![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1715876891){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 39,100
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card PAPER Launch @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,594
Zarathustra[H];1041835044 said:Lol, I joined 2.7 years before you. What does that make me?
Hmm....Walker Racer? LOL
With all due respect, what you're willing to buy is irrelevant. Are you reviewing products based on what you are looking to purchase or based on what some people, in the market today, are looking to purchase?
The R9 Nano is a niche product to fit the needs of a certain segment of the market that has, contrary to your personal wants and needs, demanded this product.
While I agree with you, and the Hard staff, that this was a dumbheaded move by AMD (to deny you a review sample) talking about GTX 980 Ti or Fury-X is irrelevant.
There is a growing market, just visit others forums as well as social media when you get the chance, for mITX builds. The smaller the "cooler". It's the same thing which has propelled the sales of computers on a stick.
This market is looking to cram as much performance as possible into as small of a form factor as possible. It's a real market and it is growing. $650? These people will PAY IT! I know, sounds insane, but they'll pay it for the same reasons I paid an enormous amount of cash for my Cosmos II (opposite direction) with two R9 290x's at launch on a 3930K custom water cooled build. They're small form factor enthusiasts. Just wait and see... you'll be surprised when you notice the R9 Nano outselling the Fury-X.
As for AMD, the Internet ought to do what it does best... spread the word on their denials of review samples. I will say that you may have shot yourself in the foot with your emphasis on "PAPER" Launch. That still shouldn't have given AMD reason to deny you a sample. I agree fully.
But on another note... you haven't covered the Asynchronous Compute scandal because you don't think it important (when Async Compute titles are launching this fall and Q1 2016)? You didn't think it important that nVIDIA tried to pressure a game developer into dropping a feature which made them look bad either? Is that in your readers best interests? What about the PC Gaming community as a whole? We already dish out a ton of money on hardware. We don't get freebies. Most of us care about unethical business practices (just glance over the web over the last few days).
Now you're willing to create a scandal because you haven't received a Free Sample? Are you journalists or 3rd party Public Relations officials?
You don't dictate what people will buy, n'or their need or their wants. Report the news, report on the performance of hardware and discuss the scandals. Because that's what people care about. That may not be what nVIDIA and AMD care about... but it's what the people care about.
Remember who you do these reviews for... please don't lost sight of that.
Obviously AMD's current GCN architecture is not competitive in terms of perf/watt, perf/sq mm and perf/transistor against Maxwell. So any amount of aggressive pricing is a lost cause because Nvidia can easily cut prices and crush AMD as they have the better cost structure and have already made a killing the last 9-12 months with GTX 980/GTX 970/GTX Titan X sales. AMD's pricing is not good but imo they realize they have lost this generation to Nvidia so they are going to try and make as much money as possible. Since AMD is more or less supply limited on Fiji it does not harm to price it high. The pricing is bad but if AMD sells out whatever they make then its a good strategy. AMD are bleeding cash and any extra money could help.
Maxwell is going to sell much more no matter what because AMD does not have Nvidia's brand value and to make it worse AMD have an inferior product stack in terms of perf and efficiency. AMD's supply on these Fiji cards is woeful and the cost structure is not suitable for very aggressive pricing. a 596 sq mm die with a 1011 sq mm interposer and 4GB HBM is not cheap.Yields are not going to be great on such a massive die. Even the GTX 980 Ti which is the highest volume GM200 SKU is not a fully enabled GM200. AMD is stuck with selling a 512 bit memory bus based R9 390/R9 390X against a 256 bit memory bus based GTX 970/GTX 980. We know that a larger memory bus means more PCB layers and higher costs. Not to forget R9 390/R9 390X cards need better power circuitry and cooling to handle the extremely power inefficient Hawaii / Grenada GPU. Similarly 601 sq mm GM200 with 6 GB GDDR5 is definitely going to be cheaper than 596 sq mm Fiji on a 1011 sq mm interposer with 4 GB of HBM (which is a bleeding edge memory technology and likely to have higher costs). AMD has paid the price for not making a significantly improved architecture and a fully new GPU stack at 28nm like Nvidia Maxwell. AMD's only hope is if Zen and GCN2 are competitive otherwise they are history.
Its unfortunate that the GPU industry now resembles the CPU industry with a dominant monopoly in both markets -Intel and Nvidia. AMD's current situation is a result of multiple factors but the main reason is that wretched Bulldozer core which systematically destroyed the company's market market share and revenues. Even during the Phenom II days AMD were better off. Their server market share was 10% and their desktop CPUs sold better. But once Bulldozer launched it just went from bad to miserable. AMD's server market share today of 1-1.5% is a joke. AMD's FX desktop CPUs just don't sell because they suck against even the half a decade old venerable 2600k. Hell before Skylake even Intel's own Haswell 4790k and 3770k did not provide a big step up from 2600k in terms of overclocked performance as the max overclocks were lower on ivy/haswell compared to sandy.
Until AMD can come out next gen and compete with Nvidia in terms of perf/watt, perf/sq mm and perf/transistor they don't stand a chance. AMD is dead (if they aren't already) if Zen and GCN2 fail.
I hope for the consumer's sake and for the overall health of the computer industry that AMD come back and surprise us. But I also realise I am expecting too much from a company weakened by years of mismanagement, failed architectures / products, free falling revenues and mounting losses.
Last edited:
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
And we were preparing to evaluate Nano in its intended environment. The moment I called Kyle he was in the middle of getting me an SFF system together. Whatever the outcome, the Nano would get a fair comparison setup, as we do with all video cards.
But that is what it was, and not just the first one, a second paper launch at that. Remember back in June when the Nano was first announced, and hardware held up to show us all that it existed? That was the first paper launch.
The day you can't call a duck a duck, what's the point.
I see no scandal. People are jumping off their rocker over information that is not accurate and a lot of he said she said.
We have no DX12 games we have tested at this time. I can't make conclusions based on something I haven't tested nor is available. We will make real-world gameplay performance evaluations when the games exist, or there is a DX12 patch for a game. Everyone wants to put the cart before the horse. Like a lot of things lately, blown out of proportion so that fanboys can bicker back and forth. We aren't going to get caught up in that. We will see the results when we do real-world game testing in these games, the truth on performance, image quality, and the game experience delivered will come out in the end in each game.
Last edited:
BullsEyeBob
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,661
I tried to take a middle of the road approach with this round from AMD but they are smoking crack.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
Because it worked out so well for Matrox's Parhelia 512 and 3dfx's Voodoo5... Selling a premium priced card that is lacking premium performance is a recipe for failure.
Only in between shooting up some smack and when the AMD opium den goes dry.
meanmodda[H]
Gawd
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Messages
- 526
Nano was the first AMD card I was looking forward to in a long time, too bad. Count on H to rattle the cage though
Already pointed out:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041834750&postcount=564
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041834846&postcount=586
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041834890&postcount=591
Basically, the post you quoted consisted of two completely different parts.
Kyle left the call, and THEN he thought about AMD's value proposition, he didn't leave the call because he had the thought.
No, not the hanging up part. I mean the post itself.
"Apparently AMD puts a lot of value in underclocking a GPU, putting it on a smaller PCB, deleting the water cooler, and calling it Nano."
It looks like they have already made up their mind and drawn their conclusion.
Nvidia can charge up the ass with the titan series, makes sense for amd to do the same with the nano if they can get away with it in that market segment. I would not buy one for that price, but I'm not the target willing to pay that premium.
The case of Titan X and the case of Fury are two completely different cases.
The reason nVidia can charge up the rear for their Titan X is because it is the top single core GPU for gaming on the market at the moment. This caters to two crowds: nVidia loyalists who wants nothing but the best that nVidia has to offer, and those who don't care for the company, but just wants whatever is the best.
