That was exactly the point I was getting across: I'm saying its silly to use the pixels to extrapolate performance: for instance, its 130 pixels from the top of the 5870 to the top of the 5970, whereas its 120 from the top of the 5870 to the top of the 5770, but we all know that the 5870 and 5770's gap is usually larger than the 5970 to 5870, hence its silly - it's a PR slide meant to exaggerate placement of cards
And that was my point on the 6850, its positioned higher
Of course, if the same people who want to argue that this chart is indicative of performance, then the fact that the 5770's top is 20 pixels higher than the 6850's bottom, and the 5870's top is 20 pixels higher than the 6950's bottom... well if the 6850 is 25% faster than the 5770, are we suggesting that the 6950 is 25% faster than the 5870? If so, then the 6970 will not be slower than the 5970 in gaming, hence the entire argument of using this chart for performance is silly unless one is trying to prove their agenda
Bookmarks