Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [TT] NVIDIA should launch its next-gen Pascal GPUs with HBM2 in 2H 2016
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TT] NVIDIA should launch its next-gen Pascal GPUs with HBM2 in 2H 2016 - Page 58

post #571 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightDee8D View Post

m
still better than 224bit 3.5+.5gb. smile.gif cause they actually delivered what they said.

No, they absolutely did not deliver what they said in FreeSync, when they said they delivered it. And they also lied, repeatedly, about what G-Sync did and did not do. And continued to repeat it, even after being corrected during live interviews by the interviewer.
post #572 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

No, they absolutely did not deliver what they said in FreeSync, when they said they delivered it. And they also lied, repeatedly, about what G-Sync did and did not do. And continued to repeat it, even after being corrected during live interviews by the interviewer.
no , no and no smile.gif

btw do you also complaint about 256bit card they lie about ? no ? why ? because its performance hasn't changed right ?

when you by freesync monitor now , is there anything you don't find which is advertised ? no ? so why you are complaining now ? do you even own a freesync monitor ?
post #573 of 724
That you can buy a FreeSync monitor now in no way changes that they lied for a year and a half during development, both about their own progress and about their competitor's product.

I'm complaining now because I don't like the approach AMD took to FreeSync. Instead of admitting they were behind, they chose to deceive their customers.

I'm complaining now because revisionists like you want to give them a pass on it, and that people complaining about "uninformed Nvidia customers" should be even more upset that the only company preventing Nvidia from going full monopoly thinks that active disinformation campaigns are good marketing.
post #574 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

That you can buy a FreeSync monitor now in no way changes that they lied for a year and a half during development, both about their own progress and about their competitor's product.

I'm complaining now because I don't like the approach AMD took to FreeSync. Instead of admitting they were behind, they chose to deceive their customers.
but you do like the approach nvidia took with 970? ok smile.gif
and people ask why 80/20% market share.
Quote:
I'm complaining now because revisionists like you want to give them a pass on it, and that people complaining about "uninformed Nvidia customers" should be even more upset that the only company preventing Nvidia from going full monopoly thinks that active disinformation campaigns are good marketing.
and what about people like you giving free pass on 970 fiasco ? please dude don't act like you are the definition of unbiased person. both sides have fanboys but what hampers a company more is not the people who are actually using the product but haters and uninformed people who deny and hate everytime they get a chance.
Edited by EightDee8D - 2/29/16 at 7:30am
post #575 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightDee8D View Post

but you do like the approach nvidia took with 970? ok smile.gif
and people ask why 80/20% market share.

Did I say that I liked the approach they took with 970? No? Okay then.

Yes, they made a mistake on the spec sheet. No, they shouldn't have made it. Yes, they should have brought it up sooner, but I honestly can't fault them for not nitpicking a canned press item that probably got internally approved (mistakenly) months before publication.

But the furor around 970 is, actually, completely overblown. Had the spec sheet been correct, the reviewers would have said "Huh, that's weird, people haven't done that before in a graphics card. Let's see how it performs. Oh, hey, these benchmarks are great, guess it's no big deal." There is literally zero upside to Nvidia "lying" about 970's memory performance. People should never buy based on spec sheet numbers, particularly obscure ones like that. The translation from spec sheet number to real-world performance is murky for any of them, but it's particularly bad for that number.

So you have a year and a half worth of misleading demos, lies about capability, lies about price, lies about progress, lies about how much they're leaving to monitor OEMs, lies about parity with their competitor, and lies about their competitor's performance. And you want to compare that to a misprint that has zero upside for the company, and was only ever going to blow up in their face? Seriously?

Lying requires intent. AMD proved throughout FreeSync's development that they consider active disinformation a viable marketing tactic. 970 was a mistake, but it was not malicious.
post #576 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

Did I say that I liked the approach they took with 970? No? Okay then.

Yes, they made a mistake on the spec sheet. No, they shouldn't have made it. Yes, they should have brought it up sooner, but I honestly can't fault them for not nitpicking a canned press item that probably got internally approved (mistakenly) months before publication.

But the furor around 970 is, actually, completely overblown. Had the spec sheet been correct, the reviewers would have said "Huh, that's weird, people haven't done that before in a graphics card. Let's see how it performs. Oh, hey, these benchmarks are great, guess it's no big deal." There is literally zero upside to Nvidia "lying" about 970's memory performance. People should never buy based on spec sheet numbers, particularly obscure ones like that. The translation from spec sheet number to real-world performance is murky for any of them, but it's particularly bad for that number.

So you have a year and a half worth of misleading demos, lies about capability, lies about price, lies about progress, lies about how much they're leaving to monitor OEMs, lies about parity with their competitor, and lies about their competitor's performance. And you want to compare that to a misprint that has zero upside for the company, and was only ever going to blow up in their face? Seriously?

Lying requires intent. AMD proved throughout FreeSync's development that they consider active disinformation a viable marketing tactic. 970 was a mistake, but it was not malicious.
a product which performs exactly as advertised vs a product which doesn't. whatever amd lied about doesn't affect me . but that 970 did. infact it mattered enough for tech sites to actually test it . why didn't any tech site complaint about that freesync lie ? because it doesn't affect anyone.
it's pretty clear now which side are you so no point in further arguing. just to let you know i had 2 gtx970 and it was a stuttering mess at 2k. many people who were actually using it complaint about it unlike you who don't even own a freesync monitor. but for some reason you are more affected by a lie which doesn't matter anymore. if you want to complain and educate others against a problem or lie. do against both sides.
Edited by EightDee8D - 2/29/16 at 7:48am
post #577 of 724
the full dx12 slide is funny too thumb.gif what do you say about this?

post #578 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

That you can buy a FreeSync monitor now in no way changes that they lied for a year and a half during development, both about their own progress and about their competitor's product.

I'm complaining now because I don't like the approach AMD took to FreeSync. Instead of admitting they were behind, they chose to deceive their customers.

I'm complaining now because revisionists like you want to give them a pass on it, and that people complaining about "uninformed Nvidia customers" should be even more upset that the only company preventing Nvidia from going full monopoly thinks that active disinformation campaigns are good marketing.
Utter nonsense. Freesync arrived well within the time span it was promised for. Announced in Nov 2013 with 12-18 months ETA, we got it in March 2015. There were no lies or deception on that front. The demos in-between were exactly that - demos - and were never at any stage presented as anything but.
post #579 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugSeven View Post

Utter nonsense. Freesync arrived well within the time span it was promised for. Announced in Nov 2013 with 12-18 months ETA, we got it in March 2015. There were no lies or deception on that front. The demos in-between were exactly that - demos - and were never at any stage presented as anything but.

The demos were presented as functional, working variable refresh. And they weren't. They were outright fabrications, billed as something not even close to the reality. And it requires new hardware, which AMD said it wouldn't and then later said it would, because they were asking the OEMs to develop said hardware.

The arrival date is not what the lies were about, and them not lying about one thing does not mean they didn't lie about others.

Are you really saying the ends justify the means? That because we got FreeSync in 18 months justifies a marketing campaign like "Free is better than G" when G-Sync had a functional, working product available at retail and AMD had false demos?

In all seriousness, AMD fans are the ones who should be the most upset by the FreeSync debacle. Yes, AMD got caught flat-footed by G-Sync, but instead of saying "Damn, we'll just have to work hard to catch up" they decided to lie about how much progress they had made, and also lie about G-Sync in order to discourage people from early adoption to buy themselves time. That's a sign of a company that is severely under-resourced.
Edited by Mand12 - 2/29/16 at 8:29am
post #580 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

The demos were presented as functional, working variable refresh. And they weren't. They were outright fabrications, billed as something not even close to the reality. And it requires new hardware, which AMD said it wouldn't and then later said it would, because they were asking the OEMs to develop said hardware.

The arrival date is not what the lies were about, and them not lying about one thing does not mean they didn't lie about others.

Are you really saying the ends justify the means? That because we got FreeSync in 18 months justifies a marketing campaign like "Free is better than G" when G-Sync had a functional, working product available at retail and AMD had false demos?

In all seriousness, AMD fans are the ones who should be the most upset by the FreeSync debacle. Yes, AMD got caught flat-footed by G-Sync, but instead of saying "Damn, we'll just have to work hard to catch up" they decided to lie about how much progress they had made, and also lie about G-Sync in order to discourage people from early adoption to buy themselves time. That's a sign of a company that is severely under-resourced.

the fact that amd doesnt need dedicated hardware in their FS monitors says otherwise.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [TT] NVIDIA should launch its next-gen Pascal GPUs with HBM2 in 2H 2016