|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22258 |   p4l1ndr0m3 (339) Oct 29, 2009 - 04:58 am
| The only 2 cards that can play modern games at reduced settings are the X1800 and X1900. None of that other old hardware has the muscle to do anything.
Also, the support is just unofficial. It doesn't mean it won't work... The Vista drivers will work just fine. I have an old x1800 that Windows 7 recognized instantly and installed a working driver.
This is just something for people to say "Hey, that is not fair, I dont agree with that!" Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22118 | p4l1ndr0m3 (339) Sep 10, 2009 - 12:33 pm
| I don't know what you've been smoking, but most of my geeky friends have made the switch to ATI/AMD. Excessive driver issues for nVidia and the OCing power of the ATIs have won many hearts and minds.
I do agree, however, that paying $300 for a graphics card is stupid. The next generation of graphics cards is going to bring forth some CPU bottlenecking. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22084 | p4l1ndr0m3 (339) Sep 02, 2009 - 08:38 pm » Edited on Sep 02, 2009 - 08:41 pm
| I don't think nVidia is going to be able to deliver the goods in the same way they have in the past... nVidia released the 8800GT due to market saturation, not because they felt like being nice. They needed a card with good performance at a lower price point in order to sell more units. Think of it the same way as console venders (Sony and MS) lowering the MSRP of the 360 and PS3. The market has reached a certain level of maturity and those people willing to pay X amound of dollars have all purchased. Now they must lower the price to X - N in order sell to a new market.
I know some of you aren't fans of tomshardware, but I'll use them to prove a point. Their August "Best Graphics Card for the Money" article tilted heavily in favor of ATI/AMD. ATI was recommended at 11 price points while nVidia only managed 5, 3 of which were ties and 1 was only an honorable mention. (I was nice and counted it anway).
nVidia also just hired an a former upper level ATI guy. A company wouldn't do that unless they knew the other team had something they wanted. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22020 | p4l1ndr0m3 (339) Aug 16, 2009 - 10:29 am » Edited on Aug 16, 2009 - 10:30 am
| If you overclock, there is no point in using the 965. For the same reason you wont get an i7 940. The AMD platform is just cheaper. With the average PC selling for well under $1000 dollars, the premium you pay just isn't worth it. I can encode a 2.5 hour movie in under 20 minutes on my 955. On my dual core, it took over an hour.
Yes, the i7 performs better, but people are looking less and less at the 5% performance increase and more at the 30% price difference for mobo/cpu. If you can play all games at the 1920x1080 with everything turned on with a 955, what does the i7 get you? More frame rate that you cannot see? Maybe you can encode that video in 16 minutes instead of 20. Big whoop, it is still blazing fast compared to the previous generation of CPUs. I'm not saying that the i7 isn't a good product, it is just more expensive than people need/want for the benefit it offers. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22020 | p4l1ndr0m3 (339) Aug 13, 2009 - 03:31 pm
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FX-57 was a single core chip. You are comparing that to a quad core chip. If you were to compare apples to apples, it would be 4x FX-57's to 1 Phenom II Quad. That would make the FX-57's at 5.6 total volts to make 4 cores.
(Awaiting a reply that starts with "But, Intel...) Flag this | Edit this post |
|
