiculous price on that card. 999 buyers will laugh at that price. One will buy the card. You only target that one person.


That is pretty funny you say 10-20% but that 10-20% comes at a permium of 2x the price. An mITX gtx970 can be had for under 300$, a fury nano is 650$ and performance difference between the 2 is still up in the air since AMD is know to use settings that make their card look better then it is compared to what it compete's against. They got ousted on that with Fury X.



john_ said:


> There are people who will buy that box that it is one centimeter smaller in just one direction compared to the next one. The specs wouldn't matter much. Yes I am not talking about people who don't know what a benchmark is. But they do use dollars, or euros, or bitcoins or whatever like every other person out there.


Most mITX cases have extra space down by where gpu is, only small number don't.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 6, 2015)

Interesting. There is no legit review on the Internets by the date... 

Is AMD trolling everybody with this "so called" launch??


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

Prima.Vera said:


> Interesting. There is no legit review on the Internets by the date...
> 
> Is AMD trolling everybody with this "so called" launch??


they did a paper launch a few weeks ago but NDA'ed for reviews from what i heard that won't be up til the 10th


----------



## john_ (Sep 6, 2015)

arbiter said:


> First off All review sites turn gameworks and physx Off when doing testing. Problem with with AMD did was turned off game options that are not shader based. AA and AF for example are 2 they turned off. As for you claiming nvidia does it as well is hard kinda baseless since when they compare performance its vs their OWN cards. AMD is only one that puts up these shame of a benchmark's claiming their card is faster then nvidia which gets debunked when independent reviewers do their test using settings that are much closer to what a REAL customer would use for their game settings. AF is pretty much a standard that people run at least 8x or most time 16x.


I never expect to read from you something different than Nvidia's defence. Anything that paints a negative image about Nvidia is baseless for you. Anything that AMD does is bad. Not what we are talking about here. Not something specific. But ANYTHING.



> That is pretty funny you say 10-20% but that 10-20% comes at a permium of 2x the price. An mITX gtx970 can be had for under 300$, a fury nano is 650$ and performance difference between the 2 is still up in the air since AMD is know to use settings that make their card look better then it is compared to what it compete's against. They got ousted on that with Fury X.


More of the same objectivity. If Nano is faster than a 970 ITX then it does justifies it's price for the minority of those who will be interested in getting the top performance no matter the cost. The same minority that will pay $200 more for the top Skylake mobile CPU, even if it offers only 5% higher performance, the same minority that will pay $300 more over a 980Ti for a Titan X, just to play games.



> Most mITX cases have extra space down by where gpu is, only small number don't.


 The difference isn't big enough to interest us, but OEMs would have the option of building smaller cases, even by an inch or just a centimeter. And if Nano ends up faster than a GTX 970 ITX card, then you will have to advantages of that card over ANY other ITX card. Those two are not enough for me, you and almost everybody else in this forum. But not all. And not all everywhere. And Nano wasn't made to be sold by the millions.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

john_ said:


> The difference isn't big enough to interest us, but OEMs would have the option of building smaller cases, even by an inch or just a centimeter. And if Nano ends up faster than a GTX 970 ITX card, then you will have to advantages of that card over ANY other ITX card. Those two are not enough for me, you and almost everybody else in this forum. But not all. And not all everywhere. And Nano wasn't made to be sold by the millions.


Point i was making is very few ITX cases limit you to a small card. Only a very few limit you to tiny cards, most you have space to get a Fury(x) or a 980ti in there. Much better options then this little card.


john_ said:


> More of the same objectivity. If Nano is faster than a 970 ITX then it does justifies it's price for the minority of those who will be interested in getting the top performance no matter the cost.


That minority was cost is 0 factor in things is very tiny group. if say its 10% faster by independent results, hard to justify price over other mITX option or other 650$ option.


----------



## john_ (Sep 6, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Point i was making is very few ITX cases limit you to a small card. Only a very few limit you to tiny cards, most you have space to get a Fury(x) or a 980ti in there. Much better options then this little card.



OEMs can create small cases where the 1 inch that Nano saves, could be translated in a one inch smaller case. For both of us this is NOT important. For someone could be. Why people buy NUCs? There are so many arguments against them, but people buy them. Why Intel created 5X5? It's not that more smaller than a mini ITX and you also lose the PCIe. 



> That minority was cost is 0 factor in things is very tiny group. if say its 10% faster by independent results, hard to justify price over other mITX option or other 650$ option.



When it doesn't suits you, you play it dumb and keep repeating the same thing. Why people buy the top product that costs 50% higher and offers 5% more performance? BECAUSE YOU AVOID TO ANSWER WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER.

Having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with an MP3 file. It doesn't matter what I will say. The MP3 file will always have the same arguments.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 6, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Victim blaming? Clearly you haven't read enough of Sony's posts which speak for themselves.



That is Sony talking negatively about Nvidia and Positively about AMD, something many other people do in reverse in the commentsection of this same article, for example:

"
Tsukiyomi91

Gonna rest this case once & for all. Will give these AMD fags like Sony time to get their shit together & think in a rational manner. Maybe one day they will slowly shift into the Green camp once all the lies AMD has been brainwashing them with is gone. Oh, the Blue camp would accept them with open arms & show them the beauty of power, efficiency & ingenuity in which AMD has failed to accomplish that.
Posted on Sep 5th 2015, 20:52

"

amd fags.... rational manner...amd has been brainwashing them...
Actually, this is not a good example at all because he insults/attacks AMD users as well, something Sony did not do in your example.

but that is all fine and allowed, yet the person who said they wont dignify an "fanboy" accusation with a responds gets a (temp) ban?
Idk man, seems atleast fishy to me.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 6, 2015)

Problem with overhyped products is, if they turn out to be tiny bit worse than anticipated, it'll be portrayed 10 times worse than if it was just released like any average product. But if you create a hype and then also deliver the goods, people will praise you 10 times more.

Seeing how AMD hyped us all with R9 Nano and after clocks surfaced and after you do the math on your own based on clocks and see how they can't even supply them enough to reviewers, that is not looking good and they are falling into the first hype group. Which is bad for them...


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

Prima.Vera said:


> Interesting. There is no legit review on the Internets by the date...
> 
> Is AMD trolling everybody with this "so called" launch??


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 6, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> That is Sony talking negatively about Nvidia and Positively about AMD, something many other people do in reverse in the commentsection of this same article, for example:
> 
> "
> Tsukiyomi91
> ...



Sony's posts are consistently like this.

"AMD are victims this, Nvidia are a nasty evil company that"

When anybody and everybody provides evidence or better proof that a post is inaccurate, there is no capitulation.  Instead, tantrum heels get dug in and the posts become more infuriating.
The point of a community is to argue, discuss, understand. Sony on the whole attempts zero understanding and simply continue to push an often 'proven invalid' point.
What I tend to notice is the tiers (structures, not tears) of AMD support that defend each other. Guess what Zone, you're an AMD supporter, at least going by post history.
But I agree, your mention of an Nvidia fan (on mobile can't see name) is partially relevant.  I hate those sorts of posts too.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 6, 2015)

john_ said:


> And you are going to put those two 970s in the same tiny box that someone will use for a Nano? Not to mention the power and heat from two cards compared to one card.
> Nano is a very specific product for a very small percentage of buyers. Probably 0.1% of the market. Those would consider this card as the best available solution. 99.9% will go for anything else that will fit nicely in their full ATX case.



It's my opinion & others can either agree or disagree since it's their choice & I respect that choice of theirs since it's their money, not mine. It's the whole "pay what you get" thing. Besides, both vendors are good at their own things but it's AMD that's on the losing end... with that sort of desperation, would you consider purchasing a product that has not been tested by proper reviewers & instead rely on glorified paper scores mock up by the vendors themselves? I wouldn't no matter how sweet it may be.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> View attachment 67829


Well Ryan over at PCper got one but NDA isn't til like 10th. I was pretty sure i seen ryan in and outta games yesturday so he likely was doing performance tests on the card so will be able to see.


----------



## john_ (Sep 6, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> but that is all fine and allowed


Yes because 80% runs Nvidia cards. When you offend 20%, you have the support of the other 80%, because they see your characterizations as justified. When you offend 80%, well 20% support is not enough to save you.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 6, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> That is Sony talking negatively about Nvidia and Positively about AMD, something many other people do in reverse in the commentsection of this same article, for example:
> 
> "
> Tsukiyomi91
> ...


That was in response to Sony specifically. Once again, I think you need to look into half of the shit Sony says before making claims like that. A lot of people who are upset with AMD are people who aren't green camp supporters and I include myself upon them. I wouldn't have bought a 390 if I didn't think it wasn't worth it however, this PR game AMD is trying to play is insanely stupid. When you have people like Sony who is posting fud constantly, there comes a point where the banstick comes into play.

Most people here are ticked off with AMD because of this, even people who aren't nVidia supporters. Simply fact is this was a very bad call by AMD for whatever reason it may be.


----------



## john_ (Sep 6, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> It's my opinion & others can either agree or disagree since it's their choice & I respect that choice of theirs since it's their money, not mine. It's the whole "pay what you get" thing. Besides, both vendors are good at their own things but it's AMD that's on the losing end... with that sort of desperation, would you consider purchasing a product that has not been tested by proper reviewers & instead rely on glorified paper scores mock up by the vendors themselves? I wouldn't no matter how sweet it may be.



Did my comment had to do anything about you having an opinion? Don't make it look like that.

As for the pay what you get, it's very subjective. Titan X is an example. Even GTX 980 was a nice example when compared to the GTX 970. I say was because now that we know the real specs of GTX 970, some might have second thought about it's value and if it is a future proof product. And where can I buy a Nano TODAY? Reviews will come out before the card starts selling and no one puts a gun on your head to buy the card before TPU publishes it's own review. So, where is the problem?



It's just boring to keep repeating that people keep using double standards. I have shown in the past that people in here and not only here, will happily blame AMD, and then find plenty of excuses for Intel and Nvidia for the same exact things.

It's funny how everyone ignores the example of Intel I7 6920HQ and Intel I7 6820HQ, forget that Titan X costs $350 more than a GTX 980Ti probably for the same performance gains as a Nano over a GTX 970 ITX.

Iit's funny how you will have to write 50 posts about GTX 970 4GBs fiasco(and ROPs, and data bus and cache) only to get denial, it's funny how async compute contradicts what Nvidia was spreading directly or indirectly about Maxwell's complete DirectX 12 support, but people will not consider it important. Nvidia will come probably with a software emulation of the fanction and everyone in this specific case will come to the conclusion that software emulation is as good as a hardware function. I am absolutely sure about that. If it was AMD, it would have been a nice excuse for an editorial and how AMD lies to consumers by emulating something that doesn't exists. 
Then there is the no DirectX 12 Fermi support that no one cares to comment. But if AMD wasn't supporting DirectX 12 on GCN 1.0 for example, everyone would be firing at them. There are 700 and 600 series cards out there from Nvidia that they are NOT DirectX 12 because they are Fermi rebrands. But it is Nvidia. No reason to mention it.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 6, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> That was in response to Sony specifically. Once again, I think you need to look into half of the shit Sony says before making claims like that. A lot of people who are upset with AMD are people who aren't green camp supporters and I include myself upon them. I wouldn't have bought a 390 if I didn't think it wasn't worth it however, this PR game AMD is trying to play is insanely stupid. When you have people like Sony who is posting fud constantly, there comes a point where the banstick comes into play.
> 
> Most people here are ticked off with AMD because of this, even people who aren't nVidia supporters. Simply fact is this was a very bad call by AMD for whatever reason it may be.



Not sure what claims I made, I responded directly to the proof provided with some counter proof of an even worst kind to show it seems out of balance to ban Sony and not that other guy (and probably a ton of other posts here that I did not include).

Honestly I dont get what all this heated discussion is about, I mean gawd its a videocard.
I think this mostly stems from their just being 2 camps, take cars, hard to keep track of what brands to hate and why, there are so many after all.

Anywho, they dont provide a review sample, so what?
The people who care about reviews will wait untill reviews have been done (every review company can just go out a buy a copy for reviewing and perhaps even return it later, that would honestly be a better idea anyway as there is no chance of cherry picked review samples).
The people who dont care about reviews....well they dont care, whether its done or not they will decide on buying it or not on other reasons, simple as that.

Its questionable for sure but man, such heated speculation and fanboy-ish hate remarks, its just insanity.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

john_ said:


> Did my comment had to do anything about you having an opinion? Don't make it look like that.
> 
> As for the pay what you get, it's very subjective. Titan X is an example. Even GTX 980 was a nice example when compared to the GTX 970. I say was because now that we know the real specs of GTX 970, some might have second thought about it's value and if it is a future proof product. And where can I buy a Nano TODAY? Reviews will come out before the card starts selling and no one puts a gun on your head to buy the card before TPU publishes it's own review. So, where is the problem?
> 
> It's just boring to keep repeating that people keep using double standards. I have shown in the past that people in here and not only here, will happily blame AMD, and then find plenty of excuses for Intel and Nvidia for the same exact things.


Problem with what you say is double standard. Nvidia took heat over gtx970. Thing is it was one few times nvidia messed up. AMD on other hand comes out makes a huge PR about how their card is so much faster then nvidia card or can do so much. Like 290x was one their new cards at time and how great and fast of card it was, but put a crappy cooler on it that crippled the card. Point I am making reason its easier for people to give nvidia a pass on things, most time they make claims about a product they put out, it gives the performance or works like they claim it does. On the other hand AMD makes claims about something ahead of time and it ends up being bit of a lie and not as fast as they claim (fury x vs 980ti for example) or not as good as they would liked people to believe( freesync vs g-sync, yea it worked like g-sync but ghosting issues, limited VRR window and tearing of image under min refresh rate). Even 1 claim was some current monitors that were out now could do freesync, which turned not to happen which if it was just a lie or turned out long term the monitors couldn't handle it is a unknown. AMD's PR department tends to promise a lot but their tech just tends to fall a tad short of claim.

Both companies have screwed up at times one things, it happens. Problem is that AMD if you look at their track record last 3-4 years its been 1 after another on top of them crying foul at nvidia saying they intentionally cripple performance on radeon cards yet AMD has been guilty of doing same thing on nvidia cards. At this point people are starting to get sick of it.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 6, 2015)

Oxide is currently working with Nvidia over the Async feature. Maxwell 2 uses Asynchronous Warp Schedulers but the driver allocates the queue to the AWS.  So Nvidia will have a software managed hardware level implementation, not an emulation.
AMD obviously has far less driver work required and can use its ACE instead.  But that's OT.


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 6, 2015)

Nano is a gpu? I thought it represents the chance amd has surviving beyond 2016


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 6, 2015)

long story short, I chose Nvidia because of their product's efficiency. I moved from AMD for a reason ever since they started to fail at keeping up the competition against Nvidia & that is what made me disappointed and a little sad, despite having to drive the price down on all their products to keep them afloat. They are not like that. 8 years ago, all of them (including Intel) are very competitive with fierce competition on which have the best hardware. Now? there's hardly one except countless of expected events where Intel & Nvidia are dominating the market, overflowing with their offerings.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 6, 2015)

this is the only nano that you can buy on the open market


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 6, 2015)

Dieinafire said:


> Nano is a gpu? I thought it represents the chance amd has surviving beyond 2016


It is but with the lack of testing samples for reviewers to flex it's pixel-crunching muscles... it's kinda gloomy for AMD's future as not many wanted to read overglorified paper scores done in AMD's own testing environment.


----------



## john_ (Sep 6, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Problem with what you say is double standard. Nvidia took heat over gtx970. Thing is it was one few times nvidia messed up. AMD on other hand comes out makes a huge PR about how their card is so much faster then nvidia card or can do so much. Like 290x was one their new cards at time and how great and fast of card it was, but put a crappy cooler on it that crippled the card. Point I am making reason its easier for people to give nvidia a pass on things, most time they make claims about a product they put out, it gives the performance or works like they claim it does. On the other hand AMD makes claims about something ahead of time and it ends up being bit of a lie and not as fast as they claim (fury x vs 980ti for example) or not as good as they would liked people to believe( freesync vs g-sync, yea it worked like g-sync but ghosting issues, limited VRR window and tearing of image under min refresh rate). Even 1 claim was some current monitors that were out now could do freesync, which turned not to happen which if it was just a lie or turned out long term the monitors couldn't handle it is a unknown. AMD's PR department tends to promise a lot but their tech just tends to fall a tad short of claim.
> 
> Both companies have screwed up at times one things, it happens. Problem is that AMD if you look at their track record last 3-4 years its been 1 after another on top of them crying foul at nvidia saying they intentionally cripple performance on radeon cards yet AMD has been guilty of doing same thing on nvidia cards. At this point people are starting to get sick of it.


Nice try. But after the first sentence everything you write is only partially correct. Nvidia did saw negative posts over GTX 970, but not from the press. The majority of the press was doing damage control in favor of the company. You and others also participated in that by saying that "who cares if Nvidia lied? the performance is still there". Damage control all over the place. There is less buzz about Nvidia because Nvidia's wrongdoings are usually covered as non important. On the other hand anything from AMD is treated as the biggest lie/mistake/fail in the modern history of computers. So, you take this double standard approach from the press and make it look like it is a proof that AMD is a bad company that lies to everyone and everything. No surprise there.


----------



## Folterknecht (Sep 6, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> AMD is so badly in the poop, finances-wise, that they can no longer afford to send free samples to reviewers.



Yeah well - obviously they have enough money to waste it on 3!!! halo cards and their marketing. And that's beside the fact that these cards are priced totally retarded in my book when considering their performance.

Instead of producing a 970/980 killer, we get rebranded overclocked 290(X)s with additional 4GB that nobody outside of CF needs for fantasy prices.



Sony Xperia S said:


> BTW, fyi, the German site PC Games Hardware will get a Nano sample. And people claim that it is one of the best, objective sites.



I stopped even visiting PCGH years ago. Not because they produce wonky benchmarks (numbers), but because they were much to tame in their conclusions - they didn't call out companies on their BS. What they produced was more like company PR + benchmark numbers.
If you want journalism in german language you have to read Igor Wallossek @tomshardware.de  --  he isn't the loudest but sure knows what he 's doing and writing.

PCGH is more for the 14 year olds.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

Folterknecht said:


> Yeah well - obviously they have enough money to waste it on 3!!! halo cards and their marketing. And that's beside they fact that these cards are priced totally retarded in my book when considering their performance.
> 
> Instead of producing a 970/980 killer, we get rebranded overclocked 290(X)s with additional 4GB that nobody outside of CF needs for fantasy prices.
> 
> ...




This is the same crap amped wireless pulls these days.... soccer mommy type sites get review units while good sites don't and the sites they do give samples out to don't bench. or they test for like 10 minutes and are done. not nowhere near as long as I bench. I minimum bench for 2 hours per test per mode per frequency per adapter and I test multiple. yet, they can't give the units to honest and factual people like me and some other sites. 

companies like them and amd have no place anymore.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 6, 2015)

Folterknecht said:


> Yeah well - obviously they have enough money to waste it on 3!!! halo cards and their marketing. And that's beside the fact that these cards are priced totally retarded in my book when considering their performance.
> 
> Instead of producing a 970/980 killer, we get rebranded overclocked 290(X)s with additional 4GB that nobody outside of CF needs for fantasy prices.
> 
> ...


Technically speaking TPU is also a German site


----------



## alucasa (Sep 6, 2015)

I need Nvidia for something I need.

Nvidia Iray. It obviously doesn't work on AMD GPU.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-iray.html


----------



## pr0fessor (Sep 6, 2015)

My favorite Site to read, hasn't got the most interesting AMD Graphic card for a while! I would suggest to test some more of the latest AMD Products like the R9 390 I was looking for, instead of tons of GTX 980 Ti from every brand. The AMD 300- Series deserve really more attention. No doubt they are good cards as well.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 6, 2015)

I would be grateful if we could get back to the topic of this news piece..... as opposed to discussing individual members, their behaviour and their comments, it is always an emotive subject I appreciate but there are a number of factors people like myself take into consideration when dealing with anyone, one of the most important factors will always be past history of conduct and whether a member actually has any intention to conduct themselves in an appropriate way, many innocent bystanders may not be aware of some of these factors....... that's the last thing I will say on this topic in this sub forum so move on please........ thank you.


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 6, 2015)

abundantcores said:


> I think this has been said before in this thread, AMD are investing in Social Media Reviews and (Correct me if i'm wrong) TPU generally don't do Youtube. JayztwoCents is all over it.


Man u sure know how to put a spin on things.  Do you work for Hallock?  
Nobody said anything about Social Media Reviews".  What WAS said is AMD are taking Social* Marketing* to a whole new level.

"Community Rep" is a euphemism for Internet/Online Marketer.  "AMD reps" are paid to promote the products, help with SEO, attract interest, attempt damage control etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=O...&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=kD3sVYXqKoTcmAX314qABQ

http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/...to-Your-Boss-7-Euphemisms-Everyone-Needs.aspx

This is how advertising is done these days,.... but the degree of BS can vary wildly depending on the company. AMD often misrepresent the truth.

Prime example is Matt stating on Guru that VSR would be supported on the 280x but not 79x0 because of "incompatibility".  Which ofc was a flat out lie since they are identical.
Fwiw, I posted exactly that reply to Matt and was promptly banned by someone (admin) @Guru. I never found out who.

Hilbert reinstated my account the next day but by then thread had been picked up by reddit and Asder was busy modding drivers to make VSR work with the 7900.

A few days later after total silence, Matt posted again saying "sorry for the confusion, we want to make your experience better so our devs our working to get 7900 support for VSR" or something to that affect.
That summed up his (therefore AMD's) response, after not replying to a single comment or query posted to him by 7900 owners wanting an explanation..

More like AMD were in damage control mode after being caught red handed trying to obsolete a rebranded card to increase sales.

That's one example, but prob the most blatant.....


So now hopefully some people may understand why I get annoyed....


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 6, 2015)

@Pill Monster seems that they did get caught with their pants down for that publicity stunt...


----------



## Folterknecht (Sep 6, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Technically speaking TPU is also a German site



Havn't seen a german review here up until now. This day and age it doesnt really matter anyway.

And I like Igor for his approach to GPU reviews - shortly after the initial release you usually get a deep dive into certain aspects of the cards that no one else covers be it problems (e.g. noise + heat + throttle) and how to reduce it (290 + Accelero Xtreme) or finding the efficiency sweetpot of a product (really great article for the 970 iTX).


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 6, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Sorry, but we can't have your kind of posters on TPU. I gave you a long rope.



Thank you very much for taking action on this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> this is the only nano that you can buy on the open market


OMG it's slammed!



pr0fessor said:


> My favorite Site to read, hasn't got the most interesting AMD Graphic card for a while! I would suggest to test some more of the latest AMD Products like the R9 390 I was looking for, instead of tons of GTX 980 Ti from every brand. The AMD 300- Series deserve really more attention. No doubt they are good cards as well.


There's not much point.  The 3## series are rebrands from 2##.  The only difference is a slight clock bump and maybe more memory.  Example: see a benchmark that includes 290X, add 10% to its performance, and that's about where the 390X will be.


On topic: has AMD contacted TPU about this yet?  You'd think the article would have turned some heads at AMD to try to expedite getting a card to TPU.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 6, 2015)

pr0fessor said:


> My favorite Site to read, hasn't got the most interesting AMD Graphic card for a while! I would suggest to test some more of the *latest AMD Products like the R9 390 I was looking for*, instead of tons of GTX 980 Ti from every brand. The AMD 300- Series deserve really more attention. No doubt they are good cards as well.



This is the problem.  The 390 isn't new.  It's a tweaked 290X.  It's the whole reason why we're pissed we wont get a Nano review.  We want reviews of new products - not Rebrands.  Truth is , AMD only has 3 new ones and they're all the same core (Fiji, Fiji shader hobbled or Fiji TDP hobbled).  At least we have GM 204 and GM200.  And there are tonnes of variations.  There are ONLY AMD Fiji products and initially it was very few 390's as well (though it's more now as AIB's realise they wont be making money from non existent Fury's).

Don't get me wrong the 950 release recently was utterly 'meh'.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 6, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> This is the problem. The 390 isn't new. It's a tweaked 290X.


A tweaked 290. It don't have the shaders a 290X does however it's tweaked enough and runs faster VRAM enough to get it to perform like a 290X. In all seriousness, I really like my 390 but, I was also coming from 6870s so the rebrand thing wasn't an issue to me because it was already a lot better than what I had.

The only part about the 390 that isn't a rebrand is the VRAM. It's faster and higher capacity. After some testing I've concluded that (at least in Valley benchmark,) that GPU performance scales linearly to memory frequency, even from as low as 1000Mhz up to 1600Mhz. Not to say gains a huge but, they're consistently linear. I would expect an overclocked 390 to outperform an overclocked 290 just because of the faster VRAM alone, even if the cores are the same.

