AMD Throwing the Gauntlet at Intel for releasing biased & unreliable benches.

[Bill_Bright]

That is actually my side. Bill's side is that stock coolers are good

Now that is feculent blather! NOT ONCE have I ever said OEM coolers are "good". I have been saying over and over again that they are "adequate" - able to do the job they were intended to do, assuming proper case cooling and normal clocking (and in some cases, even with mild to moderate overclocking). At best, I said "more than adequate for most users", but never did I say good. And said they were quality coolers, meaning they will not fail the day after the warranty runs out.

You have not been defending the OEM coolers in this thread! In fact, you said, they "suck", "all but AMD heatpipe are terrible", only "gotten worse over the years". You said "if they won't pass prime, they aren't adequate". You said "they aren't adequate for any (your underline, not mine) overclocking", "the current coolers are in fact worse than the coolers from 10 years ago". You said, "Every APU comes with a crappy aluminum cooler".

I've been consistent (except where I freely admitted otherwise) with my claims. You've been flip-flopping.

First you said they are not adequate for any overclocking, then admitted it ("slight") was possible, in fact claiming you did it 10 years ago. I said mild, you said slight - same thing in my book. But a flip from not "any".

Then you flip-flopped again by saying "I never said they weren't adequate" and they were "good enough".

Contrary to what you want us to believe, if a cooler was "crap", it could not do it's job. A crappy cooler is NOT "good enough". If something is crap, crappy, terrible - it is worthless.

OEM coolers do their job when used in the operating environment they were intended to be used in. They clearly are not the best coolers out there, but they are not crap either.

So, no. It is not your side. But if you want to stick with "my" claim that today's OEM coolers are adequate for most users, then I welcome you to "my" side.

 

[newtekie1]

Now that is feculent blather! NOT ONCE have I ever said OEM coolers are "good". I have been saying over and over again that they are "adequate" - able to do the job they were intended to do, assuming proper case cooling and normal clocking (and in some cases, even with mild to moderate overclocking). At best, I said "more than adequate for most users", but never did I say good. And said they were quality coolers, meaning they will not fail the day after the warranty runs out.

You have claimed they are better than they are 10 years ago. They were adequate 10 years ago, so now they must be good, that is how it works. You claim current coolers allow overclocking, they must be at least good to do that. If you aren't saying they are good, then they must be crap, but you keep arguing they aren't. You can have it only one way, they are either good, or crap.

You have not been defending the OEM coolers in this thread! In fact, you said, they "suck", "all but AMD heatpipe are terrible", only "gotten worse over the years". You said "if they won't pass prime, they aren't adequate". You said "they aren't adequate for any (your underline, not mine) overclocking", "the current coolers are in fact worse than the coolers from 10 years ago". You said, "Every APU comes with a crappy aluminum cooler".

Yes, I have said all of that, and yet I've also said over and over they are adequate. They do their job, just barely. That still makes them crap and terrible. Something can be crap and terrible, and still get the job done.

First you said they are not adequate for any overclocking, then admitted it ("slight") was possible, in fact claiming you did it 10 years ago. I said mild, you said slight - same thing in my book. But a flip from not "any".

Actually, I said they were capable of slight overclocks 10 years ago, when the coolers were better. Now, they do not allow overclocking, because they are worse now than they were 10 years ago.

Then you flip-flopped again by saying "I never said they weren't adequate" and they were "good enough".

I never said they weren't adequate or good enough, so I don't see how this is flip-flopping. Again, crap and terrible is not the same as inadequate.

Contrary to what you want us to believe, if a cooler was "crap", it could not do it's job. A crappy cooler is NOT "good enough". If something is crap, crappy, terrible - it is worthless.

Nope, something can be crap and still get the job done.

OEM coolers do their job when used in the operating environment they were intended to be used in. They clearly are not the best coolers out there, but they are not crap either.

No, they are still crap.

So, no. It is not your side. But if you want to stick with "my" claim that today's OEM coolers are adequate for most users, then I welcome you to "my" side.

Again, your claims are that coolers today are better than they were 10 years ago. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence from you to support this by the way.

I've never once said stock coolers aren't adequate. You assumed that when I said they are crap or terrible that means they aren't adequate, that is not the case. I'm done arguing with you about this. You make claims, then won't back them up and try to put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I said.

 

[Hood]

It will REALLY be interesting to see what happens when/if Samsung buys AMD.

Interesting? - I should say so! Samsung is the one company (besides Apple) that has the spare billions for R&D, and their own foundries besides, which would finally give Intel some serious competition. Western giant vs Eastern leviathan, where can I buy tickets? Memory and storage speeds are on the verge of some major architecture upgrades that will change the market forever, and there won't be room for any minor players. CPUs will finally find a reason to get faster and have more cores, as storage and memory are able to communicate much faster. AMD should be a bargain right about now, what, a lousy half billion or so?

 

[Bill_Bright]

Again, your claims are that coolers today are better than they were 10 years ago.

It is funny how you focus on such a minor claim, them claim to be the champion of OEM coolers by pretending others are on your side. It is even funnier that you claim something that you consider as crap and terrible can still be adequate.

You whine that I have not shown proof. My proof is the millions of users out there running with OEM coolers just fine - yet you seem to deny their existence. And at the same time you have failed to show one piece of evidence from ANY professional review site, IT mag, or white paper that says OEM coolers cannot fill their intended purpose and therefore must be replaced. And not only that, you are wrong when you say today's coolers do not support overclocking because it is already happening. Extreme overclocking? Of course not! But mild to moderate? Absolutely!

You are just in denial. You have FAILED to present any study showing the folks at Intel and AMD don't know what they are doing.

My claim is, and always has been that OEM coolers are adequate, in fact, more than adequate for the vast majority of today's users.

Yes, today's OEM coolers are better. You can hand pick one or two images and pretend that proves your point if it makes you feel better. I don't care. The OEM cooler on my i7 has a larger and quieter fan than the one on my old P4. The base has a copper pad for better conduction. Yes, that copper spot is smaller, but guess what? The die of my i7 is much smaller than the die of my old P4. It does not need to be bigger! And that is typical of CPUs today! Gobs of metal overhanging nothing does nothing!

The bearings in the fan are better. The heatsink fins have much more surface area. But again, the real point is as I stated when I first stated it, OEM coolers today do the job they were designed to do. If they were crap, they couldn't.

Again, crap and terrible is not the same as inadequate.

I guess if you want to have your own definitions for words, then fine. If something is crappy, it is worthless. If something is worthless, it cannot do its job. I do not put crappy components in my builds. So because OEM coolers provide adequate heat extraction, I will and do use them unless my client needs silent running, will be doing extreme overclocking, or buys a CPU that does not come with an OEM cooler.

We will at least try the OEM cooler and see if it works satisfactorily before spending extra money that may not need to be spent!

I'm done arguing with you about this.

That's great. Thanks.

 

[newtekie1]

My proof is the millions of users out there running with OEM coolers just fine - yet you seem to deny their existence.

That is in no way proof that OEM coolers today are better than they were in the past.

And at the same time you have failed to show one piece of evidence from ANY professional review site, IT mag, or white paper that says OEM coolers cannot fill their intended purpose and therefore must be replaced.

I never made those claims, so I don't have to. I said they were crap, or crappy, not that they were inadequate.

And not only that, you are wrong when you say today's coolers do not support overclocking because it is already happening.

And you haven't show that they can. They are already hitting too high of temperatures, not even able to turbo for extended periods of time, and you say they can go further? That makes no sense.

Yes, today's OEM coolers are better.

You still have not posted one piece of evidence to prove that. You keep saying it, then keep saying you didn't say it. Prove it or shut up.

I guess if you want to have your own definitions for words, then fine. If something is crappy, it is worthless. If something is worthless, it cannot do its job. I do not put crappy components in my builds. So because OEM coolers provide adequate heat extraction, I will and do use them unless my client needs silent running, will be doing extreme overclocking, or buys a CPU that does not come with an OEM cooler.

Funny, I clicked on the link, went to the definition of crappy from dictionary.com and Websters, neither say anything about inadequate to perform an intended tasks. They say inferior(I've certainly proved that, even posted evidence from major review sites like you asked, they are inferior to every aftermarket cooler tested), they say cheaply made(yep, can't get much cheaper than they already are). Nothing about being inadequate though. Maybe Wiktionary, no no mention of inadequate there. Oh look Macmillan even has a thesaurus, maybe it is in there...no not there either. Hey look, UrbanDictionary, mayhbe they'll save you...oh wait no, not there either... Odd, it is almost like you are taking one word and trying to make it mean something else to try to make it sound like I said something I didn't.

Maybe if you search through all the definitions you might find one that says inadequate, but all the major definitions don't. Crappy =/= Inadequate PERIOD. You think it does, but it doesn't. There are plenty of things that are crap that still get the job done.

So because OEM coolers provide adequate heat extraction, I will and do use them unless my client needs silent running, will be doing extreme overclocking, or buys a CPU that does not come with an OEM cooler.

We will at least try the OEM cooler and see if it works satisfactorily before spending extra money that may not need to be spent!

I do not put crappy components in my builds.

If you are putting the stock cooler in, then you are in fact putting crappy components in your builds. It's OK, I do to, almost always. I built 6 computers this week, all i3s with stock coolers. Unless they need something quieter, I rarely use anything other than stock. It's crap, but it gets the job done.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If you don't believe cooler technologies have improved in the last 10 or so years, fine! I don't have an i7 cooler from 10 years ago to take side-by-side pictures with an i7 cooler from today and post it here (you don't either!) - not that images prove anything anyway. I explained how my i7 cooler is better than my P4 cooler - not good enough for you, so again, fine!

You claim you don't want argue then you keep posting arguments - and IMO, petty ones too. At the same time, you want to take credit for it being your claim today's coolers are "adequate". Okay. You can have it. But at the same time, you claim they are crappy and admit to using them "almost always!". That makes no sense to me.

You present other dictionaries as proof of your claim ONLY because they do not contain the specific word "inadequate". Hogwash! You are just being argumentative.

MW's first definition is "of poor quality". OEM coolers are not of "poor quality". They are quality built, use quality bearings and can be expected to last for years.
Dictionary.com's first definition is "extremely bad". OEM coolers are not extremely bad or they could not do their intended job. The other dictionaries follow suit. And "oh look" what Dictionary.com's sister site, Thesaurus.com has under "crappy". It says "bad" and "inadequate!" But I'm guessing you already knew that and decided only yours were the "major" ones.

I don't see "terrible" in your "major" dictionaries - therefore that is proof you are wrong! Yeah right. Semantics.

And BTW, for your thesaurus, interesting what it says for adequate.

I see no reason to pursue this line of debate any further, so I won't.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

 

[hat]

What happened to this thread?

 

[dorsetknob]

It developed into a Bitch fight Usual Suspect(s) involved

 

[newtekie1]

ut at the same time, you claim they are crappy and admit to using them "almost always!". That makes no sense to me.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You use them too, and they are crappy. They get the job done. If the client wants to spend $30 more on a better cooler, fine, but most don't care and the stock cooler works fine for them, so that is what I use. If I thought the computer was going to fail because of the stock cooler, I wouldn't use it. But, as I said, it is adequate. Still crap, but adequate.

You present other dictionaries as proof of your claim ONLY because they do not contain the specific word "inadequate". Hogwash! You are just being argumentative.

I posted dictionaries straight from you link there slick.

MW's first definition is "of poor quality". OEM coolers are not of "poor quality". They are quality built, use quality bearings and can be expected to last for years.

Bullshit they are quality built. It doesn't take a quality fan to last for years, it isn't exactly hard to manage that. If you want a quality fan, they'd have Deltas slapped on them. And the fan isn't the only part of the heatsink, the rest of it has to be quality too. The push pins are absolute shit, unless you are so super careful when removing and remounting they break. The i3 heatsinks are all aluminium and as poor quality as they can get. The i5/i7 heatsinks have copper in them, but still about as cheap quality as you can get. Heck, even the plastic frame of the fan gets brittle after about a year, making it easy to break if you ever have to remove the heatsink for some reason.

Dictionary.com's first definition is "extremely bad". OEM coolers are not extremely bad or they could not do their intended job. The other dictionaries follow suit.

I would consider the absolute worst cooling capacity possible while still technically working "extremely bad".

And "oh look" what Dictionary.com's sister site, Thesaurus.com has under "crappy". It says "bad" and "inadequate!" But I'm guessing you already knew that and decided only yours were the "major" ones.

It does not say that under the synonym section. It says it under "related" words, as in words that are similar but don't mean the exact same thing.

I don't see "terrible" in your "major" dictionaries - therefore that is proof you are wrong! Yeah right. Semantics.

Two different descriptions. It is both crappy and terrible. Both adjectives apply to the stock cooling, and I've used both to describe it. However, I've never claimed they mean the same thing. You have, once again made another off base claim, that crappy means the same as inadequate.

And BTW, for your thesaurus, interesting what it says for adequate.

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.

 

[64K]

What happened to this thread?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

It's the only way I can express this. It's a heck of a fun watch, but afterward you feel less human for having enjoyed it as much as you did.

 

[dorsetknob]

soon to go to GN hello GN

 

[Kanan]

That is actually my side. Bill's side is that stock coolers are good, they have improved drastically over the last 10 years, that they are more efficient and quieter, and people just say stock coolers are crap because they were in the past, but they aren't anymore.



Look back, you'll see that I said AMD's heatpipe cooler is the best right now. Of course, Intel has made better coolers in the past. Nothing stock released(other than the AiOs) is better than the tower heatsink Intel released back in 2009.

And AMD hasn't betrayed anyone? Are you serious or just blind by fanboyism? They released drivers that purposely hindered performance AFTER the reviews for their cards were done, because the cards were overheating and dying prematurely. They sold cards with advertised clock speeds that they knew the card would never be able to reach with the stock cooling. Your fundamental misunderstanding seems to be that AMD is some poor little company that has never done wrong, and only cares about their customers. They don't give a shit about their customers, and they certainly have done plenty of wrong.

LOL you called ME a AMD fanboy? Before you post bullshit like that just don't be so lazy and look up my specs first. Now back to your post:

"They released drivers that purposely hindered performance AFTER the reviews for their cards were done, because the cards were overheating and dying prematurely. "

That's not "betrayal" and far from it. That's a solution for preventing the cards to be destroyed. Something entirely else. Just your interpretation of it is negative and somewhat shortsighted in terms of objective logical assessment. In reality, it was the only viable and good solution to a problem.

"They sold cards with advertised clock speeds that they knew the card would never be able to reach with the stock cooling."

You mean the 290X or Nano cards? Whatever I'll adress both.
290X: again a error in your assessment, as you tend to see things emotionally negative, but that just isn't it. The way AMD cards works is the opposite of Nvidia, they start fast and clock down if reaching too high temperature or power consumption - working as intended, as it says "up to 1000 MHz" not "1000+". You just didn't understand it (the technology and how it works) right. Or maybe you have a philosophical / psychological problem with it. In the end it's almost the same, aside from 290X reference cards, just that AMD starts high and clocks down (some cards only, most stay at highest clock if needed, depending on usage) and NVidia starts low and clocks high.
Or maybe you have a philosophical or psychological problem with their technology just that these aren't really important here. Maybe you like "clocks higher" more than "clocks lower". That's it. But in reality there is no tangible difference. AMD starts high and clocks down (not always and depends on cooling + power consumption + GPU), Nvidia starts low and clocks high. That's it.
Nano: the same basically just somewhat different, as it clocks down in under a second and clocks down because of power consumption, not temperatures as with 290X reference cards.

Notice: AMD cards always work that way (even custom AMD cards that never reach high temperatures), that's no malfunction or "betrayal" as you said. Somewhat NVidia-fanboyish of you to post something like that, essentially a fundamental misunderstanding of their technology.

"Your fundamental misunderstanding seems to be that AMD is some poor little company that has never done wrong, and only cares about their customers."

Didn't say any of that and don't think any of that. Bullshit.

"They don't give a shit about their customers, and they certainly have done plenty of wrong."

Bullshit also. Did they make mistakes? Yes, of course, nobody is perfect. Nvidia did make mistakes too. Intel too. All do. It's called "being human". Do they give a shit about their customers? No, bullshit. Seems you are a extremely pessimistic person, to say things like that. Of course they care, because if customers are happy, they earn more money. And if they are happy, they are happy that they are happy, too. Just because you don't understand some things, it doesn't mean everything is bad. Overthink your way of living or seing things maybe. You're not really on the right track.

 

[newtekie1]

That's not "betrayal" and far from it. That's a solution for preventing the cards to be destroyed. Something entirely else. Just your interpretation of it is negative and somewhat shortsighted in terms of objective logical assessment. In reality, it was the only viable and good solution to a problem.

They knew of the heat problem before the card was released. Putting it out on the market with drivers that allowed it to overheat, just to get better reviews, then release the "fix" to hinders performance is betrayal.

You mean the 290X or Nano cards? Whatever I'll adress both.
290X: again a error in your assessment, as you tend to see things emotionally negative, but that just isn't it. The way AMD cards works is the opposite of Nvidia, they start fast and clock down if reaching too high temperature or power consumption - working as intended, as it says "up to 1000 MHz" not "1000+". You just didn't understand it (the technology and how it works) right.
Nano: the same basically just somewhat different, as it clocks down in under a second and clocks down because of power consumption, not temperatures as with 290X reference cards.

Notice: AMD cards always work that way (even custom AMD cards that never reach high temperatures), that's no malfunction or "betrayal" as you said. Somewhat NVidia-fanboyish of you to post something like that, essentially a fundamental misunderstanding of their technology.

No, I completely understand the technology. It is just betrayal. To market at card as 1000MHz, when they know it won't run at a constant 1000MHz is a betrayal. They are marketing the turbo frequency and not listing a base clock. That is the wrong way to do it, and only done to deceive.

Bullshit also. Did they make mistakes? Yes, of course, nobody is perfect. Nvidia did make mistakes too. Intel too. All do. It's called "being human". Do they give a shit about their customers? No, bullshit. Seems you are a extremely pessimistic person, to say things like that. Of course they care, because if customers are happy, they earn more money. And if they are happy, they are happy that they are happy, too. Just because you don't understand some things, it doesn't mean everything is bad. Overthink your way of living or seing things maybe. Your not really on the right track.

See, I don't put any company ahead of the other. You on the other hand seem to want to put AMD on a pedestal. For some reason you think they are better than nVidia and Intel, when the facts show they aren't. They are just as dirty, but you won't believe that. In your own words, there is nothing that will make you believe AMD is bad.

 

[Kanan]

They knew of the heat problem before the card was released. Putting it out on the market with drivers that allowed it to overheat, just to get better reviews, then release the "fix" to hinders performance is betrayal.

You have any proof of that? Sorry that I don't take your word for it.

No, I completely understand the technology. It is just betrayal. To market at card as 1000MHz, when they know it won't run at a constant 1000MHz is a betrayal. They are marketing the turbo frequency and not listing a base clock. That is the wrong way to do it, and only done to deceive.

No and that's what I meant when I said you don't understand their technology, many people have that same misunderstanding. "Up to 1000 MHz" is not a "turbo clock" or "Turbo" it's the base clock. AMD has no real turbo clocks with their GPUs, because they clock down and not up. What is your understanding of "Turbo"? Nvidia has a "Turbo" because it clocks higher. And it's not to deceive buyers. When the 290X were released it was already written "up to 1000 MHz" not "1000 MHz" or "1000 MHz+". Just people need to really read specs of cards or better read reviews before buying something. I don't say I like the 290X reference cards, because they clearly overheated and therefore downclocked from their base clock, but it doesn't change the facts that 290X with good coolings don't have the same problems and still use the same tech, so essentially would in theory downclock too if they had higher temperatures.

See, I don't put any company ahead of the other. You on the other hand seem to want to put AMD on a pedestal. For some reason you think they are better than nVidia and Intel, when the facts show they aren't. They are just as dirty, but you won't believe that. In your own words, there is nothing that will make you believe AMD is bad.

No, I just moderated what you said down to "everybody is doing shit, all humans are faulty" - can't you read? Also I'm a current Intel and Nvidia user and most of my GPUs were Nvidia. I had a GF256, GF3Ti200 128MB, GTX7800GT, 7900GT, 8600 GT, GTX 260 216, HD 5850, HD 5970 and now a 780 Ti. As you see, you are going nowhere with calling me a "fanboy". I'm just defending AMD because you seem to hate them, that's really all I'm trying to do.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

actually, all AMD did is to market the word "up to", which is quite vague. It also means their cards aren't ready to reach or exceed quoted clocks, which is like telling folks u can't reach 1GHz because of "unknown reasons". Isn't that considered as a sort of betrayal to those who bought their product & expect it to perform as it should? If AMD is honest about how old their chips are, everyone would forgive them & given a second chance to redeem themselves, but no... they insist in reusing with little or no improvements & cover up their incompetence with botched benches & releases it to garner publicity. Intel wasn't like this nor Nvidia. Sure those 2 guys are premium brands, but at least they guarantee it won't heat up your cool room or even kill your electricity bills when you game, edit videos, image or simply surfing the net.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It also means their cards aren't ready to reach or exceed quoted clocks... .
Isn't that considered as a sort of betrayal to those who bought their product & expect it to perform as it should?

Cards (any product, for that matter) should definitely meet published/advertised specs ("clocks" for your example) when "used as directed". But it is not fair to expect, or be critical of a product if it cannot "exceed" published/advertised specs ("quoted clocks") - nor is it a betrayal if a product cannot perform better than advertised. Meeting specs but not exceeding specs is, if anything, just being honest.

Intel wasn't like this nor Nvidia.

I beg to differ. Both have "re-issued" and relabeled products with a different model number to extend their sales and recoup more on their investment. This is a long time practice going back decades - if not to the beginnings of commerce. Think "outlet malls" and "factory seconds".

Remember floppy disks? When they first came out, they were all SSSD (single sided, single density). Then as raw materials could be made purer and manufacturing technologies improved, disk makers (and drive makers) started developing SSDD (single sided, double density). Then they learned to make the other side of the disks usable and they started making DSDD (double sided, double density).

They still sold all types but they all came off the same production line, manufactured as DSDD. Those that had a side that did not pass testing were labeled and notched (or rather, not notched), then sold as SSDD. If a side failed a density test, it would be labeled as single density and labeled, and marketed that way.

Same thing with RAM makers years ago and still today. RAM devices are produced with the highest densities and speed manufacturing techniques today allow, then tested. Those that cannot meet the fastest speeds and densities, are labeled and marketed as slower speeds and densities.

CPUs and GPUs go through the same thing - some even with cores disabled then sold as lessor models. Sibling CPU models are made the same but those that cannot pass muster get "locked" or marked for a slower speed.

This happens all the time to avoid industrial waste (a pain with hazardous materials) and a total loss of any profits.

Sure those 2 guys are premium brands, but at least they guarantee it won't heat up your cool room or even kill your electricity bills when you game, edit videos, image or simply surfing the net.

I am with you here, but there's no deception or dishonesty involved either. Power and heat specs are readily available. Plus, AMD processors (at least CPUs) do tend to cost less too. If you look at any appliance, for example a refrigerator, the most efficient models always cost more. Power supplies are the same way.

 

[Kanan]

actually, all AMD did is to market the word "up to", which is quite vague. It also means their cards aren't ready to reach or exceed quoted clocks, which is like telling folks u can't reach 1GHz because of "unknown reasons". Isn't that considered as a sort of betrayal to those who bought their product & expect it to perform as it should? If AMD is honest about how old their chips are, everyone would forgive them & given a second chance to redeem themselves, but no... they insist in reusing with little or no improvements & cover up their incompetence with botched benches & releases it to garner publicity. Intel wasn't like this nor Nvidia. Sure those 2 guys are premium brands, but at least they guarantee it won't heat up your cool room or even kill your electricity bills when you game, edit videos, image or simply surfing the net.

I will disregard that you are heavily Intel/Nvidia biased and anti-AMD in this post, so not being really objective, and answer just to your post.

"actually, all AMD did is to market the word "up to", which is quite vague. It also means their cards aren't ready to reach or exceed quoted clocks, which is like telling folks u can't reach 1GHz because of "unknown reasons". Isn't that considered as a sort of betrayal to those who bought their product & expect it to perform as it should?"

It is not that simple.
1. They marketed it that way because their reference cooler was bad, so they could set the base clock to 1000 and market it with "up to 1000" instead just with 650 to 1000 MHz what it really is (afaik & depending on each card). As a matter of fact, as I already said, custom cards don't have this problem, so the problem is clearly with the reference cooler, that is bad, not with the tech. Also, since they don't know how much MHz a card can do, because every card is different, it was ~impossible to market it with something else than "up to 1000" without it looking strange.
2. Yes the marketing is marketing, if you know what marketing is. But it's no "betrayal". It was always so that companys tried to market things as positive as they could, this is not any different to what Nvidia and Intel (or any other company) is doing. Anyone who skipped the crappy reference cards and bought a custom 290(X), did indeed buy a good AMD card, so again, the problem was with the cooler not the tech or their marketing per se.
3. It was possible with the crappy reference cards to have 1000 MHz all the time, just with more noise, that's it. Yes, even overclocking was possible - so it's no "betrayal" at all. Again, everyone who read reviews and wasn't a spontaneous buyer, would've known what problems these cards had and bought something else or waited for the 290X custom. Many people indeed just did that.

"If AMD is honest about how old their chips are, everyone would forgive them & given a second chance to redeem themselves, but no... they insist in reusing with little or no improvements & cover up their incompetence with botched benches & releases it to garner publicity. Intel wasn't like this nor Nvidia."

Everyone does "botched benches", this whole topic is about "botched benches" of Intel and AMD for example. Their chips are old, so what? The 390 is clearly better than the 970 and the 390X is almost as good, and sometimes even better than the 980 at a clearly lower price. Seems you aren't very good informed but still make bold statements and accusations.

"Intel wasn't like this nor Nvidia."

This is btw. the fanboy-blabber I was speaking about. Anyone with experience in IT knows that everybody has its problem's and nobody's perfect and that brands aren't important. What matters are the facts. This is you, being overly emotional about such things as graphics cards and CPUs. We are talking about tech here and not about a TV show.

"Sure those 2 guys are premium brands, but at least they guarantee it won't heat up your cool room or even kill your electricity bills when you game, edit videos, image or simply surfing the net."

Oh yes, Nvidia cards and Intel CPUs are more efficient I give you that, but you are exaggerating it so much, aside from the "sure those 2 guys are premium brands" [and AMD is not], that it's so obvious how off your comment is. And you are generalizing. The Nano is the most efficient card right now, it is a AMD card, not Nvidia - the most efficient card was the 980, the Nano took that over at release. Kepler cards from Nvidia are like AMD cards, they aren't much better. It's just the GTX 970 + 980 that are better, the 970 is still slower than 390, the 980 is too expensive or is slower and less efficient than Nano. Leaves you with the 980 Ti which is a really good chip and a game winner. But that's it. You are speaking like Nvidia is world aheads, they are not. There is what you say, and then there are the facts, that are quite different. Now, I won't say the same about AMD CPUs, yep, they are crap, but their APUs are good and some of their CPUs have good price to performance value (FX 4350, FX 6300, FX 8320 ... ). Intel is more efficient, yeah, and you pay a fat price premium for that too.

 

[newtekie1]

You have any proof of that? Sorry that I don't take your word for it.

Well, you've only got two options.

A.) They knew of the heat problem with their stock cards and coolers. And waited to issue a driver fix until after the reviews were done, so the reviews showed better performance than real world use.

or

B.) They are completely incompetent, and did no testing on the cards before release.

Take your pick, because something like a card killing heat issue isn't something you find out after the card is out.

No and that's what I meant when I said you don't understand their technology, many people have that same misunderstanding. "Up to 1000 MHz" is not a "turbo clock" or "Turbo" it's the base clock. AMD has no real turbo clocks with their GPUs, because they clock down and not up. What is your understanding of "Turbo"? Nvidia has a "Turbo" because it clocks higher. And it's not to deceive buyers. When the 290X were released it was already written "up to 1000 MHz" not "1000 MHz" or "1000 MHz+". Just people need to really read specs of cards or better read reviews before buying something. I don't say I like the 290X reference cards, because they clearly overheated and therefore downclocked from their base clock, but it doesn't change the facts that 290X with good coolings don't have the same problems and still use the same tech, so essentially would in theory downclock too if they had higher temperatures.

No, I completely understand how the technology works. Their marking is deceptive, and the only reason you'd do it that was is so you can market the card in deceptive ways. Just like ISPs that say "up to" speeds and then never achieve anywhere close to those speeds. It is deceptive. If the only clock speed you give for a part is 1000MHz, it better run at at least 1000MHz at all times under load.

No, I just moderated what you said down to "everybody is doing shit, all humans are faulty" - can't you read? Also I'm a current Intel and Nvidia user and most of my GPUs were Nvidia. I had a GF256, GF3Ti200 128MB, GTX7800GT, 7900GT, 8600 GT, GTX 260 216, HD 5850, HD 5970 and now a 780 Ti. As you see, you are going nowhere with calling me a "fanboy". I'm just defending AMD because you seem to hate them, that's really all I'm trying to do.

No, see you are fanboy because you say shit like.

AMD is not Intel, accept it.

AND

don't try to convince me again AMD is the same as Intel. They aren't.

Implying AMD is somehow better than Intel in morals or something.

And I must really hate AMD, most of my rigs are AMD, they're listed in my sig if you care to read(can't YOU read?).

 

[Kanan]

Well, you've only got two options.

A.) They knew of the heat problem with their stock cards and coolers. And waited to issue a driver fix until after the reviews were done, so the reviews showed better performance than real world use.

or

B.) They are completely incompetent, and did no testing on the cards before release.

Take your pick, because something like a card killing heat issue isn't something you find out after the card is out.



No, I completely understand how the technology works. Their marking is deceptive, and the only reason you'd do it that was is so you can market the card in deceptive ways. Just like ISPs that say "up to" speeds and then never achieve anywhere close to those speeds. It is deceptive. If the only clock speed you give for a part is 1000MHz, it better run at at least 1000MHz at all times under load.



No, see you are fanboy because you say shit like.

AMD is not Intel, accept it.

AND

don't try to convince me again AMD is the same as Intel. They aren't.

Implying AMD is somehow better than Intel in morals or something.

And I must really hate AMD, most of my rigs are AMD, they're listed in my sig if you care to read(can't YOU read?).

I thought you had dropped it, so sad you didn't, because you won't win this discussion, no matter what you do. You're just not on the winner road.

"Take your pick, because something like a card killing heat issue isn't something you find out after the card is out."

Of course, this discussion is progressed somewhat further. As you can see on my earlier answers I already pointed out that companys do whatever they want to sell their things as positive as it can be. Seems you ignored that post, because your answer is somewhat pointless now.

"No, I completely understand how the technology works. Their marking is deceptive, and the only reason you'd do it that was is so you can market the card in deceptive ways. Just like ISPs that say "up to" speeds and then never achieve anywhere close to those speeds. It is deceptive. If the only clock speed you give for a part is 1000MHz, it better run at at least 1000MHz at all times under load."

No it's not. I already explained why and I won't do it again just because you ignore my posts. What is bad was their cooler and nothing else. The technology is perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, because all the custom 290X/390X do proof this (well not all, but almost all do). And the way you argued earlier revealed to me that you do NOT understand exactly how it works, because you confused "downclocking from baseclock" with "turbo" on AMD tech (and senselessly compared it to Nvidia GPU Boost) and told me that their advertised "turbos" doesn't work. Yep now that I explained it to you, you understand it - maybe, that is. Or you just dropped the point. Well not important, I see what you are doing, you won't deceive me.

"No, see you are fanboy because you say shit like.

AMD is not Intel, accept it.

AND

don't try to convince me again AMD is the same as Intel. They aren't.

Implying AMD is somehow better than Intel in morals or something. "

Nope, it seems that way, but you can see on my earlier posts that I'm just somewhat defending AMD and I blame them on some things too - now that is something a fanboy would NEVER do. Plus, I don't care what you think of me. Anyone who really knows me, knows that I NEVER was a fanboy and always bought what performed better and NEVER cared about brands much. Not to say I'm a machine, I like AMD more than Intel and maybe more than Nvidia too, but this isn't making me a fanboy and not even remotely. You have no clue, when you think I'm a fanboy, but thanks for the good laughter anyway. That's basically the same thing as calling me dumb, but I'm probably smarter than you.

"And I must really hate AMD, most of my rigs are AMD, they're listed in my sig if you care to read(can't YOU read?)."

Yeah I can see it now. But coming from 1) a person who ignores my specs and my earlier posts all the way until I told him what I have in my rig, in a post and 2) someone who can't differ someone defending a company from, someone being a idiotic fanboy, I don't care much. Also I discovered earlier that you are a pretty negative person. What was it again? Ah yeah, "every company is shit and they give shit about customers". Alright man. You are way too extreme to call me anything. Get your own things straight first.

PS. No fanboy uses something else than their fan brands. Do I use AMD hardware now? No. Did I switch from a Radeon to a GeForce again, yes. As you can see you're still going nowhere with this bullshit accusation. Drop it, you have lost.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Smells of desperation on AMD's part. Everyone knows they've been under-performing and to sink down to finger pointing at its competitor is petty and shows how bad things have gotten for them.

 

[newtekie1]

I thought you had dropped it, so sad you didn't, because you won't win this discussion, no matter what you do. You're just not on the winner road.

I'm pretty sure I am.

Of course, this discussion is progressed somewhat further. As you can see on my earlier answers I already pointed out that companys do whatever they want to sell their things as positive as it can be. Seems you ignored that post, because your answer is somewhat pointless now.

What does that have to do with them out right deceiving customers? Making reviews have false performance numbers by retarding the card a couple months after the release so the reviews look better to the consumer? Remember, you are the one that said, flat out, "AMD never betrayed anyone". Or did you forget you made that rather bold statement?

No it's not. I already explained why and I won't do it again just because you ignore my posts. What is bad was their cooler and nothing else. The technology is perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, because all the custom 290X/390X do proof this (well not all, but almost all do). And the way you argued earlier revealed to me that you do NOT understand exactly how it works, because you confused "downclocking from baseclock" with "turbo" on AMD tech (and senselessly compared it to Nvidia GPU Boost) and told me that their advertised "turbos" doesn't work. Yep now that I explained it to you, you understand it - maybe, that is. Or you just dropped the point. Well not important, I see what you are doing, you won't deceive me.

Yes it is, when you market a card as 1000MHz, I don't care if you put the words "Up To" before it, the card should run at 1000MHz. This is deceptive, period. If they didn't want to be deceptive, they would have actually come out with a minimum clock the card would run at, you know, just like those other horrible companies Intel and nVidia do...

You can try to explain it away any way you want, but in the computer industry the Base Clock is the minimum the processor will run at, not the maximum. Sorry, I don't care what AMD calls it(note: they don't call it the base clock), or what you want to try to say it is. I didn't confuse anything, I judge AMD and their technology, on the standards of the industry. If you have a processor that goes up to a certain clock, but doesn't stay there due to heat or power consumption, then that clock is a turbo/boost clock. The base clock is whatever minimum clock speed the processor runs at. Even professional reviewers on very well known tech sites says they believed the 290X has an "unlisted base clock", and say "to only list the boost clock is being deceitful at best". But, hey, those professional reviewers must be idiots too...I'm sure you are way smarter, and know way more about graphics cards than they do.

Because, according to you, "AMD never betrayed anyone".

Nope, it seems that way, but you can see on my earlier posts that I'm just somewhat defending AMD and I blame them on some things too - now that is something a fanboy would NEVER do. Plus, I don't care what you think of me. Anyone who really knows me, knows that I NEVER was a fanboy and always bought what performed better and NEVER cared about brands much. Not to say I'm a machine, I like AMD more than Intel and maybe more than Nvidia too, but this isn't making me a fanboy and not even remotely. You have no clue, when you think I'm a fanboy, but thanks for the good laughter anyway.

A fanboy is going to defend a company, try to explain away all their deceptive practices and act like they never even happened. Sound familiar? Yeah, it is what you keep doing. I don't care if you use Intel/nVidia products. Even fanboys will do that if they aren't completely stupid. A fanboy doesn't always have to use their favorite brand, but they will defend them and act like they are somehow better than the other companies. They'll defend clear wrong doing by the company like it hasn't even happened. This is what you are doing. You keep going on, "oh no, they never deceived anyone like Intel and nVidia" "they didn't retard overheating cards after the reviews were out, that never happened!" "they weren't deceptive in marking 1000MHz cards that couldn't actually run at 1000MHz"...

Yeah, the reviewers of the cards, professionals that deal with graphics cards for a living, called the practice deceptive. But you think AMD never betrayed anyone, you have to defend that statement no matter what. So those professional reviewers must be completely wrong, right?

That's basically the same thing as calling me dumb, but I'm probably smarter than you.

Yeah...ok. This coming from the guy that still can't figure out the multi-quote feature.:rollsyeys:

Yeah I can see it now. But coming from 1) a person who ignores my specs and my earlier posts all the way until I told him what I have in my rig, in a post and 2) someone who can't differ someone defending a company from, someone being a idiotic fanboy, I don't care much. Also I discovered earlier that you are a pretty negative person. What was it again? Ah yeah, "every company is shit and they give shit about customers". Alright man. You are way too extreme to call me anything. Get your own things straight first.

I didn't ignore your system spec, I just didn't care what they were. Your comments and die hard intent to somehow prove that AMD is better than Intel and nVidia as a company, not product wise, is what makes you a fanboy.

And you want to talk about ignoring system specs, I would have to click on something to see your system specs, and I don't really care enough to bother. However, my systems are put out in plain site, on every post I make. And yet, you failed to read them, and even went so far as to try to act like I'm the one that doesn't read. Wow...

PS. No fanboy uses something else than their fan brands. Do I use AMD hardware now? No. Did I switch from a Radeon to a GeForce again, yes. As you can see you're still going nowhere with this bullshit accusation. Drop it, you have lost.

Odd, doesn't feel like I've lost.

 

[Kanan]

What does that have to do with them out right deceiving customers? Making reviews have false performance numbers by retarding the card a couple months after the release so the reviews look better to the consumer? Remember, you are the one that said, flat out, "AMD never betrayed anyone". Or did you forget you made that rather bold statement?

"Out right deceiving customers" who is bold now? The way I see it and it's just a interpretation, as is what you are doing, is, that they fixed problems with consumer cards later, I'm talking 290X here btw. If you are not, then again I want proof of that, because I don't know what you mean then.

Yes it is, when you market a card as 1000MHz, I don't care if you put the words "Up To" before it, the card should run at 1000MHz. This is deceptive, period. If they didn't want to be deceptive, they would have actually come out with a minimum clock the card would run at, you know, just like those other horrible companies Intel and nVidia do...

It's still not the same & not important if you can understand and/or accept it or not. I don't care about your ignorance, it doesn't change the hard fact that it is not the same as saying "1000 MHz". Yes Nvidias marketing is better, but no one here doubted that AMD is bad at marketing. Was already mentioned pages ago (by me or someone else).

You can try to explain it away any way you want, but in the computer industry the Base Clock is the minimum the processor will run at, not the maximum.

Things change, seems you are old and not able to accept changes. Simply put: you are wrong.

Sorry, I don't care what AMD calls it(note: they don't call it the base clock), or what you want to try to say it is. I didn't confuse anything, I judge AMD and their technology, on the standards of the industry.

I'm not "trying" anything here. I explained to you what it is and what it is not. See, you are somewhat speculating on the matter, I'm not. Difference between knowledge and speculation. The problem here is that you are somewhat emotional on the matter and that makes this discussion somewhat unnerving and pointless, because you don't accept anything here, AMD is the "evil" for you and so on and so on. Emotional bullshit that is.

If you have a processor that goes up to a certain clock, but doesn't stay there due to heat or power consumption, then that clock is a turbo/boost clock. The base clock is whatever minimum clock speed the processor runs at. Even professional reviewers on very well known tech sites says they believed the 290X has an "unlisted base clock", and say "to only list the boost clock is being deceitful at best". But, hey, those professional reviewers must be idiots too...I'm sure you are way smarter, and know way more about graphics cards than they do.

Well I read some of those sites too and I think they are understanding it wrong, like you are, yes. It's no turbo. Again and again (and again and again...): IF it would be a turbo, the custom 290X's would not start at 1000 MHz or more (because it's their baseclock). They would start at 800 and go up to 1000 or more, like GPU Boost from Nvidia. Throtteling or downclocking to save energy and again clocking higher to normal speed is not the same as a turbo, because that normal speed is its base clock. Is that so hard for you to understand? Is it because you can't accept that it is something different special to AMD, that you are unable to accept it? Those website authors have that same logical problem btw.

Edit: A turbo is btw a temporal setting, the base clock of AMD cards like custom 290X is not temporal. If you can stress the card, it will stay at 1000 or more and never clock down. Nvidia cards on the other hand change their clocks all the time - like CPUs do. See, this is again proof that it's not a turbo. A turbo is temporal. This is a base clock, because with custom cards it is not temporal. Because with the Fury X it is not temporal if you can stress the card, at least.

AND there are websites that are exactly seeing it like me. Oops. That completely destroyed your argument I guess. Doesn't seem that it's me against the world, seems rather it's the ones who understand and the ones who do not.

Because, according to you, "AMD never betrayed anyone".

Maybe that statement was wrong, maybe not. Have you provided proof? No. You're a american? What was it again... "innocent until proven guilty". Seems like I win again. And I hope you know what I mean with "proof" - not what you did up to this point, no. I'm terribly sorry.

A fanboy is going to defend a company, try to explain away all their deceptive practices and act like they never even happened. Sound familiar? Yeah, it is what you keep doing. I don't care if you use Intel/nVidia products. Even fanboys will do that if they aren't completely stupid. A fanboy doesn't always have to use their favorite brand, but they will defend them and act like they are somehow better than the other companies. They'll defend clear wrong doing by the company like it hasn't even happened. This is what you are doing. You keep going on, "oh no, they never deceived anyone like Intel and nVidia" "they didn't retard overheating cards after the reviews were out, that never happened!" "they weren't deceptive in marking 1000MHz cards that couldn't actually run at 1000MHz"...

Nice try. *claps slowly* But not good enough. No I'm still no fanboy. I'm just more smart than you are and understand things you don't. But again, nice try in trying to bring me down to your emotional bullshit level. I'm no fanboy, because that is just not my level, you don't get it. And btw. my understanding of a fanatic is much more realistic than yours. YES fanatics will just buy their fanatic brand they will not care about performance, and yes they will defend everything and yes, they will never accept anything bad on their fanatized brand. You don't get what fanatism is, do you? No not even remotely. That's what I meant - I win.

Yeah, the reviewers of the cards, professionals that deal with graphics cards for a living, called the practice deceptive. But you think AMD never betrayed anyone, you have to defend that statement no matter what. So those professional reviewers must be completely wrong, right?

Links, quotes, proof? I don't accept your word. You are way too emotional and subjective for me to believe you.

Yeah...ok. This coming from the guy that still can't figure out the multi-quote feature.:rollsyeys:

lol I used it many times, but talk more bullshit and I will keep laughing at you.

I didn't ignore your system spec, I just didn't care what they were. Your comments and die hard intent to somehow prove that AMD is better than Intel and nVidia as a company, not product wise, is what makes you a fanboy.

1) you just said you are ignorant. Wow cool. You are an easy opponent. Smart would be to ignore NOTHING. Any information is useful. 2) Where did I say that AMD is better than Intel and Nvidia? Nowhere did I say that. That are just your dumb (negative) emotions that are making you fantasize these things. Something I already told you before, btw.

And you want to talk about ignoring system specs, I would have to click on something to see your system specs, and I don't really care enough to bother. However, my systems are put out in plain site, on every post I make. And yet, you failed to read them, and even went so far as to try to act like I'm the one that doesn't read. Wow...

Yep, but did I call you a fanboy? No. I called you a hater and negative person. You on the other hand called me fanboy, so, your argument is pretty pointless, because I didn't do anything wrong. Btw. I saw your signature many times.

Odd, doesn't feel like I've lost.

Oh but you have. Realizing it is something entirely else.