|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15549 |  GrapeApe (36) May 23, 2007 - 08:50 pm » Edited on May 23, 2007 - 08:54 pm
| I'm not so worried about the 'my vote didn't count' sentiment, so much as why bother with the exercise if it does amount to anything productive? I think the comments and contributions in the articles themselves were the most productive for most, and you guys' replies IMO offered the best insight into your knowledge and understanding of the topics, as well as guaged your ability to handle input, observation and criticism. All of which are vital to being reviewers. IMO next time do away with the voting fiasco (maybe to weed out the first round or something, but no further) and rely more on the true meat and mettle of the posts and the replies and comments and the reactions they evoke. Voting alone, even just positive, I could network all my co-workers and friends and swamp a ton of vote in, which kinda defeats the purpose since they won't be influence by ads or content, just voting automatons.
BTW, Did I miss the breakdown of the JUDGES' voting and such, or has it not been posted yet, I was away for a few days.
Yes GA and GA@W are both mine, I used one at work because I couldn't remember my login when at work, and so I had to create a new profile.
**Best RINGO Voice I can Muster**
PS, Please excuse the lateness of my reply.
(Spent the weekend skiing @ Sunshine Village [Slush Cup].)
>B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15549 | GrapeApe (36) May 17, 2007 - 09:50 pm
| I agree, either writer could turn their efforts into another writing job.
I know the InQuirer has a hole that's never been filed since Fuad left, but I think that would require more of Dave's 'creative writing' than objective documentation. ;~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15549 | GrapeApe (36) May 17, 2007 - 09:39 pm » Edited on May 17, 2007 - 09:43 pm
| Wow, I'm actually surprised.
I too am interested in seeing the deciding factors.
I'd also like to know what the runner-up gets other than the bum's rush.
As I said in the other section I think both participants would be an asset to FS.
Right now I'm left questioning the need for voting, and the judges' criteria, since it seems I wasted time voting and was just a spectator.
I think next time if voiting is pointless as it seems to be then the comments section and how those replies are handled need to be weighed heavier. I'm still surprised that BucNews got knocked out when he did.
This is not a comment on the quality of the participants so much as the process.
At this point I'm pretty skeptical about the value of repeating this affair without better rules and controls in place from the get go.
I'm glad I resisted the urge to contribute anything and become a contender. I'd quote the line from On the Waterfront, but I'll leave that to wiki/imdb. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/32 | GrapeApe (36) May 16, 2007 - 11:33 pm
| Yeah I was in early, but I didn't join until I had entries from both of you, since nothing's worse than voting a 9 or 10 and then saying... hmm that one or this one was better, then going back and changing your vote compared to the competition. I did do that in the first round because entries were coming fast and furious and I truely had 'low expectations' at first so I gave mediocre contributions high numbers, the more I saw I had to adjust my votes. This round I wanted to compare 1 to 1 and get balance. I had difficulty voting from work so that caused havok for me. I didn't have much time to contribute comments with all the fervour leading up to R6xx launch, the playoffs, and the last days of skiing (Sunshine this weekend BABY!).
On a serious note;
While I think there should be a 'winner' in this competition, I think which ever of you 'isn't victorious' should still be a contributor, as I always hear Brandon et al complaining about not having enough time.
I think you both deserve a FS business card as 'staff-writers' or whatever, and I hope they appreciate that fact.
BTW, IIRC those cards get you a discount at NCIX and free gift bag at E3. >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/32 | GrapeApe (36) May 14, 2007 - 11:44 pm
| » More filing tastes like acetone...
Well nice to see everyone made it out alive.
I was concerned about the down voting, voted early and then saw the marks slide again, making me once again question the usefulness of a popularity contest.
I think next time, there should be, open voting (if you must for site traffic reasons), voting from the original cluster/entry participants, then voting from a PR rep of the sponsors and voting from the editorial staff for the final vote. Also tracking like BucNews did would help expose down voting from the start (a live ticker would be interesting).
Next time it's also be nice to see more tools at the authors' disposal so that for the final round(s) they could really punch up their review with... what's the word... ummm.... uhh.... FLAIR.