Either way, what does it matter? The 290 is one of the best bang for your buck GPUs you can get with the 390 a little over it. The question is, do you think the extra and faster VRAM along with a tweaked BIOS is worth the extra price? I thought it was and I can't say I've been disappointed but I don't have a 290 to compare it to.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

The 2## cards are a steal now going for 30% or more below their launch prices.  $300 for a 290X is ridiculous. ...while supplies last.


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 6, 2015)

AMD rather give R9 Nano samples to unknowns like this blogger instead of respectable reviewers like TechPowerUp, TechReport or HardOCP. 

Yup, this is AMD trying to BS the community by delaying the truth to be revealed. Shame on you AMD


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

these asshole companies would rather give thier stuff out to hipsters and soccer moms that have no idea what they are talking about just becuase they are big or have a certain image.. -_-

and wow I barely do anything with twitter and I have more followers than her


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

AMD clearly wants to appeal to the masses instead of tech experts.  Why does Beats come to mind?


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 6, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> these asshole companies would rather give thier stuff out to hipsters and soccer moms that have no idea what they are talking about just becuase they are big or have a certain image.. -_-


As long as they write that R9 Nano is the best since sliced bread, they will get a sample from AMD.

I mean, an unknown blogger, instead of respectable reviewer sites that reach tens of thousands viewers? The signs are clearly there. Do AMD really think we are that stupid?
Must be very infuriating for TPU to see that the blogger above get one but they dont.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

amd's next chapter is definitly 11


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

It's torn_tv that got it and...fanboi much?


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 6, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's torn_tv that got it and...fanboi much?


First of all, torn_tv and westickout are married.
Secondly, torn_tv is a member of the AMDRTP and is unknown in the reviewer industry compared to TPU.
Third, its called "Fanboy" and is a personal attack if you were referring to me.

I don`t need to say anything more


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

I was referring to torn_tv.  Dat header pic...wow.

I think I can already sum up his _review_: "it is AWESOME! #MakeItNano"


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 6, 2015)

I'm sorry to do this, but this may be lengthy.  The TL;DR is that a completely objective review is impossible.




Now that's out of the way, let's dissect a TPU review.
1) Initial specifications are given for the device, and they are compared to similarly priced and specified items.
2) Unboxing is done and pictured.
3) The device is stripped, and pictured.
4) The testing conditions are set, and defined.
5) A slew of games is tested at various resolutions, and the FPS is graphed (graphs compare aforementioned "similar" devices).
6) Power consumption is logged and graphed.
7) Fan noise is measured and graphed according to a strict and defined test system.
8) Performance summaries are tallied.  I'm counting this as one section, because it's all calculated based on previous data, despite spanning multiple pages and graphing all of the information.
9) Overclocking results and figures.
10) Other factors that aren't standard to all reviews.  Sometimes this is observations on technology, sometimes it's an opportunity for the author to digress and explain why something was done.
11) Conclusions.


What do we have to remove in order to be 100% non-biased?
1) Can't keep this.  You arbitrarily choose a few items that are "similarly" specified in both camps.  You can only compare offerings from one camp in an unbiased situation, as demonstrated by the AMD vs. Intel 4 core CPU debacle.
2) This is unbiased.  You could argue pictures can be biased, but the shots are generally without bias.
3) Same as 2.
4) Can't do this.  You've set a testing condition that not everyone can duplicate with their current hardware.  This is a bias that basically means reviewing is impossible.
5) See 4.
6) See 4.
7) The card you receive isn't representative of 100% of the cards on the market, and the test rig isn't representative of most consumers.  It is therefore biased.
8) See 4.
9) Silicon lottery.  You've only got one sample, so your figures are biased by a sample size insufficient to represent the product line as a whole.
10) Extra information, that's a severe bias based upon what the author is thinking.'
11) By nature, a biased summary of all figures.


What an "unbiased" review would be is the pictures of what came in the box, and the pictures of the card.  As a review, that's a pretty crappy piece of information to judge a product like a GPU with.

Anyone asking for 100% unbiased reviews either doesn't understand what they are asking for, or their justification of what unbiased means would result in a 1000 page manual of data that the average consumer would find absolutely useless.  Heck, people are still running cards back to the 2xx (Nvidia) and 6xxx (AMD) generation.  If those cards still have some market presence why aren't they on every review?  Even the various custom board and cooler option should be explored, because they make differences on the performance, and most definitely the performance per dollar.  What you are asking for is a flood of information, which negates the purpose of a review.

Addressing some concerns, the review conditions aren't realistic.  Absolutely true.  You don't have the same rig as the tester.  If you do have the same rig, you don't have the same exact cards.  Barring some magical coincidence of having the same hardware, you've still got software and environmental conditions to deal with.  In case you missed it, this means that scientifically speaking these reviews aren't 100% reproducible.  The thing is, it doesn't matter.  Sadly, testing has a margin of error that some people continue to forget.  The test showing AMD beat Nvidia by 2 frames in one game, then lost by 3 in another, actually show they are equal performers.  Additionally, not all games are created equal.  There's plenty of software out there which Nvidia has had a large hand in creating.  "The way it's meant to be played" is a phrase any older gamer should know.  For these games you'll likely never have an AMD product perform as well as a similarly specified Nvidia card.  Demonstrating this performance in a review isn't being biased, only showing the impact less than competitive business practices can have.  It's the same drum Red Team fans banged upon when the async shaders testing came out, with AMD in a huge lead.  Nvidia did the dumbest thing possible and tried to have these results buried.  The results of these tests are not biased, and the reason they were conducted was real world application and not the bias of the author.


Put shortly, AMD isn't distributing these to everyone for a good reason.  It isn't bias, because that's demonstrably a crappy premise.  It isn't a history with media outlets, because they've stated that samples of these products are in extremely short supply.  What we've got is AMD trying to craft a social media PR war against Nvidia.  They're choosing outlets that address the technologically ignorant masses, where data doesn't trump cool factor.  They're trying to get this product out the door as something that PR sells, well in advance of hard numbers.  I honestly believe this is AMD admitting that Fiji isn't a home run.  It might be a solid runner on base, but they're not selling Fiji as that, nor are they focused on the future with DX12.  AMD is trying to get a PR win because they've got a small form factor and good performance with a new technology.  I believe the phrase is "desperation play," and not "victory lap."  We love you AMD, but you've really got to see that this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  A $650 card isn't an impulse buy, and trying to sell it on social media frames it as such.  

Who is the target demographic AMD?  It isn't common people, because a console is cheaper and works from the moment you plug it in.  It isn't enthusiasts, who drool over the numbers.  It isn't gamers, who a long time ago agreed to large cases to fit the GPUs they needed into them.  Heck, it isn't even the HTPC market, because that price tag is just painfully high.   AMD is trying to manufacture a new market, and I just can't see it.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

..and then you have people like me that painstakingly make every condition the same no matter what access point I test... I even purchase new replacement hardware that is the SAME rather then getting something better for the price. Case-in-point edimax ac600 adapter dies... instead of getting something better for the test rig for the same price I get the same thing for consistency.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

What's ironic is that these AMDRTP twitters are only getting a Nano so they talk about it; the fact of the matter is they likely talked about it extensively without having the Nano.  There is little to no difference between them having it and not having it other than tweeting pictures.

I wonder what percentage of buyers look at resources like TPU before making the decision on buying graphics card.  I also wonder what percentage people buy the card based only on having seen it in social media.  Like I said: Beats.  Beats also focuses on the latter so they can sell $10 headphones for $200.  The former call out the latter's bullshit but the market doesn't seem to care or Beats would be a dead brand.  I really hate the fact that AMD is shifting from "product sells itself" marketing platform to "sell the brand" marketing platform but I also have to admit that the latter may translate to far more sales--be it a good product or not.

I got a love-hate AMD relationship right now.  I still love their cards but hate the fact they are giving up on people like me whom cares about benchmarks.  All I know for sure is that this move by AMD feels disrespectful to me and their product.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is AMD throwing a hail Mary pass.  They're asking ridiculous money for the Nano (like Beats), they're not giving it to anyone that's going to thoroughly test its performance (like Beats), and they're trying to get big social media names to promote it (like Beats).  This clearly appears to be an experiment by AMD to sell products for far more than their worth.  If it works, it might save AMD for another year or two.  If it doesn't work, well AMD's already screwed.

I fear for the long-term implications--specifically the cost.  If AMD is going to start selling cards for double what they're worth, NVIDIA will likely do the same.  Suddenly we become the victim of mass marketing.  We end up paying twice as much when there really is no alternative.  This bodes poorly for PC gaming.

I'm pretty sure AMD's Nano experiment will fall flat on its face.  The fact AMD went there is revolting to me.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

amd only sells bc it's cheap and they can make more profit off a cheaper product and hype it up like beats.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 6, 2015)

This, the blogger thing, if true is freaking hilarious.  If you have to build up suppositions as we are, AMD are definitely cherry picking review sites.  
To bypass well established reviewers to give to, as @remixedcat says, soccer mum types is an absolute indictment that AMD is lying about Nano.
The Fury X reviews pretty much globally revealed AMD's PR launch info to be untrue and now it's doing damage control by controlling its PR.
So I ask all those AMD people here clamouring to defend the company, isn't this sort of 'control' exactly what Nvidia gets a hard time for?
AMD, so virtuous they need to hide from reviewer scrutiny....

Slow clap required.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

I don't think AMD is lying but they deliberately aren't saying how bad the thermal throttle is.  I think AMD looked at the price they have to sell Nano for ($500+ because it's a Fiji) and decided that if people had to buy it based on performance (90X), no one would (e.g. go with much cheaper 970 ITX). That sent them scrambling for a different way to sell it and it appears they settled on the Beats model.

I think AMD knows they're not going to get many enthusiast sales.  I think that's also why performance reviews will be nonexistent until a reviewer buys the card and benchmarks it on his/her own dime.


----------



## nem (Sep 6, 2015)

LOL 380 comments :B









pd. i cant way for nano.¬¬


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 6, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is AMD throwing a hail Mary pass.  They're asking ridiculous money for the Nano (like Beats), they're not giving it to anyone that's going to thoroughly test its performance (like Beats), and they're trying to get big social media names to promote it (like Beats).  This clearly appears to be an experiment by AMD to sell products for far more than their worth.  If it works, it might save AMD for another year or two.  If it doesn't work, well AMD's already screwed.
> 
> I fear for the long-term implications--specifically the cost.  If AMD is going to start selling cards for double what they're worth, NVIDIA will likely do the same.  Suddenly we become the victim of mass marketing.  We end up paying twice as much when there really is no alternative.  This bodes poorly for PC gaming.
> ...



I'm pretty sure that no correction is needed.

The problem is that Beats by Dre is sold as such.  Dr. Dre is cashing in on his reputation, and putting out a product that is marginally better than the mass produced $10 model, but priced several orders of magnitude higher than that.

Believe it or not, I think this is as close to "learning" from Nvidia and Intel as AMD will ever come.  They've presented an experimental product, decreased the possible iterations of said product which can hit the market (to my knowledge partners aren't allowed to make their own), and purchased glowing reviews by choosing idiots to review them.  

I call these people idiots, but that may not be fair.  I am an idiot when it comes to reviewing cars.  I am an idiot when it comes to reviewing fine dining.  Likewise, these people are idiots when it comes to reviewing GPUs.  Having the product sold to the masses, before reality can set in, is largely AMD waging PR war.


I'm hoping this is a Hasbro style war for PR, that will raise brand awareness before pumping out an awesome new product.  Arctic Islands hopefully will be an excellent product, that washes away the third rehash of this process node.  That, of course, would require AMD to understand this is stop-gap PR.  Based upon previous idiocy....let's just say that I'm not buying AMD stock any time soon.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 6, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The problem is that Beats by Dre is sold as such.  Dr. Dre is cashing in on his reputation, and putting out a product that is marginally better than the mass produced $10 model, but priced several orders of magnitude higher than that.




So... JayzTwoCents is supposed to be Dr. Dre?






AMD missed popular recognition by not having forced more branding in the console market. I understand the gerneal focus and direction where AMD is headed, but it was poorly executed over the past 5 years.


But by no means does this mean that AMD will go under. That'll only happen when they stop paying wages. Kickstarter can fix that these days, in case you guys forgot about things like that. So the executives leave, and it goes back to just a few engineers. Do you really think they couldn't pull off a kickstarter campaign?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

A "keep AMD alive" Kickstarter?  I don't know about me but would you pledge?


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 6, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> *.They're choosing outlets that address the technologically ignorant masses, where data doesn't trump cool factor. They're trying to get this product out the door as something that PR sells, well in advance of hard numbers. *


This is without a doubt the most valid statement I've seen in the entire thread.  I hold the very same view and have done for a long time.

I can't add anything, other than I'm 39yo and over the years periodically come in contact with companies and individuals using a similar PR model.
I'm acutely aware of how it works, and tbqfh I think it's disgusting.  These people have no ethics or integrity, it all goes out the window.  Personally I couldn't stomach it.


This is in no way a jab at AMD alone, I'm talking in general terms here, Nvidia are as bad, just without the hype.   Remember when Hybrid SLI was dropped like a hot potato on Nforce?
The unsold platforms still had to be moved so it was kept quiet, at the same time Nvidia promoted the feature on their site, knowing full well consumers wouldn't be able to use it with Vista. 

Any company with product to move could be guilty....but unlikely Fisher & Pykel are gonna have youtube video review or powerpoint slides on the latest Fridge Freezer range..........if you get me. 


May as well mention youtube is the last place I'd visit for a GPU, CPU or any other type of hardware review. 
Even with sites I trust it really depends on who actually tested the hardware......call me particular.


----------



## Cloudfire (Sep 6, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I was referring to torn_tv.  Dat header pic...wow.
> 
> I think I can already sum up his _review_: "it is AWESOME! #MakeItNano"


Yeah, a true AMD fan indeed. AMD throwing every Nano they can to the AMDRTP cult members to try and persuade the public.
Seriously, how sad is it when a guy with 400 followers get a Nano but a professional unbiased site like TPU with tens of thousands of viewers is cut of from getting a sample? Pathetic

Yeah, lol at his header. Nope, nothing biased here


----------



## pr0fessor (Sep 6, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's not much point.  The 3## series are rebrands from 2##.  The only difference is a slight clock bump and maybe more memory.  Example: see a benchmark that includes 290X, add 10% to its performance, and that's about where the 390X will be.





the54thvoid said:


> This is the problem.  The 390 isn't new.  It's a tweaked 290X.  It's the whole reason why we're pissed we wont get a Nano review.  We want reviews of new products - not Rebrands.  Truth is , AMD only has 3 new ones and they're all the same core (Fiji, Fiji shader hobbled or Fiji TDP hobbled).  At least we have GM 204 and GM200.  And there are tonnes of variations.  There are ONLY AMD Fiji products and initially it was very few 390's as well (though it's more now as AIB's realise they wont be making money from non existent Fury's).
> 
> Don't get me wrong the 950 release recently was utterly 'meh'.


Even they are rebrand cards, they are not excatly the same. The power consumption is better than the old ones and the memory is good for the future. I really like the review of the ASUS Radeon R9 Fury STRIX 4GB on TPU, but that's it what you can find here. There are other cards of the fury and the 390 series that like to be reviewed, for the noise or the design..


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Oxide is currently working with Nvidia over the Async feature. Maxwell 2 uses Asynchronous Warp Schedulers but the driver allocates the queue to the AWS.  So Nvidia will have a software managed hardware level implementation, not an emulation.


Gotta remember Async was and is an AMD tech that was in mantle. So likely nvidia didn't have much time any with it ahead of time. Hence why AMD cards do a lot better with it since they had it for 1+year.



Cloudfire said:


> AMD rather give R9 Nano samples to unknowns like this blogger instead of respectable reviewers like TechPowerUp, TechReport or HardOCP.
> 
> Yup, this is AMD trying to BS the community by delaying the truth to be revealed. Shame on you AMD
> 
> ...


Pcper got one and they are not unknowns. But if a lot of people are bloggers that have little in terms of creditbility then most those reviews will stay unknown less AMD push's them which probably will happen.


FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't think AMD is lying but they deliberately aren't saying how bad the thermal throttle is.


Go back to the 290 cards at launch how bad those thermals were and how bad the card throttle


lilhasselhoffer said:


> The problem is that Beats by Dre is sold as such. Dr. Dre is cashing in on his reputation, and putting out a product that is marginally better than the mass produced $10 model, but priced several orders of magnitude higher than that.


Another company comes to mind like that, they happen to be ones that Bought Beats. crApple


Cloudfire said:


> Seriously, how sad is it when a guy with 400 followers get a Nano but a professional unbiased site like TPU with tens of thousands of viewers is cut of from getting a sample?


he has 1100 follwers not 400


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 6, 2015)

pr0fessor said:


> My favorite Site to read, hasn't got the most interesting AMD Graphic card for a while! I would suggest to test some more of the latest AMD Products like the R9 390 I was looking for, instead of tons of GTX 980 Ti from every brand.


The site can only review what is offered by the IHV/OEM/AIB/AIC. Or are you under the impression that enthusiast tech sites are so awash with cash that they can afford to just shop for hardware to review?
If you believe this to the case, you're sadly mistaken. As a tech site features writer myself, I can assure you that the tech writing business isn't a short cut to wealth and prosperity.

If you're bitching about the lack of cards being reviewed, I'd suggest a strongly worded email to the AIB's concerned.


FordGT90Concept said:


> What's ironic is that these AMDRTP twitters are only getting a Nano so they talk about it; the fact of the matter is they likely talked about it extensively without having the Nano.


Yeah, but they are going in BATTLE....they're on a MISSION, because that's how AGENTS roll


Spoiler











[Not pictured: Secret decoder ring}


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 6, 2015)

Such garbage.  I think AMD deluded themselves into thinking "Red Team Plus" is a good market strategy.  Now I'm pretty much hoping Nano falls flat on its face because AMD deserves punishment for this abhorrent display of stupidity.

AMD's market strategy should begin and end with courting OEMs to implement their products.  OEMs don't give a shit about ATI/AMD Ruby nor Twitch streamers, nor Twitter followers.  Seeing Nano's price, I suspect OEMs are flipping the bird at AMD.

Coming soon to a campus near you: How to Destroy a Business 101, presented by Dr. Lisa Su. *slow clap*


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 6, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Such garbage.  I think AMD deluded themselves into thinking "Red Team Plus" is a good market strategy.


You're talking about a company whose primary marketing focus for Bulldozer was a comic that put AMD's insecurity on show for the whole world a handful of people to see.....for a series primarily aimed at the enterprise sector....what's deluded about that?


----------



## ampre (Sep 6, 2015)

One question TechpowerUP where are your ashes of the singularity Benchmarks?

ahh nvidia was not good enough so you didn't try!


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 6, 2015)

ampre said:


> One question TechpowerUP where are your ashes of the singularity Benchmarks?


I don't believe W1zzard has ever reviewed and benched alpha builds. Why would he start now?


----------



## ampre (Sep 6, 2015)

Because it's the first introducion of DirectX 12 and leaded to this monstrous thread\discussion:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1569897/various-ashes-of-the-singularity-dx12-benchmarks/2420

Where is any Information  about nvidia have main dx12 Featurs only simulated on Software without any Hardware acceleration!


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Such garbage. I think AMD deluded themselves into thinking "Red Team Plus" is a good market strategy. Now I'm pretty much hoping Nano falls flat on its face because AMD deserves punishment for this abhorrent display of stupidity.


It would be like Motor trend asking Ford to have one the Ford employee's to do a review of the ford f150 for their magazine.



ampre said:


> One question TechpowerUP where are your ashes of the singularity Benchmarks?


its an Alpha game that is long way from over so using those results and making claims based on a game that probably isn't gonna be out for what 6-12months is kinda waste of time.

Making a big deal outta it seems like AMD PR at work IMO for one few things they seem to have an advantage in. So til game hits final should take results so far with a grain of salt to an un-optimized game.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 6, 2015)

ampre said:


> One question TechpowerUP where are your ashes of the singularity Benchmarks?
> 
> ahh nvidia was not good enough so you didn't try!



TPU doesn't bench that many games.  RCoon does but it's not his full time job so there are many games missed.  As @HumanSmoke says, TPU doesn't generally bench unfinished games.

Still, it's good to see AMD disciples popping in to register accounts just to post replies that are

a) moronic
b) insecure
c) pointless
d) reinforcing the notion that AMD fans are simpering little children, no better than the egotistical Nvidia zealot.

Yeah, nice entrance there kid

EDIT: You type just like Sony.  How amusing or telling.


----------



## ampre (Sep 6, 2015)

Only a real kid knows a other kid!

Go home and tell your mom!

Tell me where is the article about Nvidia is missing dx12 key Features in the Hardware?

You cant answer the54thvoid because you are a brain washed Person!

Maybe you think you have a watercooling System it makes you an gpu architecture expert?
I love this selfmade heroes, which think they are the greatest and have no Argument!


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

ampre said:


> Only a real kid knows a other kid!
> 
> Go home and tell your mom!
> 
> ...


you mean missing a key AMD made feature? That probably was locked out to nvidia til after maxwell was finalized.

What makes you a gpu arch expert?

1st off Async isn't required part of DX12, 2nd off don't know how many dev's will even use it outside ones AMD pays off to use it.


----------



## ampre (Sep 6, 2015)

asyncronus compute is not an amd Feature it's a Feature for the future and the next Logical step for make the gpu more parallel for better feed the shader.

I'm not an expert, but i can understand what experts are saying!


----------



## arbiter (Sep 6, 2015)

ampre said:


> asyncronus compute is not an amd Feature it's a Feature for the future and the next Logical step for make the gpu more parallel for better feed the shader.


if it wasn't an AMD feature then why is it in 7000 series cards? how does fact they had it in cards from 4 years ago make it not AMD tech?

If PhysX was put as a standard in DX12, AMD fans would gone ape crap over it. AMD would also be whining up a storm over it.


----------



## ampre (Sep 6, 2015)

asyncronus compute is not a bling bling Display Feature like a Smoking Effekt. It's a Feature to handle data more effektive and in parallel which gives you more power on the same chipsize. I'ts the next Logical step in gpu evolution. So why Pascal should get it like mixed precision? Nvidia is realy far behind gpu development!


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 6, 2015)

ampre said:


> Only a real kid knows a other kid!
> 
> Go home and tell your mom!
> 
> ...



This will be my last response to you.  I'll make it short.

Goodbye.

Love that ignore feature.   Wish it was pre-emptive though - I'm sure that's Sony or his embryonic twin.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 6, 2015)

ampre said:


> Because it's the first introducion of DirectX 12 and leaded to this monstrous thread\discussion:


So what? TPU didn't bench alpha builds of DX10 or DX11 software either.
You expect this site to benchmark an alpha build based on a discussion at another site - who also didn't benchmark AofS ?
If you are pining for that discussion, feel free to go to OCN and close the door on the way out.


ampre said:


> Only a real kid knows a other kid!


That sounds exactly what a kid in the preoperational stage of cognitive development would say. Once you get older, you'll probably realize that there are adults who understand children (or "know kids" as you term it) - parents, teachers, care givers, psychologists etc. Something to look forward to!


----------



## Pill Monster (Sep 6, 2015)

arbiter said:


> you mean missing a key AMD made feature? That probably was locked out to nvidia til after maxwell was finalized.
> 
> What makes you a gpu arch expert?
> 
> 1st off Async isn't required part of DX12, 2nd off don't know how many dev's will even use it outside ones AMD pays off to use it.


It's already been established nobody will have full DX12 support, features vary dependent on the specific GPU and vendor. I don't know the specifics on that yet,

I did see a pretty scathing article on Guru regarding Nvidia's DX12 claims...and sidestepping questions at TechEd conference.   
Actually come to think of it a similar article got published after the GTX970 3.5GB fiasco.
Nvidia finally made a statement and released it through PcPer,  When Hilbert found out he was super pissed because they had snubbed Guru.
In his view Nvidia were trying to avoid PR damage by releasing statements through cherry picked sites.  I guess I'm saying he felt PcPer was sympathetic to Nvidia.

Tbh the whole affair was way way overblown in my view.


For the guy asking about Ashes of Singularity, (*Ampere*) come back when DX12 games are available.
Benchmarking an API no games even support is benching for the sake of benching.....which smells a bit like hype. 
Reminds me of the 3DMark drawcall BS that was flying around the web a while ago. 

Who really cares about benchmarks anyway?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> One question TechpowerUP where are your ashes of the singularity Benchmarks?
> 
> ahh nvidia was not good enough so you didn't try!




If you're going to make that request, how about a few others.

1) Where's your benchmark showing DX13 compatibility?
2) Where's you benchmark showing Black Ops 4?
3) Where's your benchmark showing 16k resolution?


Asking for what may eventually be viable, but is currently not testable, is foolish.  As yet, DX12 is a largely unexplored and even more largely a software driven pursuit.


----------



## Phildo Gaggins (Sep 7, 2015)

If TPU doesn't have a review of something that I'm interested in buying, I don't buy it.  This is hands down the best PC hardware review site on the web.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> Tell me where is the article about Nvidia is missing dx12 key Features in the Hardware?



It's literally right below this one in the News section.  You're trolling--poorly.



Phildo Gaggins said:


> If TPU doesn't have a review of something that I'm interested in buying, I don't buy it.  This is hands down the best PC hardware review site on the web.



I wouldn't go that far, but I definitely weigh their opinion more than most other sites.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 7, 2015)

xenocide said:


> It's literally right below this one in the News section.  You're trolling--poorly.


async is like adaptive sync in 1.2a, its optional not required to have to be compliant for dx12.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 7, 2015)

arbiter said:


> async is like adaptive sync in 1.2a, its option not required to have to be compliant for dx12.



There are a lot of features in DX12 that aren't required, but if you don't support any of the features it's hard to justify saying you're DX12 compliant.  The guys who work on Unreal Engine put out a statement saying Asynchronous Compute was risky to implement, and shouldn't be leaned on too much, so I imagine Nvidia didn't count on the first batch of DX12 games using it to extensively.  Just happens to be AoS was originally a Mantle title and heavily marketed as such.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 7, 2015)

I believe it is part of the Compute Shader/DirectCompute but all Microsoft literature on the subject appears to end at DirectX11.  I think it may be something that has been available but developers haven't used.

I'm literally finding nothing that links async shaders to DirectX 12.  It's all DirectCompute which was launched with DirectX 11 so, in theory, all you need is a DirectX 11 card.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 7, 2015)

Seems I'm really late to this party, just returned from a week long vacation with zero internet access 

To me AMD killed the Nano when they decided to price it at $649, but limiting the number of cards available for review? Just wow AMD  2015 will probably be remembered as one of the worst years in terms of PR management for the company 

On a side note, like many others have stated, it wasn't until I realized I had a few trolls on my ignore list that the thread started making more sense, thank goodness for that! LMAO!


----------



## nem (Sep 7, 2015)

Async Shaders: AMD native support vs NVIDIA emulated...

This quite clear the situation with the new AMD DX12., nvidia does not look good that would be emulating the Async computer (shaders asynchronous), and is becoming more obvious that DirectX 12 is based on Mantle and hence the advantage of having asynchronous hardware shaders, NVIDIA also provided two new effects the raster order Rasterization conservative views and that these two effects are what make the extra support to generate the DirectX 12.1,  but this does not actually add much if we do remenber the words of NVIDIA said in previous versions of DirecX that decial something like *We are not interested in implementing the partial revisions why this dont add nothing important*. So it was for this reason that NVIDIA was only DX10 and DX11 only then, but at the last moment also use DX11.1, but in short what matters in DirectX is the main features and that these are for hardware support.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 7, 2015)

That appears to be from Wikipedia and note there is no source cited for "Async Shaders."  A bit of Wiki trolling methinks.

All DX11 cards support the instructions for async shaders; AMD is the only the manufacturer that took the time to make it work as Microsoft intended (asynchronously).


----------



## xenocide (Sep 7, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I believe it is part of the Compute Shader/DirectCompute but all Microsoft literature on the subject appears to end at DirectX11.  I think it may be something that has been available but developers haven't used.
> 
> I'm literally finding nothing that links async shaders to DirectX 12.  It's all DirectCompute which was launched with DirectX 11 so, in theory, all you need is a DirectX 11 card.



Pretty sure it's just Compute Units working as Shaders.  Compute is something Nvidia started to ignore during DX11 because it hadn't matured enough to be useful.  Now it is useful (apparently) so I expect Pascal will see a return to more Compute-friendly setups.  It was essentially wasted die space during Fermi and Kepler, but apparently AMD had faith it would payoff.  Good planning on their part.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 7, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That appears to be from Wikipedia and note there is no source cited for "Async Shaders."  A bit of Wiki trolling methinks.
> All DX11 cards support the instructions for async shaders; AMD is the only the manufacturer that took the time to make it work as Microsoft intended (asynchronously).





nem said:


> Async Shaders: AMD native support vs NVIDIA emulated...



They used code for async from AMD hence why nvidia don't support it fully. Anyone that doesn't even see that with that table is complete blind fool. Funny how everyone loves to point out how AMD supports it natively when it was their own feature set that was used.


xenocide said:


> It was essentially wasted die space during Fermi and Kepler, but apparently AMD had faith it would payoff. Good planning on their part.


good planning or did they pester MS so much that MS caved in and added it?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 7, 2015)

nem said:


> Async Shaders: AMD native support vs NVIDIA emulated...


I doubt you could stay on topic if your life depended upon it. This thread is supposed to be concerned with TPU not getting a review sample and exploring the possibilities of why this should be so and possible ramifications.

So of course you and the rest of Sunnyvale cheerleaders launch into async shader implemantation (we have threads for that already), the GTX 970 is-it-4GB-or-not-quite (we have about 6 threads for that already), and crying that an unreleased game at alpha isn't the focus on the site - but also has it's own threads.
You guys don't want to blow your entire wad prematurely on thread derailing content before the big reveal, you'll have nothing left for when the reviews go live and the inevitable questions of availability.


----------



## geon2k2 (Sep 7, 2015)

nem said:


> LOL 380 comments :B
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Made my day, really funny, and so true, this shows how much value the nano brings, even if performance will not be that much better.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 7, 2015)

I'd ask Hilbert over at Guru3D if you can borrow their review model I'm sure he'd be more n happy to oblige


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 7, 2015)

The agreement he signed to get it likely forbids transferring it without AMD's consent.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 7, 2015)

420 comments... you could say its blazin


----------



## ironcerealbox (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> I'm not an expert, but i can understand what experts are saying!



Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the many college students I've had to teach over the years...


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 7, 2015)

I love the number of new members, or members with low postcounts, jumping into this thread to defend AMD. Sockpuppets anyone?



ampre said:


> I'm not an expert, but i can understand what experts are saying!



Son, what you are is a n00b. Shut your mouth, sit your ass down, and be quiet while the adults are talking.



the54thvoid said:


> Love that ignore feature.   Wish it was pre-emptive though - I'm sure that's Sony or his *embryonic* twin.



I think you misspelled "retarded".


----------



## john_ (Sep 7, 2015)

http://imgur.com/a/D915a?gallery#0


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 7, 2015)

john_ said:


> http://imgur.com/a/D915a?gallery#0



dear gawd that is sexy


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 7, 2015)

john_ said:


> http://imgur.com/a/D915a?gallery#0



Looks great. I notice the case is specifically designed for it. Maybe that's the issue for samples being distributed...


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 7, 2015)

john_ said:


> http://imgur.com/a/D915a?gallery#0


So ugly not even a mother could love it


----------



## RCoon (Sep 7, 2015)

john_ said:


> http://imgur.com/a/D915a?gallery#0



Where does the storage live?

I see no mounting/mounted storage anywhere.


----------



## john_ (Sep 7, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Where does the storage live?
> 
> I see no mounting/mounted storage anywhere.


The answer is in the rest of the photos in the link that it is in the beginning of my post. Its a dual chamber design with storage and PSU behind the mobo.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 7, 2015)

It does look like an excellent package but I'm curious about the dimensions.  Is it a custom design case?  Looks like it from the link....  Pity.  All that being said - the red intake fan needs a guard, watch those fingers!!


----------



## john_ (Sep 7, 2015)

More info here

작지만 맵다, 라데온 R9 나노 리뷰 : (2) #MakeItNano 프로젝트 - IYD - Everything Inside Your Device
Don't worry. There is also English text in that article.

Very powerful system. Not just the card. Dimensions are 166mm x 244mm x 188mm.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 7, 2015)

john_ said:


> More info here
> 
> 작지만 맵다, 라데온 R9 나노 리뷰 : (2) #MakeItNano 프로젝트 - IYD - Everything Inside Your Device
> Don't worry. There is also English text in that article.
> ...



As much as I don't like DG Lee's sometimes silly graph extrapolations, that case and design is quite wonderful.  It's very frugal of AMD to come up with this design competition - it gives them a shed load of free PR that they can use to sell Nano with.  They've actually used marketing wisely.  Hopefully they actually then sponsor the winning design to be produced for those that want the smallest SFF.  It would add quite a bit of cost though but even Silverstone's FT03 is expensive.

Still, this is a derail - the thread is about TPU not getting one to review, not for Nano PR.


----------



## ampre (Sep 7, 2015)

xenocide said:


> It's literally right below this one in the News section.  You're trolling--poorly.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that far, but I definitely weigh their opinion more than most other sites.



I just mentioned that here is no officel article about the advantge of AMD's Asyncronus Shader. Thats why AMD don't give Techpowerup a Card.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> I just mentioned that here is no officel article about the advantge of AMD's Asyncronus Shader. Thats why AMD don't give Techpowerup a Card.



I unintentionally saw your post and thought of this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/215663/l...s-amd-gcn-better-prepared-for-directx-12.html

You are a lunatic.


----------



## john_ (Sep 7, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> it gives them a shed load of free PR that they can use to sell Nano with


Nano is meant to go in that kind of cases. Not full ATX cases. People looking at Nano's price and saying "who will buy that card when 980Ti costs the same" should have a look at this case.



the54thvoid said:


> Hopefully they actually then sponsor the winning design to be produced for those that want the smallest SFF.


And here is where my mind goes to Quantum and all other good ideas from AMD that where completely forgotten because they didn't supported them. 


As for the thread, I think until we start looking at reviews in 3 days from now, and probably many start laughing at some of them for being completely superficial, there isn't much to write that hasn't been written already.


----------



## ampre (Sep 7, 2015)

Ok i was wrong about this. But because i'm no nvidiod i can live with that, and im honest


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> I just mentioned that here is no officel article about the advantge of AMD's Asyncronus Shader. Thats why AMD don't give Techpowerup a Card.



You seem to be an idiot.  I state that bluntly, because after a huge description of why reviews are conducted, you still don't get it.  Allow me to sum up the discussion.  Your side is A, the non-idiot is B.

A) You didn't get a review sample because you don't kiss the ground that company walks on.
B) The reviewer exists to inform the consumer.  By their very nature, a bias when doing reviews makes them useless.  It'd be like going to Nvidia.com and reading a 10/10 review for the 970.  They completely gloss over the last .5 GB of VRAM severely crippling the performance, because its a PR piece and not a review.
A) But that company has the right to only give out samples to people they want to.  If they choose to buy good reviews like that, it's their right.
B) Absolutely.  It's also the right of the consumer to not buy their product.  If the consumer can't get information about the item that isn't potentially BS PR, then they shouldn't give the company a dime of their money until they can demonstrate their information is accurate.
A) But companies don't lie.  Reviewers slandering their products does more damage than anything companies say that might be...optimistic.
B) You don't seem to live in this reality, or your memory is so selective as to be useless.  All companies lie about something.  Whether it be the little white lie of "*maximum rated" or the more egregious lie of "performance of a better product in a smaller package" that doesn't meet those promises, they lie.  Reviewers exist to test the claims, and show whether companies are honest.  If the reviewers are dishonest, then the company can simply demonstrate they are being dishonest, which not only damages the reviewer, but makes the company look more honest than they would be otherwise.  This system works because dishonest reviewers are easy to eject, while companies can defend anything they say with data.  Companies only have risk when they lie, so how honest is the company you evangelize?
A) AMD is made up of saints <I'm cribbing from Sony here, but the point stands for those on the red team>
B) The saints who stripped value out of the company by spinning off Global Foundries?  The saints who cherry picked figures to try and show how bulldozer wasn't a pile of turds?  How about the saints who fired off the engineers that made their company run, so the budget could look good for one more quarter and they'd get their insane bonuses?  AMD, Nvidia, and Intel aren't run by saints, their run by the almighty dollar.  That's why AMD is doing what they're doing now.  AMD is selling their new GPU on PR, and not performance.  It's dishonest, it'll eventually be proven as such, and anyone with a modicum of reason can see it's getting sales today which will bankrupt the company in the future.
A) Nuh-uh.
B) End of discussion.  You lack any reasoning, and continuing to argue the point would be a waste of air.


----------



## ampre (Sep 7, 2015)

I dont get your Point lilhasselhoffer.

What i know is when AMD don't give you a Card for reviewing then the reviewer didn't thread amd good.

So whats your opinion now why Techpowerup don't get a Card from AMD? Are they realy so indipendend like they want to let you know?


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> I dont get your Point lilhasselhoffer.
> 
> What i know is when AMD don't give you a Card for reviewing then the reviewer didn't thread amd good. Look at the polish/russian pages.
> 
> So whats your opinion now why Techpowerup don't get a Card from AMD? Are they realy so indipendend like they want to let you know?



Ampre, the simple fact is that AMD has done so much PR bullshit lately, that this is just another nail in the coffin so to speak. Reviews are how you sell a product. The fact that they're only giving out a handful is reason enough to expect AMD to be doing something shady. Happens every time they do.

Reviews are to provide *factual* information on a product before buying it and we all know what kind of bullshit AMD is been putting into their PR campaigns and TPU has been good at cutting through the bullshit from both camps.

All in all, are you Sony? You see to be just as intellectually deficient as Sony is...


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 7, 2015)

and AMD still isn't budging to send over a review sample... yet alone someone in the community to happily rent the card to TPU for an honest review...


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 7, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> All in all, are you Sony? You see to be just as intellectually deficient as Sony is...



If it types like a Sony, has the logic of a Sony and whines like a Sony - then it probably is a Sony.

Our mods are far too lenient.  I'm all for free speech but not the type of incessant trolling that is allowed to go on here.  I got kicked off of S|A a long time ago on my second post for calling a generic position a zealot.  This level of 'discussion' is simply bad for the community.  We need to implement the idiot gate.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 7, 2015)

You guys bite the troll bait hard sometimes. Either a person is a complete idiot with no valid point or he's a troll. Which is a worst waste of time to debate Mr. Owl? The world may never know.


----------



## ampre (Sep 7, 2015)

One question.

Your boss say every day to you, you aren idiot, i don't pay you, you are fulish.

Do you go to work on the next day?

Nice logic you have!


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 7, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> A) But that company has the right to only give out samples to people they want to.  If they choose to buy good reviews like that, it's their right.
> B) Absolutely.  It's also the right of the consumer to not buy their product.  If the consumer can't get information about the item that isn't potentially BS PR, then they shouldn't give the company a dime of their money until they can demonstrate their information is accurate.


John Oliver's piece on native advertising for relevance. Sorry ampere/Sony I couldn't find a picture book version aimed at your demographic











the54thvoid said:


> Our mods are far too lenient.  I'm all for free speech but not the type of incessant trolling that is allowed to go on here.  I got kicked off of S|A a long time ago on my second post for calling a generic position a zealot.  This level of 'discussion' is simply bad for the community.  We need to implement the idiot gate.


Charlie will happily forego page clicks to maintain the cult - new members have a habit of introducing the Emperor's new clothes scenario. If criticism of hive mind isn't seen, it doesn't exist - ergo the hive mind is always right.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> I dont get your Point lilhasselhoffer.
> 
> What i know is when AMD don't give you a Card for reviewing then the reviewer didn't thread amd good.
> 
> So whats your opinion now why Techpowerup don't get a Card from AMD? Are they realy so indipendend like they want to let you know?


A lot of sites are not getting a card for testing, it's about a policy not a person, the problem for the consumer may be that if some of the most respected and supported reviewing sites don't review then they have to gain their information from elsewhere, in some cases maybe dubious and possibly biased places/sources, for me the reason whilst not irrelivant is of lesser concern than the possibility that any company "may" try to mislead or misrepresent a product and in doing so cause potential harm but that's just a personal opinion and it would remain whoever was doing it, so please lets get back on topic and please stop posting absolute nonsense, you are trying to turn it into a TPU thing, there are more sites than TPU so it's actually an AMD thing....... thank you.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 7, 2015)

ampre said:


> I dont get your Point lilhasselhoffer.
> 
> What i know is when AMD don't give you a Card for reviewing then the reviewer didn't thread amd good.
> 
> So whats your opinion now why Techpowerup don't get a Card from AMD? Are they realy so indipendend like they want to let you know?



At this point, I've got one of two responses.  My first is that there seems to be some sort of language barrier.  Whether this barrier is a lack of cognitive function, or English as a second language, I can't say.  You've yet to complete a sentence that doesn't make a third grade English teacher cry.

The second possibility is you are genuinely an idiot.  The act of explaining this to you is a fruitless effort, because you lack the ability to grasp this new concept.  In this case, continuing to talk to you is fruitless for everyone.



I'm going to, against my better judgement, assume its language.  Maybe this time, assuming nothing, you'll get it.
This is not a situation where AMD is favoring review sites.
This is not a situation where there are physically no available hardware devices, though the supply does seem to be very limited.
This is not a situation where reviews are being done to demonstrate the truth behind the claims of a company.

What we have here is AMD trying to control a message.  They are trying to sell a product, prior to the factual claims being verified.  They are doing so by sending cards to uninformed consumers, who will sell the card based upon a coolness factor rather than actual performance.  This type of crap bites people in the butt.  You sell your product on cool, and when performance is demonstrated to be poor you lose future sales.


If you'd like some examples, let's go to the movies for a moment.
1) Have you ever watched an Uwe Boll movie?  Having watched one, would you see another?  Knowing that they all suck, how do Uwe Boll movies always have critics giving them praise on the cover?  Would you pay to see the next one?
2) Have you watched Battlefield Earth?  That movie was once something that garnered positive reviews, from the church of scientology (intentional lower case there, they are a cult and don't deserve a proper noun).
3) Have you seen any Happy Madison movies (it's Adam Sandler's production studio) recently?  Let's focus on only the most recent abomination, Pixels.  That movie was panned by so many critics, and Rotten Tomatoes has it at 17%.  Would you go see that movie, knowing that 83% of people didn't like it?  It did have a great premise, even if cribbed directly from Futurama.
4) Let's pose another question, Sony continues to sell Fantastic Four movies to the population.  They constantly are sold on CG, yet Fant4stic has a rotten tomatoes score of just 9%.  Knowing that, would you spend money on that movie?



Allow me to put this simply.  AMD is not snubbing TPU, AMD is cutting its own nose off, to spite its face.  They may squeeze some sales out of the Nano before it is found to be lacking, but be real.  The people who buy the Nano will be angry that they spent that much money, and got second rate performance.  Next time they buy a GPU they'll overlook AMD entirely, because they are still angry with them.  You get one card sale today, and loose that customer forever for it.  AMD is waging a PR war, in which every "success" will cost them a bit more of their future.  Thankfully, HBM1 is in limited supply.  Maybe AMD can hobble along without 8 toes, but if they intend to do anything more than just survive this activity must be stopped.


----------



## john_ (Sep 7, 2015)

I have to ask again.

Does anyone put the gut on anyone's head to buy a Nano the first day it comes out? Even if TPU does a review in a month from now, I am pretty sure that most people, at least those with half a brain functional and a little patience, will simply wait a month, before buying a $650 lottery ticket. Now, if someone thinks it is cool to be the first with a Nano card, the first to create an unboxing video, the first to post a thread with benchmarks and photos, well, great. That's how forums work anyway.   

Nano is not going to sell by the thousands the first day it comes out. Not even the first week, or month. So, until AMD manages to have enough quantities of any Fiji card out there, there will be probably dozens of reviews on the internet, TPU's included.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 7, 2015)

john_ said:


> Does anyone put the gut on anyone's head to buy a Nano the first day it comes out?


That really isn't the point.
The vast majority* of people actually spending $650 on a card will do their homework before purchase.
The issue is the way AMD is massaging the launch and message. You could argue that AMD has a long history of doing this ( remember the Trinity launch for example), but it doesn't make it any more palatable.

* The launch of the card isn't just about the card, it is about the message AMD want to get out - not just about their own product, but in comparison with the competition, and a massaged company profile. Limiting reviews to companies prepared to spout the company line brings into question the objectivity of those reviews. Most people don't do anything more than gloss over the facts, look at the pretty pictures, and come away with an impression shaped by the summary. If this wasn't the case, why are so many AMD fanboys up in arms about having Project CARS being part of a benchmark suite? and why AMD themselves are vociferous in their shoutcasting and guerrilla marketing against GameWorks ? You seem unhappy at Nvidia's Gameworks program for its lack of direct access, but seem OK with AMD restricting access to its own product. No one is holding a gun to the game developers heads, or the prospective buyers of the game for that matter.

Personally, I couldn't give a shit about Nano - I prefer my graphics not to have training wheels attached (power and OC locked down), but it is galling to see some of the sites that I enjoy visiting being denied access simply because they won't kowtow to a companies propaganda. At least when W1zz tore Nvidia a new one on the GTX 590 review, the company didn't pitch a hissy fit in retaliation.


----------



## nem (Sep 8, 2015)

Next games DirectX 12 : 

AMD (Hardware Partner):
-Deus Ex
-Hitman
-AotS
-Tomb Raider 2016
-Battlefront

AMD (Known Affiliation):
-Mirror's Edge
-Fable: Legends
-AMD (assumed based on historical hardware partnerships):

Nvidia (Hardware Partner):
Ark
King of Wushu
Nvidia (Known Affiliation):
Unreal Tournament 4
Nvidia (assumed based on historical hardware partnerships):
Gears of War (Microsoft)

Neutral:
-Arma 3 (coming with map pack iirc)
-Dayz Standalone
-Killer Instinct (Microsoft)
-Halo Wars 2 (Microsoft)
-Star Citizen

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/c...t_majority_of_dx12_titles_in_20152016/cutgmrb


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 8, 2015)

Do we really need a million websites to say the same thing and show the same tests with the same outcome about one card?

Guru3D has one, Im sure you all agree they are far from biased so the truth about whether this card is good or not will come out with their review.
Its pretty much just facts, numbers, very little opinion involved.
Perhaps some different testing rigs and settings but other then that it should all provide the same numbers.
A few more then 1 review is wanted to be sure but I dont really see it as such a crying shame that TPU is not getting this card.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 8, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> I dont really see it as such a crying shame that TPU is not getting this card.



No card means no review, no review means less traffic, less traffic means less salary for the paid staff whose lives depend on said salary. This isn't just a tech website for fun, it actually gives a couple of people jobs, and the servers cost to run. Sure there are news articles and other reviews, but I imagine ANY GPU review of any card brings in a fair amount of traffic.

Disclaimer: I'm not paid TPU staff


----------



## jigar2speed (Sep 8, 2015)

RCoon said:


> No card means no review, no review means less traffic, less traffic means less salary for the paid staff whose lives depend on said salary. This isn't just a tech website for fun, it actually gives a couple of people jobs, and the servers cost to run. Sure there are news articles and other reviews, but I imagine ANY GPU review of any card brings in a fair amount of traffic.
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not paid TPU staff



You have generated more traffic than an actually review would have with this news - NO


----------



## RCoon (Sep 8, 2015)

jigar2speed said:


> You have generated more traffic than an actually review would have with this news - NO



That's a good point. 19 pages.... jesus christ.


----------



## john_ (Sep 8, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> That really isn't the point.
> The vast majority* of people actually spending $650 on a card will do their homework before purchase.
> The issue is the way AMD is massaging the launch and message. You could argue that AMD has a long history of doing this ( remember the Trinity launch for example), but it doesn't make it any more palatable.



Why isn't it the point? You say that people who spend $650 will do their research, so why is it important to have reviews at day one?

How AMD promotes it's hardware is their problem, *as Nvidia's promotional lies about their hardware specs, is also a problem that they should deal with it and not keep doing it in the future.* But they will keep doing it in the future.

You want AMD to be flawless, but *how about a 6 months lie about 970's specs? How about a fake support about async shaders? How about Fermi still not being ready for DX12?* You seem to worry about AMD's image because it will take 15-30-60 days to see a review of a card that CAN NOT be manufactured in large quantities, but at the same time what is your opinion about a company that gives (deliberately?) incorrect specs about it's products. They probably thought that no one will test the VRAM speed on GTX 970. They probably thought that there wouldn't be a program using async shaders, before they manage to create something that looks like async shaders in their drivers. They probably thought that they could fake DX12 support on Fermi cards, before Windows 10 comes out. They probably thought that no one will notice. Still you worry about AMD? Really?



> * The launch of the card isn't just about the card, it is about the message AMD want to get out - not just about their own product, but in comparison with the competition, and a massaged company profile. Limiting reviews to companies prepared to spout the company line brings into question the objectivity of those reviews.


The reviewers who will make the reviews in two days, will have to worry for the reviews that will come out 2-3 weeks latter from the sites that didn't got that card. If those reviews contradict their findings, they will have to give plenty of explanations. So, don't expect to see reviews in two days showing Nano crushing Titan X.

*If TPU had a card and every other side didn't,* what would have been your conclusion. That TPU sold out to AMD? And would that conclusion being valid today before seeing the review and before being able to compare it with other reviews, or would you wait for a month to see the other reviews first? But it is so easy for you to bash AMD.



