eyeofcore said:
drake4 said:
eyeofcore said:
*facepalm*
Member that created that thread stated in the thread title that it is a rumor and he said it is a rumor and he confirmed it is a rumor yet you state a rumor as a fact and people that agreed are Sony/Microsoft fans without little to no knowledge involving hardware let alone software that only validate lowest possible denominator.
Majority people agreeing about something =/= fact
Being in majority saying one thing does not mean that you and them are right, you are basing all your claims based around a rumor without any evidence nor foundation with die shots contradicting claims that you support.
Consensus at NeoGAF about 160 Shaders rumor is that have a doubt about it because of games that were or will be released on Wii U. Need For Speed Most Wanted U has little to no issue in framerate compared to PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, no screen tearing, it has far better lightning(specially at night) and high quality textures are present in the game. Trine 2: Directors Cut looks better and runs better and developers them self said that Wii U version of Trine 2 would not be possible to run on Xbox 360 nor PlayStation 3 hardware without downgrade. Thats one of examples...
Also do you care to explain me why Bayonetta 2 looks way better than original Bayonetta since Bayonetta 2 should not be possible on 160 SPU GPU even when its more efficient...
|
read the thread correctly it clearly says the 160 shaders part is confirmed and that the downgrade part is the rumor
|
No. You are claiming a rumor as a fact even when that individual that made that thread stated it as a rumor in thread and its title and he said that we/he/everyone should treat it as a rumor. He did not gave any evidence nor source, he only said that a some person told him something so it is an anonymous source that could be FOS and BS everyone including him.
Actually... You know what... I won't stop you from claiming a mere rumor as a fact and go against evidence at hand.
At least I have done research while you base your "fact" around a rumor without any source nor evidence to support it and individual that created that thread said to treat it as a rumor which he also wrote in thread and put rumor on thread title.
You are just stating a rumor as a fact... It has been "confirmed" yet it is not that confirmed.
Your confirmation is confirmation of people that want to believe in that rumor that is true yet that rumor does not have any kind of confirmation, no evidence, no source nor any real statement except from some anonymous individual that may or may not be FOS.
|
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88910693&postcount=6
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88911841&postcount=60 read the last line dude.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89459977&postcount=536
