Updated: AMD VP explains Nano exclusion, apologizes

Update: See below for an update to this story.

I've been too busy covering other things to follow most of the fallout from AMD's decision to exclude us and certain other publications from Radeon R9 Nano reviews. Honestly, I have better things to do. We'll just buy a card if we want to review it, assuming the supply is sufficient. I have no expectation that we as a publication should expect review samples of every product we want.

But I think this editorial at the HardOCP sheds some light on things, given that AMD gave us no clear reason for our exclusion.

Kyle points out something that happened on Twitter that I missed. AMD VP Roy Taylor had this to say in response to frustration from the public about TR not getting a review sample:

When pressed further, Taylor also had this to say about the folks at TechPowerUp:

Now, like I said, I have no expectation that we must be included in everything. We have to earn that. But I do take issue with folks saying that TR reviews are not fair.

I would invite you to read through our coverage of HBM, the Fiji architecture, the Radeon R9 Fury X, the R9 Fury, and perhaps a little about our Inside the Second testing methods. You might want to view our video podcast about the Fury X, too, which I'll embed here:

Sample our coverage with clear eyes, and I'm confident you'll see that we aim to be fair and have our readers' best interests at heart.

I should say, also, that we have had zero indication prior to Mr. Taylor's public statements that anyone at AMD took issue with our reviews. We are and always have been happy to discuss how we tested, what we've written, and why.

It's true that our coverage of the R9 Nano expressed some skepticism about AMD's performance claims for the card, but I would argue that such skepticism is entirely fair and warranted for reasons explained in the article linked. 

Anyhow, at least now we know that AMD is actively seeking to punish those in the press who are less than compliant. I personally am sadded by this development—although I am always proud to be singled out as an example of a reviewer who is perhaps a little bit too "independent." We will continue to make corporate types uncomfortable with empirical testing and honest assessements going forward.

Update 10:02 PM 9/9/25: I just received a very nice phone call from AMD's Roy Taylor. He apologized for his earlier comments on Twitter and says he doesn't think The Tech Report's reviews are unfair. He seems like a decent guy with perhaps a too-strong personality, and I can relate to that. So all is forgiven from my point of view.

Thanks to everybody for their support. Here's hoping we can put this bit of unpleasantness behind us and move on to happier things.

Comments closed
    • southrncomfortjm
    • 6 years ago

    So instead of just having some tough reviews to deal with, now AMD has tough reviews AND a couple of news cycles going over their efforts to deny certain sites Nanos. Think this through AMD. I root for you guys because you are the underdogs and I really want some more parity in the GPU realm, but don’t try to regain market share by being douchier than Nvidia.

    • lycium
    • 6 years ago

    That other bastion of great tech articles, Ars Technica, did a great job summing up AMD’s recent PR missteps: [url<]http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/09/amds-outspoken-plucky-underdog-routine-is-doing-more-harm-than-good/[/url<] I don't think we should hold this against AMD, they just have (or had, since Roy Taylor's AMD Twitter account is now gone) questionable people in PR. You can imagine the people actually designing the products facepalming really hard at this bad press... Whoever does Ars' Facebook page nailed it: "As Ars Technica UK would say, AMD needs a good kick up the arse."

      • Mr Bill
      • 6 years ago

      well said, and about time something like this happened.

    • f0d
    • 6 years ago

    it seems AMD diddnt like royboys handling of the situation as his twitter is now gone
    [url<]https://twitter.com/amd_roy[/url<]

    • Shambles
    • 6 years ago

    I was ready to give AMD the benefit of the doubt but it sounds like the whole company is behind this toxic mentality after reading what HardOCP had to say about it as well after they were left without a card while their forum members were getting them.

    [url<]http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press[/url<]

    • christos_thski
    • 6 years ago

    Just take a look at what that positive twat of a person, roy, retweeted some hours ago

    “Roy@AMD retweeted
    Brian Fagioli ‏@brianfagioli 15h15 hours ago

    Looks like @AMD hit yet another home run with the @AMDRadeon R9 Nano. Every review I’ve read has been positive. Company is on upward trend!”

    Lol…. is this a joke or self-parody of some species?

      • K-L-Waster
      • 6 years ago

      No surprise, that was clearly the end goal right from the beginning. Only give cards to sites that will give positive reviews, slander sites that you exclude, trumpet positive reviews. Once the other sites get ahold of cards to review, the news cycle will have moved on. Where necessary, get the Red Team to bombard the comment boards of any site that dares to give less than glowing press.

      Sleazy, but no surprise.

    • rechicero
    • 6 years ago

    I, for one, and assuming the thumbs down, do think TR doesnt like AMD. And I mean “personally”. The people on TR doesnt like the people on AMD and that will be have consequences on the reviews.

    That doesn’t mean TR stuff are NVIDIA shills, or they have conscient bias. They probably want to be fair. But the same joke makes you laugh when told by the correct person and offends you when told by somebody you dont like. That’s just human. And TR stuff are no saints, or computers, they are humans. And probably dont like AMD. That’s all.

    I think it’s subtle, but you can see that sometimes in the articles.

      • torquer
      • 6 years ago

      People always believe what they want to, especially when it can’t be proven

        • rechicero
        • 6 years ago

        Are you believing I want something? Really? Do you want to believe that? πŸ˜›

        Look, I’ve never been a fanboy, I just buy the product I like more. Right now I have a AMD 7950 and before that a NVIDIA 8800 GTS (I think). In the moment were the best options (IMHO). I don’t plan to buy anything right now, so I really don’t care who has the best product right now.

        But I have that opinion: TR stuff doesn’t like AMD people (or some of them). And with so many comments about PR sabotage and so… It’s difficult to think less of them for that. A lot of TR readers don’t like AMD people either.

        If you need to paint me as somebody who wants to believe something, that’s up to you. But my only bias pro AMD is I want them alive to have 2 options to choose from when building a rig. That’s all.

          • torquer
          • 6 years ago

          You win the award for the broadest inference from the fewest number of words

      • cynan
      • 6 years ago

      Why are you conflating TR editorial staff with some of your perceptions about some of their readership?

      That’s a like judging a youtube video based on the comments… (I hope an explanation for the ludicrousness of that logic isn’t required)

        • rechicero
        • 6 years ago

        I’m not. I have an opinion and I just say if a lot of readers don’t like the ppl on AMD PR, I wouldn’t think less of TR stuff for doing the same. I don’t like AMD PR either… It doesn’t seem so far fetched.

        In others world, I don’t judge the stuff for the comments, but the comments make me think my idea about the stuff not absurd. It looks like a lot of ppl doesn’t like them. I don’t like them. Do you really think what TR stuff thinking the same is impossible or even improbable?

        Anyway, I don’t understand why so much drama. I just said TR stuff might be human ;-).

    • Mr Bill
    • 6 years ago

    moved

    • TopHatKiller
    • 6 years ago

    Torquer posted to me:

    [/b]”Reading this, I feel like history will condemn us for not taking this opportunity to sterilize or possibly kill you.”[/b]

    -Quoting from your reply, I did not see any “PAINFULLY OBVIOUS joke and pop culture reference” in that. Nor did I understand that your comment was meant, as:-
    “…so obviously meant in jest that only the most bleedy of bleeding heart liberals would be offended by it.”

    I separately posting this because I think your comment to me was borderline/actionable:
    I will put up with people downvoting me for no logic, calling me: stupid, idiot, wanker, weirdo etc. that’s okay, but I feel your comment was too extreme and inappropriate – nor do I remotely believe your defence: ‘in-jest.’ was at all honest.
    I will not be hounded off this site.
    I regret the need to post this at all.

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      What sounds like a caustic remark could be interpreted as an actual threat.

      • torquer
      • 6 years ago

      “Teacher, teacher! Look what the bad man said!”

      Please don’t repost my comments out of thread so no one sees my original reply. I’ll save everyone the trouble of searching and again point out that my post is a Big Bang Theory reference from “The Robotic Arm Manipulation” episode and obviously a joke. I clarified since apparently no one watches that show and even linked the transcript for reference. Nothing more sinister here than oversensitivity and an ungotten pop culture reference.

      Your cries for help and attention are sad and borderline alarming, THK. See a psych, man. Hide the cheese graters.

        • atari030
        • 6 years ago

        The original reply would have been -slightly- more acceptable if you’d included quotation marks. But even in jest it’s in terribly bad taste.

        I think following the general guideline of asking oneself ‘would a person punch me right in the mouth if I said this straight to their face?’ is a good practice before posting things.

          • torquer
          • 6 years ago

          I guess I give people the benefit of the doubt that they would get a joke or sarcasm in person especially once unnecessarily clarified rather than ballyhooing it about in a bid to gain attention.

          But that’s just me. It’s been a LONG time since high school and sometimes I forget how remarkably thin skinned people have become in the last 30 years or so.

          Also kind of alarming to me that no one else seems concerned that this guy posts some truly disturbing things from a psych/emotional point of view. Kid needs help but I’m not going to feed into his attention whoring.

            • atari030
            • 6 years ago

            Yep, understood. You certainly clarified it well afterwards. The problem is that since this communication is done electronically and not in person there is no context nor body language or mannerisms to interpret -how- something was said or intended. I’m not stating anything new or that you’re unaware of, so for that I apologize.

            In any event, I can’t comment regarding the state of mind of particular individuals, but I think in this instance is probably best not to fan the flames, catalyze, or antagonize.

            On that happy note, hope y’all have a great weekend!

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            Probably right actually. There’s zero risk of me hurting anyone (except maybe their feelings). But I have no idea what it will take to push someone over the edge

            • slate0
            • 6 years ago

            This is true in so many aspects of life…. yet workplaces still try to give us standards of sensitivity training. So if I call someone “fat”, it really depends on a billion things as to whether they will take offense or shrug it off, but I will get the blame if they take offense. Then you get to the internet where everyone is a unique snowflake on the personality spectrum…

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            I didn’t get it either, so you might want to include your source next time you make a sharp remark.

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            I did. Twice even

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            You did, after the fact.

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            Still counts πŸ™‚

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            No it doesn’t.

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            It really does. Otherwise the update and retraction from AMD doesn’t count either or its a willful desire to misunderstand or misinterpret

            • w76
            • 6 years ago

            IMO, the retraction from AMD doesn’t count either, it’s merely adults being courteous to one another when, in the moment, honest words were revealed by Roy. However, we’re all civilized folks, so Scott @ TR will move forward and so should THK but neither should forget.

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            I have a feeling THK has never forgotten anything said to him that he didn’t like.

            If he’s that butt hurt about what I said he’s in for a hard life full of bitter tears.

            Somehow I think TR will move on though

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Ok. I’ll reply.
            Personally, half the time I can’t even remember what I posted yesterday, never mind keeping a track record of negative reactions to my posts. I think I’ll leave that up to people like you– who clearly crave attention at any cost.
            “Your cries for help and attention are sad and borderline alarming, THK”
            Well. What is sad is your unwillingness or inability to apologise in a decent grown-up manner for a violent abusive comment, that even you must now realize was too much and inappropriate.
            As for your comment about me ‘reporting to the teachers’ – that’s just a nasty sad stupid aside. I would be well within my rights to officially complain about your behaviour. I have not done so. The freedom to express is more important then my own sensibilities, even when the person I’m protecting is as low, stupid and repellently horrid as “Torquer” – You could have apologized, retracted or even been pleasant in your own defence – you chose not to, and instead multiplied your original offence with repetitive, and very boring, insults.
            I could stoop down to the same muck you live in and reply in kind; instead:
            I hope you are safe,healthy and that no one tries to kill you or sterilize you, or anyone you care for and love. THK.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      You strike me as a guy who sues people for a living… lives off the grid, joins in bike protests and throws himself on Russian cars with dash cams…

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Gosh! You make me sound so exciting! Thankyou!

      • slate0
      • 6 years ago

      This from the guy who wants to /kill/ my top hat…

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        There is a company called “TopHatKiller”. They should pay me for advertising- but as life is unfair, they don’t.

    • Dr_b_
    • 6 years ago

    “reviews need to be fair” aka, they need to portray our products in a positive light, even if they are buggy, flawed, or outperformed by competitors offerings.

    He didn’t call you to sincerely apologize, he was ordered to by someone smarter than himself under duress.

      • MDBT
      • 6 years ago

      That tweet was referring to TPU. While TPUs reviews appear to be fair and well done their editor has repeatedly and continuously shown that he is willing to warp reality in order to make the site’s front page contain content that shows AMD in a negative light and Nvidia in a positive one.

      A particularly misguided series of postings by the editor in their news/editorial feed earlier this year (not their excellent reviews) is the sole reason I no longer visit that site.

    • CScottG
    • 6 years ago

    ..and now we know that Techreport has real industry “pull”.

    • willyolio
    • 6 years ago

    HardOCP not getting one i can understand. they are the most biased, least professional review site out there. I trust them less than taiwanese rumour sites.

      • bittermann
      • 6 years ago

      It’s Kyle thinking he’s more important than he is…plus he has a rabid cult fan base over in the forums. Not a healthy place to get AMD info or advice. Of course neither is the comments section here at TR.

      PS: I’m glad Roy contacted Scott as no matter what anybody says his reviews are excellent and fair.

      • f0d
      • 6 years ago

      which side are they biased towards?
      they have given silver and gold awards to recent amd cards (270x/285/290/290x/380/390/390x)
      they actively promoted eyefinity as one of the greatest things ever

      i see no bias

      yet he does talk his mind without holding back and maybe he isnt as politcally correct as every other site out there but thats a reason why i do visit there, i like the no-bs way of talking

      TR do better reviews imo but theres nothing wrong or biased with [H]

        • bittermann
        • 6 years ago

        Awards are like candy to them…nothing special. I should have stated up until recently he was smart enough to not be too bias in reviews but take a look at his comments in his forum. Little insults and digs up until this blatant unprofessional rant. Plus he removed a member’s Nano build thread out of pure child like behavior. That is your true master. God job defending him O loyal one.

          • f0d
          • 6 years ago

          would you not be a bit cranky if you were told by amd after something like 20 years of working with them that your whole website and your opinions were considered biased and you wont be getting a piece of hardware to test that you normally would be getting?

          i know i would

            • bittermann
            • 6 years ago

            A whole lot of assumptions going on in your post. Please refer to this editorial on how to handle a situation. Kyle created this whole mess himself and aired it in public no matter how much of a jackwad Roy was being. Get over it, the Internet already has. And what does that have to do with his childish posts and or deleting that Nano build thread? The cult status continues.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      That would require evidence.

    • snook
    • 6 years ago

    as an AMD fan, this blows because I prefer TR reviews.
    AMD effectively accomplished keeping TR on the outside
    as reviews are up now for the nano. costing TR position
    and income.

    by the time I get the review I want from TR,
    the jury has already rendered the verdict and i’ve read it.

    long live TR, subscription renewal incoming.

    • Klimax
    • 6 years ago

    ETA: Missed link in article.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    If I were Raja Koduri I would’ve smacked this guy (Roytoy) into oblivion.

    • SoM
    • 6 years ago

    so after the phone talk..

    is he going to send TR a sample ?

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      If Scott agrees to give it a favorable review, yes.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      No. There’s another post around here that says he just called to apologize for the Twitter comments. The lack of a card was (apparently?) neither explained or rectified.

    • jokinin
    • 6 years ago

    I’m a long term AMD GPU user (haven’t used an nvidia in my main PC since the geforce 4 ti), but to me, all this, sounds like an excuse to hide poor performance from that R9 nano (for its price, that is).
    Besides, I think that TR has one of the most extensive and objective reviews around, just remember the introduction of the frame latency info in the reviews, never seen that before anywhere.

      • Puiucs
      • 6 years ago

      I’m sorry, but the R9 Nano actually performs well above what the AMD PR was saying before the launch. AMD was actually putting the Nano in the same ballpark as the 290x in terms of performance, but it’s actually faster than the 390x, just under the Fury card. And if overclocked it can perform very close to the Fury X.
      I fail to see how the Nano has poor performance when you take in consideration the form factor.

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]AMD was actually putting the Nano in the same ballpark as the 290x in terms of performance, but it's actually faster than the 390x[/quote<] I'm still hurting from how much I laughed! The 4GB 390X is a 290X with a new sticker on the box. The 8GB 390X uses faster RAM, but all the benchmarks seem to put the improvement in the 0-1% range, because the 290X really doesn't have any shortage of memory bandwidth, even at 4K. You seem to have fallen victim to a marketing ploy to make you think that the 390X is an upgrade over the 290X. It's 100 more, so it HAS to be better, right?

          • fuicharles
          • 6 years ago

          It is surprise that you got 5-likes in your comment, showing the claim that TR is full of Nvidia Fanboys is true.

          I just came back from Anandtech Nano review, which include 390x and 290x “uber” mode as a performance comparison.

          In Battlefield 4, 390x is 8% faster than 290x uber. In Crisis, 390x 10% faster. In Middle Earth, 7.5% faster. In Civilization 6% faster and 3-5% for Dragon Age. Just to name the first 5 games.

          ” all the benchmarks seem to put the improvement in the 0-1%”

          I wonder where you get your benchmarks source from ?

          update:
          Ok, I see few unlikes

          For those unlike my post, please prove my statement on 390x performance is wrong and prove Chrispy_ statement that 390x is only 0-1% faster than 290x is correct.

          Don’t worry I can accept criticism. But if you cannot provide prove with reputable links, then I treat all unlike as from Nvidia Fanboys.

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            Still sounds like “ballpark” to me, which is what Puiucs has said.

            • Chrispy_
            • 6 years ago

            You’re completely missing the points. These improvements are the 290X (stock, as tested in 2014) vs the 390X stock, as tested recently.

            “Stock” versions of the 290X don’t exist. the 1GHz 290X is a reference-cooled card that ceased to exist almost as soon as the paper-launch became a real launch and 290X cards from AIB vendors like Asus and Gigabyte hit the shelves. All the real 290X cards you can buy run at 1050MHz or so, just like the 1050MHz 390X cards compared there.

            The original, now unavailable 290X reference card used in Anand’s review is a universally-panned, overheating and throttling reference cooler, running (on average) 3-10% slower than the actual 290X cards people have been buying for the last year or more. Oddly enough, that 3-10% reflects [b<]EXACTLY[/b<] the difference in clockspeed. You seem to have some understanding, but not enough to actually see why the numbers are different. A 4GB [i<]retail[/i<] 290X is the same thing as a 4GB 390X in every way except the sticker on the box and the reported ID in the GPU BIOS. The 8GB has faster RAM, not that it makes a difference.

        • Meadows
        • 6 years ago

        Are you not aware that the 290X is the same as the 390X?

    • Ninjitsu
    • 6 years ago

    Well, AnandTech and THG got a Nano. Who’s surprised?

    EDIT: Tom’s gave it a Editor’s Choice Gold – without doing a value comparison.

    BUT, they have done a very detailed review as such (even though TR’s way of frame time analysis has spoiled me, rendering their graphs unclear), so I’ll forgive them.

    Also, I’m not surprised because of the whole “big media” thing – I don’t see much bias in THG as far as their testing is concerned. AnandTech provides great analysis, however they insist on reporting averages most of the time.

      • DPete27
      • 6 years ago

      Yeah, I mean… they’re the epitome of unbiased

      • willmore
      • 6 years ago

      So did PC Per, does that surprise you?

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        I go to PCPer to make myself feel good about choosing AMD. LOL.

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    While I await TR’s review when it does come, things turned out pretty much exactly as I predicted: The overall *average* frame rates of the Nano look decent, but when you start looking at 99th percentile frame times, the story turns real ugly real quick.

    Anand has some more info with a limited set of frame time results, and I eagerly await the full review from TR: [url<]http://anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/13[/url<] P.S. --> Guess what, the R9-290X is able to beat the Nano in some benchmarks. My doubts about Lisa Su's honesty are confirmed.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 6 years ago

      Well, it does seem to beat the 970 Mini in most workloads, and efficiency isn’t too far off. Price/Performance may still suck though. It also seems inadequate for 4K, but I suppose nothing is really adequate for 4K anyway – but AMD did talk about it so I guess it’s worth mentioning.

      Checkout the Tom’s review too, more detailed than AT.

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        If the Nano was selling at only a $100 price premium over the 970 then AMD would have a winner. At $300 more, however, there are too many other options available.

          • NeelyCam
          • 6 years ago

          Yep. Yet Tom’s gave it “Editor’s Choice” award.

          I guess Roy’s decision to send a sample to Tom was a smart one

            • chuckula
            • 6 years ago

            What’s hilarious is that the AMD fan-squad have sworn blood-oaths against Toms Hardware.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 6 years ago

            Yeah, I mostly liked the review except the award and unreadable frame time graphs. Award especially because in the days of yore they would be very frugal with Gold awards and the Nano would have at best got a “Recommended” (because of the price).

          • nanoflower
          • 6 years ago

          I go along with what Ryan over at PcPer had to say about the Nano. It’s a great product if you specifically need a very small card to fit in a tight space that will give you high performance and are willing to pay a premium for that card. For anyone else (which is likely 99.9% of the market) this card makes no sense as there are cheaper options and better performing options at about the same price.

        • travbrad
        • 6 years ago

        Yep it’s not a bad card. It’s just a bad price for the performance you get. For $300 more (almost double the cost) it should be beating the 970mini by a wide margin in ALL workloads. That’s the same as the price difference between the 290X and the 980ti.

        I get the impression AMD is having major supply issues with HBM though, so they are pricing their cards so high because they can still sell the dozen cards they are able to produce at those prices.

      • Unknown-Error
      • 6 years ago

      Which moron is going to buy this for $650? Was that a joke! It should be renamed from R9 Nano to R9 Joker Edition!

        • shank15217
        • 6 years ago

        People with money, a joke is buying an apple watch for 10K, not the best m-itx card money can buy for a $300 premium, perspective helps.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 6 years ago

          I think the venn diagram of people who buy Apple watches and people who buy mITX gaming cards has very little overlap….

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Whatz !? a 350$ card beating a 650$ card ? …

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    If this guy were working for Intel he’d have been shown the door already, or sent off to Baghdad. But you know, this is AMD and they only fire competent employees.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Oh no. I bet Roytoy is reading our comments here right now and feeling really sorry for his stupidity and carelessness.

    The guy may be a *erk but I think he may still have a heart. Go easy on him, gerbils.

      • YellaChicken
      • 6 years ago

      If he is then FWIW, TR helped me choose an R9 285 for my new card a few months back. I picked it over the GTX960 within my price range based on TR’s reviews of both these cards and despite the GTX960 coming out ever so slightly on top in most of the reviewed titles, the 285 was Β£20($30-35) cheaper over here and so that’s the way I went and I’m very happy.

      At no point did Scott say “the 285 sucks, buy the 960”, he presented the facts as he saw them and I spent my money with AMD based on his fair price/performance metrics and my adjusted view of those based on the price differences here in the UK.

      In short: No unfairness here, move along

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 6 years ago

    Salesmen, advertisers. Scum. Always. “He seems like a nice guy”, that’s because its his job to “seem like a nice guy” until he throws you under the bus.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      Or sneers at an imaginary you after hanging up.

    • danny e.
    • 6 years ago

    “Now, I think that explanation is a lie at this point given Roy Taylor’s public statements. I would go so far as to point out that AMD sampled a Nano card to HardForum member (Elmy) so that he could post the build in our own forums![b<] (Which I have since removed. Given that our community does not have a Nano focus.)[/b<]" What? How do people still keep going to that guys site? I read this as "I'm pissed that a forum member got a card and not me so I'm going to not allow him to post on my forum about it because I haven't grown up past grade school emotionally or socially." - especially since he states he plans to review the card. So, "our community" doesn't have a Nano focus but I'm going to review the card anyways?. Yeah.

      • nanoflower
      • 6 years ago

      No, if you read more of his comments he removed that build because it was essentially AMD advertising. Another build by a different forum member that wasn’t being given components by AMD was mistakenly removed but was then put back in place and is still there. So his action was taken to send a message to AMD that if their site doesn’t have the appropriate audience for a Nano review (which is what AMD said) then their forum isn’t an appropriate place for AMD to get free advertising for the Nano. Perhaps a bit spiteful but I can see the reasoning. It’s a way to say to AMD we don’t appreciate what you are doing.

    • Wild Thing
    • 6 years ago

    Where was all the outrage when TitanZ was hidden from tech sites to cover up its lame ass price/performance? (Only $3k..what a bargain!)
    Can you link me to the TR article blasting and smirking at NVidia over that episode?
    Perhaps they were worried about a “fair review”?

      • nanoflower
      • 6 years ago

      What was Nvidia’s reasoning? If they said they have a limited number of review cards then there’s not much to complain about. In this case AMD_Roy made statements that suggested that the Tech Report and other sites were not getting cards because they wouldn’t give the Nano a fair review. That’s a huge difference in behavior and the only reason there is an uproar.

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        YEah, I don’t recall Roy Taylor attacking TR at the time of the Titan-Z launch as being an unfair website.

        You heard me right, I said Roy Taylor. He worked for Nvidia when the Titan-Z launched. Fanboys like Wild Thing don’t like inconvenient facts like that.

      • Flapdrol
      • 6 years ago

      They didn’t give out any samples for the titan Z, better than cherrypicking reviewers like amd seems to be doing now.

    • strangerguy
    • 6 years ago

    AMD: “Oh, our already bad PR wasn’t bad enough so it needed to be even worse this time. But cheers, here is an apology for starting crap when anyone with functional brain cells would have known better”

    They have really outdone themselves this time. *golf clap*

    • dragosmp
    • 6 years ago

    My 2 cents, fwiw

    As a user of ATI and AMD cards since the 9500PRO days I feel I can attest that:
    *drivers really are less stable than what I experienced with the few Nvidia cards I owned since my first Riva TNT 16MB
    *once you find the right driver (there’s always one) some ATI/AMD cards really perform better for the money and are more future proof; look at the async shader thing, the past dx9 implementations; drivers improve and overall over the life of the card you can get more with an over-engineered AMD card

    …but their PR and marketing was atrocious and insulting. Guys at AMD, there’s a fine line between pointing out improvements (like the 800+ changes in a new OS X version) and saying a new card is 30% faster than the competition. Apple just takes out of context a number, but that number is CORRECT; I mean among the 10million features, there could be 800 improvements. People just don’t play games with the settings used by AMD; they have RAPTR, they know. If AMD believes the games should be played with their settings (in the slides), market the benefit of that image quality vs the ones we use, maybe we need to change? Actively refusing cards to TR isn’t the way to success.

    Bottom line: I’m getting tired of buying AMD cards DESPITE their marketing. This just needs to stop. Please excuse the caps.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 6 years ago

      We excuse caps a lot on TR, don’t worry. πŸ˜€

    • Tristan
    • 6 years ago

    Reviews need to be unfair, to show AMD crap as attractive products.

    • rahulahl
    • 6 years ago

    Just checked out his twitter.
    Now I am not a twitter user, but looking at his tweets, why would anyone ever follow him?
    Nearly everything is biased and pretty much pure marketing. Do people actually like reading the crap he posts?

      • bfar
      • 6 years ago

      That style of marketing is just a part of the overall execution wobbles that have allowed the AMD brand to deteriorate over the last year or two. They’d be better off staying silent, because when they get it right (and they do from time to time) the quality of their best products speaks for itself through the wider media.

    • bfar
    • 6 years ago

    Folks, I’ve been a PC enthusiast buying GP’s for over 20 years from Nvidia, AMD and others. I know what I’m looking for. I can say with no hesitation that Techreport has become the definitive place to go for coverage of new GPUs, not just on the internet, but across all media.

    Both AMD and their customers stand to benefit from good coverage of their products. I suggest they take note, because our confidence in their products is dependent on it.

    p.s. Techpowerup is a good resource too.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Roy Taylor and Adam Kozak. What a bunch of clowns. I remember seeing Kozak make a funny face on YouTube. And there’s Taylor with his 8-ball. WTH, AMD. How much do you pay your clowns?

      • Ninjitsu
      • 6 years ago

      Hey, the clowns Never Settle.

    • f0d
    • 6 years ago

    just noticed the r9 nano is available at my local computer shops in australia
    [url<]https://www.ple.com.au/ViewItem.aspx?InventoryItemId=620755[/url<] [url<]http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=193_1792&products_id=33228[/url<]

    • Welch
    • 6 years ago

    Scott are you refering to yourself as being a too-strong personality…? I’ve never got that impression from either videos or articles.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      The sentence was referring to Taylor.

    • mkk
    • 6 years ago

    Twitter storms are for the twit minded. Even if this Roy perhaps shouldn’t tweet in the first place. πŸ˜›

    • nizer
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<]"Updated: AMD VP explains Nano exclusion, apologizes"[/quote<] Huh!? I love the work done by TR, it is very professional and so is this article, but the update strikes me as odd: "He seems like a decent guy with perhaps a too-strong personality, and I can relate to that. So all is forgiven from my point of view.", you write in the update. But that is like saying, that it was 'just' Roy's big personality that got the best of him in a stressful moment. I find it much more systematic on Roy's part, and you should not let him get away with it so easy. [b<]It is as if you accept his practice with your comment ('I can relate to that. So all is forgiven').[/b<] In the headline you also write "AMD VP explains Nano exclusion" - where is this explanation? Edit: spelling, spelling.

      • Pwnstar
      • 6 years ago

      Yeah, where is the explanation?

      My opinion is that Roy meant that there are other sites to read that will have reviews. He just worded it in a way that made it seem like he thought TR was unfair (when most think it is fair).

    • Krogoth
    • 6 years ago

    To be fair, there hasn’t been anything that exciting on the GPU front since the debut of the 970.

    980Ti and Titan X were both underwhelming and overpriced. The crux of the problem is that both vendor have been stuck on TSMC’s 28nm process for almost four years.

    It seems like Fuji project was meant to be done on a smaller process fab. Nvidia decided to wait until smaller process was finalized before going into jumping into a new architecture (Pascal) and made Maxwell into a refined Kepler design.

      • bfar
      • 6 years ago

      I’m inclined to agree. While a 970 wasn’t that much faster than a 780, it stands out from the crowd because the price/performance ratio really set it apart. And price has been a real problem with high end 28nm cards, particularly in the euro area.

      Because we’re stuck with 28nm, vendors have no choice but to build large chips. Large chips = $$$. Over the summer I decided not to buy another high end 28nm card, and I’m glad I’ve made that decision.

      • the
      • 6 years ago

      Krogoth, never change.

        • flip-mode
        • 6 years ago

        He doesn’t. He’s spammed the comments with that statement about the 970 numerous times. I like the guy well enough but I wish he’d freshen up his copy-paste game.

          • Milo Burke
          • 6 years ago

          That’s how he gives the impression of consensus!

          (Kidding, kidding.)

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Krogoth. Krogoth never changes…

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Yes.

    • garz
    • 6 years ago

    I don’t think you should even worry about it, and Why would you even write about this? In all honestly I think you just made yourself look less professional. As you said “I got better things to do” then do them. Please continue writing about tech instead of politics.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 6 years ago

      If it was NV doing this instead of AMD you’d be saying “how come you didn’t tell us what d**ks they are?!?!1?!”

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    I think Roy Taylor is better off working for Comcast.

    • Ninjitsu
    • 6 years ago

    Most unfortunate. Let’s hope things change with Raja Koduri at the helm, for both PR and engineering.

      • AS118
      • 6 years ago

      I sure hope so. AMD’s marketing (when they try) has been pretty tepid to even flat out bad, imho. Many people aren’t even aware that they exist. And I say this as an AMD fan. I like them, but I can admit that they have flaws. Hell, serious flaws sometimes, and marketing is one of their biggest ones, imho.

    • Unknown-Error
    • 6 years ago

    I would like AMD to show in detail, with clear evidence how TR, HH and other sites give biases reviews. If it is simply [b<]NOT[/b<] because you are trying to hide a $h!tty product, then I mean, you must have some evidence right? Please publish a paper regarding this. I'll be more than happy to read it. Let the public see the evidence. But until such time I simply have to assume that AMD's product is an outright failure and marketing is just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

    • Anovoca
    • 6 years ago

    Okay I admit it, this is probably all my fault. I will update my signature if that makes AMD happy.

    Edit: Chuck, you might want to get yours updated too.

    [i<]The view points expressed by this user do not represent those of the techreport staff or website [/i<]

    • Klimax
    • 6 years ago

    With Update taken into account, damage control. (hopefully not literally applicable to author… πŸ˜‰ )

    AMD PR better to actually think for once. One too many “mistakes” like this can be very unhealthy.

      • LostCat
      • 6 years ago

      Person makes slight mistake, internet uproar ensues. News at 11!

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Guy representing AMD on popular social media makes absolutely the worst accusation (of bias!) against independent review site. That is in no way slight mistake. That’s attempt at restricting and subduing reviewers to have them toe the line or be left out! That’s attempt at intimidation of sites which are used by public to get vendor independent information – used when making informed choice what they buy!

          • ronch
          • 6 years ago

          It actually does a lot of Damage to the sites in question, which is TR in this case. His tweets are read by lots of people and those people may have already subconsciously stored “TR is crap” in their subconscious minds. But how many of those folks actually go to TR and read this Damage control update and reverse that bit of info in their heads?

          Bottom line, Damage has been done, and not all will be Damage-controlled. If I were Damage I’d still kick his butt for it.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Forgot to mention that accusation of such nature does Damage. Thanks for adding it.

          • LostCat
          • 6 years ago

          Yes, he did that…to TechPowerUp. The other ‘insinuation’ can easily be seen as a mistake since he never said TechReport was actually unfair.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            That first image says otherwise…

        • Waco
        • 6 years ago

        This is the VP of AMD…not just “some person”.

      • Demetri
      • 6 years ago

      They went and fired all those engineers and yet they keep the crack PR and Marketing squad on payroll that seems to do very little when they’re not damaging the company’s reputation.

    • chasp_0
    • 6 years ago

    So we can all move on now? The love on twitter defending TR was real!

    • rems
    • 6 years ago

    He’ll have to come public on his own twitter to say that out loud like he did before that he believes TR is fair and that he’s taking it upon himself to send you guys a nano to review first hand to live up to his own words.

    That’s not how PR is managed and it should never be like that even less so through the company’s VP!!

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      THIS!!!

      If he was REALLY SINCERE, he would have TWEETED a public apology, not privately apologize to Scott over the phone. WTH, Scott! You fell for this wolf in sheep’s clothing’s BS??!!

    • MathMan
    • 6 years ago

    Your updated title says “AMD VP explains Nano exclusion, apologizes”.

    I understand the ‘apologize’ part, but you don’t say how he explained the exclusion?

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      Good question. The best I’ve gathered is a guess based on Kyle’s editorial.

    • Timbrelaine
    • 6 years ago

    Well, at least Roy knows how to clean up his mess. An earnest apology goes a long way. Keep up the good work, Scott and co.

    • anotherengineer
    • 6 years ago

    “Anyhow, at least now we know that AMD is actively seeking to punish those in the press who are less than compliant.”

    I wouldn’t say that. I would say some select few people at AMD could be dictating where review samples are going.

    • odizzido
    • 6 years ago

    ….has this guy been fired yet?

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      He got a bonus and a better office. Meanwhile, the Driver Team just suffered another round of layoffs, the guys working on Mantle and then Vulkan were moved back to the Janitorial Crew, and the PR and Marketing Teams were consolidated into just one guy.

      He’s emailing Youtube personalities that Google tells him are “Recommended for him.” He figures Google knows best who can review cards these days.

      EDIT:

      /joking

      I’m sure bonuses are mostly steak dinners and golden parachutes now. πŸ˜‰

    • Bensam123
    • 6 years ago

    Not to stoke the fire too much because I’m sure people here are looking for a witch to burn, but does this mean that sites that get review samples of the Nano are conversely unfair? (Operating under the assumption that AMD is looking for sellouts and only biased reviews)

    Pretty sure Anandtech is getting one for instance…

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Right before Anand left for Apple, they had a section dedicated to AMD that AMD bought and paid for. Not hyperbole. They paid for it literally.

      Eventually, Anand finally made his love and obsession with Apple official and went to work there. That’s right about the time the site cut its ties with AMD and went back to “neutral.”

      One has to wonder if the contract with AMD ever really ended. AMD might have upped the money and gotten the “Secret” Service Option.

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Sorry, correction: “the site AMD paid for” -? No, nope, not if.
        This so called site was an advertising banner, clearly labelled as such, linked of course to amd marketing material, it no more affected anandtech’s editorial policy then any other adverts on their site – for instance; Nvida or Intel’s.

          • torquer
          • 6 years ago

          And you know this how?

          It was clearly NOT an advertising banner. It looked and was placed nothing like the ads on TR or the other sites. It was obviously devised to look like legitimate editorial content. That being said, they didn’t lie about it and you’d have to be kind of an idiot not to realize it wasn’t editorial content. However, acting like its “just another ad” doesn’t really accurately describe the situation.

          And, given this display of AMD’s attitude toward unbiased journalism, one could easily jump to the conclusion that it did indeed affect Anandtech’s objectivity in AMD related articles.

          Also, Anandtech has gone WAY downhill in the last 2 years or so. There are precious few PC hardware sites worth a crap anymore which is why I’m a gold subscriber for TR. Theres no such thing as a completely unbiased site or journalist regardless of the subject matter, but TR comes damned close.

            • DPete27
            • 6 years ago

            [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/7282/amd-center-giveaway-acer-v5-116-quadcore-temash-notebooks<]Here's a link to Anantech's "AMD Center"[/url<] TL;DR [quote<]Today we launched the AMD Center, a portal on AnandTech that aggregates all of our AMD content in one place. Thanks to AMD's sponsorship you'll get a cleaner interface on all AMD articles, as well as reduced advertising on those pages. The portal will also serve as a way for AMD to reach out to you all directly as we're pulling in AMD tweets and have a feed of AMD's own blogs on the right hand side. AMD also wants to hear from you, and we've got some opporuntities to help with that going forward. Finally, the AMD Center serves as a destination for a bunch of pretty awesome AMD giveaways we've got planned. With AMD's support we've got better prizes and more of them to give away.[/quote<]

        • fuicharles
        • 6 years ago

        It is nothing wrong as long as you make the declaration. I remember clearly that Anandtech have made the announcement on this.

      • willmore
      • 6 years ago

      PC Per got one. Is anyone going to call them unfair or biased?

        • AS118
        • 6 years ago

        Same with Tom’s Hardware, I believe. And all of the reviews I’ve read from sites who got a Nano to review say “It’s a Niche product, don’t buy it if you don’t want something small, get a 980Ti or one of the Furies instead, it’s overpriced for most people”.

        They also complain about the lack of HDMI 2.0 and the inability to play video at 60fps on 4K tv’s and ding the card and take off points for it.

        • Mr Bill
        • 6 years ago

        Interesting that PCper got a Nano and then did not do any testing with Ashes of the Singularity.

        [Joke] The SI Prefix for nanometer (e.g. nm) is a lower case n. So Nano as an abbreviated Fury should maybe have a lower case n? [/Joke]
        [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix[/url<]

      • K-L-Waster
      • 6 years ago

      I think that’s a resounding “possibly, or possibly not.”

      Probably varies from site to site I would expect. Some will be fair, some will be red-dyed fan sites.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 6 years ago

      The unfortunate thing about this is, there will be a subset of people who *believe* that this is the case, even when it is not. If a site got a review copy and posts a positive review, there will inevitably be accusations that the review itself was bought. In many cases this will likely be unfair, of course, but hey: welcome to tha interwebz.

      • Redocbew
      • 6 years ago

      I believe that was the intention. Whether it makes sense or they got it right is a different story.

      This was kind of a crazy stunt, and crazy doesn’t make sense that’s why it’s crazy.

      • TopHatKiller
      • 6 years ago

      “A witch!?” Where’s a witch? I’ll burn them in a Crucible.

    • Damage
    • 6 years ago

    In case you missed the update above:

    I just received a very nice phone call from AMD’s Roy Taylor. He apologized for his earlier comments on Twitter and says he doesn’t think The Tech Report’s reviews are unfair. He seems like a decent guy with perhaps a too-strong personality, and I can relate to that. So all is forgiven from my point of view.

    Thanks to everybody for their support. Here’s hoping we can put this bit of unpleasantness behind us and move on to happier things.

      • PixelArmy
      • 6 years ago

      “Damage”-control

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Should have read comments, I sort of duplicated your comment…)

      • f0d
      • 6 years ago

      will you be getting a nano now though?
      or did he just apologize to calm the storm?

        • Damage
        • 6 years ago

        Not sure about that. But I will get a card one way or another to test.

          • HisDivineOrder
          • 6 years ago

          So his “apology” didn’t include any new information besides he doesn’t think you guys are “unfair?” Not much of an apology. Must be something magical about his tone? Something where you just had to be there…?

          An apology without an explanation for what happened to cause all this seems like a hollow thing.

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            “These are not the droid you are looking for….”

      • arbiter9605
      • 6 years ago

      Yea i bet someone higher up in the company chewed his @$$ out over what he said on twitter.

        • snook
        • 6 years ago

        there goes the neighborhood

        • klagermkii
        • 6 years ago

        I’m going to give him some credit and believe that as a pretty senior PR person who’s counting every retweet and mention of his account, that he has enough sense and sensitivity of the way the wind is blowing to get on top of the escalating situation with a pseudo-apology.

        No doubt the last thing that anyone at AMD (including him) wanted is for the Fury Nano messaging buzz to be about “AMD F.A.I.R.* (TM) Technology” rather than the performance/size.

        I think it was dumb for him to get into the situation and he didn’t expect it to blow up, but when it did I’m fairly sure his own PR instincts kicked in rather than having to be told.

        * FAIR being “Favoring AMD In Reviews”

      • Shambles
      • 6 years ago

      I’m glad both TR and AMD could resolve this professionally. At the end of the day we’re all looking to get the best tech to enthusiasts.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 6 years ago

        Not quite fully resolved yet… Unless you only mean the “fair reviews only” as opposed to TR not having a Nano coming from AMD still.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      As they say, forgive your ENEMIES.

      • gbcrush
      • 6 years ago

      Well, that’s a little better. I’m glad you were able to get this resolved.

      But I will still Bristle at Mr. Taylor for the next few weeks because I find his apology irks me a bit more than his initial statement:

      While I will accept said apology at face value, IF AMD wants to believe the TechReport to be unfair that’s their opinion and their option (I will wholeheartedly disagree). If they want to make statements in a public forum that insinuate a message they claim not to really mean, and the apologize through private channels that do nothing to address their previous public impact, that strikes me as less than professional and closer to pandering.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]If they want to make statements in a public forum that insinuate a message they claim not to really mean[/quote<] I think the key is that Roy didn't consider the tweet a public forum. Clearly, [b<]all[/b<] tweets _should_ be considered "public". But Twitter has no means of privately messaging a user. So a lot of people make the mistake of responding to a message, believing it to be a private matter. This is all easily explainable if we assume that Roy fails to understand Twitter. He "replied" to a tweet (and his personal expectation was that the "reply" was private). This is a mistake I see all too common these days. Hopefully Roy has learned his lesson.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      But how about those folks who read his tweet and already blacklisted TR in their subconscious? Not everyone will come across this revised article and read about his apology. Don’t forgive him, Scott. And besides, do you really believe his apology? Heck, he probably gave you the middle finger after hanging up.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      Did he really apologize though?

      Or did he threaten to send the Fixer over and destroy all your Nvidia cards?

      • MrJP
      • 6 years ago

      Is he going to tweet a retraction? An personal apology is nice, but doesn’t do much to repair the wider damage (no pun intended) he may have caused.

      • AS118
      • 6 years ago

      To be fair, as someone who’s seen Roy on twitter, he seems to just hastily kind of tweet off the cuff without really double-checking sometimes, and can sometimes seem absent minded or distracted. He doesn’t seem to be the kind of guy who likes to intentionally insult people, particularly people at Nvidia, where he used to work.

        • Kougar
        • 6 years ago

        Except he made the same “fair” tweet three different times about different sites. That clearly shows it was not a one-time mistake.

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]So all is forgiven from my point of view.[/quote<] Maybe for you, but to me this is still a red (see what I did there?) flag. Makes me less trustful of reviews from other websites. Then again, I guess I've been living in a dream world where companies are honest and are not trying to manipulate the tech press into "tweaking" conclusions to meet the companies' preferences. You know what would be great? Instead of providing you with a cherry-picked sample for review, they could give you a pre-paid Visa card to be used on an AMD GPU in [i<]any[/i<] store that sells them. Yes - it would be after launch, but would eliminate any concerns of cherry-picking. Yeah right. Like that would happen.

      • southrncomfortjm
      • 6 years ago

      I’m guessing he didn’t exactly explain what he meant by reviews have to be “fair.”

      I’m guessing he wants reviewers to run tests using AMD’s preferred settings that play to their strengths, since I’m also guessing the normal settings that reviewers run tend to play to Nvidia strengths, or at least tend to run to AMD’s weaknesses in the Fury cards. I can see that point of view, kinda, but not the way they tried to implement it. ASK reviewers to make some changes in order to present a more “fair and balanced” review rather than creating a bigger story by denying them cards when you would normally give them cards.

    • bhappy
    • 6 years ago

    AMD isn’t sending out nano’s to certain tech sites because they DO NOT want fair reviews, they only want pro-AMD reviews for their latest product. They don’t want tech sites to point out their mediocre performance in 99th percentile frame time benchmarks which actually matter more than average frame time benchmarks. They are probably also scared of how bad the nano will look on the avg FPS per dollar and 99th percentile FPS per dollar value scatter plots when compared to Nvidia’s products and their gtx 970 mini itx versions.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Because of all these stupid things AMD is doing right now and backing them up with even more stupid words from the likes of Roy Taylor (who is also st … nevermind), I just might go Intel and Nvidia for my next rig just as a matter of principle.

    • orik
    • 6 years ago

    Wow, that’s crazy Scott.

    Are you still interested in reviewing it when it hits the shelves?

    • Deanjo
    • 6 years ago

    It really saddens me how AMD has changed over the years.

    I remember back when the Athlon was just released and I was at a computer symposium with all the major brands represented. AMD brought along their new spanking Athlon and Intel brought their PIII. AMD was excited about their Athlon and being with a convention floor full of computer nerds, the question was asked if they could back up their claims that it was faster than the PIII. AMD at that time was “Oh hell yes, get the intel guys to bring their P3 over and let’s do some benches”. So we went over to the intel booth, chatted with their rep, asked if we could bench them against each other to see who’s claims were true. The intel crew accused us of being a lynch mob because we wanted to put them head to head, packed up their display, flipped us the bird and said “We are intel, we are the best, take that AMD crap if you think it is so good.” It was pretty much their version of “Screw you, I’m taking my ball and going home.”

    That turned me off from intel for years and every system from then on was AMD. It wasn’t until years and many systems put together and purchased that I finally went back to intel (beginning with Ivybridge) as AMD started pulling the same crap that intel did a decade and a bit later and intel cleaned up their act.

    • puppetworx
    • 6 years ago

    Frame-rating and real world testing isn’t fair guys. Not cool pulling such dirty tricks Scott.

    • mbutrovich
    • 6 years ago

    Way to go, AMD: this was the catalyst I needed to become a TR Subscriber!

    Keep up the great work, Scott and crew!

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 6 years ago

    There are no saints in this GPU business, it seems.

    AMD: PR/Marketing doesn’t seem to know what they’re doing, and now this. Compounded by the fact that their HBM gamble isn’t paying off until 20/16nm, and by that point, Nividia would have their own HBM version.

    Nividia: “We’re not trying to sabotage non-Nividia GPUs by breaking games. Trust us.”

    Intel: “$400 for Iris Pro that performs worse than a cheaper i3 and mid-range GPU combo. Problem?”

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      A thing. As some recent test showed, GameWorks doesn’t sabotage AMD. It’s just drivers themselves… (See HardOCP Witcher 3 test for HairWorks analysis)

    • SoM
    • 6 years ago

    keep diggin’ that grave AMD

    ONLY reviews i read are TR (first) and [H] (second)

    and that nano lol

    • LoneWolf15
    • 6 years ago

    They have a right to do what they want, no matter how poor of a business move it is.

    I have a right to not purchase their cards if the most honest, detailed review sites can’t get cards direct from AMD for review.

    This makes me sad. I had a lot of issues with some of nVidia’s problems over the years; it drove me to AMD for awhile, and I had a great track record with their cards (up until my GTX 980, I think my last nVidia card was an 8800GTS), of which I owned many. Heck, I’ve owned an ATI VGA Wonder 512k and AMD 486 processors; ATI/AMD, I have a long fond memory of you.

    And with moves like this, I can’t see why I’d want another one of your cards for some time to come. Your own marketing department is putting a .45-caliber wound in one foot, when the other foot is already standing deep in the debt bucket. Why would you do this?

    • dragontamer5788
    • 6 years ago

    Am I the only ones who think that they’ve only called “TechPowerUp” unfair and not TechReport specifically?

      • nanoflower
      • 6 years ago

      Yes, because Roy responded to @wisticott with the “fair” comment and he/she was talking about the Tech Report. Scott included the other line of tweets to show what @AMD_Roy seems to mean by “fair.”
      So AMD_Roy would appear to be painting both The TechReport and TechPowerup with the same brush.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 6 years ago

        And obviously, we now see the truth.

        Twitter has 140 characters. People are brief due to the format, which leads to misunderstandings like this. Twitter is an absolutely [b<]awful[/b<] means of communication. It is hard enough to communicate a point without insulting someone in long-form writing. To do so in short-form twitter writing is basically impossible. It took a [b<]phone call[/b<] and a conversation to explain what was going on. Even the little blurb that Damage has put here on the comments section (as well as in the post) is several magnitudes larger than what is allowed on Twitter. And yet, we all have a habit of reading very deeply into very shallowly thought-out Twitter posts. EDIT: FYI, the misunderstanding is 100% Roy's fault. He is the one who decided to use Twitter, and he is the one who needs to understand the dangers of using a Twitter account. Nonetheless, I [b<]personally[/b<] am a bit lenient on the mistakes that various heads have been making on Twitter. Professional politicians have been screwing up Twitter for years now. I've seen my fair share of flame wars erupt illogically over the base. It is the nature of short-form 140-character writing that people will fail to understand you unless you put forth significant effort in your tweets. Unfortunately, a lot of people fail to put forth the effort. Roy hopefully has learned his lesson. At the same time, I hope that we as a community can be more forgiving and less edgy about Twitter posts: to mitigate any issues of future misunderstandings.

          • nanoflower
          • 6 years ago

          You do understand that this isn’t some random employee but the VP of AMD’s PR department. A guy who has done similar things at Nvidia. This is a guy who’s living depends upon getting his message across. He’s also not someone new to using Twitter for PR. Read through his tweets and you can see just how he uses Twitter to try and advance AMD’s message. So it’s really hard to see this as any sort of mistake by him. If he had made one tweet then I could see your point, but he made multiple tweets hours apart saying the same thing. That says he had a common message he wanted to get across. Now you can argue the message was a mistake (and it was) but I don’t see how you can argue that it wasn’t the message that Roy intended to get across.

          I can see why Scott would need to just take him at his word and move on as there is no need to create bad blood between AMD and the site, but I’m sure Scott (and everyone else) will keep an eye out for any confirmation that AMD is still doing the same thing later in time.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]You do understand that this isn't some random employee but the VP of AMD's PR department. A guy who has done similar things at Nvidia. This is a guy who's living depends upon getting his message across.[/quote<] So do the myriad of other people who have screwed up on Twitter. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Sexting_scandals<]Anthony Weiner[/url<] is probably the most famous, but the internet makes [url=http://www.cnbc.com/2013/08/02/The-10-greatest-scandals-ever-tweeted.html<]lists of people like this[/url<]. Its a simple fact that being correct and saying stuff with correct public relations 100% of the time is a really hard job... even harder when you're forced to make a point in 140 characters or less.

          • Voldenuit
          • 6 years ago

          [quote<]Twitter has 140 characters. People are brief due to the format, which leads to misunderstandings like this. [/quote<] I dunno, Roy's tweet sounded pretty clear to me. Guy comes across as a douchebag online loud and clear.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            ETA: Completely missed link in article…

            • dragontamer5788
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<] I dunno, Roy's tweet sounded pretty clear to me.[/quote<] Then you've missed the point. Roy sent out a personal phone call to Damage. His actions speak louder than his words on this one. He clearly did not intend to imply that Techreport had unfair reviews.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 6 years ago

            If he wanted the world to know about it he would have called Damage *then* tweeted the apology.

            The fact that he only called suggests he has no problem with the implied smear remaining out there in the public domain, and want the apology to be a private matter.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]If he wanted the world to know about it he would have called Damage *then* tweeted the apology.[/quote<] Why? Twitter is a horrible communication platform that leads to misunderstandings. Furthermore, @wisticott was making a (pseudo-)private message anyway. The tweet posted above wasn't even _published_ on Roy's twitter account... it was a direct response to wisticott. Finally, Roy has personally apologized enough that: [quote<]So all is forgiven from my point of view.[/quote<] So we should follow suit.

    • hansmuff
    • 6 years ago

    It’s like AMD has painted itself into a corner and knows it. Very bad PR no matter what your product is like, and I would say AMD can’t afford this sort of cockiness. Make something superior and let us see it, that’d be awesome. This isn’t it.

    • f0d
    • 6 years ago

    i have owned many AMD/ATI products in the past and i think its only been the last 3? or so years where amd really had troubles for many reasons (no/minimal hardware development on their cpu’s and to an extent gpu’s) and i really do believe they can come back from this with some good solid hardware and drivers at a nice price

    but this latest fiasco is really making me scratch my head wondering what amd are trying to do? it seems they really are trying to shoot themselves in the foot and self destruct the company
    TR biased? puhleeeze.! ([H] and TPU are also unbiased but i prefer TR’s testing)

    what really amazes me is the amd fanboys that are encouraging amd’s decision and are saying all these sites are biased – thats crazy.!

    in the past i have owned
    amd
    386’s k6’s athlons durons a64’s athlon xp’s
    ati
    rage II rage pro 8500 9800 9200 4850 6950

    i will definitely buy amd products if they offer me the price/performance i want (amd prices are different in australia so we dont get those great deals people in the US get with their latest products – like $300 radeon 290’s) and lately their competition simply have better products

    reacting like they have here is NOT going to help them, i think they will find that the community will not forget this and it will bite them in the ass for a long time to come

    • derFunkenstein
    • 6 years ago

    Roy’s definition of “fair” is the matter at hand, and it’s very clear that Roy’s definition of “fair” is not “impartial” or “independent”. I saw tech journalists from other sites (who happened to get Fury Nano cards) crying foul on Twitter today because someone accused them of being an AMD shill, but let’s be honest – if AMD gave a journalist an R9 Fury Nano, it’s because AMD thinks they’ll get Roy’s kind of fair treatment. AMD is the one calling certain journalists shills right now, not random people on Twitter. AMD knows someone’s journalistic integrity is up for auction and they just bought it.

    edit: lots of edits, because lots of vague pronouns. I have editors for a reason, people!

      • thecoldanddarkone
      • 6 years ago

      When I write it’s normally a paragraph, by the time I’m done, it’s a single sentence.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 6 years ago

        Yeah, I have the opposite problem. Wish I was better at being concise.

    • torquer
    • 6 years ago

    Like many posting below, I used to buy AMD products exclusively “back in the day” before many of these young whippersnappers even knew there was an Internet. I had K6s and Athlons and 5×86 CPUs galore, but I will admit I only had a very few ATI video cards (you see, son, AMD’s graphics cards used to be a wholly different company).

    Over the last 10 years, though, I moved away from AMD altogether. It wasn’t because I didn’t like them, its just that for the money its competitors offered more. Unfortunately now I see their true colors. Like an impetuous teenager with “short man syndrome,” they will take their proverbial ball and go home when a proven leader in tech journalism like TR doesn’t casually lick their balls like so many other sites do. This is a bad flashback to the bad old days where there were dozens of sites who would offer “paid” reviews for products.

    My attitude for the last few years has been consistently that AMD is a good company that needs a good break. While I won’t condemn the entire company for the idiocy of one dude/department, at the moment I’m giving them a big ol’ middle finger.

    Grow up and act your age. You’ll get respect when you earn it, and I have no tolerance for petty immature BS from “professionals.” Bitterly disappointing fall from grace for a once great company.

    Those of us who aren’t pimpled fanboys looking to find release from our angst through arguing about which company is better stand behind you, TR.

    And for the record, I’d say the same thing about any company who pulled this kind of crap.

    • TopHatKiller
    • 6 years ago

    I despise Nv’s ‘hung-less’. There pursuit of proprietary channels rather then competing fairly.
    I’m repulsed by i-god’s illegal practices.

    I’m now disgusted by AMD’s marketing policy.

    The tone here, though, amongst the editorial staff is quite clearly against AMD.
    But that’s fine – the editorial tone is up to the editors here.
    In this catastrophic debacle the fault clearly lies with AMD marketing.
    I have always said that AMD couldn’t market itself out of a paper bag, and that’s been one of the problems with company for years, but I didn’t expect to sink this low…. and pull the same kind of shit that nvidia and intel have been doing for years….
    I’m embarrassed and horrified by AMD’s behaviour

    Oh goodgod: i loath nvida and intel. Bloody hell. Where the hell do i go from here?

      • sweatshopking
      • 6 years ago

      COME JOIN ME. ONLY LOVE MICROSOFT. THEY’RE ALL YOU NEED.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 6 years ago

        Kin users, Surface RT users, and the Damned Users of Microsoft Bob all touch themselves at night thinking about welcoming the Lost to their ranks.

        PS: Don’t bring up Courier or Slate to them. More than one of them has been known to wig out and wake up covered in blood at the mere use of the words “Courier” or “Slate.”

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        I hate you! Bastard !

          • sweatshopking
          • 6 years ago

          +1

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 years ago

        Microsoft loves PC gaming; They love it so hard they almost killed it with too much love…
        /s

      • f0d
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]The tone here, though, amongst the editorial staff is quite clearly against AMD. [/quote<] to me the tone is clearly "TR are here for its readers" what parts seem like they are against amd?

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Everything!!!
        No, seriously, I don’t want to go into details – but editorial comment is often dismissive of AMD: but I did say that reviews at TR are generally balanced and have no bias…
        But editorial comment implies that AMD is a cheap, follow-on to the masters of the universe…
        I’m not trying to be critical of TR – but the ‘tone’ of writing is ‘off’….

          • f0d
          • 6 years ago

          examples? because im not seeing it
          saying things like rebrands (sometimes for the 3rd time) are bad isnt a bias – its a fact, nobody wants rebrands

          unless you can provide a clear example i just cant see it

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Dear f0D: No, I’m not going into specifics. I said ‘tone’ not actual statements. Again, I have no criticism for TR’s reviews. I think they are fair-ish. And obviously AMd’s re-re-release of the same chips are ghastly and embarrassing. Dear F0d, my complaint was on ‘tone’ only.

            • f0d
            • 6 years ago

            then i have to strongly disagree
            im just not seeing it at all (unless you can provide examples which you dont seem to want to do)

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Sorry, F0d, I refuse to provide examples. That would require me to go back and re-read TR reviews to provide you with examples of ‘tone’. Any such examples would be subjective, anyway. Please feel free to disagree. That’s totally fair: and as I said, I think TR is pretty much fair too.

            • Waco
            • 6 years ago

            You’re really good at making no point whatsoever in your posts. Do you honestly expect anyone (especially new or even longtime readers) to read this and not immediately ignore it as BS?

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Thanks for saying I’m good at something.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 6 years ago

          Sounds like “everything that isn’t 121.4% supportive of everything AMD does” qualifies as anti-AMD tone.

          In my experience, TR supports companies when they make something cool and calls them out when they do something questionable. It’s not TR’s fault so many of AMD’s activities fall into category B.

        • DoomGuy64
        • 6 years ago

        I typically have viewed TR as having good tech journalism, but they recently have been quick to over sensationalize faults of AMD cards, while barely acknowledging similar faults from Nvidia. (dx12 async performance anyone?) Because of that, there’s been accusations of bias from several outside places, including Reddit, so I can somewhat understand AMD being reluctant to liberally hand out their review samples.* Also, the majority of posters here are strong Nvidia fans who make AMD users feel unwelcome to post their thoughts, resulting in the site appearing Pro-Nvidia to any outsider.

        IMO, the heavy reliance on Project Cars as a benchmark was the point where people started seriously questioning TR for bias, and it’s removal was the right move to stay neutral. Regardless of that, there still are a lot of other questionable variables that can generate suspicion with a drive by reader, like a review using overclocked Nvidia cards, but only mentioning that in the introduction which inattentive people could gloss over. These omissions aren’t any less shady than AMD’s AF-free benchmarks, and whether or not it was deliberate doesn’t matter. It’s questionable, and there are way too many of these quirks to casually dismiss as accidental or benign, not to mention the exaggerated nitpicking of certain issues, which get addressed, and acknowledgment of that is minimal and delayed.