> Most people don't do anything more than gloss over the facts, look at the pretty pictures, and come away with an impression shaped by the summary. If this wasn't the case, why are so many AMD fanboys up in arms about having Project CARS being part of a benchmark suite? and why AMD themselves are vociferous in their shoutcasting and guerrilla marketing against GameWorks ? You seem unhappy at Nvidia's Gameworks program for its lack of direct access, but seem OK with AMD restricting access to its own product. No one is holding a gun to the game developers heads, or the prospective buyers of the game for that matter.



It seems you know pretty much about "most people". The way you describe them, I would say double digit IQ, best case scenario. Probably that's why you are on a mission to save them from the claws of bad AMD and offer them to the angelic company named Nvidia(as a sacrifice). Seriously now, I never had problem with Project Cars being included in the database. As it was already being said, it is a game that people play, so it is logical to be there.
Gameworks. You are rebelling because AMD wouldn't give a card at TPU and you will find the slimy truth about Nano 15-30 days latter. But then you cannot understand why a closed library that no one can have access in it, coming from a GPU manufacturer is considered bad? It's like watching a basketball game where the heads of referees are covered by hoods, so you can't tell if those referees are in fact the owners of one of the two teams playing.

It's extremely funny comparing the situation with Nano and Gameworks. NO ACCESS is totally different with what you like to call as limited access. Also Nano doesn't affect in any supernatural way the performance of your 780 LSI. Don't worry and when you will run at 10th September your favorite benchmarks, scores wouldn't go down because Nano was released. In fact you are the first person that should question the GameWorks performance on Kepler cards compared with the GameWorks performance on Maxwell cards.

And as I have told you in the past, when it comes for you to defend your lovely company you are full of smoke. And do you really argue with what I wrote in that post(the one you linked)? I think not.



> Personally, I couldn't give a shit about Nano - I prefer my graphics not to have training wheels attached (power and OC locked down), but it is galling to see some of the sites that I enjoy visiting being denied access simply because they won't kowtow to a companies propaganda. At least when W1zz tore Nvidia a new one on the GTX 590 review, the company didn't pitch a hissy fit in retaliation.



You are one of the biggest Nvidia fanboys and defenders in here. Why give a shit about Nano? As for propaganda, AMD is just an amateur compared to your lovely company.

JMO


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 8, 2015)

Take a chill pill... please...


----------



## john_ (Sep 8, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Take a chill pill... please...


I took five before posting. Nice lemon flavor, but probably had the opposite effect.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 8, 2015)

john_ said:


> How AMD promotes it's hardware is their problem, *as Nvidia's promotional lies about their hardware specs, is also a problem that they should deal with it and not keep doing it in the future.* But they will keep doing it in the future.


So you gonna compare 1 of the few things in last 4 years to the repeated Lie after Lie AMD has spouted month after month about how good their hardware is in benchmarks that designed to only focus on strongest part of their hardware. Also on top of that trying control reviews of their products as quoted below to limited what sites show only those strength's


HumanSmoke said:


> The issue is the way AMD is massaging the launch and message. You could argue that AMD has a long history of doing this ( remember the Trinity launch for example), but it doesn't make it any more palatable.


Its sad to see you focus on 1 thing nvidia did wrong and say that equal to least dozen lies and mis truths AMD spouted in last few years.


john_ said:


> You want AMD to be flawless, but *how about a 6 months lie about 970's specs? How about a fake support about async shaders? How about Fermi still not being ready for DX12?*


How could nvidia support an AMD tech they likely didn't even have access to or wasn't likely even added to DX12 til after thei maxwell gpu design was complete. Truthfully kinda sick of pointing out these facts to an AMD fanboy that act's like AMD hasn't done a single thing wrong or hasn't told a single Lie in the last 4 years.

With this post i am done with talking to someone that is a complete and massive fool. (clicks ignore button)

As a side note to TR and that linked story on trinity. I Applaud TR for not accepting those terms. They want keep their integrity as reviews in tact cause when you get cault being a shill like that for a company you lose your credibility as a review site.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 8, 2015)

john_ said:


> Why isn't it the point? You say that people who spend $650 will do their research, so why is it important to have reviews at day one?


Because I want to read a review conducted by W1zzard. I'd prefer to read a TPU review rather than a review that probably is less exhaustive in its breadth than his.


john_ said:


> You want AMD to be flawless


I think you have a basic disconnect between what is written and what you think is written.
I, and most people don't expect AMD to be flawless - why would we? They've never demonstrated that capacity in the past.
What I do expect is some kind of consistency. There is no real reason why a well regarded authoritative tech site should be denied access to the card at the expense of some superficial glib social network channel - at least not in my book.


john_ said:


> How AMD promotes it's hardware is their problem


Yes it is - and I'm commenting upon it. Are you now placing restrictions on that too?


john_ said:


> *as Nvidia's promotional lies about their hardware specs, is also a problem that they should deal with it and not keep doing it in the future.* But they will keep doing it in the future.


Immaterial. I've already commented on the issue in the *relevant* forum threads.


john_ said:


> You seem to worry about AMD's image because it will take 15-30-60 days to see a review of a card that CAN NOT be manufactured in large quantities


Well done! You've missed the context once again. I'm not worrying about AMD's image - what I am interested in is seeing a review by my preferred reviewer.
The fact that you can't even parse a simple concept such as this without imprinting your own false assumptions all over it doesn't fill me with confidence that you'll be able to parse this post either, but hey, I'll give it one more shot before putting you on ignore.


john_ said:


> but at the same time what is your opinion about a company that gives (deliberately?) incorrect specs about it's products.


1. It isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand
2. How indolent do you have to be to ask the question rather than run a quick search? Since you seem incapable...


			
				 "Me" said:
			
		

> To a degree, it doesn't matter whether the user runs into problems or not [_regarding the GTX 970 memory allocation issue_]. The product still needs to tally with the advertising and specs. Most people might never run into the issue, but it still doesn't negate the problem for those who do.





john_ said:


> *If TPU had a card and every other side didn't,* what would have been your conclusion.


1. Lucky TPU - an exclusive!
2. One card for review? That's some real crappy yield and launch right there.


john_ said:


> Still you worry about AMD? Really?


Sure.
When I see a company attempting to commit ritual suicide and it affects my future hardware choices. I sure do. One glance around the net has already shown how well received this cherry-picked reviewer strategy is, and it hasn't even launched yet. If you think this strategy is a positive move for AMD - great. I personally don't think it is. AMD were always going to sell whatever limited amount of cards regardless - the Fury X is perpetually OoS, so presumably they sell what goes into the channel. If they sell regardless, why accompany the launch with sourness from denying mainstream enthusiast sites at the expense of less authoritative reviewers?


john_ said:


> I never had problem with Project Cars being included in the database. As it was already being said, it is a game that people play, so it is logical to be there.


Again....I didn't say you did. Try not to make it personal when that obviously what wasn't inferred - it just makes you sound like a whiner. *What I was referring to was a wider sentiment*, as should have been apparent from the way I worded the post. Once again, you're interpreting rather than reading.


john_ said:


> As for propaganda, AMD is just an amateur compared to your lovely company.


Propaganda is propaganda. Don't excuse one company because they aren't particularly adept at implementing it....oh, and by the way, I've probably owned more AMD/ATI hardware than you have. I think I can come up with a fair amount of verified proof if you'd like to take a wager on it. Loser donates money to the charity of the winners choice via PayPal OK for you?


----------



## john_ (Sep 8, 2015)

Damn, all Nvidia fanboys firing at the same time.

*arbiter*
So a quick reply. It's not one tiny lie. Have a little dignity when quoting someone and try not to change his post in your answer. They can't control reviews.

I though Nvidia fanboys where saying that Nvidia was first at DX12 with Microsoft and AMD just rush to make it like it was their idea a low level API. Now it is a tech that was added after Maxwell was finished? And why does Nvidia says it supports that technology. You don't mind contradicting yourself in what you and others where writing in the past. You just have to write something I guess.

*HumanSmoke*

I also want a review of GTX 980Ti from my neighbor. Until Nvidia gives a card to my neighbor that is the only person I trust, I will not trust them. Not to mention that no one forbids W1zzard to test a Nano. TPU was NOT denied access. For some reason it was not given a free card. But that can't stop TPU from writing a review. The review is just going to be done latter and TPU will own NOTHING to AMD because they didn't got a free card.

So this argument and the biggest part of your post, is in fact, smoke



HumanSmoke said:


> The fact that you can't even parse a simple concept



with a few cocnlusions about me,



HumanSmoke said:


> Try not to make it personal



but I shouldn't take it personally. 
Nice work .


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 8, 2015)

The topic of this news piece is about TPU and some other sites not being selected by AMD to run a review on Nano, therefore it's not about the GTX970 and .5GB of memory, It's not about AMD and it's poor (relatively) DX11 performance, in fact it is not about NVidia at all so just to make things perfectly clear, any more Tit for Tat(ty)  discussions that continue to de-rail this thread will be deleted, up until the point that I get tired of deleting them and then it may be just members that get deleted thereafter..... thank you.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 8, 2015)

Can anybody get a list of known Nano receivers? That way assumptions could be made on testing parameters.  I'm still sure that Guru tends to be dismissive of noise created (for Nvidia) in that some 980ti cards W1zzard tested that were 'a bit loud', Guru said were quiet.  
But, it could all be coincidence, although bloggers getting these 'rare' cards makes that seem unlikely.


----------



## john_ (Sep 8, 2015)

PCPerspective got one also. I bet Tom's Hardware will also have one. I don't know it, but they did got a Fury X in June. PCWorld also is in this list and TweakTown too.

On the other hand, eTeknix published a few hours ago that it didn't got one, and I bet KitGuru will also have to buy AMD cards, not just in Nano's case, but in the near future also.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 8, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Just Googled
> "" Nano Review ""
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Nano+review&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=RVzrVe7vN4q7atDVsfgG
> 
> ...


 
You'll be interested to know that TPU's "non-Nano Review" has dropped to 4th on that link, but is still the most returned result for a GPU named Nano.  

That's alot of site traffic and name recognition for TPU!


----------



## RCoon (Sep 8, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Can anybody get a list of known Nano receivers? That way assumptions could be made on testing parameters.  I'm still sure that Guru tends to be dismissive of noise created (for Nvidia) in that some 980ti cards W1zzard tested that were 'a bit loud', Guru said were quiet.
> But, it could all be coincidence, although bloggers getting these 'rare' cards makes that seem unlikely.



I heard through the grapevine AMD are sending out cards to Vloggers and Bloggers, mainly the hipster types this time around. That means people saying "ooh maybe AMD doesn't have enough cards" aren't really accurate in their assumption. AMD has the cards, they're just trying to advertise to a different market - the wrong market, but a different one nonetheless.

I wouldn't class PCWorld as a PC Enthusiast site. That place is more for the middletons.


----------



## 64K (Sep 8, 2015)

RCoon said:


> I heard through the grapevine AMD are sending out cards to Vloggers and Bloggers, mainly the hipster types this time around. That means people saying "ooh maybe AMD doesn't have enough cards" aren't really accurate in their assumption. AMD has the cards, they're just trying to advertise to a different market - the wrong market, but a different one nonetheless.



That's my impression as well. Full Fiji has been in short supply all along. That didn't stop AMD from getting a Fury X to this site. I think there are going to be some issues with the Nano's performance at the same price as the Fury X.

It seems that one of the selling points for the Nano is "I want one because it's so cute". That's part of the appeal of the Nano. A thorough test of the Nano, like it would get on this site, isn't part of AMD's game plan for this card.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 8, 2015)

Most of those mainstream sites suck specially for networking hardware reviews... they don't prove thier graphs like I do and SnB does, They test for like 10 minutes and then stop, they don't show screenshots that are worth a damn, they scatter the review over 10 pages, and they can't just TLDR them effectively. Anyone can shit out a graph made by tableau or crappy MS office 2003 and just shit out numbers and don't prove anything other then they can use graphing software. My 2 layer approach using PRTG and a traffic generator makes my results provable and repeatable. Companies actually love my results and I quite often get selected for betas very easily and even have hardware companies request interoperabilitiy tests with other network hardware vendors. Yah think with the effort TPU goes thu that's way more in depth, provable, and so tightly controlled MFRs specially like AMD would realize this. Soccer moms that even go out and buy routers or stuff actually even hate cnet, recode, pcworld, etc becuase thier sites are clunky,  take too long blabbing about the company's history that makes said hardware and not really getting to biz on how the reliability is.... consumer reports has even sunk to fanboyism by ranking macbook pros and apple's phones ans such higher then PCs or windows tablets or android phones becuase of some dumbassery like "user experience" and 50 million buzzwords. 

Oh and one thing if you have to purchase hardware for a review instead of having it given to you you will go thru more lengnths to justify that purchase, thus rate higher, that's one reason review sites depend on donor hardware so they don't have the purchase bias and they don't have any emotional attatchement to the hardware. It's not theirs so they will be more likely to beat it up for benches and more likely to call out BS. If you bought something with your hard earned money you are more likely to succumb to finding some way you didn't "fuck up" by getting it.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 8, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> If you bought something with your hard earned money you are more likely to succumb to finding some way you didn't "fuck up" by getting it.



Thats SO TRUE

Before CD and DVD Roms were Cheap enough to buy for everyday use i went out and bought a LS120 drive ( for moving big files )

Drive still works but times have passed on  and the drive / format never caught on
because of the pricedrop / availability of CD's
Even today i can still find a use for it Excuse coming
its ide and 1.44 backwards compatable so can be used on not so old systems that do not have a 3 1/2" floppy drive  for flashing from 1.44 media or loading retro programs from "Floppys"  excuse ended and thats the justification i'm sticking to


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 8, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> Oh and one thing if you have to purchase hardware for a review instead of having it given to you you will go thru more lengnths to justify that purchase, thus rate higher, that's one reason review sites depend on donor hardware so they don't have the purchase bias and they don't have any emotional attatchement to the hardware. It's not theirs so they will be more likely to beat it up for benches and more likely to call out BS. If you bought something with your hard earned money you are more likely to succumb to finding some way you didn't "fuck up" by getting it.


I have to disagree with that. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. It would be ANNOYING to me to have buy hardware to review and the hardware would have to, for lack of better words, climb its way out of that hole. IF the website I write for would buy it, that is not money out of my personal pocket so I really wouldn't care either way honestly. But surely, because it was purchased, I would not hold it up on a pedestal like you are suggesting... no way.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 8, 2015)

You know, my big question on the Nano is why they didn't use cut down Fiji chips for it to save not only on power but cost overall by using chips that won't meet the standard of the full Fiji XT.  Its obvious they are binning these chips out for Nano, but that only makes it harder to produce and even shorter in quantity.  Though to be fair I doubt the problem with the quantity is to blame on the Fiji chips them selves and more likely HBM itself slowing things down.

Seems like it would have been logical to use the cut down Fiji pro chip, bin those out a bit to keep power down, then put them out there for a reasonable price (Like maybe 550 ish).  Heck, they could have just scrapped the Fury Pro and just did the Nano as the reference design of Fury (While reducing the clocks maybe even a bit more to accommodate the power reduction needed)  while allowing non-reference soon after and kept the size but allow for more coolers.  Then we could have had the extreme OC edition cards along with micro sized cards available at the same time.

That is all just IMHO about the Fury Nano...


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 8, 2015)

64K said:


> That's my impression as well. Full Fiji has been in short supply all along. That didn't stop AMD from getting a Fury X to this site. I think there are going to be some issues with the Nano's performance at the same price as the Fury X.
> 
> *It seems that one of the selling points for the Nano is "I want one because it's so cute".* That's part of the appeal of the Nano. A thorough test of the Nano, like it would get on this site, isn't part of AMD's game plan for this card.



In some respects if it were found that the card cannot compete with the opposition (I don't know, I am only using this as an example) then arguably AMD need a different approach, they know that in recent times they cannot get the market share based on outright performance (so little point in spending a fortune to market that approach), they adopted a "Bang for Buck" approach which is understandable but has cost them a fortune, some would therefore argue that they need to try a new approach and perhaps this "niche" thing is the way to go, I cannot help but associate the word "niche" to small quantities though, good, bad or indifferent it's hard to see how this card may help turn their fortunes around, I hope it does but as I am no marketing expert (clearly!) then what do I know.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 8, 2015)

john_ said:


> I took five before posting. Nice lemon flavor, but probably had the opposite effect.


Ok...


----------



## arbiter (Sep 8, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> In some respects if it were found that the card cannot compete with the opposition (I don't know, I am only using this as an example) then arguably AMD need a different approach,


If you use history as benchmark, aka Fury x claims vs 980ti. Apply how they claimed it was 20% faster then a 980ti but end reviews mostly had it as 10% slower, you could have a pretty good idea where a nano could fall vs card they want to compare it to. They compare it vs a gtx970 which they said the nano is 30% faster so using those metrics could make a pretty safe bet that nano will be almost same performance to maybe 10% faster in most games, that could very since lets be truthful that gtx970 isn't really geared for 4k video like they marketed their card for.  If those numbers end up being right i would say that would be impossible to compete vs a card that costs half the price.



RCoon said:


> I heard through the grapevine AMD are sending out cards to Vloggers and Bloggers, mainly the hipster types this time around.


Lets not sugar coat it, they are sending to RTP members mostly (red team plus). That way they can hype it with their biased views.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 8, 2015)

The R9 Nano won't be the "best bang for your buck" card with that $650 price tag... comparing it with the GTX980Ti, clearly the 980Ti is... but comparing with the GTX970, it's a little not fair as they're comparing a sub-$350 card, yet alone an ITX version of the card.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 8, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> The R9 Nano won't be the "best bang for your buck" card with that $650 price tag... comparing it with the GTX980Ti, clearly the 980Ti is... but comparing with the GTX970, it's a little not fair as they're comparing a sub-$350 card, yet alone an ITX version of the card.



I actually hadn't even thought about that.  The price versus performance level versus the 970 (albeit limited ITX) cards.  I'd hope a card that costs several hundred dollars more is substantially better.
In fact, 30% faster by AMD metrics but 90% more expensive..... Hmm..  Now we can argue the 970 only has 3.5gb memory but most people (including Guru) have said its performance is still stellar for its price and power consumption.
So, the Nano, if priced at the presumed level with 970 beating performance is almost 'Titanesque' price/perf metric.
And I did not know the RTP stood for Red Team Plus.  That's just embarrassing.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 8, 2015)

wonder why they would do that... it's not AMD at all for doing such things... for the whole thing about RTP standing in for Red Team Plus...


----------



## alucasa (Sep 8, 2015)

Sooo much rage over a card...

I guess DoA is what this feels like.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 8, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> The R9 Nano won't be the "best bang for your buck" card with that $650 price tag... comparing it with the GTX980Ti, clearly the 980Ti is... but comparing with the GTX970, it's a little not fair as they're comparing a sub-$350 card, yet alone an ITX version of the card.


GTX970 mITX cards can be had for 300$.


the54thvoid said:


> I actually hadn't even thought about that. The price versus performance level versus the 970 (albeit limited ITX) cards. I'd hope a card that costs several hundred dollars more is substantially better. In fact, 30% faster by AMD metrics but 90% more expensive..... Hmm


We all know what AMD metrics means, ~30% slower then what they claim if you use Fury X as a base. Performance per $ will be almost 2x in favor of gtx970.


alucasa said:


> Sooo much rage over a card...
> 
> I guess DoA is what this feels like.


Rage is stiming from people wanting AMD to survive and be competitive, But its just been them shooting them selves in the foot time after time. I can understand marketing products towards its strength's but when market you are aiming towards is mostly software that doesn't use those strength's it makes the marketing worthless and a waste of time. For example the APU's they market it using like 3dmark, and BasemarkCL. Those apu's are marketed mostly to normal people that want a cheap laptop for things like internet and email. Problem is How many email clients are gpu accelerated? Yea browsers are but even that is kinda limited in its use.

In case of nano, Price and performance just doesn't have a good balance. Yes AMD said 30% using their idea of settings for a game, but end users probably only be around 5-10% at best faster then a card of competing size, when your card cost 2x the price the other one. Can't pull what Apple does and have mass amount of people blinding throwing money down.


----------



## 64K (Sep 8, 2015)

Even the Fury X is only 30% faster in 4K than a GTX 970 in the benches done here. Below that resolution the performance lead begins to drop off.



Spoiler: Fury X Benches.






















I will be surprised if the Nano performs as well as the Fury X and I suspect this is the reason AMD is being selective about which sites are being sent one for review.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 8, 2015)

arbiter said:


> In case of nano, Price and performance just doesn't have a good balance.


Precisely why any site that has performance-per-$ summaries hasn't been given a review sample. If a company knows the end result isn't going to favourable from the outset, then eliminate the opportunity. Basically, AMD are taking a leaf out of Apple's (mac) book. Apple aren't generally disposed to handing out review samples because the comparison metrics on paper/screen aren't favourable to their product. Just as Apple's appeal is its entire package (software, support, aesthetic), Nano's appeal is also somewhat intangible concerning a straight up numbers comparison - small card with a big punch for a small segment of users requiring a system of small footprint/volume. That metric isn't something that can be quantified in a statistical graphic - which more people will notice.
What remains to be seen is if the demographic holds up. AMD are positioning the Nano above the GTX 970 mITX based on its 4K ability. If the card is truly 4K capable then it hits the mark. If the performance is geared towards 1080p/1440p....not so much.

I'm actually wondering what the scenario would be if the roles were reversed. What kind of reaction would there be if TPU refused to launch review a card that AMD was launching that would top the metrics charts that W1zz uses  (perf/$, perf/watt, overall performance)? It wouldn't matter, right? Plenty of bloggers and other sites to review the card?


----------



## Folterknecht (Sep 8, 2015)

Even the 980Ti is debatable @4K as a single GPU card (eyecandy + fps) and that one has good OC-potential. The Nano won't even come close to that. Marketing the Nano as 4K card is laughable. Same as demanding 2x the price of the 970 with only a performance lead of maybe 15% at best in the relevant resolutions.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 8, 2015)

64K said:


> Even the Fury X is only 30% faster in 4K than a GTX 970 in the benches done here. Below that resolution the performance lead begins to drop off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That maybe why, but it will depend on the 175watt TDP and how that is handled more than anything.  A 1000mhz, the 50mhz difference is not much so it could be fine.  However we have no idea what actual limits are imposed on it which is where the problem lies in its performance.  For all we know, this selective binning process mixed with that 50mhz is enough to keep the power way lower (But that is being way generous).



the54thvoid said:


> I actually hadn't even thought about that.  The price versus performance level versus the 970 (albeit limited ITX) cards.  I'd hope a card that costs several hundred dollars more is substantially better.
> In fact, 30% faster by AMD metrics but 90% more expensive..... Hmm..  Now we can argue the 970 only has 3.5gb memory but most people (including Guru) have said its performance is still stellar for its price and power consumption.
> So, the Nano, if priced at the presumed level with 970 beating performance is almost 'Titanesque' price/perf metric.
> And I did not know the RTP stood for Red Team Plus.  That's just embarrassing.


Well I guess they are thinking since NVidia does it and its successful maybe that's something to try lol?  Its really going to come down to its actual performance which if we guess its at least at the level of the Fury then its going to be at least a decent card.  But that is also assuming it does not have some serious throttle that keeps it from its peak clock speeds (Or at least that you are able to override that).


----------



## Basard (Sep 8, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Thats SO TRUE
> 
> Before CD and DVD Roms were Cheap enough to buy for everyday use i went out and bought a LS120 drive ( for moving big files )
> 
> ...



So you would recommend it?  I'll have to pick one up...


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 8, 2015)

Basard said:


> So you would recommend it? I'll have to pick one up...


Would i recommend buying a nano  well understand this
I have always had AMD/ATI graphics Cards ( ever since 3Dfx got bought out by them and gutted )

Would i buy or recommend a nano
Not until it has had lots of Believable Reviews and there is a price Drop and they become popular sales on Flea bay   as for new  right now i recommend AVOID LIKE IT's INFECTED AND WILL GIVE YOU THE CLAP. ( PERSONAL OPINION ONLY )


----------



## Basard (Sep 8, 2015)

I was talking about the LS120 man! lol...

I've never paid more than 175 for a GPU...  With inflation that comes to about 250 I guess... maybe 300.   I'd rather just not play the new games, or play them on low settings until I can get a faster GPU.  I can see my 5870 (no, I didn't buy it new) lasting for another year at LEAST--that's probably blasphemy to a lot of you guys.  

I was honestly expecting the Nano to be cheaper than the Fury and Fury X.  Which is why I was so excited for it.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 9, 2015)

Basard said:


> . I'd rather just not play the new games, or play them on low settings until I can get a faster GPU. I can see my 5870 (no, I didn't buy it new) lasting for another year at LEAST--that's probably blasphemy to a lot of you guys.


That's how I kind of looked at it. The 1GB on 6870s in CFX is a nonstarter for many new video games with half decent graphics. So for me a 390 was a good step up for 330 USD.

I found that interesting though that the 6870s had more compute to use but a lot of the issues were coming out of trying to stream video memory from system memory.

It's insane because AMD could have done many things to nano and none of this makes sense IMHO. I kind of want to stop talking about it until we can see ourselves some legitimate information about what Nano is and what is can do because no one really seems to know "fo sho".


----------



## Basard (Sep 9, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> The 1GB on 6870s in CFX is a nonstarter for many new video games with half decent graphics.



It's a good thing I have the 2GB version then, eh? mua haha!  Good friends are rare.  Good friends that give you their old 5870 for damn near free are almost unheard of.  

I dunno why AMD even bothered with the 300 series.  They could have scrapped the whole line and just made one mid-range fiji-type setup.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2015)

[OT- Just a little break from our regularly scheduled content]


dorsetknob said:


> Would i recommend buying a nano  well understand this
> I have always had AMD/ATI graphics Cards ( ever since 3Dfx got bought out by them and gutted )


Technically, 3Dfx's creditors initiated a liquidation order against the company. 3Dfx owed money all over the place, and rather than pay them off decided to spend $186m on acquiring GigaPixel. 3Dfx's creditors weren't really happy with that and initiated a winding up order against the company. Gary Tarolli and co. then cut a deal with Nvidia (not ATI) to buy some 3Dfx IP and get themselves jobs with Nvidia (they became the core of the NV30 team) since 3Dfx's lawsuit/counter-lawsuit with Nv was going south (3Dfx's suit was thrown out, Nvidia's was looking likely to be upheld). Creditors were still squabbling over the remaining IP and trying to eke out some recompense a decade later. ( Most of this is available from the mouths of Tarolli and Co in a filmed interview given for the Computer History Museum).
[/OT]


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

By Them i meant the green Team   not Ati
my choice was Dictated by wanting TV on the Pc my Last 3DFX Card was the Voodoo 3500 Tv
NVidia at the time and still never done proper TV cards   if they had i might have considered buying one   as it was i went for a AIW 9800se

Still got the Voodoo 3500 in its retail packaging and it still works
you can see photo's in the nostalga thread


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> By Them i meant the green Team   not Ati


Ah, I see. Your wording seemed to imply ATI.
You're right. Nvidia never really cottoned to the TV tuner graphics card concept. I remember installing a few FX 5200/FX 5700 Personal Cinema cards back in the day, but wouldn't recommend one to my worst enemy.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

used the word them to try and avoid the flaming and trolling when one mentions one and the other maker

Ati got the graphics card tuner combo quite well sussed out  pity they stopped production and updating that range  would be nice if they still done it   just to free up a slot for other use
modern m/b seem to lack slots these days


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 9, 2015)

I didn't read much of this thread but all I'm going to say is AMD just pissed there chances away imho.

Wizz can be to some, a bit of a green team lover. But then again I believe he calls a spade a spade and dosnt blow smoke up ppl's ass like some other un-named sites do..

I love AMD, but would I buy this card? Nope not in a million years.. There price is way off base for this card. If you ask me this card should be in the $280 ish range and that's taking the American dollar in hand... So if I were to buy it I'd expect to walk Into a local store and with taxes I'd be happy with paying $320 where I live.. But $600 plus from what they're saying? 

@amd, this is for you, are you guys really trying to kill what you have left of a company over this? Here's a rope, there's a tree... Swing baby swing


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 9, 2015)

alucasa said:


> Sooo much rage over a card...
> 
> I guess DoA is what this feels like.



Exactly my thoughts. Looks like *3dfx **Voodoo 5 6000* story all over again


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 9, 2015)

thing is... if AMD were to kill off the R9 300 series card in favor for a Fiji lineup series, they won't even make it to the end with getting at least 3rd place in the competition... I'm still wondering how will they survive if they are imposing $650 for a card that's not being tested in proper environment but rely on irrelevant paper scores that seemed beneficial only to them?


----------



## Dany (Sep 9, 2015)

fullinfusion said:


> I didn't read much of this thread but all I'm going to say is AMD just pissed there chances away imho.
> 
> Wizz can be to some, a bit of a green team lover. But then again I believe he calls a spade a spade and dosnt blow smoke up ppl's ass like some other un-named sites do..
> 
> ...



280$ for NANO which outperforms gtx 980 , are u serious , really ? NANO is so small , power efficient and it even beats gtx 980 which is 500$ so your price tag of 280-ish is kinda childish... , you wish what you really cant buy , period , cheers !!


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 9, 2015)

Dany said:


> 280$ for NANO which outperforms gtx 980 , are u serious , really ? NANO is so small , power efficient and it even beats gtx 980 which is 500$ so your price tag of 280-ish is kinda childish... , you wish what you really cant buy , period , cheers !!


Too bad 280 isn't how much it's slated to sell for...


btarunr said:


> The first signs of that are, AMD making it prohibitively expensive at $650


----------



## btarunr (Sep 9, 2015)

I would've been willing to cough up $450 for this card, but that would cannibalize R9 390X. In the documents that I've read, AMD is calling this a "co-flagship" product. While the R9 Fury X offers the highest single-GPU performance from the AMD camp, this one's USP is its size. There's no other card that can let you build a tiny cube-sized ITX gaming desktop that can let you max out games at 1440p, and so AMD is selling the shit out of that. To achieve R9 Fury non-X like performance at 175W, AMD would need to bin the very best chips out of its Fiji yield (better than even what would normally make it to Fury X manufacturing).

There are many reasons why I think we (along with sites like TR) didn't get this card:

AMD assumes that we'd treat this like any other VGA (blind performance and perf/W or perf/$ numbers) and not take into consideration that this card is targeted at a specific audience (compact gaming PC builders). This was never the plan on our side. We've reviewed "compact ITX" versions of GTX 760 and GTX 670, and we overlooked their price premiums for the size advantage
A possible power-management bluff that sites like TPU and TR would be quick to call. How much power did the R9 295X2 draw per 8-pin connector, again? We have the tools to test card-only power.
Noise and temperature, along with thermal imaging. The smaller it gets, the hotter it will. We don't test VGAs in open-air benches. Noise has always played a big role in our score.
Our test suite is large, and our settings don't change (AA/AF). We always disable proprietary features (TressFX disabled for TombRaider, Hairworks disabled for Witcher, etc).


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

This site's been having a lot of downtime/issues after this post was posted. is AMD THAT butthurt?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> This site's been having a lot of downtime/issues after this post was posted. is AMD THAT butthurt?



A Fellow Tin hat wearer    welcome to the conspiracy Theory  club.
Mine is the tin hat with the full length neck guard.
( complete with full coverage cricket Box woven silver foil and Kevl*a*r )


----------



## btarunr (Sep 9, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> A Fellow Tin hat wearer    welcome to the conspiracy Theory  club.
> Mine is the tin hat with the full length neck guard.
> ( complete with full coverage cricket Box woven silver foil and Kevler )



No, we're moving servers, and doing it as gradually as we can (so there are many short downtimes, rather than a huge downtime).


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 9, 2015)

Such a no-nonsense, zero BS benchmarking methods even scares the pants off AMD? Is an even playing field proved to be "unfair" for them? Nvidia & Intel has no qualms for that but AMD? What are they afraid of anyways?


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 9, 2015)

Also, despite the R9 295X2 being at the very bottom for all the test (power consumption under load, blew all resolutions across all games etc), it even consumes 650W (yes, 650W) at peak usage. When it came out for the first time, AMD did send one for TPU to flex it's dual GPU muscles to it's paces, recorded it's performance, tabled it & drew a conclusion with no hiccups, so was the rest of the other cards, but not the Nano.


----------



## 64K (Sep 9, 2015)

R9 295x2 drew 500 watts peak and the 646 watts was running Furmark which stresses the GPUs beyond what you will find in real world gaming.


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Sep 9, 2015)

As a fellow reviewer, I've yet to be offered a Nano sample. Or Fury/Fury X for that matter either. Most vendors in my country don't have Fiji stock and that's a combination of being at the bottom of Africa and not having enough Fiji parts to go around to everyone. Maybe its the same for Nano's launch, maybe not. All I know is that Roy isn't helping at all right now.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 9, 2015)

@64K I see.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 9, 2015)

Cataclysm_ZA said:


> As a fellow reviewer, I've yet to be offered a Nano sample. Or Fury/Fury X for that matter either. Most vendors in my country don't have Fiji stock and that's a combination of being at the bottom of Africa and not having enough Fiji parts to go around to everyone. Maybe its the same for Nano's launch, maybe not. All I know is that Roy isn't helping at all right now.


roy needs to tread very carefully or hes gonna have another pr disaster


----------



## john_ (Sep 9, 2015)

Cataclysm_ZA said:


> All I know is that Roy isn't helping at all right now.



Yeap. Bad reaction. You don't write on public that "TPU. You don't do fair reviews". This makes it an official statement "We didn't gave you a card because we don't like your reviews". Even if you don't like TPU, better to say "Sorry, we didn't had enough samples for the press" than what he wrote.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)




----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2015)

I'd say that some TPU *news posts* come across as very pro-nvidia, but i don't really see any anti-AMD in any reviews or articles.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

LOL, he says "Amen"?  Does he not see or not understand the irony in that statement? They are making up rules to play the game by manipulating how games are tested (no AF).


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Sep 9, 2015)

Even I am happy enough with "not enough press samples" being offered as an excuse, because it is logical that a hardware vendor like AMD would like to sell as many parts as possible. But Roy's comeback is just... wow.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

For the Attention of  AMD_ROY

Please fill in the Details So we can Process your Claim





A Hint from a British AMD owner /user


----------



## btarunr (Sep 9, 2015)

Here's the original tweet. https://twitter.com/btarunr/status/639865708172611585


----------



## john_ (Sep 9, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, he says "Amen"?  Does he not see or not understand the irony in that statement? They are making up rules to play the game by manipulating how games are tested (no AF).


He sees it from his perspective "Do a fair review of AMD hardware and don't worry if you upset Nvidia".


----------



## btarunr (Sep 9, 2015)

Cataclysm_ZA said:


> Even I am happy enough with "not enough press samples" being offered as an excuse, because it is logical that a hardware vendor like AMD would like to sell as many parts as possible. But Roy's comeback is just... wow.



That's bovine defecation, because we were invited for the pre-launch conference call (if you make it to that stage, a sample is normally en route you). We sat through the call. Then late last week we learn that they don't have a sample for us (because by then AMD PR partner's German office is stocked up with samples/dispatched). Only a high-level intervention could derail things from that stage.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

I'd prolly be given one if I stuck a nano between my tits like I do some of the networking hardware and tweeted it to everyone. If so I'll give it to you


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

john_ said:


> He sees it from his perspective "Do a fair review of AMD hardware and don't worry if you upset Nvidia".


LOL, and therein lay the problem.... As I said, what he doesn't seem to see (judging from his comments) is that they are taking a game (reviewing) and making up new rules that benefit them instead of playing with rules that are fair to everyone/what most people use. Who DOESN'T crank up the AF? The penalty is so small!!! This isn't 2004!!!

I talked with my rep yesterday and was sent a consolation prize (nothing Fiji)... and was told that sampling for Nano was done "a bit differently" this time around. I can understand we don;t get one as we are smaller than TPU, but TPU not getting one is a shock to say the least.



btarunr said:


> That's bovine defecation, because we were invited for the pre-launch conference call (if you make it to that stage, a sample is normally en route you). We sat through the call. Then late last week we learn that they don't have a sample for us (because by then AMD PR partner's German office is stocked up with samples/dispatched). Only a high-level intervention could derail things from that stage.


EXACTLY... I was on that call...I was in L.A for the Fiji release... and NADA. If we are not big enough to make the cut, THEN DONT FLY ME TO L.A... NOR INVITE ME TO THESE CONFERENCE CALLS......


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)




----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> I'd prolly be given one if I stuck a nano between my tits like I do some of the networking hardware and tweeted it to everyone. If so I'll give it to you



My first thought
I'd pay money to see that
Second thought 
where is my credit Card


----------



## john_ (Sep 9, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, and therein lay the problem.... As I said, what he doesn't seem to see (judging from his comments) is that they are taking a game (reviewing) and making up new rules that benefit them instead of playing with rules that are fair to everyone.


What he doesn't see is that TPU is not the typical website with 10-20 people writing news and reviews. TPU is the perfect mixture of a hardware site AND a FORUM with thousand of loyal members. He should have been more careful.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 9, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> View attachment 67878



Yeah, I saw a similar exchange with someone about TPU. I can't find that because he blocked me.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

AMD_Roy blocked you??? wow how low can u go amd?


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Sep 9, 2015)

btarunr said:


> That's bovine defecation, because we were invited for the pre-launch conference call (if you make it to that stage, a sample is normally en route you). We sat through the call. Then late last week we learn that they don't have a sample for us (because by then AMD PR partner's German office is stocked up with samples/dispatched). This couldn't have been possible without a last minute high-level intervention.



Perhaps I'm mangling my words here. I was in that conference call as well, I also expected a sample at some point. What I said in my post is that I would be happy with the "not enough samples" excuse, because that's a nicer way of saying "we don't think you're important enough to us to get one first" without slapping you through the face. They don't have to drop an (incorrect) insinuation about fairness on a public forum, they just have to say "not enough cards" and move on from there. 

I am likewise uncomfortable with the fact that they'd rather send samples to someone who might not be objective instead of me, and that's their prerogative. They want to market it that way and they're entitled to do that. I don't agree with the way they're handling this publicly and I wish Roy hadn't made that comment. If I could, I'd be the one sending you a Nano sample.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 9, 2015)

keep on diggin roy




fight fire with fire 
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3k8og2/amd_denies_journalists_review_samplesblocks/


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Yeah, I saw a similar exchange with someone about TPU. I can't find that because he blocked me.


Utterly childish and pointless
all it takes is for someone to copy and paste to another place and you then have The *Streisand effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect*


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

hey guys.... dare me to get pikachu involved?? I'll do it...


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

Hurricane Roy will hit landfall on 9.11.15 prepare yourselves!


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2015)

his ROYal highness has spoken.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, he says "Amen"?  Does he not see or not understand the irony in that statement? They are making up rules to play the game by manipulating how games are tested (no AF).


I think you're taking Roy's statement the wrong way. He knows launch coverage can't be fair. So no real reviews, just publicity. I'm fine with that.


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Sep 9, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I think you're taking Roy's statement the wrong way. He knows launch coverage can't be fair. So no real reviews, just publicity. I'm fine with that.



I see it this way as well. As much as Roy may agree that reviews should be fair and unbiased, AMD wants the Nano launch to go a specific way, which is why they're picking and choosing who gets a card for review carefully.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

Im not sure how you hoovered that meaning out of his reply, Dave.

Regardless if that is true, there is irony ooozing out of it!


EDIT: Fair is testing it as users generally run it.... WITH AF. Again, this isn't 2004.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 9, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I think you're taking Roy's statement the wrong way. He knows launch coverage can't be fair.


I think your find that the general opinion over the web is Roy has royally fucked up
yes he is getting Publicity for his Product but its turning nasty over the way he has handeled it

Its becoming a shitstorm of bad tasting Publicity that he could have avoided for AMD


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 9, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I think you're taking Roy's statement the wrong way. He knows launch coverage can't be fair. So no real reviews, just publicity. I'm fine with that.


 It probably could still have been phrased a bit better though.  Any word used on the internet without being specific can be interpreted the wrong way in this day and age.

Seems kinda odd as it is, but they really are trying to make the Nano a "Feature Presentation" of their products so they want a specific image of it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Im not sure how you hoovered that meaning out of his reply, Dave.
> 
> Regardless if that is true, there is irony ooozing out of it!
> 
> ...


Life's not fair though, so whatever. I mean, I'd love for W1zz to get a sample, since that's my only hope of getting my hands on one myself, but if AMD wants to market their products in a specific way, that is their right to do so.

They could be more transparent and various other things, but I still love AMD for being AMD.



dorsetknob said:


> I think your find that the general opinion over the web is Roy has royally fucked up
> yes he is getting Publicity for his Product but its turning nasty over the way he has handeled it
> 
> Its becoming a shitstorm of bad tasting Publicity that he could have avoided for AMD



Meh, I kind of like an AMD that stands up for itself.



GhostRyder said:


> It probably could still have been phrased a bit better though.  Any word used on the internet without being specific can be interpreted the wrong way in this day and age.
> 
> Seems kinda odd as it is, but they really are trying to make the Nano a "Feature Presentation" of their products so they want a specific image of it.


Yeah, my words have been twisted more times than I am comfortable with. But again, oh well. ASUS didn't send me a Z170 ROG board, and MSI never sent me the X99 GodLike. Biostar doesn't return my emails, Corsair and Kingston stopped sending samples... such is the life of a product reviewer. I find other samples to keep me busy.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

Yeah, life isn't fair, but we are not talking about pouting children (but adults and website, LOL!).

We are talking about how the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY runs their video cards (using AF) and AMD not doing that. This, to me, is a bit more than simply 'marketing their products in a specific way'. I mean, it is that, yes, but, they are going against what the majority uses, to make their card look better than it is when the 'overwhelming majority' uses them. It is misleading. If you expect 60 FPS because a review said so, now you are getting 45 because they don't use an incredibly common setting...... how is that OK? 

Settings will differ from review to review, no doubt, but no AF? Come on....


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

http://remixedcat.blogspot.com/2015/09/amd-denies-techpowerup-review-sample.html and here's another link for yah  ha ha


----------



## arbiter (Sep 9, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Yeah, life isn't fair, but we are not talking about pouting children (but adults and website, LOL!).
> We are talking about how the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY runs their video cards (using AF) and AMD not doing that. This, to me, is a bit more than simply 'marketing their products in a specific way'. I mean, it is that, yes, but, they are going against what the majority uses, to make their card look better than it is when the 'overwhelming majority' uses them. It is misleading. If you expect 60 FPS because a review said so, now you are getting 45 because they don't use an incredibly common setting...... how is that OK?
> Settings will differ from review to review, no doubt, but no AF? Come on....


Most review sites tend to use default setting profiles in games so really settings don't diff that much. Usually its high, very high or ultra. So settings don't differ that much from one site to another. But AMD was one using that diff massively from reviewers but selectively turning off any setting that doesn't make use of the cards shaders. AMD trying to rewrite the rules on how tests wouldn't shock me given the whole story what they did for trinity(posted below). If they tried to pull that same thing now it would be pretty sad that they think reviewers would re-test ALL their cards to fit what benifits AMD's PR and not what Real world end users use.



HumanSmoke said:


> The issue is the way AMD is massaging the launch and message. You could argue that AMD has a long history of doing this ( remember the Trinity launch for example), but it doesn't make it any more palatable.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

arbiter said:


> But AMD was one using that diff massively from reviewers by selectively turning off any setting that doesn't make use of the cards shaders. AMD trying to rewrite the rules


THIS............!


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 9, 2015)

He's a ROYal pain in the arse for me... How can he stoop that low & say TPU is "biased"? He obviously thinks that enabling AF & AO is considered as "unfair". Bzzt. Turning that off for AMD & enable it for Nvidia cards isn't.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 9, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> hey guys.... dare me to get pikachu involved?? I'll do it...


better not... Pikachu isn't gonna be happy with it xD


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> better not... Pikachu isn't gonna be happy with it xD


yeah and charizard'll roast his ass


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 9, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Most review sites tend to use default setting profiles in games so really settings don't diff that much. Usually its high, very high or ultra. So settings don't differ that much from one site to another. But AMD was one using that diff massively from reviewers but selectively turning off any setting that doesn't make use of the cards shaders. AMD trying to rewrite the rules on how tests wouldn't shock me given the whole story what they did for trinity(posted below). If they tried to pull that same thing now it would be pretty sad that they think reviewers would re-test ALL their cards to fit what benifits AMD's PR and not what Real world end users use.


 Ok dude, you need to get off the high horse preaching about AMD as being the worst thing when it comes to marketing their cards.  I am pretty sure lying about specs on a card is at least as bad to running settings that benefit your card...



cadaveca said:


> Yeah, my words have been twisted more times than I am comfortable with. But again, oh well. ASUS didn't send me a Z170 ROG board, and MSI never sent me the X99 GodLike. Biostar doesn't return my emails, Corsair and Kingston stopped sending samples... such is the life of a product reviewer. I find other samples to keep me busy.


  I know that feeling, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court known as the internet where people judge first and ask questions later 

Though what matters is why in the end and it sounds still like it could very well be low supply mixed with choice of marketing.  It won't matter in the end, cards will surface and we will see the benchmarks which in the end will give us the chance to judge all we want.  Its unfortunate since I do appreciate seeing so many different scenarios with TPU's/wizards reviews but there is nothing we can do about it now unless someone gets one early and sends it over to him or buys him one.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> I am pretty sure lying about specs on a card is at least as bad to running settings that benefit your card...


Not to nit pick, but was it a lie? It has 4GB of vRAM. 500MB are slower than the rest. Perhaps they were not as forthcoming as they should have been, but its not the first time that you saw the split memory configuration either. 

Regardless, I hear where you are coming from.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2015)

Mussels said:


> his ROYal highness has spoken.


...and inserts foot into open mouth. Not an unusual occurrence - remember when he shot his mouth off about AMD and Intel's processors?


> "Basically the CPU is dead. Yes, that processor you see advertised everywhere from Intel. It's run out of steam. The fact is that it no longer makes anything run faster. You don't need a fast one anymore. This is why AMD is in trouble and it's why Intel are panicking," Taylor claimed [...] However, Nvidia claims that the above message does not reflect any official stance whatsoever. According to the company's spokesman Brian Burke, the message is not a public statement and "the views in Roy Taylor's e-mail do not mirror the views of Nvidia."


which resulted in his demotion from VP Content Relations to VP for a whole new division that involved chatting to telephone systems operators, and of course the truly golden...


> "The UK is the only place in the world where anyone talks about AMD or ATI".  To prove his point, [NVIDIA’s Roy] Taylor went as far as showing us a graph representing the entire market for GPUs last year, both discreet and integrated.  Astonishingly, ATI did not feature at all.
> Where was ATI among the 366 million graphics chips which had apparently been split exclusively between NVIDIA and Intel in 2007? "No one cares," Taylor says.


AMD discrete desktop graphics market share in 2007: 37-40%.....
AMD discrete desktop graphics market share in Q2 2015: 18%

Nvidia had the common sense to show Roy the door. AMD have already effectively demoted him from chief of global channel sales to VP of Alliances (whatever that translates to). Take the voluntary redundancy Roy, you don't have a leg to stand on if you take it to employment arbitration!


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 9, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Not to nit pick, but was it a lie? It has 4GB of vRAM. 500MB are slower than the rest. Perhaps they were not as forthcoming as they should have been, but its not the first time that you saw the split memory configuration either.
> 
> Regardless, I hear where you are coming from.


True but I still count it as a lie.  If it was no big deal they would have been up front about it which is why to me it was a lie.  Plus if I recall the performance hit on the 660ti (I believe that is what you are referencing, correct me if not) was not near as bad on the last bit of the 2gb card.

I think what we need is the card to show itself in public to get the truth, nothing is going to satisfy until that happens.  I think we have been waiting far to long at this point to see something


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

he worked for NV?


HumanSmoke said:


> ...and inserts foot into open mouth. Not an unusual occurrence - remember when he shot his mouth off about AMD and Intel's processors?
> 
> which resulted in his demotion from VP Content Relations to VP for a whole new division that involved chatting to telephone systems operators, and of course the truly golden...
> 
> ...


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 9, 2015)

I dont think any testing was done on the 660ti (excellent job there remembering!). When we reviewed it, I don't think we broke 1.5GB or wherever the threshold was at the time. There are complaints abound about the 660ti, more so after the info about the 970 came out...


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> he worked for NV?


Oh yes. Did you think that Roy limits his public embarrassment antics to just a single company?

A lot of industry names tend to swap positions on a regular basis. The PR variety tend to garner more attention being more visible. AMD's other resident shoutcaster, Richard Huddy (thankfully muzzled at the moment) also did a stint at Nvidia, as well as Intel.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

jees.... -_-  What fuckery did he do at NV?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> jees.... -_-  What fuckery did he do at NV?


It is probably no exaggeration to say that AMD's biggest marketing advantage occurred when Roy was given a speaking role at Nvidia. Roy seems ready to prove that lightning can indeed strike twice in the same exec.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 9, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Ok dude, you need to get off the high horse preaching about AMD as being the worst thing when it comes to marketing their cards. I am pretty sure lying about specs on a card is at least as bad to running settings that benefit your card...





GhostRyder said:


> True but I still count it as a lie. If it was no big deal they would have been up front about it which is why to me it was a lie. Plus if I recall the performance hit on the 660ti (I believe that is what you are referencing, correct me if not) was not near as bad on the last bit of the 2gb card.


That is was 1 lie for Nvidia, Lets count AMD's lie's. Lie #1, Radeon 300 series isn't a rebrand, Lie #2 Fury X is 20% faster then 980ti, About to be Lie #3 Nano being 30% faster then a gtx970. If want to go back even more then could come up with a lot more about AMD. So lies are 2-1 atm but soon to be 3-1 most likely. I don't expect any AMD fan to let gtx970 issue go since its old issue and only thing you have to use.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 9, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> It is probably no exaggeration to say that AMD's biggest marketing advantage occurred when Roy was given a speaking role at Nvidia. Roy seems ready to prove that lightning can indeed strike twice in the same exec.


Ugggh !


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 9, 2015)

arbiter said:


> That is was 1 lie for Nvidia, Lets count AMD's lie's. Lie #1, Radeon 300 series isn't a rebrand, Lie #2 Fury X is 20% faster then 980ti, About to be Lie #3 Nano being 30% faster then a gtx970. If want to go back even more then could come up with a lot more about AMD. So lies are 2-1 atm but soon to be 3-1 most likely. I don't expect any AMD fan to let gtx970 issue go since its old issue and only thing you have to use.


Coming from the guy whose been on every AMD thread talking trash consistently lol?  Yea, I am the fan boy...



Spoiler







  BTW there are plenty of lies from NVidia including the recent async shaders and DX12 (not to mention technically if we count the 660ti as a lie as well)...Also the entire 300 series lineup is not all rebrands so that argument can be thrown out the window.

So if we're assuming AMD is lieing about the performance of the nano, should we start assuming Nvdia will constantly lie about the specs of their cards and what features they support?  Nothing should be assumed regarding either side and their claims.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> BTW there are plenty of lies from NVidia including the recent async shaders and DX12 (not to mention technically if we count the 660ti as a lie as well)...Also the entire 300 series lineup is not all rebrands so that argument can be thrown out the window.


I guess it goes without saying Async is was an AMD locked tech til recently since AMD fans love to forget that little fact. It was locked up part of the close never open source mantle.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press

They had a nice write up about whole issue of no nano review samples. Its pretty ugly when some of it.

edit: just read it in full and that kinda PR is more damaging then any nano review will ever be. Roy of AMD is a massive idiot, makes me think of Homer Simpson.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 10, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Roy of AMD is a massive idiot, makes me think of Homer Simpson.


Maybe they are using him to soften up investors and make them more amenable to a stock issue.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 10, 2015)

arbiter said:


> http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press
> 
> They had a nice write up about whole issue of no nano review samples. Its pretty ugly when some of it.
> 
> edit: just read it in full and that kinda PR is more damaging then any nano review will ever be. Roy of AMD is a massive idiot, makes me think of Homer Simpson.


Yikes
methinks that Roy is about to have a very very bad week


----------



## Basard (Sep 10, 2015)

What i don't understand is how they can charge more for things getting smaller.  That's what computers do.  They get smaller.  But you're supposed to keep the power down to a certain point and just make them the same size, yet more powerful.  

Things have gotten way out of hand though....  Somehow having a huge graphics card with a million heat pipes going everywhere is a good thing.  I'm surprised that there aren't cases of people computers just bursting into flames because their water pump dies.

Now, all the sudden they wanna make a card how it's supposed to be (almost), using less components, but charge us even more for it?

LOL... and when I type "r9 nano review" into google, first thing that pops up is this thread...  Good job AMD!  Wow...  

Next step is Renaming the card...


----------



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2015)

Thanks for the support, Scott and Kyle.

http://techreport.com/news/29011/amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-tr-reviews-arent-fair
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press/2#.VfDyxnCqpBd


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Thanks for the support, Scott and Kyle.
> 
> http://techreport.com/news/29011/amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-tr-reviews-arent-fair
> http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press/2#.VfDyxnCqpBd


Roy called Scott @ techreport to apologize

http://techreport.com/news/29011/updated-amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-apologizes 

Sad thing is they wanted to avoid bad review but all this PR over this is worse then any nano review.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

can't believe how badly he's fucked it all up


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

This is the worst history for AMD... after their shares fall to less than 20%, now they're being yellow coz of honest reviews that their R9 Nano isn't as fast as they claim to be? *scoffs* good job AMD, for screwing this up. Now every single tech geeks will know what you've done & will never forgive you for your actions (including me).


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

i dont think they understand that websites like TPU with a history of being HONEST and labelling bad products as bad is the exact ones customers want the reviews on.

I sure wouldnt be buying a nano without a TPU review first, because of all the inconsistency of other websites - 5 sites can call a product quiet, and i get it and its screaming loud (or the opposite with my 290, every review i found of it says it overheats and is loud, yet i get neither)


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 10, 2015)

I also could have bought this card for a future small HTPC build i have planned soon but naaaaah. Sticking with nvidia.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

Mussels said:


> i dont think they understand that websites like TPU with a history of being HONEST and labelling bad products as bad is the exact ones customers want the reviews on.
> 
> I sure wouldnt be buying a nano without a TPU review first, because of all the inconsistency of other websites - 5 sites can call a product quiet, and i get it and its screaming loud (or the opposite with my 290, every review i found of it says it overheats and is loud, yet i get neither)


Perhaps your non-standard R9 290 is using a custom cooler, so it doesn't have those issues found on a reference based 290? Could be the reason though...


----------



## nem (Sep 10, 2015)

almost 600 coments wtf!

tpu lose by dont have review of nano , come on tpu get an nano ..


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Perhaps your non-standard R9 290 is using a custom cooler, so it doesn't have those issues found on a reference based 290? Could be the reason though...


non-ref cards had little problems with any heat issue. it was only ref coolers that really had that issue. Thing was at the time, 290 was released, it wasn't til 3 months later til non-ref cooled versions finally started to show up.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 10, 2015)

Mussels said:


> i dont think they understand that websites like TPU with a history of being HONEST and labelling bad products as bad is the exact ones customers want the reviews on.
> 
> I sure wouldnt be buying a nano without a TPU review first, because of all the inconsistency of other websites - 5 sites can call a product quiet, and i get it and its screaming loud (or the opposite with my 290, every review i found of it says it overheats and is loud, yet i get neither)





btarunr said:


> Thanks for the support, Scott and Kyle.
> 
> http://techreport.com/news/29011/amd-vp-explains-nano-exclusion-tr-reviews-arent-fair
> http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press/2#.VfDyxnCqpBd


techreport is just a little too forgiving if you ask me
we all know  why nobody is getting a NANO pre-retail
it can't live up to the hype sure it will likely offer 290x type performance but I  would expect the following cadvants
1. frame times are going to suffer this happens anytime you start playing with clock speeds on the fly (let alone possible flicker issues because powerplay never works right)
2. it is GOING to throttle,thats the only way they get around the TDP/Wattage issue and can use such a tiny pcb
3.if they had ANY sense they would release this in a 3/4 or full-size gpu with proper cooling and price it at ~400.00 and they would have a 970 killer 
and personally I am not at all interested in it AMD seems to be on a downward spiral lately and I don't wanna be stuck with a 650.00 dollar investment and not get any software support on it


----------



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2015)

This is how the incessant "reviews should be fair (sic)" tweets were beginning to sound:


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 10, 2015)

btarunr said:


> This is how the incessant "reviews should be fair (sic)" tweets were beginning to sound:


if by fair you mean favorably BIAS toward a corporation that's been on a downhill slide,and can't afford to have another product bomb out


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 10, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Perhaps your non-standard R9 290 is using a custom cooler, so it doesn't have those issues found on a reference based 290? Could be the reason though...


None of my 3 290X's overheated and throttled in preliminary testing except in CFX.



Mussels said:


> i dont think they understand that websites like TPU with a history of being HONEST and labelling bad products as bad is the exact ones customers want the reviews on.
> 
> I sure wouldnt be buying a nano without a TPU review first, because of all the inconsistency of other websites - 5 sites can call a product quiet, and i get it and its screaming loud (or the opposite with my 290, every review i found of it says it overheats and is loud, yet i get neither)


Maybe, who knows but the damage is done by his comments to many people.  At least he was nice enough to call and apologize, though he still has a ways to go.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> it can't live up to the hype sure it will likely offer 290x type performance but I would expect the following cadvants


it probably runs about where they claim vs a 290x but that is cause its their own card and reacts the same to benchmarks.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

@GhostRyder

I see. Some of my buddies however are using liquid-cooling brackets for their 290, since it solves both heat & noise issues as they have the reference model for cheaps... said they too never have any throttling issues whatsoever after making the switch & is happy about it. Bracket I mentioned is Corsair's HG10 A1 Kit + Hydro H75 AIO Kit.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Perhaps your non-standard R9 290 is using a custom cooler, so it doesn't have those issues found on a reference based 290? Could be the reason though...



it was this specific model bagged out on numerous websites. the first review samples had a fault, retail did not - apart from one site, none updated their articles. TPU *does* update their articles when things change (see w1zz doing driver comparisons a year later, for an example)


----------



## Frick (Sep 10, 2015)

Mussels said:


> i dont think they understand that websites like TPU with a history of being HONEST and labelling bad products as bad is the exact ones customers want the reviews on.



Aye, when I saw that twitter thing I nearly fell off my chair (figarutively speaking of course). If TPU isn't fair, nothing else is.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

Frick said:


> Aye, when I saw that twitter thing I nearly fell off my chair (figarutively speaking of course). If TPU isn't fair, nothing else is.


HardOCP and Techreports also had their reputation and integrity attacked in this whole fiasco even though he only says "fair review" he did say same thing in email to Kyle @ hardocp. AMD pissed on a few sites and called it rain to start but then Roy Admitted to pissing on them on twitter. The Bad PR AMD tried to avoid now just dropped on them worse then all 3 sites review of the nano could ever brought on and the price tag.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

This is becoming a massive shitstorm from AMD's PR dept...


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

@ryanshrout: Sure, the embargo isn't up, but you can already buy the R9 Nano on Amazon for $649. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B015121DMA/?tag=tec06d-20


----------



## Averist (Sep 10, 2015)

Indonesian reviewer already got R9 Nano.






Their Preview : http://www.jagatreview.com/2015/09/preview-amd-r9-nano/


----------



## arbiter (Sep 10, 2015)

Not sure how they could have a review up if NDA is still in effect according to ryan


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 10, 2015)

NDA has to be up by now, my inbox is exploding with reviews


----------



## okidna (Sep 10, 2015)

Tweaktown, Guru3D, PCPer reviews are all up.

Based on cursory reading, in my opinion : good little card.

EDIT : 
-card seems to have a coil whine problem (TT and PCPer clearly complained about it, meanwhile Guru3D remark : "a bit of coil noise").
-good power consumption, good temperature, PCPer review clearly showed that GPU clock is crippled by its power target.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 10, 2015)

nem said:


> almost 600 coments wtf!
> 
> tpu lose by dont have review of nano , come on tpu get an nano ..


 
TPU isn't losing.  This conversation brings people here by virtue of it's popularity.


----------



## 64K (Sep 10, 2015)

Tom's Hardware has a review up. For some reason they benched the games at 1080p. That's not where Fiji performs the best but in most games they benched the GTX 980 was faster.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Sep 10, 2015)

Deja vu ... i Swear this looks familiar.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 10, 2015)

For a thing that's much smaller than my.... ehhrmm... It turned out to pretty good actually...

Yeah the PR sucks really. But hey... they know what they asked for. The negative press will punish them.

But still, I wan't this thing slapped with a cooler from regular fury and that's it. They artificially made some sort of weird looking expensive thing.... Those got to be the poor yields... nothing else.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 10, 2015)

Review available right now on TP......I mean Guru3d  (hint: its looking good)


----------



## v12dock (Sep 10, 2015)

Looks like a great little card however all reviews are inferior to TPU


----------



## Kohl Baas (Sep 10, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Yeah, life isn't fair, but we are not talking about pouting children (but adults and website, LOL!).
> 
> We are talking about how the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY runs their video cards (using AF) and AMD not doing that. This, to me, is a bit more than simply 'marketing their products in a specific way'. I mean, it is that, yes, but, they are going against what the majority uses, to make their card look better than it is when the 'overwhelming majority' uses them. It is misleading. If you expect 60 FPS because a review said so, now you are getting 45 because they don't use an incredibly common setting...... how is that OK?
> 
> Settings will differ from review to review, no doubt, but no AF? Come on....




Regarding to nVidia's statistics, the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" don't even set the resolution to a proper value because they don't know how to. They just use whatever settings the game have. And this means 90% of nVidia users.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 10, 2015)

Kohl Baas said:


> Regarding to nVidia's statistics, the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" don't even set the resolution to a proper value because they don't know how to. They just use whatever settings the game have. And this means 90% of nVidia users.



Holy... nekkers spawning again...


----------



## john_ (Sep 10, 2015)

KitGuru attacked AMD this summer for not getting a Fury X and now they get a Nano?

Guys I believe after this thread you will get two Fury X2 cards


PS Not to mention Tom's Hardware that does always fair reviews of AMD hardware   (.....stop laughing, this is serious  )


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 10, 2015)

Kohl Baas said:


> Regarding to nVidia's statistics, the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" don't even set the resolution to a proper value because they don't know how to. They just use whatever settings the game have. And this means 90% of nVidia users.


WhaaaaT?


----------



## john_ (Sep 10, 2015)

Kohl Baas said:


> Regarding to nVidia's statistics, the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" don't even set the resolution to a proper value because they don't know how to. They just use whatever settings the game have. And this means 90% of nVidia users.


You do have a point, but on the other hand, that's the reason Nvidia created GeForce Experience.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

Kohl Baas said:


> Regarding to nVidia's statistics, the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" don't even set the resolution to a proper value because they don't know how to. They just use whatever settings the game have. And this means 90% of nVidia users.



my dad, and my grandparents (both sides of the family + fiancees) all use 1280x1024 even on 1080p monitors... IT HURTS. i get migraines using it, but they complain if i fix it.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 10, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @GhostRyder
> 
> I see. Some of my buddies however are using liquid-cooling brackets for their 290, since it solves both heat & noise issues as they have the reference model for cheaps... said they too never have any throttling issues whatsoever after making the switch & is happy about it. Bracket I mentioned is Corsair's HG10 A1 Kit + Hydro H75 AIO Kit.


My trio are all under liquid as well, I generally test my cards under extreme conditions to make sure they function before putting liquid blocks on them.  Cannot be to careful when it comes to components .

I have read some reviews including some over at techspot, it seems the card is actually a little better than I had at least hoped.  Left at stock, the card stay quiet, has power consumption slightly above the GTX 980, and performs above the same areas at 1440p and 2160p.  Seems the card does have a throttle in place that keeps the clocks in the range of 800-900mhz though to get that performance.  However, you can increase the power limit by up to 50% which keeps the card at 1000mhz and that achieves almost identical performance to the Fury X (Minus a slight fps for the 50mhz difference).

Well this can be put to rest then, its not as bad as I thought it could be and they actually allow you to increase the power limit.



Mussels said:


> my dad, and my grandparents (both sides of the family + fiancees) all use 1280x1024 even on 1080p monitors... IT HURTS. i get migraines using it, but they complain if i fix it.


Maybe change it to 1080p and then increase the scaling so it looks bigger.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Maybe change it to 1080p and then increase the scaling so it looks bigger.



How do they use their smartphones? Wait, they don't use ones


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Maybe change it to 1080p and then increase the scaling so it looks bigger.



they LIKE it stretched sideways. they actually like the aspect ratio being off. i don't feel safe unless i'm around the glorious PC master race.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Sep 10, 2015)

Maybe this is why ...


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 10, 2015)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> Maybe this is why ...



uuh not very professional indeed... okay we can do some profanity in forums... but here in the article...Wh1zz jumped the gun.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

is there a source link for that saucy language?


----------



## Dany (Sep 10, 2015)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> Maybe this is why ...
> 
> View attachment 67896



yeah that pretty much sums it up , this is AMD's  reply :


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 10, 2015)

Mussels said:


> is there a source link for that saucy language?



http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/31.html


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 10, 2015)

Mussels said:


> is there a source link for that saucy language?


 
Yeah, W1zzard's own review.  I remember it being a topic of discussion when the review came out.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Yeah, W1zzard's own review.  I remember it being a topic of discussion when the review came out.




Well he wasn't far wrong with his prediction, and i'm an AMD fanboy. A smart company would try and change his mind.

Whats the guess the coil whine was the reason TPU didn't get one - w1zzy would never let that slide.


----------



## truth teller (Sep 10, 2015)

hey free publicity is always good isnt it roy? what about the 4th link on google?




pretty sure all the other "fair" homebrew reviewers get this kind of exposure, right? RIGHT?

thanks @amd_roy for single-handedly ruining amds reputation even further, thus loosing customers to a company that isnt exactly doing well in its finances department. the most "fair" route now would not be handing out cards to all reviewers, but dr lisa to kick your ass to the curb (hope you dont have little kids that need the income, but you brought this uppon yourself).

people have no honor or code of conduct anymore, customers cant trust anyone in the tech business anymore (or any other business for that matter),  what a shame and a let down


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 10, 2015)

A great little card, but the price is not justified. $500 max.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 10, 2015)

Streamwhores


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 10, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> Streamwhores
> 
> View attachment 67897


 
That is classic!  Good find.


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 10, 2015)

Nano is looking like it mostly lives up to the hype, except that it rarely gets close to 900Mhz. But given that the end result is 96% the performance of a Fury (non-X), I don't understand why AMD decided to use full-blown Fiji chips for this card. They could've used die-harvested parts and priced the end result a lot lower, while retaining the form factor and most of the performance.



Ferrum Master said:


> Streamwhores
> 
> View attachment 67897



BAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 10, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> Nano is looking like it mostly lives up to the hype, except that it rarely gets close to 900Mhz. But given that the end result is 96% the performance of a Fury (non-X), I don't understand why AMD decided to use full-blown Fiji chips for this card. They could've used die-harvested parts and priced the end result a lot lower, while retaining the form factor and most of the performance.


In the Tom's review, the clocks are constantly between 850 and 900.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Sep 10, 2015)

For me each reviewer has different of good thing.
- TPU I like performance summary , noise , lot of games , closer look inside GPU
- Techreport and PCPer hardwork on frame time 
- Guru3D thermal image camera. Very few site investigate GPU VRM temp
- HardOCP maximum image quality of each game that you can expect from card , very hardwork on OC , OC vs OC ,
- Anandtech deep explanation , one of very few site that include stategy game
- Tomshardware hardwork on power consumption test

So sorry that TPU , Techreport , HardOCP don't get sample.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2015)

Enterprise24 said:


> For me each reviewer has different of good thing.
> - TPU I like performance summary , noise , lot of games , closer look inside GPU
> - Techreport and PCPer hardwork on frame time
> - Guru3D thermal image camera. Very few site investigate GPU VRM temp
> ...



We have thermal camera too. It's a high end FLIR 800 pixels wide cam.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Sep 10, 2015)

btarunr said:


> We have thermal camera too. It's a high end FLIR 800 pixels wide cam.



Then I suggest TPU should review VRM temp.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

There were never doubts about the Nano's performance (it had to beat every other ITX card) - it was the other metrics such as noise and heat.

Well, coil whine must be awful - does every reviewer have it? This is Hexus review.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/86042-amd-radeon-r9-nano/?page=12



> Which brings us nicely on to the noise tests. The Nano isn't the quietest card on test, due to spatial limitations, but neither is it the loudest. We'd class the noise as very acceptable in a modern PC, and certainly a lot quieter than previous-generation cards that made a racket.
> 
> However, we noticed significant coil whine across our suite of games, particularly in Total War: Rome II. This may be sample-specific, but it would grate us long term if this was the case with all cards.



And given how many reviews there are - it was most definitely a cherry picking.


----------



## alucasa (Sep 10, 2015)

Why you the f-word in a professional review?


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

alucasa said:


> Why you the f-word in a professional review?



Define 'professional'?

If i wrote a review and said it was 'kick ass' - that would also be a colloquialism.  Saying it's not 'professional' is not appropriate for a privately owned review site.  Language is a very flexible tool and can be used to many ends.  Using the term "AMD is fucked" implies that the reviewed Nvidia card basically ripped AMD's nuts off in a commercial sense.  And it did - sales stats have shown the growing gulf.

As for our seeming TPU meta review - here's what is telling from Guru3D - apart from saying of course that it is a great little card (which it is):



> Let's put the cards on the table - HDMI 2.0 is not supported and this card does not have a DVI connector. DVI I am not concerned about but, for a card intended to be on a small form factor that sits in the Ultra HD gaming space (your living room on an Ultra HD telly), I feel HDMI 2.0 (60Hz Ultra HD) should have been implemented. Again, this product is intended for the living room. In the living room you'll have that nice Ultra HD telly, these devices do not have Display Port and require HDMI 2.0 for 60hz Ultra HD. AMD sticks to 1.4a meaning 30Hz at Ultra HD is supported only. For movies, not a big deal. But we do not believe for a second that you'd buy a Fiji based setup for movies, this is all about gaming at Ultra HD, and as such that's where a limit of 30 Hz / 30 FPS will kick in. AMD stated that this problem will be addressed by releasing a DisplayPort 1.4 to HDMI 2.0 adapter on the market. We can only assume that's going to be an active converter meaning it'll likely add another 100 EURO easily to your purchasing decision. Also we must note that the card will not be able to support HDCP 2.2 and upcoming Blu-Ray 4K playback.



Nano is meant for SFF living room stuff.  So $100 extra dollars for it to be 30fps + on your HDTV.  That connectivity oversight was really dumb.  Also, Hilbert made it a very obvious point to state it has coil whine (and it's as loud as a Titan Z unless you ace your mini ITX case cooling).

After reading 3 reviews (Hexus, Guru3D and Anandtech, here is an unbiased summary:

*Positive*
_Best performing ITX card by a good margin (leaves the 970 mini trailing).  For a little more noise and 18% more power it performs about 30-35% better_

*Negative*
_Costs as much as a Fury X
Isn't as quiet as hoped for (if Guru says it, it means something - see my earlier posts in this thread)
Not ideal for HDTV use due to poor output connector choice.
Coil Whine being flagged up at most sites
_
*Summary*
Taking the Fiji core and showing how much power can exist in small package (*all down to HBM*) - but it begs the question, why the hell didn't AMD strap a good fan on Fury X?  However, the intended market for SFF and HDTV is seriously let down by the connection choice from AMD (why AMD, why!).  To get the required output of fps for 4k you really need two and that then brings in the cheaper option of a standard Fury as an ITX case won't support crossfire.
_Nano is a powerful card for it's size but for it's cost it's already a strange design.  Too slow for 4k on it's own and too expensive to justify for 1080p or 1440p (when a cheaper, quieter 970 mini will suffice - if you could find one).  You want to crossfire them - get a bigger mobo and case, hell, just get two Fury's.

Interesting card but ultimately a bit lost._


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

Double post required.

Please all and sundry check the retail specs online.  Both Scan and OcUK are rating it as *1000Mhz*.  Not 'up to' but simply 1000Mhz.

As Hexus say:



> the card fails to reach its prescribed 1,000MHz core clock in any game.



Is this the retailer or AMD's choice because as reported in reviews - 850-900 is it's operating range.  Shall we call this evens on the 3.5Gb memory of the 970?


----------



## alucasa (Sep 10, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Define 'professional'?



Easy, the university essay level language.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

alucasa said:


> Easy, the university essay level language.



It's not _fucking_ uni. 

EDIT: please look at my location description


----------



## alucasa (Sep 10, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> It's not _fucking_ uni.



True, but the general rule applies when it comes to writing articles.


----------



## nem (Sep 10, 2015)

10 TFLOPS !!!! nano rig


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 10, 2015)

AMD, who is AMD


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

lemonadesoda said:


> AMD, who is AMD



Evil guys that bought that nice Canadian company ATI (oh - you know who AMD are...)

I'd like to see ATI rise like a pheonix, with a Canadian accent.  Not sure why - I like the idea of a Canadian tech company blazing forward.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

constant 850-900MHz? That's kinda slow... My 2nd rig's 760 even clocked at stable 1.1GHz with occasional speeds of 1.3GHz on core as it's barely reaching the thermal ceiling of 80C as it only hums gently at a warm 62C. I thought that speed is king for gaming? Also... lack of HDMI 2.0 to push 4K @ 60Hz is NOT a good thing.


----------



## Yorgos (Sep 10, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> constant 850-900MHz? That's kinda slow... My 2nd rig's 760 even clocked at stable 1.1GHz with occasional speeds of 1.3GHz on core as it's barely reaching the thermal ceiling of 80C as it only hums gently at a warm 62C. I thought that speed is king for gaming? Also... lack of HDMI 2.0 to push 4K @ 60Hz is NOT a good thing.


you'd better get also and a Pentium 4, that thing clock at 3 GHz since 10 years ago.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

dun worry... my CPU is clocking at 3.8GHz under Boost. Planning to build a Skylake rig soon with OCing plan already in the works =D


----------



## mab1376 (Sep 10, 2015)

TPU is only of the only reviews i trust. I'm building a new PC in the spring and starting my research now, so far AMD isn't fairing well.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 10, 2015)

AMD is free falling since 2013... Post up a WTA thread for help. We're all here to give u a helping hand =) I too used TPU's review to help me decide on the cards that suits me well.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2015)

Enterprise24 said:


> Then I suggest TPU should review VRM temp.



