AMD's R9 Fury X - Pump Whine Fixed

[HalGameGuru]

It's still your assumption that it isn't AMD.  There is no legitimate reason to make such an assumption. PCper is a publisher who will only damage their own reputation if they misrepresent a company and so they have no reason to do what you are claiming they have done. Given AMD haven't come out and said otherwise your claims are little more than superficial upset at the content. 

After a delightful and quick back and forth with Mr. Shrout via email I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he is willing to take on the responsibility for the commentary power to him. I now know the source, and why he wrote things out the way he did. And while I personally would have done it differently, and if our discussion gave him pause maybe he will too, I doubt he will edit the article as he feels comfortable with his exposure vis a vis AMD, and I cannot say I blame him, but I still do not like the practice, and I think he understood my qualms.

[mr moose]

After a delightful and quick back and forth with Mr. Shrout via email I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he is willing to take on the responsibility for the commentary power to him. I now know the source, and why he wrote things out the way he did. And while I personally would have done it differently, and if our discussion gave him pause maybe he will too, I doubt he will edit the article as he feels comfortable with his exposure vis a vis AMD, and I cannot say I blame him, but I still do not like the practice, and I think he understood my qualms.

 

As a publisher he is always responsible for his content.  His content will easily break him if he is not honest with his readers. 

[HalGameGuru]

As a publisher he is always responsible for his content.  His content will easily break him if he is not honest with his readers. 

You are not liable for content delivered in good faith. Facts can be reported without fear, information sources are important, and directly referencing another corporate entity is dangerous when the public face of that interaction is cloaked. As it is worded there is danger, more openly related there is none. He is comfortable with the possible liability, I would not be, but I'm sure their established relationship would keep us from seeing anything more than an edit or two were there ever conflict.

 

I like to operate as above board as possible to prevent any possibility of such misunderstanding, I do not divulge what I was not bade to, I do not divest what I will not back with a source, I will couch whatever comment in the context necessary to either support it, show it is personal/opinion, or make obvious its spurious or questionable nature.

[mr moose]

You are not liable for content delivered in good faith. Facts can be reported without fear, information sources are important, and directly referencing another corporate entity is dangerous when the public face of that interaction is cloaked. As it is worded there is danger, more openly related there is none. He is comfortable with the possible liability, I would not be, but I'm sure their established relationship would keep us from seeing anything more than an edit or two were there ever conflict.

 

I like to operate as above board as possible to prevent any possibility of such misunderstanding, I do not divulge what I was not bade to, I do not divest what I will not back with a source, I will couch whatever comment in the context necessary to either support it, show it is personal/opinion, or make obvious its spurious or questionable nature.

 

Have you considered he is comfortable with any possible liability because all he has done is quote what they actually told him? 

[HalGameGuru]

1) He didn't quote, he excerpted part of a sentence and related in his own words, 2) source wasn't cited, and while it WAS from an actionable source that was not publicly stated, and presumption is just as dangerous as assumption 3) Most of what he publishes is subjective and anecdotal, even his data, while well collected and robust, is not proof positive over anyone else's and is safe as it is not purported to be such; but that relation of second hand information and commentary is journalism. Your opinion, your data, your results are one thing, relating other people's communications requires more robust handling. There is a reason why I call his content articles and not blogs or postings. I have great respect for his work and his process, and I hope for quality in every aspect of his work.

 

I don't bother making such complaints of WCCF or their ilk, because they are not of the caliber of more professionally operated sources. PCPer, TWiT.tv, Know How, Anandtech, TechPowerup, any and all can and will make mistakes, and I forgive, especially where they are remedied or innocent, but I still expect to see them striving to be the best they can.

[mr moose]

1) He didn't quote, he excerpted part of a sentence and related in his own words, 2) source wasn't cited, and while it WAS from an actionable source that was not publicly stated, and presumption is just as dangerous as assumption 3) Most of what he publishes is subjective and anecdotal, even his data, while well collected and robust, is not proof positive over anyone else's and is safe as it is not purported to be such; but that relation of second hand information and commentary is journalism. Your opinion, your data, your results are one thing, relating other people's communications requires more robust handling. There is a reason why I call his content articles and not blogs or postings. I have great respect for his work and his process, and I hope for quality in every aspect of his work.

 

I don't bother making such complaints of WCCF or their ilk, because they are not of the caliber of more professionally operated sources. PCPer, TWiT.tv, Know How, Anandtech, TechPowerup, any and all can and will make mistakes, and I forgive, especially where they are remedied or innocent, but I still expect to see them striving to be the best they can.

 

1. he did quote, he may not have quoted the entire email or phone conversation verbatim (because people don't need to read "hi, how are you? It's ..."), but he did quote properly. and for what it's worth not a single other media outlet makes the full quote either, they only include the relevant information.  

2. He did quote the source, he said it was from AMD. He may not have said who he communicated with, but he doesn't need to, that's a stipulation you are using to dismiss the content.

3. If you think most of what he publishes is subjective and anecdotal then you either don't know what those words mean or you don't read much of his material.

 

This whole instance in question he recorded both the initial sample, two further samples and a 980 for comparison, he graphed and presented the information for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions on, you cannot get less objective than that and it certainly is not anecdotal. 

[HalGameGuru]

1. he did quote, he may not have quoted the entire email or phone conversation verbatim (because people don't need to read "hi, how are you? It's ..."), but he did quote properly. and for what it's worth not a single other media outlet makes the full quote either, they only include the relevant information.  

2. He did quote the source, he said it was from AMD. He may not have said who he communicated with, but he doesn't need to, that's a stipulation you are using to dismiss the content.

3. If you think most of what he publishes is subjective and anecdotal then you either don't know what those words mean or you don't read much of his material.

 

This whole instance in question he recorded both the initial sample, two further samples and a 980 for comparison, he graphed and presented the information for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions on, you cannot get less objective than that and it certainly is not anecdotal. 

 

Subjective, if everyone else's results were identical you would be right, but they are not, there are ranges, swings in results, differing methods and metrics. Hence why subjective, anecdotal because his are the only ones done exactly how he does them. Anecdotal does not mean false or valueless by default. Even if you wanted to aggregate every benchmark or review to do so would be wasted effort, its not even apples to oranges, its apples to giraffes to corvettes. 

 

Never had a hardware setup reliably predicted by online benchmarks. Value them anyways.

[mr moose]

Subjective, if everyone else's results were identical you would be right, but they are not, there are ranges, swings in results, differing methods and metrics. Hence why subjective, anecdotal because his are the only ones done exactly how he does them. Anecdotal does not mean false or valueless by default. Even if you wanted to aggregate every benchmark or review to do so would be wasted effort, its not even apples to oranges, its apples to giraffes to corvettes. 

 

Never had a hardware setup reliably predicted by online benchmarks. Value them anyways.

 

Well, for one thing his results were within margin of error of everyone else's so they are correct, and for the other what do benchmarks even have to do with this? The performance of the card has never been in question.

 

What you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

[HalGameGuru]

You do understand what subjective means in relation to benchmarks, right? And benchmarks are what I was referring to in what he publishes. Ignoring any overt opinion pieces or commentary, benchmarks are a subjective metric, nobody does them exactly the same as someone else, two people doing them entirely identically with identically built computers still cannot guarantee identical results. The YMMV cautions are explicitly relating the subjective nature of the beast. One guy gets 120 FPS vs 110, one guys shows AMD in the lead the next shows nVidia, one guy only runs in open test benches another only uses retail end user cases, one guy uses the highest overclock he can get out of the hardware the other only uses out of the box bog standard speeds. The entire review industry is built on the fact that there is no one size fits all metric. The end user has a subjective valuation on what results matter and how they are gotten, every reviewer has a subjective metric on what results matter and how best to get them. The fact everyone may use FPS as a metric does not make them objective. If benchmarking were an objective standardized endeavor you wouldn't have a million and one websites doing us the service. It would be like crash testing, done by a group with an accepted authority over such things, IIHS, EuroNCAP, etc.

[mr moose]

You do understand what subjective means in relation to benchmarks, right? And benchmarks are what I was referring to in what he publishes. Ignoring any overt opinion pieces or commentary, benchmarks are a subjective metric, nobody does them exactly the same as someone else, two people doing them entirely identically with identically built computers still cannot guarantee identical results. The YMMV cautions are explicitly relating the subjective nature of the beast. One guy gets 120 FPS vs 110, one guys shows AMD in the lead the next shows nVidia, one guy only runs in open test benches another only uses retail end user cases, one guy uses the highest overclock he can get out of the hardware the other only uses out of the box bog standard speeds. The entire review industry is built on the fact that there is no one size fits all metric. The end user has a subjective valuation on what results matter and how they are gotten, every reviewer has a subjective metric on what results matter and how best to get them. The fact everyone may use FPS as a metric does not make them objective. If benchmarking were an objective standardized endeavor you wouldn't have a million and one websites doing us the service. It would be like crash testing, done by a group with an accepted authority over such things, IIHS, EuroNCAP, etc.

 

You do know what "margin of error" is don't you,  and still why are you talking about  benchmarks, they have nothing to do with the conversation, no one other than you has an issue with the any of the mainstream reviewers.

 

Benchmarks and performance of the card has absolutely nothing to do with the pump noise or the way PCper reported it.

[HalGameGuru]

You do know what "margin of error" is don't you,  and still why are you talking about  benchmarks, they have nothing to do with the conversation, no one other than you has an issue with the any of the mainstream reviewers.

 

Benchmarks and performance of the card has absolutely nothing to do with the pump noise or the way PCper reported it.

You're the one who went off on subjective.

 

Margin of error has no bearing on subjective vs objective.

 

I have no issue with any reviewers, they produce what content they want, the info they come up with, the data they have compiled, we all have a good time. I do take issue with relating things outside of that paradigm in the same ways as subjective or commentary content. It's no longer commentary or opinion when you are bringing someone else's input into the picture, and its one thing to express your feeling or "what you get" from what someone says, its another to relate what they said, who said it, or the context in an incomplete or obfuscatory manner. That's fine when its your commentary, when you are opining, it is not when it's someone else's.

 

HE is comfortable with his exposure, and without knowing what was in that first email, who it was from, and their previous relationship I can only go by what was in the article vs what was related later to me personally and in the second article. It was touted as representative of AMD as a whole without mention of the source, it was not wholly quoted, but partially excerpted and related in his own words, and was premised as direct communication rather than a release. We literally had only 2 sentences in that first article to go on. But, it was enough to get the ball rolling, and the second article was perfect for my purposes. Quotes including much context, source, commentary and response, I would have loved the first article to mirror the second. It didn't, its nothing anyone else has to DO anything about unless they feel the same way or feel any need to cater to one random internet spelunker's ethos on the matter. This whole thing has been MY commentary on the relating of HIS commentary, which happened to include NON-commentary content without that extra little bit needed to separate it from the other content of that article.

 

God, this has been fun. I had hoped we would have gotten a few other people involved slinging with us. Meh, maybe next time. I was hoping we would see some more back and forth in the HBM2, Comcast 2Gbps, or Fury GPU production threads. We shall see. I hope you haven't taken any of this stick poking personally, I'd just rather see discussion pushed and fleshed out than dropped and left incomplete.

 

EDIT: Just as an aside all of this stems from the week between the articles waiting for confirmation of the source and then it becoming moot when the second release came out. NOW we have a lot more pertinent information, THEN all we had was PCPer's word on something. When it wasn't necessary to require PCPer's recognizance. They had a source, they could have relayed the source and made it an official AMD comment rather than PCPer's assertion it was an AMD comment. With quotation and a source it is AMD's without it is PCPer's claim it is AMD's. I consider PCPer on par with places like newspapers, TV News, or Consumer Reports, I know online sources won't always reflect those same standards and I am OK with that, I will still point out when they fall short though.

[Khvarrioiren]

Please, just lock the thread already. This thread has has gone down the drain already because of a couple of guys setting up their private arena here.

[HalGameGuru]

Sorry for the disjointed communications, I keep losing my connection to LTT, those earlier posts would have been pared down a LOT.

 

I make a fuss about this stuff because I believe our community can do anything just as well as any other. I believe the Tech Community can provide news just as well as the Wall Street Journal or CNN, better in some cases, I believe our community can provide entertainment just as well as Hollywood, and I believe our community can provide business and commerce just as well as Wall Street. Hand in hand with that belief and trust in our community is a desire to see it be as open and respectable as possible. 

 

TO be honest, while I love LTT and LMG and our community surrounding it, I always considered PCPer a half a rung above due to the more "clinical" or "professional" bent to his articles, and to be a little less than objective, because of his connections to the old TechTV. I call him on this stuff because I love him too much not too. Same reason I will opine to Linus over Twitter or Luke if I see something worth mentioning.

 

And once again, after the second release, writing that first article as it is would have been FINE, there was an open and public release containing that info. When it was written, though, there wasn't, there was only closed communication. And just as CNN will say "An AMD Spokesperson said," or "Such and such, CEO of this," or "AMD said in a press release," relating second hand communications is always couched in citation, the only time you hear them just say "AMD said" is when they had already established citation earlier on. 

 

I consider it a bobble more than an error, and I do believe it was in good faith. Merely less professional than it COULD HAVE been. And I want my community to be able to stand toe to toe with any comer.

[Khvarrioiren]

And I want my community to be able to stand toe to toe with any comer.

 

There's a saying here in the cold North for what you just did there.

[mr moose]

Please, just lock the thread already. This thread has has gone down the drain already because of a couple of guys setting up their private arena here.

 

Private arena?  I am debating the originally posted issue itself in an open forum with anyone who wants to join in. If you don;t like it you can ignore the thread or join another forum. How rude to ask for a thread to be locked because you personally don't see any further need for it yourself.

 

 

snip

 

More big walls of text that don't actually address anything, you actually claimed PCper was being subjective not me, you claimed his benchmarks somehow were relevant to the pump noise issue and him quoting AMD, not me. 

 

All I have said in this whole thing is there is no rational reason to claim PCper is misrepresenting or misquoting AMD.   PCper have been thorough in all their articles, they have quoted properly and as I have already said so many times before, even in the slim chance he did decide to start talking to someone else at AMD, AMD haven't denounced what he claims they said.

[Khvarrioiren]

-snip-

You're debating the credibility of the source. Take that as you will. You're the rude one claiming I have an agenda to get a thread locked for my own selfish reasons.

[mr moose]

You're debating the credibility of the source. Take that as you will. You're the rude one claiming I have an agenda to get a thread locked for my own selfish reasons.

No, I'm saying the source credibility is fine, the way the evidence was presented is fine, I am saying the source (PCper) did nothing wrong and the issue as it stands (which is what the topic is about) is legit. In short I am discussing the OT.

 

Not rude to point out the truth, you actually did request the thread be locked as you think it has gone down hill "because" a couple of guys setting up a private arena:

 

Please, just lock the thread already. This thread has has gone down the drain already because of a couple of guys setting up their private arena here.

[HalGameGuru]

More big walls of text that don't actually address anything, you actually claimed PCper was being subjective not me, you claimed his benchmarks somehow were relevant to the pump noise issue and him quoting AMD, not me. 

 

All I have said in this whole thing is there is no rational reason to claim PCper is misrepresenting or misquoting AMD.   PCper have been thorough in all their articles, they have quoted properly and as I have already said so many times before, even in the slim chance he did decide to start talking to someone else at AMD, AMD haven't denounced what he claims they said.

PCPer is subjective in general, ESPECIALLY (in this context) dealing with opinion and commentary, in ADDITION to being subjective in reviewing and benchmarking, and continued to act subjectively when relating OBJECTIVE info, second hand communications. You can be subjective in opining about the info, you cannot be subjective when attempting to relate that info to others.

 

Your claim for rational reason is ALSO subjective, just because YOU do not believe there was misrepresentation or inaccuracy in no way debars another a different viewpoint on the subject. Subjectively, to ME, claiming representative communication, at second hand, of a corporate entity without providing citation to us, third parties, is too far on the lackadaisical side. As it is the claim it was AMD's words is on PCPer, not on AMD, since the individual who was the source was not given, it is on PCPer's recognizance. You accept that, that is fine, I do not, that is fine. Your subjective valuations of what constitutes the line have no bearing on mine.

 

IF someone wants to relate to me information from someone else, and claim that information represents MORE than merely that individual I need to know WHY that individual represents more than himself. If his information represents a thousands strong corporation I need to know that person has the capacity to make such pronouncements for the collective. Not on a third party's word, I need to know the source of this information was kosher or it has no value to me. If I cannot say this person was the mouthpiece for this information, so either HE is responsible or they DO in fact represent the collective then I cannot even say it represents ANYONE but the person who related it to me because I have no one else to point to BUT the relater of the information.

 

THe lack of denouncement by AMD is a good thing, but does not remove the onus of responsibility. He did a great job on the second release, it was nigh perfect for my standards. The first one is where I have issue, not to the same standard and a WEEK before the second. That exact wording a week later would have been fine. 

[HalGameGuru]

I see his point, I don't agree, but I can see it. But, there IS a difference between the relating of the sound issue and the relating of second hand information REGARDING the sound issue. One I had no issue with, and the second I only have issue with the avenues taken, not the fact such communication was disseminated, which it should have been.

[mr moose]

PCPer is subjective in general, ESPECIALLY (in this context) dealing with opinion and commentary, in ADDITION to being subjective in reviewing and benchmarking, and continued to act subjectively when relating OBJECTIVE info, second hand communications. You can be subjective in opining about the info, you cannot be subjective when attempting to relate that info to others.

 

Your claim for rational reason is ALSO subjective, just because YOU do not believe there was misrepresentation or inaccuracy in no way debars another a different viewpoint on the subject. Subjectively, to ME, claiming representative communication, at second hand, of a corporate entity without providing citation to us, third parties, is too far on the lackadaisical side. As it is the claim it was AMD's words is on PCPer, not on AMD, since the individual who was the source was not given, it is on PCPer's recognizance. You accept that, that is fine, I do not, that is fine. Your subjective valuations of what constitutes the line have no bearing on mine.

 

IF someone wants to relate to me information from someone else, and claim that information represents MORE than merely that individual I need to know WHY that individual represents more than himself. If his information represents a thousands strong corporation I need to know that person has the capacity to make such pronouncements for the collective. Not on a third party's word, I need to know the source of this information was kosher or it has no value to me. If I cannot say this person was the mouthpiece for this information, so either HE is responsible or they DO in fact represent the collective then I cannot even say it represents ANYONE but the person who related it to me because I have no one else to point to BUT the relater of the information.

 

THe lack of denouncement by AMD is a good thing, but does not remove the onus of responsibility. He did a great job on the second release, it was nigh perfect for my standards. The first one is where I have issue, not to the same standard and a WEEK before the second. That exact wording a week later would have been fine. 

 

It's rational because it is standard practice and PCper have a reputation to maintain. I don't know if you've worked this out yet but your whole argument is that because PCper didn't name the person he spoke to the whole article must be BS and they must be lying. You haven't given any reason as to why we should suddenly assume PCper is lying or that his communication with AMD has become inexplicable disreputable.

[HalGameGuru]

It's rational because it is standard practice and PCper have a reputation to maintain. I don't know if you've worked this out yet but your whole argument is that because PCper didn't name the person he spoke to the whole article must be BS and they must be lying. You haven't given any reason as to why we should suddenly assume PCper is lying or that his communication with AMD has become inexplicable disreputable.

 

Who said anything about the whole article? I also never said we should assume PCPer is lying, but we do have to take it at THEIR word rather than AMD's. Is your whole bug up your craw because you think I have some problem with the article as a whole? Or I think they are lying? I told you straight up I KNOW He wasn't lying. It's bad practice. He also didn't have to name him, he could have merely specified position in relation to making such communication OR specified it was a source within AMD rather than the presumptive statement that it was "AMD's" statement without citation. I don't know if you have worked it out yet but you have misconstrued my ENTIRE argument and what I was saying from the beginning. I never questioned his article, I never said he was lying, merely that it is a bad practice to ascribe something said by an individual to a collective without citing the source, or couching the quotation as from an individual within an organization rather than a voice OF the organization. Watch CNN, they follow the same practice. I also stated straight up the noise issue needed to be aired, and the initial communication in June NEEDED to be related to us, but, I feel it needed to be done in a better manner. Period, end of story. I wanted that info out, i wanted his input, I wanted people to know about this issue. My ONLY gripe, from the beginning of this discussion was in the practices employed in relating it to us.

 

 

EDIT: Rationale is subjective, same as most of what we have been discussing. To my way of thinking cheering for the curtailing of your rights at the hands of the state is irrational, but for many people it is perfectly rational to cheer when your freedoms are abridged. Rationality is subjective. 

[mr moose]

Who said anything about the whole article? I also never said we should assume PCPer is lying, but we do have to take it at THEIR word rather than AMD's. Is your whole bug up your craw because you think I have some problem with the article as a whole? Or I think they are lying? I told you straight up I KNOW He wasn't lying. It's bad practice. He also didn't have to name him, he could have merely specified position in relation to making such communication OR specified it was a source within AMD rather than the presumptive statement that it was "AMD's" statement without citation. I don't know if you have worked it out yet but you have misconstrued my ENTIRE argument and what I was saying from the beginning. I never questioned his article, I never said he was lying, merely that it is a bad practice to ascribe something said by an individual to a collective without citing the source, or couching the quotation as from an individual within an organization rather than a voice OF the organization. Watch CNN, they follow the same practice. I also stated straight up the noise issue needed to be aired, and the initial communication in June NEEDED to be related to us, but, I feel it needed to be done in a better manner. Period, end of story. I wanted that info out, i wanted his input, I wanted people to know about this issue. My ONLY gripe, from the beginning of this discussion was in the practices employed in relating it to us.

 

So you know he's not lying but you still want to tell everyone we can't trust that he isn't misrepresenting AMD?

 

You're just going round in circles now.

 

Remember one of your first posts:

 

 I just have an issue with taking random individuals' comments as Corporate policy. "AMD" made no official statement on this, all we have are anecdotal back channel communications between reviewers and, I assume, their contacts, or random personal connections with department members, 

 

You called PCper's communication with AMD as a talk with a "random individual" and you claimed that AMD made no "official statement" and then you called PCper's discussion with AMD as an "anecdotal back channel communication"

 

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong.  Anything AMD says to PCper through their normal channels is an official statement from them to the media, end of story good night.

[HalGameGuru]

 

So you know he's not lying but you still want to tell everyone we can't trust that he isn't misrepresenting AMD?

 

You're just going round in circles now.

 

Remember one of your first posts:

 

 

You called PCper's communication with AMD as a talk with a "random individual" and you claimed that AMD made no "official statement" and then you called PCper's discussion with AMD as an "anecdotal back channel communication"

 

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong.  Anything AMD says to PCper through their normal channels is an official statement from them to the media, end of story good night.

You should NEVER trust anything that isn't cited, if you trust the source it is on YOU if you take action on that information that wasn't cited. Without citation I will not ACT on that info. I would seek more info and confirmation, from the presumed source. But I would not repeat it as AMD's communication. I would say PCPer says AMD said this.

 

Yes, as far as WE are concerned, in THIS case, from the outside, its some random person, we DO NOT KNOW WHO HIS CONTACT WAS.

 

Without confirmation and citation we have no idea what was said to PCPer, if anything, or who it was who made such communication. Joe Blow from the Mail Room, or Kevin Chandrasekhar from Tech Support is not a valid corporate mouthpiece. There are a million and one people you can email and communicate back and forth with, a small percentage of whom have the capacity to speak for the corporation. Does PCPer only communicate with such endowed individuals? If the person cannot speak for AMD as a whole does PCPer ignore their emails and seek someone further up the totem pole? I would wager they have dozens if not hundreds of contacts across big corporations like this. Many incidental, only a few who have any power or say-so, and I would wager that PCPer got this email in question from one of those, but without citation I will not stick my neck out. It seems tame here, what about if its talking about warranty support, or refund policy? You gonna take PCPer at their word or check with AMD before you spend a couple grand on hardware?

[mr moose]

You should NEVER trust anything that isn't cited, if you trust the source it is on YOU if you take action on that information that wasn't cited. Without citation I will not ACT on that info. I would seek more info and confirmation, from the presumed source. But I would not repeat it as AMD's communication. I would say PCPer says AMD said this.

 

Yes, as far as WE are concerned, in THIS case, from the outside, its some random person, we DO NOT KNOW WHO HIS CONTACT WAS.

 

Without confirmation and citation we have no idea what was said to PCPer, if anything, or who it was who made such communication. Joe Blow from the Mail Room, or Kevin Chandrasekhar from Tech Support is not a valid corporate mouthpiece. There are a million and one people you can email and communicate back and forth with, a small percentage of whom have the capacity to speak for the corporation. Does PCPer only communicate with such endowed individuals? If the person cannot speak for AMD as a whole does PCPer ignore their emails and seek someone further up the totem pole? I would wager they have dozens if not hundreds of contacts across big corporations like this. Many incidental, only a few who have any power or say-so, and I would wager that PCPer got this email in question from one of those, but without citation I will not stick my neck out. It seems tame here, what about if its talking about warranty support, or refund policy? You gonna take PCPer at their word or check with AMD before you spend a couple grand on hardware?

 

It was cited, he said it was from AMD.

[AlwaysFSX]

It was cited, he said it was from AMD.

IT'S A LIEEEEEEEEEE.

 

MWAHAHAHA.