Thanks for the tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Printable View
Thanks for the tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Oh everyone will....late and underperforming is borderline unacceptable for any company. I'm honestly surprised that people are being so easy on AMD :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gdogg
well, the 8600s came late and they were definitely underperforming...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Yes, and if it doesn't, everyone knows it's dx 10.1 compatible. And if it isn't it'll overclock like hell. And if it doesn't, the 65nm parts are just around the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
AMD screwed up big time, when will people realize that?
Here's the followup to my claims. Same exact standing position, you be the judge if what I say is true. Again, pay attention to the ladder. Also, don't mind the lousy j-peg compression, I just wanted to be able to upload it quick, and it's not needed to show my point.
Dynamic Lighting Off.
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6...tingoffrp7.jpg
Dynamic Lighting On.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/281...htingonuu9.jpg
Compare those to the pics posted in the thread earlier.
I'll let you guys be the judge, but I'm going to go ahead and say whoever he got those screen-shots from just lost 100% credibility for giving performance numbers, period.
reread post #3, and then apply that new-found knowledge to what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonkers
Ryan
Everyone ripped on it when it was its time. Then the HD2900XT came out...so now we're on that. Plus, big difference in high-end vs. mid-range focus here at XS.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
BUT, XS might be the only site to like it and...and for good reason: HD2900XT is competitive for the 3DMark05 and 06 WRs. In terms of gaming though, HD2900XT is just not cutting it until AMD does something to improve it (if they can).
EDIT: and the 8600s were not MONTHS later than their competition. Heck...they were earlier.
If you wish to get technical, you still can't buy the 8600's competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Something is completely wrong with those photos. The images are different, the ambient color is different, etc. One of these photos has been edited/altered. Unless the time of day changes in this game like it does in Oblivion. That is not a direct comparison. It's like one ss uses more red tint and the other uses a tad yellow tint.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
That is one of the differences in the lighting schemes....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
No, you see, this is how I knew what was up in the first place....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Dynamic lighting effects everything. From ambient color to the shading of clothing, and even how textures react to color. It's because with dynamic lighting the lights colors all effect the environment, and with static lighting it's just a plain white light.
It is taken back to back, the only change being exiting and restarting for the lighting option change to take effect. I can do indoor shots too if you'd like.
Time of day does change, but as I stated, right after I saved I took the first screenshot, exited the game, opened it back up and loaded the game, then instantly took the screenshot. In game time the shots were taken seconds apart.
Anyone here can re-do my experiment and will come up with the exact findings. The graphics really are that drastically different between dynamic lighting off and on.
Either way, whoever posted v_rr's shots originally is now no longer a credible source for info, plain and simple.
Then it isn't dynamic lighting from what I've seen. Using tint as dynamic lighting or to change the image of a map can have positive or negative effect on shadows, lighting, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
It's color cast from the sources of light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Have you even played stalker? If you had you'd know that the game does infact have dynamic lighting when it's turned on, it's not just "a tint". If it was, why would it effect the performance so much?
Either way, case be told, the demons have been exorcised. v_rr's shots were proven fraudulent
Also, when was the last time either company launched High, Mid & Low end parts at the same time (available not just paper)? The Mid & Low end parts were always scheduled for a later launch cycle for the last few generations as it's easier for them to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
As for Bonkers and his quite frankly "bonkers" statement... R650/R670/R680 (or whatever they want to call it now) was a hoax to get leaks (no solid proof they ever existed). Also nobody knows what the final DX 10.1 spec is so it's kinda hard to have a card specced to it already.
AMD dropped the ball not once, not twice, not thrice but too many times on too many products & quite a lot of people are getting tired of delays & poor performance, i'm one of them.
Check the ladder shadow and vegetation (foreground) in DilTech's screenshots.
There's the diff between dynamic and fixed lighting styles.
Kinda scary that some AMD fanbois now produce or publish misleading screenshots to make it sound better.
@DilTech-:clap:
AMD fanpois must be getting desperate with all thats been happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Ahaha. Yeah that actually makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron 61
The original debate was about the quality of [H] review. If we take each game they use theirs results are very strange.
In their review Oblivion seems to have bad performance with HD 2900XT although everybody here know is totally false. You can't find one review telling that too. Image quality problems? :rofl:
For BF1942 just pointing this review here
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...s_3.html#sect1 :shrug:
Stalker? Personnaly no problems with [H] settings and i can confirm the nearly 100% performance incresase compare to release drivers.
For Lost Planet a lots of subjective statement in defavor of HD 2900XT for the most part :shakes:
In conclusion how could you not call this review a bad review. Worst thing is using beta driver while Cat 7.5 are out since the 31th of may:shocked:
:eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Agreed, the review is simply bad all around :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
How about this one:
http://www.techspot.com/review/52-as...0xt/page4.html
8800gts don't come near the 2900xt at any point.
This is the first one that appears in google.
But from the reviews that i've seen when the card came out, they all had 2900xt ahead.
Is techspot credible? I honestly have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
You are really showing your computer age here. Tom's is a site with many skeletons in its closet, not just it's anti-AMD/pro-Intel spin. If you remember the controversy between Tom and Van then maybe you'd understand why people don't read Tom's. Tom's also had a highly condescending and smug article written against AMD users who challenged him on the BAPCo 2002 benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
I'm also leaving out the fact that Tom essentially sold-out on many reviews for the benefit of ad money. I'm in the camp that once you've sold-out, it scars your reputation for life. It's for the same reason I no longer trust Anandtech. He wasn't a sell-out until Conroe, but since then it seems much of his writing is "double-talk".