Is it just me or does that FPS benchmark strike you guys as disingenuous?
I mean, if you're going to offer a comparison on a chart, why not compare it to comparable hardware instead of purposefully only comparing to to hardware that is certainly slower than yours.
It's like saying "Our Mitsubishi Lancer EVO is way faster than the Honda Leaf and a used 2000 Geo Metro"... well... of course it is.
I tend to agree, but what's worse is when a company puts the number baseline for the bars high, so that their product appears to be like 10x faster than the competition. That's a real pet peeve of mine.
i was going to get a 7770, but i decided to get a 7870 because of tomb raider and bioshock
Well maybe I will hold off on buying a GPU. I have beta access from buying MOH warfighter and was trying to decide when I would want to spend the $70 on BF4 but I may just have to wait.
Typically dig HH content and articles, but this needs some massive work in the editing dept. Also, I generally disagree with a lot of the arguments.
1. AMD didn't announce anything. They were poised the question by a journalist and said essentially 'It was shown with Gaming Evolved logos for the first time at GDC, it would make sense for that to happen.' He basically helped the journalist understand how to do deductive reasoning via marketing. Ex: nVIDIA hasn't announced bundling Arkham 3, but if it's TWIMTBP it's essentially a sure thing. Marketing does not equal bundle announcement even if implied.
2. AMD has said because of NS and NSR that Q1 sales were similar to Q4 (in their hasty 'stable 7000' conference call). The assumption of the article is only correct if nvidia had equally good sales not compared to AMD generally, but the previous quarter versus themselves. Given all the generally accurate assumptions about typical Q1 sales, I fail to see the correlation. What would have spurred GPU upgrades more than the top two selling, if not best received titles of the year so far? In short, I think a better interpretation is if one planned on playing a new PC game in Q1, they likely considered the bundle a value-add.
As I've said before, I agree a big part of the upcoming ecosystem is AMD segmenting good, better, best along with cheap (APU), budget (console), and enthusiast. Be that mobile/mom's pc, console, and up-to-date gaming PC or categorized differently. It's clear gaming bundles will also offset the times between product launches (7790, for instance, was planned to launch RIGHT AFTER Bioshock, the last free title, which end-capped Q1 and 7790 started Q2) to keep momentum. This essentially completes the last argument: You don't need to wait. By a new card now for the tech, or wait and get a new game instead of waiting for new tech. Buy a console and/or console title, or get perhaps that same title as a value-add to a cheaper and/or better experience on a PC. Pretty clever marketing from multiple directions when you think about it.
1) AMD's overall share of the AIB market has fallen noticeably since Q2 201, as has their share of the laptop market. Rory Read stated last year that AMD had cut its ties with a number of small OEM laptop partners in favor of working with large strategic companies. It's share of the discrete market has slipped as a result.
Q1 sales being 'similar' to Q4 (presumably adjusted for seasonality) isn't great news. It's not calamitous (but I don't present the situation as calamitous in the first place).
2) "You can expect that Battlefield 4 will be part of [future] Never Settle bundles." That's a quote from an AMD source. That's not just a logical expectation. Now, you can argue that the source shouldn't have spoken on behalf of AMD, but that's a quote from an AMD employee.
3) You are misunderstanding the degree to which multiple sales trend can present simultaneously. It's entirely possible that NS boosted sales of the HD 7900 family (a positive) while NV won more volume in mobile and with lower-end parts. AMD has previously stated that HD 7900 sales were up, despite a decrease in total market share and lower GPU revenue. AMD's Q4 GPU revenue, for example, was lower than Q3.
4) As I've said, I think NS is a good deal and smart marketing. But that doesn't mean it's enough to offset broader market trends. The PC market, as a whole, is contracting sharply. That hits AMD and Intel both, but AMD is less able to weather the storm. But don't forget -- NS also eats into AMD's own margins on GPUs. It's buying the game licenses it packages with these cards, which partially offsets any profits from increased shipments.
The chart's disingenuousness (or not) would mostly be based on the relative price of the components in question. If the 5600K APU is cheaper (or equally priced) to the Intel components it compares against, I'd call that fair.
If its more expensive, but offers substantially better performance, I wouldn't call it neutral -- but manufacturer-provided data is almost never neutral.