AMD explains its reasons for staged info release

We’ve taken issue with AMD’s attempt to shape reviews of its desktop Trinity APUs by dictating which test results independent labs can publish when. Below is a statement we received from AMD explaining its rationale for creating a multi-stage information embargo for reviewers:

Allowing media outlets to post ‘limited previews’ prior to the product launch date (and news embargo lift) is not a new practice. AMD and our competitors have used previews for years (if not decades) to give our customers and fans an early ‘sneak peek’ at some of the new features and technologies in upcoming products.

For the second generation AMD A-Series desktop APU launch, we thought it would be reasonable and fair to let all reviewers run previews, in all regions around the world, rather than selecting a handful of outlets. As for the preview rules, we allowed press to run gaming benchmarks (any game, whether we win or lose), run power tests (including tests we both win and lose in), as well as run experiential tests (again, whether we win or lose), where the reviewer can discuss his impressions of the product based on the quality of the experience in any application they see fit.

The goal was to provide an opportunity to talk about the real-world experience with the product and also highlight the performance in key applications where we are targeting the product. Our latest APU is designed for gaming and entertainment enthusiasts, and we wanted to make sure that the design decisions we made to improve the experience for these users were clearly discussed by the global review press.

Many media feel this approach allows an unprecedented level of freedom to previewers; it includes more press, it includes more readers, it includes more countries and it includes more hard news. Of course, there is no requirement that press participate in this or any other preview; they are free to wait for the full embargo lift date.

As we said before, what AMD is doing here is quasi-clever, taking an existing form—the “limited product preview”—hollowing it out, and using it in an innovative fashion in order to achieve a previously unheard of measure of control over reviewers. In the past, “previews” have been short and breezy, and they’ve traditionally included a very small amount of test data, if any. Quite often, those results are provided directly by the product’s manufacturer and are understood to be preliminary.

By contrast, well, look at the articles out there today. They sure look like reviews, and some are labeled as such.

AMD has “allowed” wide leeway in its first-stage release of information to report nearly all product information and a broad set of independently obtained test data in areas where its product is strong, such as integrated graphics. Yet reporting the independently obtained results of CPU-focused benchmarks must wait until the second stage, when the initial buzz surrounding the product has worn off.

By exercising this sort of control over the release of independent test data, AMD gets to highlight its product’s strengths and downplay its weaknesses. Or, as the firm put it, “The goal was to provide an opportunity to talk about the real-world experience with the product and also highlight the performance in key applications where we are targeting the product.” At least they’re being upfront about it.

Trouble is, companies whose products are being reviewed do not and should not get this sort of control over the release of independent review data. Reviews are not advertising and they are not marketing vehicles; they are independent evaluations of products that should keep the consumer’s interests paramount. Blurring the fine line between “preview” and “review” may create confusion in some quarters, but when the dust settles, the principle at stake isn’t difficult to spot: it’s editorial independence.

For those who see little harm in AMD’s practices in this particular instance, I get it. It’s just one product release, and not perhaps the most consequential one in your book. But the principle at stake is paramount to the continued production of reviews you can trust, and that is a much larger issue than this one incident. If you’re an AMD fan, perhaps this case doesn’t bother you, but the next one, where Intel or Nvidia or whoever takes a similar approach, may not sit so well. Whatever your allegiances, your interests as a consumer would be better served by a truly independent review press.

Comments closed
    • goury
    • 7 years ago

    I’d have to disagree with the author in this case. Because as it was stated, they get to make their own preview of their picking. They were free to create their own testing as long as it is game related, or power consumption-related, and are even encouraged to experiment. The only proximity is that as long as the test system is compared to what the product was designed to do. I think it was more than fair.

    Let’s say if I wanted to compare AMD’s new APU with a different set up within the given parameters just for shits and giggles, as a reviewer.

    If I wanted AMD’s new APU to fail in gaming, I would’ve put it against a sandybridge CPU (pentium-based) and pair it with a discrete ATI(AMD) GPU which price would total close to what AMD will be selling this.

    for example: Intel Pentium G860 ($74.99@newegg) and ATI(AMD)’s own 6670 ($69.99 @newegg)

    Just roughly looking around the web, the results will most likely favor that intel/discrete combo than AMD’s APU.

    The intel/discrete will in in gaming benchmarks from he looks of it. Not sure if I am allowed to post the sites I am using as reference but Tom’s had some comparison with the 7660D and 6670. and even better is that anand already have the 5800k on their cpu bench. So feel free to experiment.

    So what I wanted to point out was that, even though AMD gave a guide line for the testing to create preview, The author can still freely do as he/she pleases. It is quite easy to manipulate data to go your way.

    But then again this article of yours is probably the one getting the most hits on this site so I guess I should congratulate you in getting hits by dogging and sensationalizing AMD’s preview guide line instead of actually making one.

    Just saying you know.

    • halbhh2
    • 7 years ago

    Why not do like Anand (and do it better) — offer the preview with clarity about it being a preview? (I mean next time, since this time is lost).

    • halbhh2
    • 7 years ago

    AMD is a for-profit company. We should expect it, just like Intel has, to manage the image of its products as best it can, for profit.

      • Snake
      • 7 years ago

      And we should expect that independent, intelligent, non corporate-brainwashed individuals would fight the attempt to turn everything towards making that profit, especially when it involves a bit of manipulation.

        • halbhh2
        • 7 years ago

        Just so. After all, we chose Tech Report out of many dozens of sites, for a reason.

        But…that implies something further: we are plenty, plenty intelligent enough to handle a PREVIEW without being misled!

        It profoundly underestimates the intelligence of TR readers to suggest we would be misled.

        As I see it, the real issue isn’t being discussed in the post. It’s our love-hate relationship with AMD. It’s psychological. It’s psychology.

          • halbhh2
          • 7 years ago

          I’m thinking it’s the jilted-lover effect. The ex goes from being someone who hung the moon and stars (circa 2005 or so), to being the world’s only real villian. etc.

          Like a bad B movie.

    • egon
    • 7 years ago

    If you look at Anand’s response in his article’s comments, his basic justification is this sort of thing has been accepted to some extent in the past (as those who linked to TR’s Conroe preview pointed out), and this latest example is taking things only a little bit further. He then says:

    “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.”

    In other words, he would have taken a stand had AMD sought to undermine sites’ editorial independence in one dramatic swoop, rather than in this more subtle, creeping fashion.

    And that illustrates the enduring dilemma when faced with smart strategists who slowly push the boundaries such that each push is too trivial or ambiguous for many people to get worked up over. Take a stand against it, and you risk being viewed as overreacting and accused of making a fallacious slippery-slope argument. Acquiesce, and you risk missing the bigger picture and allowing ethical standards to be eroded over time.

    • Jason181
    • 7 years ago

    No Friday Night Topic when there’s a great one brewing right here. Coincidence?

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah; I suggested it earlier today. This is unfortunate… Oh well. Folks: I announce this thread as [b<]The Friday Night Topic[/b<]. You all know what went down. AMD offered various websites the option of previewing Trinity - graphics benchmarks were allowed; CPU benchmarks were off-limits. TR decided to reject the offer, and instead posted an article suggesting that AMD's proposal infringed upon journalistic freedom and independence, and was a dangerous first step in what in the future would amount to full control of companies over review media, ending unbiased reporting. Was AMD proposal ethical, or unacceptable? Was TR's response appropriate, or an overreaction? Discuss.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        If you limit the choices to “ethical” or “unacceptable” on the proposal, I’d have to go with ‘ethical’ – they made no attempt to limit what you could say about the performance of the chips’s graphics in the ‘preview’, just that the preview was about the chip’s graphics performance. And you had the choice to simply not participate. If you’d given ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical’ as the options, the decision would have been more difficult, but I’d probably still come down on the ‘ethical’ side.

        It’s been pointed out that TR has participated in ‘preview’ sessions before without taking issue; the key difference here is that, rather than limit the results published to vendor-supplied figures or a few limited tests under highly-controlled circumstances, AMD was allowing sites to do a complete suite of tests in their usual manner – a ‘full review’ by any other name, but only on the chip’s graphics performance. Scott felt that that moved it from the category of ‘controlled preview’ to ‘controlled review’. In the end, I have to disagree, because there was o attempt to limit the type of graphics-performance test that could be conducted, and no attempt to suppress any poor showing of graphics performance. AMD has a new type of product here, and they’re simply (but clumsily) trying to get reviewers to evaluate it for what AMD says it is, not something else.

        And sorry, but while TR’s decision to abstain from participating in the restricted ‘preview’ – for whatever reason – was perfectly acceptable, the usage of the Vendetta and Clockwork Orange images was just over the top, and made the otherwise high-sounding proclamation of disdain over ‘trying to manipulate the message’ come across as pretty hollow. Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik; you cannot express umbrage at them trying to manipulate the message by manipulating the message.

          • jensend
          • 7 years ago

          Just wanted to say your last paragraph was well put. I think TR may well have been right to dissent and to say this would create a very dangerous precedent. But the sensationalism was unwarranted.

    • halbhh2
    • 7 years ago

    Finally, after considering “By contrast, well, look at the articles out there today. They sure look like reviews, and some are labeled as such.”

    It seems a shame TR isn’t in the mix….

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      You’re saying that weakness of morals would be the best display of strength.

      • nanoflower
      • 7 years ago

      Not if what they produce looks like a review and is thought of by many as a review, but it really isn’t a review. Given the limitations AMD placed on them I can see why they chose not to produce a preview. I might have chosen to produce a non-review preview that looks like a normal review with placeholder for all of the normal CPU performance data but labeled as NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH BY AMD, but I can see why TR decided not to do that.

        • halbhh2
        • 7 years ago

        Ok, and….why would the wording, of an excellent writer like Scott, be so incompetent, as you presume??

        I think he could do a fine job, just as usual.

        Anand had no trouble, and frankly Scott is a better writer imo.

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    In significantly more important news, it’s friday.

      • danny e.
      • 7 years ago

      Apparently a few weekend workers? … Or just demcrocrats living off my paycheck that don’t understand the concept of a “work week”.

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    same comment I made in the original story:
    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.

    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<]

    • halbhh2
    • 7 years ago

    So, basically, AMD did a less manipulative set of rules than Intel did with Conroe?

      • halbhh2
      • 7 years ago

      I hope TR writers learn something from this episode, once they look at their own review of Conroe.

      • Kurotetsu
      • 7 years ago

      The Conroe preview is not relevant to this. The reasons have been given several times over 2 different threads now. Please read them.

        • Jason181
        • 7 years ago

        I’m sure they’ve read those threads; they (and I) just happen to disagree. I don’t see the (artificial) limitations at a trade show as any less designed to highlight a product’s strong points than the limitations placed on this preview. It’s just that AMD was explicit with it rather than implicit. They implied that they could’ve just made it a demo at their offices, but that would limit the number of outlets that would get to participate in the preview, so they took an open approach to the situation by allowing all to preview the product with the admittedly artificial constraints that would’ve been in place if the demo took place at the manufacturer’s office. It’s semantics, really.

      • cobalt
      • 7 years ago

      Are you talking about the Conroe review, or the Conroe preview? Those are very different beasts, as Scott points out in the article you’re commenting on. Restrictions often happen for previews, especially for months-early access to hardware at an industry event like IDF, and we readers expect it in those cases. Not for reviews.

        • halbhh2
        • 7 years ago

        “Are you talking about the Conroe review, or the Conroe preview?”

        Exactly. Kinda the whole issue, right?

    • WillBach
    • 7 years ago

    I really don’t mind what AMD is doing here. So they’re restricting what reviewers can report before a certain date. So what? It’s very doubtful any reader will be mislead and therefor harmed. Their motivation isn’t to sucker people, it’s to get more coverage, and to change the conversation while they do it.

    They’re not hyping the safety properties of an addictive carcinogen. They’re not going to steamroll (no pun intended) the market. So I don’t understand the backlash. It seems ridiculous.

    A reviewer can run SPECint and tell people that the new processor is 30% slower for 20% less money and be done with his review. If he’s not allowed to report that (yet) he’ll look for something else to report. Telling his readers that his test system opens a browser and a word editor and YouTube without slowing down using the less expensive (and slower) processor isn’t a lie. Both stories use the same facts, but one elicits more attention and paints a different picture. I don’t begrudge AMD that. Do I have an Intel CPU in my desktop? Yes. Would I recommend it? Yes. Does that mean I’ll warn people against the dangers of an AMD part? No.

    • blackkstar
    • 7 years ago

    The only reason why AMD is doing this is because Intel has no competition readily available in this price range.

    Instead of review sites doing like VR-Zone is doing and comparing a $130 AMD to a $200 Intel and declaring Intel faster (obviously, it’s in a different price bracket), AMD is waiting until the A8 5800k’s main competition comes out (the i3 3225).

    This is just how AMD is preventing tech sites from comparing more expensive Intel CPUs to cheaper AMDs and saying the AMD is slower. We keep seeing this everywhere. FX 8150 compared to hex core extreme edition, FX 8150 is garbage!

    You can bet when AMD recommends CPU testing, that it’s going to be against an i3 3255, which is the A8 5800k’s true competition. The 3255 is a dual core with hyperthreading and HD4000 graphics and it costs about $130.

    Techreport is acting very immature about this entire thing, just as bad as Tweaktown now. You definitely lost yourself some page hits by being so immature about this.

    • tootercomputer
    • 7 years ago

    Here is PC Perspective’s way of handling this:

    [url<]http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-A10-5800K-Performance-Preview-Trinity-Desktop[/url<] Pretty straightforward. I am not sure why TR could not have done the same. I remember years ago when Anandtech was give a chance to review the first generation of C2Ds. Geez, they practically had black bags put over their heads and were very limited as to what they could do. This was in the days when AMD was kicking their butt in the CPU department. But Anandtech was up front about the limits, it was an intriguing article. So I am not seeing all that much difference here. Note the limits, call it a "preview" like PC Per and dispense with the drama.

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      I was happy to see that PCPer added that intro to their article after seeing my write-up and being called out on the topic in their article comments.

      But, as I keep saying, timing is important in these matters. 🙂

        • tootercomputer
        • 7 years ago

        Hmm, they “added that intro to their article after seeing my write-up”? Interesting, because they state at the outset “Right before the release of this story some discussion at other hardware sites. . . “. So did they release the story, and then add that Editor’s Note? If so, then that opening statement is a bit disingenuous on their part.

        Bottom line: AMD is getting lots of PR on this in the enthusiast community. Maybe they brought it a really rally smart marketer . . . 🙂

          • Cyril
          • 7 years ago

          Scroll down to the comments for the PCPer article. Posts #1, #5, and #7.

    • xeridea
    • 7 years ago

    Hasn’t the desktop Trinity been out for some time on OEM systems?

    • sluggo
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t know, Scott. Honestly I think this scheme may play directly to TR’s strengths – technical focus and excellence of its in-depth reviews. Sites that are capable of doing little more than plugging a chip in and testing frame rates of the latest shooters will have their say during the preview period just like everyone else. When it comes time to do the actual, full-throated performance of the part, though, those who are interested will come back to TR a second time to get the low-down.

    You all do a fantastic job of pulling together a ton of data on every aspect of a CPU’s performance and assembling it into various tables, pie charts (mmmm, pie), and other graphics all on extremely short notice. Under AMD’s proposed release schedule, I can see your job getting easier while still serving your customers the nutritious goodness they’ve come to expect. In this case, though, the meal would follow the dessert.

