AMD, Roy Taylor, the Nano, and the Press @ [H]

Commander Suzdal said:
I read the conclusion to this and the Hardware Slave review. I think the problem I have with their final conclusions (and those of the other sites so far) is that they are allowing themselves to follow the AMD script.

"Imagine a m-itx case where only a card this size would fit. Now, isn't it the most powerful card you can buy?"

"Why, yes! Yes it is! Top Award!"

Coil whine, check. No HDMI 2.0, check. Price, check. (Price check on aisle 3?) But according to the rules set by the script, none of these things matter.

Can't wait to see what a real [H] review reveals, when the script goes in the toilet where it belongs.
Click to expand...

They will end up with the same conclusion. They have already said they are going to use it in a mITX build for testing. You need to check the negatives and not just see what you only want to see.
 
ManofGod said:
They will end up with the same conclusion. They have already said they are going to use it in a mITX build for testing. You need to check the negatives and not just see what you only want to see.
Click to expand...

My point there being, as has been said many times here and in the paper launch thread, that a m-itx case that can only fit a card as small as the Nano is so rare as to be a cherry-picked situation. It's a false premise encouraged by AMD.

Plus we will see what [H] real-world playable settings testing reveals about the Nano's performance versus the competition, outside the comfort zone of canned benchmarks and older titles.
 
Techpowerup still gave it a 9.0. Ahahaha. I guess they are now trying to please AMD for future cards to come.
 
Ranger101 said:
"sooner or later some company is going to pull a full-on screw-the-pooch moment and continue to spiral down even after someone realizes the mistake"

This sort of rhetoric might just see HardOCP suffer the same fate!

Not that I would bat an eyelid.

No doubt Nvidia has a somewhat better flagship GPU, but your review of the Fury-X was to put it mildly, biased, scathing and REEKED of Nvidia fanboyism.

So what did you expect?

Good thing there are better tech sites out there.

Enjoy the downward spiral.
Click to expand...

I would have preferred they'd put in some 4k benchmarks in that review, but they did do it later, and it was clear that the card wasn't up to snuff. Yes, the comments were harsh, but I think it was the editors expressing frustration at the complete BS marketing (the card is not the best 4k card out there and [H] editors have repeatedly said they don't think there's a great 4k card out at all) and that it was tremendously overpriced.

My memory isn't good enough to remember when they had reveiws like this about nVidia, but I distinctly recall a generation of nVidia cards that were considered a redux of the previous generation and were panned.
Honestly, I don't get why anyone here (or elsewhere) that doesn't work for one of these companies has an allegiance to either.
My CPUS have been Cyrix, Intel and AMD. The only reason I don't use AMD CPUs is because they've trailed since Core 2 and if I get a high end video card (no decision on that one), it'll be nVidia, because they provide more bang for the buck and use less power too.
That's why I bought my Athlon and Athlon 64.
H is not biased against AMD. They may be pissed off, but if AMD comes out with a winner, I'm certain they'll trumpet its achievements.
 
SilverSliver said:
I said the 980 Ti SLI and Fury X crossfire traded blows in games at 4k - which you replied the Fury X crushed the 980Ti and Titan. Now you are linking articles supporting my very argument. At stock clocks, the Fury X crossfire and 980 Ti SLI are +/- a few frames.

I'm glad you agree now.

That being said, the graph below is more or less the techspot performance at stock clocks - except the review actually overclocked the 980Ti to a reasonable level instead of the factory OC you demonstrated. Showing what the cards will do with a everyday enthusiast overclock is important, I think. There is 10-20% performance headroom on the 980Ti. This easily overcomes any competition there would have been by the Fury X, as it's already topped out.
Click to expand...

Fury overclocking is broken because TDP restrictions aren't unlocked yet. Thats why you can OC Fury X core clock to 1200 and see a 1% - 5% improvement. Yes, inTWIMBP or Gameworks games Fury X vs 980TI are very close in 2 card configs. In a lot of other games (which may be older) including gaming evolved games FuryX Crossfire performs exceedingly well.
 
nilepez said:
I would have preferred they'd put in some 4k benchmarks in that review, but they did do it later, and it was clear that the card wasn't up to snuff. Yes, the comments were harsh, but I think it was the editors expressing frustration at the complete BS marketing (the card is not the best 4k card out there and [H] editors have repeatedly said they don't think there's a great 4k card out at all) and that it was tremendously overpriced.

My memory isn't good enough to remember when they had reveiws like this about nVidia, but I distinctly recall a generation of nVidia cards that were considered a redux of the previous generation and were panned.
Honestly, I don't get why anyone here (or elsewhere) that doesn't work for one of these companies has an allegiance to either.
My CPUS have been Cyrix, Intel and AMD. The only reason I don't use AMD CPUs is because they've trailed since Core 2 and if I get a high end video card (no decision on that one), it'll be nVidia, because they provide more bang for the buck and use less power too.
That's why I bought my Athlon and Athlon 64.
H is not biased against AMD. They may be pissed off, but if AMD comes out with a winner, I'm certain they'll trumpet its achievements.
Click to expand...

They ripped hard on the FX series as a whole, and some of the rebrand eras too. I was around when the 9X00 series from AMD was killing everything else.
 
DeadSkull said:
Fury overclocking is broken because TDP restrictions aren't unlocked yet. Thats why you can OC Fury X core clock to 1200 and see a 1% - 5% improvement. Yes, inTWIMBP or Gameworks games Fury X vs 980TI are very close in 2 card configs. In a lot of other games (which may be older) including gaming evolved games FuryX Crossfire performs exceedingly well.
Click to expand...

This is the whole problem with the high end AMD line up people keep putting caveats on the card to explain poor performance per dollar.

Its will be faster if you play old gaming evolved games, it will be faster when you unlock the TDP, its the fastest card you can put in a ITX system that can only accommodate a 170mm card.

They are killing themselves with this over-hyped marketing department spouting a bunch of bullshit and then taking it out on review sites for calling them on there shit.
 
lopoetve said:
They ripped hard on the FX series as a whole, and some of the rebrand eras too. I was around when the 9X00 series from AMD was killing everything else.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I was thinking it was the 6xxx successors, but I see that FX the predecessor to that one.

My last one was the ATI X800XL, which I loved (and still have, though don't use). Last 2 were Nvidia and if I go 300+ card, this one will too. If I go cheaper, I'll have to do research on Cost/Perf, Power and noise levels of various models.
 
lopoetve said:
They ripped hard on the FX series as a whole, and some of the rebrand eras too. I was around when the 9X00 series from AMD was killing everything else.
Click to expand...

I remember those days. [H] was the reason an ATI card was my first GPU.
 
What AMD fails to understand is we want to support them. We would praise AMD if they built a CPU or VGA card that smashed the competition, but they seem to always fall short.
 
zaniix said:
What AMD fails to understand is we want to support them. We would praise AMD if they built a CPU or VGA card that smashed the competition, but they seem to always fall short.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have nothing against AMD as a company (other than their recent wacky antics). If their hardware was worthwhile I'd go for it, no problem.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Coil whine, check. No HDMI 2.0, check. Price, check.
Click to expand...

Murmaider, murmaider, murmaider, murmaider....

Seems a bit harsh for techpowerup to put "complicated overclocking" down as a con given that it takes them half a sentence to explain that extra complication:
"If you plan on doing any overclocking, you will have to increase the card's power limit"

Other than that, their entire conclusion is fairly scathing (for good reason) so I have no idea where the 9.0 rating came from.

EDIT: Actually, their score just seems to be odd: Fury X got 9.2, the 980ti got 9.1. The lowest score they have ever given is a 6.0, for the OCZ Equalizer. They had this to say:
"The OCZ Equalizer disappoints in almost every possible way"
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the piece of paper they slid across the desk said 6 but got turned upside down.
 
zaniix said:
What AMD fails to understand is we want to support them. We would praise AMD if they built a CPU or VGA card that smashed the competition, but they seem to always fall short.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, good point. If only AMD realized we want better products then they would make them.
 
krakerman said:
Oh yeah, good point. If only AMD realized we want better products then they would make them.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that Fury X is an interim product and there next release is going to kick some butt (even though I probably won't be in the market for a GPU at that point). I think we all want them to be a top notch CPU vendor. Then again, maybe if the big system builders had used AMD when the Athlon 64 was clearly the best CPU they would have had more money for R&D to combat Core 2 and beyond. 11 years ago, I was all about AMD. I'm not sure why power conscious companies weren't all over those. They were way better (and cheaper) than Intel and used less power. Go figure.
 
nilepez said:
I'm hoping that Fury X is an interim product and there next release is going to kick some butt (even though I probably won't be in the market for a GPU at that point). I think we all want them to be a top notch CPU vendor. Then again, maybe if the big system builders had used AMD when the Athlon 64 was clearly the best CPU they would have had more money for R&D to combat Core 2 and beyond. 11 years ago, I was all about AMD. I'm not sure why power conscious companies weren't all over those. They were way better (and cheaper) than Intel and used less power. Go figure.
Click to expand...

AMD has no chance of beating out Intel and they know it. Intel has a lot more money and more power in the market. The problem is that Intel wasn't happy with only owning the high end market and took out the low end from them too. AMD was the good bag for the buck chip back then and now they are nothing. They need to get back to making CPUs that make sense. Something is wrong when an I3 is still a better option than anything AMD makes.

In the VGA market I think they can take on nVidia head to head if they just pull their head out of where ever they put it.
 
zaniix said:
AMD has no chance of beating out Intel and they know it. Intel has a lot more money and more power in the market. The problem is that Intel wasn't happy with only owning the high end market and took out the low end from them too. AMD was the good bag for the buck chip back then and now they are nothing. They need to get back to making CPUs that make sense. Something is wrong when an I3 is still a better option than anything AMD makes.
Click to expand...
That depends on the software you use. For games, yes an Intel i3 is better because Intel has better single thread performance. For majority of applications the 8320 or 8350 outperforms it. And even in games it's not a huge difference, even then it some games may not even run on a i3 due to dual core nonsense.

In the VGA market I think they can take on nVidia head to head if they just pull their head out of where ever they put it.
Click to expand...
I know there's a lot of hate on this forum because no Nano sample from AMD but recently it was discovered that Nvidia doesn't have Asynchronous Compute, which is a big deal for API's like DX12 and Vulkan. Also in terms of Virtualization, Nvidia doesn't work. On Linux the Nvidia drivers just shut down when it detects PCIe Passthrough, which is wrong. It's a concern when you're like me who wants to run Linux but wants to play games at full speed using passthrough.

Too many people are on the Nvidia crack pipe.
 
Ashbringer said:
On Linux the Nvidia drivers just shut down when it detects PCIe Passthrough, which is wrong. It's a concern when you're like me who wants to run Linux but wants to play games at full speed using passthrough.
Click to expand...
Did they manage to disable HDCP?
 
I can agree with much of the sentiment of that post, but since when did a phone call become a dick move? Seriously, emails and texts have always been seen as impersonal, so when did emails become the preferred and proper way to communicate over a personal, phone call?

Phone calls allow rapid discussion and quick clarification of points and issues. Emails are impersonal and slow. Should they have called you instead of Brent? Had you told them that all phone calls to HardOCP must go to you and not Brent? If not, then them calling him is not an issue and if you trust Brent then you know he would inform you of the entire contents of the phone call.

Letting AMD know to call you instead of Brent, since that is what you want, is fine, but unless you told them that prior to them calling him then they did nothing wrong. Rather, they went more personal, which should be a good thing.
 
