fallen said:
Err, what was he wrong about?
The 218 vs 204 thing? I actually think 204 is correct. Andf if it was wrong, it was wrong to the negative of Xbox, which is the opposite of the hundreds of people saying he's lying to make Xbox look better.
The funny thing is the guys attacking him are usually horrendously wrong and have zero tech knowledge! |
My biggest issues was the the way in which he adds up the bandwidth of the system. Which is just horribly incorrect.
Another incorrect statement he made was about having more CU's being inefficient. Which is again crazy wrong.
And lastly he makes a 6% GPU clock speed increase seem like something....more? How on earth a 6% GPU clock speed increase is anything other than exactly that, is beyond me.
Honestly these 3 things are sooo incorrect that i dont even...
And i didnt need GAF/Vgchartz/other articles to tell me this. Any PC enthusiast is familiar with these things. None of this stuff is overly complicated. Its not like we talking about undiclosed co-processors etc. We speaking about generic computing performance terms here....
I dont agree with people attacking the guy personally but the statements he made are just off. The 204/218 thing is minor didnt really mind it. But the other things he really needs to back it up. Thats why he hasnt responded to most of the follow up questions in the thread. Even the decent replies, with no insulting etc. He very clearly states that he just gave off the information that he got from the engineers. Thats why hes sending all the legit questions to get them answered. I like the guy, seems genuine, but the doesnt make any of the incorrect statements he made any better.
And what im confused about, in this partilar thread, is so called "techies" defending what is clearly wrong info...never mind the correct stuff. Look at this whole thing objectively and im sure you will agree.