    • One Sick Puppy
    • 7 years ago

    I question the statement that “reviews are not advertising and they are not marketing vehicles”. My Suzuki Samurai is not a Jeep, but that’s how people see it and reasonably so. Tech Report may view its articles in a certain way, but I am quite certain that for the general public and especially the manufacturers, every benchmark, from a preview or review, is an ad and a marketing vehicle. Unless I’m mistaken, Tech Report is a commercial endeavor so I’m not sure I would call yourself “truly independent”. Though, to your credit, it’s one of the most reliable sources of info. AMD isn’t breaking any rules, they are fully within their right to put conditions on early loans of their hardware.

    AMD’s limitations are a good way for Tech Report to reinforce their “integrity” by simply not doing previews for AMD products, and for other sites with the same level of integrity, to do the same. See how AMD likes that. My point is you’re both free to play your hand, and the game is bound to change and evolve over the years, and there’s not need to fuss.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      He’s not saying AMD is not within their rights. If he was, he would be suing them, not writing a blog post.

      He’s saying they’re exercising their rights in a harmful way.

    • spigzone
    • 7 years ago

    Tech Report is making a mountain out of a molehill as far as I’m concerned.

      • Antimatter
      • 7 years ago

      I fully agree. AMD, Intel and Nvidia have committed other acts that are far worse. Decisions that have stifled innovation, competition and progress in the industry that far more worthy of outrage than this.

      • danny e.
      • 7 years ago

      agreed. It is very clear they have done this before without objection but now it is a big deal for some reason.

        • halbhh2
        • 7 years ago

        Yes, it has an emotional cast to it.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    You gotta give AMD some credit. They thought it through. Turning the reviewers against one another is a smart move. The ones who go along with it are given the extra hits for going along with the scheme and giving AMD precisely what it wants (ie., first impressions in a favorable light without any negative press on their specifically lower performing CPU part of the APU) while the ones who reject the notion of allowing so much control get blacklisted and disadvantaged. Plus, bonus if they try to point out the change and call it outrageous they are attacking the other sites that DID go along with it, turning those sites against them. No one likes being called on their BS and anyone who went along with it will then feel like they HAVE to defend what they did. Turning a Dog Eat Dog world into a Dog Maul Dog world.

    No wonder that TR editor almost got hit by that wood beam coming out of the AMD meeting. No wonder when he went back he got dog sick afterward! There were warnings in there, but you did not heed them! Haha, j/k.

    But still the ramifications are going to be interesting. I can’t wait till AMD starts allowing “preview reviews” of “select performance aspects” of new GPU’s. Can’t wait for the new Radeon 8970 previews that discuss ONLY performance in Bitcoining, Dirt Showdown benchmarks, and Crysis 1 framerates. Just imagine it. A reviewer who isn’t allowed to discuss any benchmark where they lose is a hair’s breadth away from the precedent set by this.

    Imagine nVidia’s glee at doing this. “You are allowed to preview the Geforce 780, but you must not discuss: AA beyond 2x benchmarks, overclocking comparisons against Radeons, video memory constraints, Dirt Showdown benchmarks, any game where nVidia is not at least 2x the framerate of Radeon products, and newly released Radeon product comparisons.” Recently, the 660 showed up and nVidia suggested reviewers compare the product to the huge numbers of 8800/9800/260/280 products that are out there not upgraded. Imagine they instead REQUIRED that early previews only discuss how the 660 compares to those older products and only nVidia ones. That’s along the same lines as this. That would have sucked.

    Imagine Intel doing the inverse of this and demanding with Haswell that early previews discuss ONLY the early CPU performance with only very vague, general remarks about the graphics provided by the GPU. Imagine Intel told reviewers they coudln’t discuss driver issues of any kind for their iGPU. Driver issues are strictly forbidden to be discussed because they would put an unfavorable light on the new CPU. Or a preview of Haswell doesn’t include the fact that there will be no K products, no unlocked products, and no pricing despite the fact that Intel plans to increase the price of every CPU line to double its current pricing. But reviewers are not allowed to discuss this or imply it in any way.

    Or they’ll be cut off. Some will play ball, which gets that company’s agenda out there while the other companies are removed from the equation. Yeah, I see this is a problem.

    But desperate companies are desperate. AMD is clawing, trying to stay alive. If you wonder why all the executives are bailing out, now you know. Even internally, AMD is in a fit, desperate, and increasingly they are looking to do anything to stay afloat. Like a trusted friend who upon finding out he’s about to die tomorrow yells at us and calls us names because he’s so upset that he’s going to die, we should just bow our heads and nod.

    AMD is on its way out. We should be respectfully silent and let them pass. We should mourn the fall of a great company that once did great things amid incredible circumstances. We should think of what nVidia and Intel will do to us once this company is done thrashing around.

    • mark625
    • 7 years ago

    Much ado about a tempest in a teapot calling the kettle black.

    AMD’s stuff, AMD’s rules. If you don’t like it then don’t do it. You’re just hurting yourself and your readers. Of course the readers will mostly applaud you for your journalistic integrity and then immediately head off to five other sites to see their preview results, including gaming benchmarks full of charts and numbers.

    But whatever, at least you’ll have your pride.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Isn’t that what Scott did ? He didn’t like it so he didn’t do it.

      And he’s not hurting himself at all. Also it’s not about pride. It’s called integrity. If you believe in something and you actually have some values that rule what you do, you just don’t change those values because someone told you to.

    • Auril4
    • 7 years ago

    About the person who has that device keeping his eyes open and this newly resdiscovered tactic.
    To some extent, that’s what Microsoft and Intel have been doing to consumers since around 1995.
    Especially Microsoft. Keeping the average consumer and the advanced ones in line with their expectations.
    Only recently have we been breaking free from Wintel with Firefox, Chrome, and Apple.
    Again and again those of us who enjoy keeping track of ethics in the marketplace have seen Anandtech, Tech Report and other similar sites line right up behind these two companies unquestioningly like little ducklings behind their mother.
    Here there is talk about being independent and not having your string pulled by a big company. That’s not what we have been seeing over the past decade or so until now.

    • Medallish
    • 7 years ago

    I’m sorry, but principal or not I simply don’t see the issue here, it’s a preview like you did with Conroe, except with looser rules, you can run any damn game you want, if you feel you’re being used as a marketing tool, then don’t do previews, because here’s a news flash, company allowed previews are meant to show the strenghts of a product, again exactly like your Conroe preview. That there are sites that can’t lable it a preview well enough isn’t AMD’s fault.

    I like TR and their review style, but this whine is just that, whine, there’s no reason for this fake outrage.

      • Kougar
      • 7 years ago

      I would say you have it completely backwards. They have less options this time around, because with the Conroe preview they were not limited in what benchmarks they decided to publish or selective NDA dates on parts of the results they obtained. They had full control over what got published and when, if any of it.

      “Running any damn game you want” just shows you miss the point entirely. They are allowed to only run GAME benchmarks for a preview, which if you hadn’t noticed is the absolute best case scenario for Trinity. AMD has in effect cherry-picked what they want published in order to hide the shortcomings of their product, especially by barring mention of any non-game results in these so called “previews”.

      People don’t seem to realize this tactic is a double-edged sword. If a site decides to not publish, they will lose the mass readership for the product launch, and at the same time those readers will go to the sites that decided to play along. Once the initial rush of product launch readers go away, most of them will not be back to read complete reviews of the same product published at a much later date. Product launch articles are the bread and butter of most enthusiast websites like TTR. Some websites have already put up product launch articles instead of “previews” using just the game & power benchmarks to take advantage of this.

      It is common knowledge that the general Joe public will form their opinions on a given subject by the initial information they hear about it. So by allowing only the best-case-scenario benches to be published early, AMD is taking advantage of this. And if a website decides to stick to the NDA so they can publish the full story later, then they will still be penalized by a loss of readership for doing so. This penalization fulfills the basic requirements to meet the definition of “blackmail”.

      Sure, a tech-enthusiast wouldn’t be fooled by this and knows about the CPU-side of the story. But keep in mind, are these sites publishing content for tech-enthusiasts, or Joe public?

      While what AMD has done isn’t terrible, it is still bad and highly questionable. But more importantly, it sets a very dangerous precedent that WILL be taken advantage of by companies that are hard-pressed to push their products any other way.

    • ZGradt
    • 7 years ago

    It’s AMD’s attempt to make the reviews focus on the chip’s few strong points. CPU reviews don’t typically spend a lot of time on 3D graphics performance. For good reason.

    The “preview” I read was pretty sad. The best vid card in the comparison was a crappy 640, which was blowing all the others out of the water. All the quality settings were set to “low” or occasionally “medium”. Sub 720p resolutions. I felt like I was watching a cripple fight or something.

    The age of gaming on integrated graphics has still not arrived.

    • Convert
    • 7 years ago

    I have to admit I’m kind of with derFunkenstein on this one.

    At first I was going to post “**** AMD” but as I started thinking about it, I seem to recall TR participating in very similar “previews” in the past.

    Perhaps you can explain the differences between this and times you have been outside of the labs in a controlled environment to preview and post results of hardware?

    I agree with what you are saying, I get it. If you fall in line with the other sites looking to get page views in return for cherry picked tests things will just get worse. Also the “emotional” impact that the picked tests have is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. Those saying it’s not a big deal don’t understand humans all that well. Tell yourself that you aren’t impacted by it if you want, maybe you aren’t, but these tactics cannot be forged from altruistic intentions.

    However, I still don’t see the difference from previous previews. Perhaps you are no longer OK with this and are now taking a stand against it, and that’s fine, but those of us with memories (albeit a bit muddy now days) thought that this was just a rule to the game of hardware reviews.

    Perhaps I am missing something?

    *edit* I propose the theory of tachyonic karma, that is to say future stupid decisions travel backwards in time to smite thee: AMD’s craptacluar showing in most all of its products should be blamed on this particular stunt. As soon as AMD begs for forgiveness and goes 7 miles out of its way to make things right their hardware will start being competitive again. The ball is in your court AMD.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 7 years ago

      The question is, has TR published “previews” on things they have had in their own lab? A limited preview of hardware you are not allowed to take home is understandable. This hardware can be understood to be not ready for release, maybe not fully tested, maybe without the final drivers. This is not the case with Trinity.

        • Convert
        • 7 years ago

        Interesting, so if AMD black bagged Scott and whisked him away to a benchmark warehouse and gave him the same hardware and limitations imposed in this preview, the world would be a happy place again?

        I’m honestly having a hard time seeing how these two scenarios are significantly different. Basically what is being said is that AMD should have invited Scott over and had him run these benchmarks in their controlled environment, THEN given him the hardware to release a full review on at a later date. If that’s the true answer to this conundrum then this really is much ado about NOTHING.

    • xeridea
    • 7 years ago

    AMD is just highlighting their strong points, the ones that the entire Fusion platform is built around, a balanced setup that is good enough in most areas for most people, with potential for big advantage for software written to utilize GPGPU. Its highlights are games and common tasks. They are simply marketing what they built, and what it was built for, something that they want to highlight and get the word out on the GPU aspect more.

    As has been pointed out, people who need bleeding edge CPUs for their workloads all know Intel is better, and if it is important to them, they will wait for CPU review, or just get Intel because recently they have been ahead in this department.

    So if they make an entire platform around certain workloads, whats wrong with them highlighting them? I really don’t see what the issue is here, it is a lax control over preliminary performance data. They aren’t saying people can’t bash them, they just want design points highlighted. Even if its only a matter of getting more exposure… whats wrong with that? Its just a simple marketing strategy.

    Also, for those who want to know about CPU performance, you can look at the mobile reviews… so its not like you are missing out on much, its not like they are completely hiding it.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      A few site have CPU benchmark against the i3 and even i7.

      It seem to far that the A10 is an i3 class CPU. And when OpenCL acceleration kick in, it can match an i7-2600k. (like winzip)

      We will know more tuesday, but to me the A10 is shaping like a super i3 processor.
      Similar CPU performance with todays app, but massively better GPU for about the same price.

      I would be interested to see how a modern web browser like IE10 perform on the A10 vs an i3

    • Washer
    • 7 years ago

    Thanks for taking your stance Scott.

    On the surface AMD is just lifting a portion of the NDA early. Once you examine their stipulations and the reasons why they would take this action it becomes more clear. By allowing selective portions, portions that place Trinity in the best light, and banking that early “previews” or reviews that released “part 1” (artificial segmentation, created by this tactic) will see more attention than complete reviews that touch on all aspects of Trinity they are trying to take greater control of the perception of their product.

    I feel review sites that took the bait have unwittingly slanted their reader’s perception of Trinity by releasing the AMD chosen portion of the review first. AMD is right, as Scott said:

    [quote<]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.[/quote<] What AMD has done is taken control of that audience and fed them only the best aspects of their product, and done it by using those who should be most critical of them.

    • Martian
    • 7 years ago

    [i<]"But the principle at stake is paramount to the continued production of reviews you can trust..."[/i<] The first problem is that most reviewers around the globe are simply incompetent or are bought by one or another company to distort review aspects or even results, sometimes they might be simply fanboys, so this much about the trusted almighty media, you are humans like anybody else, nothing more. The second problem is that you play the tough guy only because you think AMD is a smaller and weaker company and so is incapable and unwilling to take any kind of revange on you. I want to see you guys to step up this loudmouthed against Intel or nVidia the next time. As a final word, don't get really surprised if you don't get free hardware samples from AMD in the future to get your review ready to the launch date. And no, I don't think like this because I'm an AMD fan, it's because I trusted this particular site before and I expected some more maturity here. It's just sad.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t see why you don’t spell it out.

    The reason why this is a problem is that if every company did this for every product launch, then websites like TR which remain faithful to their readers will lose audience and revenue, while the sellouts that follow AMD and other companies exact specifications will profit from breaking stories earlier.

      • Liron
      • 7 years ago

      Yes, and I wonder what AMD will put in their Preview NDAs now, after what VR-Zone did with this one, since technically they -were- testing real world gaming performance.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        They were supposed to. Read AMD’s conditions.

          • Liron
          • 7 years ago

          Yes, but they tricked the system. They tested gaming performance with the IGP disabled, something that neither AMD not any other review site apparently thought of.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      faithful to their readers? we dont know that.. from what I can tell most people would prefer to have free access to information.

      We are not little kid that need TR protection… TR is the incarnation of Big Brother. “You read only what we personally find moral, we censor the rest”

      How many people here refused to look at the GPU preview on other sites because of what Scott said?

        • Xylker
        • 7 years ago

        At least one.

    • Corrado
    • 7 years ago

    I’m not really seeing the problem here. You have an NDA. They said ‘You can partially break the NDA on a few things, but not everything, IF YOU WANT.’

    You don’t want. So whats the big deal? They don’t have to let you break it at all…

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Make sure that you state it’s a ‘Full review’ when you release one for the product. Make sure to state what the other reviews were incapable of covering and why that is, then state how it affects and changes the conclusion.

    It’s very important to differentiate and let people know what they’re missing and what exactly that means. Not simply tell them they’re missing part of the bigger picture (most of us here know that’s the case, but it doesn’t work that way for everyone). It’s also very important to stand resolute in your decision and not state how ‘unfair’ something is continually.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Except than when he releases the review, the other sites will be able to talk all about it at the same time.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        You can still compare it to the original released piece of material rather then the full review at the time of posting theirs. As was stated in the news article, some sites are releasing said previews as reviews. I’m sure not all sites are going to make two different reviews, especially as time goes on (lazy or they just don’t care).

    • kc77
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Trouble is, companies whose products are being reviewed do not and should not get this sort of control over the release of independent review data. Reviews are not advertising and they are not marketing vehicles; they are independent evaluations of products that should keep the consumer's interests paramount. Blurring the fine line between "preview" and "review" may create confusion in some quarters, but when the dust settles, the principle at stake isn't difficult to spot: it's editorial independence. [/quote<] I would agree. I seriously would. However, I call them how I see them. This seems like a instance of those who are in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. See how many Nvidia FTW cards ended up in reviews upon AMD's release of stock video cards? How many reviewers had no problem bending to Nvidia's wishes? I remember commenting on this long ago about what happens when you bend the rules for one, and not the other. I said it could bite you in the butt later and I wasn't just talking about it from the viewpoint of the reviewer or the people looking at your reviews, but it also sends a signal to vendors. How exactly can one exactly support your desire for reviews with integrity when it's questionable as to which reviews have it? I'll give you credit you corrected the issue later with the recent video reviews but that happened much much later. However recently you also gave reasons why you didn't feel the need to include Dirt Showdown in your final scores, yet how long has Batman Arkham Asylum been a staple of all reviewers even when AMD was getting it's clocked cleaned with that? That's not the only instance of inconsistency either. When AMD was late with GHz editions and DDR4 editions of cards it was a four alarm fire. When Nvidia takes over half a year to release a family, much less a specific SKU many reviewers commented on that issue as footnote. The issue that reviewers have is consistency with the rules and unfortunately when there's a lack of it vendors feel obliged to do things it might not have done before. You can't pick and choose when the rules should be enforced. Actually you can, but you can't really expect vendors to follow them when they feel they haven't been consistent. This isn't to say that AMD is right in what it's doing. However, it's not hard to see how they might want to create rules of their own. I realize my examples are all video card related cases but the message is the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    you’ve lost a reader in me for awhile :/

      • dmjifn
      • 7 years ago

      Well, lemme glove up and maybe I can hunt around for it.

      • Essence
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]https://techreport.com/review/9538/intel-conroe-performance-previewed/4[/url<] Nuff said...this site has hurt its credibility with its double standards and with neutral people like me, think AMD needs to go a step further and start throwing out some bans to sites that are biased against AMD

        • TurtlePerson2
        • 7 years ago

        Are there any other examples like this? I would consider this a little bit different because Conroe absolutely smoked the competition. Intel wasn’t really trying to cover anything up like AMD seems to be doing.

          • A_Pickle
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]We used test systems pre-configured by Intel before the show, and we had very limited time to conduct testing or inspect the systems. [/quote<] Also, Essence is neglecting to mention that these were controlled samples by Intel at a trade show, and not nearly-finished products within Damage Labs itself -- thus making both instances of previewship different. Damage isn't saying that manufacturers get no say in information control, they do. If AMD wanted to limit the journalists publishing of certain, let's say "unflattering" results, they could've done so on systems in their control -- i.e, preview systems at Computex. But these were samples that were [i<]shipped[/i<] to reviewers, in the same manner that previous samples for upcoming products had been shipped, that AMD implemented a rigid disclosure of information agreement with. That hasn't happened before, at least according to Scott.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            Finally, thank you.

    • jensend
    • 7 years ago

    FWIW, I disagree with all those who are sensationalizing this as “AMD is trying to lie to/mislead the public,” and I think some aspects of how TR has dealt with it (e.g. the image associated with the story, calling it a farce, etc.) have over-sensationalized it as well. [b<]But I think it's important that somebody needed to take a stand, and I'm glad TR has done so.[/b<] If Trinity were two separate products- a CPU and a discrete GPU- even if they were only sold bundled together and would only operate when both were installed, AMD would be totally within their rights to lift the NDA on the GPU before the CPU. At first glance, it doesn't seem like the fact these products are on the same piece of silicon is morally relevant. AMD may feel like the usual review setup unfairly penalizes them for having decided to put these things on the same piece of silicon. CPU performance really is at the point that benchmark differences will mean little to most folks. If CPU 1 is 2x faster than CPU 2 at STARS Euler3D CFD that's nice for the IT guy at the physics department to know but has zero relevance to the responsiveness normal users will experience with everyday tasks. These days, gaming is by far the most performance-sensitive thing that more than a few percent of users will do with their computers, and it deserves coverage that reflects that. And even when people focus on gaming, since reviewers are generally enthusiasts themselves and are used to dealing with high-end GPUs, it's easy for them to dismiss the inadequacy of Intel's graphics with "just get a GTX 680 like me, duh; no gamer can live without great discrete graphics" while largely ignoring the budget realities that mainstream users face. AMD has ample reason to feel that this dynamic paints their products in an unfair light and to look for a way to change the conversation. So it's natural for AMD to make this move, and I don't think they're evil for making it or even that their [i<]intentions[/i<] are all that bad. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the [b<]wrong[/b<] move to make, regardless of their intentions. The main trouble, as Damage points out, is that eating away at the independence of reviewers like this sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Once one company starts doing this with one piece of hardware and gets no flak for it, it will be very hard to keep it from becoming the norm for pretty much all hardware. Once you lose the ability to put the hardware through whatever paces you want and report whatever data you collect, there will be a strong tendency towards more and more manufacturer control, right up to "here is your approved testbed and these are the only approved benchmarks, or you will have to buy the hardware yourself on the open market and your review will be months later than everyone else's." Benchmarks published by companies' PR departments have their place, but it's extremely vital that reviewers not become just extensions of that.

    • xii
    • 7 years ago

    This is purely a personal decision. I feel the same way. If I were a journalist, I would hold dearly to the principle that sources or external pressure will not dictate the correctness and completeness of my information. If I would feel I can not uphold the truth or balance to a high enough standard, I would abstain from writing the article – or try to get it published at own risk, if the cause is great enough.

    It doesn’t matter who agrees or disagrees with such decision. Some don’t mind the leash – they still get a quick but restricted walk around the block – others do. It is important that each and everyone lives life to their own standards and morals. If this is the right decision to you for you to follow, then it is.

    All other discussion is akin to arguing about personal taste or favourite colours.

    • Yeats
    • 7 years ago

    This is all a plot by AMD to give TR material for 2 articles.

    • ZGradt
    • 7 years ago

    Reviewer: I’ve got good news, and I’ve got bad news.
    AMD: Let’s hear the good news.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    You know, Scott, that front-page poll on the Apple-Samsung verdict is getting a bit stale; why not replace with a poll asking if readers agree or disagree with your decision?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      +1. Bump

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        +1

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      [b<]This[/b<] (+1)

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      Sorry, but I am deeply uninterested in what a poll result says. Trying not to sound shrill here, but I’m pretty sure morality isn’t determined by majority rule. We’ve never sought poll-based guidance on ethical issues, and I don’t plan to start soon.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        I still don’t get how this is a moral or ethics issue. They lifted the NDA on part of the results early and you don’t think people are smart enough to figure that out.

          • Damage
          • 7 years ago

          Reader smarts has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that I’m placing a certain confidence in you guys by taking this issue to you.

          The issue, as I’ve tried to explain in the post above, is the question of editorial control.

          Imagine, if this practice were the norm.

          -Nvidia could have required the first wave of architecture and product info for Fermi cards to be paired only with PhysX games and GPU computing benchmarks. General gaming and power consumption results would have to be relegated to a later article.

          -Intel could have required Pentium 4 benchmarks to focus on video encoding and SSE performance, leaving FPU and power consumption results for later.

          -AMD could… well, they just did it.

          And so on.

          Now, realize that if we don’t object, this practice may well become the norm. And it is a significant innovation, because it attempts to govern the release of independently obtained test data from our labs, not just modest, preliminary info that is the stuff of traditional previews. This hasn’t happened in this way before. AMD is experimenting to see what it can get away with.

          Next, they could simply decide to, say, extend the embargo on certain results for a longer term than AMD has done here. Or just hold it until the product’s life cycle is nearly finished. Who knows?

          As owner and editor of this publication, which I built myself, I refuse to cede that sort of control to the large companies with whom we work. Once we receive a product to test, what info we publish, and in what order, is up to our editorial discretion.

          If you can’t see the problems there, I really don’t think I can help you. I promise that, from my point of view, this is a big deal on principle, and it has nothing to do with a low estimation of you as a reader. I am perhaps guilty of a high estimation of my role as an independent reviewer, but that is another matter altogether.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I know, I read both posts, and at first I was with you. After sleeping and re-reading it this morning and reading a couple of the articles that did go up, I have John Kerry’d myself here. I just think that calling out sites that went through with articles out as somehow unethical – which is what you seemed to imply in last night’s post – is going too far.

            I know they don’t want people talking about x86 performance yet. It’s an unreleased product at this point and until it’s announced as general availability they do have a certain amount of control. Are you being pushed into certain opinions? Do they mandate that the benchmarks are spun in any way? Their statement to you after the fact seems to indicate no, but I’m fully aware that I don’t know everything that’s been communicated to you or other sites.

            It’s a difference of opinion here (between you and me, and I am going to ignore those who are being crass on either side of the discussion for a moment) is all, and in the end it is your site. If I had a site with thousands of readers (I don’t), I’d probably go the route that Anand went and be very clear about what AMD is and is not allowing, and then go through with it. Certain features are still under NDA, I’m cool with that. You’re not and I respect it.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            To add to it, I might go so far as to write the article and then blast AMD every chance I got for going half-way and pussing out.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Pretty sure Scott has written the article but is just sitting on it and he thought quite a bit about publishing it. For all we know he’s done exactly that bashing.

            It seems like Anand stays as apolitical as possible in his reviews, which has its positives and minuses. It makes the site a tad less emotional, or human, which makes it not the most fun to read (but man is Anand a technical master I absolutely respect despite.)

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I think Anand, like Scott, realizes that AMD is doing something that isn’t exactly normal, but Anand is going to give as much information as he can (and the accompanying Trinity as HTPC article as well), because that’s what people want. They want information. At least, I think most of them do.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]I have John Kerry'd [/quote<] You should've Mitt Romney'd, so you could hold both positions simultaneously

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            well, I was for it (TR’s stance) before I was against it, which I thought was more, you know, what I actually meant.

            • halbhh2
            • 7 years ago

            This is actually a great pitch to read the Anand review/preview (and yes, I’ll probably read the TR review later when it finally comes out).

            I’m not convinced at all by the arguments. How could it possibly “govern” the content of reviews???

            C’mon!!

            And really the real issue is still whether readers could be misled by partial results

            But! since when does *anyone* over the age of about 25 believe everything they read about some Intel, Nvidia, or AMD product.

            C’mon!

            • halbhh2
            • 7 years ago

            The Anand article was interesting.

            I’ve promoted TR for years — probably brought many dozen new readers — and may still occasionally. We’ll see.

            But reading the Anand article makes me realize there are other fish in the pond.

            • Bensam123
            • 7 years ago

            I would think they can only extend the information embargo as far as the chips release. Like a NDA doesn’t actually have any legal backing behind it where you get sued and nothing is stopping you guys from simply pulling a chip from a store shelf to test. Just if you don’t abide by a NDA it sours relations between you and the company extensively.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            It is already the norm. It seem that you are the only one to find that to be a morality dilemma you had to object too.

            Yes, TR is your baby, you guide it where you want. And like you said , you dont care what your reader think about your ‘morality’ issue, but in the end if the majority of your viewership wanted to see the preview you are just denying your customers information and they will go elsewhere.

            AMD didn’t force you to review the GPU portion of the product first.
            If AMD is so immoral maybe you should return all their product preview sample and be free from their review agreements and just buy the product on the open market ?

            Send a strong message.

            • Arag0n
            • 7 years ago

            I think you went too far Scott, I agree with you that corporations can’t have control about what people says and doesn’t say about their products. However, you are claiming that this is a start for AMD to go further. Well, I don’t know you, but all I see in the articles you posted is AMD requesting to limit the data of the benchmarks to games, openCL and all. Basically, they wanted you to review the GPU part and leave the CPU for later. They wanted people to focus on how good the GPU is and later, let them get disappointed with the CPU.

            People may get disappointed if an article about an APU is elaborated in the way that the first 5 pages are CPU-Only, jumping to the conclusion that the chip is useless. AMD wanted to avoid people not checking the GPU performance of the iGPU. I’m sorry Scott, but you have a poor record of always stating the iGPU of AMD in Llano as useless and meaningless because you consider that is still not good enough for gaming, so it doesn’t deserves a proper review. I’m pretty sure that there is going to be at least 3 times more benchmarks directed to the CPU part than the GPU in your Trinity review.

            Now, you could have done better. You could have played with the rules. You could have setup some very old-low demanding graphic games in very low sets and use the games framerate to test the CPU performance. You could have toyed the rules to get the info you though it was important to your readers.

            It’s not going to be me that your ethic is wrong, but you have to understand that in this case you are getting a bit too upset and you are placing a very strong and hard bar for ethics. Just to have a comparison to real life behavior, you are being an ultraconservative with this case. You may think it’s a step in the wrong direction, but you don’t have real data or facts to prove that AMD is going to go further into that kind of behavior neither someone else will.

            I agree that further control about what can be said and what can’t be said is a problem. However, you are going a bit too far. As everyone said, you should have posted a disclaimer, you should have specified as many times as possible in the review that CPU performance was not going to be tested and was not tested because AMD didn’t let you to do so. And, if things keep going in the bad direction, then you should have pointed the problem more openly.

            I don’t see anything wrong about corporations letting preview the good points of their devices and then, 1 or 2 weeks later, let people have information about the full product. It works as a hype-builder process. It’s not different than “unconfirmed rumours or leaks” that usually are posted everywhere. Those leaks most of the time are controlled and just give a picture of what the manufacturer wants to show. I’m pretty sure that if there was a random website having numbers for GPU performance as a “leak”, you would have posted those numbers without question.

            I agree with corporations not shaping the content to avoid TR and others being ad-companies for tech companies. But in that case, you are being way too conservative.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Judging from these two extremely popular articles, this is something you’re readers are [i<]very[/i<] interested in discussing. May I propose this as the "Friday night topic" this week...? "Is it acceptable or ethical for a company to influence [b<]preview[/b<] coverage on their products?" It's Friday now; you could actually start the debate right now. You could even include a poll into it (even though [i<]you[/i<] don't care... I think many of your readers would find it interesting). How about it..?

            • anotherengineer
            • 7 years ago

            However, could you not purchase the chip yourself with your own money on launch day, and run whatever tests and benchmarks you want and publish them freely anyway with any editorial you like??

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            That would have precisely the effect that AMD is seeking. Reviews that include things they don’t want are late, seen by fewer people, and generate less income for review sites.

            • rechicero
            • 7 years ago

            I can respect that you chose not to publish the preview, it’s your editorial discretion and you had your reasons. But I cannot agree with your way to explain it. You say it’s a big deal on principle, thay you maybe have a high estimation of your role as independent reviewer. And with that, you are calling other reviewers unprincipled and dependent, maybe even courtier. And that’s simply unfair.

            You can have your opinion, but you should respect others.

            Maybe a site that doesn’t want to review cherry picked samples from the companies could say that’s because it’s a big deal on principle and using cherry picked samples shapes reviews (and probably it does), so they use random samples paid with the add money. That’d make you unprincipled… but it would be unfair. You have your reasons and in this world, manichaeism, is just the wrong road to take.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]And with that, you are calling other reviewers unprincipled and dependent, maybe even courtier. And that's simply unfair. You can have your opinion, but you should respect others.[/quote<] Bullcrap. There is a right way and a wrong way, not just a soup of opinions. Few websites are willing to take the economic hit that resisting entails, and few people care. This appears to be the case for everything in life. Most people just move along with the crowd and grumble. Peoples apathy doesn't mean that the other websites are making the right choice, it just means they are willing to go where AMD pushes them, with a little editorial grumbling. [quote<]Maybe a site that doesn't want to review cherry picked samples from the companies could say that's because it's a big deal on principle and using cherry picked samples shapes reviews (and probably it does), so they use random samples paid with the add money. That'd make you unprincipled... but it would be unfair.[/quote<] There is a point where a reviewing business will become unprofitable, and buying all the hardware on the open market is probably well past that point. Life is full situations where perfect behavior is impossible, however that is not a reason to abandon moral behavior. TR is attempting to stop AMD (or anyone else) from changing how reviews are done, not because the editors are flawless humans, but because AMD is trying to drag things the wrong direction.