AMD is charging through the rear for their top card, makes sense if your target is at the third crowd: AMD loyalists who wants nothing but the best that AMD has to offer.
To the rest of the crowd it makes very little sense, certainly. I don't think it can be disputed, right now, that in the $650 segment, nVidia wins with the 980ti.
The reason nVidia can charge up the rear for their Titan X is because it is the top single core GPU for gaming on the market at the moment. This caters to two crowds: nVidia loyalists who wants nothing but the best that nVidia has to offer, and those who don't care for the company, but just wants whatever is the best.
AMD is charging through the rear for their top card, makes sense if your target is at the third crowd: AMD loyalists who wants nothing but the best that AMD has to offer.
To the rest of the crowd it makes very little sense, certainly. I don't think it can be disputed, right now, that in the $650 segment, nVidia wins with the 980ti.
MisterHipster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 503
>.< ..... Not sure what to say. Damn. Bad luck.
Might be a good PR move though. I dunno.
Might be a good PR move though. I dunno.
§kynet
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 414
When you can buy a 980Ti in the same form factor as Nano then you can compare.
Given the (justified or not) negative tone in previous articles about AMD, it seems not far-fetched that AMD thinks [H] might not be impartial and already made up their mind on the R9 Nano.
A review would likely complain about the price and lack of HDMI 2.0 and therefore not recommend this card. So (from AMD perspective) what gain would they have from sending a card for review?
Yet I think it is a poor decision by AMD to not supply a review sample. Despite voicing strong negative opinions about AMD, [H] reviews e.g. included an extra round of non-GameWorks test to let readers make up their own mind on that controversy.
A review would likely complain about the price and lack of HDMI 2.0 and therefore not recommend this card. So (from AMD perspective) what gain would they have from sending a card for review?
Yet I think it is a poor decision by AMD to not supply a review sample. Despite voicing strong negative opinions about AMD, [H] reviews e.g. included an extra round of non-GameWorks test to let readers make up their own mind on that controversy.
§kynet
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 414
The Ti which YOU compared it to.
kcthebrewer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,728
§kynet;1041835189 said:
Until reviews come out, we don't know what to properly compare the Nano to (I know you were referring to a full size 980Ti, but whatever
).All AMD has stated is that it blows the 970 away - 30% faster. They also showed slides of the Fury X beating the 980Ti by 10-40% before it was released.
If it is slightly slower (5-10%) than a Fury X in that form factor, it will be an amazing product - even for that price. It also may only be 10-20% faster than a 970. And if you bring overclocking into it - it may end up being a draw.
That said, there is little to no market for this card and they likely should have only sold it through OEMs only.
-------------------
What I am expecting is that there will be sites that run an open bench and sites that put it in a case and the throttling results are going to differ quite a lot.
Last edited:
§kynet;1041835204 said:
Erm, no.
You said to compare Nano to 980ti when the latter is in the same small form factor as the former.
But, we don't know what Nano is capable of doing, so we have nothing to compare Nano to, not even 980ti if it was released in the same small form factor.
Because we know literally nothing about the performance of Nano, I did not include that particular card in that statement, that's why I said 'right now', Nano isn't part of the 'right now'
§kynet
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 414
Extrapolating the performance of Nano is actually very straightforward, the only up in the air aspect is what clocks will be on average maintained. As for the comparison you said the Ti is the best thing out there at $650 and gave no other criteria or conditions, and seeing this is a Nano thread the obvious inference is you were comparing Nano and the Ti.
§kynet;1041834433 said:
I wish it was the case that AMD had such a great card that they were selling droves of $650 GPUs, because they really need more success to survive at this point, and high-end GPUs usually have good margins on them.
Unfortunately the reason for them not being in stock seems to be extremely limited supply, which means they can price their cards high and still sell them all, but that doesn't make it a good proposition for the consumer. Not pointing out the mediocre value of the cards would be a disservice to [H]ardOCP's readers.
Have you done CF Fury X vs 980Ti SLI yet?
Btw, your lineup only makes sense if all you did was played a few games, with GameWorks features on. But that seems to be [H] summed up, go here to see how AMD hardware stack up in a bias suite of FEW games.
You should include Project Cars, make sure its raining heavily, because those droplets falling represents your credibility as a hardware site that's neutral, objective.
Seriously what kind of objective reviewer thinks its a good idea to post how he hang up on AMD because their product is beyond his grasp of the niche market they are aiming it at? Don't you realize mITX is a very popular niche these days?
Last edited:
Now why would they do that ? hardocp won't want to show that Fury X CF is competing well with GTX 980 Ti SLI especially at 4k where the GPU horsepower is needed. Do you think hardocp would show throttling 980 Ti cards in SLI
http://www.hardware.fr/focus/111/crossfire-radeon-r9-fury-x-fiji-vs-gm200-round-2.html
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/radeon-fury-x-geforce-980-ti-crossfire-sli-ultra-hd-12k/2/
that one was really good.
See with hardocp their only way of judging a product is price/perf except when its the Titan or Titan X or any other crazily priced Nvidia flagship GPU.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
To chose a game, based on whether it has AMD 3D effects, or NVIDIA 3D effects would be biased. Therefore, we do not do this. We chose games that are new, popular, forward looking, and GPU intensive. If you are unhappy with new games using GameWorks features, please talk to the game developer who has chosen to use those effects. Or, turn the features OFF, if you do not like added graphics in your game. Personally, I like improved 3D effects and want to see visual quality in games evolve, the game developer decides what technologies to implement. I do not want image quality to stagnate, I yearn for the best image quality I can get in every game I play.
What's so popular and forward looking about Dying Light, Project Cars or Batman AK (which you guys said you wanted to include in your suite!) or FC4? You are free to look up the concurrent players for those titles.
FC4 was one of the worse, bug-ridden, failed in SLI with texture bugs, broken CF which required an official patch to fix. Few even play it a month or two after its release.
So out of your 4 categories, only new and GPU intensive need apply. If you want "popular" to also apply, you can easily go here: http://steamcharts.com/top
Pick a few newer ones that are GPU intensive or ones with nice graphics (forward looking).
------------------------
Besides this point, the major criticism I see from your readers, is your blame on AMD for poor performance in GameWorks titles.
Do you or do you not agree that having publicly available source code for rendering features is a massive help for the task of optimizations?
Oh btw, paper launches have happened from all hardware vendors over the years, that's nothing shocking.
Given your limited test suite can you give one solid reason to choose a game like Dying Light and ignore a game like Dragon Age Inquisition which is a vastly better game, more popular and even better reviewed both critically by press and by gamers. In fact Dragon Age Inquisition has won numerous GAME OF THE YEAR awards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age:_Inquisition#Accolades
I say this because you yourself have said that turning on Nvidia DOF in Dying Light, which is a Gameworks feature, hurts AMD GPU performance. This kind of intentional black box performance crippling does not occur on AMD Gaming Evolved titles. AMD GE titles are a testament to how AAA titles need to be developed and launched. They are much more stable than the buggy trash Gameworks titles are at launch. They perform well both on AMD and Nvidia cards both in single and multi GPU, They are also a better example of how open technologies are what drive the gaming industry forward. When you benchmarked Tress FX did you ever see a Nvidia card perform much worse than a competing AMD card eg: GTX 680 vs HD 7970.
AMD GE does not cripple the competition with black box code. Thats the difference between the trash Gameworks and AMD GE. Tress FX is open and you will see the glory of Tress FX 3.0 in Deus Ex Mankind Divided when it releases in Feb 2016.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I will link you to here, as my response. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is closed. I have heard all sides, and I'm going to trust what the gaming results themselves tell us.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041835340&postcount=111
Your reply has got so many logical holes its not even funny. Firstly about the assertion that Gameworks features do not affect performance on AMD cards.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/5#.VemQfPmqqko
"Now we have disabled GameWorks features altogether in this game below. We have turned off HBAO and are just using SSAO. We have turned off the NVIDIA Depth of Field option as well.
Performance jumped up on the ASUS STRIX R9 Fury. The Fury is now 31% faster than the GeForce GTX 980. The setting holding back performance seems to be the NVIDIA Depth of Field in this game. The GTX 980 can render it much better, the Fury not so much."
Thats your review where you categorically pick the Gameworks features apart which hits AMD cards badly. Now are you going to deny that its your review.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,727
Actually both were covered equally. Both were posted as news stories on the front page with a link to a forum thread.
As for Async Compute, it will be covered when/if we see it used in games for sure. Just like we do with every other feature that comes along.
Not surprisingly gaming and compute are increasingly now inseparable. Maybe you should just enlighten yourself with compute shaders.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/johan-andersson-battlefield-4-interview,3688.html
Chris: How does Frostbite 3 build on what you're doing with DirectCompute?
Johan: We have support for the compute shader; that's essentially our most important part. We’ve significantly optimized the lighting compute shader since BF3, also of doing more optimizations on that which is quite nice. We've also done some work of doing some of our blurring and post-processes inside it. Oh, and our sprite depth of field actually uses a compute shader. We use this on Ultra detail settings for the PC to get sort of the bokeh shape for our depth of field. The compute shader sort of orchestrates of all that to make sure it routes a really good performance. Then we render it using the graphics pipeline. We've sort of gotten our feet wet in quite a few different places with DirectCompute and going forward I think it will be really important for us to optimize performance further with it.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
Wait, what? "Should [H] target AMD weakness's and write about it? No." I think your use of 'target' is a bit heavy handed.
I want to know what features I am NOT getting compared to the competition. Not only that but I want to know how detrimental NOT having that feature(s) is going to effect me. That's what journalism is all about.
Look, I read the Fury review here on HardOCP, so did thousands and thousands of others. It was one POV. I also read other reviews on other sites and I thought some of them played it safe. HardOCP struck a balance as best they could showcasing shortcomings, disappointment but also highlighted some of the cards strengths.
While I'm pretty good at doing research and formulating my own plan when it comes to hardware, I still need to know all the good and all the bad. I think HardOCP was just one of a very few that touched on the HDMI 2.0 issue. That's a big big deal to a lot of us. I've been champing large displays for years ever since the original Westy and even before that with 21" Nokia's and Sony's.
I want to know what features I am NOT getting compared to the competition. Not only that but I want to know how detrimental NOT having that feature(s) is going to effect me. That's what journalism is all about.
Look, I read the Fury review here on HardOCP, so did thousands and thousands of others. It was one POV. I also read other reviews on other sites and I thought some of them played it safe. HardOCP struck a balance as best they could showcasing shortcomings, disappointment but also highlighted some of the cards strengths.
While I'm pretty good at doing research and formulating my own plan when it comes to hardware, I still need to know all the good and all the bad. I think HardOCP was just one of a very few that touched on the HDMI 2.0 issue. That's a big big deal to a lot of us. I've been champing large displays for years ever since the original Westy and even before that with 21" Nokia's and Sony's.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,727
Because it worked out so well for Matrox's Parhelia 512 and 3dfx's Voodoo5... Selling a premium priced card that is lacking premium performance is a recipe for failure.
Only in between shooting up some smack and when the AMD opium den goes dry.
I had not thought about the paralel to the Matrox Parhelia. Matrox did the same thing with us. I flew to California for its PAPER launch, covered it, and when it came time for samples Matrox cut HardOCP out.
So AMD does a PAPER launch and I cannot voice an opinion based on the documents it gave us? If you are going to PAPER launch a card, be ready for some PAPER opinions.
§kynet;1041835189 said:
Well since the TITAN X is NVIDIA's flagship cards, like the Fury X is for AMD, shouldn't the TITAN X get the "nano" treatment? There have even been rumors of this happening.....soon.
We have been doing this for 15 years. People have been talking about HardOCP bias for all of those 15 years, not just the last 1 or 2. You are way off base on your thought here. One day we are biased for AMD, the next for NVIDIA....over and over and over. The way we review video cards was actually an idea I had that was spawned after Brent and I left ATI offices in Canada.
Bahanime, you are a liar. Now you are one of those guys just making shit up in your head and spewing it out onto your keyboard. The only thing getting deleted around here is spam and off topic posting in order to try and keep the thread somewhat on topic. If I deleted all the posts around here that I did not agree with, well, I might not have time to respond to yours.
If I am a shill, please tell me where to pick up my check. AMD nor NVIDIA do any advertising with HardOCP any more. And I really do want my shill check...from either company as we flip flop on bias all the time.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
In June AMD announced during the live streaming event the Nano. It was held up to show us hardware. That was the "announcement"
On August 26th the briefing was proposed as an upcoming launch for the 27th, an official press release was given to editors, as well as a PDF with a launch date and time the material could be posted. It was the intention of AMD for editors to post said material at the launch date.
Hardware was not provided at the launch date, as it usually is. Instead, it was the 2nd launch, of the launch, that is later to come, the actual launch, a week later. I don't think Nano needs 3 launches personally, but, maybe it does? Regardless, all we had to show you on the 27th was a PDF, which is the equivalent of paper in the computer world.
Terminus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,838
I'm kind of torn here guys.
So AMD gets called out on the front page (understandably the way they been acting) but you let Intel get away with their shitty Skylake paper launch and spinning the press about shitty security features and 30% performance increases every generation, which have been flat out lies.
Aren't we supposed to be neutral here?
So AMD gets called out on the front page (understandably the way they been acting) but you let Intel get away with their shitty Skylake paper launch and spinning the press about shitty security features and 30% performance increases every generation, which have been flat out lies.
Aren't we supposed to be neutral here?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,727
This is interesting, but the fact is that it is a PAPER launch. We have lobbied hard against GPU companies in the past to stop that trend and I would say that we were successful in doing that.
Does PAPER launch have a negative connotation? Yes. I think it should.
But I do find this very interesting and your might too. Here is a cut and paste from an email from Earned Media, the PR company that AMD is using now to help with its launches. (I am not sure why AMD would go out of house for this, but whatever.)
The bolded text is for emphasis placed by me, not Earned Media.
Do you see what I see there? Even AMD's own PR company called it a "paper launch" publicly. I would suggest this will not happen again, but you calling us out on this like we are out to get someone is ludicrous. The Nano launch was a paper launch, HardOCP called it what it was, and ever AMD's own PR company called it what it was.....a PAPER launch.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,561
Zarathustra[H];1041835044 said:Lol, I joined 2.7 years before you. What does that make me?
The first [H] member to routinely post from a retirement home?
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,421
AMD needs better PR... no one in their right mind calls their product a paper launch...
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,727
Play the games, use the graphical features exposed in those games, and share our data and opinions is exactly what we will do.
I don't think skylake was a paper launch just low availability. Reviews still had hardware to release benchmarks and the product was available for sale. IIRC [H] pointed out that it was nothing special and there was pretty much no reason to upgrade if you already have an oc'd second gen or newer i series cpu.
and I think intels claim was something along the lines of; performance advantages of up to 30 per cent on a 3 year old PC, 20 per cent on a two year old PC, and 10 per cent on a one year old PC. That comes to a 10 % boost per gen which is what we have seen.
§kynet
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 414
You have a funny definition of popular plus your criteria is heavily loaded with subjectivity. You know what's really interesting? This site criticized TWIMTBP but has no problems with GameWorks which is an amplification of the concept. We'll see if you consider AMD sponsored titles that heavily use the DX12 standard Async Compute as "popular" and include all of those in your test suite.
Also I believe this site refused to bench an AMD sponsored game due to effects that ran poorly on Nvidia hardware. My memory is a bit fuzzy I'm sure someone can find the link.