AMD: Pirate Islands (R* 3** series) Speculation/Rumor Thread

Why let product reviews educate the consumer when they can get the money from the "oh something new, must purchase" impulse consumers? Having no product reviews certainly prevents bad press from being known ahead of time. I guess AMD's strategy is now banking on taking uninformed consumers to the bank?

The thing is, the reviews will always make their rounds and people will find out about the product. Is the first few hundred/thousands of card sales all that important to have burned bridges within the hardware review community?
 
SimBy said:
It looks as though AMD gave the finger to some/all review sites. At least judging by how salty Ryan is.

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/609437983134089216
Click to expand...

Sorry for being thick but where does it say it's AMD he speaks about? I see general trends and mobile being discussed or am I missing something?

PS. I remember good old days where review sites always were buying their hardware for testing or sourcing it through friendly partners. Only big printed press was privileged and these were days of really good and impartial reviews from small independent websites. Obviously times has changed since and as with everything some of it for better and some for worse.
 
Lightman said:
Sorry for being thick but where does it say it's AMD he speaks about? I see general trends and mobile being discussed or am I missing something?

PS. I remember good old days where review sites always were buying their hardware for testing or sourcing it through friendly partners. Only big printed press was privileged and these were days of really good and impartial reviews from small independent websites. Obviously times has changed since and as with everything some of it for better and some for worse.
Click to expand...

There is more context in comments and his followup tweets/replies. Not the mobile benchmarking part ;)
 
BRiT said:
Why let product reviews educate the consumer when they can get the money from the "oh something new, must purchase" impulse consumers? Having no product reviews certainly prevents bad press from being known ahead of time. I guess AMD's strategy is now banking on taking uninformed consumers to the bank?

The thing is, the reviews will always make their rounds and people will find out about the product. Is the first few hundred/thousands of card sales all that important to have burned bridges within the hardware review community?
Click to expand...

I think lots of bridges have already been burned. Especially with pcper. I think they started the whole FCAT thing after NV kindly provided the test suite ;) Of course doing lots of damage to AMD. When AMD fixed it and was actually ahead, they stopped using it. On the other hand Ryan was quite vocal in recommending 970 even after the whole 3.5GB fiasco.

Don't think that went well with AMD. But that's just my uninformed rambling.
 
SimBy said:
It looks as though AMD gave the finger to some/all review sites. At least judging by how salty Ryan is.

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/609437983134089216
Click to expand...

From the conversation, it doesn't seem like they didn't provide them a Fury for review.
Rather, it seems that AMD restricted the tests that the reviewers can do with the review unit, which IIRC has been common practice for many years.
We'll see. I'd hate to see PCPer blocked from reviewing AMD cards.

BTW, lots of clear pictures of watercooled Fury appeared tonight:

GjpSxgl.jpg
v1mrQGW.jpg
HaQxEQO.jpg
 
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
"relatively soon" puts AMD in the cross-hairs.
Click to expand...

Well, I've seen that and while I do think it's AMD Ryan is referring to, I can't be sure of that.

Maybe AMD is trying to copy CDPR but failing at it? I mean The Witcher 3 launch where developer invited not only big gaming press but also popular bloggers and youtubers from around the world a month before official launch? Is it likely that on Tuesday we will only get teaser and be asked to wait for proper launch with benchmarks till later on? That would be a mistake as launching hardware is completely different to launching software as personal experiences matter more in the second case where pure performance data matters more for hardware ... I don't know!?!
 
SimBy said:
I think lots of bridges have already been burned. Especially with pcper. I think they started the whole FCAT thing after NV kindly provided the test suite ;) Of course doing lots of damage to AMD. When AMD fixed it and was actually ahead, they stopped using it. On the other hand Ryan was quite vocal in recommending 970 even after the whole 3.5GB fiasco.

Don't think that went well with AMD. But that's just my uninformed rambling.
Click to expand...

Their glee at the 'death of mantle' was probably the last straw. Though he continued with the Fiji hijinks near Titan X's release.
 
Yeah it's pretty clear PCPer leans green but their reporting on FCAT was pretty objective. Didn't realize though that they stopped using it once AMD addressed the issue. That's poor.

His comment about educating consumers and balanced coverage implies somebody has has something to hide....
 
trinibwoy said:
Yeah it's pretty clear PCPer leans green but their reporting on FCAT was pretty objective. Didn't realize though that they stopped using it once AMD addressed the issue. That's poor.

His comment about educating consumers and balanced coverage implies somebody has has something to hide....
Click to expand...

I think so too. And if I had to bet what that is I'd bet on R9 300 being rebrands ;)
 
CarstenS said:
Since even first-gen Juniper supports OpenCL 2.0 nowadays (https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1849271/) I don't see, why Cape Verde shouldn't. I bet it's only NOT update in AMDs list.
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

Background: Version 14.12 of the Catalyst Driver does not support OpenCL 2.0 on FirePro Graphics. The cards are listed below as supported because the cards themselves are OpenCL2.0 capable. The driver does not support FirePro however. We expect the Catalyst driver to support the FirePro Graphics in the near future.
Click to expand...

and the ones that do,

OpenCL™ 2.0 conformance logs submitted (pending ratification) for: AMD Radeon HD 7790, AMD Radeon HD 8770, AMD Radeon HD 8500M/8600M/8700M/8800M/8900M Series, AMD Radeon R5 M240, AMD Radeon R7 200 Series, AMD Radeon R9 290, AMD Radeon R9 290X, A-Series AMD Radeon R4 Graphics, A-Series AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, A-Series AMD Radeon R6 Graphics, A-Series AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, AMD FirePro W5100, AMD FirePro W9100, AMD FirePro S9150
Click to expand...

http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-...sdk/system-requirements-driver-compatibility/
 
Lightman said:
Is it likely that on Tuesday we will only get teaser and be asked to wait for proper launch with benchmarks till later on?
Click to expand...
No, I can't believe they'd be that phenomenally deluded; first making a big deal out of how they're making everybody wait extra, only to go like, "ha-ha, sorry, we were just kidding when we said we'd unveil this thing today; we're gonna make you wait even longer!"

What would even be the POINT of doing that? Seriously. So no, I don't think this is something worth worrying about. This baby's ready to come out now, shit, the water's already broken, pics and specs and even benchmarks are already leaking all over the place. So they'll better show this thing off now, while there's still anything relatively new left to show off.
 
ToTTenTranz said:
From the conversation, it doesn't seem like they didn't provide them a Fury for review.
Rather, it seems that AMD restricted the tests that the reviewers can do with the review unit, which IIRC has been common practice for many years.
We'll see. I'd hate to see PCPer blocked from reviewing AMD cards.
Click to expand...

PCPer's objectivity does seem questionable, but that aside, restricting the tests that reviewers are allowed to run on the hardware they're evaluating is unacceptable, common though it may be.
 
Alexko said:
restricting the tests that reviewers are allowed to run on the hardware they're evaluating is unacceptable, common though it may be.
Click to expand...
Seriously? "Since when" I'd say, but if this is really going on, then it's gotta be since a very long time.

Why haven't I heard about this before?
 
trinibwoy said:
Yeah it's pretty clear PCPer leans green but their reporting on FCAT was pretty objective. Didn't realize though that they stopped using it once AMD addressed the issue. That's poor.

His comment about educating consumers and balanced coverage implies somebody has has something to hide....
Click to expand...

Maybe some restrictions regarding games anda settings that use more that 4 GB of memory.
 
Grall said:
Seriously? "Since when" I'd say, but if this is really going on, then it's gotta be since a very long time.

Why haven't I heard about this before?
Click to expand...

AMD did it once, for Trinity or Kaveri I think, but only for a certain duration, something like a week. The Tech Report wrote something about it at the time. I do hope it's not a widespread phenomenon, I'm just saying that even if it were, it wouldn't justify doing it.

Anyway, PCPer's issue is apparently related to the fact that instead of briefing the press, AMD decided to fly in a bunch of fanboys to generate publicity:
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-shows-radeon-r9-300-series-cards-to-red-team-plus_165838

But as long as we still get independent reviews, I don't really care.
 
So Ryan is annoyed that AMD is doing a publicity event without him? How is that even relevant to him? Unless they denied him a review sample or something, he sure is being offensive toward something that doesn't concern him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
AMD: Southern Islands (7*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
236 237 238
Replies
5K
Views
1M
BrynS
B
Back
Top