• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD accused of "Golden Sample" on 290X given to reviewers, retail bought cards throttling

Gregster said:
What was the last Nvidia card you reviewed Gibbo?
Click to expand...

780Ti, just not published yet. ;)
Oh and KFA2 780 HOF last week with the 290X review, infact in that review I test Titan, 780 reference, 780 HOF, R280X, R290, R290X.

I also tested yesterday Gigabyte 780 GHz and Inno3D 780 iChill, both with B1 stepping cores and shared the results, one managed 1245MHz and the other 1280MHz. The EVGA 780 Classified we tested today managed 1375MHz core and shall be featured in tomorrows review, which 8 Pack shall publish.

8 Pack shall be publishing the results tomorrow. :)

Before that I believe it was Gigabyte WindForce GTX 770 when the GTX 770's first came out showing how well they boost out the box, so much so they were giving stock 780 performance more or less. :)

My NVIDIA GTX 670 REVIEW: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18402134&highlight=review+username_Gibbo

My NVIDIA GTX 680 REVIEW: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18385861&highlight=review+username_Gibbo

My NVIDIA vs AMD: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18357457&highlight=review+username_Gibbo


Infact my last review featured NVIDIA cards and AMD, the two before it were soley NVIDIA and the one before those was AMD and NVIDIA.

My R290 Pro review is the first AMD ONLY review in a long time, so certainly fair from my standpoint. :)
 
tommybhoy said:
Maybe he just reviews gpu's that let you add voltage to oc the nuts off them.;):p:D
Click to expand...

Oh_No_You_Didn__t-300x277.jpg


:D
 
tommybhoy said:
LOL petey.



Maybe he just reviews gpu's that let you add voltage to oc the nuts off them.;):p:D
Click to expand...

There is some truth to that, if I get something to play with and it can't overclock, it goes in the junk pile.

Example the B1 stepping cards I tested, in the believe from all the internets hype of them being the new king of overclocking stepping, I thought, mmmmm 1400MHz on air maybe, when they failed to do 1300MHz, got thrown in the junk pile. :D

Classified both me and 8 Pack mega impressed with though, its the old stepping and does 1375MHz stable, even runs at 1400MHz but not stable enough.

Oh and 780Ti, clocks pretty damn well guys by the way. ;)
 
Joking around, changing the subject, no serious discussion, might as well just close this thread.

AMD said:
A media outlet has uniquely reported instances of AMD Radeon R9 290X boards purchased in retail that have exhibited an uncharacteristic level of performance variance as compared to press samples issued by AMD. We’re working to secure the board(s) in question for further analysis.
Click to expand...

No denial.

AMD said:
Boards purchased by other media outlets have not exhibited similar characteristics that we’re aware of.
Click to expand...

Only that they are aware of, unless those places do their own comparisons they can't possibly know.

AMD said:
In the meantime, we’ve identified areas where variability can be minimized and are working on a driver update which will minimize this variance.
Click to expand...

Here they admit to the 'variability' which you all deny.

Again I would ask if this is not a very real issue then why would AMD market these cards without any mention of a base clock and as "up to 1ghz", avoid a lawsuit perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Eh? ALL graphics cards perform somewhat variability. There is nothing to deny. People are not denying that cards vary, just suggesting the conspiracy theorists are being a bit nutty cause one outlet got a better press sample than the retail ones they bought. OCUK are a counter example where the press samples were worse than the retail ones they tried. That's what happens with variance.

With the thermal throttling strategy AMD have chosen the different cards will vary more by clock speed and less by fan speed than on most releases.
 
Personally I think the whole "boost" situation is totally messed up, I liked it when we had a simple "this card runs at #MHz" then Nvidia started doing "This card is clocked at #MHz but will run faster depending on cooling" and now we have AMD saying "This card will do up to #MHz depending on cooling". They could have at least gone for similar methods so not to confuse the consumer...
 
ubersonic said:
Personally I think the whole "boost" situation is totally messed up, I liked it when we had a simple "this card runs at #MHz" then Nvidia started doing "This card is clocked at #MHz but will run faster depending on cooling" and now we have AMD saying "This card will do up to #MHz depending on cooling". They could have at least gone for similar methods so not to confuse the consumer...
Click to expand...

Agreed, boost is annoying, just give us a core speed and let the users do the overclocking.

In my view AMD would have done far better to have done:-

R290 Pro - 800MHz core with lower Vcore default, this would have meant cooler running, no throttling issues and even quieter.

R290X - 925MHz core again with lower Vcore default, same again cooler and quieter.

Then just let the customer overclock, even with the above clock speeds they'd still be damn quick and at the price points they are at people would be very happy. If they wanted to make the performance back up from the lower core, just default the memory speed too 5600MHz as they will all happily do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom