Self-inflicted AMD PR Drama [Nano Fury Edition]

[gkar1]

Can we please move to another thread or better yet nuke all these drama post, 'cause at this point all I see is people stroking themselves with the issue atop their little soapboxes.

P.S: I must wonder though, where was that elevated sense of outrage when Nvidia threatened Stardock?

 

[homerdog]

Can we please move to another thread or better yet nuke all these drama post, 'cause at this point all I see is people stroking themselves with the issue atop their little soapboxes.

P.S: I must wonder though, where was that elevated sense of outrage when Nvidia threatened Stardock?

Yes lets nuke all the posts that aren't fair to AMD.

This doesn't feel like the same company I bought my HD7950 from, and in truth it hardly is. I guess desperate times call for short sighted knee jerk reactions.

 

[lanek]

Yes lets nuke all the posts that aren't fair to AMD.

This doesn't feel like the same company I bought my HD7950 from, and in truth it hardly is. I guess desperate times call for short sighted knee jerk reactions.

For what i see nearly every sittes there have got one... why TR have not get one, i dont knoow ... maybe something between them and AMD ... I doubt we know 10% of the story .. and IF this is only due to one review from them, or a comment from TR ..

 

[dskneo]

Grall, again man. Conjecture. Who cares about corporations.



On the topic of unprofessional websites I was talking about, Hardocp just had another altruistic and responsible reaction by deleting from their forums an user personal nano benchmark and impressions post, with the excuse: "the nano doesn't fit our audience".


The cream of the top is that the nano is actually pretty good and not only matched the 290x (as advertised initially,, which brought all kinds of "vip professional critiques" full of "smart logic" calling it B.S.) but surpassed it by as much as 20%.

yeah, yesterday was a good day.

edit: nope sorry, they advertised from the start "up to 30% above 290x". My bad.

 

[dskneo]

Review sites exist to sell clicks. Clicks = money, reviews = clicks, product samples = reviews. Therefore product samples = money.

Exactly my point. thank you. They either live to their financial abilities within the moral boudaries that should exist within a public review website, or they sell out in the name of money. I really dislike the former as you guys may have guessed by now.

If it was money rather than products they were giving/not giving to the review sites, would you be so sanguine?

Then those "review websites" would not be review websites. They would be promotion websites. As it stands, they are review websites and it warrants any bit of critique when they exhibit behaviour such as hardocp.

 

[SimBy]

On the topic of unprofessional websites I was talking about, Hardocp just had another altruistic and responsible reaction by deleting from their forums an user personal nano benchmark and impressions post, with the excuse: "the nano doesn't fit our audience".

Wheres the facepalm emote

 

[madyasiwi]

On the topic of unprofessional websites I was talking about, Hardocp just had another altruistic and responsible reaction by deleting from their forums an user personal nano benchmark and impressions post, with the excuse: "the nano doesn't fit our audience".

The one who said Nano does not fit (HardOCP) audience is actually AMD itself. It's their excuse for not giving HardOCP sample.

When pushed, AMD told me that HardOCP did not get a card because:

"We always look at every outlet for sampling new products case-by-case – we look at audience profile, focus, methodology and product value prop. You’ll agree that you guys got product from us that fit your profile very well, like the Fury and Fury X. So this isn’t a sign of things to come, this is simply how we roll out Nano from a sampling perspective.

I hope this clarifies things, that’s all there’s behind this decision."

And what you call "user personal nano benchmark and impressions" is actually something that is specifically requested/sponsored by AMD.

Hi there. I am doing a project for AMD for their new R9 Nano GPU coming out. I was contacted by them to make a custom case. They had 2 requirements... They wanted it small as possible and with the highest performance possible. I went one step further and going to try to make it light as possible using real Carbon Fiber.

 

[dskneo]

The one who said Nano does not fit (HardOCP) audience is actually AMD itself. It's their excuse for not giving HardOCP sample.


And what you call "user personal nano benchmark and impressions" is actually something that is specifically requested/sponsored by AMD.

thanks for the added info

doesn't really justify deleting something user created, sponsored or not. Other than trying lashing back at amd (in every possible direction). hardocp is stung HARD eheh

 

[firstminion]

He deleted those posts out of spite "if I don't receive one, you can't use my forum to talk about yours".

 

[silent_guy]

doesn't really justify deleting something user created, sponsored or not.

Why does that not justify it? If he's being ignored by AMD, why should he provide free hosting for marketing content? Just like AMD is free to do whatever it wants (including shooting itself in yet another foot), H is free to decide to delete advertising content. (And, I saw the forum post, it's not as if it contained anything useful other than a few crappy pictures.)

Other than trying lashing back at amd (in every possible direction). hardocp is stung HARD eheh

You're exactly right. It's the smart thing to do. I think H probably got more traffic due to the controversy than the traffic it would have gotten by yet another Nano review. Original content is where it's at.

It's much more entertaining as well. The only think that was missing in this whole saga was a side role for Huddy.

 

[eastmen]

Can you say that about TR or TPU? That twitter feed was directed at both of them too.

I couldn't tell you , I don't go to either of the sites. I vist anand , guru and sometimes toms.

 

[Razor1]

Well see all those sites, go through price per performance, price per watt, and 99th percentile frame rates extensively depending on the site. And those metrics are particularly bad for almost all AMD products right now and Fiji definitely got slammed on them, and it seems AMD didn't want to go down any of those roads with Nano, funny thing is sites that don't really do those now have picked up on some of them. Tom's hardware now had more focus on the 99th percentile frame rates, which pretty much backfired on what AMD wanted to do.

This is exactly what happens when sites get blacklisted the reviewers talk about why it happened to each others and other journalists get influenced and more curious to look closer.

 

[Grall]

Why does that not justify it?

Because it's being incredibly childish and petty, and out of all the major websites out there, who else but Kyle Douchett would pull something like that? Also, why are you defending his petty tantruming?

If he's being ignored by AMD, why should he provide free hosting for marketing content?

Forum posts by regular joes = marketing content now? That's a stretch isn't it!

 

[silent_guy]

Because it's being incredibly childish and petty, and out of all the major websites out there, who else but Kyle Douchett would pull something like that? Also, why are you defending his petty tantruming?

I'm not saying it's not petty. But he has every right to do with his website what he wants.

Forum posts by regular joes = marketing content now? That's a stretch isn't it!

It's marketing content when AMD sends a Nano for free, before it's available in retail no less, to that forum user with the explicit request to post his experiences on that forum. At that point, the poster ceases to be 'regular joe'.

 

[3dilettante]

It's marketing content when AMD sends a Nano for free, before it's available in retail no less, to that forum user with the explicit request to post his experiences on that forum. At that point, the poster ceases to be 'regular joe'.

If that sequence of events is the case, many sites have anti-shill or trolling provisions that could be used for this.

It's a compensated and directed post for a product, and given that it is part of a corporate end-run around the profession and income of the site ownership--it's arguably a post whose timing and reason for existing would have the reasonably-expected outcome of antagonizing the admins and members.

 

[firstminion]

HardOCP focus on maximum playable settings, nano focus on perf/watt/size so it really wouldn't be a good fit for their methodology.

 

[Razor1]

then why would AMD give a card to a forum member to post their impressions of nano on their forums if their readers/ forum members aren't interested in? conflict of interest or just one department not talking to the other?

 

[lanek]

Guys, we could maybe made a separate thread about why some reviewers ( i know only 2 sites ) have not got a sample for review, because it completely remove all discussion about the Nano so far...

.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

then why would AMD give a card to a forum member to post their impressions of nano on their forums if their readers/ forum members aren't interested in? conflict of interest or just one department not talking to the other?

Do you guys even bother to read? Madyasiwi posted what the guy was commissioned to by AMD in a forum post on the previous page...

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1871162/

Hi there. I am doing a project for AMD for their new R9 Nano GPU coming out. I was contacted by them to make a custom case. They had 2 requirements... They wanted it small as possible and with the highest performance possible. I went one step further and going to try to make it light as possible using real Carbon Fiber.

He was commissioned by AMD to make a custom case, something many companies do. He wasn't commissioned to write an un-official review. His posting of the performance was his own experience with the card...as anyone would do whether they bought the card or not.

So, I guess they should now start digging through everyone's posts and delete any post by a user who didn't actually pay for their own card but posted their experience with it? Hell, he didn't even have to post that AMD provided the card. He only did that because he's designing a custom case that they paid for.

I'm sure people feel that Hard|OCP were being upstanding citizens of the internet defending the powerless by deleting his post. But it was still petty. And despite how much I like Hard|OCP, they can and have been quite petty about various things many times in the past. This isn't the first example of it, and it likely isn't going to be the last.

Regards,
SB

 

[Razor1]

I'm not saying what Kyle did was right or wrong, its his forum that's up to him and for us we have no say in that as to no one else does either, just as AMD did what it thought was right. But by no means what transpired from AMD's actions, specifically Roy's actions, should be condoned and AMD definitely didn't stand by what Roy stated publicly they made him apologize, because they knew how it made them look. I think AMD didn't want to go down that road as they were trying to avoid a direct confrontation, but Roy opened up a door that couldn't be closed.

If you argue with a fool, you will end up being a fool. This is exactly what happened lol, and this isn't the first time Roy has behaved like this if I'm not mistaken. We all know how Kyle is, we saw that here with the nV blacklist a few years ago so there is nothing changing him outside of some life changing epiphany.

SB, being commissioned to create a case to show off nano. What does that mean, they felt that the H forums was a good place to show off the nano. It doesn't have to be a review, its good press for their upcoming product on a forum with many enthusiasts. If they felt that way why would they feel H wasn't a good place for the review of their card?