|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21603 |  Smee (20) May 05, 2009 - 12:18 pm
| I don't really care for how futuristic the weapons are getting in this series but why couldn't they at least take more of a steam punk approach and make the weapon look like it was put together with 1940s tech...
They may as well cut and paste the BFG 9000 into his hands! /lame Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21602 | Smee (20) May 05, 2009 - 12:11 pm
| For Nvidia I would have liked to see the first 1024 bit memory interface matched with 2 and 4 gig GDDR5 cards.
ATI should seriously move up to 512 bit interface already... there isn't any reason for their flagship cards to be using 256bit in 2009. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21521 | Smee (20) Apr 15, 2009 - 04:17 pm » Edited on Apr 15, 2009 - 04:20 pm
| | deimos47 hit the nail on the head. We've had several die shrinks coupled with multiple cores; however, we still have yet to see factory speeds at 4ghz mark. Taking into consideration the short period of time to go from 1ghz to 2ghz and 2ghz to 3ghz. We really should be seeing 8 and 9 ghz chips by now WITH their respective architectures. There is no reason a core i7 or Phenom II X4 should be shipping in the 2 and even 3ghz range. Its appalling. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21521 | Smee (20) Apr 15, 2009 - 11:24 am
| | We have had 3ghz chips since the P4 in late 2002... We should be in 8ghz territory at least by now WITH new architectures. So far they can only provide the latter. AMD and Intel get a big FAIL overall for this past decade. /cheers to sitting on your laurels both of you! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21346 | Smee (20) Mar 02, 2009 - 12:52 pm
| | They need to say screw it to 32nm and start throwing all their remaining money and manpower into 16nm... pushing for a release in Q1 2011. If they can jump ahead of Intel by a year it would save them. AMD sat on it's laurels and has been playing catchup for years now... its pathetically sad. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21222 | Smee (20) Jan 27, 2009 - 10:05 am
| Sounds more like they have problems reading the platters at 7200RPM or they just wanted to be cheap and save money on the motors....
C'mon WD we want faster load times, not power saving features! Give us 7200RPM 2TB drives and 10000RPM 1TB drives already!!! Al Gore can take a long walk off a short pier! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21119 | Smee (20) Dec 21, 2008 - 03:56 pm
| I get what your saying; however, If all cores are working on the same frame, just separate lines of the frame, then a character coming in and out of shadow (per your example) wouldn't be the same as a quad core working on a single thread. In essence each core works on a separate line of the same frame and each core has the same percentage workload of that frame (for all intensive purposes the overhead of one gpu having a very small percentage extra work is minimal... say one gpu that gets more sky to render than the others since each gpu is rendering every other/3rd/4th ect line). This in theory should cause each frame to be rendered, say nearly 4x faster, for a 4 core GPU.
Anyone have Hardware GPU xp that could shed light on this? Would love to hear it. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21119 | Smee (20) Dec 19, 2008 - 11:16 pm
| GX-Brandon
I remember back with the voodoo 2 3dfx's SLI had one voodoo 2 render all odd and the other all even lines and spliced them together for each frame.... why doesn't Nvidia or ATI do this??? It seems like a much more efficient way to render than alternating frames, and would not run into the same problems trying to render 3 or 4 frames in advanced does.... If each card only renders every other line (or every 3rd/4th/6th line for 3-way/quad/hex) the load of polygons will be nearly evenly split between all cards. Or is this wrong? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20362 | Smee (20) Apr 14, 2008 - 09:24 am » Edited on Apr 14, 2008 - 09:25 am
| » Editor's choice because why again???
I have to disagree with the Editor's choice award. I JUST bought an MSI overclocked 8800 GTS (g92) for $199 after rebate on newegg.... Cheaper and much faster out of the box than this card. I'd say wait for the 8800 GTS (g92) card's to get a sick rebate like they have been and pick one of them up. After I overclocked this baby even further I'm now getting MUCH faster than 8800 ultra performance for $199.... c'mon now the choice is obvious. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20136 | Smee (20) Mar 25, 2008 - 10:55 am » Edited on Mar 25, 2008 - 10:58 am
| » Boo 9800GTX delayed til April 1st
I thought the 9800GTX was supposed to Launch today?!?!? So they set the Launch date on April 1st? Kinda fishy date to launch a product....
Thanks for the SLI review, though I'll never buy this setup its nice to bench my system against. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
