Ars: AMD may be irrelevant

[LogOver]

ps. I would consider it manipulation if AMD would give ready results of benchmarks that they would have benched in a system of unknown hardware configuration with unknown drivers.

Consider this:
http://techreport.com/review/19981/amd-brazos-platform-the-benchmarks

or this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked

Does it remind you something (hint: Conroe preview)?

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD certainly isn't irrelevant... The simple fact they they still exist and put out competitive low cost x86 processors insures the Intel cannot raise their prices to insanely high levels.

Without AMD, something like an Intel Core i3 3225 would be a $250 part.

Intel already price their CPUs after the maximum people are willing to pay for the perfect margin/voulme ratio for optimal profit.

Basic business 101. Better to sell 1000 units at a 40$ margin than 100 units at a 200$ margin. If price goes up, volume goes down.

 

[Keysplayr]

I dont consider what AMD did a manipulation of the press, they gave the reviewers the choice to use any Hardware and any application to bench. They didnt force them to use a specific hardware and certainly they didnt defined what benchmarks they could use. It was a preview of the iGPU and thats all.

ps. I would consider it manipulation if AMD would give ready results of benchmarks that they would have benched in a system of unknown hardware configuration with unknown drivers.

Again, you are trying to draw some kind of parallel in an effort to exonerate AMD of ANY shady business practice. Intel are no angels, over 2.5 billion to be paid out for unfair business practices and patent disputes alone in the last few years. So, forget about Intel as we are talking about AMD here, and now. You feel they've done nothing to betray the public trust. And I think we all know where you stand on that now.

 

[AtenRa]

Consider this:
http://techreport.com/review/19981/amd-brazos-platform-the-benchmarks

or this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked

Does it remind you something (hint: Conroe preview)?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked

You see, the system I had access to wasn’t pre-configured. It had Windows 7 x64 loaded on it, drivers installed and PCMark Vantage - but everything else was up to me. Despite having a 128GB Crucial RealSSD C300, installing a dozen applications and games still took hours on the system.

Not only that, but the system was open for every media people to see the hardware, unlike Intel.

 

[Ferzerp]

Why are you trying to defend one bad practice with another bad practice?

Do you wish to posit that anything Intel does is good? Your entire argument relies on the acceptance of such a postulate.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why are you trying to defend one bad practice with another bad practice?

Do you wish to posit that anything Intel does is good? Your entire argument relies on the acceptance of such a postulate.

This is exactly what I am asking him but he won't answer. Just reposts the same Intel thingy. Okey Dokey.

 

[alexruiz]

This is exactly what I am asking him but he won't answer. Just reposts the same Intel thingy. Okey Dokey.

I posted this on page 5 about the newfound AMD witchhunt at TR. I know 2 examples are GPUs, but illustrates perfectly the very different positions by TR in the same time frame. So they make a huge drama if amd asks to hold, not change, just hold some info; but are ok letting nvidia tell them how test?

To be honest, I am still trying to digest why AMD wanted a staged set of reviews. THG posted FULL review of the desktop A10-5800K months ago, as OEM machines have been available for quite some time. spoiler

Spoiler

Oh, and it does quite well against its price opponent, the i3s.

Is the release now more about the FM2 platform, as well as CPUs, to the end users? Hard to understand the position.

But as surprised as I am about AMD position, I am even more surprised that Scott, who had been for quite some time the most impartial reviewer on the web is clearly takings sides now, and as sides, I mean as opposite... If you don't think he is taking sides, just analyze some of his latest articles. His "CPU impact on gaming" featured poorly coded DX9 games, while he could have picked also some DX11 well threaded ones. Older unoptimized stuff..

OK, you might argue that is sour grapes on my part as the CPUs I use had a poor showing. Point taken. But, for all the rambling about not compromising editorial integrity or allowing a company to dictate review guidelines; his reviews of the GTX660ti and GTX660 followed the suggested script by the manufacturer very closely, and were among the friendliest ones to the product reviewed. Dirt showdown result was excluded from the final statistics, but not batman AC; any kind of AA applied was FXAA, settings were always kind to the narrower buses, and the games picked run better on new green hardware.

His verdict was a well targeted editor choice in both reviews, which was expected given the settings he used. He crowned the GTX660ti as faster than the HD7950, but other reviews performed at the more appropriate settings the card will see show the GTX660ti trading blows with the HD7870, right in line where it should be. He also crowned the GTX660 as faster than a HD7870, when in reality it sits barely above a HD7850. He followed the script to the line perfectly in those reviews, and now he is complaining about "editorial integrity"? Something is up at TR, and unfortunately it is no good.

 

[AtenRa]

NDA,

Confidentiality Period: Recipient’s duty to protect Confidential Information pursuant to this Agreement expires on GMT / CET, .....2012.

2. Duty of Care. Recipient shall protect such Confidential Information by using the same degree of care, but no less than a reasonable degree of care, to prevent the unauthorized use, dissemination or publication of the Confidential Information as Recipient uses to protect its own confidential information of a like nature. Recipient shall not disclose any Confidential Information disclosed hereunder to any third party and shall limit disclosure of Confidential Information to only those of its employees and contractors (if applicable) with a need to know and who are bound by confidentiality obligations with Recipient at least as restrictive as those contained in this Agreement. Recipient shall be responsible for its employees’ and contractors’ adherence to the terms of this Agreement. Further, Recipient shall not reverse engineer, disassemble, or decompile any products, prototypes, software, or other tangible objects that embody Confidential Information.

Now, the Confidential Information on the Desktop Trinity cannot be published before the end of the NDA.

AMD have allowed the press to publish Confidential Information of the iGPU only, before the end of the NDA. They let a part of the Confidential Information to be published before the end of the NDA as a Preview.

Now, if you believe that's manipulation of the press that's fine by me, i dont and i believe the majority of the press didn't (they have published their Previews).

 

[Keysplayr]

I posted this on page 5 about the newfound AMD witchhunt at TR. I know 2 examples are GPUs, but illustrates perfectly the very different positions by TR in the same time frame. So they make a huge drama if amd asks to hold, not change, just hold some info; but are ok letting nvidia tell them how test?

Well something is obviously different this time around isn't it.

 

[piesquared]

I posted this on page 5 about the newfound AMD witchhunt at TR. I know 2 examples are GPUs, but illustrates perfectly the very different positions by TR in the same time frame. So they make a huge drama if amd asks to hold, not change, just hold some info; but are ok letting nvidia tell them how test?

I agree completely. There is no question that this is a case of double standards its blatantly obvious. But I believe this is a reaction from inetl's PR more than it is TR. Viral marketing at its absolute worst. This is all they have for a response because their graphics hardware and software suck.

Seems inetl learned something from NV afterall.

 

[Ferzerp]

I agree completely. There is no question that this is a case of double standards its blatantly obvious. But I believe this is a reaction from inetl's PR more than it is TR. Viral marketing at its absolute worst. This is all they have for a response because their graphics hardware and software suck.

Seems inetl learned something from NV afterall.

A CPU company with subpar gpu performance?

Oh well. I suppose it could be worse. It could be a cpu company with sub-par cpu performance and shady marketing tactics (you know, bombarding forums and the like) to try to make up for it.

*that* would suck.

 

[KingFatty]

Do we all agree about non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) being OK to use? I think that's generally accepted across the industry?

It seems there are 2 points everyone disagrees on:

1) Selectively lifting parts of the NDA, without lifting all of the NDA - is that good or bad?

2) AMD did something more than selectively lift part of the NDA and not all of the NDA, although this has not been actually identified anywhere and so far nothing more than name-calling

(*Note - item 2 above is speculation as I haven't seen anyone allege that AMD did something more than selectively lift part of the NDA, but there appears to be some emotional agreement that AMD did something bad, more bad than selectively lifting part of the NDA early, because they are somehow shady and we just know there is a secret somewhere, ignore the fact that the entire NDA will be lifted and we'll find out later, and don't specifically state what it is, just call AMD lots of names because it's fun)

 

[GreenChile]

Do we all agree about non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) being OK to use? I think that's generally accepted across the industry?

It seems there are 2 points everyone disagrees on:

1) Selectively lifting parts of the NDA, without lifting all of the NDA - is that good or bad?

2) AMD did something more than selectively lift part of the NDA and not all of the NDA, although this has not been actually identified anywhere and so far nothing more than name-calling

(*Note - item 2 above is speculation as I haven't seen anyone allege that AMD did something more than selectively lift part of the NDA, but there appears to be some emotional agreement that AMD did something bad, more bad than selectively lifting part of the NDA early, because they are somehow shady and we just know there is a secret somewhere, ignore the fact that the entire NDA will be lifted and we'll find out later, and don't specifically state what it is, just call AMD lots of names because it's fun)

I'm not sure you understood what the issue is. I thought it was clear that the 'ethical' issue involved AMD selectively lifting only the benchmarks that will highlight where they are strongest thereby leaving the 'bad publicity' to be released later after the initial interest and hype have died down.

Personally I don't think their efforts will pay off much dividends in actual sales. Sure they might snare a few buyers with this marketing trick but at the same time they risk losing sales from the negative publicity of it. Probably a net zero effect.

You can't fault AMD for trying new tactics.

 

[piesquared]

I'm not sure you understood what the issue is. I thought it was clear that the 'ethical' issue involved AMD selectively lifting only the benchmarks that will highlight where they are strongest thereby leaving the 'bad publicity' to be released later after the initial interest and hype have died down.

Personally I don't think their efforts will pay off much dividends in actual sales. Sure they might snare a few buyers with this marketing trick but at the same time they risk losing sales from the negative publicity of it. Probably a net zero effect.

You can't fault AMD for trying new tactics.

Jesus what is it with you people? 'ethical', 'bad publicity', 'treacherous', 'cheating'...this has turned comical.

 

[alexruiz]

A CPU company with subpar gpu performance?

Oh well. I suppose it could be worse. It could be a cpu company with sub-par cpu performance and shady marketing tactics (you know, bombarding forums and the like) to try to make up for it.

*that* would suck.

That CPU is neck and neck with its intended competitor, the i3, in CPU tasks. *cough* *cough* Similar price, similar target audience. Or are you believing the nonsense that they are hiding lower performance than the competition? Trinity CPU benchmarks have been available for months, it is not like they are secret. ANY reviewer or wannabe reviewer can walk into Staples or Office Depot and buy a HP with the A10-5800k. That is what THG did, and Trinity is neck and neck with the i3 in CPU, and mops the floor with it in GPU.

I am somehow under the impression that once everyone heard "AMD has bad CPU performance" it stays ingrained and everyone talks based only on assumptions from the past and don't even pay attention to what is going on around.

Edit: If any, the only thing that comes to my mind for the request to hold CPU / platform data until tomorrow is to make the review around the A85x (hudson-d4) and tout 8 SATA 3 ports native into the chipset. Hopefully that is the reason, because whoever at AMD that suggested the staged release really blew it.

 

[alexruiz]

I'm not sure you understood what the issue is. I thought it was clear that the 'ethical' issue involved AMD selectively lifting only the benchmarks that will highlight where they are strongest thereby leaving the 'bad publicity' to be released later after the initial interest and hype have died down.

Personally I don't think their efforts will pay off much dividends in actual sales. Sure they might snare a few buyers with this marketing trick but at the same time they risk losing sales from the negative publicity of it. Probably a net zero effect.

You can't fault AMD for trying new tactics.

WWYBYWB? You are alternate of whom?

The CPU that trades blows with its intended competitor in what is supposedly its weakness, so how can that be "bad publicity"?

 

[alexruiz]

Well something is obviously different this time around isn't it.

Yes, and only 1 month between the GTX660Ti review and the huge drama about the trinity staged release. So what is it? What is different?

AMD didn't ask them to test using Trinity CPU in certain applications, AMD just asked for some data to be held... that is all. Maybe Scott wanted a script on ho to test: "That is ok nvidia, we have no problem using FXAA only, cranking down the details and we'll exclude dirt showdown as you requested..."

 

[GreenChile]

WWYBYWB? You are alternate of whom?

The CPU that trades blows with its intended competitor in what is supposedly its weakness, so how can that be "bad publicity"?

I was wondering how long it would be before someone started making accusations of me being an alternate identity. Congratulations on being the winner! You must be very proud.

In answer to your question, I am an occasional forum lurker. I had a different account years ago but forgot the login details so I decided it would be simpler to create a new account. Happy?

This thread is proof of 'bad publicity'. Any time you get a group of people having concerns about the actions of a company it is 'bad publicity'. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, some people, possibly many people feel what AMD did was sketchy at best.

However I will restate my opinion that their plan will not likely have any real net effect to the bottom line. I think it was a rather cheesy attempt at manipulating the reviews but I don't really care.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I was wondering how long it would be before someone started making accusations of me being an alternate identity. Congratulations on being the winner! You must be very proud.

In answer to your question, I am an occasional forum lurker. I had a different account years ago but forgot the login details so I decided it would be simpler to create a new account. Happy?

This thread is proof of 'bad publicity'. Any time you get a group of people having concerns about the actions of a company it is 'bad publicity'. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, some people, possibly many people feel what AMD did was sketchy at best.

However I will restate my opinion that their plan will not likely have any real net effect to the bottom line. I think it was a rather cheesy attempt at manipulating the reviews but I don't really care.

The whole thing makes no sense. Why did AMD not just release the whole NDA early? It is not like there is any big secret about either GPU or CPU perfomance. And why did the tech sites play along with it? Why didnt they either wait until the whole data was released or buy an off the shelf system and test that? Just brings back memories of AMDs shady marketing ploys leading up to the release of Bulldozer. Specifically, using GPU limited benchmarks to try to show Bulldozer was equal to intel in CPU performance and comparing prices of Bulldozer with Intel extreme CPUs when a midrange i5 or i7 was the logical comparison point.

All I can think of for their reasoning is that they want to be able to have reviewers and fans post graphics only links and focus on that. But that really makes no sense either, because graphics performance is better than intel, but very marginal for gaming and not even equal to a 50 to 100 dollar midrange card.

 

[frozentundra123456]

WWYBYWB? You are alternate of whom?

The CPU that trades blows with its intended competitor in what is supposedly its weakness, so how can that be "bad publicity"?

Then give me one logical reason to release GPU benchmarks and withhold CPU benchmarks.

 

[Centauri]

...to maximize product exposure by drawing out reviews of it across a several day period? Do you seriously not comprehend the logic in that strategy?

 

[CHADBOGA]

...to maximize product exposure by drawing out reviews of it across a several day period? Do you seriously not comprehend the logic in that strategy?

That only works as the honest motivation if the second part contains good news.

When it doesn't, then you see it was an attempt to manipulate reviews and this should be resisted.

BTW, would you support the idea of AMD insisting that reviews of Piles and/or Steamy show only multi-threading benchmarks scores first, with single threaded/low threaded scores to come a few weeks later?

 

[inf64]

Yeah they are evil company that wants to steal you money... Is that what you want to hear? Can you stop thread crapping in every AMD topic?

 

[Rifter]

Like we all didnt figure this out already when BD launched.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yeah they are evil company that wants to steal you money... Is that what you want to hear? Can you stop thread crapping in every AMD topic?

Can you stop promoting AMD incessantly?