        Some of the older podcasts, while excusable for being opinion, seemed heavily biased in favor of Nvidia. I remember hearing a comment about how the Fury was overpriced. It is an expensive card, but comments like these are never levied against Nvidia, as the Ti is usually portrayed in a positive manner, even though it costs just as much, not to mention the ridiculously overpriced Titan. Then, if anyone remembers the podcast with Batman: AK, Gameworks was dismissed as being detrimental toward AMD, and instead painted as Nvidia benevolently helping developers. Most people who’ve followed Gameworks for an extended period of time feel that to be false, and I quit listening regularly to the podcasts after I heard that. Batman: AK is the perfect example of where the Gameworks team was not there to help the developer make a good game, as they were there only to bloat up the graphics. TR previously did an expose on Crysis2, and nothing has changed, except now Nvidia gets a pass for doing it, and known problem titles are being used to bench AMD cards.

        Generally speaking, I think the reviews here are unbiased and fair, but I also feel the staff currently has a personal preference for the green team, and it shows in how AMD is treated. I’m not saying the reviews are bad, but the bias does show in how AMD is discussed, and they are absolutely under more scrutiny.

        *I don’t think denying review cards is ethical, but it is also likely the only recourse if there actually is a problem. This is hardcore nuclear retaliation, but what else can AMD do, if the problem exists? Complaining about being denied a review sample isn’t going to get sympathy from people who suspect you of bias either, as it’s just going to make them think the bias exists even more. The best option is to simply state that your reviews are, and will continue to be, fair, and go from there. Actions speak louder than words, and it would probably help to tone down all the nitpicking and exaggeration of every minor issue, especially if you’re not going to expose similar problems on the other side. If Nvidia’s problems were equally exposed, this likely would have never happened. FuryX was easily the most biased review I’ve ever read here, and I hope it doesn’t happen again.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Now you’re free. You’re free to buy whatever is best and not whatever is made by the corporation you imagined as holy or good. You can go out to a store and instead of trying to remember which one you hated, you can just read to find out which one has the best actual performance.

      You’re free because they’re all bad. Every single one of them. And that’s fine. Because they’re not your saint, they’re not your religion, they’re not your faith.

      They want to sell you product. Like McDonalds or Trojan. You buy it, you use it, you throw it away. No angels, no chanting, no worship.

      Freedom.

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Yeeep. In a capitalist society no man is free. Every man is chained to the assumption of value. Produce a great work of art, – bring up a boy into a good man, save the homeless, be kind to your neighbours, bake a cake for strangers .. Nothing means anything until you can assign a dollar value on it, beneath, around it.
        I worship nor follow any gods… but on every side of my life I am chained by the stricture and constraint of a ‘dollar-price’.

        So I am no more free then a multiplicating cell dividing itself in the womb of any strange women. Subject to: genetic heritage, randomness, environmental factors and infliction and poison.

        I-god, and NV are still worse then AMD.

      • Cuhulin
      • 6 years ago

      Feel the Force, THK…you are being drawn closer and closer to One Infinite Loop….

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Then, if that is true, there is no hope for anyone.

      • torquer
      • 6 years ago

      Oh. You’re still here.

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Yep I am. Am I? Yep.
        Do you even exist, yourself?
        I wonder.
        Here’s a funny thing: I, today, stumbled on some old school reports about me. My old teachers said much the same thing about me: ‘he doesn’t interact with others, he’s shy, he mostly doesn’t speak out in class’ bla bla. When I was being bullied, shut in cupboards, laughed at, threatened by violence, by students and teachers, I thought: some day, this will end. I guess though, it doesn’t really? Does it?
        Have a nice day, I’m just having a crappy one.

          • Redocbew
          • 6 years ago

          Weirdo.

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Too bloody right, there.

          • torquer
          • 6 years ago

          Reading this, I feel like history will condemn us for not taking this opportunity to sterilize or possibly kill you.

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Uhm. Do you possibly feel that your comment may be a little excessive?
            You appear to advocate violence against my person. I support your free expression, but I think your comment is a bit much.

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            Try getting a sense of humor. It helps.

            Also, a shrink.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 6 years ago

            Er. Didn’t come across as funny – sounds like a personal attack.

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Thanks. I don’t think he was joking, either.

            • torquer
            • 6 years ago

            [url<]https://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series-4-episode-01-the-robotic-manipulation/[/url<] Since we're killing the PAINFULLY OBVIOUS joke and pop culture reference here, I'll point out that dude's post I replied to was yet another cry for help and in all seriousness pretty darned concerning. Far more concerning than a pop culture reference that is so obviously meant in jest that only the most bleedy of bleeding heart liberals would be offended by it. Nut jobs who stalk and intend harm to others on the internet rarely do so through posts like mine. They do, however, sometimes post concerning and off the wall references to past abuses by bullies and teachers. Food for thought.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      So TL:DR .. you hate capitalism ?

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        What [s<]have the Romans[/s<] [u<]has capitalism[/u<] ever done for us!

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          /smirk/ +1

          • TopHatKiller
          • 6 years ago

          Adoring any reference to ‘Python.

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Yep. Who doesn’t?

          • Meadows
          • 6 years ago

          Rich men.

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          ME! capitalism makes me happy.. gives me a job, and is paying for my daughters college πŸ™‚

          • atari030
          • 6 years ago

          Me. It has given me everything that I have…and all that my parents have…..and my brothers….and their families. Hating on capitalism sure is trendy…but I wouldn’t call it intelligent or wise.

            • TopHatKiller
            • 6 years ago

            Okay! Already!
            [and i think what you were talking about there working hard, not capitalism itself]
            But okay.

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]The tone here, though, amongst the editorial staff is quite clearly against AMD.[/quote<] The tone is against poor products. As it should be.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 6 years ago

      As I’ve mentioned before: people really need to stop attaching to vendors as good guys / bad guys.

      They’re companies. They make money by selling computer hardware. Sometimes they cross the line while doing so.

      Emotionally attaching to their success or failure isn’t going to do you any favours. It’s not like we’re picking sides for Ragnarok. That’s what sports teams are for πŸ™‚

    • brucethemoose
    • 6 years ago

    In a way, TR’s GPU tests are actually pro-AMD.

    Unlike some sites, TR doesn’t overclock or overvolt cards in their reviews. This is good for AMD, as Maxwell cards overclock like crazy, but AMD GPUs newer than the initial, conservatively clocked Tahiti cards don’t. This also draws focus away from, say, the Fury X’s mediocre VRM cooling, or the terrible blowers on Hawaii and Tahiti.

    EDIT: And I’m not criticizing TR’s review methods, I’m just saying that exclusion happens to favor AMD atm.

    The regular Fury is a possible exception, but unlocking the extra shaders, unlocking the memory, and pushing the big core past 1200Mhz without burning your card up is much harder than your average OC.

      • TopHatKiller
      • 6 years ago

      TR’s are not pro anyone. I’m very sensitive to bias, and I’ve honestly never seen any real bias here. Of course, there have been a number of occasions that I felt conclusions were not reasonable, and a few occasions were bench results seemed to change: against AMD cpu: without explanation: but generally I find that TR is “fair-ish” to everyone.

        • SlappedSilly
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]I've honestly never seen any real bias here.[/quote<] You must not read the comments then.[/sarcasm]

          • TopHatKiller
          • 6 years ago

          READ THE COMMENTS! Of course I don’t – do you think I’m crazy or something????

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            well… we have a running bet..

          • derFunkenstein
          • 6 years ago

          TR commenters are usually biased towards the best price/performance. Lately that’s been Intel and Nvidia. There was a time when it was ATi and AMD.

          There are, of course, plenty of exceptions.

          • Mr Bill
          • 6 years ago

          +++ Post that you are building an AMD based system and then stand back and watch the flames. Heaven help you if you don’t use the cheapest possible motherboard and PSU, to justify using any Intel CPU.

        • brucethemoose
        • 6 years ago

        It certainly isn’t intentional bias. Overclocking just isn’t part of TR reviews, and it coincidentally favors one side at this time… When the 7970/7950 were released, for example, it was the other way around.

      • m3mb3rsh1p
      • 6 years ago

      Actually, I would consider TR’s reviews pro-nvidia. I don’t blame the editors for being fans of a product that performs to their expectations but I often detect derision when it comes to their commentary on Radeons. TR benchmarks are fair because both Radeons and Geforce are provided a level playing field but they are also unfair because the test settings are static in spite of the knowledge that AMD and NVidia’s architectures are targeting different graphics models: Shader-based for AMD, and Geometry-based for NVidia (by my naive reading of various TR reviews)

      AMD has clearly invested in their shader and computational processing and tweak the game settings for their press releases to take advantage of what Radeons do best. NVidia and their fans, however, bias their settings towards geometry and texturing which Geforces do best.

      The inadequacies of game development have led to a business model that seems to target “what gamers/reviewers are doing” or “what [company] is promoting” and not “what achieves desired results.” It is certainly possible to produce excellent visuals with the anti-aliasing/filtering/geometry settings that AMD uses for their demonstrations. Doing so would motivate game developers to use portable textures, models and engines that work comparatively on both architectures.

      I note, hereby, that TR’s exposition of the excessive tesselation in some NVidia-biased engines was an act of fairness. I just wish they’d used this opportunity to balance or diversify the game settings used for testing.

      The comparison images provided by TR to show the difference in quality between “Nvidia settings” vs “AMD settings” should, in a fair world, be of interest to those versed in the matters of improving 3D graphics design/development. TR, however, has used this and other apparent “Nvidia Wins” to prejudge and deride Radeons.

      As it stands, TR and other publications have essentially created a fixed set of (NVidia-firendly) anti-alising, geometry, shader specs that threaten to dictate how graphics hardware is designed. That is a scary situation.

        • brucethemoose
        • 6 years ago

        How would you explain the impact of consoles? Being the lowest common denominator and representing a bigger market, they certainly have a bigger impact on game development than the opinions of hardware review sites… And they use GCN APUs. The same logic would suggest that modern games are meticulously optimized for GCN cards, but they aren’t.

          • m3mb3rsh1p
          • 6 years ago

          Good Point.

          Ignoring the technicalities of PC ports having configurable graphics settings, the console argument juxtaposed against TR’s stance on AMD’s settings could be summarized as “Console graphics that yield high performance on Radeons are not good enough.”

          This is where, I believe, a little flexibility and pragmatism would help. Do these AMD settings look so bad that they are not worth considering? If getting “inside the frame time” is most important, why cripple Radeons with biased settings?

          Perhaps quality could be separated from performance to test frame rates and then find quality settings that are tailored to different architectures?

            • f0d
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]Do these AMD settings look so bad that they are not worth considering[/quote<] yes have you seen how bad games can look with 0X anisotropic filtering?

        • nanoflower
        • 6 years ago

        I don’t understand what you are expecting TR or any other site to do. Do you want one set of configurations for each game tested for Nvidia and another set of configurations for AMD? What about for the different GPUs within each companies product lines as I expect a 290 and a Nano/Fury will need different settings to get the best performance/appearance out of each card?

        That’s not going to happen. Even if a site did have the man power and time to come up with such a configuration it would make comparisons between cards very difficult and it would greatly increase the claims of bias with people accusing a site of choosing settings that weren’t the best for their favorite card/company. Much the same as you seem to be doing.

        What the sites that I visit do is figure out what configurations give the best combination of performance/appearance to them and then everything gets tested with that. If that’s using a 980TI then it’s possible the settings might not be best for the Fury that’s also being tested, but it may also not be the best for the 780 TI that’s being tested. That’s just a consequence of the testing methodology, but at least having a consistent methodology means everything is on an even playing field and you can try to reproduce the results at home. It also means that the GPU vendors know what customers and reviewers will be looking for and should be taking that into account when designing their product.

          • m3mb3rsh1p
          • 6 years ago

          If TR (or any publication) is reviewing Product X, then why not give it the spotlight? Why not start by finding the best possible combination of settings for Product X? What’s happening now is that people found the best combination of settings for Product Y a while ago and every card released since is now benchmarked against those settings.

          What would be a fairer testing method?

          I think it’s possible to have “neutral” settings while leaving “finishing” touches for last or to the end user. It’s impractical to force “extreme” settings for the sake of slowing down the cards. If a card can provide “minimum acceptable frame rate timing” at “the minimum acceptable quality” then it should be recommended. There will always be performance differences at the extremes. That doesn’t justify dismissing or deriding one competitor for not achieving the performance of the best e.g. 100m sprinters slower than Usain Bolt are still “the fastest men in the world” and worth considering.

          The quality difference between various anti-aliasing, filtering, texturing settings is not tested regularly or thoroughly. It is not, therefore, fair to conclude that a particular anti-aliasing/filtering combination must be used when developing a game. TR’s own reconsideration of the performance of Radeons in Project Cars shows how much of an effect biased settings can have, especially if one is just benchmarking.

          It’s been a while since I’ve seen a test of the effectiveness of anti-aliasing on 4K resolution. It used to be said that anti-aliasing would not be needed once display resolutions improved. Has that changed? Is the difference between “Very High” and “Extreme” now obvious? Are these differences consistent across all games?

          If a publication like TR were to trim the unnecessary “extreme settings” from benchmarks, gamers would be able to see that both architectures can provide smooth gameplay at a particular “minimum or recommended requirement”. They would then be able to determine the “extreme” to which a card could be pushed to obtain extreme quality (depending on the game) and which settings would provide those results for the product being reviewed. If Radeons end up with a slight quality disadvantage, then so be it.

          Right now, the conclusion being presented by TR is that Radeons do not provide smooth gameplay which is unfair.

            • YellaChicken
            • 6 years ago

            One or two of your points carry a little bit of merit here and I see where you’re going with this, particularly for low and mid range cards, but in the context of this article we’re talking specifically about a $650 card.

            I don’t know about you but if wanted a card in that price range, I’d want the one that doesn’t restrict me to a “minimum or recommended” requirement. And I wouldn’t care if the difference is noticeable or not. 650 notes just made me want to turn my settings up to 11.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 6 years ago

            No that would not be “fairer” – that would be skewing the test to show the product in question in a favourable light. More to the point, it would also make it impossible to learn how the cards stack up to one another by looking at multiple reviews, since each review would use settings tailored to the card being tested.

            If you actually look at the results of excluding P-Cars from the FuryX results, it made maybe 0.4% difference to the final scatter plot positions.

            And, as others have mentioned, we are talking about $650 cards here — if they can’t handle extreme settings, they shouldn’t be priced at a premium.

            • m3mb3rsh1p
            • 6 years ago

            I just thought of a way that this theoretical testing method could be used to “fairly” stack cards against each other:

            For each product being put in the spotlight, TR could find the best quality settings that maintain TR’s minimum or recommended frame timing.

            Better cards would have a better frame timing at the minimum/recommended quality and users would know which settings had some headroom for quality tweaking on a per-card basis.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 6 years ago

            I don’t know about any arbitrarily “fair” settings, other than not benching games with Gameworks on, and odd resolutions / AA settings that nobody can practically use.

            HardOCP, while using some arcane methods, has an interesting metric called the “Highest Playable Settings”. While I don’t agree with testing cards at independent AA/AF settings because they compare poorly, I do believe that cards should be tested at a standard playable setting mode, which 4K is not, and thus I skip those results.

            The steam survey gives a good example of what resolutions people actually use, and 4K is a joke. 1440 has just started to pick up, and I think that should be the standard resolution for playability. 4K is just a circus attraction that people look at for kicks and giggles.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 6 years ago

            That would change the tests from being objective to subjective: instead of a measurable result, you would be comparing what combination of settings Damage used per card.

            And of course, then the fanboys on either side would have a never ending string of complaints that his choices were biased to impede their card against the competition.

      • arbiter9605
      • 6 years ago

      Um I don’t see that happen on any site. Most sites if they do Overclock results they show them along side the non-overclocked results.

        • Ninjitsu
        • 6 years ago

        Yeah, the point being the OC adds value – and more of it for Maxwell. TR doesn’t OC GPUs so this doesn’t factor in their reviews.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 6 years ago

      TR includes factory OC’d cards all the time, sometimes without mentioning it in the graphs. This is a tomato, tomahto scenario, since the cards are overclocked, but at the factory level. Most factory OC’d cards are already pushed to the limit, aside from extreme cooling, so there isn’t any need for TR to OC, since they’re testing those cards. The real OC work has already been done at the factory, and TR tests those cards like stock, when they’re anything but.

      I’d like to also point out that both AMD and NV bin their chips to such extreme levels, that you will not easily get an overclock friendly card, unless you purchase one that is a binned OC edition. I’ve bought stock cards before, and they have absolutely horrid ASIC ratings, and don’t OC more than a few Mhz. It isn’t just the ASIC score either, most stock cards aren’t built with components capable of handling higher voltages and clockspeeds, so the only real option for overclockers is to buy a pre-overclocked edition, or luck into a particular model that the manufacturer underclocked for whatever reason.

    • Theolendras
    • 6 years ago

    Really disapointing, I could be called a moderate fan of AMD for more than a decade, but that’s not the kind of attitude you must show in adversity, it’s kinda admitting defeat… They got great cards at AMD, they just can’t put as much driver and developpers assistance than the main competitor. Still, buying today I would be torn, AMD could prove to be more future proof with the nano, it’s only a could and this attitude show they’re not confident at all for the present, at least in frame timer delivery…

    • jus10
    • 6 years ago

    “Our cards can’t complete so quick, create a diversion!”

    I have a 7970 (or whatever they’ve rebranded it 10 times – a R9 280 or something? I regret it (hello drivers!) and it’s slated to have a green team replacement. It’s not a budget priority right now though.

    • YukaKun
    • 6 years ago

    “Honestly, I have better things to do, like trim my toenails.”

    The burn you feel shows in what you’re writing.

    It’s sad they didn’t provide you guys with a card, but I’m sure your loyal readers will send you one. I see that your top contributors are more than capable to lend or give you one πŸ™‚

    Cheers!

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      What you read as “the burn” I read as sadness because he’s watching the ship go down and he remembers when that ship was once proud and once a thing of beauty. Something that people would admire or even desire to be a part of.

      There was once a legacy that people could talk about and remember, but things like this make the memory fade a bit.

        • YukaKun
        • 6 years ago

        Well, considering how it was redacted, I can say it wasn’t “sadness”, but actual “burn” πŸ˜›

        In any case, which ship are you talking about? AMD or TR?

        Cheers!

          • auxy
          • 6 years ago

          He means AMD obviously.

            • YukaKun
            • 6 years ago

            I hope he is πŸ™‚

            And re-reading the update… Feels wrong on TRs part. Maybe Mr Scott omitted information so we don’t have a full picture to contextualize his words.

            Oh well. I hope TR gets a Nano, but I’m not expecting miracles either. It’s the same card at the end of the day, just smaller.

            Cheers!

    • f0d
    • 6 years ago

    im guessing the only people to get review samples are red team plus members?

    amd and their fanboys (as in the people who religiously think amd can do no wrong ever) are starting to seem like a cult more and more each day

      • nanoflower
      • 6 years ago

      I’ve noticed with the Youtube crowd the most you will get is a min/avg/max FPS values in a few games. The idea of looking at the time to display each frame doesn’t even occur to them.

        • f0d
        • 6 years ago

        you are lucky to even get a min/max – most i have seen are just average fps

    • ImSpartacus
    • 6 years ago

    It’s good to have some closure as to exactly why sites didn’t get Nanos, but it’s disappointing to see that this is the result.

    Even if sites like TR weren’t fairly reviewing pieces of tech (AMD or not), this wouldn’t be the solution.

    • ibnarabi
    • 6 years ago

    I hope Raja fires Roy tomorrow. πŸ™‚

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      This is Roy being Roy. If anything, I think Raja’s giving him bonuses every time he does something on Twitter that gets retweeted.

      • RtFusion
      • 6 years ago

      Oh I hope he does.

    • TheSeekingOne
    • 6 years ago

    The problem with AMD is that they have some real dumb PR. They don’t know what the hell they’re doing. Nvidia… they have some sneaky PR, they never act in the open. Nvidia sponsors and sends free cards to most of those big-time gamers on Youtube and Twitch to promote their products. They put some useless code together, compile it, and then get game developers to use it so that AMD does worse in in their games. The difference in hair and grass simulation, and physics simulation in general, between the PC version of The Witcher 3 with all GameWorks “features” enabled and the PS4 version is barely visible. Check out the videos on youtube.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      As far as Hairworks is concerned, HardOCP covered it and there is not really penalization for AMD. (Same drop between brands) and as for no difference, that is simply competent developer having very good replacement. (as opposed to very bad stuff in Tomb Rider)

      AMD does worse, because their drivers are worse. (With exception of standard feature called tessellation)

    • windwalker
    • 6 years ago

    Maybe it’s for the best.
    It seems like plenty of AMD products launch not fully baked in terms of drivers or build quality so reviews done a bit later may actually yield more favourable results for them.

    • Waco
    • 6 years ago

    Wow. AMD…you’ve just shot yourself in the foot, again.

      • the
      • 6 years ago

      You’d think that as often that happens AMD would actually be a centipede.

        • Waco
        • 6 years ago

        Maybe AMD is a lizard and somehow they keep growing back.

        The level of immaturity from the VP is amazing.

      • Redocbew
      • 6 years ago

      Funny thing is… if you know something’s not right, and AMD clearly has known that for a while, then don’t you want to be quiet about it instead of causing such a ruckus?

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      So how many bullets are already inside AMD’s feet? πŸ™‚

        • NTMBK
        • 6 years ago

        They could use them as colanders at this point.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Better question is, does that feet still exist at all?

    • Laykun
    • 6 years ago

    I come to TR because they HAVE fair reviews that give me the information I actually want to know. All too often I’ve been stung by the “average fps” graphs on other lower tech review sites. TR has no love for either nvidia or AMD and as such they are both put under a critical spotlight, which is exactly what I need.

    • bjm
    • 6 years ago

    [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYJmFOxNew0<]AMD, you have no honor... and you have no place in this hall![/url<]

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      I was just thinking of the scene where this happened to Worf. Haha, I think one was more appropriate, though.

    • albundy
    • 6 years ago

    Roy, don’t quit your day job, whatever that is. This moron is just making his own company look even worse in their time of crisis.

    • NTMBK
    • 6 years ago

    AMD, stop being dicks.

    Yours, the internet

      • NTMBK
      • 6 years ago

      OMG, they listened to me. Yr welcome

    • Redocbew
    • 6 years ago

    I’m confused as to what AMD thinks they have up their sleeve which makes disregarding the enthusiast and gaming community ok from a business point of view.

    Anyway, here’s hoping you see a spike in contributions after publishing this story Scott. You deserve it.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 6 years ago

    I wish I were surprised.

    I sincerely doubt AMD has enough of these cards to realistically ship out a bunch of them to reviewers everywhere, so they decided to target the unprofessional side and hope they could get a groundswell of interest from non-reviewers and the people who don’t really read reviews seriously.

    And I don’t even think they want the Nano to sell Nano’s. They want the Nano to sell other cards. I think the Nano, even moreso than the Fury X, is a halo product meant to further AMD’s rep rather than get sales themselves.

    Because at the end of the day, I don’t think the HBM-based Fiji cards are easy to make, cheap to make, and as a result I don’t think they are plentiful at all.

    If I had to hazard a guess, I’d wager they’ll be “sold out” of Fiji cards for months to come. Mostly because they can barely make any. If that’s the case, then “loud” comments about them from online bloggers and social media outlets makes more sense to get the word out about halo products that no one will actually buy than serious reviews for serious buyers.

    EDIT:

    I also hope this puts a nail in the coffin of those who thought AMD is not “evil like nVidia.” Point of fact: neither are evil. They’re just corporations. Made to make money, corporations are not evil or good. They just are. Like a monsoon or a meteor strike. You can get angry at them, you can admire them, you can become their fanboys, but at the end of the day…

    …they just are. You don’t matter to them, not really. Your money does if you throw enough of it at them, but only momentarily.

      • f0d
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]I also hope this puts a nail in the coffin of those who thought AMD is not "evil like nVidia." Point of fact: neither are evil. They're just corporations[/quote<] 100% agree im sick of the "amd can do no evil" comments everywhere from the amd cult, amd/nvidia/intel are here to make money and amd just have a different PR method (pretending to be the saints of graphics) of doing it

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    For all the AMD fanboys who are about to fall on their swords in defense of Royboy there: He used to work for Nvidia. He used the EXACT kind of behaviour when he was at Nvidia.

    Literally the only difference between Nvidia-Roy and AMD-Roy is a Madlib game where you replace good-Nvidia/bad-AMD with good-AMD/bad-Nvidia.

    So before you post about how great an overpaid marketing drone is for “standing up” to Big Bad Techreport and its multi-billionaire robber-baron Scott Wasson, just ask yourself if you’d be willing to drink the koolaid if Roy was getting his green from team-green instead.

      • f0d
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]"The UK is the only place in the world where anyone talks about AMD or ATI", said Roy Taylor. Surprisingly enough, Taylor's spreadsheets outlined the graphics market share for the last year, but ATI's chips were not there. However, it is estimated that ATI, Intel and Nvidia managed to pump up 366 million graphics chips during last year. When asked about why ATI was removed from the charts, Taylor said that "no one cares"[/quote<] [url<]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nvidia-039-s-Roy-Taylor-Nobody-Cares-About-ATI-85417.shtml[/url<] i wonder if the nutty amd fanboys thought good ol roy was such a great guy back then? (no offense to people that own amd hardware but are not obsessed about it - only the diehard fanboys who think amd can and will never do wrong)

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 years ago

        More to the point, why the hell did anyone at AMD hire Roy? He’s a corrupt, antagonistic buffoon!

          • Klimax
          • 6 years ago

          They though he could help them with Gaming Evolved.

            • Chrispy_
            • 6 years ago

            Oh great. RAPTR is [b<]*his*[/b<] fault is it?

          • NeelyCam
          • 6 years ago

          [quote<]He's a corrupt, antagonistic buffoon![/quote<] You mean a marketing guy? Seems like he has all the qualifications to do a good job.

          • travbrad
          • 6 years ago

          Those are the exact reasons they hired him most likely.

        • TopHatKiller
        • 6 years ago

        Nutty. I live in the UK; I can tell you very little conversations at BusStops, Taxilines or shopping queues include discussions of: AMD, ATi, gpus, cpus or the PC at all. Occasionally, – Windows – or even Apple… Obviously I’ve tried to start conversations about AMD… but English people look at me as if I’m an alien….
        [What’s the weather like? … Crap… Oh. Sorry, of course.]

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      I actually bashed Roy somewhere here. I may root for AMD but if they shoot their foot, I’ll shoot their other foot!

      BTW, is this how AMD is killing themselves? Hire kickouts?

      • Mr Bill
      • 6 years ago

      Why on earth do you think an AMD fanboy would defend what Royboy said? AMD ‘fanboys’ want the card reviewed on TR because Tec Report fanboyism (if we must speak in the fanboy paradigm) trumps AMD/Intel/NVIDIA/(your favorite vendor) fanboyism any day of the week.

      • TopHatKiller
      • 6 years ago

      “multi-billionaire robber-baron Scott Wasson”

      I shouldn’t have gone out of my way to insult him then.
      I wish someone had told me that earlier.
      Can I have some money?

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 6 years ago

    When I was younger, I used to “love” AMD. They were the underdog with good enough products that were much cheaper.
    That has changed. I grew older, AMD grew stupider.

      • chuckula
      • 6 years ago

      See my rant, but just remember: Roy was at Nvidia before he jumped over to AMD. He brought his bag of tricks with him, and I don’t see anyone at AMD complaining about it.

        • nanoflower
        • 6 years ago

        Well they should complain about because it’s the sort of tactic that makes me seriously think about avoiding their products since they clearly have something to hide. I have no issue if there are limits on the # of cards available for review but that doesn’t seem to be at work here. It’s an intentional choice to avoid certain sites that AMD or just Roy believes are unfair to AMD.

        • Theolendras
        • 6 years ago

        With that kind of PR I would scream sabotage more then anything else.

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          That is a valid point: His words sound pro-AMD on the surface but he intentionally delivers in such a way as to make you think that he really wants to make AMD look bad… just like what a double-agent would do.

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            Alien implants….. That could be the only logical reason for his behaviour.

            • HisDivineOrder
            • 6 years ago

            The other explanation is that he saw what Elop did to Nokia on Microsoft’s behalf and thought to himself, “I want that job!”

            And he set about doing it.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            He’s pro money, and any avenue to said ‘cash’

      • kvndoom
      • 6 years ago

      When K8 was walking all over Prescott, AMD should have taken its momentum and capitalized. Instead Intel doubled down and came out swinging… and over a decade later, they are still throwing Mike Tyson punches at AMD’s corpse.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      They were much better without the current PR department.

      And the Fixer… gimme a break!

    • TheSeekingOne
    • 6 years ago

    I don’t think the review over at Techpowerup was unfair. They tested many games and the Fury/x did relatively well overall in most games.

    TR, on the other hand, used Project cars, which wasn’t a good idea in my personal opinion for the simple reason that Project Cars ran far worse on AMD’s cards than any other ScamWorks game.

    Now it can’t be helped that a good number of games that are coming out these days use GameWorks. There are many cheap game developers who will do anything for a big buck. AMD needs to do something about Nvidia’s GameWorks or they’ll just keep losing to Nvidia despite having better designed chips.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      What AMD can do about GW? How about actually getting their drivers to be good? Or getting finally good tessellation support in HW?

      The only sabotage of AMD is done by AMD to itself.

    • nanoflower
    • 6 years ago

    We already knew they were in a punishing mood given how they reacted to the video by Kit Guru Tech about AMD rebadging so much of their product line without refreshing their product line versus Nvidia. Leo also talked about AMD limiting the press’s access to Fiji for full benchmarking. I’m not aware of KitGuru doing anything else that would have upset AMD. If so that may be why AMD feels TR is unfair even though I think the subject should be fair game for anyone in the press.

    TL:DR AMD doesn’t want any coverage that isn’t positive and will punish anyone that doesn’t go along with that plan.

    • Deanjo
    • 6 years ago

    Yup, you got the “No Soup for You” treatment like what happened at Phoronix a couple of years ago for them showing the constant poor state of their linux drivers. AMD was actually improving their drivers, then massive cutbacks at AMD and the development has suffered and started regressing in performance. Once that slide started, AMD started cutting off sites that didn’t present their products from a fanboy point of view.

    This is nothing new for AMD, it started years ago whenever an intel processor skinned a AMD and they cry foul instead of addressing their deficits in their products. Since AMD bought ATI, that “whiner” attitude has crept into the graphics side and now they are pulling the same stunts with their graphics.

      • Sol
      • 6 years ago

      I loved the Athlon64 series of processors, but that IMO was their finest hour. Since the ATi purchase, their cpus have been budget runners up and they have made a mess of just about every GPU they released, 6xxx slower than 5xxx, 7xxx borked crossfire drivers for 20mths, R9 worst cooler ever and now Fury with suspect PR slide claims proved false!..
      I seriously dont know if they could do any worse…..actually, the last 2 yrs building a public shill base (RTP) and the invasion of tech tech sites with hordes of pro AMD posters batting for each other.
      NV started a group and were open about it, but it was built from fans, not favour bought shills.
      I have had to distance myself from Anandtech now as the site is nothing but AMD shills, and Anand did nothing to curb it, and no wonder when they had paid AMD portal. This is the last straw for me, no more APU recommendations and certainly no AMD GPUs for me and mine.

        • Krogoth
        • 6 years ago

        HD 6xxx series was faster than HD 5xxx in every tier. HD 6850/6870 were excellent deals for their tier (They were meant to be Geforce 460 killers) until Geforce 660 came out. HD 6970’s only real fault was that it ate a bit of power and it was somewhat slower than GTX 580. HD 6950 was absurdly easy to soft-mod into a HD 6970.

        HD 7950 was the best bang for the buck for its era and still holds up today. 7870/7850 were no slouches either. The only fault of 7950/7970 was that their reference HSF was sub-par which lead to VRM cooling issues.

        AMD’s only real mess-up on GPU front in recent years is with the current Fury/Nano and rehashes of factory-OC’ed Hawaii stuff.

        CF/SLI have always been plagued with stupid hit or miss issues.

          • f0d
          • 6 years ago

          [quote<]HD 6970's only real fault was that it ate a bit of power and somewhat slower than GTX 580. HD 6950 was absurdly easy to soft-mod into a HD 6970. [/quote<] those 6950's that were moddable into 6970's were pretty good - i had one and thought it was excellent it was such a great card that i actually kind of miss it - the only problem i had was the drivers (which i dont think surprises anyone) that was the last card i think that i could get significantly cheaper than the nvidia equivalent in australia, after that for some reason ati cards got more expensive

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            My brother used to run crossfire 69[s<]50[/s<]70s (modded cards) and while the performance was really good sometimes, other times it was mediocre or even bad. I ran SLI OC GTX 560s for awhile and my performancce was pretty competitive with his a lot of the time. And then there's what happened when RAGE came out... (Β΄Π”βŠ‚γƒ½

          • Sol
          • 6 years ago

          Nope, it is not….let me refresh your memory
          [url<]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_6870_PCS_Plus/27.html[/url<]

            • Krogoth
            • 6 years ago

            You are mixing up brand names versus price tiering.

            HD 5870’s successor was HD 6970. The HD 6870 is the successor to HD 5770. The Bart XL (6870) manages to be just about as fast a Cypress chip (HD 5870) despite being a smaller piece of silicon and having less memory bandwidth at its disposal. HD 6970 was faster then 5870.

            6870 killed the 460 and 470 at launch (Nvidia did a price cut in response) and only GK110-based 560 448 was able to compete against it.

            The only reason 5850 and 5870 were held in such high regard is that they not only beaten GTX 285 at launch but ate less power at load. Nvidia didn’t have a viable answer until GTX 580. GTX 480 was a complete joke while 470 was okay.

            • Sol
            • 6 years ago

            Ah yes, thats right, remember that now, thought there was a different name there….Still doesnt change the fact I wouldnt touch AMD with a barge poll.

    • TwoEars
    • 6 years ago

    I think maybe what he’s trying to say is that there will be plenty of “other” fair reviews to read.

    But if you ask me they’re only hurting themselves with all this, a product is what it is and people will find out sooner or later. Whatever goodwill AMD once had is disappearing quickly.

      • UberGerbil
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]I think maybe what he's trying to say is that there will be plenty of "other" fair reviews to read.[/quote<]Taken on its own, that's a plausible interpretation -- though I would expect him to clarify that that is what he meant in a follow-up tweet, given the reaction it got. But taken in conjunction with the TPU tweet, it's hard to find anywhere to hang the benefit of the doubt.

        • thecoldanddarkone
        • 6 years ago

        The benefit of doubt was gone when he replied the 3rd time. If you read Kyle’s take you see exactly where Roy’s thought process is.

      • nanoflower
      • 6 years ago

      It seems clear to me that he’s saying the sites they snubbed (ones that normally get new GPUs to review) aren’t “fair” to AMD. If it was just a matter of only having a limited # of sites review the product he would have left out “fair.” Including that word can only be seen as a slam at sites like TR by at least this guy within AMD.

      I don’t know how others within the marketing and sales dept feel about sites that try and do a real comparison between AMD and the competition regardless of what the final results will be, but it’s clear some sites seem to have favorites and go out of their way to find tests that make the favorite vendor look good. Much like AMD seems to have chosen benchmarks and settings that make their cards look best.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 6 years ago

      He’s an exec at an established publicly traded company. The man knows how to do PR. He knew how people would interpret those tweets.

        • nanoflower
        • 6 years ago

        And now he’s doing his damnedest to try and spin his way out of the minor disaster he created. It’s to Scott’s benefit to let it go now that Roy claims it was all a misunderstanding but looking through his tweets and hearing his past comments I don’t for one second believe that it was a misunderstanding. It’s also clear that there’s no commitment to change the decisions as to which sites are allowed to review Nano or other upcoming products.

    • terminalrecluse
    • 6 years ago

    Hah, any press is good press. Way to stick to your guns guys!

    TR will always be a site I visit. I trust Scott and his team of reviewers.

    • backwoods357
    • 6 years ago

    I’m fired up.
    Everybody grab your pitchforks, to the twitters!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This