MSI and ASUS Allegedly sent GPU samples with higher clock speeds to press

Dark NighT said:

I can see the internet making a lot of noise over nothing really, this really isnt something that should surprise anyone, if you send your product out for review, you'd want to sent the best you got, nothing new.

Click to expand...

AngryGoldfish said:

It could be argued that MSI and ASUS aren't simply sending out GPU's with high ASIC values or cherry-picked overclockers; they are sending out cards with specifications that the consumer does not get out of the box. You have to download a unique piece of software and manually override the stock settings, which is odd. It's like sending out a new car for review with all the horsepower unlocked, then selling the car to the masses with a small amount of the horsepower locked via the onboard computer for no apparent reason other than to confuse the consumer who has to unlock it himself with a unique device that comes with the car. It begs the question, why? Is it because not every car can be guaranteed to function with the unlocked horsepower? Or is it because they are trying to sell prime samples to beat their competitors without having to actually do the work? Either way you look at it, whether it's common practise or not, it's not honest. It's also lazy. It's corner-cutting. That happens, but it ain't cool.

I hear this argument all the time in regards to points like this: 'But every company does it so stop moaning.' That is not a valid argument. You cannot continue to excuse dishonesty or laziness just because it's also done by their competitors. You are adding to the laziness and dishonesty by letting it slide underneath you. It's easy to not report an action that is immoral, whether it be a slight offense or a large offense. It's hard to stop it.

Click to expand...

SeekaX said:

It's a 1.5% boost which will most likely result in an even smaller performance boost. If i run a benchmark twice i get offsets larger than that.
It's insignificant, i've got better things to do than getting up in arms over petty things like that. It's like complaining when your 300gr beef burger is only 295gr.

Click to expand...

SeekaX said:

It's a 1.5% boost which will most likely result in an even smaller performance boost. If i run a benchmark twice i get offsets larger than that.
It's insignificant, i've got better things to do than getting up in arms over petty things like that. It's like complaining when your 300gr beef burger is only 295gr.

Click to expand...

Kilbane said:

Has anyone considered the fact that the pre consumer models were a test for stability at that clock speed, there is a chance that the cards were going to be released at that speed. However due to further testing they reduced the clocks to ensure a more stable release.

Equally as possible as people saying everyone was being dishonest before getting any confirmation.

Click to expand...

SeekaX said:

It's a 1.5% boost which will most likely result in an even smaller performance boost. If i run a benchmark twice i get offsets larger than that.
It's insignificant, i've got better things to do than getting up in arms over petty things like that. It's like complaining when your 300gr beef burger is only 295gr.

Click to expand...

AngryGoldfish said:

I wouldn't complain that my card was slightly slower than a review sample. I would complain if a company was deliberately altering their BIOS' to slightly nudge out their competitors when the consumer is not aware of it. Would I shout out in the streets about it? No. But it's worth having a conversation about, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

SeekaX said:

Nudging out the competition by 1fps, once again, i get larger disparities when i run a benchmark twice. To even make this relevant the competitor's card needs to perform equally at base clock. If this is really intended to give that little edge in reviews then it's probably the most laughable cheat i've ever encountered. Who would be that stupid to alter clockspeeds in review samples and not expect anyone to notice.

Click to expand...

AngryGoldfish said:

Undoubtedly. But when a kid nicks an extra sweet from his Pick 'N' Mix and gets away with it for years, he may decide to start skimming from the pile elsewhere as well. That's the point I'm attempting to make. The philosophy of 'Everyone does it so drop it' or 'It's only small so let it be' are both completely understandable, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The AMD CEO holding the Fury X with the words "overclockers dream" surrounding her, that crossed the line, but not very far at all. The 3.5GB of VRAM crossed the line a little further, but still not that far. My point is, companies like to make cutbacks where they feel it will be unnoticed. Sometimes they take that too far. VW is an example. A little slice here, a little slice there, they won't notice. Singularly, no. But collectively, maybe. That's all I'm trying to get at. I'm just rambling too much, really.

Click to expand...

SeekaX said:

Ignoring this small time offence doesn't mean that you have to ignore them pushing the boundaries further, i don't consider a 1.5% offset worth giving them a slap on the wrist, if they push it to 5% i might change my mind. It's a bit like saying people who go 1kph over the speedlimit should be punished because if they don't they might try to go 10kph over the speedlimit next time, but for that to work the punishment needs to be weak enough to not feel draconian and still hard enough to get the message across. In this 1kph over the speedlimit offence those two conditions can't both be met and i think the same applies in this scenario. Since there are sufficient punishments in place if they decide to push the limits further i don't think being overly harsh is necessary.

Click to expand...