Quote Originally Posted by Piotrsama View Post
It's logical that people complain, because it's confusing.
Why can't ATI just stop with this parallel numbering?
They should just use one of those, whichever.... I don't care. But just one.

BTW, AMD should hire more people for the ATI driver team.

As for this numbering "detail", well, just patch the damn driver and release 10.1b NOW, don't wait 1 month for that. Can't be that hard....
Yeah, sure, more quantity instead of quality... They don't need more people, maybe 1 or 2 that are very skilled at this but that's really hard to find since VGA's are really complex compared to other hardware and ATi (AMD), nVidia are top companies for that. In worst case, they might end up with some that worked at Creative, that should thing interesting in a more problematic way...

It's easy to talk, I do it myself from time to time... But when it comes to the real work behind this and so many things that could go wrong, since they're so many things that are VGA dependent (especially today)... And let's not forget, they have no TWIMTBP and beyond that, they could try to cheat like nVidia but that doesn't help much cause the real results are important (really important), since most of us are not benching fanatics.

Some nVidia users might contradict me, as in NO - they're not as good as nVidia when it comes to cheating... well, they are mistaken, they already proved they could do that with Furmark - forcing the cards to render at predefined FPS rates, which is more complicated then showing some fake FPS results in some applications.

But beyond this mambo jumbo benching which I don't really care, i aim for stability and improvement. If I use a Futuremark product I use it to test the stability of my card and a game for fun, not FPS scores...