Soleron on 13 May 2009
| bardicverse said: Soleron -Its not what they had done wrong as a practice, its that the hardware is designed in a fashion that makes it difficult for some leased engines to use the hardware properly. Its not their intent, its the lack of updating drivers on known issues. Of course, this has been an ATI problem even before AMD. As for the reviews, when you have 50-100 different people cite the same issue, would you still buy the product? I'm far too busy to do the legwork, but the only accurate benchmarks for hardware are on tomshardware.com .. Take a peek and see if you care, maybe you'll find something you didn't know, as I'd imagine you havent owned ALL the AMD ATI cards available. AMD CPUs, going back to the mid 90s, always lagged behind what their spec numbers said. Building AMD gaming systems back them was futile. Sure, things may be different now, but old memories are hard to erase and they'd have to do something to not just keep up with Intel, but blow them clear out of the water technologically for me to take notice now. It seems like they're always playing "catch up". |
First point - OK. I agree there are issues. I still don't understand why this would stop you buying the cards.
Second point - Only accurate benchmarks are Tom's? You realise most of the internet hate Tom's for Intel and Nvidia bias from 2003-2008? The most reliable and neutral sites are Anandtech and Techreport. OK, some ATI cards have heat issues. But my point is that it's nowhere near as severe or widespread as Nvidia's issue.
Third point - Yep, agree AMD was flaky in the 90s due to lack of funding vs. Intel. But AMD were technologically and physically ahead of Intel from the release of K8 (2003) to C2D (2006). They really did 'blow them out of the water' during this time according to all hardware websites other than Tom's.