Ashbringer said:
I know there's a lot of hate on this forum because no Nano sample from AMD but recently it was discovered that Nvidia doesn't have Asynchronous Compute, which is a big deal for API's like DX12 and Vulkan. Also in terms of Virtualization, Nvidia doesn't work. On Linux the Nvidia drivers just shut down when it detects PCIe Passthrough, which is wrong. It's a concern when you're like me who wants to run Linux but wants to play games at full speed using passthrough.

Too many people are on the Nvidia crack pipe.
Click to expand...

As someone who intends to buy a new GPU sometime this year (waiting for the right monitor to come out), this makes me happy. Not because I want Nvidia to have problems, but because by then we may have some DX12 game(s) that demonstrates how this affects future games.

Right now I'm leaning Nvidia, but new info = different conclusions.
 
I remember [H] dogging on nvidia for their 280 and 480 releases. Sure they were faster, but way hotter and way more expensive. Not long after the 280 review we saw some insane price cuts from nvidia.

Also, I really like the Fury X, but I won't consider it due to the price. I really like AMD gpu's and even use the 7850 primarily to this day just because it's in my work machine and is a fantastic card I got for dirt cheap. If AMD releases a Fury version of the 7850 I'd buy it right now. But I have my doubts.
 
Since cherry picking review sites is AMD's new plan, I guess I'll be going with Nvidia on my next upgrade.

I was on the fence but now the decision was made for me. So I guess Roy made that one easy for me.
 
Ashbringer said:
That depends on the software you use. For games, yes an Intel i3 is better because Intel has better single thread performance. For majority of applications the 8320 or 8350 outperforms it. And even in games it's not a huge difference, even then it some games may not even run on a i3 due to dual core nonsense.
Click to expand...

What dual core nonsense?


I know there's a lot of hate on this forum because no Nano sample from AMD but recently it was discovered that Nvidia doesn't have Asynchronous Compute, which is a big deal for API's like DX12 and Vulkan. Also in terms of Virtualization, Nvidia doesn't work. On Linux the Nvidia drivers just shut down when it detects PCIe Passthrough, which is wrong. It's a concern when you're like me who wants to run Linux but wants to play games at full speed using passthrough.

Too many people are on the Nvidia crack pipe.
Click to expand...

Recently it was discovered? You mean, the topic that has filled at least four active threads on these very forums for weeks? Those not indulging in wishful thinking have noted three areas of concern with this supposed shocking revelation about Asynchronous Compute. First, one benchmark from one unfinished game is pretty thin evidence for a major deficiency. Second, there are indications already coming out that the problem is driver-related and correctable, not an immovable problem in GPU hardware. Third, Asynchronous Compute is being defined and measured in accordance with AMD's definitions and specs. As has already been seen with the Fury line and AMD's marketing practices, letting them define the terms of the discussion does not lead to accurate results.

Let he who is without crack pipe throw the first rock.
 
czerro said:
Kyle, despite some jerk being in charge of AMD's PR, you could dial it back a bit man. You could just have said nothing and released a [this is where a review of Nano was supposed to go].

I mean, this guy appears to be a monumental jerk. My theory is thusly: Nano was the goal chip. Nano was supposed to be the Fury. Nano wasn't ready so Fiji cards were obviously in production much earlier...but they were essentially the 'dev' cards. HBM production did not meet demand and they hadn't streamlined power and tertiary issues, so they plunked some Fiji's into essentially older hardware.

The Nano is then the card they intended to deliver, but they might not have the inventory to do so.

I understand this guy is a jerk, but you don't gotta be a jerk back. Just acknowledge the jerky thing he has done with a non-post header [Radeon Nano - the review that should have been here, isn't]

Like, to dig into his twitter and social media and speculate debases you to the exact level you are demonizing.
Click to expand...

This. Totally agree. I've been a reader of [H] for ten years. Love it.

The Nano gate should be pointed out, but not by attacking the messenger (Roy)/the acting jerk. Kick the ball, not the man.
 
Last edited:
Mav451 said:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041853499&postcount=528

Kyle did say he has the card and ITX case purchased - that was last Sunday. I have no idea on their available schedule, but I'm sure they're cranking it out now.
Click to expand...

Since it is a bought card, AMD has no say so in a timeline for the review :D. Meaning Kyle can take his sweet time and dig deep into the Nano positives, negatives and everything in between. Plus building a truly small SFF can be a hair pulling ordeal as well.
 
Well techpowerup did their review and I was surprised by how much positive his conclusion was. He also purchased a retail card but AMD also sent him a sample it seems. Both his AMD sample and retail cards had excessive coil whine and were at 41 db in an SFF case (lol).

Hell he even did a CFX review of Nano already. Too bad the CFX review does not have 980 Ti SLi results.
 
noko said:
Since it is a bought card, AMD has no say so in a timeline for the review :D. Meaning Kyle can take his sweet time and dig deep into the Nano positives, negatives and everything in between. Plus building a truly small SFF can be a hair pulling ordeal as well.
Click to expand...

Mav451 said:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041853499&postcount=528

Kyle did say he has the card and ITX case purchased - that was last Sunday. I have no idea on their available schedule, but I'm sure they're cranking it out now.
Click to expand...

KickAssCop said:
Where dat nano review?
Click to expand...

We will not be starting on the Nano review for another week or so.
 
Customer Service: "Thank you for calling Hardware Gougers, what can I sell you today?"


Mork from Ork: "Nano nano!"


Customer Service: "Very good sir, a Crossfire pair of AMD Fury Nanos will be shipped to you today!"


Mork from Ork: "Shazzbot!!!"
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Customer Service: "Thank you for calling Hardware Gougers, what can I sell you today?"


Mork from Ork: "Nano nano!"


Customer Service: "Very good sir, a Crossfire pair of AMD Fury Nanos will be shipped to you today!"


Mork from Ork: "Shazzbot!!!"
Click to expand...

Ok...I laughed. +1 Internets for you.
 
zaniix said:
What AMD fails to understand is we want to support them. We would praise AMD if they built a CPU or VGA card that smashed the competition, but they seem to always fall short.
Click to expand...

Its kind of hard to do that when AMD is consistently short on money.

You're basically saying; yea I'd gladly help poor people get a job but they need to stop being poor first.
 
Last edited:
nilepez said:
I'm hoping that Fury X is an interim product and there next release is going to kick some butt (even though I probably won't be in the market for a GPU at that point). I think we all want them to be a top notch CPU vendor. Then again, maybe if the big system builders had used AMD when the Athlon 64 was clearly the best CPU they would have had more money for R&D to combat Core 2 and beyond. 11 years ago, I was all about AMD. I'm not sure why power conscious companies weren't all over those. They were way better (and cheaper) than Intel and used less power. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Because Intel literally paid of and threatened big name system builders like Dell into completely ignoring AMD K7 and K8 Athlons.
 
DeadSkull said:
Because Intel literally paid of and threatened big name system builders like Dell into completely ignoring AMD K7 and K8 Athlons.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how they got away with that. Should have been a serious anti-trust suit come out of that...especially with the K8, which was, as I recall, was a great processor that didn't cost a ton and was low power. Don't know if it beat Intel's top processors, but businesses weren't running Extreme processors (or even high end regular processors) on most desktops.
 
nilepez said:
I'm not sure how they got away with that. Should have been a serious anti-trust suit come out of that...especially with the K8, which was, as I recall, was a great processor that didn't cost a ton and was low power. Don't know if it beat Intel's top processors, but businesses weren't running Extreme processors (or even high end regular processors) on most desktops.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc.
 
Derangel said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc.
Click to expand...

2009 was way too late for AMD (or 1.25 billion is too little). If AMD could have gotten greater marketshare (as they should have) during the first half of the decade, they could have spent way more on R&D and maybe they'd still be in the game. At this piont, unless someone buys them, I think it's just a matter of time before the CPU business goes away. I don't know about the GPU business I kinda think they're on firmer footing there (for now).
 
Getting Ready for Nano Testing

14429542288Qf7NiMpUQ_1_1_l.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top