| fillet said: My problem with the OP is that it paints an air of positivity where it isn't deserved. The specs speak for themselves and so do the ports, currently it looks bad, very bad. Time will tell but posts like the OP are neither convincing, nor based on any evidence except anecdotal viewpoint. The people painting the negative view are basing it on evidence, which is the known specification. There are parts that aren't known, that is true, but it's wrong to assume those parts are going to be better than the baseline negative overall spec, and correct from past history and common sense to assume it will be generally negative spec. Therefore OP is fail post. It's quite simple. |
My post certainly wasn't a 'fail' post. I used several examples of past systems that were more powerful than their predecessors, but didn't perform well with ports from older, less powerful systems (past history). Also, there are no official 'specs' out yet, so what the hell are you talking about? The whole RAM 'spec' assumes single channel, but it's not clear if the memory is in single or dual channel, so that is speculation. The complaints about the CPU do not take into account that the system is designed to rely less on CPU and more on GPU (different architecture) and that it's a different type of CPU that is more efficient, meaning it can do more with less clock speed. My overall point was that a crop of ports from systems with older architecture along with speculation is not enough to give a verdict on the system and that it's TOO EARLY in the lifecycle to hand down judgement, that was backed up by several detailed points, so it was hardly a fail post (unlike your poorly writted half paragraph above, which was nothing but opinoin and conjecture).
