I didn't see you say anything about performance, just issues with games. And then you get a wall-of-text that has nothing to do with what you said. Crazy.
Adam stated that ATI cards had tons of issues running newly released modern games. The performance data and those old reviews have everything to do with it:
1. A lot of sites like Xbitlabs were extremely critical of bugs, low IQ and driver issues. They would point it out like when a particular Cat driver downgraded AF/texture filtering in HL2. Those sites would often comment on driver issues for both brands. Go read some old reviews outside of AT. How else did we find out of horrible AA IQ in NV and sub-par truki ear texture filtering? It's all there with picture comparisons and proof.
2. If ATI had so many issues, how is it those sites recommended those cards? You would instead get a review which states in the conclusion that the performance is great but the gaming experience is poor so we have to recommend NV. No such thing was said.
It's typical for NV owners to U gore hundreds of driver issues, non-existent SLI profile, performance issues. ATI users or AMD users openly discuss driver issues and bugs. There is no reason for me to defend some brand. I've owned both brands over the years and there are small problems on both sides from time to time depending on the game.
Finally, if ATI's cards were so hopeless as implied, ATI would have never had 40-50% market share pre-2007 days. If you look at market share and overall sales until the 2900 series, ATI was doing better than AMD, except if you go way back to Radeon 8500 days that really did have horrible drivers.
---
I don't know why people dismiss that reddit post on Ubisoft. I believe it as I've read for a while now how game development is an overworked, underpaid industry, with high overtime and rushed decelopment and testing especially at the major AAA studios. If we look at AC Unity PC sales, they are atrocious. Even a 6-year-old JRPG, Valkariya Chronicles, sold more on Steam than Unity. When looking at console vs. PC sales for Unity, consoles literally took 90% or something close to that. This game bomb on the PC which is great to see since Ubisoft deserves that for rushing a broken game with bad graphics but asking us $60 to pay for it.
Some people criticize DAI for not being good enough graphically but that game is 10X better as a game than Unity. The reviews and gamer feedback is very positive. The % of people who think Unity is a good game when disregarding it's technical failures is small. Unity will never be considered for GOTY, but DAI can be in that list, and definitely a contender for GOTY in its specific genre.
FC4 shows how broken Unity still is to this day. The screenshots in this thread that show upclose textures and NPC's continue to highlight a broken/last gen pre-baked lighting model (FC4 has the far superior God Rays), low resolution textures, extremely low polygon NPCs, poor quality character hair, poor LOD in draw distance.
You cannot make claims that Unity is a next gen PC game with so many graphical flaws and when it doesn't superceded Metro LL or Crysis 3 in any graphical category (not textures, not LOD, not physics, not lighting/shadows, not high polygon models). Finally, even videos done by ComputerBase clearly show that PS4 looks 95% identical to the PC version of Unity. I already linked that but the Unity defenders didn't even comment since the video disproves all their commentary. PC's Unity is nothing more than a glorified console port with some GW's code thrown in in the last months of development. Performance is not commensurate with the average 2010 graphics.
Facebook
Twitter