Originally posted by: swtethan
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: yacoub
AMD positively doesn't know how to make what the people want. They took all the time in the world and released a part that saps more power, makes more noise, and gives less FPS in the games people play. For that, they can lose more marketshare until they learn how to do it right.
How a card can have so many of the right hardware ingredients and lose to older products is beyond me. I guess I could ask NVidia about that too with their 8600 series having the same problem.![]()
Really, no one has a reason to celebrate this. I'm certainly more disappointed than anything. I wanted this card to be good, so that I could either buy it or see the GTS go down in price.
In AMD's defense: They really had little to do with the design behind this GPU.
In ATI's defense: This GPU just might pwn in the DX10 Realworld.
you obviously have not seen the call of juarez dx10 benchmark
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/504/3/
Obviously even NV benefits from newer drivers. At 1600x1200 the 2900XT actually beats the GTX. No AA though, for some reason.
ATi isnt the only one with needs of better drivers;
The drivers AMD supplied us for Vista turned out to be nice and stable and I had no problems during the whole test. In contrast the latest NVIDIA drivers that I got from them still has some serious issues in Stalker and Oblivion (no AA regardless what I did)....
NV still having troubles with Vista drivers. Which you have to have for DX gaming.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1099&pageID=3420%3Cbr%20/%3E