zero129 said:
ninjablade said:
zero129 said:
ninjablade said:
Aielyn said:
ninjablade said:
no they said they did there own anlaysis they got the gpu pic from neogaf but not there analysis. |
OK, then, let's use the article, because even from the article, you're wrong.
"Chipworks' shot is still being analysed"
"The answer comes from a mixture of known and unknown variables."
"The obvious suspect would be the Wii U's 1.2GHz CPU, a tri-core piece of hardware re-architected from the Wii's Broadway chip" - NOT a tri-core version of Broadway, but hardware that was re-architected from Broadway.
"However, there still plenty of unknowns to factor in too"
"... and effectively we have something approaching a full spec"
Even DF don't make the claim that it's cold hard facts.
And the fact that they had to update the die photo image because they had only marked half of the shader units says to me that they didn't do the analysis themselves... at least, the author didn't. And all of the information in the article, except for that exceptional and unsubstantiated claim right at the end, is information available from that NeoGAF thread - while there was an initial mistake regarding 20 vs 40 ALUs (I think that's what they referred to them as) that Beyond3D corrected NeoGAF about, NeoGAF has made more progress than Beyond3D on actually analysing it.
|
no t true at all thrakter was coming out with a wild hypothesis of 470 gflops, and beyond3d memeber came and corrected him there is not one single fact neogaf came up with just assumptions so far and not even good ones.
|
What! O_O , Wasnt you saying how much of a trusted site it was awhile ago? or was that only when they where agreeing with you?
|
I did trust them but then i found beyond3d, the only person that really came with something conclusive is AlStrong a mod at beyond3d, which is where neogaf got there numers from for the wiiu gflops, at first neogaf though it was 160 sp instead of 320sp.
|
Funny cos at the start i remember you saying "Beyond3D and Neogaf are the 2 most trusted sites when it comes to tech" so clearly you knew of both sites first. But then you only liked Neogaf back then when a lot of people on the site was agreeing with what you where saying, and now alot of them are not once they got the GPU pic so Neogaf can no longer be trusted in your eyes.
You pretty much have just confirmed what i said, anything that agrees with what you say is the truth and can be trusted but if they dont they cant.
|
neogaf can be trusted, but you have to tons of reading to get to the good posts, but there is too much fanboy specualtion on that board, beyond3d is much easier, and fanboy specualtion is not allowed. basically you have many people on neogaf who have no idea what there talking about when it comes to tech, for instant thraketer, all his specualtion is just wishful thanking.
