| Soleron said:
To first part: I genuinely don't know which part of what I said you are objecting to. Please quote the specific part. To the second: I am disagreeing with you because I don't like customers falling for marketing and making a suboptimal choice. I'm not trying to defend ATI: I'm trying to argue that they objectively offer the best value because I want people to make the best decision for themselves. To the last part: I do actually have some evidence. AMD's quad-core CPUs are 'native', i.e. all four cores are on one die. Intel's quad-cores are on two dies of two cores. This is identical to the ATI/Nvidia setup. Yet no one would argue that Intel's chips aren't the fastest. Yes, provably, AMD has the faster "single die" solution. But AMD is clearly not on top because Intel's use of two chips has resulted in better yields and cheaper production. As for the second thing, ATI could have copy-pasted another 800SPs onto the first design. This would have doubled the die size and the performance, exactly as including two chips rather than one has done. I can't imagine a technical reason why this couldn't have happened. |
I asked you for links to sources backing up the generalizations you made in your above posts but instead you avoid the subject.
Kindly post them or go back to /.
