Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,209
- 50
- 91
Originally posted by: Creig
Isn't that a matter of personal opinion? Not everybody is necessarily going to be impressed by the exact same things as you.Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Anyone else try it and not impressed by it is just blowing the biased smoke. It IS impressive and makes you want to replay or try every game you have. Old and new.
I suppose you're correct. Not everybody is impressed by Eyefinity either. So I can see what you mean.
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
PhysX isn't going anywhere guys/gals.
At least we can agree on one thing. PhysX isn't going anywhere at the moment, especially now that they've locked out a good percentage of their potential audience.
I meant that PhysX isn't going away. But you knew that.
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
That porsche/diesel analogy was cute.
And was totally accurate.
But it was said that a porsche cant run on diesel. While a CPU can still run PhysX. Not accurate. But I see what you "could" mean.
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
But to all those who said that the comment of a GTS250 being faster than a 5870, and didn't realize that it was meant to be understood if comparing any PhysX title, instead scream bullshit? hehe. Well, it isn't. I know you all know that it's true when it comes to PhysX games. Can't deny it. Captain obvious statements do not make the situation false.
Not, but it doesn't make Ujesh Desai's claim any less laughable, either.
But you'd be laughing at a true statement. No matter how it was worded. Granted, there arent that many PhysX games out yet, but it IS true that a GTS250 will outpace a 5870 when it comes to PhysX titles meant to run on a GPU. That is a much more accurate way to describe the situation. All other games a 5870 would lay waste to a GTS250.
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And AA in Batman. It seem pretty obvious to me, that AMD users wanted to use AA in Batman. It obviously means something to them. AMD didn't seem to want to do the same thing Nvidia did with Eidos. Has anyone written AMD to ask them why they didn't?
What, you mean pay developers to artifically cut features from their competitors card? Nvidia seems to be the only one around sinking that low. Besides, who would want that kind of bad publicity once word got out to the gaming community?
You can't cut what was never there to begin with. Do you disagree?
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Sure, you can get AA by either forcing it in the CCC, or changing an ID, but why should you have to? But no, blame is shifted immediately to the bigger company for not enabling it to their smaller competition. WTF?
They didn't have to "enable" anything, they chose to "disable" it. Big difference.
"it" being the key word. There wouldn't even be an "it" if Nvidia didn't implement it. Chicken or egg anyone?
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I'm very surprised that most of you do not think Nvidia has anything at all worthwhile feature wise over AMD's offerings. That just doesn't make sense.
Eyefinity is pretty cool for anything but gaming IMHO. DX11 isn't really a feature advantage for AMD, as Fermi is DX11 as well. And Stream? Compared to CUDA? Please guys, really?
Maybe people are just getting fed up with all the BS Nvidia has been pulling lately.
People are getting fed up on both sides. I dont' particularly care for PR responses from companies.