We already do. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/35.html


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 10, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Double post required.
> 
> Please all and sundry check the retail specs online.  Both Scan and OcUK are rating it as *1000Mhz*.  Not 'up to' but simply 1000Mhz.
> 
> ...


I believe AMD rated this card with "UP TO 1000". At the beginning of the test on Tom's, it's running on 1000 for the whole first second so... XD


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Sep 10, 2015)

First, for those who think W1zzard's biased, he is.  He's biased towards GPU's that are quiet (coil whine in particular hacks him off), efficient, keep their promises and bring something new to us, the users. 


alucasa said:


> Why you the f-word in a professional review?


Go back and read the review of the HD5870.  He was almost giddy about that card.  Thing is, AMD hasn't done much since then.  I think he's just gotten tired of the crap that AMD keeps throwing out there, and if you've been reading his reviews, you could see it building up to this.  He also knew that AMD had nothing coming up to compete.  That review (GTX 980) was from a year ago, and AMD still has nothing to compete with it.

I want the AMD that brought out the HD5870.  That was the company that brought out better performing products at lower prices than their competitors.


----------



## qubit (Sep 10, 2015)

alucasa said:


> Why you the f-word in a professional review?


Which one? Got a linky? 

@btarunr Over 630 posts and counting. You've lit a fire with this one.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 10, 2015)

Interesting AMD doesn't think TPU give their products fair reviews.

All of W1zzard's hard work slandered in a single line, ouch.


----------



## nem (Sep 10, 2015)

come on tpu, get an nano


----------



## Patriot (Sep 10, 2015)

Fluffmeister said:


> Interesting AMD doesn't think TPU give their products fair reviews.
> 
> All of W1zzard's hard work slandered in a single line, ouch.



They did the same thing to [H]ardOCP and many others...
Looks like hexus got a card somehow.


----------



## soldier242 (Sep 10, 2015)

looks like my other favourite review site (a german one) got one: http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/amd-radeon-r9-nano-test/


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 10, 2015)

Patriot said:


> Looks like hexus got a card somehow.


Hardly surprising, Hexus host a Roy Taylor blog

It's all fair though! Honest!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 10, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Evil guys that bought that nice Canadian company ATI (oh - you know who AMD are...)
> 
> I'd like to see ATI rise like a pheonix, with a Canadian accent.  Not sure why - I like the idea of a Canadian tech company blazing forward.


So THAT should be my next kickstarter... buying ATi and bringing it back to Canada?

OR will someone do it for me, and just let me run it? 

SO we have our own user review.. full of disappointment, if largely influenced by our lack of a review sample. Sounds like an Editorial.



nem said:


> 10 TFLOPS !!!! nano rig



That's a sexy PC, I must say. Is it bad that I want one to add to my collection?


----------



## qubit (Sep 10, 2015)

@W1zzard I reckon it might be a good idea for you to buy one when it's actually in the shops and review it.

We'd then get to hear a few honest home truths from a trusted source about it's performance and I'll bet it won't be pretty.

You up for it?


----------



## maximoor (Sep 10, 2015)

So, same price as R9 Fury X, Same specs of R9 Fury X, but performance below R9 Fury???

WTF AMD?

No thanks...


----------



## NC37 (Sep 10, 2015)

Based on those reviews..I don't think TPU is missing much. The card is barely faster than a 390X. For that price and performance, that is shit.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

I think the card is good for what it is but the price is just misaligned.  No water cooling to add cost, no fancy PCB features and a fan.  
I wonder if supply will be very limited (thinking low volume, high cost).
All being said, given how Fury performs, the Nano isn't that great as a performance part. In fact, the whole AIO water cooler now looks contrived, as if to artificially create 3 segments. Fury X is already small enough to impress so it makes Nano less 'wow'. Of course, Fury X on air would render Nano pretty pointless, though Fury X on air would presumably be noisy (if keeping PCB size).
I think AMD missed a trick with Fury X.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 10, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I think the card is good for what it is but the price is just misaligned.  No water cooling to add cost, no fancy PCB features and a fan.
> I wonder if supply will be very limited (thinking low volume, high cost).
> All being said, given how Fury performs, the Nano isn't that great as a performance part. In fact, the whole AIO water cooler now looks contrived, as if to artificially create 3 segments. Fury X is already small enough to impress so it makes Nano less 'wow'. Of course, Fury X on air would render Nano pretty pointless, though Fury X on air would presumably be noisy (if keeping PCB size).
> I think AMD missed a trick with Fury X.


Personally, I'm waiting for BIOS flashes... Because it seems to me if you could THAT would make the cost explained. You buy the card without the watercooler (and the cooler's power supply), and get a higher-quality chip, perhaps. Flash the BIOS, and you got one killer GPU, if overclocking tools worked.

It's that sort of stuff the sites that didn't get cards typically look at, isn't it?


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 10, 2015)

Speaking of Canadians.  Hardware Canucks:

"The amount of noise this pint-sized card’s PWM puts out is nothing short of astronomical. It wails, squeals, chugs and emits all sorts of other electrical blather. Granted, some gamers will be more susceptible to hearing it than others and there are certain cases on the market that will reduce the amount of perceptible noise but this is still unacceptable on any $650 card released in 2015. AMD is aware of this but they don’t count it as a problem. We will have to see how widespread it is once the Nano gets into the hands of end users. It is important to note that we're not sure how widespread this is or whether or not we received one of the "louder" samples. We just report it as we see it. "

Oops AMD.


----------



## qubit (Sep 10, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Speaking of Canadians.  Hardware Canucks:
> 
> "The amount of noise this pint-sized card’s PWM puts out is nothing short of astronomical. It wails, squeals, chugs and emits all sorts of other electrical blather. Granted, some gamers will be more susceptible to hearing it than others and there are certain cases on the market that will reduce the amount of perceptible noise but this is still unacceptable on any $650 card released in 2015. AMD is aware of this but they don’t count it as a problem. We will have to see how widespread it is once the Nano gets into the hands of end users. It is important to note that we're not sure how widespread this is or whether or not we received one of the "louder" samples. We just report it as we see it. "
> 
> Oops AMD.


What a peace of junk. What was I saying about those home truths?


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 10, 2015)

lemonadesoda said:


> AMD, who is AMD


Ass Munching Dickheads by the way they treat real reviewers


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 11, 2015)

Come on TPU it is a video card, stop crying because you dont get to see a review from wizzard. It is already apparent AMD didnt give a shit what you thought in the first place, move on with life.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 11, 2015)

AthlonX2 said:


> Come on TPU it is a video card, stop crying because you dont get to see a review from wizzard. It is already apparent AMD didnt give a shit what you thought in the first place, move on with life.




No it's more than that... I hope you just simply for got the /s


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 11, 2015)

...and with this all said, I'm still glad I got my 390 and didn't wait to see how Nano panned out. Well, that's all folks.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 11, 2015)

Why is this posted as an announcement, making if the first thing I see? It's obviously a carrot on a string here, what's the goal, to get a bunch of posts to "Show AMD"? Lame..... It's a video card, get over it. Not all publications site are the world, so many asses have been butt hurt over this.

Every tech site I go to, this is all I am reading for a week now. Let's move on.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 11, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Speaking of Canadians.  Hardware Canucks:
> "The amount of noise this pint-sized card’s PWM puts out is nothing short of astronomical. It wails, squeals, chugs and emits all sorts of other electrical blather. Granted, some gamers will be more susceptible to hearing it than others and there are certain cases on the market that will reduce the amount of perceptible noise but this is still unacceptable on any $650 card released in 2015. AMD is aware of this but they don’t count it as a problem. We will have to see how widespread it is once the Nano gets into the hands of end users. It is important to note that we're not sure how widespread this is or whether or not we received one of the "louder" samples. We just report it as we see it. "
> Oops AMD.


Doesn't seem to be an isolated case.


> We did, however, experience quite a bit of inductor noise with our card under load. Noticeable clicks and squeals could be heard emanating from the card, and we're told this isn't something isolated to our sample. - Hot Hardware





> The noise we have to deal with is from the other components on the card. Coil Whine/Noise as it is commonly called is very much an issue on the R9 NANO. - Hardware Heaven





> It's worth noting that AMD's Nano reference sample generated a serious amount of coil noise. People complained about the Fury X coil noise but for us it wasn't that bad. The Nano really screams, however. - TechSpot





> All of this lets us overlook smaller caveats, such as the R9 Nano’s cheap coils, which make the card sound like cicadas in love. The new graphics card’s fan also isn't our favorite, since it gets obnoxious once a certain temperature is reached. - Tom's Hardware





> In the acoustic department, our main gripe with the R9 Nano is actually the coil whine we experienced throughout testing which was often considerably more obvious than any system fan noise. - bit-tech





> The coil whine issue on the card is something of a sore spot for me though as the rest of the technical design and implementation is spectacular. Why AMD can't address these small bugs and issues before the cards are released (see also the Fury X pump whine) is beyond me as the company has intelligent people throughout. - PC Per





> Also, and let me state this clearly, we are hearing coil noise coming from the card. If that is something that would bother you, then you need to weigh it into your purchasing decision. We doubt you'll be bothered by it in a closed chassis though.- Guru3D





> However, we noticed significant coil whine across our suite of games, particularly in Total War: Rome II. This may be sample-specific, but it would grate us long term if this was the case with all cards.- Hexus





> Our only gripe comes from the dreaded 'coil whine' - the R9 Nano is much louder here than the Fury X, a card we re-tested during production of this feature. It sounds akin to a constant buzzing, something that may be unique to our particular review sample - Eurogamer





> Unfortunately, this Radeon R9 Nano suffers coil whine.... - Hardware France





> What was noticeable was the coil whine that our R9 Nano sample exhibited. As soon as a GPU load was applied, the inductors would put out a high-pitched squeal that was undeniably frustrating to hear. Did this act as an annoyance during the gaming experience? Without headphones on, in my opinion, yes it did. But that is just my opinion and you may have different tolerance levels.- KitGuru



Odd that AMD are pricing the Nano as a premium limited edition product, but skimped on QA testing.


----------



## cuneytcam (Sep 11, 2015)

I like how most of the people compares a product to another league of products and then dismisses it of the edge. I can say the same for Titan series. Titans got bashed for similar things but the funny part is defenders and offenders swapped roles this time. Its like all the fanboys counter argumenting themselves on the next morning. (unfortunetally proffessional fanboys revealing themselves aswell)


----------



## nem (Sep 11, 2015)

you want a good review , here we have one


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 11, 2015)

Well, the two posts above this one are certainly gems... wow.


----------



## bencrutz (Sep 11, 2015)

wow tpu, still butthurt, eh?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 11, 2015)

Dat coil whine. 8|

900 MHz is not bad at 75C.

It beat the 390X in almost every benchmark...impressive.  At $200 more than 390X though, this is only going to appeal to people where a 390X or Fury can't fit.


I wonder if Nano is going to spur the creation of ITX-length computer cases--cases that aren't so deep.  AMD Nano-ready cases, as it were.


Until they fix that coil whine, I'd never recommend it.  I have a sound card that does it and it's really freaking annoying.


----------



## mr2009 (Sep 11, 2015)

bencrutz said:


> wow tpu, still butthurt, eh?


i know right. Suck it up already...


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 11, 2015)

bencrutz said:


> wow tpu, still butthurt, eh?



Yeah I was kinda thinking that but at the same time they still deserved a sample to review, I mean TPU is the creator of GPU-Z for christ sake!


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 11, 2015)

cuneytcam said:


> I like how most of the people compares a product to another league of products and then dismisses it of the edge. I can say the same for Titan series. Titans got bashed for similar things but the funny part is defenders and offenders swapped roles this time. Its like all the fanboys counter argumenting themselves on the next morning. (unfortunetally proffessional fanboys revealing themselves aswell)



Yeah, I'll be the first to say that after the launch of the 980Ti, the Titan doesn't make any sense unless you want to build an uber system backed up with water cooling, and money is not an issue, at least with Titan you know you were getting the fastest single GPU card available at the time of release, even today, there's no faster single GPU card than Titan X, as simple as that. The Nano gives you less performance for the equal amount of money people pay for Fury-X, and with lower quality components to boot as shown by the vast amount of reviewers complaining about coil noise.

This card is targeted to a niche audience, and it seems AMD skimped on testing, and even reduced that target audience furthermore by not even including HDMI 2.0, which would have made this card perfect for ultra small factor HTPC builds, very few 4K TVs have DP, but most 4K TVs sold after 2014 include at least HDMI 2.0 (I know my Sony Bravia does, and most Samsung models do as well), so by saving a few cents by not investing on a higher spec HDMI port or even getting some decent inductors that don't squeal like the ones in this card, I see even less of a reason for AMD to charge $649 for it, then again, I'm not the target audience for it, this is basically a halo product, albeit one that makes very little sense when you can get Fury-X for the same amount of money, and even most small form factor cases can accommodate at least one 120mm rad.

Too bad, I was really looking forward to replacing my 290Xs, but this round was a complete miss for AMD.



Lionheart said:


> Yeah I was kinda thinking that but at the same time they still deserved a sample to review, I mean TPU is the creator of GPU-Z for christ sake!



Exactly, W1zzard started with Atitool many years ago, I remember visiting the OCFAQ forums (the vestigial predecessor to TPU) and how passionate W1zzard was at supporting all Ati cards more than a decade ago, so much for any semblance of gratitude from AMD


----------



## Raovac (Sep 11, 2015)

I wish this card was going $650. Here in Canada at my local memory express store, they are asking $900 CDN.
Computer gaming is becoming way too expensive these days.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 11, 2015)

It's because the CAD fell BIG compared to the USD:
900 CAD = 680.37 USD

Cheap oil is blamed.  Theoretically, the CAD will recover when Saudi Arabia and Iran stop dumping oil.


----------



## gaximodo (Sep 11, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Personally, I'm waiting for BIOS flashes... Because it seems to me if you could THAT would make the cost explained. You buy the card without the watercooler (and the cooler's power supply), and get a higher-quality chip, perhaps. Flash the BIOS, and you got one killer GPU, if overclocking tools worked.
> 
> It's that sort of stuff the sites that didn't get cards typically look at, isn't it?



which will not work due to power restriction and the fact there will be no non-reference nanos.


----------



## Big_Vulture (Sep 11, 2015)

So seems like TPU was not good to AMD, since every other site got the card for review?


----------



## 1c3d0g (Sep 11, 2015)

bencrutz said:


> wow tpu, still butthurt, eh?


No, but them fanboys sure are!


----------



## Xaled (Sep 11, 2015)

Why did AMD send a sample to Hardwarecanucks and didnt send one to TPU? It is really true that some nvidia products are overrated here but nothing close to Hardwarecanuck, they are the most biased, nvidiot review site on earth, AMD has really lost mind!


----------



## gaximodo (Sep 11, 2015)

Xaled said:


> Why did AMD send a sample to Hardwarecanucks and didnt send one to TPU? It is really true that some nvidia products are overrated here but nothing close to Hardwarecanuck, they are the most biased, nvidiot review site on earth, AMD has really lost mind!








Hello new member


----------



## Xaled (Sep 11, 2015)

gaximodo said:


> View attachment 67912
> 
> Hello new member








Hello 'old' member? (I really wonder how old you are as a person not as a member though) ..

I dont think you know that this "up to %.." Thing Was first used by nvidia, then AMD followed up..

And yes nVidia products are overrated here, TPU is one of the fewest sites that justified the 1000$ price tag of Titan..

I am a new member but i am regular visitor of TPU since 2005 or 2006..


----------



## gaximodo (Sep 11, 2015)

Xaled said:


> Hello 'old' member? (I really wonder how old you are as a person not as a member though) ..
> 
> I dont think you know that this "up to %.." Thing Was first used by nvidia, then AMD followed up..
> 
> ...



Wow what's the matter all I did was saying hello - and very nice 666th reply to the thread,

As a reply to your post, I post, I reply to everything I found interesting, not just AMD related news.

whereas you, we all see what you did there with your 13 now 14 posts.

I have bad experiences with AMD for their 4850, 4870X2, 5850, and I found their marketing rather misleading, therefore my negative attitude towards this company.

Edit - oohhh wait, mine was the #666th, Hooray~~!


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 11, 2015)

Titan arguments about pricing are irrelevant. Yes, Titan is unrealistically priced but it has a full core and double the memory of a 980ti. And it came out first.
Nano is slower, noisier and costs the same as a Fury X.  Lots of praise for it is lost on me when Fury X blazed the SFF PCB footprint. 
As for TPU being butthurt.  No, vindicated.  That coil complaint from almost every review shows that it's noise output (AMD sell it as a quiet card) is terrible. 

Let's hope the dual Fury eliminates that shoddy choice of chokes.

And for the guys that will spout verbal shit about me being Nvidia biased, no, just no.  I'm logical about things, almost autistically so. Nano makes no sense for its price (came out after Fury X, performs worse, is louder and costs more) or its size.
HBM allowed Nano to be so small and the Fury X demonstrated that first too.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 11, 2015)

Dany said:


> 280$ for NANO which outperforms gtx 980 , are u serious , really ? NANO is so small , power efficient and it even beats gtx 980 which is 500$ so your price tag of 280-ish is kinda childish... , you wish what you really cant buy , period , cheers !!



Lulz,

Yes I'm dead serious.. If anything is childish, its a comment about dont wish for what ya cant afford!! So dont concern yourself with what I can or can't afford there mate . It was an (IMO) comment mkay.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

If I have a choice & $700 in my hand, I won't pick the Nano for a lot of reasons. It's either a GTX980Ti OR dual GTX970 for SLI as they're more reasonable, doesn't kill your monthly utility bills & gives you better overall gaming performance across ALL resolutions on ALL games at near Max settings without breaking a sweat, whether it's an AMD-exclusive or not an exclusive for both camps, as per what most honest, unbiased reviewers would say & they're right. AMD's claim however considered them as "unfair" or "one-sided towards Nvidia for unknown reasons". With their shares falling below 20%, it's no surprise they're stooping this low & desperate for spreading a false hope to their supporters.


----------



## geon2k2 (Sep 11, 2015)

Why everybody is complaining about price.

In capitalism it is very simple. Just try selling something on ebay. 
If the price is right people will buy, if not and you still want to sell it you decrease the price ... and so on until you find a buyer, which considers your product to be rightfully priced for what it offers.

It is the same with companies. If people buy, then the price is right. 
If too many people want it then you increase the price (see the bitcoin mining craziness), if too less you decrease the price up until you reach your profit/production costs targets at which point you can choose to discontinue the product or to sell it at a loss.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

Also, the lack of samples to get by is another lowly tactic from AMD to "sell" the Nano at sky-high prices. You don't even need to spend $650 for a mediocre card that can't even perform as good as the 980Ti in real world usage... Sorry, but Nvidia is coming home with me... AMD is out of the question even if I have the money for it as I would not recommend ANYONE a card that's still haven't been proven by real world testers. Synthetic numbers & botched benches shall not be entertained. Oh, tests that hides their settings or give a few simple words too shall be treated as trash.


----------



## gaximodo (Sep 11, 2015)

geon2k2 said:


> Why everybody is complaining about price.
> 
> In capitalism it is very simple. Just try selling something on ebay.
> If the price is right people will buy, if not and you still want to sell it you decrease the price ... and so on until you find a buyer, which considers your product to be rightfully priced for what it offers.
> ...






Hello, yet another new member,

c'mon, you guys are just too obvious.


----------



## Frick (Sep 11, 2015)

Soooo what do we think of the dual Fiji? Should it be dual Fury/X or dual Nano? I want both.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 11, 2015)

Frick said:


> Soooo what do we think of the dual Fiji? Should it be dual Fury/X or dual Nano? I want both.



Yes, I expect it to be a dual-GPU card of two ASICs of the same tuning as the Nano. Should beat Titan-Z and then some.


----------



## gaximodo (Sep 11, 2015)

Frick said:


> Soooo what do we think of the dual Fiji? Should it be dual Fury/X or dual Nano? I want both.


Fury/X and Nano got the same chip.


----------



## Xaled (Sep 11, 2015)

gaximodo said:


> Wow what's the matter all I did was saying hello - and very nice 666th reply to the thread,
> 
> As a reply to your post, I post, I reply to everything I found interesting, not just AMD related news.
> 
> ...


And since then, your negative attitude towards the company had you get into profile page of people who say things you dont like and check if they are new members or not? Now if i say that you are a smart guy? Then that means you are stupid because i am a new member ? 
And no, your post was 667th and mine was 666th, yiu had right first but in the end you were wrong


----------



## Frick (Sep 11, 2015)

gaximodo said:


> Fury/X and Nano got the same chip.



Well duh. Should it be dual Nano, ie downclocked with limited power or dual Fury X so it's closer to a 295x? I want the world to have a dual Fury X card.


----------



## gaximodo (Sep 11, 2015)

Xaled said:


> And since then, your negative attitude towards the company had you get into profile page of people who say things you dont like and check if they are new members or not? Now if i say that you are a smart guy? Then that means you are stupid because i am a new member ?
> And no, your post was 667th and mine was 666th, yiu had right first but in the end you were wrong



I did this not because of you are a new member,

And dude, I caught your friend too,

You and your friend's profile and behavior are suspicious, it doesn't take a click to tell but I need evidence so I clicked into your profile page and SSed.

I didn't clicked into all other members have positive attitude towards AMD and I have nothing to say to these people.

DAMMIT! I WISH MINE WAS THE 666TH.



Frick said:


> Well duh. Should it be dual Nano, ie downclocked with limited power or dual Fury X so it's closer to a 295x? I want the world to have a dual Fury X card.



Yeah with most X2's, they do it with their flagship chip and most of the time they downclock it and they call it flagshipX2. Even when they don't downclock it they still call it flagshipX2, and power requirement will always be less than 2xflagship.

The point is - whether they downclock it or not it will not be small format, so it is a FuryXX2.


----------



## john_ (Sep 11, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Personally, I'm waiting for BIOS flashes... Because it seems to me if you could THAT would make the cost explained. You buy the card without the watercooler (and the cooler's power supply), and get a higher-quality chip, perhaps. Flash the BIOS, and you got one killer GPU, if overclocking tools worked.
> 
> It's that sort of stuff the sites that didn't get cards typically look at, isn't it?


Noob question. 
Isn't the only one 8pin PCIe going to be a limiting factor for high overclocks? The card looks like it was made for 225W max TDP, so maybe you can't go high enough anyway, even if the chip does have the potential, because you can't supply it with enough power to go that high.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

@Frick that would be an interesting card... hopefully it won't have limiters, crappy coolers & whatnot, then it would really give Nvidia a good competition.


----------



## john_ (Sep 11, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Hardware Canucks


They got a card? WTF? They gave cards to every "We love Nvidia" hardware site out there, but not at TPU and TechReport? 

Damn, they are stupid... They gave cards to every Nvidia loving site, thinking that this will make those sites change their ways of views and show more love to AMD in the future, and they didn't gave cards to sites that they know that, whatever happens, those sites will continue posting fair reviews. This is politics. Politics of the morons. I see this kind of politics constantly in Greece, and I don't think I have to mention the results.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

@john_ single 8-pin won't be enough to provide sufficient power unless the card has some sort of trick power management to allow more juice for OCing... It should have 2 x 6-pin or 6+8-pin for stable delivery...


----------



## Dany (Sep 11, 2015)

AMD R9 Nano has been officially reviewed by tech sites such as :

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ DGLee 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ Anandtech 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ TweakTown 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ Guru3D 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ TomsHardware 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ Hexus 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ MaximumPC 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ TechSpot 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ Hothardware 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ EuroGamer 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ PcWorld 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ PcPer 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ ExtremeTech 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ HardwareCanucks 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ Bit-TEch 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ KitGuru 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ Forbes 
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review @ LegitReviews


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 11, 2015)

john_ said:


> Noob question.
> Isn't the only one 8pin PCIe going to be a limiting factor for high overclocks? The card looks like it was made for 225W max TDP, so maybe you can't go high enough anyway, even if the chip does have the potential, because you can't supply it with enough power to go that high.


