That comment ended up being extremely accurate though.
If people want reviewers to stop sugarcoating things then they shouldn't complain when things aren't sugarcoated. The GM204 release did mess up AMD's GPU sales. And it's still doing so a year after release. The comment was pretty much 100%...
So what's your argument exactly?
That AMD not sending a sample is proof of bias against AMD?
Because again let's be honest here, the review TR posted was more than fair (again only 4K testing done and a decent mix of titles) and their video content for the card was pretty much the most...
Why yes, it's obvious why a site that ran only 4K benchmarks in their Fury X review and had more gaming evolved titles than TWIMTBP titles tested isn't getting a review sample.
Quite disgusting bias really. In order to be fair and balanced they should have only ran GE titles with all cards...
You can't possibly be trying to pull the "but they use CPU PhysX" angle here... CPU PhysX is extremely common and only gets complained about when people are grasping for straws. Not only that but it's perfectly fine multithreading and instruction set wise these days.
Also are you seriously so...
ARK does not have any gameworks in it.
(even the article you linked says so, they're just interested in adding them in the future)
Project CARS does not have any gameworks in it.
(turbulence was planned, never added)
OP why are you trying to blame poor performance in games without...
All the arguments bringing up yields are assuming that the Nano is some sort of a good deal and a price/perf product.
There's no yield issue if the Nano is priced high and niche while the Fury X offers the flagship performance.
The normal Fury would vastly outsell both of those cards...
I don't understand this argument at all. Do people not remember any of the previous generations?
Cut a couple of SMXs and massively reduce the price is the standard tactic that nvidia always goes with when it comes to the 2nd tier card made from the same GPU.
Always happens.
Happened...
The problem here is that you just don't understand how AMD's and NV's boost functionality differs.
AMD's spec sheets give you the maximum boost that the card can reach. You can throttle below this point but usually non ref cards or watercooled ones (fury) don't.
NV on the other hand...
1) Titan came out first with no competition
2) Titan is still the fastest ref card
3) Nvidia also offers the 980Ti as a solution
Problem here is that AMD came into a competitive market with competing cards already selling at set price points and they couldn't quite match the 980Ti that was...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.