        • indeego
        • 7 years ago

        [i<]TR doesn't care about poll people.[/i<] That meme could work....

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        True, just don’t tell that to democrats and moral relativity people. :p

        I personally don’t think this is in the same ballpark as PhysX and TWIMTBP, but this is exactly how you get to that point, by starting with something innocuous and gradually becoming worse. Kudos for taking a stand, but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t mind seeing a two part article, once they know what’s going on. Frankly, it doesn’t sound like a review, and it’s labeled as a preview, so I’m having a hard time equating this to a controlled review. It’s more accurately a controlled [i<]preview[/i<]. That said, "previews" don't seem to be what this site is about, so I get why you don't like it. These restrictions do not apply to the later release date though.

        • cynan
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t think the poll results should dictate your ultimate decision on the matter. That is for you to consider and you alone. (And I don’t know if the OP was suggesting otherwise)

        However, I still think that it would be interesting to see the results of such a poll. Not to influence your morality, but rather just to get some sort of superficial insight into the moral bent of others frequenting this site.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]I don't know if the OP was suggesting otherwise[/quote<] Of course not; it's Scott site and he can do whatever he damn well pleases with it, even [url=http://gawker.com/5940444/<]wear a tutu with a shoe on his head[/url<] if that's what turns him on. I only meant literally what I said: the Apple-Samsung poll was old news, and there seemed to be a serious split of opinion among the readers of this site, and if I was the owner, I would be interested in what my customers thought.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          The poll is not for him anyways… its for all readers to see what other people think on the matter.

          Its kind of self centered to think otherwise.

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        Then why have a poll about the Apple/Samsung trial? Thats a decision based mostly on ethics as well and you’re asking people’s opinions….

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          What an ugly can of worms TR dropped on this one.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            Would you shut up already?

            • Suspenders
            • 7 years ago

            Ahh, another gem of civil discourse.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          Even I can tell the difference here. One is a court case that was decided by someone else and the other is this.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            So basically, Damage doesn’t want HIS judgement of someone else’s ethics judged, but its OK to judge another group of people’s judgment of someone else’s ethics. Got it.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I’ve been trying very, very hard not to say that.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        it’s not an ethics issue, that seems to be the biggest flaw in your reaction to AMD’s modest request.

        I’m not trying to throw the better response into TR’s face but Xbitlabs handled it responsibly, your site AFAIC hasn’t, instead TR has chosen to sensationalize a non issue.

        instead of putting the preview launch in the proper context were stuck with drama.

        • Jason181
        • 7 years ago

        Perhaps you’re disinterested, but apparently (based on the score of the post) it’s of interest to your [i<]readership[/i<], which I'd hope would count for something. I don't think anyone here is insinuating that you take the poll's results as anything other than informational. It's actually a little sad that you think your readership might consider you fickle enough to be guided on an issue of such import based on a public poll.

        • Arag0n
        • 7 years ago

        I think you should. I’m going to tell you why, because if your readers do not understand that you do not publish previews and other websites do and it becomes a common practice tech report will lose plenty readers. If most of your readers do not see the practice of letting companies asking to release the information in good first and one week later bad as a morality problem, they won’t think is inmoral to check those previews and move the discussion to other websites also.

        Do the poll, make sure that you are not being more hard to that matter than you should and then make your choices. Stubbornness is the worst and best friend of the man. Sometimes helps you do things despite lack of hope and sometimes makes you go in the wrong direction.

        • Diplomacy42
        • 7 years ago

        uh, of course morality is dictated by majority rule. the majority of people think its immoral to stone one’s daughter under *ANY* circumstance and therefore it is. from a historical point of view, NOT stoning the girl would have been immoral. when you examine shifts in culture, or the divisions therein with any lens, be it historical, legal, religious, utilitarian, Darwinian, etc the only common denominator of “morality” is majority rule.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          There’s more to the historical shift on stoning than just that, but it’s pretty R&P/philosophical so I’ll just say “ehrm, no”.

          Also: the death penalty still exists.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      I can only see that poll coming out one way, so it sorta is pointless to make a poll about it.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        And which way would it come out? I’m genuinely curious.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          He thinks it’s gonna come out agreeing with how HE feels.

          I think this one is too close to call; both sides have good arguments

          • Ditiris
          • 7 years ago

          The poll would come out with a vast majority (I would guess somewhere in the region of 80-95%) saying publish the preview.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          In favor of Scott or any of TR staff’s views. Polls generally aren’t a way of measuring right or wrong, especially when it comes to something like this. TRs making it personal and people see that. TR has a strong following. I’d say it come out with roughly 90% supporting TRs decision. I mean just look at the comments your post got in response to having a poll.

          This wouldn’t be unbiased or impartial at all.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 7 years ago

      Totally support this idea.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Can I just be clear about one thing: my suggestion was [i<]not, [b<]in any way[/b<][/i<], intended as either a guide for Scott [i<]or[/i<] a referendum/judgement on the 'correctness' of his decision. As I said elsewhere, it's his website, and thus his decision - period, end-of-story. [i<][b<]All[/i<][/b<] I was suggesting was a numerical poll of readers' opinion of it. There has been lots of debate on the topic, with some good points put forward on all sides (and a lot of silliness, too). But in fairness, we seem to have a core group of about 30 - 40 posters doing most of the talking. In the Apple-Samsung poll, over 4,300 readers voted. Putting on my CEO hat for a minute, I thought it would be valuable 'market research' to know how a larger number of readers felt about the decision. EDIT: oops, even more people voted on that poll than I realized...

    • cynan
    • 7 years ago

    At the risk of sounding like a condescending ass, I’ll admit that once in a while I almost cringe at the way some people here seem to hang off of the opinions of the editors in a show of something approaching fanboi-ism.

    However, in this case, I think Scott’s take, on this apparently controversial issue, is right on the money. The last two paragraphs of this piece pretty much hits nail on head. Perhaps a bit sensational sounding, but this is his bread and butter, so you can’t really blame him for taking it seriously and is, after all, the epitome of why many TR regulars frequent this site.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      I claim shenanigan !

      “Whatever your allegiances, your interests as a consumer would be better served by a truly independent review press”

      If this truly was TR stand, they would not accept sample product with the attached license agreement.
      TR would independently acquire the HW they review free of those string with the manufacturer.

      TR is just controlling the flow of information. This is not in the benefit of its reader.

        • nanoflower
        • 7 years ago

        That would depend on what limitations are placed on them. Having to agree to a specific release date seems reasonable (and usually you couldn’t get the product before the release date in any case), but agreeing to only benchmark certain attributes doesn’t seem reasonable to me. I think Scott has taken a reasonable approach to it by bringing the audience in on the discussion. It’s probably the only thing that might result in AMD not making this a standard approach going forward.

        • blastdoor
        • 7 years ago

        I call double shenanigans on everyone.

        The world is not black or white. Agreeing to one condition from a vendor is not the same as agreeing to all conditions. You might dismiss that as a mere matter of degree, but degree absolutely matters. I think Scott is right that AMD has crossed a line here.

        But at the same time, I don’t think that we’re on a slippery slope to a world governed by big brother, either. If AMD (or other vendors) cross this line in the eyes of Scott, then they are likely also crossing it in the eyes of many consumers (certainly they are in my eyes). If TR refuses to play ball with these new restrictions, TR will gain readers who no longer trust “reviews” from sites that go along with these rules. I do not wait breathlessly for a new product review the moment something comes out. I’m a grown-up — I can wait a while

        Also, I think it’s certainly not random that this came from AMD. AMD is a desperate company trying to stay in business. For AMD, maintaining its reputation in the longer term is an unaffordable luxury. I doubt that Intel will follow AMD down this route, in large part because they just don’t have to.

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    Stupid premiere and stupid explanation. They are still present ‘Bulldozer philosophy’ – near idiotic imagination about reality.

    • yenic
    • 7 years ago

    This article will draw in traffic as it is attempting to drum up controversy, but lets be honest here. TR- If you don’t want to be a marketing vehicle for AMD by publishing their preview materials- then don’t. Abstain. Obviously you’re going to want the traffic from that information so you probably will release it. I’ll visit TR either way. You’re in my FF RSS feeds.

    • indeego
    • 7 years ago

    It’s good to see TR will no longer publish “rumor” articles about iPhones and other products. That might lead to speculation in the future.

    Oh wait…

    TR does!

    You say:
    “AMD gets to highlight its product’s strengths”

    but yet you publish “news” articles (Under News header) about products’ strengths and weaknesses not even officially released!

    I’m curious why partial benchmarks are an objection. Let your readers decide. Just splash a big “we don’t have CPU numbers, sorry, probably shouldn’t get this product until they come out.”

    Or how about the lack of disclosure that you profit directly from collection of your reader’s click behavior every Friday Deal post? I have no issue with posting the deals, or even the 3rd party services you use, but you aren’t disclosing to your readers what is actually happening to them when they click on an affiliate link: the collection of their spending/clicking habits through a 3rd party not affiliated or disclosed with Newegg or TR. As quasi-clever as AMD, in my mind.

      • d34thly
      • 7 years ago

      TR readers don’t exactly need disclosure about how websites and the interweb works. I think every non-moron knows that clicking a daily deal link is not an anonymous action. Should I be outraged at TR because there is data out there somewhere that could prove I bought a mouse and a hard drive last week? ( thanks to 3rd party software most banner ads now show me computer parts and other things I WANT to buy instead of Russian mail order brides and other disgusting ads.)

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      TR in the past, not sure if they will change now that they are against it, publish tons of preview material given to them by Intel, AMD & nividia.

      Why the sudden 360 switch? I think TR got caught with its pants down.

      Anyways, looking forward to see the full TR review in 5 days.

        • Pasdepardon
        • 7 years ago

        A 360 degree ‘switch’ is a full circle. You end up in the same direction.

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        I’m thinking they don’t have the data to even publish. TR is consistently a few days to a week behind every other major tech site with reviews. Hell, I’ve almost stopped reading the articles here and come almost solely for the community and people. If this is Damage’s full time job, there’s really no excuse for being late ALL THE TIME. If you were a week late handing in reports EVERY TIME at your job, you’d be reprimanded and eventually fired. He gets a free pass from everyone here by saying ‘Oh, just take your time and be thorough.’ I really think they just aren’t ready to post ANY info yet, so they’re pissed off that others can.

          • BIF
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]If you were a week late handing in reports EVERY TIME at your job, you'd be reprimanded and eventually fired. [/quote<] Again, this analogy does not apply. It's not like there's a "due date" for reviews!

            • tfp
            • 7 years ago

            No there aren’t due date’s but it helps to put out a review when the NDA is lifted like most other sites. You can only see the follow kind of statement so many times before you start ignoring the people that post it: “TR is the only good source for a review you need to wait for the review to be posted here”.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Kinda like today. I see articles on CPU performance at Anandtech, Extremetech (kinda – it’s worth reading), Hot Hardware, TPU, et. al.

            • tfp
            • 7 years ago

            Now derFunk that might imply that the biggest issue was that they had nothing to preview in the first place and AMD took TR by surprise. Corrado might be right, but they day is still young and they might just need to push the review to the server. However if that isn’t the case the two blog posts were a very slick stop gap.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I’m not implying anything. Maybe they’re boycotting Trinity entirely? Maybe AMD wanted the review sample back after the bad press?

            • tfp
            • 7 years ago

            I’m sure that’s it, TR has such vastly different benchmarks vs the web it was banned.

          • tfp
          • 7 years ago

          Someone comment that in the podcast they stated that the review will be late, I haven’t listen to the podcast.

          [url<]https://techreport.com/news/23667/desktop-trinity-apus-available-at-newegg?post=673874[/url<]

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 7 years ago

      Exactly. This is an overreaction that could have been better handled by doing the review with a disclaimer. Not that this isn’t stupid of AMD, but a disclaimer would have been a less controversial choice. Meanwhile, everyone who wants to read something is going over to Anand.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        I fully agree a disclaimer was the best way to go while disagree that it was stupid of AMD to try this given websites have been all over AMD for not beating Intel with Bulldozer, that’s old news and Trinity won’t change it….. again….. old news yet without a doubt the focus would be on it had AMD not intervened.

        getting websites to show what Trinity has to offer isn’t wrong, websites doing yet another review with 10 – 15 cpu charts and a pair of gaming benches showing not just that AMD’s CPU side is still weak but that it’s IGP still nothing compared to an Intel cpu / HD 7870 combo is.

        for the low end, the HTPC market and the mainstream user Trinity is interesting offering up something Intel doesn’t but that would be lost if CPU performance was the focus which would have been… as it always has been.

        I believe it’s a minor fail on both TR and AMD although I don’t believe AMD was doing the community a disservice even if their motivations were selfish.

        p.s. I do believe it’s a fail on AMD for not making Trinity compatible with the current mainboards ruining an upgrade path for existing users.

      • flip-mode
      • 7 years ago

      That’s a fair point.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      I’ve been quite adamant in requesting a section for rumors, completely outside of news…but I don’t see how news/rumors are the same as previews/reviews of a product.

      In a piece of news, you get what a company released about a certain product. Nothing is being tested…it’s just news. Rumors are not even that…they can be true, they can be false and definitely nothing is being tested even if the rumor says it’s about tests done to a product. Until tested, its validity is doubtful. I agree that nothing should be taken from this like expected/rumored performance as that can’t yet be substantiated (last one I did that was in the comments section of the claims/rumors that the iPhone 5 was 2X as fast)

      But Reviews/Previews are hands-on on a product. You have it and you test it. In this case it’s “You have it, but AMD dictates how you show what you tested”. Not really news or rumors. It’s an actual product in your hands that you can test, regardless of news or rumors.

      • kc77
      • 7 years ago

      That’s a slightly different way of looking at it but true nonetheless.

    • WaltC
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Allowing media outlets to post 'limited previews' prior to the product launch date (and news embargo lift) is not a new practice.[/quote<] What is either unclear or misleading about that statement? OTOH, you guys keep saying "review" where AMD keeps telling you it's not a "review" it is a preview of a product that is not yet shipping. Their limitations on a preview seem perfectly sensible, since you aren't looking at shipping silicon, but simply a preview of pre-shipping silicon in its present state. By the time the silicon ships there may be several changes in it that you won't see in the preview silicon. Why would TR *want* to exhaustively review pre-shipping, pre-finalized silicon? It won't be the definitive word on the product that actually ships anyway, as you'll be doing a *review* of that when the time comes--when the product actually ships. I don't see anything in the AMD directive that tells you how short (or long) your preview has to be. So what's the big deal?...;) All companies send out PR kits just like this for preview products--it's their job to generate publicity for these upcoming products, and it's your job to generate this kind of info on upcoming products for your readership. I think your readership clearly understands the difference between preview and review. My suggestion: Start the preview with a quote of AMD's directive to you, and then write the preview according to your directive. Who will find fault with you for doing that? After all, when the product ships you'll have ample time to say what you want to say about it then, won't you? And because the product will then be shipping it will have much more meaning and impact. OTOH, no matter what you write in a preview, by the time the product ships and the reviews hit the street all the previews previously written will be forgotten.

      • MrJP
      • 7 years ago

      You’re misrepresenting the situation. Do you honestly think the “reviews” next week are going to be done with different hardware than the “previews” this week? AMD will have supplied hardware for the reviews some time ago. Without getting into the other discussion about cherry-picked parts, the hardware supplied will be representative of the final shipping product.