225W is the nominal power input (75W slot + 150W from the PCI-E 8pin). How much wattage can be delivered is variable. In the case of an 8-pin connector, you have 3 * 12VDC wires, so the total input is 3 * 12 * Amperage = Watts.
The variability arises in the amperage. A cheaper PSU using 18 AWG cabling is capable of sustaining less amperage than a higher quality PSU using 16 AWG for example ( >> relative amperage guidelines << ). If you were using a reasonably strong PSU, then ~8A per line should be a reasonable standard to work from (so, 3 * 12 * 8 = 288W per 8-pin)_ in theory_.
Where the theory differs from reality is the strength of the PSU ( how stable the load is and rail loading), and the card itself. The PCB traces (lands/wiring) needs to be able to sustain the load, so trace thickness and distance between traces needs to taken into account. Usually PCB real estate is at a premium so the traces are laid out across the PCB as well as vertically through the PCB layers. The larger the number of layers, the greater the separation - cleaner power delivery at higher amperage's reducing crosstalk. The second variable is the VRM circuitry itself - rated and actual load. A lot of variables to consider, which is why the PCI-SIG is conservative in its rating.
Another thing to consider would be AMD's board power limit, which would render the theoretical  limits strictly theoretical.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 11, 2015)

Big_Vulture said:


> So seems like TPU was not good to AMD, since every other site got the card for review?


 
So, you've not paid attention?  Many sites didn't get one, not just TPU.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 11, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> VRM circuitry itself



Seems to be the old IR3564B, I've seen it on some cheap motherboards too. It was the ISL95820 and CHL8328 analogue. Do you know what are the power mosfets?


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 11, 2015)

let's make #fireroy a thing on twitter and tag him in it!!!!!


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

he's gonna be famous for all the wrong reasons...


----------



## geon2k2 (Sep 11, 2015)

gaximodo said:


> Hello, yet another new member,
> 
> c'mon, you guys are just too obvious.



In which sense am I too obvious?

I just started posting recently, however I've been following this site and other tech sites for years. 

Am I biased ... maybe I don't know. 

I'm actually one of the guys which bought an 8 core AMD FX and returned it 2 days later and went Intel, but I do have an R9 in my system and I bought it while I was truly impressed by the GTX 900 series.

But I chose what I though it would best fit my needs, I didn't care if it is company A or B.

I do wish AMD will succeed, because if not ... we are all doomed to extremely high prices and little progress.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 11, 2015)

@Dany: yeah...so...what did TPU do to piss AMD off?


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> @Dany: yeah...so...what did TPU do to piss AMD off?



Hint - W1zzard has commented on coil whine before.  Most sites are reporting it and even HC said AMD were aware of it but didn't see it as an issue.  They knew about his 'coil' problem.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> what did TPU do to piss AMD off?



We write fair reviews.


----------



## 64K (Sep 11, 2015)

Some are pointing to W1zzard saying "AMD is fucked" at the end of the GTX 970 review as the reason why AMD is angry at TPU and didn't send a Nano for review to TPU. If that were the case then why did they allow a Fury X, Fury, 390X and a 390 to be sent? All of those cards were released after the 970.

The plain and simple truth is that Nano's weaknesses would have been revealed here and the coil whine is just one problem. Not picking on AMD exclusively. I was on the shit-flinging train when Titan Z came out and the shortcomings of the 970 too even though I owned a 970 and was very happy with it's performance. A lot of people don't remember when the shit hit the fan with the 970 that W1zzard posted "Nvidia lied to us and they lied to you."


----------



## Dany (Sep 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> @Dany: yeah...so...what did TPU do to piss AMD off?



check out reviews and u'll see why , AMD is charging for NANO and thats the right way to go 'cause lets face it AMD must regain its lost market share , i believe thats just okay from AMD's point of view , they need cash and not hopes , lets not forget what AMD gave us over the years and lets be fair and appreciate a good product and stop saying : oh well , this is good but nvidia is better , thats not fair-play , i've read so many reviews and oh well there are so many " i love nvidia " tech websites , nobody is saying nvidia is bad but every time thats said towards AMD , i really dont like that at all , personally i like both products AMD&NVIDIA , we need to learn to stop this fanboy wars , overall NVIDIA is a little bit better than AMD , just to be honest not a single review out there is saying that 980Ti had coil-whine issues , especially G1 Gigabyte , why is that ? when it comes about AMD's gpu , many reviewers are complaining about fury x coil-whine , you as a reviewer you need to be fair and honest all the way from the beginning to the end , thats a good review , we need competition from AMD and 2016 will be an interesting year for cpus/gpus markets , thats all , cheers !!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 11, 2015)

btarunr said:


> We write fair reviews.


And that pissed AMD off?  Certainly you or some other TPU staffer has contacted AMD about getting a review sample.  What did they say?


----------



## NC37 (Sep 11, 2015)

64K said:


> Some are pointing to W1zzard saying "AMD is fucked" at the end of the GTX 970 review as the reason why AMD is angry at TPU and didn't send a Nano for review to TPU. If that were the case then why did they allow a Fury X, Fury, 390X and a 390 to be sent? All of those cards were released after the 970.
> 
> The plain and simple truth is that Nano's weaknesses would have been revealed here and the coil whine is just one problem. Not picking on AMD exclusively. I was on the shit-flinging train when Titan Z came out and the shortcomings of the 970 too even though I owned a 970 and was very happy with it's performance. A lot of people don't remember when the shit hit the fan with the 970 that W1zzard posted "Nvidia lied to us and they lied to you."



I'm surprised how good the reviews have been. For a card that barely gets faster than a 390X and for such an insane price, every one of the reviews I've read has a been a rave. I'd like to think that if TPU got it, they'd downmark it for being very overpriced. Bout the worst I saw was Toms giving it high marks yet at the same time not recommending it. If you can't recommend it then why give it high marks?!


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 11, 2015)

NC37 said:


> I'm surprised how good the reviews have been. For a card that barely gets faster than a 390X and for such an insane price, every one of the reviews I've read has a been a rave. I'd like to think that if TPU got it, they'd downmark it for being very overpriced. Bout the worst I saw was Toms giving it high marks yet at the same time not recommending it. If you can't recommend it then why give it high marks?!



Nano is the most powerful gfx card for it's footprint on the planet (so was Fury X)- of course it gets good reviews.  For a SFF case it's kind of great although many SFF cases do allow full length cards...

BUT

They're all saying how bad the coil whine is....... Far worse than normal.  Is there a chance the small PCB with circuitry and traces running closer could have any effect on voltage and the vibrations caused in the chokes?


----------



## john_ (Sep 11, 2015)

I still believe that the two editorials about the WHQL driver and AMD not trusting it's own processors for the Quantum did the damage.

An unfair review can create a negative image for a product. An unfair editorial can create a negative image for a whole company. The first one you can deal with it. Improve your product. The second one you can't deal with it, or at least it will take much more time. No matter what you do, no matter how good products you will make, people will be negative towards you for a long time.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 11, 2015)

john_ said:


> I still believe that the two editorials about the WHQL driver and AMD not trusting it's own processors for the Quantum did the damage.
> 
> An unfair review can create a negative image for a product. An unfair editorial can create a negative image for a whole company. The first one you can deal with it. Improve your product. The second one you can't deal with it, or at least it will take much more time. No matter what you do, no matter how good products you will make, people will be negative towards you for a long time.



If a company can't deal with a negative editorial, or negative PR in general (something written by every newspaper in every country known to mankind on a *daily *basis), then they probably shouldn't be a company any more.

NVidia went through a shitstorm with the 3.5GB thing. Did that stop them from sending future press samples to every site which wrote about it?

Nope.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

I don't think W1zz pissed AMD... it's more like his statement "AMD is fucked" meaning they're already, as it is... in deep waters when the 970 came out, gets noticed & reviewed. If AMD couldn't care less & sends in their R9 300 Series cards, then there's someone in AMD who are very sensitive against offensive words, and happens to be working in the PR dept. Just my assumption but this could be the reason why TPU didn't get a sample card. Anyways, with every other reviews saying the Nano has a terrible coil whine, I think AMD's reputation has gone down the drain yet again.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

@RCoon the 970's shitstorm did not even stop Nvidia from conquering what they have yet to achieve & here there are... holding it in their hands. Why? It's still a killer 1080p card with potent performance on 1440p for under $350, in which AMD barely doing their best to create a 970 killer for that price range.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 11, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @RCoon the 970's shitstorm did not even stop Nvidia from conquering what they have yet to achieve & here there are... holding it in their hands. Why? It's still a killer 1080p card with potent performance on 1440p for under $350, in which AMD barely doing their best to create a 970 killer for that price range.



Oh I don't disagree, but it's still the same principle 

Also, try to use the edit button please!


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 11, 2015)

@RCoon will do.


----------



## john_ (Sep 11, 2015)

RCoon said:


> If a company can't deal with a negative editorial, or negative PR in general (something written by every newspaper in every country known to mankind on a *daily *basis), then they probably shouldn't be a company any more.
> 
> NVidia went through a shitstorm with the 3.5GB thing. Did that stop them from sending press samples to every site which wrote about it?
> 
> Nope.


Nvidia didn't send a Titan Z to PCPer. He mentioned it in their latest podcast. Nothing to do with 970, but not all sites, get all hardware, from all companies. Even if Tom Petersen is constantly there giving interviews. So, this time, TPU doesn't get a Nano, and other sites that are considered from some as Nvidia biased, get one. F logic?

I don't object to your comment, but if those editorials can't be a reason, then the reviews can't be either. At least that's what I believe. I don't know what or *if* they where thinking at AMD, when they decided to not sent a nano to TPU, but the fact is that looking WHO got a Nano, I don't think it has anything to do with reviews. Maybe I am also wrong about the editorials. Maybe we are all wrong trying to find any logic in their decision. KitGuru was directly attacking AMD a few months ago for not getting a Fury X. I mean, direct attack and baning who ever was posting in favor of AMD in the comments. They got a Nano now. F logic.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 11, 2015)

Roy made it perfectly clear.  Plenty 'fair' reviews out there.

I like how all those 'fair' reviews have slammed it's noise output.  Maybe AMD wont send any cards out to anyone anymore?

TBH - I think the more we read the reviews, the more of a mystery it becomes.  W1zzard would have had the same conclusion as most - excellent product but very niche, a tad expensive and too noisy.  That is the general consensus.  The sites that are lapping up Nano's balls obviously have already forgotten about Fury X but as I keep saying - Fury X and Nano are contrived siblings.  AMD thought how best to carve out products from a very poor set of options and this is what they made.  Fury X, no custom models.  Nano, no custom models.  And something in between that cant be confused with either (an air cooled bigger card).  Seriously, this is what AMD have done - it's not a plain, top SKU down to bottom SKU, it's a same SKU but given different clothes and some minor tweaks.

I don't blame AMD, the HBM on die step is a massive leap for gfx and AMD MUST be applauded for it.  But that very step has made any top to bottom branding impossible.  Therefore Fiji exists as a holy Trinity of products but only really differentiated by what cooler got strapped onto it.  It's obvious.  If AIB's could redesign the Fury X, they'd do things to make Nano look silly.

I hope that AMD get's off it's high horse and lets the partners, Asus in particular, work on the Fury X2 (or whatever).  *Ares Fury* is an awesome product name.

I'd sell my Kingpin for one.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 11, 2015)

Our R9 Nano is on its way. Review very soon.


----------



## 64K (Sep 11, 2015)

john_ said:


> Nvidia didn't send a Titan Z to PCPer.



Did you mean Titan X? I don't think Nvidia sent any $3,000 Titan Z out for review samples to any sites.


----------



## john_ (Sep 11, 2015)

64K said:


> Did you mean Titan X? I don't think Nvidia sent any $3,000 Titan Z out for review samples to any sites.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2129&v=AF6aisfTsGw

39:27 Titan Z, but if you see his whole speech - ignore Allyn - it's easy to see that he can't find logic in AMD's decision. The part talking about Nano is only about 6 minutes, but it is interesting to see and hear. 

Whatever the reasons, they have to put a rule in Roy's contract. "STOP USING TWEETER" all capital letters.


----------



## awesomesauce (Sep 11, 2015)

well all agree about TPU giving us real information , proof and AMAZING quality review.

With all new gear coming out and out no stop, we do need a site that we can trust and assume that site is legit.

I think out there TPU is the greatess site out there abou review, news and people reading here.

Keep up the good work TPU, we love u and i think there some greater review coming for all of us !


----------



## nem (Sep 11, 2015)

i cant wait for tpu review of nano..


----------



## Frick (Sep 11, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I hope that AMD get's off it's high horse and lets the partners, Asus in particular, work on the Fury X2 (or whatever).  *Ares Fury* is an awesome product name.
> 
> I'd sell my Kingpin for one.



Whooohoho boy yes. Yes.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 11, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Our R9 Nano is on its way. Review very soon.


On TPU's dime or out of the kindness of AMD's heart?


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 11, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Nano, no custom models.



A possibility



			
				Anandtech said:
			
		

> Finally, once the supply situation does improve *AMD tells us that we may see some custom R9 Nano cards come later in Q4 of this year*. AMD has been very vague on this point, but from what they’re telling us they’re going to be letting partners take a shot at developing Nano designs of their own. So while the launch on September 10th and for the next couple of months after that will be pure reference, we may see some custom designs by the end of the year.




Same time-frame the dual Fury should be coming out. Depending what chip it uses supplies might still be limited


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 11, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> A possibility
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look at her fingers all over those components.  Dear dear.

Very limited supplies methinks but hey, perhaps they can ramp them up.  TBH, I think as everyone has been saying, Arctic Islands and Pascal will be the next major step.  And with AMD's initial experience they hopefully will have a better handle on that release with supply and market segment.

2016 - goodbye GDDR5 for good. Hello all the weirdness of interposer layers and HBM 2.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 11, 2015)

Dany said:


> check out reviews and u'll see why , AMD is charging for NANO and thats the right way to go 'cause lets face it AMD must regain its lost market share


Nano is marketing - not market share. AMD have to sell cards to increase market share, and 1. AMD aren't selling a lot of Fury's of any flavour, and 2. The Fury doesn't really have the Halo Effect going for it. Kudos to AMD for highlighting the SFF applications, but that is a little undone by reviews that actually tested in a mITX form factor chassis and the fact that the full-Boogie Fury X isn't a large card either.


Dany said:


> just to be honest not a single review out there is saying that 980Ti had coil-whine issues , especially G1 Gigabyte , why is that ?


Why is that? Because you don't read reviews? Have selective memory? Who knows? But I'll point you towards something that may help


> Sample has obvious coil whine - Hexus Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Gaming G1 review


Something W1zz noted with the reference design also...


> Slight coil noise   - TPU GTX 980 Ti review



So, you were saying something about not a single 980 Ti review commenting on coil noise? Bear in mind, that I spent the grand total of 3 minutes dredging up these two examples.


the54thvoid said:


> Very limited supplies methinks but hey, perhaps they can ramp them up.


Doesn't look promising. Nice the yields of the full part are supposedly better than defective parts, but it looks increasingly likely that the Fury is this generations HD 4770, a pipecleaner product for the main show.


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 12, 2015)

Frick said:


> Soooo what do we think of the dual Fiji? Should it be dual Fury/X or dual Nano? I want both.



Both are terrible decisions


----------



## Domokun (Sep 12, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Our R9 Nano is on its way. Review very soon.


I really hope that the review isn't sugar coated in an attempt to get back into AMD's good graces. The fact remains that W1zzard is one of very few reviewers who is technically qualified and has the credentials to be reviewing video cards, and isn't merely a parrot who regurgitates the information provided in the press kits. It would be a shame for W1zzard to compromise his integrity to appease AMD. It's hard to be sympathetic towards AMD (and their constant haemorrhaging of money) when their new business strategy seems to be nothing more than dishonesty.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 12, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> On TPU's dime or out of the kindness of AMD's heart?


BUMP for an answer...


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 12, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> BUMP for an answer...


I felt like I was being ignored but, I wasn't going to be the first one to say something after asking. In all seriousness, I'm curious because I want to know if AMD was like, "Oh, that PR stunt went over badly," or if W1zz deemed getting one important enough despite not being given a review sample.

@btarunr or @W1zzard , can we get an answer on this one or is there a reason for it staying hush hush?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 12, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> On TPU's dime or out of the kindness of AMD's heart?





EarthDog said:


> BUMP for an answer...



W1zzard is AFK for the weekend, so I can't take his approval to answer that question.


----------



## Frick (Sep 12, 2015)

btarunr said:


> W1zzard is AFK for the weekend



Meaning he's out in the German night scene, furiously gyrating his hips to the beats of early 90's synthesizers, fueled by alcohol and ghb and whatever people manage to slip into his waggling drinks.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 12, 2015)

still no response yet


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 12, 2015)

Frick said:


> Meaning he's out in the German night scene, furiously gyrating his hips to the beats of early 90's synthesizers, fueled by alcohol and ghb and whatever people manage to slip into his waggling drinks.


Sounds like an awesome nite!!!! sur3e beats dealing with amd_roy's bullshit


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 12, 2015)

Back 

AMD is sending a card on Monday, and I also bought a Sapphire retail card for €699, which will be sent off on Monday too.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 12, 2015)

MEEAAATT!!!!


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> Back
> 
> AMD is sending a card on Monday, and I also bought a Sapphire retail card for €699, which will be sent off on Monday too.



Wow - crazy meat mouse and wooden mouse mat combo - must be German designed.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD is sending a card on Monday


I see that 30 pages later AMD finally came to their senses. 


W1zzard said:


> I also bought a Sapphire retail card for €699, which will be sent off on Monday too.


Ohhhh, so we can even find out if they cherry picked the review samples too, right. 

I think I speak for most of the people here when I say, thank you (and everyone else at TPU,) for everything you all do.


----------



## nem (Sep 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> Back
> 
> AMD is sending a card on Monday, and I also bought a Sapphire retail card for €699, which will be sent off on Monday too.


come on wizzard dont be too much hard with nano , micro$hit is aproachin to buy AMD this time the rummosr looks very real.. :/


----------



## john_ (Sep 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD is sending a card on Monday, and I also bought a Sapphire retail card for €699, which will be sent off on Monday too.


Did you just said "CrossFire"?


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 12, 2015)

no he meant "MeatFire"


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 12, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Wow - crazy meat mouse and wooden mouse mat combo - must be German designed.





The chef in me is impressed that W1zz uses J.A. Henckels knives - as do I


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 13, 2015)

Is the blue speckle surface the island in your kitchen? That counter top is different. Since AMD didnt send us a sample lets talk about interior design now.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 13, 2015)

what about interior crocodile alligators? and chevorlet movie theaters?


----------



## Recus (Sep 13, 2015)

Roy deleted his Twitter acc (amd_roy). lol


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 13, 2015)

Recus said:


> Roy deleted his Twitter acc (amd_roy). lol






amd prolly fired his sorry ass and I hope they did


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 13, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> View attachment 67934





remixedcat said:


> amd prolly fired his sorry ass and I hope they did


You know better than to double post. I know you know where the edit button it. 

On topic: I suspect he has been sullying AMD's reputation in the last couple of weeks so badly that Lisa probably told him to leave the PR to the PR department.

Needless to say, his douche-baggery was uncalled for and he should be fired as a result or, at the very least, demoted. He hasn't exactly been helping AMD lately... that's for sure.


----------



## john_ (Sep 13, 2015)

Recus said:


> Roy deleted his Twitter acc (amd_roy). lol


I believe Lisa Su deleted his Twitter account.

PS I also wonder if they forced him to pay for the card w1z is getting.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 13, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You know better than to double post. I know you know where the edit button it.
> 
> On topic: I suspect he has been sullying AMD's reputation in the last couple of weeks so badly that Lisa probably told him to leave the PR to the PR department.
> 
> Needless to say, his douche-baggery was uncalled for and he should be fired as a result or, at the very least, demoted. He hasn't exactly been helping AMD lately... that's for sure.


I was on my tablet sorrry yo!! hahahaha


----------



## btarunr (Sep 13, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Ohhhh, so we can even find out if they cherry picked the review samples too, right.



Also CrossFire review (which will be interesting because I expect dual-Fiji card to have chips of the same power-tuning as the one on Nano).


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 16, 2015)

wow... that Roy guy deleted his Twitter profile... really smart move from a whack job like him... I don't think the CEO delete his account unless it's handled by the company OR his password is just way too easy to crack.


----------



## alucasa (Sep 16, 2015)

The dude said one thing right tho. 

"Reviews need to be fair."

Except, well, ... you know where this is going, so I will leave this at that.


----------



## qubit (Sep 17, 2015)

@btarunr Now the review is actually up, I suggest either updating the article with the review link and a few words to explain how it came about, or deleting the whole thread, otherwise it's contradictory and looks silly remaining here.


----------



## Xzibit (Sep 18, 2015)

A contest should be held to hand out awards

Best over reaction post

Best supporting over reaction post

Most dramatic post

Most personaly effected post

Best IDK WTH he just typed post

Best off-topic post

Etc...


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 18, 2015)

no, keep the post for historical preservation.... to show how the company turned itself around....


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 18, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> A contest should be held to hand out awards
> 
> Best over reaction post
> 
> ...


It's a pity you added the last category, or Roy Taylor would be in line for a clean sweep.
/no jk


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> A contest should be held to hand out awards
> 
> Best over reaction post
> 
> ...


rofl I love it!


----------



## btarunr (Sep 18, 2015)

qubit said:


> @btarunr Now the review is actually up, I suggest either updating the article with the review link and a few words to explain how it came about, or deleting the whole thread, otherwise it's contradictory and looks silly remaining here.


No, this thread is a monument to AMD's mishandling of the situation. It has the full sanction of TPU, so it stays.

Fun fact though: The letter informing us that a sample is en route roughly coincided with a top AMD exec deleting his Twitter account.


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2015)

btarunr said:


> No, this thread is a monument to AMD's mishandling of the situation. It has the full sanction of TPU, so it stays.
> 
> Fun fact though: The letter informing us that a sample is en route roughly coincided with a top AMD exec deleting his Twitter account.


OK, I can see why you want to keep the article up and I don't have an issue with that.

In that case, it just seems prudent to me to put a short update to say you got the card in the end (with a review link) and perhaps a little background on how this came about.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 18, 2015)

qubit said:


> OK, I can see why you want to keep the article up and I don't have an issue with that.
> 
> In that case, it just seems prudent to me to put a short update to say you got the card in the end (with a review link) and perhaps a little background on how this came about.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


 
I think this is a very good idea!  This keeps it historical, and also would point to the review link for people arriving from a search at this article.


----------



## alucasa (Sep 18, 2015)

Of course, keep an epic thread like this.

Some replies in this thread were hilarious and over the top. Like I said before this this thread, so much rage over a card. lol


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 18, 2015)

alucasa said:


> Of course, keep an epic thread like this.
> 
> Some replies in this thread were hilarious and over the top. Like I said before this this thread, so much rage over a card. lol


not so much over the card, as it is, a HUGE deal about how companies interact with reviewers and it's a HUGE deal.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 18, 2015)

Recus said:


> Roy deleted his Twitter acc (amd_roy). lol


...*and Jim Keller just quit AMD*


I assume that those fist-pumping at Roy's brilliant PR will now be spinning the departure of the saviour as a positive move


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 20, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> ...*and Jim Keller just quit AMD*
> 
> 
> I assume that those fist-pumping at Roy's brilliant PR will now be spinning the departure of the saviour as a positive move



Without Jim Keller AMD won't last past 2016


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 20, 2015)

and the upcoming architecture Zen won't be even realized. While some analyst suggest that AMD isn't going to last till 2020, it's kinda bleak for their future if they stop relying on old chips that is being used over & over with very tiny improvements... Hopefully they're putting everything they have on Zen or else they'll get wiped out of the IT world for good.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 20, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> and the upcoming architecture Zen won't be even realized.


As far as I am aware, Zen's design has been completed.
I would be more concerned with follow on projects and the custom ARM K12 which would now seem to be in a state of limbo. I can understand that Keller would leave after completing what he signed on to do - which turned out to a much smaller job than it originally entailed thanks to the shelving of SkyBridge and K12's lack of priority, but for Keller to leave without AMD naming his successor poses a question of maintaining chip design momentum. All Zen does is get AMD back into the race, but they still need competitive successor designs laid down almost immediately to avoid falling (again) into the trap of platform stagnation.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 23, 2015)

Hopefully the Zen architecture WILL help AMD get back in the race... coz seeing them on the losing end seemed like a hollowed victory for Intel & Nvidia...


----------



## john_ (Oct 6, 2015)

Sorry for bringing up this thread, but reading this article from KitGuru did remind me this thread

KitGuru apology regarding AMD DDR4 memory news story | KitGuru

KitGuru was at "war" with AMD this summer for not getting a Fury X card. They posted an article attacking AMD directly, but they where totally blasted by readers in the comments section. They ended up banning posters and they also created a couple of accounts at Disqus to help defend the site's opinion, or at least that's what looked like, with accounts only having a few posts in certain articles about their differencies with AMD, accounts that stopped posting afterwards.

Months passed, and probably they found common ground with AMD. They even took a Nano to review, something that I wasn't expecting.

Yesterday they posted an article with some negative comments about Radeon memory and today they are at full damage control apologizing for those comments in every way known to mankind as you can see in the above article.



JMO


----------



## remixedcat (Oct 9, 2015)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-not-how-it-works-you-little-shit/photos


----------

