ethomaz said:
Do you realize that was the @Machiavellian comment? Anyway Eurogamer confirmed the leaks like every other site. |
All the sites you mentioned confirmed the leaks as legit and they also reference VGleaks article. My question still stands. If VGleaks are using diagrams that are representive of a 7970 CU array. If VGleaks is stating that a SIMD does 64 threads per CPU cycle which is what a CU does not SIMD then how can I or anyone else take the value of the site and their interpretation of the data as accurate when their description is wrong. This is not just a small trival mistake, its quite big because it totally throws out their 1.2 TFlop number.
I am not stating that Durango GPU isn't 1.2 TFlops and vgleaks just make some big mistake in their description of the hardware. What I am stating is that everyone is using VGleaks as a source, they are claiming this info is correct and it appears to come from the same leaker. If the data is incorrect, it thows out everything and the data must be either reavaluated or not used at all.








