bit-tech.net

The Path of Progress: Tracking the evolution of AMD’s graphics cards

Comments 1 to 25 of 118

Reply
vdbswong 6th September 2012, 10:33 Quote
Why does this feel like advertising 0.o

EDIT:

To clarify, it seems to have sidestepped some of the "less-than-stellar" products such as the HD2900 and HD38xx series and doesn't seem to explicitly mention that the HD48xx series is where they started to turn around and provide better value-for-money.
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 10:38 Quote
We're going to be doing a series of features of this ilk in the months ahead if all goes to plan.
GuilleAcoustic 6th September 2012, 10:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdbswong
Why does this feel like advertising 0.o

EDIT:

To clarify, it seems to have sidestepped some of the "less-than-stellar" products such as the HD2900 and HD38xx series and doesn't seem to explicitly mention that the HD48xx series is where they started to turn around and provide better value-for-money.

The first AMD (non-ATI branded card) where the HD6000 series, that's probably why it starts with the HD5000 series.
bigc90210 6th September 2012, 10:52 Quote
I'd be interested to see their path of progress on how they decide to release their drivers/what theyve done to improve themselves in that area. Ive always found their hardware to be excellent, but software (drivers) to be abysmal, especially notebook drivers. I recall paying £35 for Brink on release day, only for it to be completely unplayable on AMD graphics cards until months and months later, by which point noone was playing it anymore.

Good article though, an interesting read!
Parge 6th September 2012, 11:12 Quote
This is definitely advertising.

I'm choking on all the superlatives and lack of any criticism. This article doesn't feel like it was written by bit tech at all, unless you have some new hyped up PR guy as your new writer?
Parge 6th September 2012, 11:18 Quote
Here are some of my most hated sentences from this ridiculous article (by the way, topic is great, way it has been approached is not). Feel free to add yours below:
Quote:
Today, CrossfireX on the Radeon HD 7000-series sees anything up to double the average frame rate in certain games versus a single card.

- yeah awesome! Except both BT and CPC both recommend NOT doing either SLI of CFX and have done for years
Quote:
AMD pushed graphics fidelity to the next level in 2007,

- what does that even mean?

Quote:
The Radeon HD 5970 was the fastest graphics card ever released at the time, which made it the ideal card to show off EyeFinity’s potential.

- it was also hot and loud, and Eyefinity was an absolute dog to get set up outside of just using it for windows.

Quote:
Now, with a compatible 3D monitor, 6000-series card owners could watch 3D video and play games in stereoscopic 3D

- Yeah they could, all 4 of the games that AMD supports, in badly optimised 3D.
Quote:
Which brings us to today – 2012 sees AMD's latest 7000-series takes everything we’ve seen before and kicked it into overdrive.

- Starting to look around for vomit bucket
Quote:
it’s a new evolution for AMD graphics cards that not only focuses on gaming performance, but also the highly useful mouthful that is general-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU

- Good, something useful and actually relevant, but why does it have to be a 'new evolution' - can't we go back to talking like normal people and not a narrator from a Michael Bay film
Quote:
Whether you have one monitor or several, plan to play in 2D or 3D or want to build a system with multiple graphics cards, the Radeon HD 7000-series has you covered.

- grabs PR vomit bucket and begins to retch.
Quote:
With support for PCI Express 3.0, 4K video and DirectX 11.1, they are ready for the next generation before it even arrives.

Vomits PR flavoured bile into PR vomit bucket.
Quote:
It’s ready to take your rig’s graphics performance to new levels

- PR Vomit so strong it burns through bottom of PR vomit bucket.
bigc90210 6th September 2012, 11:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
Here are some of my most hated sentences from this ridiculous article (by the way, topic is great, way it has been approached is not). Feel free to add yours below:

Blimey, thats a pretty good point. I think pointing out things such as there shortcomings, and ways they've came back against nvidia would have been less biased.

now that ive just read parges quotes, it does reek of advertising :/
Delphium 6th September 2012, 11:34 Quote
Quote:
with the purchase of ATi in 2006. Eight years down the line, AMD has come a long way,
8 years? Who has hidden 2 years from me, im still in 2012?! :o
Zinfandel 6th September 2012, 11:34 Quote
Lovely idea, disgusting execution.

Seriously, how much did AMD pay for this puff piece?
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 11:37 Quote
Apologies: this is a sponsored feature, but the tag thing I tried to flag it as such has disappeared. I'll add a line of text to the bottom.
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 11:39 Quote
Updated now. Apologies for the confusion.

We are looking to do more features charting the path of progress of companies and their technologies in the future. All comments, as always, taken on board.
dogknees 6th September 2012, 11:42 Quote
Where are the details? You know, the block diagrams showing how they've changed over the generations. How the cores are grouped. How data moves around the chip. How the caching strategy has developed. .......

This article should be at least 5 times as long.
shah 6th September 2012, 11:44 Quote
Love your comments Parge :D
Shirty 6th September 2012, 11:48 Quote
Might be a nice article, but sorry chaps, I don't read adverts as a rule. I hope it makes you some good ca$h though so you can to lots of tasty non-sponsored features in the near future as well.
bigc90210 6th September 2012, 11:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shirty
Might be a nice article, but sorry chaps, I don't read adverts as a rule. I hope it makes you some good ca$h though so you can to lots of tasty non-sponsored features in the near future as well.

^^ what he said, pretty irritated by this now, especially considering youve just read 2 pages of biased material before you hit the tiny footnote that its sponsoered. Theres no mention of it being sponsored on the first page (which is what most people who wont make it to the second page of the article will read). a bit misleading?

I hope theres going to be no "sponsored" hardware reviews anytime soon.
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 11:57 Quote
Will add the sponsored tag to the top, no problem there. Not trying to mislead people at all.

I don't think anyone could ever call our reviews sponsored, either (they're not, of course). Especially if we could show you everything from this side of the fence!
Shirty 6th September 2012, 12:00 Quote
I appreciate that these things have to be done from time to time (most if not all issues of CPC in recent memory have at least one advertisement feature), and I certainly don't think bigc90210 was suggesting you use bias in reviews. It's just that this is the first time we've seen such a feature on the front page of Bit, so an image banner and something in the title/subtitle of the feature would be most appreciated.
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 12:03 Quote
I've put it at the top and end of the article now. My error, there. Apologies.
Mentai 6th September 2012, 12:07 Quote
I second @zinfandels comment.

If I wanted to read the upsides of AMD with absolutely zero criticism I would go to amd.com. This reeks of desperation bit-tech, whatever happened to the advertising staying well away from editorial? Doesn't the direct mingling of the two compromise your integrity when reviewing future AMD products?
Zinfandel 6th September 2012, 12:30 Quote
Aw man.

Really BG, please don't take this personally as I know you're only trying to do your job and I'm a fan of a lot of the things that have happened here since you've taken over but this is really far from acceptable.

Well, that's not entirely accurate I suppose, I mean, you can do what you want but if you or anyone at Dennis honestly thinks that this type of thing will do anything but destroy the (already diminished) credibility Bit Tech has as a serious hardware review/PC Enthusiast site then I think you're sorely mistaken.

I realise that AMD Etc spend a lot on PR but what kind of mentalist in their PR department thinks that an article like this on a website like this will bring anything but scorn? We're all PC fans here, we know the deal and by and large we judge companies on the products they put out and the prices they put them out at.

And far be it to question your word but unfortunately I'm going to have to. I find it hard to believe that you could have put this article up with the intention of pointing out that it was a paid for advertisement and either forgot or accidentally messed it up is very, very difficult to believe.

The simple fact is, if you're willing to put up this piece of advertising and, either mistakenly or not disguise it as a (what would have been a very interesting) genuine bit tech editorial then I can have absolutely zero faith in the honesty of your reviews, and that is very sad.

Again, please don't take that personally. I know journalists are having to make increasingly difficult decisions on the border between integrity and solvency but this is a step too far.
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 12:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinfandel
Aw man.

Really BG, please don't take this personally as I know you're only trying to do your job and I'm a fan of a lot of the things that have happened here since you've taken over but this is really far from acceptable.

Well, that's not entirely accurate I suppose, I mean, you can do what you want but if you or anyone at Dennis honestly thinks that this type of thing will do anything but destroy the (already diminished) credibility Bit Tech has as a serious hardware review/PC Enthusiast site then I think you're sorely mistaken.

I realise that AMD Etc spend a lot on PR but what kind of mentalist in their PR department thinks that an article like this on a website like this will bring anything but scorn? We're all PC fans here, we know the deal and by and large we judge companies on the products they put out and the prices they put them out at.

And far be it to question your word but unfortunately I'm going to have to. I find it hard to believe that you could have put this article up with the intention of pointing out that it was a paid for advertisement and either forgot or accidentally messed it up is very, very difficult to believe.

The simple fact is, if you're willing to put up this piece of advertising and, either mistakenly or not disguise it as a (what would have been a very interesting) genuine bit tech editorial then I can have absolutely zero faith in the honesty of your reviews, and that is very sad.

Again, please don't take that personally. I know journalists are having to make increasingly difficult decisions on the border between integrity and solvency but this is a step too far.

I can't make you believe what I say, but I hardly think I've got a track record here of deliberately misleading people! I stand by what I said. For about an hour at most, this wasn't tagged as a sponsored feature, due to a human error. I am that human. I made an error, for which I apologised. I can't do much more than that.

My question back, then. Several months ago, one the of the key criticisms that was being aimed at Bit-Tech was that the advertising on the site wasn't relevant. I fed that back, the ad team listened, and we've all re-doubled our efforts.

AMD booked this campaign, and chose to support the site. We put up this sponsored feature as part of that (and still added a comment thread, to allow feedback). It's something, whether you like it or not, that's entirely relevant to Bit-Tech. So what do we do? It's a genuine question that comes up time and time again.

I accept that for the hour that this feature was - accidentally - unflagged, that I messed up. I take criticism for that. If you don't believe I'm telling the truth, then again, there's not much I can say to alter that, other than to reiterate what I've said before.

Yet all of a sudden, our reviews aren't trustworthy? That we've sold out? Seriously: go back and read the reviews. I think they speak for themselves. If you have problems with us having an ad campaign of this ilk, then by all means, direct criticisms at me. I've no problem with that at all. But, having seen the immense amount of time, effort and sheer hard work that goes into the reviews on this site, I hope you'll understand why I'm so defensive of both the independence and quality of them, and the people who write them.

I appreciate, too, the support that AMD has given the site here.

Simon
Parge 6th September 2012, 13:04 Quote
Fair play for coming back to answer the criticism, and yes, at first it did look like BT were trying to pass this off as an actual article (the author was even 'Bit Tech Staff' - maybe change that to 'AMD' or 'Corsair' or whoever is posting the story, most of us don’t mind). If it makes you feel any better, we all instantly knew it wasn't a BT writer behind it - a testament to your usually very good work!

AMD have taken the time out to write this up, and spent money on this campaign, and BT have gone along with it (which again is fine), it would have been far better to do it properly. By this, I mean, a proper interview and discussion with someone from AMD, where the topic remains the same, but BT can ask pertinent questions.

AMD, at face value you might not like that format as much as the above where you get to set the tone, but if its engagement with your target audience you want (and presumably you do, since you have written and entire two page ad for Bit Tech) then an intelligent discussion between you and BT is a far better way to go about it. BT is a great place for you to advertise (hell, between us we buy A LOT of GPUs and CPUs, and advise others to buy a lot more). For advertising to be truly effective, it has to 1) reach its target audience and 2) engage with them on a meaningful/emotional level – hence why TV is still such an attractive advertising medium (ooooh, pretty colours and sounds, I’m welling up). In this case, someone has misjudged point 2.
BrightCandle 6th September 2012, 13:46 Quote
You target audience likes the details. Architecture, performance analysis, the edges of new features. All of this could have made a great article showing how the gpu has changed over the generations in performance for example. For a sponsored article like this to do anything but create anger it needs to be a genuine look at AMDs progress, this is just a big press release. The fact that you don't see how it isn't relevant is shocking.

Now your integrity hit rock bottom what do you expect the response to be exactly?
Blarte 6th September 2012, 13:47 Quote
Surely the article's title gave you all a clue to the content of the piece

A company has to make money so it may continue to provide its services. Fact. No foul no harm I say
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 13:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
Fair play for coming back to answer the criticism, and yes, at first it did look like BT were trying to pass this off as an actual article (the author was even 'Bit Tech Staff' - maybe change that to 'AMD' or 'Corsair' or whoever is posting the story, most of us don’t mind). If it makes you feel any better, we all instantly knew it wasn't a BT writer behind it - a testament to your usually very good work!

AMD have taken the time out to write this up, and spent money on this campaign, and BT have gone along with it (which again is fine), it would have been far better to do it properly. By this, I mean, a proper interview and discussion with someone from AMD, where the topic remains the same, but BT can ask pertinent questions.

AMD, at face value you might not like that format as much as the above where you get to set the tone, but if its engagement with your target audience you want (and presumably you do, since you have written and entire two page ad for Bit Tech) then an intelligent discussion between you and BT is a far better way to go about it. BT is a great place for you to advertise (hell, between us we buy A LOT of GPUs and CPUs, and advise others to buy a lot more). For advertising to be truly effective, it has to 1) reach its target audience and 2) engage with them on a meaningful/emotional level – hence why TV is still such an attractive advertising medium (ooooh, pretty colours and sounds, I’m welling up). In this case, someone has misjudged point 2.

The reason the author was posted as Bit-Tech staff was that it's been penned by a Bit-Tech writer. AMD didn't supply the article per se. To be honest, I come from a magazine background, where it's not uncommon to put together labelled sponsored features of this ilk.

Thanks for the interesting and constructive points, and I'm going to follow a few of your thoughts in the final paragraph up.

Simon
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums