hong1204

Linus said that where's smoke there's fire in the context of Blizzard's case. Shouldn't it also apply here?
Furthermore, they should address this because they're always preaching about "transparency",  "accountability" and so on.
Finally, what she is saying is not that hard to believe. We have been discussing a lot the toxic work culture at LMG in the last two days.

Cut the crap. It isn't cute. If she had posted this before the current happenings, she'd have been attacked by everyone and you know it. She finally felt safe to say something now that the public has a better understanding of how terrible this company actually is.

Wow parts of this community is toxic...
 
1. HR exists to protect the company and not the employees. Unions protect employees, HR finds ways to make situations go away with as little damage to the company as possible. I have seen this play out on so many occasions. This is why you have so many sexual harassment, bulling, wrongful termination and payment issues in companies, because HR tried to minimise damage and remove / screw the employee. In some American states HR is so good at protecting the company they get away with child labour, killing employees and stealing from employees.
 
2. Victims of harassment and bullying hardly ever make formal complaints, the same as victims of rape do not report it. They are either afraid of repercussions or do not want to keep reliving the situation. If they are still employed at the company then they are also afraid about loss of income, which leads to loss of accommodation / savings etc...
 
3. As has been shown with other investigations, it is known that more victims come forward once a company / person is being held accountable in public for their actions. People suggest this is handled behind closed doors where on one side you have well paid and resourced lawyers and on the other a disgruntled employee, a perfect balance of power there...
 
4. Going to court costs a lot of time and money and can be very damaging to someone already suffering from mental issues caused by their employment. People commit suicide all the time over issues like this.
 
5. For people asking for her to provide 'receipts' I don't see you asking for LTT to do the same. As far as the cooler issue goes, the timeline and compensation agreement is disputed by Billet who say they were contacted after the GN video went live and not as Linus suggested. Linus also suggested GN said they sold the hardware where as in the GN video they do say it was auctioned and provide a photo of the auction. From this alone LTT cannot be trusted, they are playing their viewers for fools as we can easily find evidence to the contrary.
 
Now no one is asking you to believe 100% what Madison is saying, you are instead being asked to believe it might have happened. That is all, no one needs to harass her or start calling her names or sending her threats.
 
But what you can do is look at the childish response that Linus did to an accusation that could be very damaging to his company and then extrapolate that to how he might handle accusations from an employee of his company about behaviour of himself or his friends. What I see was someone being extremely unprofessional and letting their emotions get in the way, which in the latest LTT vid is kinda alluded to. Behind closed doors I expect this attitude was worse if they didn't see anything wrong with the video they initially released on the subject / his posts & comments.

Beyond disappointing to see the contrast in community reaction between the GN/Billet thread and here.
 
< needless flaming removed >
 
Young female LTT employee opens up about being bullied, harassed, and possibly assaulted during her time at the company? Community proceeds to debate the timing, stroke their chins over what "inappropriately grabbed" means, belittles the work the employee did, and attack her professionalism and mental health. And of course the mouth-breathers are in here too adding some unveiled misogyny to the mix.
 
I haven't been on these forums much or at all the past few months because I was growing disenchanted with LTT's content and I was focused on other hobbies besides PC stuff. This thread makes me not want to be a part of this community at all. Although I'm not sure I would want to have to acknowledge "Yes, I'm an active member of the LTT forums, yes that Linus" after this week anyway. 

Looks like LMG are actively deleting any comments made on their "apology" video about Madison....

Thanks for the advice. I've already ordered an Arctic Mx-4!

My recommendation is Arctic mx-4. Easy to apply, not too thick or too runny, doesn't dry up so an application can last a long time. 
My experience with pastes; AS-5 is meh and too expensive for what it is. Gelid works great at first (gets slightly cooler temps than MX-4) but turns into poop after a few months. It's also really thick and hard to apply. 
IC diamond is abrasive and I don't trust it. It works really good though (has better thermal performance than both gelid and MX-4) but will remove lettering from the top of a chip. 
I find the spread method to work better on GPU's than the pea method because GPU mounting pressure is usually a bit too low to spread the paste well enough. 

Everyone will have different advice here though. The thermal paste debate is a whole other beast. Good luck. 

One of the best posts I've read here - thank you.
 
Stick around, we need actual pro consumers around here. There's this huge elephants in the room and you pointed at one: tech journalism is getting worst by the day... latelly I've been unsubscribing more channels on Youtube then I'm adding them...

Well this is interesting...
 
A few issues are related to this. A few notes on this, are required, for clarity...
 
When it came time to do the Fury-X reviews, the graphs at Tech Report showed "GTX 980 Ti" when in fact the card used was an aftermarket overclocked model. Tech Report Fury-X review, therefore, showed drastically different numbers than all of the other websites which reviewed the card.  
Do I think AMD is doing the right thing? No. I think that, despite this lack of journalistic integrity on the part of Tech Report, AMD should have still sent them a card.
 
That being said, there is a rather large lack of journalistic integrity PC Gaming Review wide. Reviewers have become, and are nothing more, than 3rd party Public Relations agents for the large tech firms. They tend to, with the exception of a few notable examples such as David Kanter and Joel Hruska (ExtremeTech), lack the critical thinking skills required to question Public Relations and Marketing material being fed to them.
 
A prime example is in how the GeForce GTX 970 memory issue was not discovered by a reviewer, rather, it was discovered by a user. The current big controversy was discovered by myself. What controversy? The controversy surrounding Asynchronous Compute/Shading support on the Maxwell 2 series of GPUs from nVIDIA.
 
Why is it that we, the consumers, have to do all of the heavy lifting? Why do we, the consumers, have to discover these issues? Why aren't those who claim themselves to be journalists doing their jobs?
 
Journalists have always been the guardians of Liberty. They're tasked, and entrusted by the public, to look into various claims being made by those in positions of authority. Tech Reviewers act as the journalists of the Tech world. While I understand that most of them are looking for celebrity and fame, which relies on the acquisition of review samples on day 1, I find it rather curious that their own profit motive is placed before the needs of their viewers and readers.
 
I can't speak for AMD or nVIDIA... but I can speak for PC Gamers and Techies the world over... for consumers. A lot of us are getting tired of this. We're tired of throwing upwards of $1000 on hardware which doesn't function as advertised. We're tired of Tech Journalists acting as 3rd party Public Relations agents in order to retain access to the latest and greatest gadgets. A lot of us want accountability.
 
I'm speaking in general terms. Make of it as you will.
 
Peace.

Dude, literally everything he he posts is to bash AMD or to rub something in the face of AMD fanboys. You'd have to be intentionally ignorant to not see that. He's obsessed with this. I don't know is he wants AMD to fail, but he definitely hold a lot of contempt for AMD fans. There's really no denying that.

Pretty typical of every post hes made in recent months. Hes really on a mission to turn people away from a card that isn't released with a NDA still on it. 

The fact that all of his topics this past week are specifically only negative things about the Fury X and have the most obscure sources (which means that he is trying his hardest to find every negative detail) it's clear that OP is on a crusade against the Fury X.

My gosh.... In any thread with the word "Nvidia" or "AMD", always the same group of people arguing the same things all over again. 
 
OT: Oh shit...

No. Because it's turning PC gaming into console gaming: You like X series of games? Oh too bad it might not be a Sony/MS exclusive but the hair effects? Might as well be. Even if you consider AMD to be inferior, there is no chance of them improving their hardware and drivers for things Nvidia has convinced devs no one else can play with.
 
It might not seem like much, it certainly isn't for me (I can deal with less impressive hair on wolves, I'll focus on trying to kill them not pause the game to take screenshots and video) but what's good for the geese should be good for the gander: We're really not far from gaming saying "You need gameworks and you can't turn it off, so this game is effectively unplayable on AMD" and after that they will of course leave the market and after that you can expect Nvidia to charge 300 USD for entry level cards and 1500 for an x80 card (you can sell your car for a Titan card of course) and nobody will be able to do shit about it because ultimately, you wanted fancy hair and didn't care what it took to get it.
 
For as much shit as AMD gets they did eventually gave everybody Mantle on the other side.

Actually, AMD has a Graphics library called TressFX, which can do things like hair simulation. The problem is that Nvidia doesn't expose the source code, so it's like a "black box" where neither the developer or any competing graphics vendor ( Intel, AMD ) can optimise it for their hardware.
There is no reason for NVidia to do this except to create such situations like this so they have a competitive advantage. And it is only recently that they have changed their libraries in that way. Which I think is a shitbag move. I would love to see an initiative like the Khronos group where all these companies come together to create an open source DX12 and Vulcan Library so shit like this doesn't happen.
I don't have issues with companies competing against eachother, but to do it via methods that lock users into their ecosystem/product is just despicable.
I put the blame on CD Project Red, for incorporating libraries which they know will negatively affect 35% of their userbase. I also put the blame on Nvidia, because they are effectively bribing developers to incorporate their anticompetitive tech. (Gameworks is required to be implemented on an Nvidia Sponsored game)

Here's a little quip from a reddit post by user 007sk2 titled "Mark my word if we don't stop the nvidia GameWorks anticompetitive practice you will start to see games that are only exclusive for one GPU over the other"
 
"So I like many of you was disappointed to see poor performance in project cars on AMD hardware. AMD's current top of the like 290X currently performs on the level of a 770/760. Of course, I was suspicious of this performance discrepancy, usually a 290X will perform within a few frames of Nvidia's current high end 970/980, depending on the game. Contemporary racing games all seem to run fine on AMD. So what was the reason for this gigantic performance gap?
Many (including some of you) seemed to want to blame AMD's driver support, a theory that others vehemently disagreed with, given the fact that Project Cars is a title built on the framework of Nvidia GameWorks, Nvidia's proprietary graphics technology for developers. In the past, we've all seen GameWorks games not work as they should on AMD hardware. Indeed, AMD cannot properly optimize for any GameWorks based game- they simply don't have access to any of the code, and the developers are forbidden from releasing it to AMD as well. For more regarding GameWorks, this article from a couple years back gives a nice overview[1]
Now this was enough explanation for me as to why the game was running so poorly on AMD, but recently I found more information that really demonstrated to me the very troubling direction Nvidia is taking with its sponsorship of developers. This thread on the anandtech forums is worth a read, and I'll be quoting a couple posts from it.[2] [2] I strongly recommend everyone reads it before commenting. There are also some good methods in there of getting better performance on AMD cards in Project Cars if you've been having trouble.
Of note are these posts:


The game runs PhysX version 3.2.4.1. It is a CPU based PhysX. Some features of it can be offloaded onto Nvidia GPUs. Naturally AMD can't do this. In Project Cars, PhysX is the main component that the game engine is built around. There is no "On / Off" switch as it is integrated into every calculation that the game engine performs. It does 600 calculations per second to create the best feeling of control in the game. The grip of the tires is determined by the amount of tire patch on the road. So it matters if your car is leaning going into a curve as you will have less tire patch on the ground and subsequently spin out. Most of the other racers on the market have much less robust physics engines. Nvidia drivers are less CPU reliant. In the new DX12 testing, it was revealed that they also have less lanes to converse with the CPU. Without trying to sound like I'm taking sides in some Nvidia vs AMD war, it seems less advanced. Microsoft had to make 3 levels of DX12 compliance to accommodate Nvidia. Nvidia is DX12 Tier 2 compliant and AMD is DX12 Tier 3. You can make their own assumptions based on this. To be exact under DX12, Project Cars AMD performance increases by a minimum of 20% and peaks at +50% performance. The game is a true DX11 title. But just running under DX12 with it's less reliance on the CPU allows for massive performance gains. The problem is that Win 10 / DX12 don't launch until July 2015 according to the AMD CEO leak. Consumers need that performance like 3 days ago! In these videos an alpha tester for Project Cars showcases his Win 10 vs Win 8.1 performance difference on a R9 280X which is a rebadged HD 7970. In short, this is old AMD technology so I suspect that the performance boosts for the R9 290X's boost will probably be greater as it can take advantage of more features in Windows 10. 20% to 50% more in game performance from switching OS is nothing to sneeze at. AMD drivers on the other hand have a ton of lanes open to the CPU. This is why a R9 290X is still relevant today even though it is a full generation behind Nvidia's current technology. It scales really well because of all the extra bells and whistles in the GCN architecture. In DX12 they have real advantages at least in flexibility in programming them for various tasks because of all the extra lanes that are there to converse with the CPU. AMD GPUs perform best when presented with a multithreaded environment. Project Cars is multithreaded to hell and back. The SMS team has one of the best multithreaded titles on the market! So what is the issue? CPU based PhysX is hogging the CPU cycles as evident with the i7-5960X test and not leaving enough room for AMD drivers to operate. What's the solution? DX12 or hope that AMD changes the way they make drivers. It will be interesting to see if AMD can make a "lite" driver for this game. The GCN architecture is supposed to be infinitely programmable according to the slide from Microsoft I linked above. So this should be a worthy challenge for them. Basically we have to hope that AMD can lessen the load that their drivers present to the CPU for this one game. It hasn't happened in the 3 years that I backed, and alpha tested the game. For about a month after I personally requested a driver from AMD, there was new driver and a partial fix to the problem. Then Nvidia requested that a ton of more PhysX effects be added, GameWorks was updated, and that was that... But maybe AMD can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one too. I certainly hope so.
And this post:


