AMD attempts to shape review content with staged release of info

Review sites like TR are a tricky business, let me say up front. We work constantly with the largest makers of PC hardware in order to bring you timely reviews of the latest products. Making that happen, and keeping our evaluations fair and thorough, isn’t easy in the context of large companies engaging in cutthroat competition over increasingly complex technologies.

I know for a fact that many folks who happen across TR’s reviews are deeply skeptical about the whole enterprise, and given everything that goes on in the shadier corners of the web, they have a right to be. That said, we have worked very hard over the years to maintain our independence and to keep our readers’ interests first among our priorities, and I think our regular audience will attest to that fact.

At its heart, the basic arrangement that we have with the largest PC chip companies is simple. In exchange for early access to product samples and information, we agree to one constraint: timing. That is, we agree not to post the product information or our test results until the product’s official release.

That’s it, really.

There are a few other nuances, such as the fact that we’re released from that obligation if the information becomes public otherwise, but they only serve to limit the extent of the agreement.

In other words, we don’t consent to any other constraint that would compromise our editorial independence. We don’t guarantee a positive review; we don’t agree to mention certain product features; and we certainly don’t offer any power over the words we write or the results we choose to publish. In fact, by policy, these companies only get to see our reviews of their products when you do, not before.

If you’re familiar with us, we may be covering well-trodden ground here, but bear with me. Our status as an independent entity is key to what we do. Most of the PR types we work with tend to understand that fact, so we usually get along pretty well. There’s ample room for dialog and persuasion about the merits of a particular product, but ultimately, we offer our own opinions. In fact, the basic arrangement we have with these firms has been the same for most of the 13 years of our existence, even during the darkest days of Intel’s Pentium 4 fiasco.

You can imagine my shock, then, upon receiving an e-mail message last week that attempted to re-write those rules in a way that grants a measure of editorial control to a company whose product we’re reviewing. What AMD is doing, in quasi-clever fashion, is attempting to shape the content of reviews by dictating a two-stage plan for the release of information. In doing so, they grant themselves a measure of editorial control over any publication that agrees to the plan.

In this case, the product in question is the desktop version of AMD’s Trinity APUs. We received review samples of these products last week, with a product launch date set for early October. However, late last week, the following e-mail from Peter Amos, who works in AMD’s New Product Review Program, hit our inbox:

We are allowing limited previews of the embargoed information to generate additional traffic for your site, and give you an opportunity to put additional emphasis on topics of interest to your readers. If you wish to post a preview article as a teaser for your main review, you may do so on September 27th, 2012 at 12:01AM EDT.
The topics which you are free to discuss in your preview articles starting September 27th, 2012 at 12:01AM EDT are any combination of:

– Gaming benchmarks (A10, A8)

– Speeds, feeds, cores, SIMDs and branding

– Experiential testing of applications vs Intel (A10 Virgo will be priced in the range of the i3 2120 or i3 3220)

– Power testing

We believe there are an infinite number of interesting angles available for these preview articles within this framework.

We are also aware that your readers expect performance numbers in your articles. In order to allow you to have something for the preview, while maintaining enough content for your review, we are allowing the inclusion of gaming benchmarks.

By allowing the publication of speeds, feeds, cores, SIMDs and branding during the preview period, you have the opportunity to discuss the innovations that AMD is making with AMD A-Series APUs and how these are relevant to today’s compute environment and workloads.

In previewing x86 applications, without providing hard numbers until October [redacted], we are hoping that you will be able to convey what is most important to the end-user which is what the experience of using the system is like. As one of the foremost evaluators of technology, you are in a unique position to draw educated comparisons and conclusions based on real-world experience with the platform.

The idea here is for AMD to allow a “preview” of the product that contains a vast swath of the total information that one might expect to see in a full review, with a few notable exceptions. Although “experiential testing” is allowed, sites may not publish the results of non-gaming CPU benchmarks.

The email goes on to highlight a few other features of the Socket FM2 platform before explaining what information may be published in early October:

The topics which you must be held for the October [redacted] embargo lift are:

– Overclocking

– Pricing

– Non game benchmarks

The email then highlights each of these topic areas briefly. Here’s what it says about the temporarily verboten non-gaming benchmarks:

 Non game benchmarks

– Traditional benchmarks are designed to highlight differences in different architectures and how they perform. We understand that this is a useful tool for you and that your readers expect to see this data. The importance of these results is in your evaluation, as the leading experts, of what these performance numbers mean. We encourage you to use your analysis if you choose to publish a preview article and if you find that to be appropriate to your approach to that article. The numbers themselves must be held until the October [redacted] embargo lift. This is in an effort to allow consumers to fully comprehend your analysis without prejudging based on graphs which do not necessarily represent the experiential difference and to help ensure you have sufficient content for the creation of a launch day article.

Now, we appreciate that AMD is introducing this product in an incredibly difficult competitive environment. We’re even sympathetic to the idea that the mix of resources included in its new APU may be more optimal for some usage patterns, as our largely positive review of the mobile version of Trinity will attest. We understand why they might wish to see “experiential testing” results and IGP-focused gaming benchmarks in the initial review that grabs the headlines, while burying the CPU-focused benchmarks on a later date. By doing so, they’d be leading with the product’s strengths and playing down its biggest weakness.

And it’s likely to work, I can tell you from long experience, since the first article about a subject tends to capture the buzz and draw the largest audience. A second article a week later? No so much. Heck, even if we hold back and publish our full review later (which indeed is our plan), it’s not likely to attract as broad a readership as it would have on day one, given the presence of extensive “previews” elsewhere.

Yes, AMD and other firms have done limited “preview” releases in the past, where select publications are allowed to publish a few pictures and perhaps a handful of benchmark numbers ahead of time. There is some slight precedent there.

But none of that changes the fact that this plan is absolutely, bat-guano crazy. It crosses a line that should not be crossed.

Companies like AMD don’t get to decide what gets highlighted in reviews and what doesn’t. Using the review press’s general willingness to agree on one thing—timing—to get additional control may seem clever, but we’ve thought it over, and no. We’ll keep our independence, thanks.

The email goes on to conclude by, apparently, anticipating such a reaction and offering a chance for feedback:

We are aware that this is a unique approach to product launches. We are always looking at ways that we can work with you to help drive additional traffic to your articles and effectively convey the AMD message. We strive to provide the best products in their price points, bringing a great product for a great price. Please feel free to provide feedback on what you find, both with the product and with your experience in the AMD New Product Review Program. We try to ensure that we are providing you what you need and appreciate any feedback you have to offer on how we can do better.

I picked up the phone almost immediately after reading this paragraph and attempted to persuade both Mr. Amos and, later, his boss that this plan was not a good one. I was told that this decision was made not just in PR but at higher levels in the company and that my objections had been widely noted in internal emails. Unfortunately, although fully aware of my objections and of the very important basic principle at stake, AMD decided to go through with its plan.

Shame on them for that.

It’s possible you may see desktop Trinity “previews” at other websites today that conform precisely to AMD’s dictates. I’m not sure. I hope most folks have decided to refrain from participation in this farce, but I really don’t know what will happen. I also hope that any who did participate will reconsider their positions after reading this post and thinking about what they’re giving up.

And I hope, most of all, that the broader public understands what’s at stake here and insists on a change in policy from AMD.

If this level of control from companies over the content of reviews becomes the norm, we will be forced to change the way we work the firms whose products we review. We will not compromise our independence. We believe you demand and deserve nothing less.

Update: AMD has issued a statement on this matter.

Comments closed
    • aim18
    • 7 years ago
    • Morris
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t have an issue with staged release of information on new products if that’s what AMD desires to do. As long as the information is accurate, who cares in what manner it is released.

    What I do care about is that many people including PC hardware reviewers have lost sight of the use of benches and how the benches have been tainted over the years to inflate numbers for Intel and lower performance numbers for AMD processors. That in itself is a serious issue that most reviewers have never bothered to properly investigate.

    Then if / when you get accurate benches, most reviewers aren’t able to accurately portray the real system performance that a user will experience. As an example many people go ga ga over graphics frame rates as if this is the holy grail of User Experience. In fact anything above 40 FPS is insignificant as the eye can’t differentiate the added speed.

    What we end up with in most PC hardware reviews is some arbitrary bench results that often do not tell the real story as far as User Experience – which is all that really counts. Having the fastest PC hardware on the planet is an ego trip not a necessity. Few people can even use the full potential of the fastest PC hardware on the planet as work load meters substantiate.

    Pretty much any X86 CPU and GPU card these days will provide satisfactory performance for 90% of the world. Enthusiasts always want the best even if they can’t afford the top level over-hyped, poor value products. Thus many enthusiasts settle for the better performance values in the mid-range. Here performance vs. cost is what counts not the ultimate performance available at any costs.

    For many people AMD hits the sweet spot on performance vs. cost. This is the point that many PC hardware reviewers miss. They typically say: “for the price this is a good processor”. In reality it’s a good processor period. It will do everything that most enthusiasts desire other than score the highest benches. It will run video games just fine. It will run office apps just fine. It will even crunch numbers and do anything you need to do on a PC – just fine. But this point is often understated because PC hardware reviewers like enthusiasts alway want the top performing hardware – even if it’s impractical and doesn’t actually serve any real purpose for 99% of consumers. It’s basically for bragging rights.

    Hopefully TR and other PC hardware reviewers will change how they perceive and test new hardware to show the User Experience with real applications, not tainted benches which typically do not realistically show the true User Experience. At one time benches were more useful back in the days when Pentium 90’s were the processor of the day. Now they are a reference point but not the real story on performance. They allow you to rate the processor on a scale but the benches themselves are of dubious accuracy and value.

    It should be interesting to see how many PC hardware reviewers take this information to heart and change with the times to showing consumers what the User Experience is like instead of rather useless benches that don’t tell us much at all about the actual User Experience with real applications.

    • DPete27
    • 7 years ago

    Ok, the full Trinity NDA has been lifted. Where’s my review? If you chose to wait on the “preview” the review should have been up first thing this morning. Now I’ll have to go elsewhere to read about the CPU portion of Trinity during my lunch break….dissapointing.

    By the way, [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-trinity-apu,3241.html<]Tomshardware[/url<] apparently didn't get the memo, and posted CPU results, so what gives?

    • Sahrin
    • 7 years ago

    I have to admit one of the things that really, really pisses me off is when reviewers preview a piece of technology and at the end of the piece say “pricing to be announced at launch.”

    I view that as exactly the same as what you’re saying here. The company is trying to manipulate the press by giving them early access, and either ‘build anticipation’ to overcome the sticker shock or get a double whammy when they finally release pricing.

    Honestly, I’m pretty unimpressed with your line-drawing. If you’re willing to compromise on ethics (ie, letting subjects influence what you say and how you say it) then why does it matter where that happens?

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    One thing I missed in all the previews is how AMD compare to Intel in the next wave of the Web.

    Mobile app translating to browser apps.
    [url<]http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/bookcase/[/url<] Or this CNN Ecosphere experiment [url<]http://cnn-ecosphere.com/[/url<] I'm starting to see a bunch of webgl stuff related to game, data visualization & interaction, presentation, and else. Very much a reflection of the GPU craze on mobile. To me it seem that if you have an Intel APU you will need to buy a discreet GPU as this evolution take place. (Not an issue, as discreet GPU are cheap) But with AMD, the more of this happen, the stronger the AMD platform gets. And its not just the web 'apps', but also desktop tools. Winzip + OpenCL turn a dual module trinity into a i7-2600k class CPU. (for that particular task) I hope TR gives us a glimps of AMD 'vision'

    • halbhh2
    • 7 years ago

    I think it is wrong to hold AMD to a higher standard than other companies.

    And yes, I read Scott’s post. I simply don’t buy the logic. Why? Just see the Anand Tech article. It was no problem to deal with the 2-stage release in a clear, transparent way.

    No one was fooled.

    edit: whoops! I am writing too many posts. Sorry!!


    edit #2: On second thought…..really, I don’t think it is too many posts, and I certainly never had commercial intent. But I recognize it is irritating to have someone write 15 comments disagreeing with you.

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      Ok, I tend to hold back when moderating people who are criticizing me, so they can have their say. I’ve done that in your case, but now you’re just spamming this thread (and the other one) with your repeated posts saying essentially the same things.

      You’ve more than had your say.

      Time for you to stop and let other folks get a word in. If you don’t, the banhammer will have to come out.

    • 12cores
    • 7 years ago

    For anyone who cares, vr-zone did a wink wink nod nod cpu review by dropping in discrete GPU(7870) and comparing it to the i5-3470 and Trinity held its own at 1080p. For $70 dollars less than the i5 this could be a great deal, especially if it overclocks well.This review gives me great hope for the Piledriver Core.

    Link –

    [url<]http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-vs-intel-ivy-bridge-i5-3470--discrete-gpu-gaming-performance/17272.html[/url<]

    • jthh
    • 7 years ago

    Can’t we just get along and play some Borderlands 2 together?

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t think I see anything in AMDs requirements that I would object to if I were the tech editor. I’d simply say, “ok, we can live with that for a preview and note these requirements in the preview” or “nah, we’ll just wait”.

    I just dont see why this is a big deal in this instance where I don’t buy that it hasnt happened before with intel.

    Edit: taken from the preview that Jimbo75 pointed out:
    [quote<]"...and the [b<]scope of the benchmarks[/b<] we were allowed to run was [b<]defined by Intel.[/b<]"[/quote<] [url<]https://techreport.com/review/9538/intel-conroe-performance-previewed/1[/url<] Edit again: added link for when jimbo75 comment is not directly below mine.

    • Vhalidictes
    • 7 years ago

    Good for TR, this kind of article is the reason why I come here. However, this information makes me sad. I was just defending AMD from irrelevance in another article, but if this is the future of AMD product releases then it’s clear they don’t have confidence in their own product.

    • DrD
    • 7 years ago

    Shame on AMD. Keep your independence. I can surely wait for a proper review and not a stymied piece of cheap advertising. Makes me ill , this.

    • wirerogue
    • 7 years ago

    quack. whatever. i’ll go read the previews elsewhere. thanks for the heads up.

    • otherstuff
    • 7 years ago

    I just love techreport! Thank you!

    • cmdrdredd
    • 7 years ago

    It’s clear that AMD just cannot compete with Intel on key areas that matter. CPU performance and overclocking. Most people reading these tech sites aren’t interested in how well an iGPU can play Battlefield3 because quite frankly at anything 1080p or above it’s terrible and we would have a dedicated card if we were gonna touch that stuff. We are interested in how it performs as a CPU along side our high end video cards. Unfortunately for AMD they absolutely suck next to Intel and they try to hide that behind a few iGPU benches.

      • chuckula
      • 7 years ago

      Spot-on post. IGPs are certainly interesting in mobile systems and to a more limited extent in HTPCs, but in a desktop* they are more the exception than the rule.

      Looking around at some of the benchmarks online, X-bit labs used a discrete 6570 GPU in the benchmarks, and the 6570 (not a high-end GPU by any means) beats the highest-end Trinity’s IGP in every benchmark. The problem is this: I can upgrade the GPU in a desktop computer easily. I can’t upgrade the CPU anywhere nears as easily when AMD won’t have a CPU upgrade ready until late 2013 with desktop Kaveri and when Trinity is nowhere near the speed of even mid-range Intel CPUs.

      * a desktop where you care about playing games that is.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Trinity A10 is $130

        i3 + 6570 (1GB GDDR5) = ~$190

        AMD stated that they want to keep FM2 as the socket for the next 3 years.
        (It seem that they will even make steamroller AM3+ models)

        How often do you upgrade if waiting untill late 2013 to upgrade a system thats not even out is a problem for you?

        BTW, X-bit labs preview was worthless.. 1920×1080 gaming on an IGP ?
        It ludicrous to think an IGP can do that with DDr3.
        But if you are ready to play in 1366×768, it seem Trinity can play all games just fine.
        We can revisit this when TR release its unbiased review on tuesday…

          • Arag0n
          • 7 years ago

          It will be the most biased review ever… Scott is pissed now with or without a reason, how do you expect to give AMD a fair review? It’s hard to give a fair review when you are pissed by a company.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      AMD stated a year ago that they are not going after the high end CPU market, Intel is to far ahead and its costing AMD to much to even try.

      So I think its foolish to expect AMD will release a top end CPU, when themselves say they wont.
      Case in point Trinity only include 2 module.

      And who buys i3 class APU with a high end video card? (thats Trinity market / price bracket)
      If you dont pair a 7970 with an i3 , why would anyone think to pair this with a Trinity ?

      Anyways, sorry, but it look to me that you will need to continue to buy $$$ Intel CPU for your high end GPU.

      I wish AMD could compete, but its not going to happen.
      I’m personally not thrilled that the sandy-E 6 core is still >$550, thats why I’m keeping my Q6600 for another year, or two.

    • cphite
    • 7 years ago

    Thanks to TR for not compromising. Just another reason why you guys are my go-to for tech reviews.

    And shame on AMD for even trying this crap.

    • Hrunga Zmuda
    • 7 years ago

    This pretty much shows the character of AMD. If they’re willing to distort the truth, what other shortcuts are they taking in terms of engineering, quality control, and business practices?

    PR people are the last ones to check their own integrity, so this isn’t terribly surprising. That higher-ups in management know what’s at stake with their integrity and going ahead with it anyway simply demonstrates a company rotten to the cores.

    • voodootronix
    • 7 years ago

    Totally support your stance on this. Congratulations on sticking to your guns regardless of commercial consequences.

    • RtFusion
    • 7 years ago

    Wow, that is some, frankly speaking, stupid and shameful stuff there by AMD. They want to control how and when parts of their product should be reviewed by outlets to give the best image for AMD. There a post here: [url<]https://techreport.com/news/23644/amd-explains-its-reasons-for-staged-info-release[/url<] by the user Rza79 who posted a direct link to Xbit's SysMark benchmark of rhte A10 and does extremely poor against the i3 lineup. This is what AMD doesn't want outlets to preview, their poor performance in the CPU bound arena. No wonder when I saw "previews" on Tom's, Xbitlabs, and elsewhere, I only saw gaming benchmarks, nothing else. I was wondering why and now I know. This is a great move on TR's part, upholding their higher standards for review and refusing to play AMD's "preview" rules which really is just bullshit in my view. If or when you guys decide to review the the new APU's, done hold back.

      • Rurouni
      • 7 years ago

      No, it is not shameful. They don’t request the reviewers to praise their APU or anything like that. It isn’t any different than other companies that only provide a set of benchmark at a limited preview. Basically I fell like TR just being a cry baby… while other sites go ahead with the “preview”, TR want to release the whole review and make the other reviews (previews) invalid. TR could just release the “preview” like other sites and tell people that other benchmark will come a xx later without making a conclusion… heck, even a conclusion is okay as long as it is based on facts.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-trinity-apu,3241.html[/url<] Only games ? Seem to me like the A10 is on par with Intel i3, pretty much AMD target market. Only difference the A10 pack some serious GPU punch, in term of gaming, multimedia quality, and GPU compute. Expect to see more GPU computer in the next 24 month, not less. This benefit AMD APU design

    • hiro_pro
    • 7 years ago

    1. Great intro to the article. you should include the first few paragraphs on your “about us” page.

    2. dpreview.com does a number of product previews. they are clear that the article is a preview and that they have not received a standard production model of the product. you could list the limitations on the article before the relevant sections and still describe your experience.

      • Snake
      • 7 years ago

      Perfect! Perfect response! It shows just how correct Scott’s stand it – how you’ve been manipulated by dpreview for *their* benefit and how this behavior has become completely acceptable.

      DPReview does indeed do “product previews”…while many of their competitors (such as Camera Labs) manage to put out full, complete reviews. Just as Scott said, and just as AMD wants, the “preview” generates excitement for the product and traffic for the site, but no ‘real’ information is given.

      Why don’t you go on to the DPReview product review page and see just how many ‘Previews’ they have that NEVER TURN INTO FULL REVIEWS. Yet you keep visiting their web site, don’t you? For example, their ‘preview’ of the Samsung NX100 *never* turned into a full review. Oh, they had NX100 comparison photos in *other* reviews, in the JPEG comparison pages, but never an actual, complete review of the product itself.

      Right now, as of today 30 September 2012, here is the list of DPReview ‘previews’ that were never completed – and this listing is limited to the listings on the review index page that have product photographs (no archived listings)!

      – Ricoh GXR Mount A12, previewed Aug 5, 2011
      – Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS, previewed Aug 26, 2011
      – Ricoh GR Digital IV, previewed Sep 15, 2011
      – Canon EOS-1D X Overview, previewed Oct 18, 2011
      – Fujifilm X10. previewed Oct 28, 2011
      – Nikon D4 Overview, previewed Jan 6, 2012
      – First Impressions: Using the Nikon D4, previewed Mar 6, 2012
      – First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1, previewed Apr 3, 2012
      – Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF5, previewed Apr 5, 2012
      – First Impressions: Using the Samsung NX20, previewed Apr 20, 2012
      – Leica M-Monochrom, previewed May 10, 2012
      – Sony SLT-A37, previewed May 16, 2012
      – Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH Power OIS, previewed May 21, 2012
      – Pentax K-30, previewed May 21, 2012
      – Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8, previewed May 25, 2012
      – Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200, previewed Jul 17, 2012
      – Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7, previewed Jul 17, 2012
      – Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5, previewed Jul 17, 2012

      Quite a list, eh? I am stopping at August in respect for the idea that they may be continuing to work on finishing previews posted after that time (only 2 months ago).

      So you’ve been suckered…in the exact form that AMD wants to pull but by the web site itself. They tease you constantly, putting out tiny little bits of information to keep you constantly interested in their product (their web site), but never really give you the ‘meat’ of the content. So you keep coming back for more, hoping that the information holes get filled in.

      In the meantime, all those previews leave you with a generally positive feeling regarding those products. Nothing truly bad was said about them…because nothing truly good was tested about them, either. A nice little PR trick by DPR, keeping you just satisfied enough to keep returning to view their product (their editorial content) again and again. A *lot* of people have already bought, or have lined up to buy, the LX7, for example, but with what hard-core information? None – from DPR, they only have a preview. Didn’t stop the positive thinkers, the LX7 was limited stock and very hard to find for a while.

      DPR’s “news” (front) page is rather useless in comparison to many other camera review sites – they will only post ‘news’ that THEY deem ‘worthy’ or ‘interesting’ rather than post all they can find and let the *reader* decided what is relevant to *their* interests. DPR will very quickly review a new Canon dSLR, only very slightly delay a new Nikon dSLR review…and everything else can wait (as proven by that list above). Very often smaller players in the field don’t even GET a review, or a very delayed on at that (Camera Labs and Imaging Resource will have reviews of smaller company and ‘amateur’ level products WAY before DPR).

      I stopped reading DPR when I finally clued in to their little game: less ‘real’ content (fewer complete tests), more ‘teaser’ content (previews, overviews, product announcement teasers, etc.).

    • The Sorcerer
    • 7 years ago

    Where is the problem here exactly? Its not as if they said to manipulate GPU benchmarks scores like how someone else did it in the past- or someone enabled something that manipulates AMD GPU scores like how physx bumps Vantage scores before patches came up.

    They gave an option that if you want to showoff the processor’s performance via preview, you can show off the GPU performance benchmark till the time NDA is lifted. They didn’t ask for manipulation of benchmarks nor overexaggerate facts.

    Therefore: Choice was in reviewer’s hands- either they could have done this if they want to wait till NDA is lifted to put up the complete review- which will obviously include GPU benchmarks as well. If reviewers have given a disclaimer or made it clear that they are showing GPU performance benchmarks til the time NDA is active, what’s the problem? Its not as if they said that “YOU have to publish GPU benchmarks before NDA to maintain relationship with us” or “You are expected to put up GPU benchmarks or else you will be blacklisted!”. That didn’t happen. So what gives? How is it so different from the scene that someone (I am not sure, maybe its an overclocker, then there was a small debate that this could be the case only in media/prototype samples, which then was proven false) decided to open the Ivybridge’s IHS to reveal that it uses thermal paste??

    See if you want to do the shame- name conspiracy game, it can swing both ways. Lets have a theory. Intel didn’t like that AMD is pitting its GPU performance i3/i5. There’s a secret meeting- total hush hush. TR decides not to do the preview but make AMD’s life a living hell by putting up a content like this so that their readers will start bashing AMD.

    Here’s another theory. The industry has become so congested and filled with so many review sites, some of the older ones fear that the newer ones run by younger counterparts might overtake the older one. Heck, the much younger guys are getting samples before a lot of reviewers and also they aren’t under NDA, so the usual review sites will be scared that pageview and ad revenue will swing in someone else’s favour. Let’s face it- the first who publishes the review before anyone for something that people are looking forward too gets a HUGE boost in traffic. So you want to remind the industry that they’re still badass and their word carries important of all- “my way or high way”. I am not saying that is true- not even close. But if I think the way you think, it can also be like this.

    You made a choice not to put GPU benchmarks as a preview. That’s your choice. Others made a choice too. They didn’t lie. Its not as if they’ve signed and made a pledge never ever to benchmark CPU performance at all even after NDA.

    Another one? Publicity stunt!! Any publicity is a good publicity, yeah? Now this will charge everyone up and look forward for NDA to be lifted.

    I would like to respectfully conclude by saying I am not accusing Scott Wason, merely highlighting that this could be the case. I respect you as a tech journalist and I hope you wont have any ill- thoughts of what I’ve said, but don’t you think that you blown the steam for no reason???

    • cynan
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]We are always looking at ways that we can work with you to help drive additional traffic to your articles and effectively [b<]convey the AMD message[/b<].[/quote<] And there's the rub: It's not TR's (or that of any other non-partisan journalism outlet) to "convey the AMD message". It's TR's job to convey [i<][b<]TR's message[/b<][/i<] - which in this case happens to be on the subject of AMD's product. There's a big difference... Good for you for sticking to your guns. Hopefully it doesn't result in any significant lost traffic from the casual crowd. However, I think the regulars on this site are used to the generally high quality and integrity of the reporting at TR and as one of them, don't mind in the slightest waiting a bit longer on TR's full and unbiased analysis. There's only so much you can glean from product teasers anyway and generally have to take them with a grain of salt. Appreciate the transparency with which you divulged this to your readers.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      It sure won’t make me go away. This is [i<]why[/i<] I read Tech Report. I trust the TR team, and in light of this, it appears my judgement is sound.

      • halbhh2
      • 7 years ago

      I bet about 98% of us will continue reading Tech Report, and about 90% of us will surf over to get the early view from some other site.

      Just reality.

    • akaronin
    • 7 years ago

    UAU so brave of you TR… bahhhhhhh

    Now I DOUBLE DARE you to share with us all the e-mails you receive from nVidia when they send you a new video card for a (p)review…

    Are you up to this challenge ?

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    It’s really a bit like cheating. Create a great impression initially by showing the good side of the product, then, when everyone is celebrating and drinking beer, put out the less-stellar bench results. And why not? Everyone already feels good about the product. Problem is, it could backfire.

      • Medallish
      • 7 years ago

      How is it cheating? Does the APU have this big an advantage over Intel’s similarly priced offering in games? Yes or No? It’s quite simple really, AMD is switching focus more to graphics, because for so long all we’ve heard when an APU was released was mostly comparing the CPU, with numbers that don’t show user experience and just show how fast it is at calculating Pi, leading people to think that you’d suffer with AMD in your machine, this kind of bait preview will actually show you, hey this APU gives you +30 frames in these games, and that’s numbers you can tell user experience by, I work with Both Intel and AMD computers, and you couldn’t feel the difference in CPU if your life depended on it, while AMD’s CPU’s might not be perfect, they aren’t so slow that the user experience suffers.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Huh? I’m sorry, but I don’t think you really understood what I meant when I said it’s kinda like cheating. I’m talking about how AMD’s marketers are playing some sort of mind trick (ok, marketers are pretty good at that, I guess) on consumers by first creating a good impression of the product with a ‘preview’ (which is cleverly crafted to look like they are giving full independence to the reviewer to report the usage experience, etc.), allowing it to sink in for a few days (Sept 26 – Oct 2), then coming out with the rest of the product’s benchmarks later on, which will probably paint a less colorful picture of the product. By that time (Oct 2), consumers who read the previews will probably already feel pretty good about the product well enough to keep them from changing their mind about it, so it’s ok to bring out the rest of the story. This is, what I think, the marketers would like to happen.

        As for the chip itself and how it performs, I have absolutely no problem with Trinity’s scores (I think it’s absolutely fine for 99% of users), but it seems your reply to my post only focused on your presumption that I was bashing AMD for cheating in the benches. Where the heck did you get that idea? I’m talking marketers, not benchmarks.

        [b<]Capish?[/b<]

        • nanoflower
        • 7 years ago

        It’s cheating in the sense that AMD is only allowing sites to talk about the good side of Trinity. They know that people tend to remember the first impression. So when the CPU performance is reviewed and sites posts benchmarks most people will remember the good initial impression (due to good GPU/graphic performance) and not concentrate on the CPU performance. Sure, a lot of us will pay attention to the CPU performance but we are the hard core that already knew Trinity wasn’t likely to have a good CPU core. The key for AMD is to leave the market as a whole with a good impression of Trinity.

        I don’t blame AMD for trying to improve the general impression of Trinity by doing this staged review process but I think any site playing along needs to make it clear in their review exactly what AMD is doing and why.

          • ronch
          • 7 years ago

          Well said. Plus, there are some folks out there who tend to be careless (and perhaps aren’t die-hard PC enthusiasts), just read the preview, and totally forget about the official review on Oct. 2. These folks will obviously only see Trinity’s good side. Not that Trinity is a bad choice by any means especially if you’re just a casual PC user, but as I’ve stressed earlier, the issue here is AMD’s marketing tactics. Oh well, I guess marketers tend to be a lousy bunch. I love the box though:

          [url<]http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqbabq.jpg[/url<]

            • bdst
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] I love the box though [/quote<] though when you pop the hood ...

            • ronch
            • 7 years ago

            It’s not a Sandy Bridg-E, but it also costs far less and is a great choice for most people. That’s enough to make it a terrific product in my book.

            • bdst
            • 7 years ago

            fair enough

            They could also release the 12C opteron on the desktop,
            woudnt mind a V12 32nm

        • FubbHead
        • 7 years ago

        I agree. Quite clumsy and, no, contrary to Scott I don’t think it’s clever at all. But exactly that, a try to change focus.

        Intel processors are much better at… uhm.. processing. But as an integrated platform, going by the previews, they are actually quite far behind. IMO.

    • JerTech
    • 7 years ago

    Just a suggestion: I’d love to see comparisons between free product and the same product purchased, say, on Newegg. I know that might get expensive, but if reserved for high-profile hardware it might have some kind of ROI.

    I remember reading a review elsewhere where a PC provided specifically for a benchmark article was obviously tinkered with by the maker to increase performance.

    • wierdo
    • 7 years ago

    That addresses my confusion now, was looking up Trinity reviews this morning and they seemed to have an unusual format and emphasis from the norm, I was confused, thinking to myself “ok, cool and all, but what about the rest of the info I usually look at, where did those pages go all of sudden?”

    That’s really unfortunate.

    • Ryhadar
    • 7 years ago

    This reminds me of the time nVidia got chided for asking reviewers to put in OC’d GTX 460s during the 6870 release.

    And a lot of them, including TR, obliged with nvidia’s request.

    I guess you’re just fed up with the practice now? I can see both sides honestly, but personally I would’ve liked to have seen TR do a preview. Though, it’s not like I’m not here anyway. =)

    • samwallace
    • 7 years ago

    READ the email that raises the writer’s hackles.
    LIMITED PREVIEW DURING EMBARGO, in other words; we’ll let you see this early so you can have a running start. You decide if you want to wait or if you want some restrictions.. Imagine the same headline with iPhone, oh wait they don’t provide pre-release test product.
    Troglodyte!

    • flip-mode
    • 7 years ago

    What Scott is pointing out and what is amazingly not obviously evident to everyone is that AMD is trying to secure positive initial reviews that will cushion the blow of subsequent reviews of the same product that show disappointing CPU performance.

    AMD is engaging not in marketing, but in manipulation of the media and manipulation of ourselves. Aren’t we all sick to death of such manipulations already?

    AMD should put the product out there and let the product be reviewed. For AMD to say that people are only allowed to review the parts of the product that are good but not the parts that are bad is quite disgusting.

    Whatev. Phenom II was probably the last time any of my money will go to AMD. I’ll switch to Geforce too, if I can, because this kind of manipulation really pisses me off – this kind of manipulation is why I stayed away from Geforce to start with, but it seems Nvidia has been less of an offender than AMD lately. For a long time now, Intel has just put the product in the reviewers’ hands and braced for impact, good or bad. These days, it doesn’t hurt Intel that its CPUs are vastly beyond AMD’s.

    Those of you that defend this behavior: PM me – I’ve got some parts to sell, but you’re only allowed to ask me certain questions about them.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      “AMD should put the product out there and let the product be reviewed”

      It is, AMD hasn’t changed anything.

      All review site are 100% in control.

      a) to refuse the free sample
      b) to only release full review
      c) to ignore any preview oportunities
      d) etc…

      review sites are 100% in control.

      What piss of TR is that they got caught with their pants down. Anand got full preview of Trinity HTPC & Gaming benchmarks. TR probably got nothing to show.

      Scott is pissed off because he his loosing add revenue. Because, frankly, his tirade was so transparent.

      Now, is AMD doing this to help TR? no, they are doing this because they know they CRUSH Intel flagship i7-3770k at GPU/graphic task. And they dont want that to be mudied with their much slower CPU performance.

      What people miss in AMD vision is that they beleive CPU performance on consumer PC as reached its peak already. Its now about power efficiency. but the GPU is still weak.
      thats why they use most transistor for the GPU. You dont have to agree on that.
      And I’m sure TR will do a great job at showing how Trinity is much slower at decompressing Zip file then Ivy Bridge…

        • DancinJack
        • 7 years ago

        Are you sure you’re reading the post?

        To say that AMD believes CPU performance on consumer PCs has reached its peak already is incredibly wrong by the way.

        • travbrad
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Now, is AMD doing this to help TR? no, they are doing this because they know they CRUSH Intel flagship i7-3770k at GPU/graphic task.[/quote<] I'm sure TR will include integrated graphics results when they review it, but they want to give the readers the FULL picture, not just the benchmarks that make AMD look good. A large portion of TR readers have discrete cards so those integrated graphics results are largely irrelevant for them. I don't know why you'd buy a $300+ CPU (3770K) and no discrete card either, if you care about gaming. The 3770K offers virtually no performance advantage over a 3570K in games, and costs $100 more, which would go a long way towards getting a good discrete GPU (and even a $100 GPU like a 7750 will blow away trinity)

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          If TR wanted to ‘cheat’ a little bit, figure out what external AMD gpu performs similarly to the integrated one, and use THAT one in the Intel rig. You can then extrapolate CPU performance from that. If its similarly equivelant to a 7350, use that in the intel rig. Boom, CPU comparison.

      • shaq_mobile
      • 7 years ago

      “AMD is engaging not in marketing, but in manipulation of the media and manipulation of ourselves. Aren’t we all sick to death of such manipulations already?”

      Are you a registered US voter?

        • Shouefref
        • 7 years ago

        If you are, you are not trustworthy 🙂

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah. What about an extreme example? What if a pharmaceutical company only published partial results from clinical trials of a new drug product?

      “Our tests show that the fantastic new Cholesterex lowers patients’ cholesterol by up to 20% more than the current leading cholesterol lowering drug”.

      Docs get all excited and then when they start prescribing, the adverse events are released to the public…

      “And it only results in 45% increased risk of cardiac arrest and 25% increased risk of brain cancer…”

      This obviously wouldn’t fly. Though lives aren’t at stake in the AMD situation, why should it be tolerated for tech (or any) journalism?

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]AMD is engaging not in marketing, but in manipulation of the media and manipulation of ourselves. Aren't we all sick to death of such manipulations already?[/quote<] Judging by the mindless upvotes out there... no. We just pay lip service to hating the media, but when a good media franchise speaks out and for once, does the right thing, we berate them. God. We deserve fascism.

      • shank15217
      • 7 years ago

      Over react much? There are cpu reviews out for laptop trinity that does show these are decent cpus in the price bracket amd is selling them. The highest priced cpu is $130, matching i3, and you will get the full results in oct 2nd from most reputable sites.

      • Shouefref
      • 7 years ago

      Very stupid move by AMD.
      It doesn’t sound consumer friendly (and you know: people don’t buy the product, the buy the experience), it gives the impression they don’t trust TR, and [i<]it gives the impression they don't trust their own product.[/i<] That said, I remember when internet was hailed as a way for consumers to tell about their real experiences with products, so that we would get informed without the imputus of advertising. But as things are going these days, with UELA's prohibiting users from talking about problems to the press and so on, it looks like the days of free information are over.

    • holophrastic
    • 7 years ago

    It’s a very clever manipulation on their part, and I respect them for being so bold. That said, I’m in full support of your keeping things clean, shall we say. I’ll happily wait until after a product’s launch, if that’s what it takes, to read Tech Report reviews of the quality to which I’ve grown accustomed.

    I’ve always been aware of your hard work, and I plan to continue acknowledging it.

    • GeorgeMichael
    • 7 years ago

    So you make this whole thread just because they stated that they don’t mind a preview with mainly gaming and GPGPU applications to showcase their platform’ main strength points.
    Seriously this is totally uncalled for and I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to prove in this post.

    When it’s Intel, all the apps you use are intel certified and approved, when it’s Nvidia 5/8 games are physx based and hand picked by Nvidia. But when it’s AMD you make a whole thread freaking out about an optional preview, calling out AMD and labeling them as a fakers.

    I want to see AMD doing great all in all and going back to making top performance CPUs so that maybe in the future we could get an 8 core CPUs for less than $1000, most people can’t even buy a 6 core Intel CPU because they’re at $1000.

    AMD must PREVAIL.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      I understand AMD reason for relaxing the embargo, It seem like an opportunity site can take or leave it.

      But TR motive in this propaganda letter seem more sinister 🙁

      I enjoyed Ana* preview. 4x faster running minecraft then the i7-3770k, 50% at Battlefield3, etc..

      But I’m not going to buy one just based on a preview.. oh wait, its not out yet.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]But I'm not going to buy one just based on a preview.. oh wait, its not out yet.[/quote<] You can order one already. I wonder how many see these half-reviews and order theirs? Gotta hand it to Rory - he's really trying to get AMD to make some money for a change.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          Evil AMD!

          But frankly does it really hurt me as a consumer (Not a review web site administrator)
          that I’m able to read an HTPC preview of Trinity today instead of october ?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            No, unless you’re compelled to pre-order

      • ColeLT1
      • 7 years ago

      I don’t think he is trying to prove anything but full visibility. I would of liked this post even better if this was on the first page of the Trinity-preview, as a warning, but I am fine with this.

      • rxc6
      • 7 years ago

      The excuses that fanboys make these days are unbelievable. They seem to think that their companies do nothing wrong and that EVERYTHING they ask for and do is justified. It is incredible that you believe that asking for previews that skew the real performance of the part is fine and that the TechReport has no right to present this information to their readers.

      I like AMD GPUs, but I won’t buy one of their CPUs until that they get their act together. This information is helping me to confirm that their new parts are not up to speed with their competitors. I don’t care about GPGPU and gaming performance in my CPU. I have a really nice graphic card for that.

      AMD must be COMPETITIVE.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Ask for ? AMD asked for nothing. Its 100% at the discretion of the review site.

        I cant believe how you guys get manipulated by Scott twisted view on this…

          • DPete27
          • 7 years ago

          Thats funny you think that. Here are a few of the more popular tech sites that I visit, every one of them took the preview bait:
          [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/trinity-gaming-performance,3304.html<]Tomshardware[/url<] [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/6335/amds-trinity-an-htpc-perspective<]Anandtech[/url<] [url=http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/amd-trinity-graphics.html<]Xbit Labs[/url<] Looks like AMD is getting exactly what they wanted. Positive hype about Trinity's strengths, and little mention to it's weaknesses.

            • Rurouni
            • 7 years ago

            Is that wrong? Are any of the sites you mentioned misleading the readers? If you read the article in your link, they all give their honest opinion without favoring AMD at all.

      • torquer
      • 7 years ago

      “AMD must PREVAIL.”

      Thats scary. For years I was an avid supporter of AMD, using AMD CPUs since way back in the 5×86 and K-6 days and recommending them to friends. While I tend to lean toward Nvidia, where the price and performance make sense I’ve recommended AMD GPUs to friends as well. I want AMD to succeed, I love competition. I want Intel to be held to account in the marketplace. But AMD has failed as a company in many respects, and this seems like desperation. Their GPU products continue to be compelling, and their APUs are great in specific usage cases, but they are not the company they could be or the company they once were.

      No company “must PREVAIL” at anything. Not Microsoft, Apple, Google, General Motors, Valve, not anyone. To openly state that you’re skeptical of clear and transparent reporting practices suggests that you believe AMD is entitled to “win” competitively even if its through less than ethical practices. Likewise you’d likely skewer the competition for doing the exact same thing.

      God help all of us when we decide that victory is necessary at any cost, whether it is for our chosen favorite manufacturer, sports team, political party/theology, religion, etc. When we decide we’re willing to sidestep the rules because our cause is so just, we cease deserving to win and lose all credibility.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        Agreed on all points.

        But I’d like to add something to your last sentence which is “When we decide we’re willing to sidestep the rules because our cause is so just, we cease deserving to win and lose all credibility.”
        I would make it ” When we decide we’re willing to sidestep the rules because WE THINK our cause is so just, we cease deserving to win and lose all credibility.”

          • torquer
          • 7 years ago

          Good point!

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]...most people can't even buy a 6 core Intel CPU because they're at $1000.[/quote<] The i7-3930k and a couple of Xeons would find this to be contestable. Yes competition is good for consumer choice and pricing. However, trying to manipulate the media in any shape or form, no matter how innocuous it may seem in this case, is probably the wrong way to go about maximizing your products' credibility and the integrity of your company in the long run.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Manipulate ? The media is free not to accept AMD free sample product and do their own review.

        AMD didn’t demand TR to release any benchmark, TR is in full control to refuse. And they did.
        (well, possibly had nothing to post even if they wanted to ??)

        BTW, isn’t TR trying to manipulate reader by placing adds for product on their page ?
        Are you against this innocuous way of manipulating readers for money?
        This sound as silly as your argument.

        And Scott tirade was clearly trying to rally people for his point of view, that was not an unbiased view on the matter.
        I can see why AMD prefer to have its product review as a GPU and CPU separately (from all the slack they get about their low end CPU not beating an i7-3770k at RAR decompression),
        but TR opinion seem misguided.

      • jihadjoe
      • 7 years ago

      lol dude, who do you think introduced the world to the $1000 desktop processor?

      Hint: It was AMD. When AMD had the performance lead, they announced the Athlon 64 FX at a whopping $1,100+, which Intel undercut with the Gallatin-based Pentium EE at $1000. Still, it was AMD who established the $1000+ market segment for CPUs.

      When Intel had the performance lead with the PII-450, the most expensive CPU was about $600, and a Celeron 300a at $200 would catch, and beat it.

      I dread the day AMD gets back the performance lead.

      Edit: forgot to specify “FX”

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        cough– Pentium 933 $800+ (1999 dollars) — cough.

        and going back to when PC’s sold for $3500 their were more than enough intel 486 cpu’s selling for more than a $1000.

    • Medallish
    • 7 years ago

    I really don’t see the problem here, AMD trying to advertise their product using it’s most attractive feature, Oh how unreasonable, this is a pre-launch Preview they let people do, it’s not hidden that they can’t do CPU tests, but if you want to be part of the Review there are guidelines, when the product launches we’ll see the entire Review, why is this a problem at all?

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    Aren’t you allowed by law to refuse the free preview samples from companies if you dont like the license agreement ?
    Go buy the product when its release and do your review then.

    And do you even grasp why AMD is doing this ?
    I dont think TR understand the situation AMD is in.

    AMD is faced with a PR disaster, they cant get their message across, no one listen.
    I think they have stated their goal and vision for APU, but gone on death hear.

    Instead site focus on CPU benchmark that are most often irrelevant to a user experience,
    and make conclusion solely based on that.

    You guy have a huge influence on the masses, AMD want to make sure its design decision are understood.

    In the end here is HORROR:

    “You know we blocked review to be published untill october? well if you want to, you can publish some result before that date, if you want, we are not forcing you, your choice. If not, just ignore this email and just publish your review as you planned… no big deal. do as you see fit.”

    Yea… this need to stop immediately. sigh

    From the site that hand pick power numbers in reviews conclusions… ok.

    • Yeats
    • 7 years ago

    Much ado about (almost) nothing. “Staged release of info” is done often, and is typically referred to as a “preview”, “first look”, etc. I guess AMD is being rather progressive, heavy-handed and blatant about it in this instance, though.

    Whoop-de-damn-do.

    • Delphis
    • 7 years ago

    As much as I like AMD, I applaud TR’s stance on this matter.

    I’ve had various AMD processors since a K6-2 in like 1997 and also ATI graphics cards (which became AMD of course) from around that same time too and still have many AMD products today.

    It’s certainly a slippery slope to have those that want their products reviewed have any bearing or control on those reviewing, directly or indirectly.

    So, well done, TR!

    • Scrotos
    • 7 years ago

    Thanks for posting this. It reminds me somewhat of this situation:

    [url<]http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/anti-gmo-researchers-used-science-publication-to-manipulate-the-press/[/url<] Granted, this is just a CPU, not sloppy research used to push a political agenda, but still... for all those people who don't get why this kind of stuff is a big deal, read that article. The more this is done, the more it is accepted as an ok way to do stuff, the easier it is to use it as a tool to manipulate popular sentiment. It's not just some crazy ramblings, I mean, people DO this stuff. Look at this: [url<]http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/02/the-lancet-retracts-paper-linking-mmr-vaccines-and-autism/[/url<] [url<]http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/widespread-vaccine-exemptions-are-messing-with-herd-immunity/[/url<] That's a pretty crappy example of something that got initial PR and was disproved later BUT no one cared and popular sentiment caused a hell of a reaction, worldwide. A reaction that actually had implications for increased death and sickness. Again, I realize this is just a CPU review, but when I read this blog post, I just saw the manipulation of the media and the consequences that have come from that in the past. This is the kinda junk that makes me cynical about humanity. People are dumb and those with a little skill can manipulate them into doing whatever they want. I'm not pretending I'm immune from this effect, either. I just find it rather depressing.

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    Look Damage, I’m sure AMD will win all the CPU benchmarks, but they just want to be fair to Intel. My reading of their previous scores clearly shows that AMD wins at CPU benchmarks over Intel.

    Now excuse me while I go file for unemployment. It seems the NFL doesn’t need my refereeing services anymore.

      • Ditiris
      • 7 years ago

      Alright that was pretty funny.

      • JumpingJack
      • 7 years ago

      This was very funny.

    • indeego
    • 7 years ago

    One thing as an aside that drives me crazy with many of the other sites I read are all the preview, and coming “looks” at products. (Which is free advertising for manufacturer.) Then they conclude with full reviews later.

    Why sully up my newsfeed with that crap in the first place?

    I understand media’s drive to be first in reporting, but the line is blurred between what is a rumor, preview, a select sample, an actual product. And really it’s just advertising. By AMD restricting this information they get more exposure! Can you imagine if a power supply manufacturer did this? We’d all laugh at the absurdity. [i<]You are a power supply, what makes you special?[/i<] Look at Anand's latest "review" of Samsung's 840. He got a bad sample, and they sent him another for reviewing. That is kinda lame that his review just doesn't show N/A for all benchmarks. He got a failed drive! This is our data we're talking about, and don't give me crap about using RAID, I've seen consumer-level RAID fail horribly, I will never trust it. I'm sorry but why is your second attempt the one we see benchmarks on, not the first? OK perhaps that is too harsh. Why do we give manufacturers too many breaks here? I appreciate this stance. Can't stand previews. I want to be reading a review on the exact same product I get in the stores.

    • LovermanOwens
    • 7 years ago

    THIS is why the Tech Report is the one and only site I use for tech reviews for the hardware world.

    But as an AMD stock holder I am glad they are taking steps to sell more of their products! Go forth and sell! Muhahahahahaha

    • anotherengineer
    • 7 years ago

    Well it’s nice that someone is upfront and honest about it.

    I can’t say that I blame AMD too much though, not so much based on the reviews, since they are typically fair and unbiased.

    I think the comments following the reviews that can be biased, etc. can hurt, especially with people who read reviews don’t have an appreciation for what the number really mean.

    So they read the comments for something they can understand and see things like “I hope AMD goes under”, “intel all the way”, “AMD sucks” “don’t waste your money”

    Is what really hurts more than the review itself.

    However what they are trying to do here, will probably not really help in that regard anyway.

    edit
    [url<]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Preview/[/url<]

    • Ruiner
    • 7 years ago

    @Damage,
    Could you have done your recent latency benches?

    • 12cores
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t care about stock performance on a APU, GPU or CPU. When I read a review I go straight to the overclocking benchmarks, so the previews on the web today have been useless to me. From what I heard these Trinity chips may be decent overclockers, especially on the memory side. The problem is that most sites spend the majority of review articles focusing on stock performance. At stock speed’s Trinity will not shine against Intel chips on the CPU side. In my personal opinion all articles should run all test at stock and overclocked speeds, this why the reader can better gauge what they would be getting for their money. It is really simple if I can overclock a cheaper CPU, GPU or APU up to the performance of a more expensive product that is the product I am going to buy a 100% of the time.

    • spigzone
    • 7 years ago

    I’m capable of handling staggered data releases.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      I am too. I read it last night and refrained from commenting because I was all “rah rah TR whoo!” (and because I was friggin sleepy) and now in a fresh morning I’m not so sure. If the full NDA lift was always October-something, and they’re allowing certain benchmarks now on September 27, what’s the big deal?

        • Scrotos
        • 7 years ago

        I guess it’s like before an election you hear about all the good stuff of a candidate and then after he gets elected you find out he’s a habitual child molester. It’s controlling what information people see when they see it. How many people notice the “corrections” area in a newspaper or magazine after an erroneous headline spreads misinformation?

        In this instance, AMD is saying to pimp out the strengths. Ok, makes sense. But for the casual consumer who catches a few headlines, they’ll see that rather than the full reviews later that point out the many weaknesses and fatal flaws that consumers should know for buying decisions.

        Yes, in an ideal world every consumer would do proper research before buying something. But this is the real world. You control the flow of information, you control public perception. PR firms know that the build-up of hype for a product peaks at release and unless you’re high-profile like Apple, not much else is talked about afterwards with “problems” and junk like that.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          I don’t see a reason to NOT do it in this case, though. Clearly AMD isn’t embargoing their requirements, because Anandtech did a good job explaining the “rules of engagement” and still delivered an article people would be interested in reading. I don’t think Anandtech lost any credibility over this Trinity preview.

          [quote<]As I mentioned earlier, AMD is letting us go live with some Trinity data earlier than its official launch. The only stipulation? Today's preview can only focus on GPU performance. We can't talk about pricing, overclocking and aren't allowed to show any x86 CPU performance either. Obviously x86 CPU performance hasn't been a major focus of AMD's as of late, it's understandable that AMD would want to put its best foot forward for these early previews. Internally AMD is also concerned that that any advantages it may have in the GPU department are overshadowed by their x86 story. AMD's recent re-hire of Jim Keller was designed to help address the company's long-term CPU roadmap, however until then AMD is still in the difficult position of trying to sell a great GPU attached to a bunch of CPU cores that don't land at the top of the x86 performance charts. It's a bold move by AMD, to tie a partial NDA to only representing certain results. We've seen embargoes like this in the past, allowing only a subset of tests to be used in a preview. AMD had no influence on what specifics benchmarks we chose, just that we limit the first part of our review to looking at the GPU alone. Honestly with some of the other stuff we're working on I don't mind so much as I wouldn't be able to have a full review ready for you today anyway. Our hands are tied, so what we've got here is the first part of a two part look at the desktop Trinity APU. If you want to get some idea of Trinity CPU performance feel free to check out our review of the notebook APU. You won't get a perfect idea of how Piledriver does against Ivy Bridge on the desktop, but you'll have some clue. From my perspective, Piledriver seemed more about getting power under control - Steamroller on the other hand appears to address more on the performance side. We'll get to the rest of the story on October 2nd, but until then we're left with the not insignificant task of analyzing the performance of the graphics side of AMD's Trinity APU on the desktop.[/quote<]

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            If only 5% of the hardware sites try to put out a disclaimer, it’s not signficant. Plus, I think most people tend to skip the words and go to the graphs for this kind of stuff. Perhaps a tad cynical, but people don’t like to read, they just want a quick answer of “how good is this?”

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            So you’re saying Anandtech compromised itself because nobody will read the text? It’s not like AT is this tiny hardware site.

            What I expect to do out of all of this is see who talked about the terms and who didn’t, and quit reading those who didn’t. Anandtech did not disappoint me.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            I’m talking about human nature. Are you so much the optimist that you don’t think most readers will skip to the graphs and maybe the conclusions?

            I understand AnandTech is a big site. So is Tom’s and yet you don’t really hear complimentary things about Tom’s from comments here. So size doesn’t necessarily equate to either integrity nor to capability of the readership.

            If AnandTech didn’t disappoint you and you got something positive from it, ok, cool beans. I don’t like nor dislike AnandTech. If anything, I’m biased towards them because they at least employ (employed?) one of the old Aceshardware guys as I used to read that site religiously.

            Regardless of whether or not I like them, though, they are just one of many who are pushing a filtered message so I lump them in that group. Sure, they got disclaimers but I think the percentage of people reading those disclaimers are only slightly higher than the percentage of people who actually read the EULAs rather than just clicking “accept”.

            TR is not a big site like AnandTech. TR took a stand and lost page views and associated revenue. A “big site” like AnandTech could have taken a stand as well and better-weathered the resulting monetary hit. This kind of PR manipulation only works when the reviewing entities buy into it just to get some page views. If all the “preview” sites stood up for themselves instead of chasing the almighty dollar, these PR stunts would fall flat and not be used anymore.

            Instead, people (AnandTech included) caved and so the next vendor and next item to review will have similar or more restrictive limitations. People don’t give control back after they’ve taken it; they keep taking MORE. You see that with governments, corporations, even kids at school. In my mind, these sites (AnandTech included) basically rolled over and let the PR use them as a doormat.

            TR refused to compromise their integrity. The other sites either didn’t have that same level of integrity (and therefore didn’t compromise) or cared more about the page views than their integrity.

            If you’re wondering why I’m such a negative Nellie on this kind of thing, just reference my other post attached to this story in relation to PR in the science field for some insight. I understand it’s not the same level of severity, but like with Scott, I suppose I’m hung up on the principle of the thing.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            So you ARE saying that people posting articles today are in AMD’s pocket and have given up integrity regardless of what they write. I just want to be clear here. That’s ridiculous; judge the integrity based on what they write not on what people do with it.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            Perhaps those other sites aren’t in AMD’s pocket since AMD didn’t pay them anything, they just gave them the choice of page views (and it’s safe to say that equates to ad revenue) if they play their way or nothing if they provide a complete review. So no, not in AMD’s pocket; maybe just under their thumb, in a manner of speaking.

            It’s alright if they make excuses while acceding to AMD’s PR plan? Hey, for me it comes down to two choices: release info under AMD’s terms or release it under your own terms. Ok, I get it, you’re fine with the scenario and happy with how the information was presented. That’s your perogative.

            However, anyone who released a “preview” today did it under AMD’s terms. In my mind that’s “selling out” or whatever the kids call it nowadays. Is that going to stop me from going to AnandTech for information? No, it isn’t. But certainly there is a lessening of trust and respect for that site.

            For all the alleged misconduct in various TR reviews (overclocked video cards, certain benchmarks left out for value comparisons, etc.), I don’t feel like that stuff was really dictated by the vendors supplying the products. Maybe a bad judgement call, but not manipulation for PR purposes.

            You can’t judge integrity just based on what someone writes. You also need to judge it based on what they DO. If I’m saying one thing while doing another, upon what should you base your opinion of me? You say the general notion is ridiculous. I agree that it can be so if you take it to logical extremes. I don’t think you need to go that far, though–it’s pretty simple in my mind. Write all you want about “AMD only let us have a limited disclosure” but when you’re titling your info as “review, part 1” in bold on your front page, what’s the overall impression? Again, you like the AnandTech review, but here’s my issue with it:

            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-part-1[/url<] Right at the very top there ought to be some type of disclosure. Instead it's halfway down in a block of text that makes my posts look exciting. You really think most people won't get to the end of the architecture stuff and then skip to page 2, "Crysis: Warhead & Metro 2033 Performance"? Looking through the 95 comments listed for that article, the only time people bring up the ethics of the review are when they reference TR's stand on it--from reading the review itself, it does not appear as though any of the readers either read, comprehended, or cared about the strings-attached nature of the information they were reading. If Scott hadn't made a fuss and posted some of the conditions verbatim, honestly, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought myself. That's not even a dig on the AnandTech readers. I think it's just human nature to trust the information someone's giving you and not question how or why you're seeing it as it is. Ugh, that's like some So-crates stuff or somethin'.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Also it’s worth noting that all the benchmarks released today are about the integrated graphics, not gaming performance of the CPU with an add-on video card. It’s an integrated graphics preview and in that context, I’m cool with that.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            I hear ya. I respectfully disagree with that notion, though, only due to what was behind it. I’m sure the numbers are all accurate and they’ll fit in fine with part of 2 everyone’s review. The review conclusions might even be scathing towards AMD. But hey, the desired effect (control the tone and peak of the PR) has already be achieved anyway so it’s a moot point.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I dunno, man. The words in the articles around the web are not PR-ish….I’m a little surprised AMDZone didn’t get a review published, becaue I’m pretty sure that WOULD be PR-ish.

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    Sounds like they are trying to practice some ‘Damage’ control.

      • tfp
      • 7 years ago

      *puts on sunglasses” “YYYAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!”

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    Thanks for being up-front about this information.

    So basically AMD is saying that desktop Trinity has lousy CPU performance and that it is not a very good overclocker… you see AMD, the more you try to be a dictator the worse it gets for you.

    I’m not surprised that Trinity using 100 watts of power and a GPU that is using twice the transistor budget of Ivy Bridge (which has a GPU designed for Ultrabooks) will win at game benchmarks.. .duh. However: Can you do *discrete* graphics card game benchmarks? I think those will be vastly more interesting in a desktop review, and I doubt that AMD is going to come out looking stellar considering what you have already proven with your inside the second testing.

    • Goty
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Companies like AMD don't get to decide what gets highlighted in reviews and what doesn't.[/quote<] What's pushing you to play by their rules? Oh, wait, nothing. Just wait to publish a full review later (as you're doing) or break the rules that you get from EVERY vendor and face the consequences. You're an adult and fully capable of making such a decision without pitching a fit like you're doing here.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      I agree.

      • DPete27
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, that way TR can lose its reviewers licence and we wont have to read comments like this anymore.

      • esterhasz
      • 7 years ago

      The “nobody forces you to” argument is fundamentally flawed. It constrains critique to situations where force is applied to the critic, which reduces all matters of ethics to autistic choice. But we are not living in isolation from others. We are also citizens of a state, moral beings, and part of a society that we play a role in building and shaping. Just like you do in your post, we constantly negotiate the space we share with others – by communicating and expressing value judgments, aesthetic preferences, political arguments that concern the world around us.

      The “nobody forces you to” argument stems from a mindset that delegitimizes civic argument. It can also be eternally perpetuated without adding anything: nobody forced you to read Scott’s rant after all.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    With all due respect, Scott, your job is to review technology, and you do a damn fine job of that; best on the web, in fact. You are perfectly within your rights to note and decry attempts by vendors to control the message (as you did with Intel, and – I think, but can’t find a link – with Nvidia). But to abstain from publishing the review at all, when you certainly had the option of simply prefacing the review with the article above, seems to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I’m not impressed with AMD’s clumsy attempt, any more than I was when Intel did exactly the same thing (and as others have noted, I don’t recall any umbrage from you then – but then, Intel was and remains the dominant vendor in this market, and they have far more leverage to pull this [i<]and[/i<] get away with it). The bottom line is simply this: you've made your point and I respect you for it. But now I have to go somewhere else to read the reviews. The primary reason you cite above for not wanting to do a split review is that few readers come back to read the second one. And I fear that you're right.

      • Scrotos
      • 7 years ago

      You mean the preview, not the review, right? Because he’s going to release the review when the NDA lifts at the same time that everyone else will release their full reviews (not preview).

      At least, that’s how I read it.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        The other sites I’ve seen are characterizing it as ‘[review] Part 1’ which I think is accurate. Don’t get me wrong; I agree that this is an attempt by AMD to control the message, and a clumsy one (as I said above).

        Scott’s stated reason for not wanting to do a two-part review is that nobody comes back to read the second part (I think he might be selling his core audience a bit short there; there have been several other cases of review follow-ups in the past, and I think I read every one of them). But two articles on one website a week apart is only a fine line away from one article on each of two websites, a week apart.

        TR could – like other sites – have published with a strongly-worded caveat preceding the article. My point was that by choosing to not publish at all, he might as well post the links to the other reviews, knowing that some readers may go there and not come back.

      • Arag0n
      • 7 years ago

      IMHO, I think techreport and scott are going to release a review with very phew GPU benchmarks. Last llano reviews had just 2 or 3 simple tests of the GPU and very very phew information about OpenCL. Other websites will do and already did a better job reviewing the GPU and some others had chances to give also CPU performance, I don’t know why they say they can’t while others actually did it. CPU wise trinity seems to be the same as last generation but for some tasks is 20 to 40% faster. However, general usage should remain the same I guess. GPU side they improved by a 20 to 40% margin. Given that both work on 32nm and use the same TDP, it’s a good step forward, but we will need to wait till 28nm or 22nm APU’s to see a real jump in performance I guess.

      Most of the review will be focused in gaming using trinity without using the iGPU but an external one. Just wait for the review, you will see that there is going to be at least 3 times more benchmarks for CPU than for the GPU part using games.

    • Silus
    • 7 years ago

    LOL it’s funny to read the comments of some people that always questioned every other company accused of doing similar things, with arguments such as “AMD doesn’t do this “.
    Now these people use the “AMD is a company that wants to make money so it’s normal that they do this” argument…

    Double standards at their finest!

    And this is no surprise. AMD is in a very, very tough situation. Their CPU division is sub-par in both hardware and profits, their GPU division has good hardware, but barely makes any profits and they have no strategy for the biggest market right now: the mobile market. So they resort to these shenanigans to try and show their products in a better light, since they can’t do it by just making better products than the competition.

    Kudos to TR for letting us know!

      • grantmeaname
      • 7 years ago

      Are those people in your head or are you referring to actual people and actual comments somewhere?

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        Well if you read this thread and the other threads in reviews of products from other companies (other than AMD) where similar issues were discussed, you would understand.

          • jensend
          • 7 years ago

          In other words rather than “I have the names of particular individuals who said this behavior was unacceptable from Intel but perfectly OK from AMD” it’s “read these reviews for long enough and [i<]YOU WILL HEAR THE VOICES TOO[/i<]!"

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah well short memory is one of the reasons for double standards…

          • grantmeaname
          • 7 years ago

          I read all the threads. Where are you seeing this widespread double standard that nobody else has noticed?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Nice…you speak for everyone now! You didn’t notice it, so nobody noticed it! Have fun with that!

            • DancinJack
            • 7 years ago

            Why can’t you just answer him?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            I did…just look below in one of my answers for the info, although I’m sure you’ll ignore it too!

            • DancinJack
            • 7 years ago

            I just read it.

            I don’t know why you’re obsessed with the word “name.” He was just trying to find some sort of proof of what you were saying. You kept spitting out claims but not providing anything to back it up. You got very up in arms about it though as it appears you have to nearly every reply you’ve garnered in this post.

            Your point isn’t lost on me though. Fanboys will be fanboys.

        • Homeles
        • 7 years ago

        I’m going to back him up on this. A common sentiment held by the AMD crowd is that Intel is evil and AMD is saint-like. AMD was found guilty of price fixing back in 2008. They’re a corporation like anyone else, kiddos.

          • grantmeaname
          • 7 years ago

          Again, who said this? Do you have examples or are you just reacting angrily to a stereotype that’s not substantiated by reality?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Wow you one giant troll…I have to name names in order for something to be true ? Here’s a couple of reasons why you’re reacting like this:

            1) You’re not here long enough to know what I’m talking about, so you put down something that you don’t even know
            2) You are a troll and don’t care, but just want to make a fuss

            But I’ll give you two cookies, since a troll’s brain is challenged…

            1) Read this thread and find the comment similar to “AMD is a money making company so this is normal” and you’ll have one name, since that’s what makes reality for you: names
            2) Look for the HAWX 2 controversy and how people reacted to that and you’ll have more names, again because names what matter

            There are many others, but I don’t expect you to even look for these right here in this site, so I won’t waste more time with you.

            • grantmeaname
            • 7 years ago

            I’ve been reading TR for six years. Try again.

            • jensend
            • 7 years ago

            If you claim that some people have double standards, it doesn’t suffice to find some people with one standard and some [i<][b<]other[/b<][/i<] people with another. You have zero evidence that any individuals have double standards; instead, you've combined two hasty overgeneralizations to come up with an imaginary straw man.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          True, but those folks were mocked so bad during the BD fiasco that they had to move to the last ‘safe heavens’ like S|A and AMDZone

        • erwendigo
        • 7 years ago

        Medallish:

        “I really don’t see the problem here, AMD trying to advertise their product using it’s most attractive feature…blablablalgoodAMDGOODblablalbla”

        What are “in your head”?

        Do you have two blind eyes?

        The comments and people are here, very near and visible, moleman.

      • theonespork
      • 7 years ago

      Or maybe, just maybe, you are subject to reader bias like nearly everyone else?

      Now before you blow a gasket, please refrain from stating I said you were pro one company and anti another company. I simply stated you were subject to reader selected bias. Be it a love or hate of different companies, a belief in conspiracies and general underhandedness in the business world, a giant flying spaghetti monster that secretly pulls the strings of fate, a paranoia that no one gets it but you, or a million other things that are part of your psyche and cause you to attenuate in a predictable way when presented a story. The point is, our minds, all our minds, tend to read news from a perspective that leads to bias.

      Most of the the time, we are good at filtering our own bias when it is not related to something we are personally passionate about Sometimes the filters fail. Sometimes we see what we want to see. Sometimes we tell everyone else when we see what we want to see. Sometimes, everyone else calls us on our paranoia. Sometimes these are…sometimes…

      • Shambles
      • 7 years ago

      This post reeks of someone desperately trying to seek justification. It must be nice to share your head with so many imaginary people.

    • jimbo75
    • 7 years ago
      • Duck
      • 7 years ago

      1) That was them trying to show off their CPU instead of trying to suppress bad benchmarks.
      2) That was a long time ago and it looks like it’s not going to be like this any more.

        • jimbo75
        • 7 years ago
          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]intel-favouring sythentic x86 benchmarks[/quote<] I have a feeling that "neutral" benchmarks would also show Trinity to be rather weak in the CPU area But overall you have a point. Intel limited benchmarking in a similar way, so those that would show it in bad light would be published in the preview. I don't really see a difference between what Intel did then and what AMD did now. Note, though, that Intel has been derided for stuff like this. Now AMD is. The balance of nature is restored, and we all can step away from the internweb and go on with our lives

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Who put Anti-Troll Reasonableness into your cornflakes this morning?

            • Ryhadar
            • 7 years ago

            I was just wondering who had hacked NeelyCam’s account…

            • DancinJack
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t know why everyone thinks this. I feel like anything biased that NeelyCam posts is usually satire and is fairly obvious in its intent. I think he’s a pretty reasonable guy in reality though.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            When he delivers my beer-and-wings-and-t-shirt, I’ll let you know if you’re correct 🙂

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            T-Shirt? I don’t recall a tee being part of the bet. But that’s cool; I could use another one. Maybe I’ll use it when I’m eating the wings so my slobbering doesn’t mess up my nice shirts

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            I changed the bet when you changed the conditions. Of course, if/when i find the post with the original bet and am proven wrong about you moving the goalposts, I’ll withdraw the prize escalation.

            The t-shirt in question is the [url=http://www.snorgtees.com/pirate-crossword<]'Pirate Crossword Puzzle' shirt[/url<], size XL. At $20, it's less than the first round of beer-n-wings, so quit whining.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            You have no proof that I’ve changed conditions. However, here’s proof that you changed conditions:

            [quote<]I changed the bet[/quote<] I should've known you'd cheat. You're Kanadian, after all.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]You have no proof[/quote<] 'Yet', buddy, 'yet'.... Interesting, too that you don't deny that you changed the conditions, you simply claim that I can't prove it. 'Yet'

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I’ve claimed many a time that I didn’t change anything, but you keep.insisting that I did, so I expect proof

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            In the past I took positions in debates that I was trying to defend, just for the sake of debating. In those, my goal was to win instead of being reasonable – superbiased, as you have to be in a debate. Back then everyone was hating Intel, so I managed to instigate good debates by taking Intel’s side.. that’s why I got labeled an Intel fanboi and a troll.

            Later I realized that I got more of a kick from poking fun at fanboys. SB was killing Phenom, and BD was being delayed – AMD fans were good targets. I tried NVidia fans at some point when their GPUs were massive space heaters, but AMD fans took things more seriously. I tried Intel fanboys too, but they don’t react much – it was also harder to make fun of them because Intel was doing so well. Meanwhile, Apple fanbois are impervious to any ridicule – RDF is strong

            Now I’m going after ARM fans, as the role of an Intel troll suits me so well.. I can be a b*tch sometimes, but it’s all in good spirit

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            The Force is [i<]strong[/i<] in this one....

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago
            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            You should try saying nothing more often – it’s a good look for you.

        • Jigar
        • 7 years ago

        Damage did write that they maintain their rules even while there was P4 fiasco, so your point no 2 don’t count.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Suppress?

        Did you even read AMD message. AMD is not changing anything to its official review policy.

        The only thing they offer is for site to do a game preview, if the site care to do one. Thats it.
        Its not forcing them to do one, they cant ignore the email completely and still follow the license.

        So the site doesn’t want to do a game preview… fine, release you full review as planned.
        Tech report is not forced by AMD to do a preview. Scott is 100% free to ignore this opportunity.

        See, this is another example where a site take info, manipulate it from their personal point of view… and voila, instant manipulation of people perception.

          • Duck
          • 7 years ago

          Suppress, yes. At least temporarily, in order to try and get only good reviews. Fewer people will read the follow up article on the CPU performance.

      • Jigar
      • 7 years ago

      Hmm.. you have a point, but i would like to hear from Damage about this.

        • A_Pickle
        • 7 years ago

        No, he doesn’t “have a point.” Intel has every right to control what information comes out of previews to upcoming architectures that they permit journalists to see [i<]at their own damn trade show[/i<]. On the flip side, AMD telling journalists what they can and cannot report from a piece of hardware that [i<]they've sent to his home[/i<] (in exactly the same manner they've provided samples in the past), is straight-up bullshit. The Conroe preview and the Trinity preview are [i<]not comparable[/i<]. Stop giving him mindless upvotes.

      • Arclight
      • 7 years ago

      It’s no big deal really. Regardless of the shape of the preview i know what to look for in a review, which is direct comparison in CPU performance with competing products……

      if the preview wouldn’t have satisfied me i’d keep waiting for a review that does. It’s not the end of the world really. If TR decides to delay and release the full review that compares it correctly i’m fine with it. Either way their review will probably be the best when it comes to game benches (both with IGP and discrete card).

      Frankly i’m glad that in time companies left reviewers this much leeway, in a sense i’m quite glad to find this out even though Mr. Scott’s lengthy rant.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Sigh…you can’t even understand the difference ?

      That was done at IDF and AMD has done similar things in their own gatherings with reviewers. At IDF reviewers are limited to what Intel provides, but in their homes/offices, reviewers receive the product samples and test them at their own will.
      AMD wants to change that. Even the product samples that reviewers receive at home are subject to a set of rules that AMD defines, which effectively gives them the editorial control that Scott mentioned.

      One thing is going to Intel/AMD’s “home” (IDF and the like) and play by their rules. Quite another is doing your work at your “home” and be forced to do it the way Intel or AMD wants it.

        • Scrotos
        • 7 years ago

        …plus they fully disclosed the limitations of the testing environment, didn’t necessarily stick to PR “talking points” for their preview, and the conclusions are very clear that you have to take the numbers with a grain of salt.

        Jimbo, do you honestly not understand the difference between that scenario and one where the company sends you the product to test how YOU want to and then tries to tell you what you’re allowed to talk about?

        It’s like the difference between going to a car dealer, looking at the car, hearing the engine turn on and off and then comparing that to actually having the car for a week to evaulate both on-track and off-track and under a variety of conditions not controlled by the car dealer. Or going to CES to see a TV on display (or even Best Buy) versus having an example in a controlled home theater environment to do quality testing.

        Also, since the topic is about a CPU company, I am obligated to point out that a computer is like a car and the CPU is like the engine.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          The simple truth is that jimbo either didn’t read Scott’s remarks above or he didn’t read the Conroe review. He just chose what suited his agenda and went with it. If he had read both, he would understand the difference…it’s IMPOSSIBLE not to understand the difference…That only happens when the person chooses not to understand it for simple fanboyism or a conflict of interests.

      • Unknown-Error
      • 7 years ago

      Seriously [b<]jimbo75[/b<]? The Intel preview was at IDF. It wasn't a sample sent to his home.

      • juampa_valve_rde
      • 7 years ago

      Hey, take a look, it says “previewed”. Last night a lot of sites shown a trinity biased half review. If they had used the word “preview” instead, explaining the situation the thing should have been just right, because in a preview the final specification can change, there is no guarantee, its just a peek. But now people its reading a Review that only shows a part of the product, not the whole deal, and probably as its biased its showing just the bright side of the product, and a product like this where there is so much integrated that its really hard to get conclusions and measure everything, the “reviews” (haha) are failing bad to show the big picture.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      There is additional key difference not mentioned yet: Conroe/Core 2 was a completely awesome CPU. Intel was ‘holding back’ something great, not something crappy.

      • ringxw
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, NV’s review requires sites to user certain Phyx games..I guess that’s fair cuz they are Nvidia? It’s their product and they have control over what to say.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      This isn’t really the same at all.

      The example you post was a preview of [b<]specific Intel-selected[/b<] benchmarks. It is [i<]because[/i<] Intel had complete control over the test systems and benchmarks used that avoided placing TR's integrity at stake. In the case with AMD the issue stems from the fact that the chip maker is saying: "Hey, go ahead and do a thorough review per usual, but then, if you want, a few days early, only post the benchmarks that make our product look favorable in a separate piece". In the first situation TR can only report what Intel has let them see. In the second, if TR wants to play in AMD's new game and get extra traffic like all of the other good little tech news sites, then they have to let AMD dictate, out of whatever extensive and well rounded testing that TR may have done, which testing results they can show at a given time. AMD, therefore, in some small, but potentially meaningful, way is manipulating news outlets into gaining editorial control. The fact the the constraints in the Intel case was on the data itself, and the constraints with AMD is one of an editorial nature makes all the difference if you are a journalist considering your integrity.

        • kc77
        • 7 years ago

        No it’s the exact same thing. Sorry but this seems like everyone wants AMD to be some holy-roller, but the same shouldn’t be expected of it’s competitors.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          Can you explain how is this the same thing ?
          If this had been done at AMD’s gathering with reviewers, Scott’s rant wouldn’t be valid since in AMD’s “turf” you abide by their rules or you simply don’t see the hardware in action before the NDA lifts.
          But this is AMD telling Scott that if he wants to do a preview on the hardware they sent him BEFORE the NDA lifts, then he must do it by showing ONLY what AMD wants to be shown.

          Also, this is hilarious – “Sorry but this seems like everyone wants AMD to be some holy-roller, but the same shouldn’t be expected of it’s competitors.” – because that’s exactly what many people in this site do. They criticize every other company while praising AMD for not being like them. Then AMD does it and suddenly it’s “Oh you can’t expect AMD to be the holy-roller”…give me a break

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Can you explain how is this the same thing ?[/quote<] It was already quoted above. Your distinction is that because of the location that it's somehow unbelievably different is quite frankly an argument for the unintelligent. You put a preview or disclaimer on it and call it a day. When the NDA lifts you test it fully. It's not that hard of a concept. Here's what Anand said: [quote<] It's a bold move by AMD, to tie a partial NDA to only representing certain results. [b<]We've seen embargoes like this in the past, allowing only a subset of tests to be used in a preview. [/b<]AMD had no influence on what specifics benchmarks we chose, just that we limit the first part of our review to looking at the GPU alone. Honestly with some of the other stuff we're working on I don't mind so much as I wouldn't be able to have a full review ready for you today anyway. Our hands are tied, so what we've got here is the first part of a two part look at the desktop Trinity APU. If you want to get some idea of Trinity CPU performance feel free to check out our review of the notebook APU. You won't get a perfect idea of how Piledriver does against Ivy Bridge on the desktop, but you'll have some clue. From my perspective, Piledriver seemed more about getting power under control - Steamroller on the other hand appears to address more on the performance side. We'll get to the rest of the story on October 2nd, but until then we're left with the not insignificant task of analyzing the performance of the graphics side of AMD's Trinity APU on the desktop. [/quote<] So if Anand is telling you other vendors have done the SAME THING, do you want people to pretend their memory sucks? I'm getting older but it's not THAT bad. TR could easily have done what Anand did. There's nothing stopping them from doing it either.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            You seem to be under the impression that, since you like what Anand did better, then that means every other reaction of disdain for these shenanigans is wrong. And you’re the wrong one. Anand’s approach is fine and I honestly don’t see a problem with it either. It just means that the editors at Anandtech are ok with it and that simple disclaimer is enough to warn its readers.
            I disagree. Why ? Because even though I’m not included in that group, I know that a great deal of review site readers just look at the graphs and maybe the conclusions to see if it got an “editor’s award” or something similar. Those people will skip through the entire text to see graphs….nothing more and will be under the impression that that product is just what the graphs show. It’s not.
            Granted that this happens with normal reviews too, where people just skip to the graphs and that’s that, losing all the info “hidden” in the text, but those were supposedly done at the editor’s/reviewer leisure and not what AMD/Intel/NVIDIA or any other company mandated. So indeed this becomes an ethical issue for the editors/reviewers and for Anand just putting a disclaimer in the preview is enough| Which is ok, but Scott is much more strongly opposed to it and thus made a decision to not do the previews under these conditions, which is fine too. He’s the editor/reviewer and if he thinks his freedom as that editor/reviewer is at risk, then he voices his opinion on the matter.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] You seem to be under the impression that, since you like what Anand did better, then that means every other reaction of disdain for these shenanigans is wrong. [/quote<] I said nothing of the kind. You can not like what someone did and still provide your readers with technical information. Instead there's no technical information and a whole lot of kvetching. [quote<] Anand's approach is fine and I honestly don't see a problem with it either. It just means that the editors at Anandtech are ok with it and that simple disclaimer is enough to warn its readers. I disagree. Why ? Because even though I'm not included in that group, I know that a great deal of review site readers just look at the graphs and maybe the conclusions to see if it got an "editor's award" or something similar. [/quote<] That's the case for ALL reviews. Basically the argument now is that because people don't read the words TR should not test the product and instead create one gigantic (now two) article about the day when the milk in their Wheaties turned yellow. Sorry but I'm not with you on that. [quote<] Which is ok, but Scott is much more strongly opposed to it and thus made a decision to not do the previews under these conditions, which is fine too. He's the editor/reviewer and if he thinks his freedom as that editor/reviewer is at risk, then he voices his opinion on the matter. [/quote<] I don't think I said anything about him not voicing his opinion. Hell I'd like to hear it. That's why I come here. But that being said I would like a review or preview as it were as well. That's the main reason why I come here.

          • cynan
          • 7 years ago

          I love how you go out of your way to refute my post but then don’t bother explaining why the arguments I used to explain my perspective are flawed. Seems a little knee-jerk and obtuse…

          For me it is simple. In the above example, TR chose to share their (somewhat privileged) access to early preview data that was basically, for all intents and purposes, handed to them by Intel.

          In the AMD situation, AMD is allowing all participating tech journalism outlets to conduct their full analysis before the embargo lift, as per usual, but then trying to gently (and as pointed out, somewhat cleverly) coerce extra and early press coverage biased toward the positive traits of their product with the allure of increased web traffic.

          I will give you that the two situations are similar in the sense that both scenarios result in the chip makers getting extra and early coverage of what are likely the more positive aspects of their product. However, in the Intel case, TR’s integrity never comes into question as they can simply report “Look, Intel gave us early access to some data that we had next to no control over the creation of. Here it is”. In the AMD case, it does, as they are saying “Take specific results from the body of data you’ve generated over the past week (or whatever) and show only those before a certain date”. In this way, AMD has a hand in formulating TR’s message about their product. This is at odds with the pursuit of unbiased journalism.

          The fact that they are appending this directive with the sentiment “only if you want to” is largely a misdirection: That they are being cautious about their manipulation (for this first attempt, anyway) does not make the stunt itself any less of an attempt at editorial manipulation. They are trying to establish a foot-hold in the editorial control of websites whose supposed mandates are to give unbiased product reviews. I can see why such a move would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the editor of such a website. At least one with more than a modicum of integrity, anyway.

          Again, the difference is that Intel was not manipulating which data TR already has in its possession can be disseminated, while that is exactly what AMD is trying to accomplish. I think this, while perhaps appearing negligible at first glance, is an important distinction.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] I love how you go out of your way to refute my post but then don't bother explaining why the arguments I used to explain my perspective are flawed. Seems a little knee-jerk and obtuse... [/quote<] And I love how you write a lot of words but very little of it is logical. You really need to stop projecting. Here this is why they are similar. In alot of ways the Intel situation is worse. I'll keep it strictly fact based. Intel: Intel created the test environment....literally. Intel literally picked out the benchmarks in the Conroe article. TR reported the numbers EARLY before release of the official product. [quote<]We were not allowed to look inside of the case of either PC, and the scope of the benchmarks we were allowed to run was[b<] defined by Intel.[/b<][/quote<] AMD: To some extent AMD did as well. However, the only stipulation is that if you want to post early (and the games can be whatever you want) then you have to keep the benchmarks to the APU's iGPU. The games could be ANYTHING. The reviewer had complete control over which games were reviewed. TR also had complete control in both instances to report on it or not. It did not have to in the case of Intel, nor is it being forced to in the case of AMD. That's not anyone making up anything that's a fact. Now it doesn't take a genius to see that Intel controlled what was released and obviously TR put the disclaimer on the article and kept it moving. The differences between that situation and this one are: Intel escorted TR to the SKU for preview at a trade show with the expectation of a review later. AMD sent the SKU to TR with the ability to release an early (p)review with the expectation of a review later.....oh there's one more.... TR flipped the hell out in the case of the AMD situation. Why? I don't know. [quote<] Again, the difference is that Intel was not manipulating which data TR already has in its possession can be disseminated, while that is exactly what AMD is trying to accomplish. I think this, while perhaps appearing negligible at first glance, is an important distinction. [/quote<] You're not even talking about reality at this point. There is very little distinction here and what you wrote doesn't even make any sense. What you are trying to say is that somehow (and it really doesn't make any sense) in the case of Intel where they controlled what benchmarks were run, what TR released, how the system was put together, and even precluded TR from even looking inside the case (hell there could have been leprechauns in there for all we know) is perfectly OK. But.... if AMD allows you to run any game you want but asks you to restrict the results to the CPU's iGPU (only if the reviewer wants to release information early) that this is the end of integrity of technical journalism EVERYWHERE?! Really? Give me a break. Let me help you in calling out the logic of that argument. It's bull pucky..... lots and lots of it. You can respond with a novel, a soliloquy, screw it bring me a Haiku. But no matter what the response is, I know that buried deep within the structure will be the nonsense that if Intel controls everything it's cool, but if AMD controls anything it's the rebirth of Lucifer and integrity of tech journalism everywhere is on the brink of destruction. Not only that but TR is the only one who stopped it, while everyone else succumbed to the whims of a company that's been running deficits for the last decade.

      • willg
      • 7 years ago

      I disagree that this is similar to the conroe preview or other previews. This is not a preview, in that the product is available already, since May in laptops and since June in OEM desktops. If this was February 2012 and AMD had invited the press to test a pre-release stepping of their product, on beta BIOS and motherboards with hand-soldered wires patching up problems, then it may be justified to ask the press not to release benchmarks as they do not represent final performance.

      What’s happening in this instance is different, and it all comes down to the question: “What’s the motiviation?” in a real preview, the motiviation is necessity, the product isn’t complete, polished and ready. What AMD is doing here, is artificial, they are artificially restricting the information discloure on their product in an attempt to manipulate the balanced and informed impression a complete review would form, for one that contains only half-truths designed to showcase the product in the best possible way.

      I say unwittingly in that they probably sat around a meeting, and through a genuine frustration about the way CPU metrics are trotted out as the be-all and end-all of some reviews and thought this would help prevent that.

      It’s difficult to see, when considering this one example, the bigger picture. But as the legal profession (or any parent) will tell you, setting a bad precedent has long term ramifications.

      To give you a fatuous example: When Vishera previews AMD may lift the NDA early on the condition no one talks about: Benchmarks, Power Consumption, Price, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, any Nehalem clocked above 3Ghz or any impressions gained by touching the CPU heatsink after 5 minutes of Prime95 or include the phrase “AMD’s position is unenviable”. Basically, Scott can include a picture of it next to a quarter and say “Yep, of all the CPUs we’ve seen in the past 10 years, this is definitely one of them. It has a nice inscribed integrated heat spreader and I’ve produced a graph comparing the number of pins it has on the underside vs. other CPUs”

      To those that argue “well if sites don’t like it, they can just launch their reviews when the full NDA lifts” they need to remember, sites like these are a business – they compete for your business (readership) in a market with lots of other competitors. If other sites have “previews” and this one doesn’t, that will impact the readership of this sites article when it arrives. AMD knows sites like this count on having the latest reviews as much as any other source of interesting articles. They are using a divide-and-conquer technique here, it’s like saying “I will give a moneytary advantage to those prepared to agree to present our product in the best way”

      I understand AMD’s frustrations, but this is the wrong way to go about changing things.

        • Third_Eye
        • 7 years ago

        I first agree that whatever AMD is doing will not be helping it. It is a PR nightmare even if the CPU part of Trinity exceeds expectations.
        [quote<] This is not a preview, in that the product is available already, since May in laptops and since June in OEM desktops. [/quote<] [b<] the whole Scott Wasson Drama is much ado about nothing.[/b<] If Scott W is so interested to really get to the bottom of that let him purchase the Trinity desktop from the OEMs (Acer, HP, Asus) from Amazon/Newegg and do the impartial reviews. And they are under 600$ so not like u r sinking a huge amount of money into them. Title the review like "Trinity Performance: Review of system xxxxxxx from YYYYY". You can add more RAM if u need, replace with a equivalent HDD/SSD etc... Yes AMD's CPU performance has been below Intel ever since Core2 Duo days. If only Shanghai had been released during the Barcelona timeframe there would have been some desktop parity. But right now Intel is very much ahead in CPU performance, better power, better die-size (due to lower manufacturing). So AMD is in a position of showing its APUs in a good condition. So they had this arrangement. As a pre-NDA preview, you are only allowed to test things that will show their product in a good light. All you need is a disclaimer stating this. Pure and simple.. Anyway I would not be able to buy Trinity in retail till the day AMD officially announces it right. At that time I will have complete reviews from various websites including Tech Reports (whose reviews I have no problem with). Then I decide if purchasing Trinity would make sense or not. Why did you not do something creative with the restrictions like Ganesh did in AnandTech doing a good HTPC related review to see how well the GPU section assists in doing HTPC duties (indirectly hand in hand with CPU). Look at page 7 of the review where he clearly states areas where Trinity will need assistance to improve on HTPC duties or cases where A10 can do while A8/A6/A4 will not be able to. Instead all I get is a sanctimonious whining.... [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6335/amds-trinity-an-htpc-perspective[/url<]

      • halbhh2
      • 7 years ago

      This does kinda show the psychology. It’s all psychology. And more: we *all* are pots calling the kettle black, etc. That why we “shouldn’t throw stones.”

      Great find.

      I had read that review, but I’ve read thousands, and just forgot it.

    • jimbo75
    • 7 years ago
    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    Basically, this is really useful to informed readers; Any site that shows Trinity “reviews” early has definitely sold out.

    Just one more reason that makes TR a cut above the other tech sites on the web.

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    Hahaha, poor AMD wants to cheat his clients. They want to hide dramatic x86 cores, and switch focus to faster graphics. This is result of ‘execution’ at AMD.

    • sonofsanta
    • 7 years ago

    It’s been said plenty already but it’s worth saying again: bravo, TR. You win all the respect.

    • CoffeeClub
    • 7 years ago

    Wow…thanks for posting this up – I’m happy I browsed TR first before my other favourite tech review site (A****TECH). They’ve already got a review up – no doubt gaining plenty of readers and generating plenty of ad-dollars.

    I guess it’s a matter of perspective and kudos to Scott for wading through mucky AMD waters and calling out the truth.

    I’ve read the opening text on the other site and it gave absolutely no impression at all that a stunt is being pulled across our eyes….

    TR…respect+1

    • fergdog
    • 7 years ago

    great job sticking to ur ethics, techreport got a couple more bonus points from me not that they are needed, I already viewed you above anand

    • Sam125
    • 7 years ago

    Thanks for maintaining a sense of integrity by not agreeing to this somewhat sleazy marketing stunt, Scott! Maybe the higher ups should focus on running AMD instead of trying to come up with gimmicks like this.

    • clone
    • 7 years ago

    I had just finished reading the Xbitlabs review of Trinity before coming to TR and I believe Xbit did it right and did it right round AMD’s roadblocks by doing a disclaimer before the benches…. ” In fact, all current AMD processors are either entry-level or some special niche products, which are not particularly interesting to the majority of users out there, who value performance the most.”…. on the cpu side absolutely damming but then Trinity isn’t about the cpu side.

    they then titled the article: TRINITY PART 1, Graphics Core….. nuff said.

    I can understand the complaint but is it really a big deal?….. Xbitlabs started their article with a caveat that TR could have, should have….. “this will be a low end cpu and were just comparing the graphics for now”…. ta da, done, it’s an article about ondie gfx perf…… what’s the big deal?

      • Arag0n
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, I think that the point here was to highlight the graphics first so consumers get attracted and later let the CPU soso numbers come, so people has to change their mind. I don’t see that as a way from AMD to change what techreport talks about or says or do not say about AMD products. Techreport has proven before to totally ignore the IGP saying that it’s not good enough for gaming and just for normal use intel igp is ok. AMD wanted a iGPU review just as techreport does normal GPU’s reviews and then later, let them do the CPU part. I don’t think that’s try to control the information but try to let people have more focus over the GPU part first before some reviews hide the iGPU at the bottom of CPU benchmarks.

      • jimbo75
      • 7 years ago
        • brucethemoose
        • 7 years ago

        I’m sure you’ll get down-voted, but you have a point you know.

        A “Trinity Preview Part 1: Graphics” with an explanation of the embargo or even a lack of a CPU review would draw plenty of traffic without breaking your standards.

        Instead, this (easier to write) blog post will draw plenty of traffic. One could (thats a very big could) argue that it unfairly paints AMD in a bad light.

        That said, they’re really just throwing some info out there, not trying to bash AMD. I applaud TR for that, it’s way above what 99% of the web would do.

          • esterhasz
          • 7 years ago

          I wouldn’t read financial motives into everything, just most things.

          In this case, I also don’t mind at all that sites publish results with a disclaimer, but I spend about 17min per day caring about PC hardware. This is Scott’s life and living, and things that are a minor detail to me affect him in a much more substantial fashion…

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            true enough…. may want to step back a smidge I guess.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        lol, overly harsh but then again a full page attacking AMD seems equally so.

      • TheMonkeyKing
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Unfortunately, the second part of our Trinity discussion dedicated to its computing component needs to be postponed for now. However, it isn’t our fault. The thing is that the new desktop A-series processors haven’t been officially launched yet. Therefore, we are still under the NDA on that side. However, we are free to talk about Trinity microarchitecture, so first let’s take a look at what AMD engineers have done to make new APUs a reality.[/quote<] Nicely handled, Xbitlabs. No acrimony, no hand wringing.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        Trinity PART 1: GFX, Trinity PART 2: THE CPU, 2 articles out of 1, everyone wins.

      • XDravond
      • 7 years ago

      It is one way of solving it but AMD (and others) might see “ok, everyone read that one but not the full one, let’s release crap in the same way showing the good parts” and soon we might have something funny like “super fast phone” in the preview and “…with 10min battery time” in the review. And some might get fooled by this witch is good marketing but not good conduct.
      But we are free to do stupid things, like buy crap due to not understanding what “preview” means….

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        I agree in theory but again Xbit managed it without the need for a full page blog highlighted on the front page of their website in place of an actual preview/review.

    • Anonymous Coward
    • 7 years ago

    It might be the case that [i<]both[/i<] AMD and TR have made the right choice here. AMD wants unsophisticated readers to be spoon-fed a conclusion, a conclusion which is fair, from a certain point of view. TR wants sophisticated readers to make up their own minds, based on the full array of information. Sadly this costs TR some money.

    • RagingDragon
    • 7 years ago

    The only people this preview will benefit are gamers, and not in the way AMD intends: they now know that integrated GPU performance is still inadaquet and that they’ll still need to get a discreet GPU if they buy one of these processors. Other customers either won’t care at all about gaming performance, or will be looking for the best balance of gaming and non-gaming performance within a certain budget. These non-gamer customers won’t benefit from a preview that only covers gaming performance.

    • dragosmp
    • 7 years ago

    There is at least one reason for which I’d read TR’s review however late it comes: the “inside the second” analysis.

    That said, AMD’s tactics could backfire badly. As a potential buyer I would be worried if I read a review in which a whole part would be missing – I might think they’re trying to hide something. This is obviously the case now, since all and their dog know the CPU in Trinity is a weakness. But is that weak as to warrant such a tactics? Hope not, but I wonder. This is a bad idea, a bait for sites and condescending for those site’s readers.

    P.S. Scott, if TR were to build their reviews on Cinebench and 3DMark I’d agree not many would come to read them a week after everybody else, but you have some added value which makes TR uniquely interesting.

    • Johnny5
    • 7 years ago

    In case anyone wants to know Anand’s take, from the comments of their ‘Review: Part 1’:

    “It’s a bolder move than manufacturers have tried in the past, but it’s not unheard of. Most company sanctioned pre-release reviews have some sort of restriction put on them. No pricing discussion is not unusual, the GPU-focus here is unusual but not totally out of the ordinary. The original Intel sanctioned Conroe performance previews were done similarly (Intel set and controlled the only applications that could be tested).

    The original press embargo for Trinity was in October. If you wanted to show something earlier, these were the rules. I’m not a huge fan of staggered embargoes, but they exist and this wasn’t the first one. Had AMD tried at all to influence the benchmarks we ran, tests we used or conclusions we came to I guarantee you that things would’ve unfolded very differently.

    Take care,
    Anand “

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    the NFL called and wants an official pre-review

    sorry i had to do it lol

    • halbhh2
    • 7 years ago

    AMD is a for-profit company, and like every for-profit company, we should expect them to do the same thing other companies do — manage information and appearances as best as possible, for the sake of profit.

    I think there is an underestimation of readers, though, to presume we could not draw our own conclusions based on knowledge of what is being released and what isn’t. It’s just false to think TR readers would somehow be buffaloed or misled by a 2-stage release, as if we were just ordinary consumers at Best Buy.

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Yes, AMD and other firms have done limited "preview" releases in the past, where select publications are allowed to publish a few pictures and perhaps a handful of benchmark numbers ahead of time. There is some slight precedent there. But none of that changes the fact that this plan is absolutely, bat-guano crazy. It crosses a line that should not be crossed.[/quote<] I'm actually not that concerned. Previews or no prewviews we already know what AMD's APUs are about, we are just interested to see if they improved the weak side......i'm guessing they haven't done that good of a job since they tried this stunt. Dang it AMD, get it together already.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    let me a remind you…. you are tech review site, how about less winey more showey of FM2 motherboards parts and perhaps maybe just a picture of the apu? while we wait for the full reviews ill be at other sites reading the previews.

    only 18 downvotes?? come on guys

      • XDravond
      • 7 years ago

      Good for you hope you enjoy the previews, I personally find them quite uninteresting since they are just previews and not “allowed” to tell their readers if it is a good “APU” or not.

      And I think you are trying to hard to troll. But then again that’s just my (free non redacted) opinion. 🙂

    • Risme
    • 7 years ago

    This is one factor that is caused by the monetary system and competition. Virtually all companies engage in such corrupt ways at one time or another. There’s also the factor that at the end of the day most companies have only two priorities: 1.) Increasing profits at any cost. and 2.) Accelerating the increase of those profits at any cost. Nothing else matters, and this is very detrimental to the survival of humanity.

    So i’m not surprised to see this coming from AMD, their business is not doing well, but they need to be very very desperate to even consider this; granted there are sites that would happily do this, but any hardware site that understands, that the second they sell themselves for money, they lose the trust of their readers and that’s the beginning of the end for that site.

    I’ll link this post to the largest finnish hardware site Muropaketti’s forums if it’s not there yet.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    So it seems AMD still has a lot of marketers to fire.

    • kpo6969
    • 7 years ago

    Good for you TR. Out of the few (very few) review “go to” sites of mine you have been added to my list. I am also going to take a hard look at my planned gpu upgrade to a HD8700 card, the last AMD hold-out product I have in my system being a HD7850. If AMD screws-up their gpu base god help them.

    • amorphis
    • 7 years ago

    I’ve been reading TR since the split with Ars, and this is why I keep coming back.

    Oh, and the technical attention to detail in the reviews too.

    • Sahrin
    • 7 years ago

    Doesn’t stop you guys from writing about Apple.

      • DancinJack
      • 7 years ago

      Can you please link me to these TR Apple product reviews?

        • Scrotos
        • 7 years ago

        Maybe he’s confusing TR with Ars. Or thinks that blog posts from that Machole guy are full-fledged reviews.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          Well, he did just say “writing about Apple” which I’m sure includes news posts. Apple’s a big tech company so it makes sense to everyone except the most militant anti-Apple fanboy.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            In the context of this blog post, that dig from him would only make sense if Apple provided a product for review and imposed an NDA. As DancinJack asked, where did TR review any such products with these restrictions?

            See, writing about Apple isn’t really relevent to this blog post. If it were a blog post about patent trolls or companies using litigation to compete in the marketplace, man, I am with you 100% that it would be hypocritical to bemoan that and then cover any companies undertaking that kind of business practice. Then again that would cut out Google, Motorola, Samsung, Microsoft, and many many other prominent tech companies if you tried to boycott writing about companies who have business practices you morally or ethically disagree with.

            Anyway, I suppose DancinJack and I assumed that Sahrin was talking about something relevent, i.e. products encumbered with the same kinds of restrictions Scott talked about. Since he referenced Apple, the logical conclusion is that he was talking about Apple products that TR reviewed and that would therefore make TR hypocrites. We gave him the benefit of the doubt.

            You, on the other hand, took him literally. Nothing wrong with that. But then it just turns his post into off-topic noise if viewed that way. Perhaps that’s what DancinJack and I should have done; viewed it as off-topic noise and ignored it.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I think we can all agree that Sahrin is suffering from blind rage, which takes out all of the context and meaning imposed by where he wrote the comment. He needs help. We need to be compassionate.

        • indeego
        • 7 years ago

        It is kinda funny when I search google for [i<]techreport review iphone[/i<] it turns up Anandtech as near top results. So much for that SEO? And they discuss iphone in a review capacity (opinion) on podcasts, and sprinkled in blog posts. Your question is distracting because TR talks and writes about Apple almost daily now!

    • wujj123456
    • 7 years ago

    Salute to you guys. It puts AMD into the shame they deserved by doing this. Now I understand why those reviews on other sites are strangely similar. Probably, this incident will make AMD and other review sites think twice next time.

    Now I know I should wait for proper reviews next week.

    • Buzzard44
    • 7 years ago

    While my initial reaction as a consumer is “Shame on them!”, I can’t say that I blame them. Any good salesman/PR rep knows to sell your strengths and hide your weakness. Having morals above and beyond the other guys doesn’t pay the mortgage. I mean, it’s not like they’re slaughtering baby seals.

    Plus, everybody knows that all you need to do is come to TR for all your consumer tech knowledge needs!

    • jjj
    • 7 years ago

    Thanks for this really, getting tired of a.. kissing prone sites
    Hell right now i am trying to find someone that did 1080p testing for the GPU part but unfortunately it seems that we are in 2005 and 1080p is not a thing in desktop.
    It’s sad to see sites i’ve been using for so many years loosing any trace of credibility so i am really glad that you guys decided to have a spine here.

      • DancinJack
      • 7 years ago

      That’s mostly because 1080p is near unplayable in most games with any form of integrated graphics. Trinity included.

        • jjj
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah well,without any actual proof for Trinity you can’t really say can you?And that’s the whole point.
        There is the old THG review but the software side got to be better by now.

          • DancinJack
          • 7 years ago

          [url<]http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/27/amd-trinity-desktop-preview/[/url<] Watch the video in that. They OC a Trinity chip and bump the res up to 1080p for a short period.

            • jjj
            • 7 years ago

            Actually i found proper tests at 1080p since this convo started,seems that it can do some games at decent quality and most at very low quality at 1080p.
            Guess now i’ll want OC tests and faster RAM to see if it can be pushed just enough to do it right.

            • DancinJack
            • 7 years ago

            Feel free to link those tests.

            • cal_guy
            • 7 years ago

            xbitlabs did test with 1080p

            [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/amd-trinity-graphics.html[/url<]

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 7 years ago

            Arkham City @ 40fps low quality
            and
            Borderlands 2 @ 30fps low quality

            Not bad for integrated.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    alot of other company’s do the same thing in making sure reviewers are “emphasizing” certain benchmarks….i still don’t see what the big deal is….just wait a week and write it.

    meanwhile im going to the darkest corners of the internet until your full review is posted

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      Very true. Go read many reviews from lesser news sites and the first page is just a ‘Who is the company?’ followed by a ‘dictated list of bullet point features we are supposed to mention’. It’s completely boilerplate from one site to the next. On the plus side, it makes it really easy to see who’s the lap dog.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Isn’t this what most companies have been doing for like ever? From image quality to a careful and calibrated release of information (Apple). It’s all been done already.

    It’s nice to hear about something like this and be aware of it, but this seems more like they’re just shifting pressure to review websites then bending the rules more then the usual, as this adversely will affect the income revenue if reviews aren’t released at the same time or before other websites.

      • entropy13
      • 7 years ago

      Nvidia, for example, outlines “expected performance” in their graphic cards through a “leaflet” of sorts they send along with the cards themselves. But there’s nothing written there that says “if you are going to benchmark the card in game A, use these settings so that you get the same level of performance”. What it basically says, if it wasn’t obvious enough, is “we expect the card to perform at <this level of performance> in game A at these settings.”

      [quote<]Things have changed now days in terms of reviewer’s guides. [b<]Today these documents are much more driven to the purpose of helping the reviewer out with a bigger picture of what to expect from the product.[/b<] The guide published in full here is chock full of information about GeForce GTX 680, some of it you likely have not seen commented on officially. There is a huge amount of information here, much more information that we like to publish in our reviews since we stay with the spirit of trying to write a digestible review instead of a technology novella.[/quote<] Tweaktown is also notorious in making previews that are essentially reviews already because of the number of benchmarks. In their case however they claim they are not under NDA, so there. LOL However, the NDA is more on the timing of release and not on what you can or cannot do on the preview/review.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        I was referring to companies not being all that up front about all their business practices. Before it was revealed here at TR Nvidia and AMD were doing things without telling people. Although at different time periods, both companies participated in them. It’s a grey area. I’d almost say the image quality reduction was worse then this. This just affects TR more.

    • Voldenuit
    • 7 years ago

    Translation: our x86 performance sucks. Oh, and since we don’t want you to publish any non-game benchmarks, our hardware accelerated encoding also sucks, despite the all the money [s<]invested[/s<] wasted in buying out ATI and spent on Fusion branding and promotion. Here, have a cookie, and we expect [s<]our legions of fanatical fanboys[/s<] those two guys living in their mom's basement to rush out and buy 1,000 Trinity chips (assuming we have any positive yields) on the basis of the Pavlovian knee-jerk response our clueless marketing department thinks will ensue from leaked early reviews. The above might be a bit harsh, and I certainly don't want AMD to go the way of the dodo, but I don't see anything positive in AMD's ham-fisted attempt to manipulate public perception of their products, and I applaud Scott and TR for taking this stand based on principles.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Speaking for AMD, so you might grasp what TR missed in their propagenda message to its readers.

      “We have been designing balanced APU that focus on GPU acceleration”

      “We believe CPU for a few generation now have been more then powerfull to run the greater majority of software without lag, hence we have focused on the last bastion of performance gaming & graphics”

      “Our APU design are balanced to cover this reality, hence the majority of transistors have been allocated to GPU bound tasks”

      “As you know we set review embargo to coincide with a product release date, nothing changed. But for Trinity we are really exited about our GPU achievement and we decided to let site release a preview focus on our gaming performance to highlight the strength or our design. You are more then welcome to ignore this email entirely and do your full review as schedule”

        • Voldenuit
        • 7 years ago

        Oh, I understand perfectly what AMD was trying to do.

        It was attempting to show off its (well-earned) GPU prowess by allowing sites to post preview benchmarks of the IGP.

        However, it flubbed the ball pretty badly by the appearance of trying to influence the outcome of reviews with preferential lifting of NDAs. I don’t think they intended to do this, and to my knowledge they have not withheld any hardware from review sites that have chosen not to release the information they sanctioned.

        They should have advised sites to clearly mark their previews as such, i.e. ‘IGP performance previews’; instead, what we have out on the net are incomplete articles marked as “reviews”, with sinister whisperings filling in the blank spaces.

        If you want to call something a “review”, it’s no-holds-barred. Sites need to protect their integrity by subjecting the part to any and all objective and subjective tests they feel are warranted.

        If you want to cherry pick your evaluation, you had better clearly inform readers that this is a “controlled preview”, or you’re going to come off looking dirty no matter how pristine your motivations.

    • DancinJack
    • 7 years ago

    There isn’t much to say here really. Pretty disappointing.

    I would like to say that I am glad TR decided to share this info with its readership though. I hope the sites that I read at least mention this in their p/reviews if they decide to publish them today.

    :sadface:

    e: I’d also like to say that I think it is incredibly lame they’re, albeit inadvertently, hurting sites like TR because they choose not to publish something like this. Given two sites that have roughly the same traffic daily, chances are the one that publishes a preview like this is going to out do the one that doesn’t. Not cool.

      • halbhh2
      • 7 years ago

      One thing I’ll agree with — sites that publish first will get more traffic.

      Frankly, they deserve to. It is condescending, finally, to presume TR readers can’t make the needed distinctions. It’s an error by TR.

    • spuppy
    • 7 years ago

    Scott I’m glad you are speaking up about this, as other smaller sites with the same integrity are probably unable to do so. They are also refraining from letting AMD shape their review process, but just have to leave it at that.

    You’ll know the best sites by the ones that post their AMD reviews at the official embargo, but did not participate in today’s “preview” 😉

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      We should make a list so their future credability can be judged.

    • thanatos355
    • 7 years ago

    Two things;

    1-This is one of the biggest reasons that TR is one of the [b<][i<][u<]very[/b<][/i<][/u<] few tech review sites that I even bother with and the only one which maintains a position as a continuous tab in my browser. 2-This...let's just call it a "stunt" for civility's sake...says everything that needs saying about this processor release and the state of AMD in general. Viva la TR!

      • Shambles
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. It’s hard to find anyone in the media with integrity. Even though I often disagree with TR editors personal viewpoints on hardware I know they’re always dead on with the role and responsibility of the reviewer. Shame on AMD for trying to force everyone into line. Heck, AMD isn’t even in a position to pull this sort of thing. This is something I’d expect from Intel far before AMD. I don’t see how AMD can complain about Intel’s anti-competitive practices years ago and then turn around and pull this crap on the people below them. I have no sympathy for their state in the market right now.

      • ringxw
      • 7 years ago

      I’m sorry to disappoint you but I think you are either blind or paid basher.

      TR has done multiple “Previews” from Intel and NV and now they are saying something about AMD; remember, it’s the Intel that paid ODMs/OEMs to not use AMD chips when AMD had the big performance chips!

      Just dig around the site; the previews this guy does for Intel products are even limited to what kind of programs he can run or what kind of benchmarks he can release; nothing else.

    • PopcornMachine
    • 7 years ago

    Bravo!

    Unfortunately the fish are taking the bait.

    Seen some “Pre-reviews” from a few sites that should know better.

    Whole thing is disappointing and depressing.

    Must be that AMD has another disappointment on it’s hands and is acting out of desperation.

      • spuppy
      • 7 years ago

      One site:

      “AMD has graciously allowed us the chance to give readers a small glimpse at the performance of the upcoming A series APUs based on the Trinity processor”

      (conclusion) “The graphics performance of Trinity is second to none when we are looking at that particular piece.”

        • JoshMST
        • 7 years ago

        Graciously was tongue in cheek. Did you read the rest of the conclusion?

        “We showed you the good parts, but the warts are going to be exposed. Perfect product? Not really, but at least as far as we can see a step in the right direction. “

          • PopcornMachine
          • 7 years ago

          If the know about the warts and want to be fair, then they should have waited to do a full review.

            • JoshMST
            • 7 years ago

            Data is data. People are enticed by this. They will want to learn more. BTW, I wrote that preview.

            I have great respect for Scott. I don’t agree with him here. Ryan and I laughed about the preview saying, “Yeah, but likely the CPU perf will suck.” But people want to know about Trinity. This is an opportunity to see how it performs in a graphics environment. AMD is graphics heavy. Intel is more CPU heavy now. Yes, it is a strength. But any user/reader worth his beans is gonna dig in and see what their usage is, and what product will be best for them. If they want a cheap gaming platform for their friend/relative, then a current AMD Llano is their best bet in terms of graphics. If they have other needs, they need to look around and see what works for them. This is a sliver of information, but it is still data. People who know their stuff will wait before they buy, and considering that Trinity for desktop is not available yet, they will have longer to consider. So, yes, AMD wanted to show off their best angle, but any website worth their beans is going to cover the whole burrito in their full review.

            • DancinJack
            • 7 years ago

            That’s the problem though. There are people that don’t know their stuff and will buy based on first p/reviews regardless of the warning that it isn’t a full evaluation. I’ll admit it’s not a huge population, but it still exists.

            I also think that people that know their stuff would take into account more than one performance metric. While Llano may have the best performing integrated graphics solution at this point, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t get by with another product. Secondly, since the whole situation should be covered in the final review what is the point of painting this sunny picture for AMD just a few days early?

            • cal_guy
            • 7 years ago

            The thing is the product hasn’t been released yet so even if they were persuaded to buy the product they wouldn’t be able to. I don’t really mind since AMD isn’t forcing anyone to do anything, if you don’t want to participate you can do what ever you want when the NDA expires.

            • JoshMST
            • 7 years ago

            Good Lord, this reminds me of a discussion I had with Scott about 10 years ago with the GeForce 4 MX and how I thought it was a decent product with good performance for its price even though it didn’t have DX8 functionality. Scott took the opposite side and said it was misleading consumers thinking it was a DX8 part. We were both more or less correct in our primary arguments, but just on opposite sides. A very similar situation here. I think that the results are interesting, yet incomplete. Scott feels that AMD is trying to boondoggle everyone by only showing off the strengths.

            As an aside, I do find it interesting that in the past many people gave Intel a pass for having poor graphics but at least they had excellent CPU performance. Why is it such a stretch to give AMD a pass for a poor CPU as long as they have a great integrated graphics part? When we look at our usage, which really is more important? I honestly couldn’t tell you because I personally leverage both. How will software change to leverage these strengths in the future? All we can do is throw out the data we have gathered, and try to sum it up the best we can considering our current environment.

            Sure, AMD could have handled this better, but is the result really all that different from expectations? AMD spends more silicon on graphics than Intel does. They have better drivers and knowledge there. Does that necessarily edge out Intel’s expertise in x86 CPU architecture? It all depends on usage, and usage depends on the user’s knowledge about what tools they have and how they leverage technology.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            It’s cool. Some people have journalistic morals and ethics, some people want max page hits. The choice is entirely up to each website.

            • JoshMST
            • 7 years ago

            Can’t stop the signal, Mal. Put the information out there. The rest is going to follow. AMD controlled the initial flow of information, but once their product is out in the open they cannot prevent the flood. I will report on it all.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            That’s cool. Who are you and for which website do you write?

            • JoshMST
            • 7 years ago

            Josh Walrath. Male prostitute! Oh, I write for PC Perspective.

            • DrCR
            • 7 years ago

            I haven’t been around for quite some time, but I used to hang out at your watercooling subforum back in the day. It’s a great site you have. (These days though, I’m doing good if I can check in at TR on an infrequent basis.)

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Are you guys any good? I remember reading some reviews on your site that I liked; maybe I should check it out again..?

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            You would have had a hard time finding a more biased way to state that.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            Aaw, I was going for trolly not biased, and I think you underestimate me.

            • PopcornMachine
            • 7 years ago

            Who uses integrated graphics on the desktop?

            How about a show of hands that use integrated graphics on their gaming rigs.

            I could not be less interested in the integrated graphics of a desktop processor.

            I’m never going to use it.

            • JoshMST
            • 7 years ago

            Isn’t Intel the leader in marketshare of graphics parts, and all they offer is integrated graphics? I think a lot of people use integrated graphics, but obviously not you. So your opinion is of utmost importance, even though the majority of consumers don’t care if they have discrete graphics or integrated. Interesting…

            • PopcornMachine
            • 7 years ago

            Thanks for not answering my question.

            • JoshMST
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t have hard numbers to share with you, sorry. But I’m sure we all have anecdotal evidence of people around us that do. Also, not everyone plays heavy 3D games. Probably asking a dev would give better results. Considering that, how many of them have complained about developing for the LCD and getting their stuff to run? I wish I could just come out and say, “Hey, at least 1M people who play WoW use the Intel integrated portion.” Having said that, perhaps look up the Steam numbers? Also consider casual gaming which doesn’t even stress one of these integrated parts.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Regarding the Steam numbers, it does not report what graphics solution is being used for gaming but what graphics solution is installed on the system. If you have a discreet card in use with a board with a integrated solution it will report both devices.

            • nanoflower
            • 7 years ago

            Yes, but looking at the Steam numbers it shows the breakdown by percentages.
            March 2011 – August 2012
            46.68% Nvidia
            11.18% Intel
            35.58% AMD
            6.56% Other

            That shows that Intel’s market is only about 11% of the Steam users and you have to figure that many of them are using discrete cards from Nvidia/AMD instead of their built in graphics solution. From a quick review of the detailed data it looks like about 4% of their users also have a AMD mobile graphics solution.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            I think it’s in some NPD reports or some junk like that. Either way, just look at business PCs. I have something like 50 workstations here and all of them use integrated intel video save 2 which are multi-monitor because the integrated only does VGA out. The servers often use integrated ATI video, though.

            I surmise there are way more business PCs or low-end non-gaming PCs out there than computers with discrete video cards. If the computer can play flash games and browse the web and play online video, most people don’t care what’s in there.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I use integrated graphics on the desktop.

            [quote<]I'm never going to use it.[/quote<] Let's get back to this in 5-10 years. Or, is your excuse going to be "I don't have a desktop anymore"?

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Yes intel is the leader but you are not answering his question. He is wondering who really uses IGPs for a gaming rig? The fact is that the vast majority of IGP users do not game. Until igp’s can at least run the common resolution of the day (which would be 1920×1080 right now) without cutting back on the eyecandy, gamers are going to use discreet solutions instead and that makes IGP performance irrelevant to them. The typical IGP user is easily served by a less capable IGP like intels offerings and will probably notice more of a difference in increased CPU capabilities. That is exactly why intel does have the largest share of graphics.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            Even then I don’t think most IGP users will game. Most are casual users and businesses. Grandma playing flash games is really gonna take up Crysis? I don’t think so. And businesses don’t typically encourage lunch-hour deathmatches.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            the question is specious, IGP isn’t used nor meant to be used in dedicated gaming rigs.

            given “dedicated” gaming PC’s make up 2% of the market they don’t matter and what Trinity offers is the ability for casual gamers and non gamers alike to start gaming or continue gaming for vastly less coin than going Intel in comparison who’s IGP still sucks for gaming.

            trying to argue that IGP isn’t good enough for dedicated gamers is like trying to argue the difference between an orange.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Why is it such a stretch to give AMD a pass for a poor CPU as long as they have a great integrated graphics part? When we look at our usage, which really is more important?[/quote<] The difference should be immediately obvious: a CPU is the sole device we have for handling [i<]general purpose processing[/i<] in any situation. The performance of a CPU at general purpose processing is critical to its evaluation; if it is not good enough at it, there is nothing we can do to augment that failing. If the IGP on the processor isn't good, then you can get a chip than is dedicated to handling those work loads. Heck, in desktops, people will often get that dedicated chip even if the IGP is good! General purpose processing performance is by far the more important metric to measure a processor by; just because it isn't the only one doesn't change that.

            • dkanter
            • 7 years ago

            The difference is that Intel has never tried to prohibit or delay people from exposing how poor the IGP was.

            • RagingDragon
            • 7 years ago

            The only people this preview will benefit are gamers, and not in the way AMD intends: they now know that integrated GPU performance is still inadaquet and that they’ll still need to get a discreet GPU if they buy one of these processors. Other customers either won’t care at all about gaming performance, or will be looking for the best balance of gaming and non-gaming
            performance within a certain budget. The non-gamer customers won’t benefit from a preview that only covers gaming performance.

            • cal_guy
            • 7 years ago

            Yes the only benefactors are the companies that make discrete GPUs

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]There are people that don't know their stuff and will buy based on first p/reviews regardless of the warning that it isn't a full evaluation.[/quote<] You trust those people to make a sensible decision when given all the data? You say people are too stupid to notice the limited scope of a preview, too stupid to read the conclusion, and you expect them to pick and choose from a full benchmark suite? The more likely outcome is that they come to some semi-random conclusion based on which graphs they skim before they get bored, or what graphs stick in their minds the longest. Maybe they'll fixate on a web browsing benchmark because they browse the web, nevermind that web browsing performance was not the problem they needed to address in the first place.

            • DancinJack
            • 7 years ago

            That isn’t what I said. I don’t know where you took that from.

            e: Just to clarify – The quote you have of me is correct, but your assumptions are not at all what I wrote or intended.

            • cynan
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]That's the problem though. There are people that don't know their stuff and will buy based on first p/reviews regardless of the warning that it isn't a full evaluation. I'll admit it's not a huge population, but it still exists.[/quote<] I think you just described almost everyone who lined upfor/bought the iPhone 5 over the past week. Not a huge population? (And yes, Apple is relevant to every single piece of tech journalism [b<][i<]ever[/i<][/b<])

            • tbone8ty
            • 7 years ago

            well said

            • spuppy
            • 7 years ago

            Who does this data serve though? Your readers? Or AMD?

            • cal_guy
            • 7 years ago

            Both?

            • leor
            • 7 years ago

            Calling this an issue of data is appropriate, but it raises the question, at what point is focusing on a part of the truth, by definition obscuring another part of the truth actually lying? This example toes the line about as close to that as it can, but you can’t escape the fact that any witholding of information is, at its root, an intention to deceive.

            It also underscores a larger issue with the press in general, what role an you believe they are meant to play and what sort of publication you consider yourself. Serious news reports, advertising, and entertainment were once separate entities. In the last 20 years they have been merged into a cacophony of unintelligible noise to such a degree that even the simplest of verifiable facts are now in debate in our political discourse. So many people get their news and information from one or 2 sources and don’t bother to do their own independent research, that people and companies are getting away bold faced lies.

            Are there some people who figure it out and call BS, sure, but even if the remainder represents the minority, it still represents huge numbers. When these tactics are used to affect public policy, (regardless of political affiliation), economic decisions, safety regulations, and so on, it represents something kind of scary in a democracy.

            Journalism used to be, “HERE ARE THE FACTS AND NUMBERS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AS FAR AS WE KNOW, and if you’d like, here’s this reporter’s feelings about the subject.” People watched the news shows they liked, but they all essentially had the same thing to say. Now I turn on the news and flip the channel around, and it’ s like I’m playing a Bioware game and I’m loading multiple saved games where I’ve made different decisions so the world I’m seeing doesn’t have any continuity (although in similar fashion despite all the decisions we make our only option at the end will probably to pick what color explosion we want to see).

            Misrepresenting, or under-representing data on a tech site is probably pretty limited in its impact on the world, maybe someone spends a few hundred bucks on a product they were excited about and end up a bit disappointed. There are lots of sites out there we can all name that skew pretty hard to the green, red, or blue camp, and there’s nothing wrong with them, they should exist, and they provide value to their readers. They are however a different kind of publication than a place like the Tech Report. I have been avidly reading this site coming up on 13 years, and a vast majority of the people who also read and commented all those years ago are still here now. If you asked all of them why they’ve been loyal to the same site for over 10 years, some might tell you they like the writing style, some might like the charts, others might like the way the data is represented, and there will always be those fringe elements who are hoping for a return of that dash, dagnabbit! In my opinion what sets TR apart from other sites is their dedication to THE TRUTH, and how far they are willing to go to represent what is most true about a product at any given time.

            Is it true that SLI and Crossifre produce better frame rates than single cards? Of course it is, and one would think the conversation would end there, but after time using the systems Scott and his crew realized something wasn’t quite right and dug further producing the inside the second latency reports. A case can be made that both aspects are “true” in a sense, but one represents a truth that closer to the actual reality people will tend to experience and is therefore more valuable.

            That dedication to truth makes this site very trustable, and it’s something its readers know is a pretty rare to be found online, or anywhere really, these days. AMD asking TR to compromise their integrity to truth to get some extra traffic would put them in the same category as most of the noise out there. Opinion pieces are great, they’re very entertaining and I love reading them if they’re well written, but at the end of the day I’m glad I have someplace I can go to just get information.

            Just the fact please, Damage.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            I think you bring up a very good point about the merging of social media and journalism. It used to be that when you read a newspaper, that’s where the best writers and editors were. Now I can often pick out mistakes. Sloppy. It’s like reading a printed blog. People find no value in accuracy, they want entertainment. As a result, they don’t hold any of these publications accountable–there are no consequences to being sloppy in form or content.

            Ironically, the more readily-available information is to people, the less they look outside of sources that reinforce their predetermined opinions. They use the extra access to filter for specific journals that justify their way of thinking. I don’t know if in the olden days they had to face the possibility that they were wrong or if they just ignored contradictory information anyway.

            Now you get random small operations who are trying to uphold some type of journalistic integrity and you get larger publisher-backed sites who don’t give a rat’s ass.

            • Ditiris
            • 7 years ago

            Ah, ethics. I love that we’re having this discussion. I love Scott posting this, and I love your response. You get to the central issue more quickly than Scott:

            [quote=”leor”<]but it raises the question, at what point is focusing on a part of the truth, by definition obscuring another part of the truth actually lying?[/quote<] Many countries' sworn testimony statements contain the clause [i<]the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth[/i<]. You cannot make an informed judgement on any matter without knowing the facts in their entirety. I couldn't agree more with your extension to the press/media/journalism. The press has been called the fourth estate in relation to a government's three other branches (originally the Estates of the Realm). Here in the US the people relied (past tense) on the press to independently report the workings of the government to the people. The easiest way to subvert a democracy, control a people, etc., is to control the press. If people don't know the truth of the matter, they can't make an informed decision. The catalyst for the change in the press over the last few decades is more interesting. You could argue that the extremely low cost of entry and instantaneous transfer of information enabled by the Internet and social media has resulted in media outlets racing to report news at the expense of in-depth reporting. Or you could grow up and realize that media conglomerates are owned by corporations and look at their motivations. In my opinion this is the glaring flaw in capitalism and what is presently responsible for our society's decay: profit as ethos. Corporation's act to maximize profit, all other considerations are irrelevant. Scott's appeal to the morality of the company fell on deaf ears not because the company is immoral, but because corporations are amoral. Some selected quotes: [quote="Gore Vidal"<]The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent. Of course, it is possible for any citizen with time to spare, and a canny eye, to work out what is actually going on, but for the many there is not time, and the network news is the only news even though it may not be news at all but only a series of flashing fictions...[/quote<] [quote="Mark McGowen"<]Following the same course that virtually every other major industry has in the last two decades, a relentless series of mergers and corporate takeovers has consolidated control of the media into the hands of a few corporate behemoths. The result has been that an increasingly authoritarian agenda has been sold to the American people by a massive, multi-tentacled media machine that has become, for all intents and purposes, a propaganda organ of the state.[/quote<] And nothing would be complete without a Mark Twain quote, which is probably the most immediately relevant to this incident: [quote="Mark Twain"<]There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.[/quote<] I think the parallels for manipulation of the press are obvious here so I won't waste time talking about them. Instead I'll simply thank leor for giving me the tiniest nugget of faith in my fellow human, and echo his sentiments thanking Scott for providing trustworthy journalism.

            • cynan
            • 7 years ago

            Sure data is data. And sure any reader worth their salt will do their due diligence before making a purchase.

            The fact remains that AMD is not making this move out of the goodness of their hearts to provide more data to their prospective buyers a bit early. They are doing this for the very purpose of entrapping a few more less techsavvy or diligent buyers in false (or at least biased) hype in the hopes of having said hype influence their purchasing decisions. (And with AMD’s current reputation – for example the way Kepler products have been unduly hyped over competing AMD GPU parts by tech journalists by and large – some part of me can almost hardly blame them. Almost). At the end of the day, it’s a PR move by AMD. And (good) journalism and PR doesn’t mix.

            This is why, at least to me, as a journalist, it is simply better to avoid the whole situation entirely and continue with the status quo, as seems to be TR’s stance.

          • Spunjji
          • 7 years ago

          Thanks for weighing in on this with a contrasting (and equally valid) opinion. Sad to see that so many of my fellow forum dwellers are negative-rating your posts, though.

          I respect TR for not publishing a preview and announcing their reasons, just as much as I respect you for publishing yours with the heavy disclaimer. Shame some people can’t see that it’s possible for both sides to be right in different ways.

      • mi1stormilst
      • 7 years ago

      Bottom line is AMD is struggling as usual and I have not built an AMD box in my last 4 systems. They are great for some situations (HTPC), but if you need a primary gaming/productivity machine I suggest Intel these days. I support your approach Scott and company and look forward to further developments on this topic.

    • DrCR
    • 7 years ago

    Hear, hear.

    I’ve been with you guys since Tom’s sold out years ago. Wouldn’t have it any other way, and will gladly wait the week for a proper view.

    Your fully independent reviews is what keeps bringing me back, and I’m sure that is the case for others here as well.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Tom’s is still ultra-biased towards Intel: they decided to post some non-gaming benchies for Trinity:

      [url<]http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,review-32463-12.html[/url<] So... Llano and Trinity have roughly the same performance..?

      • jpostel
      • 7 years ago

      Sad to say that I can’t remember the last time I went to Tom’s looking for a review. I can remember that they were showing some pretty blatant bias in their reviews (posting PR without real critique became standard) and I just stopped reading. My primary sources now are TR, Ars, and Anand.

        • DrCR
        • 7 years ago

        I think it was about 2004 for me. Maybe a bit earlier. I was concerned when Ars sold ’08 or so. I’m glad they are still good.

    • NeelyCam
    • 7 years ago

    Ah, this must mean that the non-gaming performance will be UNBELIEVABLE!!!

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      My oh my, do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

        • Jigar
        • 7 years ago

        Your meter is not working well today.

      • Tristan
      • 7 years ago

      yes, UNBELIEVABLE bad

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      AMD just Streisand effect’d their CPU Scores.

    • A_Pickle
    • 7 years ago

    That’s incredibly disappointing. I’ve been rooting for AMD for the better part of two years now, applauding their strategy of NOT going toe-to-toe against Intel and going for the user experience instead of raw CPU benchmarks. I get that they’re in a tough spot, but asking reviewers to essentially paint a false picture of their product is quite dishonest.

    I remember a time when AMD was suing Intel for corporate wrongdoing… I guess the moral high ground gets muddled up on the competitive waters.

    For shame, AMD. For shame. You need a good product first, and before you’ve even done that… you shoot yourselves in the foot. The only way to correct this is to backpedal, and allow reviewers to publish their full articles on the 27th of September…

      • jihadjoe
      • 7 years ago

      AMD took the “high road” when they had the performance lead.

      They joined/co-formed BAPCO because they thought benchmarks didn’t show Intel products sucked enough, then leave and try to discredit something they helped form now that its showing how badly they themselves suck.

        • Scrotos
        • 7 years ago

        That was a different company back when they were #1 in performance. So many management and ownership changes since then.

    • Guts_not_Dead
    • 7 years ago

    AM and D can go shove their suggestions up their tight pockets!

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Yep, AMD is not forcing anyone to do anything… they just gave the OK for a game preview if TR want to.
      TR doesn’t want to, fine by AMD, just release your full review when the product is officially launched.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This