AMD Not providing R9 Nano samples to several sites.

S

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,713
Last edited:
I'm not surprised, seeing as AMD put out a release that they're not sending samples to the Tech Report anymore because of that crazy rant they released on the Fury X. It's not exactly surprising.
 
FYI: AMD has refused HardOCP's request for a Nano to review.
 
They cant even do PR right atm.
I guess they feel they cant win so why bother.
 
*Sigh* How many folks would even care at $649. Seriously, I am starting to wonder more and more if those in charge are trying to get all they can before the ship slips under the water. :(
 
More than likely they only wanted to give samples to review sites which always show AMD in a favorable light. Based on their internal benchmarks for the Fury X compared to what review sites benchmarks show, I am curious to see what kind of performance it will actually provide.
 
They actually called Brent and not me, so I am not going to go into he said/she said on this. If Brent wants to comment he can.

I am already setting up a SFF test system for Brent and have the small 970 card to compare to as well, so that is already moving. We will play it by ear, but given that we will not have launch day coverage, I am not sure it is worth all the cost to review it since it is for such a small segment of the community.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is expecting any performance surprises. Unless they drop the price $100 or something it seems like [H] already has its verdict set in stone from last week.

Other than real world measure of power/temp/noise is there really anything left to cover?

I'd love to have a Nano. It'd be a great upgrade to my 5850 but the price is too high.
 
Quix said:
I'm not surprised, seeing as AMD put out a release that they're not sending samples to the Tech Report anymore because of that crazy rant they released on the Fury X. It's not exactly surprising.
Click to expand...

AMD takes these reviews extremely seriously and TR did the following:

  1. Stopped using Dirt Showdown in their test suite because they said it was too biased against NV due to that game using DirectCompute for lighting, proceeds to start the Fury X review with Project Cars
  2. Stopped pushing FCAT testing when AMD launched XDMA crossfire to optimize frame delivery patterns
  3. Compared to Tom's, PCPer, HF, AT, TPU, etc., Tech Report showcased the Fury X in the worst possible light... the results were simply outliers and did not match the consensus in the games that were commonly tested
I'm not surprised either. Not like any of this matters anyway, not many people have the budget for a $649 flagship in a niche market.
 
Thanks for setting up the SFF system Kyle. Glad that suggestion was taken.

Shouldn't have hung up on them :)
 
SilverSliver said:
Don't give them a dime Kyle. If anything, do a parody SFF review comparison where the Nano does 0 FPS because they wouldn't send one.
Click to expand...

As tempting as that would be its a bad idea. I fear that would burn all bridges to the AMD camp on the spot. Being brutally honest when the product sucks is one thing, being an asshole is totally another.
 
AlexisRO said:
C'mon man, we all know it's Nvidia's fault... those greedy corporate bastards making AMD look bad again! ;)

Digging the hole further...
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, AMD doing themselves in does not make Nvidia innocent in what they have done. Oh well...... :rolleyes:
 
verylostindeed said:
Being an asshole like refusing to send review samples to sites that don't sugarcoat the latest AMD garbage?
Click to expand...

Despite AMD being dicks and currently suffering as a company they still are a big player in this industry. Burning bridges to them out of juvenile spite is a bad idea for a site that makes its living from reviewing computer parts.
 
AlexisRO said:
You keep rolling :rolleyes: , AMD digging , Nvidia making money. Business as usual.
Click to expand...

Does not affect me one way or the other. :D I purchase what I want and I would have loved two Nano's in crossfire, just not at the cost they are asking for them. They are making great products but, their prices are completely out of whack. :p
 
note to self:

Don't post on a forum how you hung up on AND when they said the price of a card.... :D
 
Creepin_D said:
Did they give you a reason, or just flat out said no?
Click to expand...

It was a PR one form fits all standard political correct explanation. I'm sure TechReport received the same explanation, which was intentionally left vague. The gist is that AMD is selectively targeting the media outlets it wants launch reviews from. Even though we we were invited to the press briefing and have been involved in all previous Fury launches.

There is no question in mind this is to elicit a more positive response and experience from launch date reviews of Nano. Even though we had fully planned to test Nano in an SFF environment as its intended use.
 
Last edited:
Venomous said:
Did they say why?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing because it's slower than or equal to the 290x / 970 in most cases and they know [H] will call them out on their overly optimistic E3 claims just like they called them out on the Fury X being over priced. I don't really want to go back and read all those reviews again, but I wouldn't be surprised if the only people with cards are the ones that didn't mention Fury X was priced wrong for its performance.
 
Last edited:
Brent_Justice said:
It was a PR one form fits all standard political correct explanation. I'm sure TechReport received the same explanation, which was intentionally left vague. The gist is that AMD is selectively targeting the media outlets it wants launch reviews from. Even though we we were invited to the press briefing and have been involved in all previous Fury launches.

There is no question in mind this is to elicit a more positive response and experience from launch date reviews of Nano. Even though we had fully planned to test Nano in an SFF environment as its intended use.
Click to expand...

wow that's shitty.
 
We even had a small 970 to compare it to.

Just to let you guys know, we were going to do this card justice in its intended usage with proper comparisons, as usual. So, there ya go.
 
Brent_Justice said:
It was a PR one form fits all standard political correct explanation. I'm sure TechReport received the same explanation, which was intentionally left vague. The gist is that AMD is selectively targeting the media outlets it wants launch reviews from. Even though we we were invited to the press briefing and have been involved in all previous Fury launches.

There is no question in mind this is to elicit a more positive response and experience from launch date reviews of Nano. Even though we had fully planned to test Nano in an SFF environment as its intended use.
Click to expand...

Cut a deal with one of the site sponsors for a retail card for testing which they can later sell as open box. Give them some additional promo in the article. Neither the readers or the retailer should have an issue with it.

The SFF test if the right way to go about it. Glad to see that was the agreed upon method.
 
Brent_Justice said:
We even had a small 970 to compare it to.

Just to let you guys know, we were going to do this card justice in its intended usage with proper comparisons, as usual. So, there ya go.
Click to expand...

I just bought one of the baby 970 cards (the zotac) so I would have been quite interested in this article.
 
RobertR1 said:
Cut a deal with one of the site sponsors for a retail card for testing which they can later sell as open box. Give them some additional promo in the article. Neither the readers or the retailer should have an issue with it.

The SFF test if the right way to go about it. Glad to see that was the agreed upon method.
Click to expand...

Yep, I would definitely try that route. Site sponsor gets some near free publicity... even more if they let you keep the card a do a giveaway.

An SFF case is definitely the right way to go with testing.

As for me, if I had the money to blow and needed something that fast I would look at the Nano even though I have a full tower case.

I am getting to the point where I would like to be able to not have stuff in the way when I need to mess around inside the case.
 
prava said:
In other words, who exactly is their target demographic?
Click to expand...

AMD fanboys with more money than sense - that's 100% of the target demographic. That's why I said before that AMD made a mistake pricing it at $650. It should have been priced at $1,000 and essentially sold as the Titan of the SFF world. Would have made the same sales numbers from the same people.
 
Do you really need 4xMSAA @ 4k rez? if avg 45fps with 30~ min fps isn't playable, why not show settings that achieve your 60 avg fps preferences instead of saying that 1 video card isn't enough for 4k :D There's always 1 or 2 graphics settings that take up 10~15% of the graphic budget with little to no benefit in visual unless your standing still and taking screenshots.
 
out of context,

both Brent and Kyle were on the call.

Only Kyle hung up, Brent was still on the call.
 
Last edited:
The comment was taken out of context.

Kyle said he hung up when pricing was announced...implying he hung up before they announced it, NOT because of it.

That said, AMD not issuing a Nano to [H] is like a kid walking in with his term paper and refusing to give it to the teacher because he insist it's an "A" when he started it last night.
 
You know I was an AMD fan. I routed for the underdog. I thought AMD offered value and clean, honest business practices, even if they didn't always come out on top.

This release treats intelligent people like me, like chumps.

Am I taking this personally? Nah. It's a gaming card after all, not a heart pump. I kept waiting for the Hail Mary pass. NVIDIA needs price competition for the steaming piles crap known as nSync and Phys-X. But I am disappointed in a brand I championed. I expected more in terms of ethics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The hangup doesn't have anything to do with it lol. They already said it was a conference call with a bunch of other members of the press. I'm sure no on noticed that one person was no longer in the call lol.
 
Kardonxt said:
The hangup doesn't have anything to do with it lol. They already said it was a conference call with a bunch of other members of the press. I'm sure no on noticed that one person was no longer in the call lol.
Click to expand...

I'm sure AMD monitors the forums for user reaction and editor comments. The people most likely to buy their top end products sit in forums like these. So having bad press here can be...fatal.
 
I just wish AMD would own up to the fact "They screwed up" I could at least gain some of that respect back for them. But I guess they have too much invested for that now given their cash flow problems. NVIDIA went for the juggler with the 980Ti pricing.

My prediction: AMD will be dead in 2 years max. This ridiculous price : performance : feature ratio is just the death blow. And that makes me sad.
 
Im pretty sure the people at AMD are a lot smarter than we are.

There is no reaosn for them to lower the price.

They will sell just fine.

Everyone said they were nuts on the FuryX price as well, but no one can keep them in stock.
 
The Mac said:
Im pretty sure the people at AMD are a lot smarter than we are.

There is no reaosn for them to lower the price.

They will sell just fine.

Everyone said they were nuts on the FuryX price as well, but no one can keep them in stock.
Click to expand...

That doesn't meant squat when you only have 10 shipped units. Chevy said the same thing about the Volt when it first came out. Look how successful that was. AMDs market share is TANKING.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top