AMD Not providing R9 Nano samples to several sites.

DASHlT said:
Wow.....That is one helluva guy. So....(cross fingers) we might see a launch day review. Or close to it.
Click to expand...

Not going to come close to happening. I put a hold on all these parts we need for testing. I ordered nothing because we could not get delivery dates on Nano from AMD. That all said, I would suggest Elmy's card is in no way representative of what would be sold in NA.
 
maxius said:
n=1 said:
What a total shitshow and PR disaster. AMD I am disappoint.

I'm still not sure what Roy's problem with TPU is, but it's Roy so whatever. But on that note, which sites haven't been denied samples (yet)? AnandTech? Guru3D? PCPer?! Like I said earlier, I'm going to LMFAO if PCPer gets a sample. That would just be ironic on so many different levels.
Click to expand...
they have one
Click to expand...

Source?
 
bAMtan2 said:
DracoNB may be a moron, but that doesn't seem nice
Click to expand...

Well, when you come back and do the EXACT same thing you were just temp-banned for.....you kind of have it coming, especially when it is in the guy who runs the forum thread.
 
bAMtan2 said:
DracoNB may be a moron, but that doesn't seem nice
Click to expand...

I guess you missed him at his best.
Anyone who showed a concern for what AMD has been doing was labelled an AMD hater.
He is part of the reason why the forums appear to be full of AMD hate because he bullshitted so much that his comments had to be rebuffed.
He kept arguments alive constantly which had the opposite effect for AMD because more people got to read about them, eventually in chronic detail.

One good thing did come out of all this, he is gone :p
 
J3RK said:
Your point? If AMD was smart, and thought the card packed some surprises, it would have sent one along anyway, and let the reviews speak for themselves. Whether they like [H]'s comments or not, they can't really accuse the site of being biased when it comes to the actual review data. They just post what they see. This isn't about pre-launch opinion. It's only one of two possibilities. They know their product doesn't live up to anyone's expectations, let alone their PR slides, or they're being petty based on pre-release opinions. If they though they had a winner they'd have plastered them all over the place.
Click to expand...

Bingo. AMD could have review-proofed their product by making a better product. Instead you read a lot of deflect, deflect, deflect. Blame review sites, blame "bias", blame conference calls, blame Nvidia, blame GameWorks, blame developers, blame drivers, blame the lunar cycle. At least nobody blamed Obama.

At what point does AMD bear some responsibility?
 
Last edited:
bAMtan2 said:
DracoNB may be a moron, but that doesn't seem nice
Click to expand...

It would have been a non issue if he started a thread about the overprice of Titan X in the Nvidia forum thread or video card thread, but he keeps on bringing it up in the AMD thread.
 
Back on topic, so tomorrow the Nano NDA is lifted, yes? Predictions on performance delta between Nano and OC'd 970-ITX? Keeping in mind the 970-ITX can basically hit stock 980 performance.

I'm thinking <=10%
 
Last edited:
PRIME1 said:
I'm curious what restrictions AMD put on the review sites that did get cards. I'm sure they had to agree to some pretty narrow set of rules. Probably have to test the card on an open bench to avoid heat issues, only a limited number of games that don't hurt AMD and little or no AA/AF since AMD struggles with that. I'm guessing under normal testing conditions they were getting their ass handed to them by a sub $300 970 and wanted to avoid that kind of comparison.
Click to expand...

PC Per.

Same set of games/settings as their last Nvidia review, tested in a Cooler Master Elite 110 Mini ITX chassis with no loss of performance.

"Sure...", "probably...", "...ass handed to by 970...". All wrong. :p
 
AllBlackFan said:
PC Per.

Same set of games/settings as their last Nvidia review, tested in a Cooler Master Elite 110 Mini ITX chassis with no loss of performance.

"Sure...", "probably...", "...ass handed to by 970...". All wrong. :p
Click to expand...

Yes, it ate the GTX 970 for lunch and spit out the bones in the PCPer review. 45% faster in some titles. It was interesting to see that you can raise the power profile and it effectively turned into a Fury X. Really I'd still just want a Fury X in the smallest case I could find. But that's me.
 
cageymaru said:
Yes, it ate the GTX 970 for lunch and spit out the bones in the PCPer review. 45% faster in some titles. It was interesting to see that you can raise the power profile and it effectively turned into a Fury X. Really I'd still just want a Fury X in the smallest case I could find. But that's me.
Click to expand...

Now that it beat the 970, there are people complaining about the size...
 
I don't see why Roy was so nervous, the card performs well for its size. It's just the pricing that blows.
 
This is the biggest SHAM since the FX 5800 days. AMD will pay for this!
 
AllBlackFan said:
PC Per.

Same set of games/settings as their last Nvidia review, tested in a Cooler Master Elite 110 Mini ITX chassis with no loss of performance.

"Sure...", "probably...", "...ass handed to by 970...". All wrong. :p
Click to expand...

You know if PCPer got a review sample, I really question whether AMD was truly trying to cherry pick review sites, or Roy just didn't have a damn clue what he was doing.
 
n=1 said:
You know if PCPer got a review sample, I really question whether AMD was truly trying to cherry pick review sites, or Roy just didn't have a damn clue what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Well Ryan was honest in the review, but he still gave it a frigging Gold Award.
 
Yeah, card is just fine without all this posturing bullshit. Why the hell Roy let it happen, I have no fucking clue.

It's overpriced, and that's because they had to cherry-pick it to fit in the low voltage curve. But it performs better than most people were giving it credit for (beats or matches a stock 980 in most games).

If you absolutely must have GTX 980 performance in a smaller card (most 980 cards are stock overclocked, so should perform the same), and a GTX 970 Mini is just not enough for you, the this is your overpriced masterpiece. Still would be a lot easier to recommend at $550 :D
 
Last edited:
Glad to see my predictions were pretty close to bang on. I still think it's a niche SFF only, mostly marketing card though.
For those who need that performance in a tiny space, there is no equal. People who want that will likely be prepared to pay for it too.

It's similar to a high end GPU, with pricing to match, but without all the real estate, cutting edge performance and power consumption requirements.
Then again, good luck fitting a GDDR5 card or a fury X, in the same space. It's not possible.

Overall I can understand what AMD is playing, although I wish they released a Fury XX with the binned chips instead, perhaps that's what they're doing with the X2.. maybe it will OC a little better than the Fury X so far.
 
Well AMD got what they wanted hand picked reviews that avoid newer games and the temperature issue. Even with sites noticing a coil whine and talking about how overpriced it is these "fair" sites gave them awards.

This is exactly why AMD was careful on who got to see the card first.
 
PRIME1 said:
Well AMD got what they wanted hand picked reviews that avoid newer games and the temperature issue. Even with sites noticing a coil whine and talking about how overpriced it is these "fair" sites gave them awards.

This is exactly why AMD was careful on who got to see the card first.
Click to expand...

But...

Will they sell any of these?
 
I bet they will still sell well, it's not a bad card and some people simply don't give a shit about cost and will just get their new toy even though it's a bit overpriced.
 
drklu said:
I bet they will still sell well, it's not a bad card and some people simply don't give a shit about cost and will just get their new toy even though it's a bit overpriced.
Click to expand...

If anyone's looking for a new AMD toy, it would be a FuryX water cooled version. Atleast that thing has a 100$ worth of cooling equipment on it.
 
PRIME1 said:
Well AMD got what they wanted hand picked reviews that avoid newer games and the temperature issue. Even with sites noticing a coil whine and talking about how overpriced it is these "fair" sites gave them awards.

This is exactly why AMD was careful on who got to see the card first.
Click to expand...


You know how I know you didn't actually read any of the reviews?

Because Hardware Canucks actually tests all f the same games as are in the current [H] test set. Plus about half a dozen more. And they didn't give it a "shining" report card:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/70246-amd-r9-nano-review-18.html

Pricing and availability will likely be the Nano&#8217;s largest hurdles to overcome. Sometimes receiving a free product causes us reviewers to turn a blind eye towards its true cost to end users but that $649 price point is impossible to ignore. If you are looking to maximize your performance per dollar ratio, this card is a leper. The extreme binning may cause some severe shortages as well.

With that being said, the true value of any product rests in the eyes of the beholder. Much like a sports car will look overpriced for anyone who is looking for a family hauler, the R9 Nano is targeted towards a very specific niche market and won&#8217;t have broad appeal. However, in the ultra small form factor segment it offers boundless potential.
Click to expand...

They gave it Damn Innovative, which is reserved for interesting products that are neither top-of-the-heap (Dam Good), nor good value (Dam Good Value).

Given it's surprisingly good performance against the stock GTX 980 IN ALL THE GAMES [H] tests (it wins or matches in everything except Dying Light), it's a fair conclusion. The card does not suck, but it's overpriced, and will probably be very hard to find.

I think their only slip up was not running a separate benchmark with Hairworks on in Witcher 3, but otherwise the results would have been exactly the same as if [H] had published them.
 
Last edited:
drklu said:
I bet they will still sell well, it's not a bad card and some people simply don't give a shit about cost and will just get their new toy even though it's a bit overpriced.
Click to expand...

IMO, the problem for Nano is that even if someone was willing to spend that much for something fancy, there are other better options out there. And if a person insist on AMD only, there's Fury X, with better performance, and a nice water cooler to go along with it. It's arguably a more interesting card. The kind of card you'd want if you want to show off a fancy expensive system.

So, the only thing Nano has going for it is it's size, and one has to go out of their way to find a SFF system that requires Nano's size.
 
PRIME1 said:
Well AMD got what they wanted hand picked reviews that avoid newer games and the temperature issue. Even with sites noticing a coil whine and talking about how overpriced it is these "fair" sites gave them awards.

This is exactly why AMD was careful on who got to see the card first.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you agree that Tom's and PCPer are "unfair" sites?

Pretty ironic then considering your posts here and here.
 
And I assume PRIME1 thinks that Anandtech will be slobbering all over AMD's shaft with loving care?

...uh, nope?

http://anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/18

Otherwise on a broader competitive basis, while AMD is enjoying an improvement in energy efficiency they still must contend with NVIDIA, and here is where things get murky. Relative to the rest of their lineup the R9 Nano&#8217;s energy efficiency is fantastic. However relative to the energy efficiency of NVIDIA&#8217;s lineup, AMD&#8217;s gains mostly serve to close the gap that already existed. While admittedly only painting the broadest of strokes here, R9 Nano demonstrates slightly better performance than GTX 980 &#8211;around 5% at 2560x1440 &#8211; for a similar increase in power consumption. Which is to say that AMD has closed the gap, but they don&#8217;t have any real lead.
Click to expand...

In the end then the R9 Nano is a mixed bag for potential buyers. Its $650 price tag is without a doubt steep compared to the R9 Fury X and GTX 980 Ti, but in its niche of Mini-ITX cards it&#8217;s the card to beat, and that will give AMD the room they need to charge that price. On the other hand as great as R9 Nano&#8217;s power consumption and energy efficiency are, unless you also need the small size it doesn&#8217;t do enough to set itself apart from cheaper products like the GTX 980.
Click to expand...

But hey you know, only [H] is capable of being critical and insightful, PRIME1 is so goddamned right!
 
Last edited:
Hornet said:
IMO, the problem for Nano is that even if someone was willing to spend that much for something fancy, there are other better options out there. And if a person insist on AMD only, there's Fury X, with better performance, and a nice water cooler to go along with it. It's arguably a more interesting card. The kind of card you'd want if you want to show off a fancy expensive system.

So, the only thing Nano has going for it is it's size, and one has to go out of their way to find a SFF system that requires Nano's size.
Click to expand...

It's size is exactly why it will still sell well, some just want the smallest possible package with the most power whether another card can fit in their case or not.
 
I know there are smaller case then mine but I honestly don't understand where this Mini-ITX niche actually exists unless you are building a HTPC.

The specs in my signature are actually an old build but I was able to fit a Titan X in just fine.

In reality you need a case that is just longer by what 4 inches ? To what person does that matter?

All of this sounds like pure non sense to me. Especially who is going to spend $650.00 and then get a MiniITX case for $50 that can't fit other video cards?
 
defaultluser said:
And I assume PRIME1 thinks that Anandtech will be slobbering all over AMD's shaft with loving care?

...uh, nope?

http://anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/18





But hey you know, only [H] is capable of being critical and insightful, PRIME1 is so goddamned right!
Click to expand...

This actually further begs the question of why AMD refused samples to some sites but not others. Clearly if they were trying to cherry pick then they failed miserably as well.

My gut feeling says it's actually politics.
 
n=1 said:
This actually further begs the question of why AMD refused samples to some sites but not others. Clearly if they were trying to cherry pick then they failed miserably as well.

My gut feeling says it's actually politics.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's just that they didn't have enough samples to go around, and they didn't want to delay YET ANOTHER MONTH.

Where AMD dropped the ball here was not telling the press at the paper launch that some would not get the card. Then this would have been over and done with, with minimal whining.

Instead they didn't tell anyone what was going on, and idiots like Roy were left to handle the mess...POORLY.
 
defaultluser said:
I'd say it's just that they didn't have enough samples to go around, and they didn't want to delay YET ANOTHER MONTH.

Where AMD dropped the ball here was not telling the press at the paper launch that some would not get the card. Then this would have been over and done with, with minimal whining.

Instead they didn't tell anyone what was going on, and idiots like Roy were left to handle the mess...POORLY.
Click to expand...

The relevant words are "AMD dropped the ball here" as they seem to always do.
 
defaultluser said:
I'd say it's just that they didn't have enough samples to go around, and they didn't want to delay YET ANOTHER MONTH.

Where AMD dropped the ball here was not telling the press at the paper launch that some would not get the card. Then this would have been over and done with, with minimal whining.

Instead they didn't tell anyone what was going on, and idiots like Roy were left to handle the mess...POORLY.
Click to expand...

Yea, AMD could have easily did is just tell the reviewer to send the card back to them so other reviewers can review it, sure it may delay some reviwers, but still better than not given out cards for everyone to review.
 
defaultluser said:
I'd say it's just that they didn't have enough samples to go around, and they didn't want to delay YET ANOTHER MONTH.

Where AMD dropped the ball here was not telling the press at the paper launch that some would not get the card. Then this would have been over and done with, with minimal whining.

Instead they didn't tell anyone what was going on, and idiots like Roy were left to handle the mess...POORLY.
Click to expand...

If AMD couldn't produce enough samples for the bigger Tech sites to do reviews, there is no way they will be able to produce enough card to hard a notable retail or online presence by the end of the year. AMD Roy confirmed the issue was AMD not believing the card would get fair reviews everywhere.
 
Last edited:
they could have easily said that they didn't have enough stock to give reviewers, but that would be a lie. i like that at least they are honest about which press sites they dont like. they probably knew about the coil whine and other issues well before and planned for this.
 
Fantaz said:
they could have easily said that they didn't have enough stock to give reviewers, but that would be a lie. i like that at least they are honest about which press sites they dont like. they probably knew about the coil whine and other issues well before and planned for this.
Click to expand...

Or... They could have just given them the card. Hell - the last couple of AMD cards were [H] gold's right? FFS, AMD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top