Also next time throw in a Brightside-37 so they could do AVIVO/PUREVIDEO/ClearVideo comparison would be very nice. Need that high dynamic range and NTSC colour space. >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Shout Box Link » /matrix/user.asp/50792 | GrapeApe (36) Apr 10, 2007 - 10:29 pm » Edited on Apr 10, 2007 - 10:37 pm
| | Work for the phone company. We're now on to NHL 2K7 of course, which is great now that it's Playoff season. BTW, that's a picture from the leather couch. >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/12941/409 | GrapeApe (36) Apr 06, 2007 - 06:00 pm
| Well CTM and a few other apps (IIRC F@H and peakstream [mentioned in your article]) let you access the MADD + ADD feature of the R580 shaders, after which it becomes the mathimatical limits;
R580: Has a single MADD/MUL/ADD (2flops) ALU and single ADD (1flop) ALU per shader unit with 4 components each (Vec3 + Scalar). So 48 x (2+1) x 4 x 650mhz = 374.4 Gflops for the XTX and Crossfire Editions.
G80: 128 simple scalar stream ALUs at 1350MHz with MADD (2flops only), gives you about 345.6 Gflops for the GTX.
Which is 8.3% or the 5-10% range difference I mentioned above.
nV mentions a higher 520 Gflop number but it's not exposed for other computational uses in CUDA... yet at least. The feeling is that they are accounting for other computational components, however it has led rise to the idea tha there is this hidden bunch of shaders left to be 'unlocked' by nV, which IMO is unlikely, but a case could be made for that if they made a part far stronger than they expected and knew they didn't need to launch it at 100% and then give themselves something to have as a reply to the R600. This lets them slow down their pace of R&D if they already hit a home run. However that is very VERY unlikely IMO. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/22 | GrapeApe (36) Apr 05, 2007 - 12:24 am
| » HOLY Late Entries Batman !!
Lotsa activity in the last few moments before the end, could affect vote #s and thus scores. Not sure how they'r weighted this round, but hope there's enough feedback.
Ok, now back to the drinking and watching Smokin' Aces !! >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61942/427 | GrapeApe (36) Apr 04, 2007 - 11:57 pm » Edited on Apr 05, 2007 - 12:07 am
| Good article, liked the use of MAME as an unconventional test, well written, lots of info.
Also, interesting perspective considering many of us eschew the P4Ds now with the C2Ds out there and everyone knowing the AMD64s were better (when they were both top dog). The problem is that there aren't any good deals on old S939 A64s and so the old P4Ds like the 805 are very attractive for inexpensive dual core, especially to an existing system that doesn't support C2D, and even more so if the focus is media related more than gaming.
My only suggestion to change in the review would be in pointing out the P4 520's clock speed a little more obviously than linking it to the 820 in what appeared to be more of a price relationship than the 2.8ghz clock speed.
Good job, although it could also use more cow bell !! >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/12941/409 | GrapeApe (36) Apr 04, 2007 - 11:30 pm » Edited on Apr 06, 2007 - 06:12 pm
| » Good style just needs a little tweak.
Good writing style, but needs some minor fact checking, of which I'm sure Brandon et al. will gladly help in the future.
Just some quick points for FYI;
- Havok FX is part of the Havok 4 engine, there are no games out yet based on Havok 4 yet (although a UBI demos were shown in CA last month), all the examples you listed are based on Havok 3 which do not have support for Havok FX (although they could be added with alot of effort). Crysis is supposed to use it's own physics engine that's supposed to support VPU physics, which would've been a good example to go just outside the Havok realm.
- The statement "The 8800GTX is a tremendous leap forward in computational power for GPGPU applications both in the world of computer games and in real-world simulations." actually is not true in overall general computational power as the R580 has more power when using CTM and the MADD + ADD scenario (about 5-10% more).
But overall good article, good flow and nice combination of examples and good projection of future application of the technology.
Edited because after re-reading the opening statement looked harsher than I intended it to be. It's not a big criticism, since often we have to remind FS and other reviers of things to tweak/correct, and they update their articles. Too bad you guys can't do FS approved changes to update stuff in the same manner they do after their reviews have launched I know you and Dave would both like to just tweak stuff.... like adding more flair. >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61942/351 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 22, 2007 - 12:25 am
| » Nice !!
AhHa, Ford Focus !!
Oh..., wait a minute..., I drive a Dodge Caravan..... WANNA RACE !?!
And, yeah funny link; the laser mouse letter reminds me of the Kids in the Hall skit.
'NEVER put Salt in your Eyes, put salt in your eyes, ALWAYS put Salt in Your EYES! .... Kill Dave!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA60dbX-Lww
>B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61707/308 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 19, 2007 - 12:27 am
| » D'oh Voting frozen 38 minutes early.
