Nvidia - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

[tommybhoy]

@tommybhoy

I don't think he's gonna be able to field a coherent answer.

Probably not, it'll likely be a diversionary tactic of slating AMD some other way under the guise of -'it's only because of the pro AMD crowd in here'-even though the reality of it all is it's an ever dwindling AMD user base these days.

I'm also curious as to how he thinks I'm being pro AMD after calling them incompetent multiple times and pointing out that I didn't buy some of their cards because of it.

What GM doesn't get is that being negative to Nv doesn't equate to being pro AMD, especially when they have had nothing for me to be pro AMD for years now-or it doesn't matter and just wants to bait, idk anymore because one guy in this thread alone is more pro Nv than the whole of the people in here with the opinion of dodgy stuff happening but that's not an issue....

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

All I'm reading too, he's saying it happened, doesn't say ~'Jim from Adorned posted my adress'.



But in relation to what's asked that you even quoted regarding your claim of AMD bias forum spin, you can't have 980 performance at the start, because it has nothing to do with the relation of your claim.

Again, (as either you couldn't have understood a really simple example or you can't answer honestly enough without looking ***insert what ever you feel isn't offensive***) I'll try and simplify it even more:

For £300 it's either a 970 on optimised drivers or a largely slower 290 on non optimised drivers, over 18 months, the 290 performance overtakes the 970 performance and matches the next card up -the faster £450 980 but the 970 remains static at 970 levels as it was super duper highly optimised to it's stupendulous driver godliness levels of greatness from day 1.

But from what you are saying the 290 isn't a better deal, it's absolutely rubbish in every way because it was a wee bit slower(not much mind, just a wee bit remember) than the 970 at launch, it's only a bias AMD forum spin feature to make AMD look better, you don't actually benefit at all, you don't get 'free' performance upgrades, it's a bad feature?

Which is actually a fallacy of trying to spin the 'driver performance over time' scenario as an AMD negative-which ironically is usually delivered when trying to put AMD in a bad light.

So you'd rather not have optimised drivers on day 1 because then it seems like you're getting a better deal when it is optimised 18 months later?

I'd rather have optimised drivers sooner rather than later. That way I've had the good performance for the 18 months I'd have to wait if I chose to have drivers improve over time to get to the same level.

If Nvidia took 12 months to release drivers that enable SLI on their cards, I wouldn't think it's a positive that in 12 months I'll get a huge performance boost, I'd rather have SLI support from the start. Would you try to spin that as getting almost double the performance in 12 months time when they enable SLI? Or would you want both cards to work from the start?

EDIT: I'm not saying AMD do it on purpose, I'm just saying I'd rather have optimised drivers at the start than in 18 months time. In a theoretical situation.

 

[tommybhoy]

So you'd rather not have optimised drivers on day 1 because then it seems like you're getting a better deal when it is optimised 18 months later?

I'd rather have optimised drivers sooner rather than later. That way I've had the good performance for the 18 months I'd have to wait if I chose to have drivers improve over time to get to the same level.

If Nvidia took 12 months to release drivers that enable SLI on their cards, I wouldn't think it's a positive that in 12 months I'll get a huge performance boost, I'd rather have SLI support from the start. Would you try to spin that as getting almost double the performance in 12 months time when they enable SLI? Or would you want both cards to work from the start?

Ignoring the diversionary SLi scenario, as I called you out on your claims of AMD bias forum spin, of course it's a better deal, an almost identical performance delta negates ANY optimised day 1 drivers-period!

One gpu that massively improves over the other one, hypothetically reverse the vendors around-it stays the same mate, which sane neutral PC user doesn't think that's a bonus and for the third time-how can it equate to AMD bias forum spin?

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Ignoring the diversionary SLi scenario, as I called you out on your claims of AMD bias forum spin, of course it's a better deal, an almost identical performance delta negates ANY optimised day 1 drivers-period!

One gpu that massively improves over the other one, hypothetically reverse the vendors around-it stays the same mate, which sane neutral PC user doesn't think that's a bonus and for the third time-how can it equate to AMD bias forum spin?

How is it a plus to have to wait 18 months to get performance rather than getting it on day 1?
Who would seriously choose to wait 18 months to get the performance?
How is saying it's better to wait 18 months rather than get performance day 1 not showing bias to the company that takes 18 months?
If it were Nvidia doing it I can't imagine the same people would be spinning it as a positive. If the 1080 was released with 1070 performance and had only recently gotten to the level it's at now I don't think that would be better than it releasing with 1080 performance and not gaining too much. But here we're constantly told that when AMD do this that it's a good thing. How is that not AMD bias?

 

[tommybhoy]

How is it a plus to have to wait 18 months to get performance rather than getting it on day 1?

You didn't wait for anything, both were almost equal, you only waited 18 months to get the full ~+23% performance gained by incremental updates over the 18 month period.

If you can't work out -2% day 1 performance or 98% day 1 performance(non optimised driver) V 100% day 1 performance(full optimised driver) = 'Almost equal performance delta' then honestly you shouldn't be getting into conversations you can't comprehend and/or being deliberately obtuse, trolling.

Who would seriously choose to wait 18 months to get the performance?

Again as above impossible to wait when both start almost equal

How is saying it's better to wait 18 months rather than get performance day 1 not showing bias to the company that takes 18 months?

If you increase performance from ~-2% to ~+25% over the space of 18 months then there is no bias it's merit unless you simply refuse to give said merit because it's AMD.

If it were Nvidia doing it I can't imagine the same people would be spinning it as a positive.

If Nvidia increase performance from ~-2% to ~+25% over 18 months(like I already stated above by swapping the vendors), it would be the same outcome and cause it's Nv they would market it at least twice as good as AMD know how to, and of course it should be applauded, I certainly would and the majority would also, you'd be laughing at anyone not agreeing it was anything but positive achievement wouldn't you?

If the 1080 was released with 1070 performance and had only recently gotten to the level it's at now I don't think that would be better than it releasing with 1080 performance and not gaining too much. But here we're constantly told that when AMD do this that it's a good thing. How is that not AMD bias?

IF is irrelevant, nothing remotely happened the way you are trying to flip it, you're making it up as you go along to try and stay valid so there's no point trying to add some kind of bias validity into it.

You are trying to suggest a £450 290 went head to head with a £300 970 and didn't get to the £450 performance for 18 months, it didn't happen, if it did then no one in their right mind would be saying anything but it's rubbish.

However using your 1080 v 1070 scenario but pricing them both the same@£400 is exactly what's been happening except you bought the under performing 1080 for 1070 money that didn't perform to it's peak for 18 months, but it only cost 1070 money so you can only gain you can't possibly lose-it's impossible, you would have to be thick beyond comprehension to state otherwise.

And yes I'd take that scenario every single time as it costs the same money at the same performance delta from day 1.

 

[TNA]

You didn't wait for anything, both were almost equal, you only waited 18 months to get the full ~+23% performance gained by incremental updates over the 18 month period.

If you can't work out -2% day 1 performance or 98% day 1 performance(non optimised driver) V 100% day 1 performance(full optimised driver) = 'Almost equal performance delta' then honestly you shouldn't be getting into conversations you can't comprehend and/or being deliberately obtuse, trolling.

Surely he is trolling.

It is a huge plus, how could one possibly not see that?

 

[D.P.]

Surely he is trolling.

It is a huge plus, how could one possibly not see that?

But that is generally not how it works. The initial AMD offering is usually lower in performance with drivers that are less mature, with the hope being in time the drivers will close the gap and maybe even surpass the Nvidia offering, but that might take at least 2 years. The AMD card being cheaper and offering equal performance 2 years form now is not particularly interesting to most people.

Of course if the price difference is bigger and the performance difference at release small then the AMd can be very good value for money. The downside is when the initial reviews are made the AMD cards aren't shown in the best light. This is why Nvidia put so much resources in to release day drivers, and that in itself is potentially why the previous generation tends to flat-line because so much of the driver team is focused on the up and coming release. This is good for consumers (best performance for new product) and business (best reviews).


Anyway, my only real point is there is zero evidence of Nvidia purposely hampering performance of older cards and there is certainly no way to compare nvidia driver gains to AMD driver gains in a product life time because there are numerous reason why they may progress at different rates. Nvidia could easily limit how much optimizations appear in release day drivers and trickle out the performance gains with some "Fine wine" marketing scheme but that is bad for consumers and bad for business.

 

[subbytna]

My point was that AMD do what you said Nvidia do too. Whether you buy it or not doesn't change that fact.

But it's bad when Nvidia do it and fine when AMD do it right? I'm sure someone will have some excuse.

It's true that AMD cards get better over time. Nvidia release near optimal performance driver around the time the card is released, AMD get to that point 18 months after the card is released. Somehow having to wait 18 months to get optimised drivers has been spun to be a plus point for AMD. And I'm sure some people will claim these are not AMD biased forums...

Nvidia has done a LOT more things than AMD. Both companies have done some dodgy stuff but Nvidia have done WAY more naughty things than AMD. WAAAAAY MORE.

Long term, talking 15 years, AMD's drivers have out performed Nvidia's drivers by a country mile. AMD eek out much more performance from theirs wheras Nvidia don't. Given the bags of cash Nvidia have, that's a poor return to their customers.

AMD have not as much cash to spend on driver optimisation. So to update the drivers as often as we the paying punter would like, they offer a better return than Nvidia. This is coming from a guy who has had both AMD and Nvidia cards for a good 15 years....owned more Nvidia cards than AMD cards too.

 

[TNA]

But that is generally not how it works. The initial AMD offering is usually lower in performance with drivers that are less mature, with the hope being in time the drivers will close the gap and maybe even surpass the Nvidia offering, but that might take at least 2 years. The AMD card being cheaper and offering equal performance 2 years form now is not particularly interesting to most people.

Of course if the price difference is bigger and the performance difference at release small then the AMd can be very good value for money. The downside is when the initial reviews are made the AMD cards aren't shown in the best light. This is why Nvidia put so much resources in to release day drivers, and that in itself is potentially why the previous generation tends to flat-line because so much of the driver team is focused on the up and coming release. This is good for consumers (best performance for new product) and business (best reviews).


Anyway, my only real point is there is zero evidence of Nvidia purposely hampering performance of older cards and there is certainly no way to compare nvidia driver gains to AMD driver gains in a product life time because there are numerous reason why they may progress at different rates. Nvidia could easily limit how much optimizations appear in release day drivers and trickle out the performance gains with some "Fine wine" marketing scheme but that is bad for consumers and bad for business.

Nvidia could do the fine wine thing, but if they don’t have to why should they? Clearly what they are doing works, proof is in the numbers. I am sure AMD don’t do it because they want to.

All I am saying is if both cards are close enough on release and priced similar, say AMD one is slightly slower than the 970, but in 18 months the AMD GPU is now competing against the 980 then in my books that is a plus.

The price difference between the 970 and 980 was quite big on release. I bet if most people were offered to have their 970 gimped by a few percent, but was guaranteed they will have 980 performance in 12-18 months, most would save the money and buy the 970. I know I would, as sacrificing a few percent performance at the start for a relatively huge performance boost over 18 months is a no brainier to me. Not saying that is how things work, just using the above as an example.

With that said, when one buys the card, there is no guarantee a card will get so much boost in performance over time. There are many other factors that swing decisions one way or the other for me, the potential of AMD cards getting a performance boost is just one, but carries small weight overall as there is no guarantee, but it is certainly a plus point.

 

[Marine-RX179]

But that is generally not how it works. The initial AMD offering is usually lower in performance with drivers that are less mature, with the hope being in time the drivers will close the gap and maybe even surpass the Nvidia offering, but that might take at least 2 years. The AMD card being cheaper and offering equal performance 2 years form now is not particularly interesting to most people.

Of course if the price difference is bigger and the performance difference at release small then the AMd can be very good value for money. The downside is when the initial reviews are made the AMD cards aren't shown in the best light. This is why Nvidia put so much resources in to release day drivers, and that in itself is potentially why the previous generation tends to flat-line because so much of the driver team is focused on the up and coming release. This is good for consumers (best performance for new product) and business (best reviews).


Anyway, my only real point is there is zero evidence of Nvidia purposely hampering performance of older cards and there is certainly no way to compare nvidia driver gains to AMD driver gains in a product life time because there are numerous reason why they may progress at different rates. Nvidia could easily limit how much optimizations appear in release day drivers and trickle out the performance gains with some "Fine wine" marketing scheme but that is bad for consumers and bad for business.

Nvidia could do the fine wine thing, but if they don’t have to why should they? Clearly what they are doing works, proof is in the numbers. I am sure AMD don’t do it because they want to.

All I am saying is if both cards are close enough on release and priced similar, say AMD one is slightly slower than the 970, but in 18 months the AMD GPU is now competing against the 980 then in my books that is a plus.

The price difference between the 970 and 980 was quite big on release. I bet if most people were offered to have their 970 gimped by a few percent, but was guaranteed they will have 980 performance in 12-18 months, most would save the money and buy the 970. I know I would, as sacrificing a few percent performance at the start for a relatively huge performance boost over 18 months is a no brainier to me. Not saying that is how things work, just using the above as an example.

With that said, when one buys the card, there is no guarantee a card will get so much boost in performance over time. There are many other factors that swing decisions one way or the other for me, the potential of AMD cards getting a performance boost is just one, but carries small weight overall as there is no guarantee, but it is certainly a plus point.

To be fair, the "fine wine" idol-ism came from the users, and not something AMD themselves really try or keen on pushing.

Let's be honest, other than the halo products such as the Titan series and the Ti with the actual big chip, all the lower tier cards Nvidia always try to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try to offer products that are with the minimal hardware cost at each price brackets, while making the strong aggressive driver optimisation making their offerings slightly ahead of AMD's offering (especially considering launch day performance reviews matters far more that how the cards actually perform over its product life cycle overtime, since whenever someone google the reviews of graphic cards, the launch day reviews will pretty much forever remain at the top of the search result).

I don't like throwing random numbers around, but for illustration purpose, the difference between the approach between Nvidia products (excluding the cards with big chips) and AMD products is like:
Nvidia performance: 65% hardware, 35% software/driver performance optimisation
AMD performance: 85% hardware, 15% software/driver performance optimisation

What this means is that for Nvidia cards in general, they have always taken the approach of "turbo-charging" the cards with weaker spec, to fight up an amazing fight against AMD cards that technically have better spec, and win by a nose most of the time as well. However, this create the issue of when they move gen on the cards that are with a new architecture, older gen cards just don't perform in new games as well as they do in older game titles since their old cards are not "turbo-charged" for the newer game titles. With this alongside the fact that AMD's driver maturing over time, historically it has shown us that over time the Nvidia cards generally age much worse than the AMD cards. For all its flaws and shortcoming, the AMD GCN architecture can both be a curse (struggle to make the cards much more power efficient) and a blessing (long term constant performance increase for cards across the board overtime).

I don't think Nvidia "delibrately" cripple the performance of old gen cards as some people has suggest, it is more of the case as I mentioned earlier it is just natural progression as a business to stop spending resource on supporting something that's no longer being sold/on the shop shelve, and focus them on the money-maker (the new gen cards) instead.

 

[Adored]

Ryan Shrout of PCper also had another company Shrout research, which was paid by Intel to do research for them.
In a video about all of this and how biased it made Ryan shrout's PCper look, with any thing to do with AMD, which I must say it did indeed look very dodgy, our delectable Jim of AdoredTV, before giving Ryan any time to defend or even comment on it, he posted up Ryans home address, to which Ryans has received death threats and it has put all of Ryans family, directly in harms way.
Now the sensible of us, a bit disgruntled by Ryan Shrout and PCper, just stop viewing their content, but dear ole Jim gets away scot free and by many on here is still seen by many as the truth teller of the internet.

Like the rest of the nonsense you've been spouting in this thread, this is a complete lie.

I never posted any personal details of Shrout whatsoever. He's the one happy to spread his mug and personal details around everywhere under the banner of "Shrout Research", that's why somebody else supposedly doxxed him.

When he emailed me with the doxxing story *I* offered to take down the video until he gave me his response.

In the end, he was the one who posted our entire email exchange on reddit after saying he wanted it kept private. Not only that but he posted the entire exchange on a sub where he knew I was banned and unable to respond.

And unlike you, bru - if anyone challenges me to cough up the evidence of any of this, I'll be happy to do so.

 

[Adored]

Just totally wasted an hour watching the video

Can this guy spell for starters Latin Invidia is not the same as English NVidia.

Woooooooooooooosh.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

You didn't wait for anything, both were almost equal, you only waited 18 months to get the full ~+23% performance gained by incremental updates over the 18 month period.

If you can't work out -2% day 1 performance or 98% day 1 performance(non optimised driver) V 100% day 1 performance(full optimised driver) = 'Almost equal performance delta' then honestly you shouldn't be getting into conversations you can't comprehend and/or being deliberately obtuse, trolling.

Again as above impossible to wait when both start almost equal


If you increase performance from ~-2% to ~+25% over the space of 18 months then there is no bias it's merit unless you simply refuse to give said merit because it's AMD.



If Nvidia increase performance from ~-2% to ~+25% over 18 months(like I already stated above by swapping the vendors), it would be the same outcome and cause it's Nv they would market it at least twice as good as AMD know how to, and of course it should be applauded, I certainly would and the majority would also, you'd be laughing at anyone not agreeing it was anything but positive achievement wouldn't you?



IF is irrelevant, nothing remotely happened the way you are trying to flip it, you're making it up as you go along to try and stay valid so there's no point trying to add some kind of bias validity into it.

You are trying to suggest a £450 290 went head to head with a £300 970 and didn't get to the £450 performance for 18 months, it didn't happen, if it did then no one in their right mind would be saying anything but it's rubbish.

However using your 1080 v 1070 scenario but pricing them both the same@£400 is exactly what's been happening except you bought the under performing 1080 for 1070 money that didn't perform to it's peak for 18 months, but it only cost 1070 money so you can only gain you can't possibly lose-it's impossible, you would have to be thick beyond comprehension to state otherwise.

And yes I'd take that scenario every single time as it costs the same money at the same performance delta from day 1.

Maybe we're just looking at it from different points of view then.
Would people be praising Nvidia if they purposely restricted their card's performance to 75% of max performance on release and then with each driver release restricted it less so that in 18 months they were at 100%?

I'd rather my AMD cards performed at the performance they have 18 months down line line at day 1. The performance is there, AMD just didn't make it available at the start. the hardware hasn't changed in the 18 months you own it, it's just AMD making the most of it. They're not improving the hardware they're just making available the power that was always there that they previously didn't allow you to use. As I said, I'm not saying this is anything underhanded by AMD, but I don't think it's a good thing that it takes them 18 months to get the drivers right. People saying it's good that AMD can't get the driver right for 18 months is what I don't see. It's good they get there in the end, but the performance of the card was there from day 1, if AMD wrote the drivers to allow you to utilise it. I realise there are circumstances around it, such as budgets, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason, AMD are taking 18 months to give you the best driver. If Nvidia manage this in 3 or 4 months and then performance plateaus because there's very little left to find, why is that not better? You may be at the card's limit, but you have the best performance the card can offer from that point on. With AMD you aren't getting the best performance from the card until quite a bit later.
What AMD are doing is restricting the cards performance to 75% (or whatever the actual number is) of its actual performance, perhaps through incompetence (although that seems a harsh word for it) rather than intent for the first however many months it takes before the full power of the card is realised.

I'm not comparing it to Nvidia performance or prices, just to the performance of the card (compared to when the drivers are fully matured). I don't care how much faster or slower it is compared to an Nvidia card or how much cheaper it is. I'm not doing AMD vs Nvidia here. My point is people are spinning the fact it takes 18 months to get the driver right into more of a positive than getting the drivers right day 1 (or within a couple of months).

I've owned 2 x 290s and 3 x 290Xs and I thin k they performed very well against the competition at time. That said if someone asked me if I wanted 75% of the performance now and the next 25% to be made available over 18 months or if I'd rather have 95% of performance now and the remaining 5% over the next couple of months, I'd pick the 95% of performance now. It's good that they don't do 75% now and then forget about it, but I fail to see how 75% now and the rest over 18 months is better than almost all the performance now.

 

[jigger]

Maybe we're just looking at it from different points of view then.
Would people be praising Nvidia if they purposely restricted their card's performance to 75% of max performance on release and then with each driver release restricted it less so that in 18 months they were at 100%?

I'd rather my AMD cards performed at the performance they have 18 months down line line at day 1. The performance is there, AMD just didn't make it available at the start. the hardware hasn't changed in the 18 months you own it, it's just AMD making the most of it. They're not improving the hardware they're just making available the power that was always there that they previously didn't allow you to use. As I said, I'm not saying this is anything underhanded by AMD, but I don't think it's a good thing that it takes them 18 months to get the drivers right. People saying it's good that AMD can't get the driver right for 18 months is what I don't see. It's good they get there in the end, but the performance of the card was there from day 1, if AMD wrote the drivers to allow you to utilise it. I realise there are circumstances around it, such as budgets, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason, AMD are taking 18 months to give you the best driver. If Nvidia manage this in 3 or 4 months and then performance plateaus because there's very little left to find, why is that not better? You may be at the card's limit, but you have the best performance the card can offer from that point on. With AMD you aren't getting the best performance from the card until quite a bit later.
What AMD are doing is restricting the cards performance to 75% (or whatever the actual number is) of its actual performance, perhaps through incompetence (although that seems a harsh word for it) rather than intent for the first however many months it takes before the full power of the card is realised.

I'm not comparing it to Nvidia performance or prices, just to the performance of the card (compared to when the drivers are fully matured). I don't care how much faster or slower it is compared to an Nvidia card or how much cheaper it is. I'm not doing AMD vs Nvidia here. My point is people are spinning the fact it takes 18 months to get the driver right into more of a positive than getting the drivers right day 1 (or within a couple of months).

I've owned 2 x 290s and 3 x 290Xs and I thin k they performed very well against the competition at time. That said if someone asked me if I wanted 75% of the performance now and the next 25% to be made available over 18 months or if I'd rather have 95% of performance now and the remaining 5% over the next couple of months, I'd pick the 95% of performance now. It's good that they don't do 75% now and then forget about it, but I fail to see how 75% now and the rest over 18 months is better than almost all the performance now.

You got 75% of the performance upfront? I only got 12.4% and the rest a month later.

 

[maonayze]

This whole evolution/devolution of performance thing just doesnt make any logical sense to me. When anyone gets a brand new product like a game or something, what usually happens.....you get better at it over time. This is due to more experience and familiarity with that product. So If you release a new GFX card, then over a period of time the driver team should get better at writing the drivers for it....to me this is human and logical and happens in all walks of life with lots of different products.

So from this.....AMD is doing what is humanly logical regardless of how good or bad they do it, they still get better at it and so performance of the card improves over time. This just leads to one question.....Nvidia by all forms of logic, MUST be doing one of two things. They are either gimping the drivers over time or more than likely just not optimising their cards for the latest games after 12 - 24 months. This is because they know that they have a following that will just go out and buy their card regardless. So to them it makes sense to not optimise.....great for the company but not great for the consumer. WHen you have consumers who will put up with this then what's a company to do.......apart from make loads of money.

And talking of money.....Nvidia have loads more than AMD so considering the R&D budgets of both companies and what AMD have had to do just to survive, then the fact that they are still here is something and the fact that they have really shaken the CPU market after being 10+ years in the CPU wilderness is nothing short of miraculous.

And there are still people on here who say AMD will never get ahead of Nvidia in the GPU market and believe it. Nothing is impossible, its daft to say otherwise.

 

[jigger]

Like the rest of the nonsense you've been spouting in this thread, this is a complete lie.

I never posted any personal details of Shrout whatsoever. He's the one happy to spread his mug and personal details around everywhere under the banner of "Shrout Research", that's why somebody else supposedly doxxed him.

When he emailed me with the doxxing story *I* offered to take down the video until he gave me his response.

In the end, he was the one who posted our entire email exchange on reddit after saying he wanted it kept private. Not only that but he posted the entire exchange on a sub where he knew I was banned and unable to respond.

And unlike you, bru - if anyone challenges me to cough up the evidence of any of this, I'll be happy to do so.

Regardless of what people you offend I like that you're keeping the industry honest and PC enthusiasts should support that.

 

[Samwell]

Regardless of what people you offend I like that you're keeping the industry honest and PC enthusiasts should support that.

True, i'm supporting the honesty of the pc industry by not watching adored and not taking anything serious he "discovered". Keeping yourself with honest media is the best way to do that and not trust Trump-style media like adored.

 

[tommybhoy]

Maybe we're just looking at it from different points of view then.

No you are saying it's AMD forum bias spinning it into a good thing when-it's the polar opposite, you are now trying to spin it along the lines of:

How dare AMD turn my 970 performing 290 into a 980 performing 290 during my 18 month of gaming- I mean they both cost £300, I'm gonna slate them on that OcUk forum that's simply not on that I got a better performing card, I preffered it when it was a slow as the similar priced 970.

Surely he is trolling.

It is a huge plus, how could one possibly not see that?

Exactly, he's the only one spouting the above.

 

[jigger]

True, i'm supporting the honesty of the pc industry by not watching adored and not taking anything serious he "discovered". Keeping yourself with honest media is the best way to do that and not trust Trump-style media like adored.

What did he say that was dishonest? He went lightly on Nvidia if that is what upset you.

Not sure what Trump-style is

 

[Adored]

True, i'm supporting the honesty of the pc industry by not watching adored and not taking anything serious he "discovered". Keeping yourself with honest media is the best way to do that and not trust Trump-style media like adored.

None of Nvidia's poor behaviour which I reported in the video was "discovered" by myself, instead being discovered by the "honest media" you talk about - industry veterans going over the past 2 decades, including Anandtech, The Tech Report, Toms Hardware Rage3d and many others.

The mere fact that some people can't even figure out the difference between re-reporting forgotten historical facts and "discovering" my own stuff that I've supposed made up pretty much says it all about them tbh.