Here is the complete review in German (translation follows):
http://www.tomshardware.de/Fastest-VGA-Card-2012,testberichte-241127.html
http://www.tomshardware.de/Fastest-VGA-Card-2012,testberichte-241127.html
- Status
theconsolegamer
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2011
- 336
- 0
- 18,790
stairmand
Distinguished
- Apr 21, 2009
- 40
- 3
- 18,535
[citation][nom]StitchExperiment626[/nom]I would like several things... one not mentioned is how does this compare to a CrossFire setup.Second can this board be made into a CrossFire setup.Third for the purpose of DC (Distributed Computed) can these be water cooled to run 24/7Fourth... to think outside the box... can they be watercooled to occupy only 2 slots... will they make 2 tabs on the top of the card... and can we run these in QuadFire mode???Fifth... where will the PCI-E buss limits occur on the data flow of a LGA 1155 or LGA 2011[/citation]
All of these can be answered by reading the article!
All of these can be answered by reading the article!
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]frombehind[/nom]Worlds fastest graphix card!!!!!Until the 8970 comes out in Jan-Feb[/citation]
Unless AMD breaks four generations of tradition, their next top single GPU card won't be better than the current dual-GPU cards (even if they're not officially supported by AMD this time).
Unless AMD breaks four generations of tradition, their next top single GPU card won't be better than the current dual-GPU cards (even if they're not officially supported by AMD this time).
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]... how so?Ohh how different the reactions would be, and have been historically, if Nvidia were in a similar position.[/citation]
Reactions would be about the same IMO.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Wait, where did these insinuations about the HD7970 GHz Ed come from? The HD7970 GHz Ed is a great product, and I agree that AMD now offers some compelling value in the high-end market. But this wasn't what I was referring to.I'm referring specifically to to the delayed launch of a dual GPU competitor to the GTX690, and the drastically different reception this announcement seems to garner in comparison to past Nvidia delayed launches in this ultra high-end segment. I mean, it's not even an official AMD SKU, which makes me wonder if an HD7990 will even happen.Does this really hit too close to home for some people?[/citation]
The reaction here is extremely similar to that of the 690. The "insinuations" of the 7970 GHz Edition were further examples. Heck, your post clearly asked about that as shown by you asking "how so?"
There wasn't a delayed launch of the 7990, AMD didn't launch it, so board partners had to do all of the work. That's not delayed, it wasn't even launched by AMD. Furthermore, there's a lot less rage about the timing because it's a friggen $1000 card that can be roughly matched in performance by two good 7950s in CF at a far lower price. It has little to no meaning in the grand scheme of the market because even though its here, almost no one at all will buy it. How can many people get mad over something that doesn't actually impact them other than bragging rights in an AMD versus Nvidia flame war? Furthermore, 7990 has already happened. There are already 7990s selling (although not many of them) such as the Devil 13, so doubting that it'll "happen" is ridiculous. That'd be like me doubting that someone can eat a very large sandwich after that someone has already eaten it.
Reactions would be about the same IMO.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Wait, where did these insinuations about the HD7970 GHz Ed come from? The HD7970 GHz Ed is a great product, and I agree that AMD now offers some compelling value in the high-end market. But this wasn't what I was referring to.I'm referring specifically to to the delayed launch of a dual GPU competitor to the GTX690, and the drastically different reception this announcement seems to garner in comparison to past Nvidia delayed launches in this ultra high-end segment. I mean, it's not even an official AMD SKU, which makes me wonder if an HD7990 will even happen.Does this really hit too close to home for some people?[/citation]
The reaction here is extremely similar to that of the 690. The "insinuations" of the 7970 GHz Edition were further examples. Heck, your post clearly asked about that as shown by you asking "how so?"
There wasn't a delayed launch of the 7990, AMD didn't launch it, so board partners had to do all of the work. That's not delayed, it wasn't even launched by AMD. Furthermore, there's a lot less rage about the timing because it's a friggen $1000 card that can be roughly matched in performance by two good 7950s in CF at a far lower price. It has little to no meaning in the grand scheme of the market because even though its here, almost no one at all will buy it. How can many people get mad over something that doesn't actually impact them other than bragging rights in an AMD versus Nvidia flame war? Furthermore, 7990 has already happened. There are already 7990s selling (although not many of them) such as the Devil 13, so doubting that it'll "happen" is ridiculous. That'd be like me doubting that someone can eat a very large sandwich after that someone has already eaten it.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]forgot to mention i have been at dual 27" monitors since 2010 when they got to the $300 price point and if i'm willing to drop $600 and soon to be $800 into tri monitor and the price of 32" dropping below $1,000 now its as big of a consideration back when every one was on 15" for $400 and i dropped $650 into a 17"with 1280x1024 well over a decade ago, almost 2 decades. 1080p is not a front runner any longer and should be phased off review by now.[/citation]
Why would 1080p, which is quickly becoming the most common gaming resolution regardless of how high end your graphics are (if it's not already), be phased out just because it's not the highest resolution (something that it hasn't been for a fairly long time now for this industry)? That makes absolutely no sense at all to me. 1080p should be included in reviews for at least another decade IMO. We still have resolutions such as 1600x900/1680x1050/1600x1200 and even lower being very common despite the fact that some of them have been common for almost as long as home computer gaming has been common.
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]yes , yes i do, this should have been blown past almost as fast as the switch from 640x480 to 800x600.if it wasn't for dvd holding everything back you'd be staring at 2560x1600 for the last 2 years instead. people only have 1080p because that's what they settle for when they are shown dvd movies over 1080p looks terrible! it's like looking at 640x480 on 1280x 1024i for one do not give a _ _ _ _ about dvd pixelation, i'm gaming and these games more than support resolutions far superior to that when your playing a racing game and you're staring at a 24" screen instead of looking at a windsheild like representation of a real cars actual size which do you think is better?playing a first person shooter applies the same way, looking out your own eyes vs a little itty bitty 24" screen is more appealing to you? you must work in a lab and stare at microbes thru a microscope all day to love such limited view.my combat flight sims look so much better when it looks closer and closer to an actual cockpit bubble of display area vs a chincey 24" monitor hunched over it to the point my back even cramps up after a few hours and 5-7 hours my eyes hurt from all the strain of such a tiny itty bitty screen.my 17"-21"CRTS were at 1600x1200 10 years ago, that's how far behind these flat panels are.when the average tv is now 55" for $500 and is stuck at 1080p that should have been the time everybodys lightbulbs went off in their heads there was a major problem with computer displays.i've watched friends hook 42"720p tvs up to gtx 260's when they were new and the cards handled graw2 like it was made for it.my brother did the same thing with his 55" 1080p tv and a gtx480 (when it was new) and played yes " crysis " and it looked even better on his tv than my pcs 21" monitor, was smoother and more detailed due to the larger size bringing little things into view. same 120hz frames didn't ever dip below 40 and the latency was not even pushing 10ms.that made my jaw drop as to what was so vastly wrong in my mind with pc monitors, prices, and limitations, i was mad. i don't know why the rest of you are not also but in my mind that should never have happened any more than a mac os pulling off better frame rates than windows7 at dirt2[/citation]
There are far more factors than you're giving credit to and your opinion of the situation is irrelevant as far as phasing 1080p out of reviews goes.
Why would 1080p, which is quickly becoming the most common gaming resolution regardless of how high end your graphics are (if it's not already), be phased out just because it's not the highest resolution (something that it hasn't been for a fairly long time now for this industry)? That makes absolutely no sense at all to me. 1080p should be included in reviews for at least another decade IMO. We still have resolutions such as 1600x900/1680x1050/1600x1200 and even lower being very common despite the fact that some of them have been common for almost as long as home computer gaming has been common.
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]yes , yes i do, this should have been blown past almost as fast as the switch from 640x480 to 800x600.if it wasn't for dvd holding everything back you'd be staring at 2560x1600 for the last 2 years instead. people only have 1080p because that's what they settle for when they are shown dvd movies over 1080p looks terrible! it's like looking at 640x480 on 1280x 1024i for one do not give a _ _ _ _ about dvd pixelation, i'm gaming and these games more than support resolutions far superior to that when your playing a racing game and you're staring at a 24" screen instead of looking at a windsheild like representation of a real cars actual size which do you think is better?playing a first person shooter applies the same way, looking out your own eyes vs a little itty bitty 24" screen is more appealing to you? you must work in a lab and stare at microbes thru a microscope all day to love such limited view.my combat flight sims look so much better when it looks closer and closer to an actual cockpit bubble of display area vs a chincey 24" monitor hunched over it to the point my back even cramps up after a few hours and 5-7 hours my eyes hurt from all the strain of such a tiny itty bitty screen.my 17"-21"CRTS were at 1600x1200 10 years ago, that's how far behind these flat panels are.when the average tv is now 55" for $500 and is stuck at 1080p that should have been the time everybodys lightbulbs went off in their heads there was a major problem with computer displays.i've watched friends hook 42"720p tvs up to gtx 260's when they were new and the cards handled graw2 like it was made for it.my brother did the same thing with his 55" 1080p tv and a gtx480 (when it was new) and played yes " crysis " and it looked even better on his tv than my pcs 21" monitor, was smoother and more detailed due to the larger size bringing little things into view. same 120hz frames didn't ever dip below 40 and the latency was not even pushing 10ms.that made my jaw drop as to what was so vastly wrong in my mind with pc monitors, prices, and limitations, i was mad. i don't know why the rest of you are not also but in my mind that should never have happened any more than a mac os pulling off better frame rates than windows7 at dirt2[/citation]
There are far more factors than you're giving credit to and your opinion of the situation is irrelevant as far as phasing 1080p out of reviews goes.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Reactions would be about the same IMO.The reaction here is extremely similar to that of the 690.[/citation]
Sup blazorthon, I was wondering when you would join in.
The 690 was neither delayed nor ill received, so no, that's probably not what I was talking about. I was referring to the delayed launch of a dual GPU competitor, as in the GTX590, and the complete lack of a dual GPU competitor during the GTX400 series. And to get real specific, I'm not talking about the intention to release a product and subsequent delays that push it back due to technical difficulties of some sort. Regardless of an impending launch, I'm talking about delay in regards to a competitor occupying a price segment long before you do. What would you call that... ignore? I don't know, I find people often refer to those hypothetical products as 'delayed' too, but I'm fine with using whatever words or terminology you prefer.
I think you can agree that the attitude surrounding Nvidia's position at the time was far less positive then the general tone surrounding AMD's ultra high-end graphics products right now (or lack there of), despite the similar situation.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The "insinuations" of the 7970 GHz Edition were further examples. Heck, your post clearly asked about that as shown by you asking "how so?"There wasn't a delayed launch of the 7990, AMD didn't launch it, so board partners had to do all of the work. That's not delayed, it wasn't even launched by AMD.[/citation]
You see it's funny that you should mention that, because that's precisely the argument many AMD fanboys used at the time. There wasn't a delayed launch of a so called GTX490, Nvidia didn't launch it, yet we still saw an incredible amount of hostility and resentment at the fact that they didn't. I hate to say it, but I don't think Nvidia and AMD are held to the same standards, at least amongst the community here on Tom's. In fact I think there's often this sort of sympathy towards AMD, especially amongst AMD fanboys, that people don't afford to other companies. And that sympathy can sometimes translate into fanboy appeasement, which is when I think it gets out of hand.
I also think that to proclaim AMD as the winner of this generation based on the performance of HD7970 GHz Ed is also to admit that Nvidia won the last two generations by and even greater margin. Fanboys like to tailor the situation to their 'agenda', and ignore a critical portion of their past arguments when it's convenient. Somehow now the AMD fanboy puts the weight of 'winning' the performance crown for a generation on single GPU performance and 3rd party dual GPU implementations, but also blows off the ultra high-end dual GPU segment as holding less relevance. And no, I don't think simply blaming that on a shift in price point is a good excuse.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]How can many people get mad over something that doesn't actually impact them other than bragging rights in an AMD versus Nvidia flame war?[/citation]
Please tell me this is sarcasm or an outright joke. You're not exactly new here, you must realize this is exactly what people consistently do in these comments sections, fanboys in particular.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Furthermore, 7990 has already happened. There are already 7990s selling (although not many of them) such as the Devil 13, so doubting that it'll "happen" is ridiculous. That'd be like me doubting that someone can eat a very large sandwich after that someone has already eaten it.[/citation]
... Interesting analogy, but my goodness I'm not doubting the existence of unofficial implementations of a dual HD7970. After all I'm commenting on an article about exactly such a product. You're right, that would be ridiculous. What I thought I said quite clearly is that I'm beginning to doubt an official HD7990 will come to market.
But again, if what you're saying is the case, then the GTX490 had also already happened... so what was all the fuss about?
Sup blazorthon, I was wondering when you would join in.
The 690 was neither delayed nor ill received, so no, that's probably not what I was talking about. I was referring to the delayed launch of a dual GPU competitor, as in the GTX590, and the complete lack of a dual GPU competitor during the GTX400 series. And to get real specific, I'm not talking about the intention to release a product and subsequent delays that push it back due to technical difficulties of some sort. Regardless of an impending launch, I'm talking about delay in regards to a competitor occupying a price segment long before you do. What would you call that... ignore? I don't know, I find people often refer to those hypothetical products as 'delayed' too, but I'm fine with using whatever words or terminology you prefer.
I think you can agree that the attitude surrounding Nvidia's position at the time was far less positive then the general tone surrounding AMD's ultra high-end graphics products right now (or lack there of), despite the similar situation.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The "insinuations" of the 7970 GHz Edition were further examples. Heck, your post clearly asked about that as shown by you asking "how so?"There wasn't a delayed launch of the 7990, AMD didn't launch it, so board partners had to do all of the work. That's not delayed, it wasn't even launched by AMD.[/citation]
You see it's funny that you should mention that, because that's precisely the argument many AMD fanboys used at the time. There wasn't a delayed launch of a so called GTX490, Nvidia didn't launch it, yet we still saw an incredible amount of hostility and resentment at the fact that they didn't. I hate to say it, but I don't think Nvidia and AMD are held to the same standards, at least amongst the community here on Tom's. In fact I think there's often this sort of sympathy towards AMD, especially amongst AMD fanboys, that people don't afford to other companies. And that sympathy can sometimes translate into fanboy appeasement, which is when I think it gets out of hand.
I also think that to proclaim AMD as the winner of this generation based on the performance of HD7970 GHz Ed is also to admit that Nvidia won the last two generations by and even greater margin. Fanboys like to tailor the situation to their 'agenda', and ignore a critical portion of their past arguments when it's convenient. Somehow now the AMD fanboy puts the weight of 'winning' the performance crown for a generation on single GPU performance and 3rd party dual GPU implementations, but also blows off the ultra high-end dual GPU segment as holding less relevance. And no, I don't think simply blaming that on a shift in price point is a good excuse.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]How can many people get mad over something that doesn't actually impact them other than bragging rights in an AMD versus Nvidia flame war?[/citation]
Please tell me this is sarcasm or an outright joke. You're not exactly new here, you must realize this is exactly what people consistently do in these comments sections, fanboys in particular.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Furthermore, 7990 has already happened. There are already 7990s selling (although not many of them) such as the Devil 13, so doubting that it'll "happen" is ridiculous. That'd be like me doubting that someone can eat a very large sandwich after that someone has already eaten it.[/citation]
... Interesting analogy, but my goodness I'm not doubting the existence of unofficial implementations of a dual HD7970. After all I'm commenting on an article about exactly such a product. You're right, that would be ridiculous. What I thought I said quite clearly is that I'm beginning to doubt an official HD7990 will come to market.
But again, if what you're saying is the case, then the GTX490 had also already happened... so what was all the fuss about?