Was gonna vote, but voting was frozen early.
Guess we'll never know the effect.
Nice article though.
My only comment would be to cover the plus an minus of software additions in future article. I have setpoint enabled on some of my rigs only because it has a habit of hogging some additional resources, and Logitech's software like to phone home somewhat. But good job making the effort to delve into your topic. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61831/301 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 19, 2007 - 12:17 am » Edited on Mar 19, 2007 - 12:19 am
| I too would've prefered a look at a 20" 16x12 monitor versus the 19 12x10 considering you're trying to compare the same target.
Also flips some of the statements about resources.
Also more changes to FOV in /ini files would've made for an interesting comparison since alot of what you see is determined by the settings of the game for that monitor. You can also add support for WS that way as well in many games that didn't support a specific 'odd' native WS resolution like 14x9.
Also one of the limitations is the HUD so a deeper look there would've been good.
Good examples, just needs a little polishing on methodology.
Just a heads'-up as to what's better than WS...
Surround gaming;
Now this is how Oblivion is supposed to look @ 30x7;
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9066/oblivion30x10hn7ep0.jpg
Or some realistic driving with pillars and all;
http://www.matroxrulez.net/videos/rbr_surround_incar.wmv
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/jp/gxm/products/th2go/gaming/list.php
Anyhwhoo, nice article, and maybe they'll let you play with the TripleHead2Go they (FS) reviewed a while back, if you get the job of course. >B~) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61942/277 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 18, 2007 - 11:56 pm
| » Improve your Fu with ChI-Ram
Good article. Reminds me of my first swap file migration.
I-Ram is the future, but it's expensive (much more than a large RAID array), and until it's cheaper or NAND gets faster, this is a great compromise for a nice little boost.
Well written, concise, and to the point with more than enough supporting information. My only criticism would be to clean up the end you seemed to be writing a few mini-conclusions on the way to writing the summary. Just more of a style thing, nothing biggee. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/12941/278 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 18, 2007 - 11:45 pm
| Not that it matters, but the breakdown of the market is
Low-End/Value
Performance/Mainstream
HighEnd/Enthusiast.
The GF6800 as a performance mainstream is an ok card.
As for the article, the only thing I have an issue with is the conclusion, only because while I know the X1950P would provide more Ooompg, there's not much to support the upgrade conclusion in the bodyof the article. Overall though good indepth look at the topic. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61849/302 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 18, 2007 - 11:17 pm
| » You missed the obvious 3 option for balance.
I think you should've picked up a cheap Logitch Marblemouse to give a third option so you had another baseline. It requires a little re-learning but it is another option method that works well and gives you another perspective that gives you the 'non-norm' test.
Pretty good article, just seemed to need a little more definition, like in the scoring as already mentioned. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/62001/311 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 18, 2007 - 11:04 pm » Edited on Mar 18, 2007 - 11:06 pm
| » Kudos for the update about driver versions.
My main concern was that something which you've already addressed, the difference in base CAT versions. I've tested different generations extensively and had alot of experience with the various kinds. Generation to generation can be vastly different of course especially in the most common target apps/becnhmarks.
BTW, good luck with DNA, I've always avoided them as a recommendation due to their weak installation/removal package, and I find Omega better than DNA for IQ and features.
Pretty good, well written, the only thing to remember in any future article is that the conditions need to bee the same for all tests. A good solid baseline and equal opportunity for any test candidates, be they software or hardware. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/44675/315 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 18, 2007 - 10:26 pm
| » VPU vs CPU, needs more insight.
I agree with OgreFade, the article looks like one where you know that there's an issue, you expose that indeed there is a problem, but don't delve enough into the source or remedy other than playing in empty maps.
From the graphs you posted it seems pretty evident that it's the CPU and not the CPU/graphics that is holding back the multiplayer situations, just looking at the impact of the multiplayer impact, versus the extremly stressful 16x12 with AA has less of an effect than more players.
However, that's never really put forth as the main source for the slowdown.
Good work, just needs a stronger finish. You have the question, your explore the question, but it seems to end there. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/62503/144 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 05, 2007 - 01:12 am
| Interesting, but I think you're confusing some of the implications of GPGPU and what it can and can't do.
Also FP64 isn't required to be up to the task of a CPU, as FP64 refers to 'per channel' meaning it's 256bit overall.
Older FP16 VPUs were 64bit computational.
The main problem with them is the programming, and while C and a few other direct compiler apps can be run through the GPUs, the main issue is X86 and X64 extensions (be it AMD64 or i/EM64T) to give it wider application beyond just being math co-processors. The future for high end arrays and such will likely go towards massively parallel smaller cores , and while multi-vpus would work too, the move towards all-purpose units, likely Intel and AMD's future designs means that something closer to IBM's Power series is the future IMO with many cores insteado of two disparate units needing to balance loads. Folding in the FP power into the cores makes sense long term, not to the level of the 'CELL' but to something more like a partial CELL.
But interesting take on it, just needs some polishing IMO. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/19453/189 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 05, 2007 - 12:46 am » Edited on Mar 05, 2007 - 12:47 am
| I think that showing a static face model for Crysis that is only meant to show detail is somewhat unfair, you should have showed a fetish artists similar painiting or rendition of a singular face.
Also the idea that the visuals could take a back seat to developing the physics and the motion which are trailing way behind in abilities. Developers can't make the motion as fluid without massive workloads, motion is different than making a normal map or a wireframe to give features complexity. Motion and realsitic expressions are extremely hard to do simply because the programming involved needs exponentially more coding. Look at G-man's facial expressions in HL2 or fluid motion/attacks are in Oblivion you start to get an idea of what may be involved. I think you're confusing the desire for the easily obtainable photo-realistic factors with the trailing CPU heaving physics and fluidity of human motion issues. And the mise-en-scene of the painting isn't a fair comparison because a character statically sitting in an Oblivion pub looks far more realistic to me than that painiting. It's only when they walk or talk that the spell is broken.
Interesting idea, and pretty good writing style, just not sure about the application outside of this topic, and whether or not the conclusion was arrived at before even starting to consider the issue as an article. There seemed to be no discovery arc in the article itself. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/17874/205 | GrapeApe (36) Mar 05, 2007 - 12:33 am
| I was planning on writing a similar article, which makes me a little more ciritical than most I'd think, but my rating would be higher than your average so maybe not.
There's some factual innacuracies, and there's little mention of the nV, VIA future in this segment. Both companies are facing tough realities in this segment, and expanding on nV's and VIA's options would've added more to the article IMO.
Also you needed to differentiate the limited system on a chip solutions, from intel and AMD's future modular designs which aren't about system on a chip so much as a chip that can do everything a bit, and then multiply those chips to do more complex tasks.
Also mentioning IBM developments with eDRAM would have helped with that segment in that the prices are becoming more realistic for larger sizes than that small 10MB currently found on the Xenos package.
Also interesting that TeraFlop potential was already pased with the QPleax by nV, and more recently by the R600.
Also some assumptions, like a Fusion chip running cooler overall, kinda miss the problem of such a chips, the small surface area and large transistor count means difficult dissipation issues for a laptop (easier to dissipate 2 30W sources in two separate segments with a low rpm fan, than trying to disipate 55W of heat in the place of just one of those fan locations.
Overall though I agree, I'd rather see more technical reviews, and maybe with the right resources your reasearch will get better, you seem to have the interest. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14226 | GrapeApe (36) Feb 08, 2007 - 12:31 am » Edited on Feb 08, 2007 - 12:35 am
| » The more things change...
Well despite people only blaiming M$ for this situation, which is at least a combination of nV and M$ (if it's only M$ wouldn't AMD have as much difficulty?), nVidia knew that this was coming and fully embraced vista in their marketing and sales practices so they do have commitments to deliver on.
In their press release http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_39189.html they state "NVIDIA is the only graphics company with four generations of GPUs and MCPs to be certified by Microsoft to be Windows Vista Premium Ready,..."
Which is to say they got the 'Vista Ready' certification, but weren't ready to get Vista WHQL certification for all 4 generations. Once they got that all important PR logo did the later really matter as much? 'Vista ready' is all that anyone is going to care about when looking for a card to buy, once they get it home and installed is another issue.
And obviously even nV cares about WHQL certification as the mention it later in their press release; "NVIDIA is currently providing Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) certified drivers for many of these products to Windows Vista PC manufacturers and directly to consumers" but of course don't draw attention to which parts (no mention of the 4 generations or DX10 at this point).
BTW, Brandon, why did the colour scheme change from the previous review? Nice easy to see blue/yellow scheme last time, not so much the blue/blue this time.
Also a follow-up with PurveVideo/AVIVO would be nice. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13978 | GrapeApe (36) Jan 28, 2007 - 02:29 pm » Edited on Jan 28, 2007 - 02:30 pm
| And my point you n00b is you pay the same price and you get BETTER performance from the X1900XT and the ULi board, or pay the same price for the Mobo+X1950P and then you also have access to the full range of cards for future upgrades not just the crumbs the OEM partners leave for you.
You wanna lie about the prices to make yourself look better, fine, but unless you shop at ChumpUSA you can get the PCIe version of the X1950Pro for much cheaper than the AGP version. Keep talking BS about them being the same prices, but for people who know where to buy their card the PCie version is $50+ cheaper than the cheapest AGP version. And with the Cheap X1900XTs out there, you can get even better performance for cheaper there too.
Post a link to the AGP Sapphire you're talking about that is the same price as even those on NewEgg otherwise you're lieing to save face. I can find X1900XTs and even X1950XTs for the same price as X1950Pro, and they both smoke the X1950Pro.
And your BS about AGP being faster shows you didn't actually read the review and look at the results that see-saw back and forth, you probably just look at 3D Bungholiomarks and jumped to the conclusion in the rash manner that pervades your posts.
Also FS can't isolate the effect of the buffer size despite there being 256 and 512MB PCIe versions. Once again you distort the facts to support your lame ass statements because you have no facts to support them.
It's not about theoretical performance it's about the price premium of sticking with older hardware that requires expensive bridge chips to make work, and that price premium you might as well move to better solutions, which is about the combination of faster card and CPUs more than the speed of the bus, like I said the speed of the bus has nothing to do with it.
Also your current MoBo and card are at a dead end, just like your genetic material. So you're stuck with a future upgrade anyways.
If you need to lie in order to continue ranting, then it just proves you lost from the moment you types your first letters. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13978 | GrapeApe (36) Jan 26, 2007 - 12:39 am
| » YAWN !!!
What was your point again?
- That there was no difference?
Which I proved there was differences and
benefits.
- The to quote you "you also need a new mobo. and a new cpu. and memory."
Which isn't true unless you're riding an old system that can't keep up anyways. Yeah go ahead pop that GF8800GTX on your 386SX buddy.
- PCIe 1.1 become useless with PCIe 2.0 coming.
Once again proved you wrong. It's backwards compatible so that statement like most of your statements is BS.
And lastly you lie saying the PCIe and AGP cards are the same price to try and save face. They aren't even close to the same price, they are far apart when you shop at places outside of ChumpUSA. So if you're used to overpaying for hardware I guess you wouldn't noitce the difference.
As for the ULi crack, I'd rather have a ULi with the latest AM2 support and my choice of Graphics card, including SLi, instead of being stuck like you with whatever bone falls of the plate after everyone else is done. Remember you were saying someone was FORCED to upgrade, and that's not the case, and then your defence is performance, if people want performance they definitely shouldn't come to you, because you obviously have no idea what it is.
So despite your thinking I have the blinking lights and am impressed by the loud noises, your the one making a spectacle of themselves and ranting(obviously your computer is the only thing in the house that's silent, you can't bear the competition can you). And like your Accelero you just blow hot air, as for quiet, once again look for solutions outside of BestBuy and CompUSA. You think it's about trading silence for performance, while in fact you could have both if you actually knew what you were doing. Afraid of the water are you?
BTW, I can link you to a good deal on an ISA Creative Sounblaster to complete your system.
Keep it up buddy, with every post you prove how lost you are and exactly why the industry is leaving you behind.
You bitch and moan about PCIe but still can't address the fact that PCIe has more features that AGP just can't do, while AGP has no features PCIe can't replace, all while now being the cheaper of the two. Until you can address those facts, you're simply whinning like a petulant little boy who's mad that his toy isn't the best anymore. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13978 | GrapeApe (36) Jan 23, 2007 - 10:42 pm » Edited on Jan 23, 2007 - 10:43 pm
| What CPU did you upgrade from and to?
Like I mentioned only the truely OLD CPUs like the Early P4s and XPs can't have the PCIe option on plain DDR. A little research before you upgrade saves alot of grief.
Companies have given options for 2 years, why should they continue? It's a waste of resources keeping the AGP path alive for people afraid of change. Even the workstation market is moving from AGP-PRO to PCIe + PCI, and there's far greater reason for delays there. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13978 | GrapeApe (36) Jan 23, 2007 - 10:34 pm
| >>ape... dont tell me what i need or know you fucktardX2.
I'll skool you all night ya' ignorant n00b cause you're fulla' $h1te. Say something intellegent and then I won't have to correct you. Saves us both time.
>>pci-e "better power management"?... so why pci-e2? SELF OWNED
Yeah, you owned yourself alright Dumba$$. The better power management was vis a vis AGP, read much, comprehend much? PCIe allows you lane management whereas AGP is always active which is more power hungry under low loads, also while PCIe 2.0 extends the power available from the previous limit, so did AGP in it's time, twice, or didn't you know that either?
Perhaps if you actually knew what you were talking about you could do something more than rant like a raving lunatic.
>>yea, just because a spoiled brat like u enjoys 2 to brag about sli BS it means i have 2 ditch my agp mobo for a new videocard.
Yep! Get a real job, or tell your parents to get real jobs and stop scrounging welfare and wasting everyone else's money. I don't run SLi/Xfire at home (we have a few array rigs at work), but I appreciate the OPTION. As for bragging, nah if I were to do that I'd just point out that my p3ni$ is so bviously much bigger than yours, I don't need two of them, just like the GF8800GTX is more than enough.
>>my 939 4000 is more than enough for me
I'm sure it would be if you owned one, but most of us play games more demanding than minesweeper and the SIMs.
You probably don't even have an AMD64, you really just wanna add a GF8800GTX to your K6-2 you found while pushing your shopping cart. If you had an S939 you could get a ULi based AsRock board and make the switch for the price of the premium you pay for AGP you obtuse tool.
Don't whine about your AGP woes here ya baby, if you don't like the fast pace of technology go the console path ya' Luddite!
AMD-ATi, intel, and nVidia aren't going to bother with 2 production runs to satisfy the likes of you. They should've hard switched and just forced everyone over. If Prescott were even half the success that C2D has been AGP would've been dead much sooner instead of extending the inevitable.
Grow up and move on you silly little boy. Oh yeah and go get a job and stop complaining about your limitations (not the hardware's). Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13978 | GrapeApe (36) Jan 21, 2007 - 03:00 pm » Edited on Jan 21, 2007 - 03:02 pm
| » Luddites love AGP.
The reality is that there needs to be only one format for IHVs (waste of money and increased cost for mutiple formats), and that's going to be PCIe, because it has more options (not just bandwidth)than AGP, be it better power management, to better 2 way communication (HyperMemory, GPGPU/Physics) plus more exotic benefits like external and multi-VPU solutions. There's nothing AGP has to offer that PCIe can't replace or improve upon.
You don't need new memory or CPU for PCIe unless you're on a solution so old that the AGP/PCIe debate is less of a concern than the socket A-462/478 issue. For S754/939/940/AM2 and 775 you can get both AGP and PCIe solutions and with DDR (and sometime both w/ DDR2) support. Heck until recently you could easily find S478 intel solution with both.
So you childish rant is ignorant which isn't surprising.
As for PCIe 1.1 and 2.0 you do know that it's a backwards compatible solution right?
Man if the luddites don't like progress I can sell you a Commodore Vic20 or an abacus & pencil. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13891 | GrapeApe (36) Jan 14, 2007 - 05:08 pm » Edited on Jan 14, 2007 - 05:12 pm
| » Pr0n an on and on...
What you guys seem to forget is it's not just about the pr0n, but if one option allows you a feature or something and the other doesn't then it wins unless other compelling reasons draw enough people in the other direction.
The 'HD-DVD only' ability to add your face to a movie in addition to the cheapness of HD-DVD players, and content creation, means a few compelling benefits to all those people who do buy pr0n, of which they will likely be the first to promote and exploit these benefits. This is just in addition to those who want to be in Lord of the Rings or StarWars.
Remember the first HD movie was the updated Deep Throat shown on an X360, so to say that it doesn't mater at all is to understate it's influence. And while not a big as before, it's still a factor, perhaps not as big a factor as the fear of losing Disney titles for the kids if you buy HD instead of BR. However really who needs BR for LionKing?
Personally I'm already in the HD camp, and when LaCie gets their external BR drive down in price a bit I'll be in the BluRay camp as well. I don't care who wins as long as I can still play my titles and do what I want with them (cracky Cracky). I still have and Old Sony MDP-333 for my old Laser Disks. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