      What AMD have done is said “You know that hardware we gave you for the reviews for next week? You can release some of the test results as a preview this week, but only in the tests that we know will be favourable for our product”. How can anyone not see that this is wrong?

      Previous product previews (like the Conroe example mentioned elsewhere) differ because the test conditions were clearly constrained by the vendor and/or the results directly provided by the vendor so that it was obvious to anyone reading the article that this was not an independent, impartial test and should be interpreted accordingly.

      In this case, AMD has allowed reviewers to go off and do their impartial tests, but then applied a filter to the publication of the results. The end result is a whole stack of preview articles that look very much like the usual independent, impartial reviews but have a deliberate underlying bias applied. I can completely understand why Scott objects to being asked to review a product, then being told which results he’s allowed to present. It’s a dangerous precedent and I’m glad he’s drawn a line at this point.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 7 years ago

    I see a point to all sides of this. TR doesn’t want to be influenced and wants to be 100% independent and maintain perceived and actual integrity. And that’s great. There should be more outrage. There should be more opinions. It’s not just one review that makes my opinion of a product but many (as well as my own experience).

    For AMD this is brilliant marketing. They know they will lose the CPU benchmarks. But that’s not the purpose of this chip. I’m still rocking a Core2 CPU! CPU’s really don’t matter that much these days for 90% of users. They wanted to be pitted against Intel in a more real-world setting. And that’s what really matters for most people. Car journalists understand that benchmarks are not everything. There points where number don’t really matter. That’s why MotorTrend posts what I think are some of the best videos (especially ones from Carlos Lagos).

    And Anandtech has done two-part reviews before, even without embargos. It’s nothing new for them so I shrugged it off. I didn’t realize it was a two part until I read it. It allows them to save time, focus on a core aspect of a product, and meet deadlines. It’s a fine approach for them as they usually focus on more technical aspects of products.

    The passion displayed here is great. But there are a lot of people like me who are getting down-ranked because many don’t agree. And that’s a shame. It’s not a black and white situation for most people, myself included. And I doubt I’ve changed anyone’s opinion. But I don’t see the need for the hostility in the comments towards fellow TR members. Now, let the down ranks commence.

    • vaultboy101
    • 7 years ago

    Scott I applaud your stance.

    Don’t let firms like AMD strong arm you and restrict freedom of the press. Because that is what this is.Frankly AMD are a despicable company for coercing journalists in this fashion and turning reviews into advertising.

    It makes me very happy that I just purchased a MacBook Pro Retina with zero AMD parts in it. Frankly the Intel Core i7 and Nvidia GT 650M are superior to any AMD components anyway.

    The horde of AMD fanboys from SemiAccurate have already made their feelings known below in the comments but please do not be put off.

    You and the TR team are in the right and this is one of reasons why I have been patronising this site since the Athlon XP era and will continue to.

    Keep up the good work guys!

      • Antimatter
      • 7 years ago

      How is AMD restricting freedom of the press?

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Cahoots with Homeland Security.

        Homeland Security doesn’t want you pirating stuff because it’s clearly a major national security problem

    • brucethemoose
    • 7 years ago

    Funny thing about all this is that we pretty much know the end results AMD is trying to obscure, more or less.

    -The A10’s GPU is faster/better than Intel’s HD 4000 with much better drivers. It’s better for gaming, the CPU is “adequate”.

    -The i3 CPU is faster/better than A10’s Piledriver with much better single threaded performance. It’s better for video conversion and CPU intensive stuff, the GPU is “adequate”.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]The A10's GPU is faster/better than Intel's HD 4000 with much better [b<]Windows[/b<] drivers. It's better for gaming, the CPU is "adequate". [/quote<]

    • hiro_pro
    • 7 years ago

    this just reminds me how much i like clockwork orange.

    perhaps this is a good excuse to try an nvidia card

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Techreport is perhaps the last remaining site that I really find still respectable. I’m not gonna name names, but some sites have been bought out and run by large media companies and have lost their essence. Some sites are obviously biased towards some companies (again, not gonna name names). Some sites have lots of grammatical errors, you’d think nobody proof-reads their articles. And some sites simply have dubious test results (I don’t even bother bookmarking them).

    I hope TR will keep its reputation clean forever. I mean, nothing lasts forever, but… you get the idea.

    • jrr
    • 7 years ago

    What should we call each of these things?

    “enhanced preview” followed later by “full review” ?
    “limited-scope review” / “real review” ?
    “vendor-controlled media coverage” / “independent media coverage” ?

    You’re my favorite, techreport, for refusing to participate in controlled coverage. (perhaps what pageviews you miss out on by skipping it, you regain by covering the controversy? =] )

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Partial review.

      AMD in short allowed the GPU portion of the product to be reviewed before launch.

      Is this hurting me as a consumer ?
      no, now I have an idea if I should buy an Ivy Bridge now or wait a few weeks for the full review.

      Is this hurting TR? yes.

      AMD is offering more data, TR is censoring data. Both have a reason.

      As a consumer I welcome information, even if its early preliminary data.

      Shame on you TR for controlling information what we can read and cant read!

        • Voldenuit
        • 7 years ago

        Would you feel the same way if Apple allowed previews of the iPhone 5 but reviewers were not allowed to comment on the Maps app?

        Or if Ford released the Focus ST but reviewers weren’t allowed to comment on torque steer at launch.

        Bottom line is: a manufacturer is trying to influence public perception of their products. Which is the norm for advertising and marketing, but they are now assailing the bastion of impartiality that the free press should be. It does not matter if AMD’s intentions are benign or innocuous, what matters is that this action sets a bad precedent that can and will be abused in the future.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]AMD is offering more data, TR is censoring data. Both have a reason.[/quote<] No. They're offering the same data, at different times.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          Actually the choice is:

          No preview/review until october 5th, no data released in any shape of form
          Or publish a GPU preview if you care to

          But yes, The same data will be available in the end. We just get early access to the GPU side of the product… but not here on TR, because of morality issues. hence the withholding of data from TR.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            You spin AMD’s attempt to control information so that somehow its TR that is trying to control information.

            • A_Pickle
            • 7 years ago

            Seriously. Like, wow. I like AMD, and what they’ve done here is bullshit.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Is this hurting me as a consumer ?[/quote<] Yes. AMD has begun the process of beating review websites, by influencing their income, into deemphasizing benchmarks which are disadvantageous to AMD. There is the definite possibility that the number of "unfavorable" benchmarks published on the web will be reduced if such a policy were to become the norm, because reviewers will (most likely) [i<]effectively be paid less for making "unfavorable" tests[/i<] because those tests must be delayed. Its not clear to me if this particular case will have that effect, but the technique could be used to have that effect, and I'm happy that someone around here has a spine.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    FWIW, outside of the PC world, this practice is common and has been for years. The most obvious example is new-car ‘previews’; manufacturers clearly control the entire experience; they pay the reviewers’ airfare and hotel costs, ply them with booze and entertainment, and then allow them to go on a ‘test drive’ – in the passenger seat, with a factory engineer doing the driving, and usually on the manufacturer’s own proving ground track. If the journalist is allowed to drive the car at all, it’s with strict limitations (sometimes computer-imposed with a custom chip inserted into the engine), and with the same factory engineer/hired-gun in the passenger seat. Of course, the venues selected and the drives conducted are carefully selected to show the vehicle in the best possible light (often literally, for the photogs).

    [Full Acknowledgement: wrapping a $300,000 sports car around a tree is indeed more serious than burning out a $300 CPU in a failed overclocking experiment]

    Once the issue hits the newsstands, hilarity ensues as car enthusiasts read three or four different version of precisely the same event, complete with different pictures of the very same car on the very same track with the very same driver.

    And those issues fly off the shelves.

    Some months later, the same magazines will finally be allowed to do their own testing, on a track of their own choosing, and without a corporate nanny in the other seat. At that time, they write about the obvious warts and missed opportunities, the failings in pricing, options, technology, whatever. They even compare the car head-to-head with a traditional rival.

    And those issues fly off the shelves too.

    By comparison to that world, what AMD is doing here is very, very mild. I sincerely admire Scott for standing up for his principles, but I think his principles could have been kept just as intact with a ‘Preview!’ article prefaced by a full disclosure about the conditions (as most of the car mags do, even if only in fine print). Honestly, I think most of us on here are plenty intelligent enough to make up our own minds about both the item’s performance and the manufacturer’s attempts to spin the message. Telling me you’re withholding the partial information because you fear I’m not smart enough to get the whole picture isn’t frankly that different from what AMD is doing.

      • deathBOB
      • 7 years ago

      I think the worst part of auto journalism is that you have to wait until the next model of a given car comes out before you read the full truth of the previous model’s failings. Even in the “real reviews” they pull punches.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Even in the "real reviews" they pull punches.[/quote<] Yeah no kidding. Each car review I read, I'm impressed to learn just how bad the previous models were!

          • Meadows
          • 7 years ago

          Isn’t that a con to make the new model seem even better?

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      And then there’s video game reviews…..

        • Farting Bob
        • 7 years ago

        “this game crashes at the intro screen, emitted a high pitch noise that caused by friend to have a seizure and installed 19 rootkits that have hacked my bank details and stolen over $8,000 from me. I give it a 7/10.”

          • no51
          • 7 years ago

          Ah, the venerable 7 to 10 scale. Why so low?

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Because it’s still a console port. Other than that, it’s perfect.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      What you described isn’t what’s going on here. Your first example is more akin to controlled previews given at staged press events, the second is the real hands-on independent review. To make your car magazine analogy correct, the magazine would be given a car to test, but in their first article they could only write about specific features or performance statistics and be forbidden to write about others, then in a later issue they could publish anything and everything.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        Oh, c’mon, it’s plenty close enough, and the only real difference is, um, ‘driven’ by the fact that one is dealing with a $300,000 consumer product of which only 1,000 will ever be made, and the other with a $300 consumer product of which millions will be made.

        To make the analogy exact, AMD could have flown Scott, Anandh, Tom and others to Sunnyvale, put them up at the Ritz-Carleton, taken them out for an expensive dinner and then a show, before returning to a back room at AMD where a single, carefully-tweaked Trinity system was waiting for them to look at, and to watch while an AMD engineer ran the benchmark tests that AMD had agreed to ahead of time. That’s the only difference.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah and that’s what AMD, Intel, Nvidia do (sort of, without the paying for it part) a trade show and other staged demos – THOSE situations are the real parallel to the ‘controlled car test’ you outlined.

          • A_Pickle
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]To make the analogy exact, AMD could have flown Scott, Anandh, Tom and others to Sunnyvale, put them up at the Ritz-Carleton, taken them out for an expensive dinner and then a show...[/quote<] More like "La Quinta," followed by Denny's and a movie. 😀

        • Jason181
        • 7 years ago

        Except that difference is contrived, because AMD could have easily done such a “preview” at their offices, and the result would be just as you described. It’s semantics in that the company at least chose to be honest about their motives instead of showing a preview in a situation directly controlled by the company.

        Personally, I think the reasonable solution would have been to preface the article with a disclaimer, and subjective testing of other areas is likely to bring up some of the shortcomings of the product.

        I think a better complaint than “editorial control” or independence would’ve been that AMD is trying to manipulate people’s initial impression (and likely final for many who don’t bother to read the real article after seeing the “preview”), but that’s an untenable position because many sites, including this one agree to do previews under tightly controlled circumstances.

        Just because the restrictions are applied from afar rather than in person doesn’t make them any different imho.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Except that difference is contrived, because AMD could have easily done such a "preview" at their offices, and the result would be just as you described.[/quote<] No, this sort of review could not have been done at their offices. AMD wants real hands-on reviews, not some mere news article about how someone looked at the system through glass, or that they ran some canned crap tests. Its really obvious to the reader what is going on when reviewers are only allowed to see the system in a very limited environment, and readers know that means the system isn't ready for prime time. AMD is trying to exert control over reviews of a system which is supposed to be ready to go onto the market. They don't want it to look like something which isn't ready, but they do want control. You may have noticed that AMD's technique has the potential to reduce page hits on the tests that they want to be deemphasized. Effectively, they are arranging for review websites to be paid less for doing test that AMD doesn't like.

            • Jason181
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]No, this sort of review could not have been done at their offices.[/quote<] You used the wrong word; this is a [b<]preview[/b<]. Previews, by definition, have limitations. If an outlet published that information as a "review" or even as a preview without a disclaimer regarding what they could and could not disclose, I would say that's disingenuous of the outlet. I fully understand AMD's reasoning for doing this, and I actually don't like what they're doing. You don't have to spell it out again in your post; it was done quite well in Scott's post. I just disagree that this affects independence or integrity. Any outlet is free to do their review as if this never happened or mattered, which is what it sounds like TR will do. The real complaint here is like both he and you said: AMD is trying to allow the positive qualities of its product come before the negative. But most outlets can't complain about that directly, because they've all done previews in the past that were controlled by the product's manufacturer, and were likely only showcasing a product's positive qualities, so to complain about [i<]that[/i<] would be blatant hypocrisy.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]You used the wrong word; this is a preview. Previews, by definition, have limitations.[/quote<] It doesn't help to quote the definition, or point out exactly what word is being used. AMD wants a [b<]review[/b<] that leaves out the parts they don't like. Oh sure, we'll call it a "preview", the only thing that separates it from a "review" is that AMD gets to decide what is included. Unlike trade show teasers, there is no technical reason for a "preview" of Trinity, only marketing. I too can see lots of reasons for AMD to do this, but this tactic can be expected to damage the quality of information available if it is continued. Like I said, reviewers will likely be paid less money for doing things that AMD (or others) do not like and it is reasonable to assume that this will lead to fewer unfavorable test being performed. Its also irritating that they interfere with the free distribution of information.

            • Jason181
            • 7 years ago

            I have news for you; it’s [b<]all[/b<] for marketing purposes, and the constraints on trade show floors serve the purposes of the manufacturer just as much as this preview does. They just aren't explicit about it on the showroom floor. The difference of opinion we have here is that I don't believe a demo on a showroom floor is constrained due is constrained for technical (or other reasons), but rather it's a marketing ploy. You must honestly believe that these demos are different because the constraints on the demo floor aren't just as artificial as the constraints for this preview. Perhaps I'm wrong though. Do you believe that marketing has nothing to do with the limitations a manufacturer places on floor demos, or do you believe it's different for some other reason?

            • FubbHead
            • 7 years ago

            I agree. To throw such a fit over this, they should’ve also walked away from those showcasings as well, for the same reason. IMO.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            There is no equivalence between teaser hardware on a trade show floor, and finished hardware in the offices of actual reviewers.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            So you’re saying during trade shows Intel never demos final silicon in a controlled environment? You do realize this argument isn’t a winner don’t you?

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        And there’d be nothing wrong with that because there was a prior agreement in place NOT TO POST THE REVIEW until a certain date. IF YOU WANT to post the results of THESE tests early, be our guest, or don’t. Whatever is fine.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Telling me you're withholding the partial information because you fear I'm not smart enough to get the whole picture isn't frankly that different from what AMD is doing.[/quote<] I don't think TR is taking this stance because they fear their readers aren't smart enough. They are doing so because it may be setting a dangerous precedent in tech journalism - one that may impact the future integrity of tech journalism in general. AMD is allowing the best assets of a product to get first exposure for the very purpose of hopefully having this portion of the whole picture getting disproportionate exposure. This way, AMD gets to have their products' highlights -um- highlighted in a "preview" and then have these highlights reiterated in the full review when the embargo lifts. This creates a situation where, upon product release, there will be a greater body of literature focusing on the products' good points than that focusing on its negatives. Secondly, there is the psychology of what people read first about a product making a bigger impact - the whole "first impression" principle. That this strategy is orchestrated by the company selling the product, and not the journalist, is an important factor in and of itself. No matter how upfront or transparent the preview piece, it still sort of ends up leaving at least some of the integrity of the journalist in the hands of the company selling the product. Finally, these sorts of maneuvers are not designed for what I would think constitutes the majority of TR's readership (and I guess, in that sense, Scott's strong reaction comes with at least a bit of irony). It is a ploy aimed mostly at novice- or non-enthusiasts and those who are less tech savvy but wary enough to read a few articles before making a related purchase. As I've posted elsewhere, AMD isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts to give the public more data. This is designed (or at least intended) to be used as a marketing advantage. Whether or not this exists in other industries is interesting, but from TR's perspective, largely irrelevant. As a tech (and not an automotive) journalism outlet, it is TR's duty to weigh impending changes that may impact the integrity of the reporting and compare to the status quo for tech journalism. Which is what I see here. And furthermore, just because it is acceptable in one industry to have marketing campaigns loosely disguised as reviews or previews, doesn't mean that it's the best course for every industry (or even the automotive industry).

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        Very well-written and insightful; I’m sorry I only have a single +1 to give.

        Your opening statement
        [quote<]They are doing so because it may be setting a dangerous precedent in tech journalism - one that may impact the future integrity of tech journalism in general[/quote<] and your closing statement [quote<]Whether or not this exists in other industries is interesting, but from TR's perspective, largely irrelevant[/quote<] are both complimentary and contradictory. IIRC, it was about 20 years ago that car manufacturers (BMW, Mercedes and Ferrari being the initial instigators) began trying to control the message in car magazines. I remember the hue and cry from some of the most well-respected journalists of the time, the proclamation of outrage, etc, etc. 20 years later, the situation has not changed, and the car magazines have not gone out of business. Some of those journalists are gone now, many because they simply retired, others for reasons unspoken. The only one I know personally (Jim Kenzie of the Toronto Star) continues to participate in the 'staged' events, but always includes a disclaimer, and does not hesitate to call out any flaws he sees. If I believed for a moment that Scott's refusal to play would inspire the marketing world to re-think their practices, I'd be happy to take a bullet for him (Or, a poison pen. Or a sucker punch from a troll. But I digress..) But I don't think this practice is going to go away, I think it's going to get worse (didn't Nvidia recently refuse to give MSI any new review cards because they allowed TweakTown to write about them before embargoes expired?) Rather than taking his ball and going home, I would prefer to see Scott play by their rules [i<]and clearly communicate to his readers the attempts at manipulation a manufacturer is making[/i<] - at least, right up to the point where Nvidia (or AMD, or Intel) cuts them off.

          • cynan
          • 7 years ago

          So then it becomes a question of whether it’s about Scott’s integrity as a journalist and commitment to serve his readers or his ego as the editor in chief of a popular tech news outlet. ;-P

          If it’s the former, then why not just state that you don’t necessarily agree with the practices, but in the interest of readers, do the preview piece anyway with full disclaimer?

          I suppose that’s a perfectly reasonable perspective. I guess as TR intends to do a full review article anyway, I’m happy to – as you put it – take a bit of a poison pen and forgo the preview in support of the scruples of the editors. At the very least I support, and find TR completely justified, making a big stink about it as they are here.

          I just hope that if it does in fact become the status quo to, let’s face it, play games like this, and that if TR continues to abstain, that they don’t get shunned when future review samples get circulated. For the reasons I’ve posted, I support Scott’s stance, but agree that might end up causing more damage in the long run and be a bigger disservice to the readers than the situation warrants. On the other hand, in a perfect world, Scott would be rewarded for sticking to his guns. And maybe that sort of idealism is part of what makes him good at his job…

        • kc77
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<] AMD is allowing the best assets of a product to get first exposure for the very purpose of hopefully having this portion of the whole picture getting disproportionate exposure. [/quote<] Yes because in all of tech journalism this has never in the history of tech sites happened before! /s If Intel flies you out somewhere to allow you to highlight a specific feature of their CPU do you actually believe they are doing it because they sincerely like you? If you oblige them are you not highlighting specific features over other less savory ones? When Batman Arkham Asylum ends up in every video review do you believe that Nvida played no role in that? How about FTW video cards? Didn't you think it was amazing that ALL TECH SITES AT THE SAME EXACT TIME put in FTW cards during AMD's launch of it's midrange a couple of years ago? I'm going to break your heart a little, but there is no such thing as the completely independent, uninfluenced technical review website. All of them bend from time to time. The trick for them is to not let anyone see them do it, or much less notice. But they all do. In addition every review, preview, deal of the week, or snapshot of factory altered hardware is a marketing opportunity for the tech review site AND the vendor. Most people understand this. Hence when I see a p/review I read the words, process the information, then look for second, third, and fourth opinions. In particular I look for data-sets which represent my workload. If I don't see them then I keep looking until I find them. To get into a semantic argument over when it's acceptable for a preview or review to have some, or all of the necessary information (apparently the validity of the argument is totally determined whether someone put you on the plane or puts the SKU you are to review on the plane) for the reader to make informed buying decisions is kind of ridiculous since the reader shouldn't be taking the review, preview, or mega-mega-secret snapshot at face value anyway. For myself this "incident" is minor and in no way should it be misconstrued as the day TR saved journalistic integrity on planet Earth. It's not that serious and that didn't happen.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<] I sincerely admire Scott for standing up for his principles, but I think his principles could have been kept just as intact with a 'Preview!' article prefaced by a full disclosure about the conditions (as most of the car mags do, even if only in fine print).[/quote<] Is this your boat? May I join you in it?

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]FWIW, outside of the PC world, this practice is common and has been for years.[/quote<] I don't know about you, but I think the quality of information available about PCs is better than the information available for any other type of product. (Some photography sites can also compete.) Its publications like TR which stand out as the best reviewers of any product, anywhere, ever. I'm very happy that they are not compromising.

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      In reference to car magazines, [quote<]...and those issues fly off the shelves too. [/quote<] No they don't. The car magazine business is in deep horse puckey with very bad circulation rates. I believe it's because for the longest time they GAVE UP their independence. Damage is right. Don't water down your brand.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 7 years ago

    Meanwhile at AMD:

    ::a loud pop is heard::
    ::Someone screams::

    “SUCCESS! Two front page stories on Tech Report! AMD IS BACK BABY, Pour the bubbly!”

    [u<]Remember: No press is bad press[/u<]

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      TR making sure to milk it by building a controversial editorial… Add revenue baby!

      edit: and TR using torture images with its editorial.. yea, very professional Scott.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 7 years ago

        When you’re given Llanos, make Llanoaid.

        (sorry, it just doesn’t work with Trinity :p)

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          If faced with bad Trinity reviews, run a Triad?

          • neon
          • 7 years ago

          Trinity Ale?

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Hmm.. I should check how S|A is handling this..

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Lol, that was fun.. big pro-Trinity preview, with a single comment about how AMD asked not to release CPU benchies until Oct 2nd. Topped off with a big anti Clover Trail rant.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Well, trinity did wipe the bottom of an i7-3770k for gaming. What other conclusion where you expecting?

            Dont worry lots of review site will have the opposite reaction in 5 days for you to gloat.

            Still, I’m surprised a 2 module piledriver is 4x faster running Minecraft compare to Intel flagship i7-3770k

            • d34thly
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t know anyone that uses the on chip graphics for gaming, so if Trinity’s on chip graphics beats Ivy’s on chip graphics, even by 400millionbilliontrillion times over, it is a moot point. If I wanted to beat Ivy’s on chip graphics 4x over I could just spend $19.99 on a graphics card. So if I want 4x better than Trinity’s on chip graphics, I might have to spend $39.99 on a card. I can’t believe I am getting minused on a tech site for NOT using integrated graphics. Whoever minused me should shoot themselves for sucking.

            • jensend
            • 7 years ago

            You’re distorting the pricing situation by roughly 5x. Good luck even finding a graphics card at all for $20. Even Sandy Bridge’s HD3000 will crush anything you can find for $40.

            The cheapest graphics card that consistently beats Trinity is the 6670 at ~$70. (The 6570 trades blows with Trinity.) So the cheapest combination with an Intel CPU that outperforms a $130 Trinity is about $190.

            Paying $60 extra for only a tiny bit of additional performance makes no sense. Now that Trinity is an option, the cheapest non-integrated configuration that makes sense is to add a 7750 (or a cheap GF 460 if you can find one- though the 560 and 660 have been good, the 550 and 650 are crap). That setup gives you twice Trinity’s gaming performance for ~$220. For four times Trinity’s performance, you’re looking at $350 (Intel CPU + GF 660 or 7870).

            Given how many games are playable at 1680 on Trinity, a lot of budget-constrained people who play games will want to give it a good look.

            • travbrad
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]The cheapest graphics card that consistently beats Trinity is the 6670 at ~$70. (The 6570 trades blows with Trinity.) So the cheapest combination with an Intel CPU that outperforms a $130 Trinity is about $190.[/quote<] If you really care about gaming performance it would be well worth it to step up to a 7750 rather than a 6670. The 7750 is almost double the performance, and only $25 more. You could buy any cheap CPU (from Intel or AMD) and pair it with a 7750 and get much better gaming performance than Trinity offers. Pentium G640 + 7750 = $170 with double the gaming performance of $130 trinity. Maybe that's not worth it to some people, but for me $40 seems a small price to pay for doubling your gaming performance. If you are looking for a cheap laptop with decent gaming performance then I think trinity makes a lot of sense, but on a desktop system where it's so easy/cheap to add a graphics card (and where power consumption isn't a big issue) I still think a discrete card makes a lot more sense for gamers.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            There’s one problem with your suggestion. Depending on the model Llano is actually faster than Pentium G’s on the CPU side. Trinity probably is as well. Won’t know for a couple of days, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was (it damn well better at 4.2 GHz). Pentium G is in no way a powerhouse. This is why i3’s have usually been the sweet spot for Intel.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]I can't believe I am getting minused on a tech site for NOT using integrated graphics. Whoever minused me should shoot themselves for sucking.[/quote<] ^ ^ o o . . . . . . . . . . ~~~~~~~~~ ^my river

            • eofpi
            • 7 years ago

            I find your lack of line breaks disturbing.

          • d34thly
          • 7 years ago

          SA has an “article” about discussing AMD’s new crossfireX logo; That’s a pretty good indicator that you shouldn’t get your news from SA.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah.. S|A main page has 11 AMD articles, 5 Intel articles (four of them from IDF) and one saying how Apple will dump Intel.

            Balanced coverage of the tech world. Clearly AMD is about 2x more important than Intel

      • ludi
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Meanwhile at AMD: ::a loud pop is heard:: ::Someone screams::[/quote<] The way they've been burning through executives, that sounds about right. And no, that wasn't a champagne cork.

      • TheBradyReport
      • 7 years ago

      LOL. no press is bad press? Let’s test that… New Coke?

      • jihadjoe
      • 7 years ago

      So HardOCP did it right by not writing anything at all?

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        Yes, now if we could get them to stop posting links from the gawker network as a story 8x a day they might get me to read a lil more often. 🙂

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    “principle at stake is paramount ”

    If this is your personal belief. Please return your sample product to AMD, and buy it on the open market with the add money your site generate, and then make a full review as you see fit.

    AMD doesn’t force you to run a preview, it simply allows it. Its at your discretion.

    My take, this is an excuse because you have nothing to show and are ticked off that all other sites have already HTPC and gaming previews posted.

    If intel gives you an Haswell engineering sample with a document that state that you are allowed to post an article on it with multimedia benchmark… will you post an editorial to your readers on how Intel is taking control ?

    This TR reaction is freaking lame 🙁

      • rxc6
      • 7 years ago

      [quote=”sschaem”<]This TR reaction is freaking lame :([/quote<] No it is not, but your tiresome comments on both posts are the lamest I have seen in a while.

    • jjj
    • 7 years ago

    Already commented on this so not gonna say the same thing again but i got to say that the biggest shocker was that S/A went with it and closed comments,Charlie will look like a troll from now on anytime he attacks Intel and Nvidia.
    As for AMD,the new leaders are not giving us much hope,early this year the idiotic pricing for 28nm GPUs,the very low key launch for Brazos 2,delays for the 2 desktop lines,now this. It’s not enough that they don’t have the product (this year),they don’t know how to sell it anymore either.Maybe they should hire some old people back ,they at least knew how to deal with the enthusiasts and the importance of that market.
    I thought a new team is starting to take shape at AMD and maybe there is some hope for them,long term,but i guess they are not quite there yet.One can only hope… Intel is already getting too greedy for it’s own good (and ours) so we need AMD or ARM to put some pressure on them.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Charlie will look like a troll from now on anytime he attacks Intel and Nvidia.[/quote<] From now on..? He's looked like a troll for a long time already

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]The goal was to provide an opportunity to talk about the [b<]real-world experience[/b<] with the product and also highlight the performance in key applications where we are targeting the product.[/quote<] Someone should tell AMD that in [b<]real-world[/b<] people use CPU intensive tasks as well. In the [b<]real-world[/b<] most users of computers do not focus on the the gaming capabilities of a system. In the [b<]real-world[/b<] gaming that requires robust graphics is a small percentage of pc users.

      • Chrispy_
      • 7 years ago

      In the real world, 90% of laptop users don’t game, and those that do have an Xbox or a PS3.

        • d34thly
        • 7 years ago

        I’d hate to be a 90percenter, sucks to be them. Then again I’d hate to have to use a laptop.

        • A_Pickle
        • 7 years ago

        I disagree. I think [i<]most[/i<] people who own a computer, be it a laptop or a desktop, are going to [i<]try[/i<] to game with it at least once during their ownership of the computer. Problem is, most of these folks own a cheapie laptop or desktop with the worst integrated graphics imaginable (Intel's) - so the minute they try that game, it doesn't work. Period. I see the APU's as a more accurate blend of CPU power and GPU power for people. Most people wouldn't notice the difference between a Core i3 and an A4/A6/A8/A10 in Excel, or word, or on Firefox. They just wouldn't. But I guarantee you that, when their friends tell them about Minecraft or League of Legends or World of Tanks, they'd notice the difference between the two.

          • Medallish
          • 7 years ago

          I have an A6-3410mx Llano APU in my laptop(HP Probook 6465b), and an I5-2520M in my work computers laptop, for the most part you’re right, there’s barely any difference, except when I start doing a lot of things at the same time, people forget that sheer performance doesn’t make up for CPU cores, so my A6 Quad core APU will under those workloads often feel slightly snappier, not much, and I have brought the APU to it’s knees, but the difference is there, and yeah I don’t game on my laptop, but sometimes I’ll run Minecraft or KSP, for me it seems folish to limit yourself when the CPU performance of both is good enough for everything, but the GPU obviously isn’t.

          I love the acceleration, Chrome works pretty well, but with media heavy pages it really starts slowing down, it seems it’s not accelerating well, IE9 however, works perfectly, and made me starting using IE9 again when Chrome is having issues, but Chrome still has the most streamline user interface.

          I remember way back, when I was working in a computer store, often someone would sell a laptop that they said were great for family use, and it was a cheap Intel laptop, at the time AMD’s laptops weren’t much to write home about, but anyway, often we’d see this costumers get back asking why they can’t run Sims, and it was despite the fact that often they would claim they weren’t going to game on the laptop, a lot of users see it as one package, so they think if their PC is powerful it should be able to run games, imo that’s what AMD is doing, they are making it simpler for those who need it, and giving some people more options, like me, I’m currently playing around with Hybrid crossfire in my HTPC.

        • jweller
        • 7 years ago

        Citation please.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      In the real world, it’s also a matter of who’s going to read these articles. Normal non-nerds/non-enthusiasts aren’t going to bother anyway. They’re going to ask people who are interested in desktop CPUs what to buy for their next desktop. A large portion of the readership of these tech sites that are publishing game benchmarks are gamers themselves, so it’s relevant to their interests.

      In the real-world, people who are looking for a low-end desktop want to make sure Facebook works. It’ll work on a Trinity. Everyone who wants CPU-intensive tasks already knows that Intel is the way to go and Trinity, being based on Bulldozer, isn’t going to change that. Everyone that reads TR is already well aware of that.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      And for that small percentage of user, Trinity beat Intel flagship i7-3770k, by a HUGE margin.

      Minecraft run 4 time faster on trinity then the i7-3770k.

      This is noticeable… but will the same user care that the file that took 20 minute to download decompress in 1.3 second instead of 1.1 second ?
      Will they notice any speed difference browsing the web ? and if people did care, why are tablet so popular when they are so slow, even compared to a low end I3 ?

      Personally I plan to upgrade my Q6600 to an LGA2011 when the 6 core hit ~$300.
      But from this preview (Thanks Anand) If my HTPC dies, I would go Trinity. (no discreet GPU)

      Personaly I find trinity better balance then ivy bridge for general desktop usage,
      and its more forward thinking. IE10 being GPU accelerated, and the upcoming move to GPU compute. (Visual Studio 2012 is introducing AMP, and future software might see a nice boost on the AMD platform)

      I just dont get why people have to draw a line in the sand and poop on the other side.

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]If my HTPC dies, I would go Trinity. (no discreet GPU)[/quote<] Why would you go for a power hungry solution?

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          It’s less power-hungry than anything with an equally powerful discrete GPU. It seems well-equipped for that HTPC niche.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            You do not need a powerful GPU for HTPC purposes. An ivy bridge i3 is going to be more efficient.

            [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-ivy-bridge_7.html#sect0[/url<]

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Not for pure performance, but for things like real 23.976 fps, you need a non-Intel GPU. I guess it depends on what you want to do with your HTPC.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            The difference isn’t noticeable to 99.9% (perhaps even higher) of the people out there. I’m sure if they are not screaming bloody murder over losing .024 frames /second from the original 24 FPS they are not going to start screaming about a lost frame every 4 minutes.

            PS BTW: just because your application says it is playing 23.976 does not necessarily mean it is true. It is 23.976 relative to the computer clock which are well known to drift themselves.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Not at HTPC task. trinity is under 40 watt iddle, under 60watt watching HD.

            HTPC are also nice to play games on the big screen. Check 1366×768 game benchmarks.

            And sure the A10 will use more power when gaming then the i3.
            But you will get 5 to 15fps , while I get 40+.. doesn’t it make sense that a system that get 3 to 4 time the performance use more juice ?
            You dont put down the i7-3770k because it use more power under load then a i3 , right ?

            But lets review numbers when TR release its full review tuesday ?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            My SB rig is 25W idle. I don’t know what went wrong with that IB idle.. What mobo was used?

            Actually, I’ve been wondering about this.. SilentPCReview pointed out that IB standby voltage was quite a bit higher than SB, even though trigate was supposed to operate better at low voltages..

            Something weht wrong, like variation in the first chips, bad SRAM or something..?

            • bcronce
            • 7 years ago

            And to think, Intel’s Haswell should be using about 1/20th of of that, or a hair over 1 watt.

            An Intel Haswell with an SSD should be under 2 watts idle and under 20watts under load, at the wall. HTPC?

            And still have enough power to run Skyrim at 1080p with medium graphics with the IGP.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Sorry to burst your bubble but my i3 3225 jumps up 5 watts from idle decoding two highbitrate HD streams in a two seat configuration running xbmc. Not only that but it is also able to decode another hiccup free 3 HD streams at the same time which will be utilized when doing live transcoding and streaming the portable devices using Quicksync.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            while an i3 is certainly ok at decoding it can’t do it all…… power useage and heat isn’t about who uses/generates the least but who can work within the thresholds demanded for stability and noise.

            if both i3 and Trinity can work within the limits then both pass and are fine for the intended tasks…. the benefit of Trinity is that it can do everything an i3 can while also gaming which i3 arguably can’t do at all.

            on a side note i3 and Trinity are both worthless for multiple streams/editing…. .while i3 can handle a “whopping” 3 anyone involved in editing will be wishing it was good for 8 – 16….. 3 isn’t enough for practical use and will only make the editing process take 5 X longer.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]if both i3 and Trinity can work within the limits then both pass and are fine for the intended tasks.... the benefit of Trinity is that it can do everything an i3 can while also gaming which i3 arguably can't do at all.[/quote<] That is entirely dependent on the OS being utilized. If trinity is remotely anything like it's other AMD kin the video acceleration support is pitiful in linux. [quote<]on a side note i3 and Trinity are both worthless for multiple streams/editing.... .while i3 can handle a "whopping" 3 anyone involved in editing will be wishing it was good for 8 - 16..... 3 isn't enough for practical use and will only make the editing process take 5 X longer.[/quote<] You are confusing editing with encoding/rendering. Editing nowdays is purely I/O limited as all solutions out there have decent h264 decoding and you are dealing with a pre-encoded stream. When it comes to re-encoding or rendering of transitions for example then the CPU capability kicks in. Now even though I would not use QuickSync encoding for playback on large displays like a plasma or LED TV it does come in extremely handy doing live transcoding to portable devices. To do this you need to be able to effectively a) decode multiple streams and b) transcode to a stream compatible with your portable device. Like I said before, I am able to run a dual seat configuration of XBMC that allows playback of two HD streams to two TV's just fine and also transcode to portable devices the live stream or even feed a webstream without resorting to needing a big multicore solution. While I realize this exceeds what most people do with their HTPC, it certainly exceeds the capability of AMD/Nvidia solution out there right now.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            when I mention the differences in processors I usually don’t bother with mentioning Linux because while I do use Linux sporadically on a separate machine it’s support just plain sucks and it’s still an OS that has yet to grow beyond a curiosity…. I could live with it as a daily runner only if something went drastically wrong in the world.

            if you are focused solely on the merits of Linux support then I guess i3 might be a better cpu but outside of the linux realm it’s weak and while AMD’s cpu’s as of late have been really weak, Trinity is showing all signs of being the vastly superior option for the mainstream market….. (caveat being) so long as the price is right.

            as to the triple stream use for live feeds I’d be surprised if Trinity couldn’t manage it…. it’s just not a demanding way to use the system although it may be in Linux depending on software support or lack thereof I guess but you’d know better as it’s not what I use it for.

            cheers.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]as to the triple stream use for live feeds I'd be surprised if Trinity couldn't manage it.[/quote<] Trinity most definitely couldn't handle it. Trying to transcode hd live streams is a daunting task for even opterons and xeons without some specialized transcoding solution. If you were just going for basic media playback then you are better off going with one of the many media players available out on the market.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            It seems you are mixing and matching a lot of definitions here. If you are doing an HTPC there are probably five things you will do.

            1) File Serving
            2) Transcoding
            3) Gaming
            4) Recording
            5) Video Playback

            File serving any processor can do. Now transcoding is actually a BD strength. It’s times are comparable to SB. If transcoding is something you are thinking about doing BD should be in the running. Gaming I would go Intel, but that’s going to depend on what types of games you are running. If you are just running emulators and stuff any processor will do. Recording is usually offloaded by your video capture card. Only the cheap software ones don’t. Video playback now here I would agree AMD’s drivers leave a lot to be desired when it comes to video acceleration in Linux. However, they do support the latest standards… now. If you are in Windows though AMD is going to give you the better experience when it comes to that easily. In my eyes Trinity is easily in the running if not preferred for HTPC use.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            BD’s transcoding ability is only about as good as Thuban and even SB/IB do not have the raw CPU transcoding strength to encode multiple HD streams on the fly. To do so they have to rely on QuickSync and even in Windows AMD does not provide the capabilites needed to pull off any such live transcoding of multiple streams. Meanwhile intel does provide the capabilities to do so in both windows and linux. With AMD you have to rely on raw CPU brute or hope for a working openCL solution and even then with the GPU being tied up with openCL operations it isn’t going to leave much for decoding and playback of even one HD stream. Even AMD’s top of the line card is limited to HD playback of 2 streams in Windows (plus one SD). SB/IV allows for 5 HD streams.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] BD's transcoding ability is only about as good as Thuban [/quote<] Nope. Its' actually better than Thuban. Thuban lacks many of the latest instruction sets that are found within BD. BD (8150) sits in between 2500K and 2600K when it comes to video encoding. Thuban is just below that. [url=http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/7/<]http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/7/[/url<] [i<]If you look below on that page you'll find the AVX results, notice the performance increase. That 15 - 20% increase exists for BD as well it doesn't for Thuban.[/i<] Now those results are without AVX/XOR, which Thuban doesn't support. With those enabled Thuban falls behind in a big way (when it comes to encoding anyway). In Linux the effects are magnified. [quote<] ....even SB/IB do not have the raw CPU transcoding strength to encode multiple HD streams on the fly. [/quote<] You said this before and it made me scratch my head. If your outputs are local why are you transcoding? Why aren't you just file serving? Are you doing it because you wanted a technical demo to showcase QuickSync? I'll get to the rest of your post but I need to find out why you are transcoding to all of your local outputs first. Thanks

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]https://techreport.com/review/21813/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-processor/13[/url<] [quote<]You said this before and it made me scratch my head. If your outputs are local why are you transcoding? Why aren't you just file serving? Are you doing it because you wanted a technical demo to showcase QuickSync?[/quote<] Because many devices cannot handle the native framerates, audio stream or the interlacing of live TV or in the case of video files container format. Not all outputs are local either. The kids are able to grab their portable devices and watch whatever they want when connected via wi-fi or 3G live or from the media collection. To do that you have to transcode to maintain device compatibility and stay within the internet connections upload bandwidth capability for offsite viewing. With one i3 it can feed two local full bitrate TV outputs and feed 3 devices, either local or remote and still stay within a power envelope much lower then Trinity.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] [url<]https://techreport.com/review/21813/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-processor/13[/url<] [/quote<] And that's pretty much showing you what I was talking about. The 2nd pass is where most of the work is done. In the WLM both passes are combined and it ends up falling exactly where I said it would and that's in Windows. It's faster in newer versions of x264enc. [quote<]Because many devices cannot handle the native framerates, audio stream or the interlacing of live TV or in the case of video files container format.[/quote<] Huh? Most phones have enough grunt to deinterlace in software. I have a Galaxy Nexus and have absolutely no problem whatsoever playing 720 content unaltered and it supports all of the different container formats. [quote<] Not all outputs are local either. The kids are able to grab their portable devices and watch whatever they want when connected via wi-fi or 3G live or from the media collection. To do that you have to transcode to maintain device compatibility and stay within the internet connections upload bandwidth capability for offsite viewing. [/quote<] Ah for networking bandwidth purposes now that makes sense, but your only downsampling. You don't need Quicksync to downsample. I have a Athlon X2 on the HTPC backend and it downsamples quite well on the rare occasions it's needed. It doesn't take tons of processing power to do this though. [quote<] With one i3 it can feed two local full bitrate TV outputs and feed 3 devices, either local or remote and still stay within a power envelope much lower then Trinity. [/quote<] I would throw the local TV outputs away from the argument. You are file serving to those units. You are talking about 5% utilization tops (if that). The remote devices unless they are on LTE I couldn't see more than 200 kbps fitting through a mobile connection. At that bit rate any current processor could pull all of that off (aside from maybe single core procs). Now the power argument I could buy that for a dollar but the rest of the arguments really don't hold up too well.

            • jensend
            • 7 years ago

            The QuickSync encoder is crap. As [url=http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2012/<]the Moscow State University tests[/url<] show, the quality for a given bitrate is in the range of XviD. It's not as good as Theora, not anywhere close to vp8enc, and not even in the same league as x264. You admit that QuickSync's encoding quality is nothing to write home about, but then you say it's fine for converting video for portable devices. That's a head-scratcher. Tighter constraints on pixel count and storage space mean that encoder quality matters more, not less. Basically this whole argument about multiple streams sounds like you're trying [i<]very hard[/i<] to come up with a use-case that means QuickSync (both encoder and decoder) gives Intel the advantage, without really caring how realistic it is for HTPC use.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            that is exactly the impression I got.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]You admit that QuickSync's encoding quality is nothing to write home about, but then you say it's fine for converting video for portable devices. That's a head-scratcher. Tighter constraints on pixel count and storage space mean that encoder quality matters more, not less.[/quote<] [b<]Live[/b<] streaming, not using it to encode for local storage playback. As portable devices have a smaller screen, the loss in quality is harder to see as well.

            • jensend
            • 7 years ago

            Smaller screen doesn’t necessarily mean the loss of quality is harder to see; mobile devices are usually used [b<]much[/b<] closer to the eye than a HDTV, and angular resolution is what counts. If I had an iPad two feet from my face it'd be *easier* to see quality losses than if I were looking at a 48-inch HDTV from 10 feet away (22 degrees of my field of view vs 21.8 degrees). And why exactly would you want to do simultaneous live streaming to a bunch of portable devices from a HTPC? Your posts here smack of desperation.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            If I’m playing on the big screen, I’m going to want to see it in full 1080P glory, not cut back to 720P.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          It idle the same as an Ivy Bridge system, give or take 2 watt.
          37.2 W iddle. ~60watt for HD playback

          And my HTPC sleep probably 70% of the time. So paying more or making sacrifice to save 30 watt a day is not interesting.

          But the good thing is AMD make the HTPC more future proof.
          For example the 2 module A10 seem to match a 4 core 8 threadi7-2600K at winzip when OpenCL is enabled. This is what is going to happen as time pass one.

          Also, Trinity have a higher TDP, so when I want to play games on the big screen I can, without having to have a separate GPU.

          And i3+a GPU would be $190, consume way more power and be barely faster with GPU task.
          And so far, we will know soon, the i3 wont be much faster if at all.

          Why would you not consider a Trinity unless you need massive computer / GPU power?

          • anotherengineer
          • 7 years ago

          [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/amd-trinity-graphics_11.html#sect0[/url<] System power consumption HD video playback 1W difference. And Trinity is 7W less at idle, seems like a good HTPC chip to me.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      In the real world $120 Trinity APU + $60 128GB SSD mops the floor for browsing, word documents, excel, powerpoint, emails, playing flash-based games, Blizzard games, Minecraft and not heavy GPU demanding games like Portal 1-2, Left 4 Dead 2 against a $120 Core i3 and sub-$80 discrete GPU. If you are on a budget but still want to play some games Core i3 is simply a terrible option, sub-$80 discrete GPUs are a terrible option too. Hardcore PC gamers will buy a heavily overclocked Core i K series system but there is still solid reasoning for buying Trinity APU over an i3, especially for an HTPC for everyone else that doesn’t rock HD7970/GTX680 style setups.

      Let’s face it, there is a large majority of people who could care less that they have a Core i7 3770K @ 5.0ghz. For them and those of us who want to build a cheap and power efficient HTPC, Trinity and especially Kaveri next years will be far superior options than anything Intel has on the table at <$140.

      [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6335/amds-trinity-an-htpc-perspective/7[/url<]

        • faramir
        • 7 years ago

        At least until Haswell arrives. If Intel indeed manages to double GPU performance they will be very close to Trinity on the GPU side of things and vastly superior on the CPU side.

        I wonder how long it is going to take Kaveri to come to market … hopefully not almost half a year, like it happened with desktop Trinity.

