TR Forums

I did find that very odd that TR didn't get a pair of TRs.

Maybe AMD is trolling us and Scott is secretly doing the review at AMD/RTG HQ, then will send it over to Jeff in time for NDA lift (hey, one can dream, right?)

Waco wrote:

Do many people not use their NAS for a media server? Perhaps that's the main distinction, I consistently serve up 3-5 transcoding sessions at a time on busy nights. I share the access with family and friends, so it's pretty much consistently busy. A single 4K BluRay transcode will choke the server, even locally, with one stream. 4 cores / 8 threads of reasonably clocked Haswell Xeon just isn't enough.

Still, I was hoping AMD would buck their Fiji trend and send TR a TR.

If you want a low-core count but cheap server-grade part the Xeon Bronze & Silver models (with 6 channels of RAM and all 48 PCIe lanes intact) do exist BTW.

This Xeon Silver 4108 at a little over $400 is noticeably cheaper than the 8-core Threadripper that AMD just announced: https://ark.intel.com/products/123544/I ... e-1_80-GHz

Or if you want a 10 core Xeon for about $100 less than the Threadripper 1920X there's this Silver model: https://ark.intel.com/products/123550/I ... e-2_20-GHz

Oh I know, I just figure if I'm jumping platforms anyway I might as well consider AMD and Intel on even footing.

Plus, those 64 PCIe lanes and 16 cores are enticing. I'm honestly not sure if doubling my core count would be enough for inline 4K transcoding, I'm hoping there are a few sites that benchmark things like that when TR launches. I haven't dug too much into it, it's a recent problem for me.


I was counting on TR for a good review, so hopefully TR will be doing one, albeit not on launch day.

Y'know, with AMD marketing this thing to gamers, I think they're afraid TR is going to publish a bunch of frame time graphs that don't look very pretty because data is going to be bouncing between dies. More "Windows scheduler" fixes and custom power profiles inbound?

derFunkenstein wrote:

Y'know, with AMD marketing this thing to gamers, I think they're afraid TR is going to publish a bunch of frame time graphs that don't look very pretty because data is going to be bouncing between dies. More "Windows scheduler" fixes and custom power profiles inbound?

What's funny is that the excuses for why a site like TR didn't get a review sample is that TR is just a "stupid gamers website" and Threadripper is "too advanced" for the rabble here. [Incidentally, I think that's complete Bravo Sierra since TR runs some very interesting professional-grade tests, I'm just talking about the perception.]
You can see some of that sentiment over at Anandtech in their OMG unboxing story.

But...it's being marketed to gamers...don't they want gaming benchmarks?



Posted from my Ryzen 7 desktop to spite AMD.

chuckula wrote:

What's funny is that the excuses for why a site like TR didn't get a review sample is that TR is just a "stupid gamers website" and Threadripper is "too advanced" for the rabble here. [Incidentally, I think that's complete Bravo Sierra since TR runs some very interesting professional-grade tests, I'm just talking about the perception.]
You can see some of that sentiment over at Anandtech in their OMG unboxing story.

That line of thinking never made sense. But just to put the nail in the coffin, PCGamer got one.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Y'know, with AMD marketing this thing to gamers, I think they're afraid TR is going to publish a bunch of frame time graphs that don't look very pretty because data is going to be bouncing between dies. More "Windows scheduler" fixes and custom power profiles inbound?

I think there might be a general impression that TR readers dislike the AMD processor and video platforms. AMD's marketers rightly or wrongly want sites that will be delerious with happiness at the awesomeness of their products. Not a review that will show once again in graph after graph that the new offering is slower than an Intel/Nvidia offering that costs somewhere between half again and ten times as much. The signal that effectively comes out of TR reviews and primarily comments sections are overall disparaging of AMD's kit. Maybe its faster but oh it uses too much power. Maybe its lower power but oh its too slow. Maybe it has a lot of threads but who needs that many? Maybe its got SMT but oh Intel invented it first.

So your theory is that AMD uses this supposed bad will as a reason to not send stuff to TR. And that, in turn, causes more bad will.

Hiding in an echo chamber and only dealing with people that will sing your praises no matter what is no way to market stuff.

chuckula wrote:

You can see some of that sentiment over at Anandtech in their OMG unboxing story.

wow I was hoping you were embellishing.

ugh.

The sad thing is Ian Cutress wrote a whole epilogue about how unboxing is ridiculous and a distraction from what really matters, but his hand has been tipped because showy videos with little meaningful substance have become more popular.

He was very tactful about it, but the implication was clear.

Totally lost on most of the commentators though, wow.

A lot of experts there, it seems. Being very knowledgeable about these matters, it seems that Jeff might be mistaken and his review sample "delayed". Or because Jeff is going to do his darnedest to try and get his hands on something, that means we can't take Jeff at face value when he says he was "denied review samples".

