Pirating is fine if you don't seed then? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
Printable View
Pirating is fine if you don't seed then? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
you can't compare with torrents,Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
unless it's a demo or game that was once free but now is not
yes it's fine
For all that's complaining about not receiving benchmarks...if you're so eager to spend your money, send AMD a check and threaten to send them more money if they dont release the cards right now.
Excuse me? Where did I say that there was a legal requirement on me? And what I believe to be morally right is my own business, thankyou. If my moral beliefs mean that I am not reposting the images then yes, I will claim that is the reason I'm not doing something.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Relevance? By its very definition internet piracy is the unauthorised redistribution of content. This is a very different thing from content that was given out freely by the original creator/owner, and then was removed by that person. I respect their rights with regard to that content not to distribute it further, but there is no obligation on me to delete my own copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
lol, everyone has been so pissy in the last few pages
here - to lighten the mood; A re-enactment of the deleted picture
SoulsCollective should get the lulz here ;)
http://b.imagehost.org/0801/Untitled_6.png
lol , i just fished out a copy of them pics from my internet cache , im sure many of you could do the same...
Your post made it sound like you believed your morals were the same as the law, and thus you weren't posting them, not that it was because you thought it was wrong to. As I said before, nothing wrong at all with not wanting to because of morals whatsoever (100% your right/perogative), just don't say you're not posting them because it's against the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
Oh, that was the picture? I was it, wasn't very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
You're not missing much... just a couple of low res photos and it looks pretty much identical to a 3850 :p:
OBR probably works for a magazine.. if he didn't, he wouldn't be recieving privvy info/samples considering what he does.
yes, this is a re-construction of itQuote:
Originally Posted by 003
interestingly the original is just like this (size/dimensions but without the toms logo) :rolleyes:
Lol. Wrong colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
lol, that was deliberate
Needs moar pounds sterling :P
4850 review with 3dmark06 and vantage multiple resolutions + AA
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0610/20080610041602.shtml
:D
Translated (and stolen from Digital_Monkey @ OCAU ;) ):
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0610/images/1039039.JPGQuote:
Looking from the preliminary test, the Radeon HD4850 actual performance will stem from GeForce 9800GTX with between GeForce 9800GT which soon issued, the AMD aspect disclosed that Radeon the HD 4850 selling prices will be $229 US dollars, GeForce 9800GTX present sell $329, but Radeon the HD 4850 potency will be quite close, but the price has actually been short $100, therefore anticipated will let NVIDA consider that the reduction will accept a challenge.Certainly the Radeon HD4850 superiority also lay in continues to use on RV670 to compare the successful Powerplay function, caused the entire card the power loss with to give off heat obtains controls well.
If those are legit it looks like they've majorly tightened up on the AF issue. With 8xAA/16xAF:
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0610/images/1039054.JPG
vs
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0610/images/1039045.JPG
And it's also got 480 shaders. Damn, the 4000 series is going to suck. What a let down. That will likely go for the 4870 as well. If the 4850 scores X2700 in vantage, then the 4870 will maybe score X3100, which may even be optimistic. If the GTX 280 is scoring X4800, the 4870 is going to get pounded in a huge way.
And I sincerely doubt the 4870X2 is going to score X5500. I mean thats not far off from double the performance, and multi GPU configurations do NOT scale that well.
I dunno... the 4870 has almost twice the ram bandwidth of the 4850 + it will be priced a lot better than the GTX 280 as well... Its more if the GTX 260 or the 4870 is a better buy i reckon.
edit: i think those GTX 280 vantage scores are a bit sus tbh... but im going to wait until more concrete info is out before i firmly pick a card i would buy.
Its not the improvement some of you were hoping for but for the money, its pretty damn good I'd say ( if these are legit which I'd guess they would, the performance seems in line ). Again this is just a single synthetic benchmark and unless you plan on benching 24/7 and have no interest in playing games then theres no sense getting anxious without any game performance result to reflect upon. These should still be very popular in crossfire configs.
wow you made my day :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by oohms
so only 480 shaders unit.....
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0610/images/1039036.JPG
:shrug:
3dM06
12.500 @ 1280
11.240 @ 1600
10.442 @ 1920
7.935 @ 2560
8.487 @ 1280 8xAA 16xAF
NA @ 1600
6.776 @ 1920 8xAA 16xAF
5.001 @ 2560 8xAA 16xAF
3dM Vantage
Performance 1280 no AA: 6695
Extreme 1920 4xAA 16xAF: 2789
nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by ORBR
I was going to say the GPU-Z looks pretty conclusive, but then I also noticed that the pixel fillrate is 482.4 GPixel/s and 964.7 GTexe/s... uhh unless ATI has some magic that increases fill rate 10x over what we have existing now, or that GPU-Z has some major errorsQuote:
Originally Posted by ORBR
4850~8800gt
i get 12045 3d06 @ 3.1GHz c2d, 660MHz GPU core
?Quote:
I was going to say the GPU-Z looks pretty conclusive, but then I also noticed that the pixel fillrate is 482.4 GPixel/s and 964.7 GTexe/s
?
what are all ati's shaders doing? (and dont say shading :hehe:)
you are right, there's something wrong hereQuote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
maybe a joke/fake or a real GPU-z error?
also, there is no shaders domain clock so this is not 1TFlop gpu.....
but 1 TF it's confirmed
I've a lot of dubts on this review
and they used "catalyst 8.5" as drivers.. hum....
I mean that the GPU-Z is pretty convincing evidence of the specs, but those GPixel/s and GTexel/s are 10x higher than any card currently out there so those #'s are clearly wrong (unless somehow its calculating GPixel/s and GTexel/s through shaders or something, but that seems unlikely), or that GPU-Z isn't detecting the cards information properly (just how much of GPU-z is a database vs. how much of it actuall detects whats going on, such as clocks and so on are clearly active detection)
Oh and its hard to compare 3dMark06 scores across platforms and with those scores on that quad, it looks like 4850 will be closer to 8800GTS512 than 8800GT (but that's pure speculation on 3dMark06 which is tentative at best)
Well the 3dMark06 scores look legit and in-line with what's been speculated and rumoredQuote:
Originally Posted by ORBR
Does the GPU-Z reading of the Catalyst drivers line up with 8.5? I don't have an ATI card so I can't tell if those are the correct ID #'s for 8.5 / Vista