AMD 6900 reviews thread (UPDATED)

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
Hope you were not choosing names like Mitsubishi, Nissan or Honda cuz that would have been easy to find out your identity :)

On a serious note now, Kyle must have serious issues, i personally like his site but i hear way too many complains about the guy.

He must have read this thread (Brent clearly did) and worked out who I was as I now see I am completely locked out the video forums - don't even see them, and haven't posted or even been logged on there since posting in the 69xx thread. Clearly got issues...
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
I marvel at AMD's ability to copy others. :whiste:
I marvel at people who change the topic every time their argument is soundly defeated. It makes it easier for everyone to write them off :thumbsup:.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Like DX10.1 GPU's, DX11 GPU's, 40nm GPU's, 55nm GPU's, DDR5 cards, GPU's with tessellators, Eyefinity, bit streaming audio, etc.

We can thank TSMC for their process, Microsoft for DX, NVIDIA for Tessellation, Matrox for Eyefinity.

Either way I'm done in this thread as it's way off topic and you two are clearly trying to stir up trouble. You refuse to acknowledge who actually pioneered the technology and are just here to argue. :thumbsdown:
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
We can thank TSMC for their process, Microsoft for DX, NVIDIA for Tessellation, Matrox for Eyefinity.

Either way I'm done in this thread as it's way off topic and you two are clearly trying to stir up trouble. You refuse to acknowledge who actually pioneered the technology and are just here to argue. :thumbsdown:


I'm not here to arguie, I'm not twisting things just to stir the pot. TSMC brings the process tech to the table.

AMD as aggressive in using what was available to get their GPU's to operate within a certain power envelope. They could make the 5870 on 55nm, but then it might use some obscene amount of power, like 300 watts or something.

MS is responsible for DX. AMD/ATI was responsible for implementing it in their hardware. They certainly didn't follow here.

Nvidia had a patent on tessellation. They didn't implement it in their hardware. We don't even know if AMD uses Nvidia's patent. At any rate, AMD/ATI certainly pushed the boundry here, they weren't the followers.

While it's true Matrox and Quadro cards allowed for output to three monitors, that isn't all Eyefinity is. Show me a Matrox card that can output to three 30" monitors for gaming situations. I have no use for this technology as I would never be able to get past the bezels. But that doesn't mean that AMD did not push a technology that a lot of people do like.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Amd/ATI has done quite a lot by offering x16 filtering with the original Radeon, offer EVBM like Matrox. The first 1.4 shader product and n-patches with the 8500. The first DirectX 9 product with the 9700 sku. Did bring HDR+AA, DirectX 10.1, DirectX 11 first and helped evolve multi-monitor gaming, which was nice to see.

Both nVidia and ATI/AMD are very talented to me and really enjoy when both offer compelling choice and value.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
We can thank TSMC for their process, Microsoft for DX, NVIDIA for Tessellation, Matrox for Eyefinity.

Either way I'm done in this thread as it's way off topic and you two are clearly trying to stir up trouble. You refuse to acknowledge who actually pioneered the technology and are just here to argue. :thumbsdown:

yeah the 2 nvidia fanboys in the AMD review thread certainly arent the ones trying ti stir up trouble :rolleyes:
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
I marvel at people who change the topic every time their argument is soundly defeated. It makes it easier for everyone to write them off :thumbsup:.

Take you own advice. He did defeat the arguement in this case.
Eyefinity was a copied technology and he proved it.
I didn't see you counter that or admit he was right.:confused:
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
Take you own advice. He did defeat the arguement in this case.
Eyefinity was a copied technology and he proved it.
I didn't see you counter that or admit he was right.:confused:

What page/post # was it countered ? I don't feel like searching through 20+ pages to find it.

Who was it "copied" from ?
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
post #596 and you!!!!!!!!!!!! stay out of this. hehehe :biggrin:

There is a difference between being able to out put to three monitors and having a single gaming card that spans a game across three or more monitors.

Non-gaming Nvidia cars and Matrox cards can do this?

ATI-Eyefinity-WOW.jpg
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
There is a difference between being able to out put to three monitors and having a single gaming card that spans a game across three or more monitors.

I understand that, but for once wreckage did have a patent to back up what he was saying. Give him credit.

edit: mabe he should have said Nvidia pioneered the technology?
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
I marvel at AMD's ability to copy others. :whiste:

You know as well as I do. That eventually Nvidia is going to run triple displays with a single card right ? Which at the present, they cannot.

Thanks happy. Found the post. That info I did not know.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
There is a difference between being able to out put to three monitors and having a single gaming card that spans a game across three or more monitors.

Non-gaming Nvidia cars and Matrox cards can do this?
ATI-Eyefinity-WOW.jpg

play WOW?

yeah I think so :p



hehehehe sorry to hard to resist
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I understand that, but for once wreckage did have a patent to back up what he was saying. Give him credit.


Ok... hypothetical situation:

Let's say Rambus launched their own graphics card today. Would you say that Nvidia copied Rambus even though GeForce has been around for years and Rambus just launched today? Afterall, Rambus has a patent on the memory controller tech Nvidia uses, in fact Rambus is/was suing Nvidia over it.

Have I debunked him yet?

No, you don't thinks so? Ok, how about this.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2005/0195188.html

ATI/AMD also has patents on tessellation. Obviously they are not following, they have their own technology.

Still not convinced he is debunked?

The link Wreckage provided shows that the patent for Nvidia's tessellator was filed on April 17, 2003. The Radeon 8500 (which had a tessellator) was launched in December of 2001.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Ok... hypothetical situation:

Let's say Rambus launched their own graphics card today. Would you say that Nvidia copied Rambus even though GeForce has been around for years and Rambus just launched today? Afterall, Rambus has a patent on the memory controller tech Nvidia uses, in fact Rambus is/was suing Nvidia over it.

Have I debunked him yet?

No, you don't thinks so? Ok, how about this.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2005/0195188.html

ATI/AMD also has patents on tessellation. Obviously they are not following, they have their own technology.

Still not convinced he is debunked?

The link Wreckage provided shows that the patent for Nvidia's tessellator was filed on April 17, 2003. The Radeon 8500 (which had a tessellator) was launched in December of 2001.

Are you comparing unified tessellation (NVIDIA) with fixed function tessellation (AMD)?
If so, you just made me smile ;)
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Nice bezels *chough*

Way to not address anything that has been directed towards you and change the argument. I think the bezels suck too. I wouldn't be interested in it either. It's as worthless as Physx to me. Nice particles *chough*.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Are you comparing unified tessellation (NVIDIA) with fixed function tessellation (AMD)?
If so, you just made me smile ;)

The point is that one company 'paved the way' while the other just talked and filed paperwork. That's what impresses you, right? That a company paved the way for a feature?
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Way to not address anything that has been directed towards you and change the argument. I think the bezels suck too. I wouldn't be interested in it either. It's as worthless as Physx to me. Nice particles *chough*.

You don't like interactive smoke, water, destructable architecture fine.
You can buy an AMD card and it's gone.

Now try and make those bezels go away...or stop comaping bananas to elephants.

(Hint: Both NVIDA (has a solution) and Intel(Havok, no solution yet) and AMD(Bullet, no solution yet) is going down this road.
But I will remember your reply to when the first Bullet GPU games comes out..and the next...and the next...sometime in the future)

*post bookmarked*
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
Nice bezels *chough*

how is it AMD's fault that monitor companys are lagging behind on zero bezel screens? :whiste:

You don't like interactive smoke, water, destructable architecture fine.
You can buy an AMD card and it's gone.
funny, like I said, 2 games with destructibles, ati card, there, both are havok games too

be more specific?I know I know, I'm the ignorant dumbass right? oddly your posts is just as stupid....
 

Phanuel

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2008
2,304
2
0
You don't like interactive smoke, water, destructable architecture fine.
You can buy an AMD card and it's gone.

What game has destructible environments that suddenly stop working on ATI/AMD cards? I really don't know. The only major one I play is BF:BC2 and it's not a Physx game as far as I'm aware.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
how is it AMD's fault that monitor companys are lagging behind on zero bezel screens? :whiste:

You cannot remove bezels, there need to be circutry at the egdes (caveat of LED technology) and I am not saying it AMD's fault (nice spin)...I am saying AMD can't do *bleep* about it...which means I have no intererest.


funny, like I said, 2 games with destructibles, ati card, there, both are havok games too

Come full cirle eh?

Here are my ounterpoint, which no one ever answers:

Show me a CPU physics game where the debris last more than 10 seconds and there are more than 3000 solid bodies?

I'l will give you a row, so I don't have to answer you again (thus leaing the circulear logic all to you):

Show me a CPU physics game where the debris last more than 10 seconds and there are more than 3000 solid bodies?
Show me a CPU physics game where the debris last more than 10 seconds and there are more than 3000 solid bodies?
Show me a CPU physics game where the debris last more than 10 seconds and there are more than 3000 solid bodies?
Show me a CPU physics game where the debris last more than 10 seconds and there are more than 3000 solid bodies?
Show me a CPU physics game where the debris last more than 10 seconds and there are more than 3000 solid bodies?

be more specific?I know I know, I'm the ignorant dumbass right? oddly your posts is just as stupid....

Oh you do rember that argumeentaion based on ignorace was a bad thing?

BTW, did any of those CPU games come close to this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3TU65KaPXI

.oO(Funny how those disliking PhysX always seems to base their "arguments" on apples to bananas and ignorance...)