Very surprised that TechpowerUp would post this without any checking on their own. :wtf:

TPU just went down a notch in my opinion for reposting this crap.

I have to back up AMD on this one, because only pro gamers will notice such minor differences what you we can see in the these videos, but pro gamers always knew that you go with an Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU for serious gaming, so it's doesn't really matter for the rest, they don't even see it. I buy Nvidia cards for myself, but I recommended many AMD cards for casual players, and never had complains, even if I was not satisfied personally with the build they enjoyed without problems.

BlackOmegaAnd therein lies the problem. There are known problems with Skyrim and ATi cards.

This is skewed towards Nvidia to make them look better.

AMD cards do the same with any opengl engine as well, so Nvidia is actually indeed better in this aspect .

I don't understand the hate against TPU for posting this. I have personally experienced microstutter on various AMD gpu setups. It's a real thing. It is not made up. Some people get it, some don't.

I guess i must be blind because i can't see any freakin difference and my eyes tend to be very sensitive to graphical anomalies (like stuttering, lagging and so forth).

Wile EI don't understand the hate against TPU for posting this. I have personally experienced microstutter on various AMD gpu setups. It's a real thing. It is not made up. Some people get it, some don't.

If you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.


It's right there in the writing for all to see.


That type of bad "journalism" shouldn't be ENCOURAGED. And reposting this is doing exactly that.

In each of those screen recordings, the Radeon HD 7950 was consistently on the left side of the screen. Taking the Youtube compression into account, the left side of the screen is always more choppy. Nice try, but please remake those videos with GeForce GTX 660 Ti on the left side next time and I guarantee the results will be different.

Interesting quote :toast:

Wile EI don't understand the hate against TPU for posting this. I have personally experienced microstutter on various AMD gpu setups. It's a real thing. It is not made up. Some people get it, some don't.

exactly, i have owned some AMD and NV cards too, by fare now the NV cards where more smooth.
AMD cards are kind ok but when it comes to multi GPUs (crossfire), AMD sucks damn high . I'll newer build a CF rig again.

rpsgcIf you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.


It's right there in the writing for all to see.


That type of bad "journalism" shouldn't be ENCOURAGED. And reposting this is doing exactly that.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Same site, just different cards:
GTX 650 Ti or HD 7850 = recommends 7850
ZOMG AN AMD FANBOY!!!

GTX 660 Ti or HD 7950 = recommends 660 Ti
ZOMG A NVIDIA FANBOY!!!

entropy13:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Same author, just different cards:
GTX 650 Ti or HD 7850 = he recommends 7850
ZOMG HE'S AN AMD FANBOY!!!

GTX 660 Ti or HD 7950 = he recommends 660 Ti
ZOMG HE'S A NVIDIA FANBOY!!!

Did you actually read the review? Or do you ignore the words and just look at the pretty graphs?



Grow up :rolleyes:

For people having issue seeing the problem in the videos: Look at the floor. The AMD jumps every now and then, like it's catching up. The Nvidia doesn't do it nearly as much.

FudzillaAMD spokesman Antal Tungler is on the ball and said that the review had "raised some alarms" internally at the company. AMD is investigating and hoped to have some answers for us "before the holiday." It appears that AMD also expects the 7950 to perform well in FPS-based benchmarks and give the GeForce GTX 660 Ti a good kicking too.

News Link

Looks like this issue is legit, AMD is looking into this.

rpsgcDid you actually read the review? Or do you ignore the words and just look at the pretty graphs?

Grow up :rolleyes:

Did we read the same thing, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've watched the videos a couple of times now and I think they are about the same actually. Looking at the ground is unfair to both because it leaps at you with both cards. The "leaps" are bigger with Radeon, but it looks like they happen more often on the Geforce. Like tiny tiny jums that happen all the time. I guess this is a thing you have to experience yourself.

Which also is unfair because I honestly think most people who has it wouldn't notice.

And see how it becomes quite evident when you focus on one spot? You don't play games like that. You look around constantly, your eyes never settle. In the end I don't think the tests are worth it. All this is IMO of course.

rpsgcIf you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.


It's right there in the writing for all to see.


That type of bad "journalism" shouldn't be ENCOURAGED. And reposting this is doing exactly that.

Having read all three I'm more inclined to question your bias.

AMD and micro stutter isn't new. My friend finally ditched AMD for a 670 after many years and was thrilled with the lack of stutter in GTA/skyrim/WOW.

rpsgcIf you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.


It's right there in the writing for all to see.


That type of bad "journalism" shouldn't be ENCOURAGED. And reposting this is doing exactly that.

I did read it. I don't see any bias. Since when is criticizing a poor performance in a test considered biased? Are they supposed to shower AMD with praise for doing poorly in the tests?

I see comments about AMD's performance being "not too shabby", but then they compare it to the nVidia performance, and realized that the AMD "isn't doing so well"

That is not an attack, bias or bile. It's a comparison. Nor did I find any real examples of any of that in the original review.

Just because you don't agree with the article, doesn't make it bad journalism. And just because a review is negative, doesn't mean it's biased. It means AMD actually lost in the tests. It wouldn't be much of a comparison if they just ignored that fact.

I don't know why everyone is all up-in-arms about TPU posting this information. It is a very beneficial thing for us, the consumers, to have news providers looking into things like this. AMD and Nvidia are perfectly capable of using driver optimizations that inflate their results. I remember a few months back AMD got called out on the visual quality of textures with its 6900 series cards. The release of the "Never Settle" drivers confused me as well. Sure, there are gains to be made in optimizing drivers for specific software titles, but the performance gains they advertised sounded a little suspect without something else (visual fidelity, smoothness) taking a back seat. Even before that, I read somewhere that around the time of Quake 3, ATI (well before the time of the AMD buyout) made some changes to its drivers, that while, boosted performance, dramatically affected visual quality. Some reviewers changed the executable's name to Quack 3.exe and the performance magically disappeared. techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-optimize-quake-iii

This isn't an argument about which Manufacturer is better or which offers a better value. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's about keeping them honest and ensuring the best end user experience for everyone.

Looks like alot of you got your panties in a wad this morning. rpsgc Its news get over it. If you think you could do a better job by all means PM wiz and ask for a editorial position but if not please do not down BTA.

XenturionI don't know why everyone is all up-in-arms about TPU posting this information. It is a very beneficial thing for us, the consumers, to have news providers looking into things like this. AMD and Nvidia are perfectly capable of using driver optimizations that inflate their results. I remember a few months back AMD got called out on the visual quality of textures with its 6900 series cards. The release of the "Never Settle" drivers confused me as well. Sure, there are gains to be made in optimizing drivers for specific software titles, but the performance gains they advertised sounded a little suspect without something else (visual fidelity, smoothness) taking a back seat. Even before that, I read somewhere that around the time of Quake 3, ATI (well before the time of the AMD buyout) made some changes to its drivers, that while, boosted performance, dramatically affected visual quality. Some reviewers changed the executable's name to Quack 3.exe and the performance magically disappeared. techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-optimize-quake-iii

This isn't an argument about which Manufacturer is better or which offers a better value. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's about keeping them honest and ensuring the best end user experience for everyone.

I also remember that Matrox had a turbo-mini-opengl driver which accelerated some OpenGL games like Quake3, but that one was actually pretty good both quality and performance wise, nothing like the crap what ATI did with their filtering hacks. ATI/AMD (sadly) never had good opengl drivers, and the speed inconsistency shown in the videos was always there in idtech games from Quake1 to RAGE, and this is not something new what's happening with the current drivers only.
Let's hope it's only software and they can fix it this time for good, the more the competition, the better for us:toast:

rpsgcTPU just went down a notch in my opinion for reposting this crap.

Ignorance is a bliss, right? TPU just went up a mile for having balls to start a conversation about this very flammable fanboy topic.

The balls? Heh, I think the motivation was getting paid to post articles, not to discuss this subject. LOL

Wile EI did read it. I don't see any bias. Since when is criticizing a poor performance in a test considered biased? Are they supposed to shower AMD with praise for doing poorly in the tests?

I see comments about AMD's performance being "not too shabby", but then they compare it to the nVidia performance, and realized that the AMD "isn't doing so well"

That is not an attack, bias or bile. It's a comparison. Nor did I find any real examples of any of that in the original review.

Just because you don't agree with the article, doesn't make it bad journalism. And just because a review is negative, doesn't mean it's biased. It means AMD actually lost in the tests. It wouldn't be much of a comparison if they just ignored that fact.

Agree.
TPU thanks for alerting us for this Techreport review.
If test declares itself that AMD 7950 offers better gaming experience, AMD fan boys would come here to show AMD "superiority", but when scenario changes, they call the review a Nvidia biased review bla bla...
Even with higher average fps, HD 7950 deliveres a less smooth performance in many games, besides flicker, artifacts, black screens, freeze, reported my many HD 7000 users.

EarthDogThe balls? Heh, I think the motivation was getting paid to post articles, not to discuss this subject. LOL

I see ton of sites never touching topics like this only some stupid product launches. Btw I don't think anyone got paid for posting that thing here?

I watched the video and some a few bigger "jumps" on the AMD card, but the Nvidia card does not look as smooth overall. There is very little difference between the two, in all honesty and i doubt 99% of users would notice it at regular frame rates. It would be good if they could post a real frame rate video for us to compare, i doubt anyone would notice much of anything.

I think they both look the same.

It's not stuttering, just showing AMD faster than nVidia that's all, so the video blinking cuz can't see the fastest of AMD hahahaha...

btw, does they said it run the game up to 120fps or 240fps..or they said they record with highspeed camera 120fps or 240fps?