No, in this case there is an entire thread in the Project Cars graphics subforum where we discussed with the software engineers directly about the problems with the game and AMD video cards. SMS knew for the past 3 years that Nvidia based PhysX effects in their game caused the frame rate to tank into the sub 20 fps region for AMD users. It is not something that occurred overnight or the past few months. It didn't creep in suddenly. It was always there from day one. Since the game uses GameWorks, then the ball is in Nvidia's court to optimize the code so that AMD cards can run it properly. Or wait for AMD to work around GameWorks within their drivers. Nvidia is banking on taking months to get right because of the code obfuscation in the GameWorks libraries as this is their new strategy to get more customers. Break the game for the competition's hardware and hope they migrate to them. If they leave the PC Gaming culture then it's fine; they weren't our customers in the first place.
So, in short, the entire Project Cars engine itself is built around a version of PhysX that simply does not work on amd cards. Most of you are probably familiar with past implementations of PhysX, as graphics options that were possible to toggle 'off'. No such option exists for project cars. If you have and AMD GPU, all of the physx calculations are offloaded to the CPU, which murders performance. Many AMD users have reported problems with excessive tire smoke, which would suggest PhysX based particle effects.
These results seem to be backed up by Nvidia users themselves[3] [3] - performance goes in the toilet if they do not have GPU physx turned on. AMD's windows 10 driver benchmarks for Project Cars also shows a fairly significant performance increase, due to a reduction in CPU overhead- more room for PhysX calculations.[4] The worst part? The developers knew this would murder performance on AMD cards, but built their entire engine off of a technology that simply does not work properly with AMD anyway.The game was built from the ground up to favor one hardware company over another.Nvidia also appears to have a previous relationship with the developer.[5]
Equally troubling is Nvidia's treatment of their last generation Kepler cards. Benchmarks indicate that a 960 Maxwell card soundly beats a Kepler 780, and gets VERY close even to a 780ti, a feat which surely doesn't seem possible unless Nvidia is giving special attention to Maxwell.[6] These results simply do not make sense when the specifications of the cards are compared- a 780/780ti should be thrashing a 960.
These kinds of business practices are a troubling trend. Is this the future we want for PC gaming? For one population of users to be entirely segregated from another, intentionally? To me, it seems a very clear cut case of Nvidia not only screwing over other hardware users- but its own as well. I would implore those of you who have cried 'bad drivers' to reconsider this position in light of the evidence posted here. AMD open sources much of its tech, which only stands to benefit everyone. AMD sponsored titles do not gimp performance on other cards. So why is it that so many give Nvidia (and the PCars developer) a free pass for such awful, anti-competitive business practices? Why is this not a bigger deal to more people? I have always been a proponent of buying whatever card offers better value to the end user. This position becomes harder and harder with every anti-consumer business decision Nvidia makes, however. AMD is far from a perfect company, but they have received far, far too much flak from the community in general and even some of you on this particular issue.
original post here[7]"
 
Inb4 every nvidia user on the forum thinks purposeful segregation of the pc game market is a good thing.

This is extremely disturbing news if true.
What I understand is that he's saying that the game engine has physX so deeply integrated that it cannot be switched off.
But it can be offloaded to Nvidia GPUs,
since GPU phys-X is disabled on AMD GPUs they have to run it on the CPU which cripples performance.
 
Such a bad direction for the gaming industry...

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/367qav/mark_my_word_if_we_dont_stop_the_nvidia_gameworks/ FUCK YOU NVIDIA

Hi all,
 
I just build my first PC ever few days ago and left me wondering what did I missed all these years in PC gaming. Feel free to recommend any AAA titles or special ones that I should try. I personally prefer games with good storyline. Thanks!

I change to English (Malaysian) which fixed the problem. Thanks!

And from my experience -- which is abut 16 years running (and I know pros who've been with AMD for a lot longer) -- AMD has never been a bad buy. I've owned predominantly AMD chips over that time as well. I've owned the K6-2 (333 MHz and 500 MHz model), XP, X2 and now the FX 8350. For Intel I've only owned an 486 DX-2 and Celeron. I even owned a Cyrix chip at one point -- that was the only processor purchase I ever regretted.
 
Yes Intel has typically delivered on performance, but AMD's focus has always been on value, ever since they started competing with Intel with their 386 clone. But AMD managed to outpace Intel with the 64-bit instruction set, which forced Intel to play catch-up. Otherwise AMD and Intel have typically traded blows in the market -- AMD offering value over performance, being the "best bang for the buck", while Intel tried to deliver on performance and be the "bleeding edge". In the GPU market, however, things were much, much different. Several competitors existed until it whittled down to just the big two: ATI (acquired by AMD in 2006) and nVidia. First 3D accelerator I owned was an ATI Rage 128, which I swapped out for a 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee. Later I'd buy an nVidia Riva TNT AGP, then later upgrade to an nVidia GeForce 2. After that I went back to ATI because I couldn't justify the expense of the nVidia cards and stuck with them only until last year -- I now run a pair of GTX 770s.
 
In my wife's machine since the first custom build in 2007, she had nothing but Radeons until a GTX 660 pair bought at the start of last year -- 1 initially, then bought the second later. Now she's back to AMD with a Radeon R9 290X (it's getting a waterblock this weekend). I considered the GTX 970, but that memory issue just made me wonder how it'd affect things given how hard she runs her computer. And perhaps later this year it'll be a second 290X in Crossfire. In fact given how hard she can run her computer at times, the fact we've never had any problems with her hardware shows that AMD is certainly not crap.
 
Again, never had problems with AMD or ATI. I don't have any dog in this fight -- I tend to buy on value anyway, and AMD has consistently delivered, which is why I've stuck with them, except for a couple deviations for 16+ years.

Shot's fired @ Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2tu86z/discussion_i_benchmarked_gtx_970s_in_sli_at_1440p/

That's a new low, blaming the 970 users for Nvidia's false advertising. Shameful.

It's not even about that. Let me put it this way. You give me the choice of buying two oranges, one is slightly larger than the other. I opt to buy the smaller one because it fits my needs only to realize that it's not even an orange, it's a bitter grapefruit.
Of course my GTX 970 isn't worthless, I never implied it is. Not for 1080p or 1440p at least. But for 4K it is utterly worthless now. I had bought the card in anticipation of a 4K G-Sync monitor upgrade this year along with another 970 to power it. But now Nvidia slaps me in the face and tells me my card is worthless for the purpose I had originally bought it for. I'm sorry but if this isn't infuriating enough, the mere aspect of deception is enough for me to call it quits with this rotten arrangement.
UPDATE : And despite what Faa my lead you to believe I do in fact HAVE an MSI Gaming GTX 970, not that I care what an inconsiderate flame-baiter thinks.