Amazing.

Mr Bill wrote:

I think there might be a general impression that TR readers dislike the AMD processor and video platforms.

Come on.

They gave all the video reviewers ones because those guys aren't going to do anything but promote the product and on a very flimsy technical basis.

There's only one reason why AMD wouldn't give TR a sample, and that's because the review might reveal some of the trade-offs, weaknesses, and problems in a way that's contrary to AMD's marketing direction.

They can get away with not giving TR a sample, and so they didn't.

Mr Bill wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

Y'know, with AMD marketing this thing to gamers, I think they're afraid TR is going to publish a bunch of frame time graphs that don't look very pretty because data is going to be bouncing between dies. More "Windows scheduler" fixes and custom power profiles inbound?

I think there might be a general impression that TR readers dislike the AMD processor and video platforms. AMD's marketers rightly or wrongly want sites that will be delerious with happiness at the awesomeness of their products. Not a review that will show once again in graph after graph that the new offering is slower than an Intel/Nvidia offering that costs somewhere between half again and ten times as much. The signal that effectively comes out of TR reviews and primarily comments sections are overall disparaging of AMD's kit. Maybe its faster but oh it uses too much power. Maybe its lower power but oh its too slow. Maybe it has a lot of threads but who needs that many? Maybe its got SMT but oh Intel invented it first.

I don't know what you're basing this off of. The sentiment toward Ryzen products so far has been pretty positive overall here.

derFunkenstein wrote:

So your theory is that AMD uses this supposed bad will as a reason to not send stuff to TR. And that, in turn, causes more bad will.

Hiding in an echo chamber and only dealing with people that will sing your praises no matter what is no way to market stuff.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this bad will. I'm a huge fan of TechReport and I think most of us mean well even as we argue every pro and con.

I admit to being kind of negative, considering I spent my own money and bought a Ryzen system early and had no shortage of early teething problems. It's smoothed out over time but I still have a love-hate kind fo relationship with my PC.

Glorious wrote:

Mr Bill wrote:

I think there might be a general impression that TR readers dislike the AMD processor and video platforms.

Come on.

They gave all the video reviewers ones because those guys aren't going to do anything but promote the product and on a very flimsy technical basis.

There's only one reason why AMD wouldn't give TR a sample, and that's because the review might reveal some of the trade-offs, weaknesses, and problems in a way that's contrary to AMD's marketing direction.

They can get away with not giving TR a sample, and so they didn't.

Proves my point and I love TR's reviews. It would be nice if AMD realized we have folks like Waco and maybe others who make IT decisions who are honestly looking for reasons to pick up a Threadripper.

derFunkenstein wrote:

I admit to being kind of negative, considering I spent my own money and bought a Ryzen system early and had no shortage of early teething problems. It's smoothed out over time but I still have a love-hate kind fo relationship with my PC.

If I had the cash this year, I would have been right there with you. The environmental lab business is really cutthroat right now and I am scrapping the bottom.

Mr Bill wrote:

Proves my point and I love TR's reviews. It would be nice if AMD realized we have folks like Waco and maybe others who make IT decisions who are honestly looking for reasons to pick up a Threadripper.

I know there are many people in places of purchasing power (at various companies and national laboratories) that rely on TR to check out a new architecture before it ends up in the datacenter. AMD's marketing has never really done them any favors, though. They seem to consistently play the short game.

Mr Bill wrote:

Proves my point and I love TR's reviews

You might want to make that point differently then, because you said things like "dislike" "disparaging" which is *not* in line with my point, which is that TR offers in-depth reviews that examine a product from all angles, save perhaps the "coolness" of the packaging it comes in. My claim was that AMD didn't want to focus on that, it wanted to focus on "coolness", hence TR didn't get a sample.

What I am saying is that you shouldn't say it is a dislike, or a disparagement, to faithfully provide reviews that offer a full measure of a product's performance, efficiency and value.

Mr Bill wrote:

It would be nice if AMD realized we have folks like Waco and maybe others who make IT decisions who are honestly looking for reasons to pick up a Threadripper.

My entire point is that AMD *did* realize that, and hence TR didn't get one.

Glorious wrote:

My entire point is that AMD *did* realize that, and hence TR didn't get one.

I really hope that is not the case.

Waco wrote:

I really hope that is not the case.

Well, I'm definitely overplaying the point LOL.

I'm just saying, it's certainly not because TR "dislikes" or "disparages" AMD. At best, it's because we're not suitably enthusiastic enough?

Does that sound better?

AKA excited about free stuff and willing to gloss over the details? TR rarely evangelizes anything, perhaps that's why AMD is cautious.

I hope it's just an oversight, but the Nano never showed up last time either.

Glorious wrote:

There's only one reason why AMD wouldn't give TR a sample, and that's because the review might reveal some of the trade-offs, weaknesses, and problems in a way that's contrary to AMD's marketing direction.

Eh, I'm going with a no on that one too.

There's a lot of fanboys on tech sites, we can all agree on this. What we forget is that on any site, most of the people are a fanboy of the site. I have my own reasons why I read TR over all other sites, as do you I'm sure.

We seem to ignore there are other sites out there that are just as good as TR. Sometimes they are even better in certain aspects, like review timeliness, range of products covered or amount of tests performed.

To say TR didn't get a review because we'd expose the product is ignorant of the fact that another website, like Anand, is going to do the same thing and yet they got a sample.

Perhaps it's better postulate that TR's traditional test methods may focus too heavily on a weakness, whereas another site with a broader testing scope could at least provide some counterbalance to the chip's overall performance. Even then though I don't really buy it. AMD will likely provide some recommendations on things to test and how to test them, and no one would assume Jeff would run it through a couple games and hit publish. TR has always taken a look at a product and tested to see where it would excel at just to give it a fair shake, they may not publish AMD's suggested test, but they would always look at it and publish results of their own that investigate the architectural advantages in the same fashion.

Convert wrote:

We seem to ignore there are other sties out there that are just as good as TR. Sometimes they are even better in certain aspects, like review timeliness, range of products covered or amount of tests performed.

To say TR didn't get a review because we'd expose the product is ignorant of the fact that another website, like Anand, is going to do the same thing and yet they got a sample.

I agree with this, which is why I also said:

Glorious wrote:

They can get away with not giving TR a sample, and so they didn't.

I don't think they can get away with not giving Anandtech a sample, Anandtech is way bigger than TR.

I wasn't trying to say that no other site is good, Anandtech is great.

I'll admit, I went overboard, but I'm just saying they didn't overlook TR because TR "dislikes" them or because TR "Disparages" them.

But Kyle Bennettt still thinks AMD owns Tech Report. He will gleefully mention this any time this site is mentioned on Hardforum.

Obviously, if AMD owns Tech Report, they would provide the golden #1 sample?

Glorious wrote:

I don't think they can get away with not giving Anandtech a sample, Anandtech is way bigger than TR.

Hmm, I suppose you are right. There'd be far too much bad press if Anand didn't get one for 0 day review. But there still has to be a reason that some nobody youtuber would get one then over TR.

Glorious wrote:

I'm just saying they didn't overlook TR because TR "dislikes" them or because TR "Disparages" them.

Agreed.

defaultluser wrote:

But Kyle Bennettt still thinks AMD owns Tech Report. He will happily mention this any time this site is mentioned on Hardforum.

Really? I've seen a lot of things flip and opinions change over time since I started reading TR, so far my dislike for Kyle has only increased. I'd really love to know what's broken with that man.

That's odd. Kyle and Roy were together hugging it out on AMD's stage at Ryzen's launch. Does AMD also own HardOCP?

FWIW I just searched Hardforum for techreport kyle and so far haven't seen him mention the site by name in any posts. That's pretty lame as far as exhaustive search goes, so it might be there somewhere.

Who messed with my awesomely overly-abbreviated-for-intentional confusion headline!?!!?

Kyle not applying his own logic to his words or actions?

I did a search and found a few references to it in decemberish of last year: https://hardforum.com/search/4769096/?q ... t&o=date&c[user][0]=3. Kyle went so far as to pull up legal documents to show that Scott still owned TR on paper, which meant there was a conflict of interest. Which is interesting, personally, because I think Scott still owns TR according to the current about us page? Seems odd that Scott would still own the site at this point, as that's not the impression I was left with.

At the time of transition all of us knew it didn't matter at all, and the proof is in the reviews to show nothing nefarious happened. Apparently Kyle would have only been happy if the sale and paperwork went through prior to any real engagement with AMD.

If you do some more reading though he seemed to get salty when AMD wanted to have him consult with Scott about the VR testing H did. Kyle has also been very vocal about the paychecks for traditional tech journalism (which I'd agree with). Having a competitor go to a "better" job in terms of pay and then be told that the competitor can teach him a thing or two about the tests seems to have soured him on Scott.

Kyle even goes so far to say that Scott was hired specifically to "handle" Kyle, and when Kyle rode in on a horse guns blazing and sent Scott away, Raja demoted Scott.

chuckula wrote:

Who messed with my awesomely overly-abbreviated-for-intentional confusion headline!?!!?

All the tweets have disappeared... /mysteryAndIntrigue

Oh, wait, I see the updated front-page post. Whooooooo!

Transcoding, media service, and file service: not the same boxes. (NAS is a Celery with ECC RAM.)

Topinio wrote:

Transcoding, media service, and file service: not the same boxes. (NAS is a Celery with ECC RAM.)

I refuse to run multiple servers.

Also, in regards to the update, WOOOOOOOOOO!