The point remains.

AMD's claim is that gameworks even hairworks ran fine until about two months before release. That is where performance took a sudden plummet.

They are not contradicting themselves. Beta testing games work that way on evolving patches that come in over time. Whether AMD is lying about performance or not I do not know. I am simply explaining that the linked material is not making the logical point that it believes that it is.

Nvidia white knights can downvote me all they want, but I am correct.

Let's make a different example so that less able people can understand it, based on a common lab test. You cut an apple in half and set the pieces on a shelf in different locations in a building. You look at them once a day, at first they don't deteriorate. On day 31 you notice a marked change in the state of the one nearer the toilet in comparison to the one in a more clean environment.

Yes, you had the apples all along, but there is a difference between the two. You are not making the claim that you never had the apples before that, only that they were in a different state before that. You come to the obvious conclusion that something different is affecting one half of the apple and not the other.

You can come to the conclusion with some degree of certainty that, at some point, that apple that decayed notably faster past a certain date came into contact with something that caused the difference.

With a computer program where updates roll in on certain dates, it can be fairly easy to tell when those exposures that caused changes happen.

We see it all the time on PCMR. "My FPS dropped, help!" Did you just now update drivers? "Yes" Try reverting or reinstalling them. "That fixed it, thanks a lot!"

We are talking very basic troubleshooting and isolation here, it is not rocket surgery. I am not speculating or fanboying or waving a pitchfork.

What AMD claims is within the realm of possibility. The linked "forbes contribution" does not contradict that, is not proof, evidence, or even "reason" otherwise.

That is all I am saying.

Some, maybe a majority, of PCMR really needs to work on telling the difference between rhetoric, advertising hype, marketing BS, or other bloggy/fabricated posts masquerading as journalism(such as wccftech and other rumor-mill gossip rag clickbait websites) as opposed to actual logic, real science, and other intellectually valid techniques for arriving at real information, aka facts.

But most of PCMR won't. They'll just pick up their pitchforks and torches and go against anything at whim that a few people agree on and call it a "circlejerk" like the peasant stock that they came from.