Even then it is in quiet mode you have any of the "issues" and not in uber mode. I think AMD would have been better off just sticking with one mode,ie,uber mode,instead of having something Nvidia could sling mud at.
Edit!!
Flipping heck. Was reading the TR article again and it seems Nvidia was shipping R9 290X cards to reviewers to test.
That explains it!!!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 05-12-2013 at 05:40 PM.
nVidia shipping R9 290x cards? What??
nVidia offered to buy retail AMD cards for review sites (TR at least) so they could show the differences between the AMD provided and the retail ones. They are not nVidia shipped/provided, just paid for by nVidia. They come from the retail shop.Originally Posted by Bonebreaker777
Ahh. Unbiased comparison? Could be useful from the customer's point of view.
nVidia shouldn't be involved at all though if you want it to be seen to be free of bias - who knows what provisos - sorry, review recommendations - there were. TR should go out there and buy their own retail cards. Credit to them for mentioning the source however.
Credit hunting or just a attempted mind game for causing enough debate to serve as free advertising? I just can't help myself to imagine it as a manipulator throws hints, rumors and pieces around and watches the mayhem unfold.
You really wouldn't reveal your source unless you would have some ulterior motives.
TR's ulterior motive is to be a reputable site for reviewing, and IMHO they've been pretty good at that - regardless of where they get nudges from they do a fairly good job of investigation and revealing where said nudges are coming from.
Don't believe for a second there isn't a review site out there (that has any impact) that isn't the target of efforts by most major players to sway things in their favour. It's all part of the game and the industry is worth enough to the shareholders that it's considered poor marketing if you don't. I've asked Hexus time and time again to reveal any and all instructions/guidance they've received from manufacturers. At some point the editors have to make a decision as which is the most financially appropriate action - not just in the short term.
I thought all review samples were sent out with a reviewer's guide explaining how to review the product, which comes across as a form of censorship.
Exactly. Would be great if sites were able to disclose any and all info like that.
I strongly suspect that kind of thing is why you only get comparisons to stock cards in a lot of partner card reviews, rather than say Direct CUII vs. TwinFrozr designs.
TBH I'm holding out for the windforce 3X 290Xs, judging by the performance of the cooler on my 670 (overvolted and overclocked it holds a constant 25c delta @50% or about 20C at 100%) its should be pretty impressive. Presumably these do have some form of max clock though, with a good cooler (or under water) they presumably won't continue to overclock/volt themselves till they hit 95C or they'd frazzle themselves with voltage.
Pretty sure OCUK were offering 290s with big coolers attached. You'll hve to trawl through their website though
I think you are confusing AMD Boost with Nvidia Boost. AMD Boost has a defined upper limit,Nvidia Boost has a defined minimum limit but not a defined maximum limit. It is why they had massive throttling problems with stock coolers,as they auto overclocked themselves to the maximum initially and then overheated leading to throttling(you can also see some other review sites talking of cards during benchmarks hitting 1.2GHZ+ at times).
It just shows how good Nvidia has been at deflecting the problems with its own boost mechanisms which multiple non-English language reviews sites have revealed.
I would swear there was a *huge* fuss many years back between Hexus and nvidia over what benchmarks and settings to use and not to use. Can't find any of the details now (the web appears to have been expurgated, or my google-fu is weak
That said, it does seem to mostly be nvidia who kick off about such things (remember their claims a few years back that AMD were deliberately reducing IQ in the drivers to get better performance?) while AMD let consumers make their own mind up, and I don't think it's particularly damaging to AMDs bottom line to let nvidia have their rants occasionally. For some reason nvidia seem to attract a slightly more frothing variety of fanboy than AMD, so the forums & comment threads tend to kick off more against AMD than against nvidia (Crysis 2's bizarre over-tesselation, anyone?). I prefer AMDs approach, personally - concentrate on the hardware, not the spin/smoke/mirrors....
IIRC,they also stopped sending samples to Hardware Secrets,who in their Spanish form are the biggest review site from South America since they said something negative about them. However,their latest attempts are a step too far. Why are not sites looking at Nvidia retail cards with reference coolers then??I would swear there was a *huge* fuss many years back between Hexus and nvidia over what benchmarks and settings to use and not to use. Can't find any of the details now (the web appears to have been expurgated, or my google-fu is weak
That said, it does seem to mostly be nvidia who kick off about such things (remember their claims a few years back that AMD were deliberately reducing IQ in the drivers to get better performance?) while AMD let consumers make their own mind up, and I don't think it's particularly damaging to AMDs bottom line to let nvidia have their rants occasionally. For some reason nvidia seem to attract a slightly more frothing variety of fanboy than AMD, so the forums & comment threads tend to kick off more against AMD than against nvidia (Crysis 2's bizarre over-tesselation, anyone?). I prefer AMDs approach, personally - concentrate on the hardware, not the spin/smoke/mirrors....
So Nvidia is allowed to have batch to batch variations,not AMD especially with the non-deterministic Turbo they use with no upper limit??
Is it because many of the equivalent AMD cards outside the R9 290 series using very limited boost frequencies of between 50MHZ to 100MHZ,whereas the Nvidia cards are far more aggressive,meaning much more condition,cooler and GPU batch variation??
Why no test of reference Geforce Titan review and retail samples?? Its seems the English language reviews sites are so scared to not annoy Nvidia,as it seems mostly French and German sites are actually exposing the problem with Nvidia cards,not any of the others.
You are underestimating the effect this is having,with many non-enthusiasts who buy graphics cards,ie,they will pay more for Nvidia. AMD needs to make sure that Nvidia problems are highlighted too,since too many people think Nvidia has had no problems at all. They do.
I actually thought that they'd changed the boost settings to be non determinate on the 290/X chips, but rereading hexus' review it is a hard cap which you can increase in the OC settings which makes sense.
Because no-one is paying for the retail nvidia cards. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from the fact that nvidia chose not to also pay for 2 GTX780s for TR to review. Why would hexus spend £1000 of their own money for such a test? Where's the return on investment? There is none. Review sites are generally commercial enterprises that need to run at a profit, so unless they can see a way to turn profit from such an investment, they're unlikely to make it.
AMD have taken the higher moral ground, kept their money in their pockets, and said "fair enough, there's variation in our products, we'll look into it and see if we can fix any problems." I'd rather they did that than waste money buying nvidia cards for review sites just to try to escalate some kind of willy-waving, mud-slinging contest. Plus, they'd have to be very confident that nvidia had similar problems to put their own money into proving it - presumably the lack of such a move suggests that they're not at all confident that nvidia would come out looking bad.
And that's kind of the crux here - nvidia were right. The two randomly selected, package-sealed cards shipped from newegg - each from a different manufacturer - performed worse than the AMD supplied review sample. So unless you're suggesting that Sapphire, MSI and newegg are all co-consiprators with nvidia in some attempt to spuriously discredit AMD, it looks like AMD have a problem with the performance of retail 290Xes. And it appears that nvidia knew - or at least were very confident - that was the case. AMD need to spend time sorting that out, not trying to find ways to make nvidia look bad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote