Xbitlabs review is up

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk

Originally posted by: apoppin
so was this post "general information" ? ... meant for all of us or specifically directed at me, dreddfunk ?

i find that most posters don't actually read what i write .. not beyond the first couple of words that irritates them or catches their attention ... if they would use a little common sense in reading the post in 'context' a lot of misunderstandings would be avoided. It would also help to read the entire post before angrily hitting the reply button.

As you very wisely said:

Both speaker and listener have an obligation to work at communicating with one another; the burden isn't solely placed on either.

apoppin - it was a 'direct response' to you, but I get a bit of a negative feeling concerning the way you use "specifically directed." I certainly didn't mean this as a personal attack, merely to directly engage you in a conversation. Moreover, I didn't want you to feel that I was singling out your style for criticism. As with all things public, however, I also understand that others may choose to read what I have written.

I agree with you appoppin that reading things "in context" can help to avoid misunderstandings, but then just think how differently two people may construe the 'context' of any given thread. There's a lot of overlap in the way we create the context of a thread of course, but an appeal to 'context' is inevitably an appeal to one's own unspoken understanding of a given situation. These unspoken understandings have rough overlap, but a lot of arguments here get very specific (one might say petty) and seem to constantly explore the edges of these 'unspoken understandings'.

Speaking to a more general audience, in my mind, the sad thing is that many threads on this forum play out as contests of verbal skill, in which points seem to be gained for intellectually 'pwning' the opposition. Because of this, at any given time it is rare that a listener is actually trying to *understand* the speaker. Rather the listener is looking for logical and syntactical flaws in the speaker's words, which can then be twisted in order to 'win' the argument. Conversely, it is rare at any given time for a speaker to actually be attempting to form a cogent line of reasoning, apart from tearing down another poster's reasoning in an ad hoc fashion.

Bluntly put, too many threads are about creating 'arguments' for posters to 'win' or 'lose', and not enough threads are genuinely about discussing the video industry and its products. A good example is the recent thread discussing the lack of a UVD in the HD2900XT. If it were made with the intent to actually discuss the ramifications of its exclusion for the consumer, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it's actually made in order to start an argument--an argument that, by virtue of the topic selected, will be easier for certain people to 'win'.

We all hate to be 'wrong', but we'd hate it a lot less if those who were 'right' would stop dancing around, rubbing noses in the dirt and act like they've been there before--no more than that: act like the point was helping a fellow human being to understand something, not to make him/her feel badly that she didn't know.

Communication, in this forum, should be about providing assistance, not establishing dominance.

Check PM.

 

[apoppin]

who?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
I think the true performance of the X2900XT lies between being faster than an 8800GTS and faster than an 8800GTX, if looking at the better games, and simply awful drivers (they'd have to be) are holding it back to slower than X1950XT performance in other games. Either that, or they're produced a rubbish architecture, which is less likely.

Agreed. It HAS to be some awful drivers.

Actually I've been reading that ATI simply messed up the architecture.

They gave it only 16 texture units. The X800XT has 16 texture units and it's obsolete by a few generations now.

Apparenly the 320 shaders it has are highly inefficient, and it is nearly impossible to put them all to use at once.

It's disappointing. The chip has 700 transistors, which is why it runs so hot and needs so much power.

well yeah they have cheaped out on the ROPs and texture stuffs, but if their compiler can withdraw lots of parallel and long instructions from shader code..it should fly. at the moment this may not be possible...but as shaders get more complex it might just come into its own.

i think Ati have kinda come too soon, by the time this architecture can really pick out good stuff from shader code and run with it, it'll likely be too slow and a faster iteration will be out...but in the mean time its design looks rather unbalanced by lumping most of their eggs in the shader basket.

also lack of dedicated MSAA logic is also abit wtf.... i mean did they mess it up and have to put it on the shader core? or was that the game plan from the start?

the tessellator sounds nice...but i imagine it'll be next to useless for the majority of its life.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
I think the true performance of the X2900XT lies between being faster than an 8800GTS and faster than an 8800GTX, if looking at the better games, and simply awful drivers (they'd have to be) are holding it back to slower than X1950XT performance in other games. Either that, or they're produced a rubbish architecture, which is less likely.

Agreed. It HAS to be some awful drivers.

Actually I've been reading that ATI simply messed up the architecture.

They gave it only 16 texture units. The X800XT has 16 texture units and it's obsolete by a few generations now.

Apparenly the 320 shaders it has are highly inefficient, and it is nearly impossible to put them all to use at once.

It's disappointing. The chip has 700 transistors, which is why it runs so hot and needs so much power.

Honestly, how does that happen? Any gamer of average intellect could have told AMD what the card needed spec-wise to compete. How can an electrical engineering R&D team screw up something as basic as the number of texture units?

well when you have lots of complex shader code to run its reasonable to expect that the ROPs wont be fully utilized, like when it takes a couple of cycles to do produce an effect.

i think they were banking on the ROPs not being always full. i mean the 6600GT proved this didnt it... it had like half what the X700 had and it still beat its ass. the 6800's had 16 rops and 16 pixel pipelines....i read somewhere that when mostly doing shaders the ROPs sat idle.

its obviously a balancing act.... you dont want too many becuase then they wont be utilized and it'll all be a waste of time and money, but you dont want too few so that you end up choking the rest of the chip. ATi might of underestimated slightly.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

As far as the driver issues go just keep checking www.guru3d.com 's download section for some hacked / mod'd drivers for the R600. I don't use official drivers anyways as you generally lose performance/image quality vs a caringly assembled mod'd driver.

 

[Skipholiday]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
I'll go along with the idea that people should, for the most part, ignore stylistic irregularities in favor of looking at the substance and merit of what is said, with one important caveat: some stylistic irregularities actually impede a reader's ability to understand an author's intent.

If I were to make a general suggestion to everyone on this board in terms of a stylistic point that would greatly increase the clarity of every discussion, it would be this: always be clear to whom and about whom you are speaking. This can be extended to: be clear about the specific point you are addressing when referring to another person's post.

The number of times I see, "I didn't mean YOU," or "I didn't mean THAT part of what you said," is simply nauseating, and it all could have been avoided by proper references to WHO said WHAT.

Like it or not, these forums are a completely different medium from casual chatting. In a group of several friends, it becomes immediately apparent to whom--at the very least--you are addressing your point, and often the speed of the response is ample evidence of the remark to which it was addressed. These matters are not so clear, however, in a linear, online, text-based discussion that has various threads of conversation completely interwoven with one another.

If anyone should respond to this, "why should I bother? You figure it out," then I would suggest to them that they are not at all, in actuality, concerned with communication but with blind ranting.

As a general point of reference for all of this, I've tried very hard to limit my own posts, in the sure knowledge that many simply do not want to read even a simple page's worth of thoughts at a time. If they skip over my post, as you suggest, for stylistic reasons, then I'm not communicating with them. Both speaker and listener have an obligation to work at communicating with one another; the burden isn't solely placed on either.

Excellent reply Chris.
Reading your post is a pleasure.

Thank you

To the gum bumpers that reply without thought:Spouting off without any content is imho a good indicator of an unbalanced individual. Take your meds, prozac or whatever you need to get on the path to reality.