          • jensend
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah, we’ve been hearing the “next time, Intel’s graphics will be a miracle!” for a decade now. Now we’re also hearing that Haswell will cut idle power by 20x, fart rainbows, and distil pure unicorn horn powder from the atmosphere. We’ll see.

          Meanwhile, Haswell does nothing to change the competitive situation today.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Yes – move the goal posts to the tiny 3ft space where your favorite company’s product can somehow justify its existence.

          • clone
          • 7 years ago

          Trinity is the inexpensive option, ppl are shedding their desktops for smart phones, tablets and laptops all of which have weak CPU performance by nature.

          modest gaming on the other hand is far more mainstream in comparison.

          I’m not in the market for Trinity because I’d buy better going with an Intel cpu and add in graphics if buying today but that puts me into your 3ft space because it would cost a helluva lot more albeit with no favorite company.

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        Until you try to use linux then the value proposition quickly shifts where AMD’s APU’s are hurting to provide even usable video decode acceleration. Of course you can go and spend another $100 or so to go purchase an OS that your AMD APU will work properly on where as the i3 user can still go and use that $100 for a discreet card that blows by that trinity.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          What are you talking about? Haven’t you seen any of Charlie’s articles? It’s INT-EL whose linux drivers are bloated, broken, unfixable, hot.. and as a prime example of INT-EL’s monopolistic evil business practices, they are selling them below cost

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Lol, I’d get better journalism from the World Weekly News articles on the amazing bat boy.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            He’s still alive?

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Who else do you think Charlie’s “reliable source” would be?

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        One review site mentioned that they normaly use beefy desktop system, but they said that not once during their few days of testing did they wish the system was faster.

        This is what AMD is trying to get people to understand. Winzip, rar, benchmark dont translate to day to day usability.

        If you are doing compute bound task, sure, Trinity is not a product you want. but then you wont want any i3 processor either.

        Anyways, we are now beating this poor dead horse to a pulp 🙁

        I know that I will upgrade my Q6600 workstation with a LGA2011 solution,
        but if I need to do another HTPC, it would most likely be an A10 based system.

      • clone
      • 7 years ago

      disagree on 2 of 3:

      in the real world the vast majority of ppl are not demanding much from their CPU’s which is why ppl are ditching PC’s for smart phones, tablets and notebooks.

      in the real world moderate gaming is far more important especially the first time any type of gaming is required because while i3 will fail in the process making the end user feel like the system is junk a Trinity CPU will be adequate making it and the platform a bargain in comparison.

      I do agree with your last comment that a small percentage of gamers require robust graphics but then again those gamers aren’t interested in Trinity and that isn’t what Trinity is about.

      compared to an i3, Trinity for the mainstream is superior…i3’s cpu advantage can’t overcome the gross disadvantage it has in comparison to Trinity’s graphics capability.

    • Rza79
    • 7 years ago

    XBit found a clever way of posting it’s Sysmark 2012 findings by normalizing the results to an A8-3870K.

    Edit:
    It seems the picture is pulled from the article but the hard link to the image is still available: [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/graphics/amd-trinity-graphics/charts/sysmark.png[/url<]

      • d34thly
      • 7 years ago

      Thanks for the link. Wow, the new A10 chip coming out in October is smoked by one of
      the cheapest core i3’s you can buy! The only way AMD can hope to sell chips is to price them at $119 msrp or less.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      I think this is pretty much what everyone expected from Trinity, but it’s a good confirmation.

        • Duck
        • 7 years ago

        I was hoping for a bit more. Some IPC improvements, smaller die size (packed smaller, not fewer transistors), more reasonable load power consumption, 4 cores for the price of Intel’s 2 cores. There was a chance for Trinity to be halfway decent I thought.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      TomsHW also have a full set of benchmark with llano as a baseline.
      Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that trinity is not the chip you want if you do offline raytracing.

    • Pax-UX
    • 7 years ago

    I really don’t see the problem here, it’s not like they said make us look amazing. You get review samples you have to play by their rules. What they’ve requested isn’t unreasonable, people don’t by based off a preview but it does help to high light where the chips strong point is.

    • Althernai
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t understand what they expect to gain by doing this. It’s not possible to buy the product on the basis of these half-reviews and when the real thing comes out, the natural thing for reviewers who wrote the half-reviews would be to focus on the other half. The (almost assuredly lousy) x86 performance will be the most recent impression on the part of people at the time of buying the product.

      • d34thly
      • 7 years ago

      I bet AMD didn’t realize that the thing going through consumers heads during purchase time is that AMD’s NEW fastest, most expensive chip has the same performance as Intel’s OLD slowest, least expensive chip.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        But CPU performance is “good enough” and only graphics really matter. And, AMD CPUs [i<]feel[/i<] faster.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          Why do you think Intel bother making i3 processors if the performance of those chip wasn’t good enough?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            It’s a waste of money. 99% is happy with facebook and email, which even Cortex A8 Solo can handle.

            CPUs haven’t benefited from extra performance for about ten years. It’s just that software was lagging. Assembly is so way more efficient. And parallelization is the key; you can have 64 efficient cores running at 100mHz@0.5W each and it’s like running a 6.4GHZ CPU that in Intel’s i3-2xxx world isn’t even possible because they have locked down the FSB frequency!

            Just. Say. No.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            100 milliHertz is quite slow, NeelyCam.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            1 deciHertz is the way of the future!

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I was wondering who’ll notice that one first

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            You’re pretending as if it was on purpose, when five seconds later you made a separate mistake by typing “Hz” in all uppercase. I think you’re just capitalising units at random.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            That was on purpose, too. It was a stab at people who write “khz” – one of my pet peeves.

            Sorry but, as part of my day job, I’ve gotten very used to writing TGMk-munpfa correctly. I can even do “dB” (My apologies on the ‘u’ – I don’t know how to use greek letters in these comments)

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Are you calling 90% of the desktop and laptop PC lousy, and 100% of tablet lousy ?
      When you saw the i3-2100, did you claim that this CPU had lousy performance ?

      So what did AMD get from effectively splitting the Trinity review into a GPU preview followed by full CPU/GPU reviews?
      Some focus on their GPU advantage, un-muddied by the expectation that Trinity is a great CPU bound compute powerhouse.

      From what we see so far, Trinity is a i3-2k class processor with a massively powerful GPU.

      The A8-5800K is expected $130 retail. The I3-2100 is $110

      For people that like to play games, want an HTPC it seem like a better deal.

      If you are looking for a cheap alternative to a i7-3930K… sorry AMD is out of that race.

        • Jason181
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Are you calling 90% of the desktop and laptop PC lousy, and 100% of tablet lousy ?[/quote<] As an enthusiast, yes. With a caveat; lumping tablets in with desktops is overgeneralizing, and by a lot. People have different expectations for a desktop than for a tablet, so a tablet with 1/4 the raw performance of a desktop might be just fine because things like battery life, size and heat dissipation are more important.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 7 years ago

      They believe first impressions are key. They want the word to get out that the Trinity chips are gaming powerhouses for the value lines. Then when reviewers come in later and fill in the missing spaces with, “But the CPU performance is meh,” that first impression’ll take priority.

      In the past, (with Llano) the review always ended with, “Meh CPU performance but good if you want to game.”

      Right now, they’ll end with, “Good if you want to game.” They effectively removed their weakness from discussion altogether. It’s clever and they’re effectively turning the reviewers against one another. The ones who don’t play ball get blacklisted and lose out while the ones who do play ball are controlled in favorable ways.

      Kinda shameful that Anand went along with it.

    • excession
    • 7 years ago

    I’d just like to say, Scott, that I absolutely support your viewpoint here and find it admirable you are willing to stand up for your and TR’s principles in this way.

    Shame that other publications and persons aren’t as moral.

      • Dodger
      • 7 years ago

      I appreciate and respect TR’s stand on this, but I also respect and appreciate how Anand handled it.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        I agree, and TR is not doing us ANY favor but not releasing anything but a bickering editorial.

        For people looking to build an HTPC Anand review was eye opening.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    What is curious to me is the insistence that ‘experiential tests’ can be done and yet no major site mentions general qualitative experience very much, if at all, only in the context of the other ok’d tests. If it were me and I wanted to write and article and yet thumb my nose at AMD at the same time, I’d write a wholy subjective experiential piece and toe the line of making it quantitive without specific results. “In video encoding, the Intel CPU ‘felt’ *ahem* 2.35 times faster.”

    Yes, I’m pretty passive-aggressive :p

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]For those who see little harm in AMD's practices in this particular instance, I get it. It's just one product release, and not perhaps the most consequential one in your book. But the principle at stake is paramount to the continued production of reviews you can trust, and that is a much larger issue than this one incident.[/quote<] Do your thing bro, it's not like these chips will be amazing.....i'd be more interested in a review of the GTX 650 or some leaks about AMD's next generation of discrete cards. APUs are weak sauce that are ok only for people that don't need the best of either world (CPU or GPU).

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Well, if this sort of methodology in product reviews becomes prevalent across different manufacturers, then I suppose readers will just have to learn how to take preliminary reviews with caution, and wait for the ‘final’ review of the product before passing judgment.

      • matnath1
      • 7 years ago

      This is Amd’s intellectual property. They can re-lease the press NDA or do a partial re-lease as they see fit. First Amendment rites of the press do not give them the rite to dictate how information from a private company is released. That is purely up to them!

        • Damage
        • 7 years ago

        No, our test results are not AMD’s intellectual property. They are TR’s intellectual property. Kind of amazed folks would assign ownership to AMD for our work.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 7 years ago

    For those labeling it a review or not explaining the limits that AMD imposed, shame on them. If they’re passing it off as a full review and labeling it as such, that’s a blatant lie. One site calls it a review, but it’s “part 1” and there’s full disclosure. I think that’s fine.

    For those who wants to have something posted prior to October 2 (which Anandtech says is the full release date) and wants to explain why it’s incomplete, good for them. Have a ball. Anandtech was very up-front about it, which is why I read their stuff. There’s no control over what they write in terms of their opinion, and that’s what’s important.

    For those who want to get on their high horse, hey it’s a free country.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Its a relief to see people that can think for themselves and not be manipulated by editorials.

      Frankly if TR posted some early preview of Haswell raytracing benchmark I would not think any less of them, or think Intel is manipulating us.

      Info is info.. unless its manipulated… (hint hint, TR power benchmarks comments)

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, I mean, I guess I’m just information-hungry. CPU development has hit a glacial pace, but anything new – rehashed or not – is still interesting. I hold out hope it’s going to be somehow much better, I guess. lol

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          I’m not in the market for an APU, but like technology in general. So I welcome any info, even if its just a press release from some university about to 5 year out project breakthrough.

          Well, the bits I read seem to show an i3 class CPU, with a beefy IGP.

          I think AMD paid dearly for the BD fiasco… lets hope the stigma doesn’t perpetuate to Trinity.

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      You can call it a high horse if you like, but I don’t think it approaches that level. Or maybe it does and it just doesn’t matter… 😉

      Newspapers, magazines, and the nightly news are all suffering from declining readership/viewership, and I believe it’s because they have indeed given up their independence.

      Many people have rejected the biased writers and their beloved subscription-and-advertisement-model and have turned to bloggers for their news intake.

      It was only a matter of time, but now it has arrived. It is the bloggers’ turn to decide whether or not to protect their independence, and how fiercely to do so.

      Damage has made the correct decision here.

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        How is it biased? They didn’t say ‘You can’t say anything bad’ or ‘Let us proof and edit the preview before it goes out’. They said ‘You can publish these specific benchmarks early, IF YOU WANT TO. Otherwise, the original NDA, THAT YOU SIGNED, remains in place.’

        Its like your work giving you an extra paid day if you volunteer someplace. Would you be like ‘OMG DON’T DICTATE TO ME WHAT I CAN DO WHEN I’M NOT HERE!’? No, because if you WEREN’T volunteering, you’d be at work like you normally would. Its saying IF you do things that we approve, the prior agreement we had will be modified, otherwise, it remains in place.’

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          And this was my question, just to make sure I didn’t miss it. I don’t see where they made that kind of stipulation so I don’t get the outrage. TR’s been linking other sites that agree with them on Facebook, as if to say “see we’re right”. But not a poll.

          • BIF
          • 7 years ago

          It’s bad because it is the BEGINNING of the same long slow slide that the major print media has been on for a decade now. I still say Damage is right to hold his ground on this!

          I didn’t get this argument at all, but for some reason I feel strongly about how off-track it is:

          [quote<]Its like your work giving you an extra paid day if you volunteer someplace... [/quote<] First of all, my work would never do that because we don't have the money and we won't use sketchy labor charging practices because it would be like making the customer pay for such a thing. There's just no slack in the labor budget for that type of chicanery. Plus, if we did it and word of it got out, we would probably lose lots of future business. Volunteerism and many other things are on our own time; always have been, always will be. Anything else would be like making the customer pay for our labor force doing somebody else's work, which would become a sticky moral/ethical issue for some customers (and most employees). I even disagree with the notion of corporations "matching" employee charitable donations, espcecially if the corporation chooses or promotes one charity above all others, such as the United Way. But at least that practice doesn't futz around with labor charging and employee compensation.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            If you don’t want to be held to AMDs rules, don’t sign the NDA and don’t take the free product. They offered to allow you to present data early, contrary to the signed agreement, IF YOU CHOSE and stayed in their guidelines. Scott does not want to do that. So he won’t. Theres nothing relating to morals or ethics here at all, in my opinion.

            • BIF
            • 7 years ago

            But once again…AMD has CHANGED the rules.

            Who knows if the actual NDA has been changed because that hasn’t been made public.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            And in the end it didn’t matter, as TR was’t ready even for today, let alone last week.

      • willyolio
      • 7 years ago

      i wouldn’t have a problem with it if the sites labelled it properly as a “Preview” and they followed up with a “full review”

        • BIF
        • 7 years ago

        We can’t even get people to agree on whether or not to drive on the left side or the right side of the road, not even when the country you’re in has established a standard!

        There’s simply NO WAY that the terms “preview” and “full review” would be followed consistently in the online or printed media.

        How thin should we slice this? Every media person could just invent his own terms and use whatever he wants. Some fun suggestions!

        long range pre-pre-preview
        long range pre-preview
        long range preview
        mid range preview
        pre-review preview
        review preview
        preview
        review
        review of the review
        re-review of the review
        re-re-re review of the review
        re-review of the preview
        reconciliation review of the review and the preview

        Can anybody else hear fingernails scratching on a chalkboard someplace?

        I say we stop the madness before it starts. One review, and let’s call it a hmmmm….”Review”.

      • tfp
      • 7 years ago

      All I know is TR has gotten more comments in these two blog posts then they ever will in the actual Trinity APU write-up.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        Heh, it seems not writing an article was the way to go then.

          • tfp
          • 7 years ago

          Much less work then a preview with a disclaimer plus normal review and gets your name out all over the web, a good side effect from standing up to the “Man”. Over all eh, whatever.

      • Kougar
      • 7 years ago

      My only issue with Anandtech is that they buried the full disclosure statement at the bottom of the first page underneath a very detailed architectural analysis. It should have been at the top of the review, not buried near the end of a very long first page. I missed it initially and couldn’t figure out why where were no CPU comparisons after flipping around the article.

    • Ricardo Dawkins
    • 7 years ago

    oh. that is why I didn’t see any CPU benchmark like WinRAR, video encoding or 3D modeling on Anandtech review.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Anandtech actually explains that in great detail on the first page of the article. Don’t be a retard, read the text.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        Yes, let’s not let facts get in the way. It’s clearly labeled “part 1” and there’s this:

        [quote<]The Terms of Engagement 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<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This