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Sup blazorthon, I was wondering when you would join in. The 690 was neither delayed nor ill received, so no, that's probably not what I was talking about. I was referring to the delayed launch of a dual GPU competitor, as in the GTX590, and the complete lack of a dual GPU competitor during the GTX400 series. And to get real specific, I'm not talking about the intention to release a product and subsequent delays that push it back due to technical difficulties of some sort. Regardless of an impending launch, I'm talking about delay in regards to a competitor occupying a price segment long before you do. What would you call that... ignore? I don't know, I find people often refer to those hypothetical products as 'delayed' too, but I'm fine with using whatever words or terminology you prefer.I think you can agree that the attitude surrounding Nvidia's position at the time was far less positive then the general tone surrounding AMD's ultra high-end graphics products right now (or lack there of), despite the similar situation.You see it's funny that you should mention that, because that's precisely the argument many AMD fanboys used at the time. There wasn't a delayed launch of a so called GTX490, Nvidia didn't launch it, yet we still saw an incredible amount of hostility and resentment at the fact that they didn't. I hate to say it, but I don't think Nvidia and AMD are held to the same standards, at least amongst the community here on Tom's. In fact I think there's often this sort of sympathy towards AMD, especially amongst AMD fanboys, that people don't afford to other companies. And that sympathy can sometimes translate into fanboy appeasement, which is when I think it gets out of hand.I also think that to proclaim AMD as the winner of this generation based on the performance of HD7970 GHz Ed is also to admit that Nvidia won the last two generations by and even greater degree. Fanboys like to tailor the situation to their 'agenda', and ignore a critical portion of their past arguments when it's convenient. Somehow now the AMD fanboy puts the weight of 'winning' the performance crown for a generation on single GPU performance and 3rd party dual GPU implementations, but also blows off the ultra high-end dual GPU segment as holding less relevance. And no, I don't think simply blaming that on a shift in price point is a good excuse. Interesting analogy, but my goodness I'm not doubting the existence of unofficial implementations of a dual HD7970. After all I'm commenting on an article about exactly such a product. You're right, that would be ridiculous. What I thought I said quite clearly is that I'm beginning to doubt an official HD7990 will come to market.But again, if what you're saying is the case, then the GTX490 had also already happened... so what was all the fuss about?[/citation]
OK, I see what you were saying, my mistake. However, no, what you said was not clearly stated according to your meaning.
I'm quite sure that AMD won't be launching an official 7990 (they specifically said that they wouldn't IIRC and it simply wouldn't make much sense because with such high prices, I don't think that R&D costs would be easy to top out with sales).
I didn't call it delayed, you did, so it's you who liked that term, not me. Yes, the GTX 490 is a decent example in that it was not delayed either, it simply didn't get launched. I wasn't being easy on AMD over what I said, I was simply pointing out the difference between being delayed and being launched. Since it was not AMD who launched the 7970X2s and 7990s, I can't accurately argue that AMD has competition for the 690 because they don't, but I can argue that their board partners do. In the grand scheme of things for the market, that doesn't really matter because these cards got launched by the board partners anyway, even if late, and these cards are so high end and high-priced that like the 690, they simply aren't going to impact the market much. We can argue over the 690 versus the 7990 all night long, but that won't change the fact that it'd be better to buy two 670s or three 660 Tis instead of a 690 (in most cases) and two 7970s or three 7950s instead of a 7970X2/7990.
I'm not being a fanboy by pointing out that $1000+ cards aren't particularly relevant. In fact, that'd be the wrong extreme way of looking at such a position given that the unofficial 7990s generally have a gaming performance advantage over the 690, so by not giving the ~$1K market relevance, I'm not calling AMD's board partners' wins over Nvidia relevant in addition to their lateness. You can accuse me of being a fanboy, but it is you who has ignored much of this, not me.
To admit that Nvidia won in per-GPU performance the last few generations is to state the obvious. However, to call it an absolute win is to ignore other factors. Nvidia most certainly did not win in performance per dollar, arguably far more important. With GTX 4xx, Nvidia was a whole six months late, so that they had a decent win in per GPU performance there is not impressive, especially with the huge power consumption difference. With GTX 5xx, Nvidia may have solidified their advantage in per GPU performance, but that the 580 was the fastest was made mostly irrelevant by extremely more cost-efficient multi-GPU setups that you could do. When you could get two GTX 560s with similar performance (albeit with a little stutter in some situations) for maybe a little more than two thirds of the 580's price, the 580 really didn't matter a whole lot. When you could get two 6950s still cheaper than a 580 but with the performance to compete with 570 SLI in performance and with 560 SLI in power consumption, Nvidia was really losing out on value. There was a also a good argument for 5770/6770 triple Crossfire at the time if you had a relevant motherboard.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom] Please tell me this is sarcasm or an outright joke. You're not exactly new here, you must realize this is exactly what people consistently do in these comments sections, fanboys in particular.... [/citation]
That wasn't sarcasm nor a joke. 690 versus 7970X2/7990 isn't very relevant other than in flame wars because it is unlikely that anyone here will actually do something with one nor even recommend one in the forums (and have that recommendation actually be the best possible solution for the situation) to anyone. Admitting that such cards are mostly nothing more than tools for fanboys to throw around takes nothing more than the realization that even among the few people who would buy a $1000 card, most of them would prefer three ~$300-400 cards that'd be a lot faster than a single ~$1000 card. I said the same thing about the GTX 590, Radeon 6990, and some other cards. When cards are simply expensive to an extreme, they are less relevant for the gaming industry, especially when they can be beaten in performance and/or price by significant margins.
OK, I see what you were saying, my mistake. However, no, what you said was not clearly stated according to your meaning.
I'm quite sure that AMD won't be launching an official 7990 (they specifically said that they wouldn't IIRC and it simply wouldn't make much sense because with such high prices, I don't think that R&D costs would be easy to top out with sales).
I didn't call it delayed, you did, so it's you who liked that term, not me. Yes, the GTX 490 is a decent example in that it was not delayed either, it simply didn't get launched. I wasn't being easy on AMD over what I said, I was simply pointing out the difference between being delayed and being launched. Since it was not AMD who launched the 7970X2s and 7990s, I can't accurately argue that AMD has competition for the 690 because they don't, but I can argue that their board partners do. In the grand scheme of things for the market, that doesn't really matter because these cards got launched by the board partners anyway, even if late, and these cards are so high end and high-priced that like the 690, they simply aren't going to impact the market much. We can argue over the 690 versus the 7990 all night long, but that won't change the fact that it'd be better to buy two 670s or three 660 Tis instead of a 690 (in most cases) and two 7970s or three 7950s instead of a 7970X2/7990.
I'm not being a fanboy by pointing out that $1000+ cards aren't particularly relevant. In fact, that'd be the wrong extreme way of looking at such a position given that the unofficial 7990s generally have a gaming performance advantage over the 690, so by not giving the ~$1K market relevance, I'm not calling AMD's board partners' wins over Nvidia relevant in addition to their lateness. You can accuse me of being a fanboy, but it is you who has ignored much of this, not me.
To admit that Nvidia won in per-GPU performance the last few generations is to state the obvious. However, to call it an absolute win is to ignore other factors. Nvidia most certainly did not win in performance per dollar, arguably far more important. With GTX 4xx, Nvidia was a whole six months late, so that they had a decent win in per GPU performance there is not impressive, especially with the huge power consumption difference. With GTX 5xx, Nvidia may have solidified their advantage in per GPU performance, but that the 580 was the fastest was made mostly irrelevant by extremely more cost-efficient multi-GPU setups that you could do. When you could get two GTX 560s with similar performance (albeit with a little stutter in some situations) for maybe a little more than two thirds of the 580's price, the 580 really didn't matter a whole lot. When you could get two 6950s still cheaper than a 580 but with the performance to compete with 570 SLI in performance and with 560 SLI in power consumption, Nvidia was really losing out on value. There was a also a good argument for 5770/6770 triple Crossfire at the time if you had a relevant motherboard.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom] Please tell me this is sarcasm or an outright joke. You're not exactly new here, you must realize this is exactly what people consistently do in these comments sections, fanboys in particular.... [/citation]
That wasn't sarcasm nor a joke. 690 versus 7970X2/7990 isn't very relevant other than in flame wars because it is unlikely that anyone here will actually do something with one nor even recommend one in the forums (and have that recommendation actually be the best possible solution for the situation) to anyone. Admitting that such cards are mostly nothing more than tools for fanboys to throw around takes nothing more than the realization that even among the few people who would buy a $1000 card, most of them would prefer three ~$300-400 cards that'd be a lot faster than a single ~$1000 card. I said the same thing about the GTX 590, Radeon 6990, and some other cards. When cards are simply expensive to an extreme, they are less relevant for the gaming industry, especially when they can be beaten in performance and/or price by significant margins.
The thing that interests me is that LucidLogix is in on this... I wonder if they've developed drivers (or whatever) that work well. I'm excited for the upcoming review (and an in-depth analysis of how LucidLogix is working here)!!! 
But alas, the article has been made already and all I can do now is wait for the translation (though Google Translate is there)...
How about the fact that some people are already satisfied with lower resolutions like 1080p or (as I've heard) 720p? It's a personal preference and it's only right for reviewers to cater to the majority along with others first and then to niche markets if they feel generous or just feel like it. 
And BTW, DVD's don't normally store Full HD (1080p) content do they? I know they have DVD players with upscalers.
Remember, your distance from the screen also matters. A bigger screen with the same resolution allows for setups to be farther away, like on a couch, and also allows more people to watch more easily.
I don't think so... Tried double-checking and I don't think I read anything in this article, unless you're referring to the review article in German as of this moment.
blaz, were you watching something like Man vs. Food when you made that comment? :lol:
But alas, the article has been made already and all I can do now is wait for the translation (though Google Translate is there)...And BTW, DVD's don't normally store Full HD (1080p) content do they? I know they have DVD players with upscalers.
A bigger screen with the same resolution allows for setups to be farther away, like on a couch, and also allows more people to watch more easily. :lol:
FormatC :
The Lucid chip works only as bridge (internal PCI-E 2.0, this is still enough). Without driver
I sort of assumed that it was more than that since I know LucidLogix for "bigger" stuff. Will be looking forward to the translation.Also, just checking, you're Igor Wallossek right?
FormatC :
That's not sarcasm. I'm not often here
Hehe... Though I can always expect you (and only you) to be on that FormatC account right? (Just in case something comes up in the future that I'd need to address you specifically.) And it's also nice to see that graphics cards serve a dual-purpose.
Who needs a heater when you can just route those overclocked babies to the ventilation system. Or you could also say, who needs liquid-cooling when you can route outside air to your system. They should invent a way for to happen. It's free and natural and could last you at least 3 months maybe per year. Hehehe...
dragonsqrrl,
No one says NV didn't launch a successful GTX690 this generation (they did) or not many deny that HD7990 is mostly irrelevant now by virtue of being late, power hungry and missing the small window of opportunity to capture the niche market segment of $1k dual-GPU consumers.
Regarding 8800GTX, GTX280/285, 480/580 generations, NV did win the single-GPU performance crown in all of those. No one denies that either. The difference this round is AMD is offering both the best price/performance, overclocking features and top single-GPU performance with its entire HD7000 series. Never in the history of ATI, NV or AMD did any 1 firm simultaneously offer the best price/performance, overclocking and performance for single GPUs up to $500 like HD7000 desktop series has been doing since at least June. Prices for GTX600 cards are slowly coming down but overall, this generation is probably the worst showing from NV since GeForce 7. They never brought out an amazing price/performance overclocking card like 8800GT, GTX460 1GB and neither did they beat AMD this round. Overall, Kepler sounds like Intel's IVB part, launched to make $ for NV. NV tends to have a 15-20% lead over AMD's fastest single-GPU and this round they not only didn't achieve this but they lost the single-GPU performance crown. That's not going to hurt NV's sales much but overall many of us expected much more from GTX680.
No one says NV didn't launch a successful GTX690 this generation (they did) or not many deny that HD7990 is mostly irrelevant now by virtue of being late, power hungry and missing the small window of opportunity to capture the niche market segment of $1k dual-GPU consumers.
Regarding 8800GTX, GTX280/285, 480/580 generations, NV did win the single-GPU performance crown in all of those. No one denies that either. The difference this round is AMD is offering both the best price/performance, overclocking features and top single-GPU performance with its entire HD7000 series. Never in the history of ATI, NV or AMD did any 1 firm simultaneously offer the best price/performance, overclocking and performance for single GPUs up to $500 like HD7000 desktop series has been doing since at least June. Prices for GTX600 cards are slowly coming down but overall, this generation is probably the worst showing from NV since GeForce 7. They never brought out an amazing price/performance overclocking card like 8800GT, GTX460 1GB and neither did they beat AMD this round. Overall, Kepler sounds like Intel's IVB part, launched to make $ for NV. NV tends to have a 15-20% lead over AMD's fastest single-GPU and this round they not only didn't achieve this but they lost the single-GPU performance crown. That's not going to hurt NV's sales much but overall many of us expected much more from GTX680.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Started by MatthewJamess
- Replies: 8
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram