AMD's R9 Fury X - Pump Whine Fixed

[mr moose]

It's also a pretty big assumption to take one communication from a person unknown to us, on the outside, as holy writ. No disrespect to PCPer but they aren't official either. They claimed an email communique, but the history of communications leading up to the specific response, the context, and the relationship involved are unknown, and the individual is unknown to us.

 

At the very least the person on the AMD side spoke out of turn, or in ignorance, or, if we want to be generous, was dealing with a differing context of information, but without some idea of who this person is, and what his or her role is in the company we cannot take that communication as "AMD's" communication, as claimed, rather than merely the relation of that specific individual. Even if the person promoted themselves as more important than they were, who that person is in AMD is what matters to US on the outside. And we just do not know.

 

The best we can say, in the dark as we are, is they are a liaison, heck they could even be a contractor. Even if we assume whatever person had some kind of special privileged information, An aside or supposed privileged information from some source inside AMD is not an official release or response FROM AMD without knowing who the source is.

 

Before I lay anything at AMD's feet, as a corporate entity, I want to know who the person is, where their responsibility for the information derives from, and what capacity they operate under that "AMD" as an umbrella has that person as a mouthpiece for the corporation as a whole. I'm only concerned with our affixing this obfuscated exchange to AMD rather than the individual when we have no idea who this person is or under what onus they have claim to speak on the corporation's behalf. 

 

You could use that same train of logic to dismiss any report from any media then, because we don't know who exactly Linus, Anandtech, Jays2c etc spoke to officially at company X we can just dismiss what they are saying.

 

You may as well stop reading reviews and media reports all together.

[HalGameGuru]

There is a difference between taking someone's opinion into account and taking some hearsay comment as representative of a larger group.

 

Any review site is giving you the data they collected, which may not be representative, and giving their opinion, which you can take or leave, any of whom and any of which could be false or an outlier.

 

And that entire paradigm is different and separate from the CEO of McDonald's saying the Big Mac is now Health Food versus some packing plant employee claiming soylent green is people. One comment represents a corporation the other an individual. An INDIVIDUAL'S comment does not represent a corporation unless and until we know who it is and HOW they represent the corporation.

 

I take what Linus says as representative of LTT and LMG, that's his place. If I hear Luke or a Nick say something I do not presume that is the stance of LMG or LTT unless I hear confirmation from Linus. If it is in a VIDEO I presume it has the blessing of the company. If it is a personal communique via email I do NOT presume it represents LMG.

[mr moose]

There is a difference between taking someone's opinion into account and taking some hearsay comment as representative of a larger group.

 

Any review site is giving you the data they collected, which may not be representative, and giving their opinion, which you can take or leave, any of whom and any of which could be false or an outlier.

 

And that entire paradigm is different and separate from the CEO of McDonald's saying the Big Mac is now Health Food versus some packing plant employee claiming soylent green is people. One comment represents a corporation the other an individual. An INDIVIDUAL'S comment does not represent a corporation unless and until we know who it is and HOW they represent the corporation.

 

I take what Linus says as representative of LTT and LMG, that's his place. If I hear Luke or a Nick say something I do not presume that is the stance of LMG or LTT unless I hear confirmation from Linus. If it is in a VIDEO I presume it has the blessing of the company. If it is a personal communique via email I do NOT presume it represents LMG.

 

You're still assuming Pcper only spoke to a nobody at AMD,  That is a very tenuous conclusion to draw at the best of times.    Why would you assume that they would stop communicating through their usual channels with AMD and start talking to random people?  Why would you assume that what he is reporting is "suddenly" unofficial?

 

It seems you are trying very hard to dismiss what has happened by insinuating that PCper don't know how to do their job and have stopped talking to the official AMD reps they normally communicate with.

[zMeul]

Babel Tech Reviews: http://www.babeltechreviews.com/the-sapphire-fury-x-vs-the-evga-gtx-980-ti-sc-showdown-2/view-all/

this particular Fury X pump puts out unwanted frequencies in the ultra high (over 20KHz) range which leads to headaches, irritation, and a left over tinnitus like ringing in the ears that can last for hours after an extended gaming or benching session.

[Ex14]

 

...The R9 Fury X has great overall noise performance under load. However the pump doesn’t idle all that well, and as a result its idle noise performance is second only to the R9 295X2, a card with two pumps....Meanwhile there is a secondary matter, which is the tone of that noise...This was not an issue with our sample, and is the crux of the questions I have received on the matter.

Taken From Anadtech

I guess they did "fix" it, either that or there was a hella lot of bad first units.

[zMeul]

I guess they did "fix" it, either that or there was a hella lot of bad first units.

check my post above, it's a revised pump .. with issues

so no, AMD hasn't "fixed" anything

[HalGameGuru]

You're still assuming Pcper only spoke to a nobody at AMD,  That is a very tenuous conclusion to draw at the best of times.    Why would you assume that they would stop communicating through their usual channels with AMD and start talking to random people?  Why would you assume that what he is reporting is "suddenly" unofficial?

 

It seems you are trying very hard to dismiss what has happened by insinuating that PCper don't know how to do their job and have stopped talking to the official AMD reps they normally communicate with.

I presume nothing, THEY put out through their grand stand a comment purported to be from someone at AMD, they say not who, they say not with what authority, yet they report it. And people who read it take it as holy writ from on high at AMD. THAT is the presumption. WE, in an objective manner, have NOTHING to support anything but some back channel communique between someone at PCPer and an alleged AMD employee or agent.

 

ANd like I said, even if they spoke with their AMD rep, unless it was someone with authority or who was given such information specifically to disseminate, it is not "AMD's" communication. It is that specific individual. (And we can be pretty sure they were NOT as they were not identified and the information was not corroborated nor followed up on with someone else) Some liaison hears at the water cooler there were some loud pumps and things are being done to fix it and he passes that along, that is not an AMD release. Unless and until the person who put out that information is identified, or the source of that information, internally, is identified letting us know where it came from, why it was what it was in the face of the facts as we have seen them, and in what context and under what time frame they were made, they are meaningless. It was something not worth putting into a serious article. "On deep background someone familiar with White House internal policies has let us know the first family's dog wears an nVidia dog tag." That is not a white house press release, you do not accost the first lady over that and say "Y U TREAT UR DOG LIKE DIS?!" at BEST it is a reason to follow up with questions and get confirmation. That email back and forth was not something to put in the article, it was a foot in the door to get serious critical information and confirmation from someone with the authority to give it out. If they had HAD that they would have said who told them, and the information would have been an AMD release to PCPer. It was none of those things.

 

WE are in the dark, we need the specifics to make any objective normative statement about the state of affairs. As it is ALL we can rightly say is some individual allegedly told PCPer thus, and that information was either erroneous, ignorant, or a lie. From the way what was exchanged was related to us I am going with mostly ignorant, it wasn't even good corporate PR speak.

 

 

Just as with LTT, if I want corporate information I go to those who represent the corporation. I do not discount what any individual might say, but I do not presume it to represent or come from that corporate entity by default. I have no doubt the person PCPer interacted with gave them information they felt was pertinent and accurate, and it may well have been, but it was not AMD's communication. As it sits AMD is not at fault for what that guy said to PCPer. And since it is not AMD's words I have no axe to grind over the noisy pump debacle. I just want the facts, and I want that ifnormation before I make any decision about culpability or butt-hurt.

 

I take what Linus says as representative of LTT and LMG, that's his place. If I hear Luke or a Nick say something I do not presume that is the stance of LMG or LTT unless I hear confirmation from Linus. If it is in a VIDEO I presume it has the blessing of the company. If it is a personal communique via email I do NOT presume it represents LMG.

[HalGameGuru]

Babel Tech Reviews: http://www.babeltechreviews.com/the-sapphire-fury-x-vs-the-evga-gtx-980-ti-sc-showdown-2/view-all/

All that tells me is those of us with actual tinnitus will have a field day with cheap used units in the near future. I cannot wait.

[Ex14]

check my post above, it's a revised pump .. with issues

so no, AMD hasn't "fixed" anything

I didn;t say the revised pump fixed anything, I'm saying that perhaps they DID fixed something else about it Anadtech copy had the sticker after all.

[mr moose]

they say not who,...

 

 

 

WE are in the dark... d to PCPer. ...And since it is not AMD's words...  I make any decision about culpability.

 

We do know who, they spoke with AMD, we are not in the dark It is AMDs words, you are the one assuming it isn't, unreasonably too I might add.     You do make a decisions,  by dismissing the article on grounds that you don't believe they are representing the company properly.

 

Either you are questioning Pcper's ability to know the difference between an official communique from AMD and simply speaking to a no-body. Or you are saying they are choosing to misrepresent AMD purposefully.  OR, you are choosing to ignore the fact that AMD don't suddenly stop talking to the media. Usually if someone from a company says something they don't want to represent them they issue a statement saying they did not authorize the comments and that they don't represent the company.

 

Your insinuations can be applied to dismiss every one who reports on communications from companies.

[HalGameGuru]

We do know who, they spoke with AMD, we are not in the dark It is AMDs words, you are the one assuming it isn't, unreasonably too I might add.     You do make a decisions,  by dismissing the article on grounds that you don't believe they are representing the company properly.

 

Either you are questioning Pcper's ability to know the difference between an official communique from AMD and simply speaking to a no-body. Or you are saying they are choosing to misrepresent AMD purposefully.  OR, you are choosing to ignore the fact that AMD don't suddenly stop talking to the media. Usually if someone from a company says something they don't want to represent them they issue a statement saying they did not authorize the comments and that they don't represent the company.

 

Your insinuations can be applied to dismiss every one who reports on communications from companies.

There are two separate PcPer releases in question here. the one I am referring to is:

AMD addressed this to me in an email, stating that the issue was limited to the initial batch of engineering samples and that the issues had "been resolved and a fix added" for all production parts going on sale to the public.

This does not state who it is from, it specifies no relationship, and it has no hard data. They claim "AMD," I don't like that at any time, but especially when the people involved have an established relationship and lines of communication. I can't accept that this far down the chain.

 

The second instance, which we can take FAR further is this:

In an email sent to the media just prior to the Fury X launch, an AMD rep stated: In regards to the “pump whine”, AMD received feedback that during open bench testing some cards emit a mild “whining” noise.  This is normal for most high speed liquid cooling pumps; Usually the end user cannot hear the noise as the pumps are installed in the chassis, and the radiator fan is louder than the pump.  Since the AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury X radiator fan is near silent, this pump noise is more noticeable.  

 

The issue is limited to a very small batch of initial production samples and we have worked with the manufacturer to improve the acoustic profile of the pump.  This problem has been resolved and a fix added to production parts and is not an issue.

This relation was public, stated as being direct from a "rep," not as specific as I'd like but it's something, and it was stated as being a public release to all interested parties. That ticked all the boxes I needed. (public, under the AMD banner, and direct from someone accepted to represent AMD as a whole)The problem is the time in between. If this was all the same release why did the first reference to it not include that information? If NOT why include information you are not assured enough about to give us full provenance? Some would say PcPer was the tipping point in getting this noise issue noticed, and it was NECESSARY to get this noticed, but the inclusion of this hinted and obfuscated communication from AMD, at least without fuller details on the source, took valid concern and overshadowed that entire intervening time with miscues and miscommunication.

 

It doesn't matter if it turns out that first email WAS the same as the second, or was from Lisa Su herself, it was not specified as such when they publicly related it to us. if PcPer knew they should have disclosed. If they didn't it shouldn't have gone in. If it was meant to be a back channel aside they should have couched it as such and not presumed it represented AMD.

 

Take it how you will, I have to go by the actions of individuals first. masking information with allusions to corporate identity or withholding information doesn't jive well with me. Maybe its all the BS like that we have to deal with on a daily basis in corporate America and politics, but I expect better above board exchanges from an industry so anchored in tech, instant communication, open, public, etc. As it sits, with the later releases we can go home frowning but sated, but I take issue with the editors or writers with PcPer with how they handled that info, especially if they had more in hand to justify it to us, or were talking out of turn and should have left it out.

 

[mr moose]

There are two separate PcPer releases in question here. the one I am referring to is:

This does not state who it is from, it specifies no relationship, and it has no hard data. They claim "AMD," I don't like that at any time, but especially when the people involved have an established relationship and lines of communication. I can't accept that this far down the chain.

 

The second instance, which we can take FAR further is this:

This relation was public, stated as being direct from a "rep," not as specific as I'd like but it's something, and it was stated as being a public release to all interested parties. That ticked all the boxes I needed. (public, under the AMD banner, and direct from someone accepted to represent AMD as a whole)The problem is the time in between. If this was all the same release why did the first reference to it not include that information? If NOT why include information you are not assured enough about to give us full provenance? Some would say PcPer was the tipping point in getting this noise issue noticed, and it was NECESSARY to get this noticed, but the inclusion of this hinted and obfuscated communication from AMD, at least without fuller details on the source, took valid concern and overshadowed that entire intervening time with miscues and miscommunication.

 

It doesn't matter if it turns out that first email WAS the same as the second, or was from Lisa Su herself, it was not specified as such when they publicly related it to us. if PcPer knew they should have disclosed. If they didn't it shouldn't have gone in. If it was meant to be a back channel aside they should have couched it as such and not presumed it represented AMD.

 

Take it how you will, I have to go by the actions of individuals first. masking information with allusions to corporate identity or withholding information doesn't jive well with me. Maybe its all the BS like that we have to deal with on a daily basis in corporate America and politics, but I expect better above board exchanges from an industry so anchored in tech, instant communication, open, public, etc. As it sits, with the later releases we can go home frowning but sated, but I take issue with the editors or writers with PcPer with how they handled that info, especially if they had more in hand to justify it to us, or were talking out of turn and should have left it out.

 

 

 

 

 

They state it is from AMD.  That a "representative of AMD" said these things about an AMD product.  Big walls of text won't change that.

 

You are simply making too many assumptions.

[HalGameGuru]

 

 

They state it is from AMD.  That a "representative of AMD" said these things about an AMD product.  Big walls of text won't change that.

 

You are simply making too many assumptions.

 

 

Believe what you want, their first reference gave us nothing. And if someone wants to report something as being representative of a collective entity I want reference and citation. I don't care if its a blog or the Wall Street Journal. If it's on background tell me that. If its back channel, tell me. But keep it above board and accurate. You want to say it represents AMD tell me why it does. I do not know your contacts, tell me who told you this, if they do not wish to be identified say so. As it is, what we got in that first article, is NOT journalism, we cannot take that as representing AMD, all we can take it for is what it is, PcPer's claims of secondhand information. It was personal communication between two dudes and can be taken or left as that. A week later, THAT communication we can take to the bank. Anyone can make claims, if someone wants to make claims publicly from a soap box I need more than their word to project second hand relation of some other unnamed source as more than just the commentary of some individual.

 

All they had to do was say " A source within AMD has related to us..." rather than "AMD SAYS," that takes care of covering the bases relating to provenance and official capacity. They took an individual's comments and related them as representative of the organization, you have to justify that leap.

[mr moose]

All they had to do was say " A source within AMD has related to us..." rather than "AMD SAYS," that takes care of covering the bases relating to provenance and official capacity. They took an individual's comments and related them as representative of the organization, you have to justify that leap.

 

They mean exactly the same thing.   The quote from AMD is official, There is no rational reason to question it, it's not out of context, it's not significantly different from anything they have said before and there is nothing in the PCper article that insinuates or claims the quotes are anything but official.

 

You are making assumptions, to what end only you know, however that's all they are, dismissive assumptions not founded on anything rational. 

[Guest Kloaked]

They mean exactly the same thing. The quote from AMD is official, There is no rational reason to question it, it's not out of context, it's not significantly different from anything they have said before and there is nothing in the PCper article that insinuates or claims the quotes are anything but official.

You are making assumptions, to what end only you know, however that's all they are, dismissive assumptions not founded on anything rational.

Nah man. The words "AMD says" are popular trigger words and are offensive.

[HalGameGuru]

They mean exactly the same thing.   The quote from AMD is official, There is no rational reason to question it, it's not out of context, it's not significantly different from anything they have said before and there is nothing in the PCper article that insinuates or claims the quotes are anything but official.

 

You are making assumptions, to what end only you know, however that's all they are, dismissive assumptions not founded on anything rational. 

The fact you think those mean the same thing tells me all I need to know. I suppose "A source within the white house" means it represents the president? 

 

PcPer is not WCCF, I expect better, and being above board when relating second hand information is one of the places I expect better practices. It doesn't effect me personally, whenever I see that garbage I automatically assume "A source within." But, for many people a line like that is like saying it came from Lisa Su's mouth. It does NOT represent a corporation because PCPer says so. If they want to purport it to be corporate vs individual they need to specify.

[itachipirate]

Nice, 

 

so it's cooler, potentially quieter now and runs pretty much the same as the 980Ti (And better at 4k on games that aren't optimized better for nvidia) if you don't take into account overclocking. 

 

I would much rather have a reference Fury X at this point then a reference 980Ti, but I'd still rather have a non reference 980Ti and overclock it for even better performance, but that does have a higher cost. And depending on how much this pump issue was 'fixed' more noise. 

 

The 2 cards are starting to stack up very nicely alongside each other

Is this someone comparing graphics cards based off of performance and facts instead of brand prejudice?

 

Get out

[mr moose]

The fact you think those mean the same thing tells me all I need to know. I suppose "A source within the white house" means it represents the president? 

 

PcPer is not WCCF, I expect better, and being above board when relating second hand information is one of the places I expect better practices. It doesn't effect me personally, whenever I see that garbage I automatically assume "A source within." But, for many people a line like that is like saying it came from Lisa Su's mouth. It does NOT represent a corporation because PCPer says so. If they want to purport it to be corporate vs individual they need to specify.

 

No, there is a big difference between "a source from within the white house" and "The White house says" .  One insinuates an unofficial word from an insider while the other states it is officially from the white house.     PCper did not say a source from within AMD has made any claims, but he did say  "AMD said" and quoted them directly. 

 

You are trying to read into this too deeply.  What you are trying to impose is an idea that PCper did not talk to an official at AMD. Unless you have some rational reason for making such an assumption why would you make such an assumption?

[HalGameGuru]

No, there is a big difference between "a source from within the white house" and "The White house says" .  One insinuates an unofficial word from an insider while the other states it is officially from the white house.     PCper did not say a source from within AMD has made any claims, but he did say  "AMD said" and quoted them directly. 

 

You are trying to read into this too deeply.  What you are trying to impose is an idea that PCper did not talk to an official at AMD. Unless you have some rational reason for making such an assumption why would you make such an assumption?

I quoted you the exact parts of their own articles. They gave no indication of who it was. The SECOND release, a week later, was entirely kosher, THAT one was related how the first one SHOULD have been. The first instance did exactly what you just mentioned in that first sentence. In that article, with what was related to us, they had no bearing to claim it was representative of AMD, if they wanted to keep that wording they needed to better back up that communication, if they did NOT want to go deeper they should have worded it as a source within. They related it like they would an unofficial inside source but worded it like an official release.

 

It's not that difficult. PCPer never substantiated talking to an official, not even a REP, they just said "AMD" and obfuscated the communication. Those two mechanisms do NOT go hand in hand. You obfuscate when its on background or related as unreliable or unconfirmed; you are precise, exact, and open about sources when it represents an organization or can be substantiated.

 

And they could fix it right now if they were to open up about the communication or retract their earlier wording. I am willing to accept and look past mistakes or errors. I do not look past irresponsibility or ineptitude. I know I'm too harsh on this stuff, but I kind of have to be, with as much BS as gets shoveled our way via media, politics, and legalese; reputable tech concerns were always bastions of fellow nerdy detail oriented people. Tell me how you got your results, pretty graphs not withstanding, tell me who gave you this information, tell me why you think this or that will or won't work like advertised. This was a world I could be comfortable in knowing the people feeding me info were like me and didn't like the BS.

[MEC-777]

Glad I didn't get involved in this discussion. lol.

 

My thoughts are; there simply aren't enough final production units/samples out in the wild yet to drawing any conclusion, one way or the other. 

[HalGameGuru]

Glad I didn't get involved in this discussion. lol.

 

My thoughts are; there simply aren't enough final production units/samples out in the wild yet to drawing any conclusion, one way or the other. 

I was really hoping someone would pull a pump apart, or someone from CM might come out with a diagram of what part was at fault. The more info they give us the less hurt they're gonna feel.

[mr moose]

I quoted you the exact parts of their own articles. They gave no indication of who it was. The SECOND release, a week later, was entirely kosher, THAT one was related how the first one SHOULD have been. The first instance did exactly what you just mentioned in that first sentence. In that article, with what was related to us, they had no bearing to claim it was representative of AMD, if they wanted to keep that wording they needed to better back up that communication, if they did NOT want to go deeper they should have worded it as a source within. They related it like they would an unofficial inside source but worded it like an official release.

 

It's not that difficult. PCPer never substantiated talking to an official, not even a REP, they just said "AMD" and obfuscated the communication. Those two mechanisms do NOT go hand in hand. You obfuscate when its on background or related as unreliable or unconfirmed; you are precise, exact, and open about sources when it represents an organization or can be substantiated.

 

And they could fix it right now if they were to open up about the communication or retract their earlier wording. I am willing to accept and look past mistakes or errors. I do not look past irresponsibility or ineptitude. I know I'm too harsh on this stuff, but I kind of have to be, with as much BS as gets shoveled our way via media, politics, and legalese; reputable tech concerns were always bastions of fellow nerdy detail oriented people. Tell me how you got your results, pretty graphs not withstanding, tell me who gave you this information, tell me why you think this or that will or won't work like advertised. This was a world I could be comfortable in knowing the people feeding me info were like me and didn't like the BS.

 

They don't need to say who it was. You don't need to know the exact person they spoke to in order to understand it as being official.  As I said earlier, if a  company is misrepresented in the media they are usually very quick to call it out.   

 

You are directly claiming that PCper have intentionally misrepresented AMD here.  Show me the evidence for this.

[HalGameGuru]

They don't need to say who it was. You don't need to know the exact person they spoke to in order to understand it as being official.  As I said earlier, if a  company is misrepresented in the media they are usually very quick to call it out.   

 

You are directly claiming that PCper have intentionally misrepresented AMD here.  Show me the evidence for this.

To claim its representative of AMD as a whole it has to be sourced from someone with such capacity. They make this claim without substantiation. no problem for you, big problem for me. I do not take AMD representation at PCPer's word. I take THEIR representation at their word, whatever I see in a PCPer article I take as representative of PCPer, if they want to relate something to me that THEY claim is representative of ANOTHER ENTITY I need them to cite, not to claim it on their own recognizance. I expect that of ANY interchange involving a corporate entity. AMD, PCPer, the Presidency, Coca-Cola, The Bill Gates Foundation, etc. I as an individual have but one mouth piece, anything I say is representative of ME. A corporation has thousands of individuals only a select few of which have any power to represent the organization as a whole. They made no substantiation as to whether their source was such an individual. And the way they related it to us, claiming it was personal communication, obfuscating the content, and leaving the contact nameless increases the odds of it being someone who WASN'T. If so they need to retract or reword, if it WAS they need to add citation. Either way I want that info out there, but I want it kosher, it was too important in spurring the continued dialog to quash.

[mr moose]

To claim its representative of AMD as a whole it has to be sourced from someone with such capacity. They make this claim without substantiation. no problem for you, big problem for me. I do not take AMD representation at PCPer's word. I take THEIR representation at their word, whatever I see in a PCPer article I take as representative of PCPer, if they want to relate something to me that THEY claim is representative of ANOTHER ENTITY I need them to cite, not to claim it on their own recognizance. I expect that of ANY interchange involving a corporate entity. AMD, PCPer, the Presidency, Coca-Cola, The Bill Gates Foundation, etc. I as an individual have but one mouth piece, anything I say is representative of ME. A corporation has thousands of individuals only a select few of which have any power to represent the organization as a whole. They made no substantiation as to whether their source was such an individual. And the way they related it to us, claiming it was personal communication, obfuscating the content, and leaving the contact nameless increases the odds of it being someone who WASN'T. If so they need to retract or reword, if it WAS they need to add citation. Either way I want that info out there, but I want it kosher, it was too important in spurring the continued dialog to quash.

 

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. 

[Sparviero]

Well PCPer did publish the follow up way too early, imoo. Everyone is in such a rush to create a final and indelible opinion on everything these days. I just want to enjoy a price war.