BF2S Forums Sapphire ready to launch Radeon "HD 5990 4GB"

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Finray wrote:

GG, nVidia, might as well file for bankruptency now.

You realise NVIDIA has quite big cash reserve, much bigger than ATi has had... probably ever.

I know, but with the press releases of the new Fermi cards, it just seems too little too late. Perhaps if we got 150% performance of the 5870 then nVidia would have something to brag about, but as is they have very hot, loud, unimpressive cards that are barely better than the 5870, months after ATi have released and dominated the market.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Finray wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

You realise NVIDIA has quite big cash reserve, much bigger than ATi has had... probably ever.

I know, but with the press releases of the new Fermi cards, it just seems too little too late. Perhaps if we got 150% performance of the 5870 then nVidia would have something to brag about, but as is they have very hot, loud, unimpressive cards that are barely better than the 5870, months after ATi have released and dominated the market.

Fastest single GPU card in the face of earth by 25% in min fps, with first drivers, is not impressive? I agree on the loud and hot part, but HD 5970 is one loud hot card too.

*waits for Fermi and Cypress refresh*

*waits for Fermi and Cypress refresh*?

Since when did we start judging things by minimum FPS? As far as I can remember the standard has always been average. And in my previous point I said 5870, not 59.

Finray wrote:

*waits for Fermi and Cypress refresh*?

Since when did we start judging things by minimum FPS? As far as I can remember the standard has always been average. And in my previous point I said 5870, not 59.

WOW it runs at 200 fps average compared to one that runs 150 fps average. Then when someone throws a smoke, fuuu 20fps vs 30fps. Which one was more important again? Obviously minimum fps.

I am dissappointed in the overall performance of anything, even HD 5870 CF, from current gen. These cards get owned the second you show some proper DX11 features. Enough to tell I will wait for newer gen cards...

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-03-29 08:11:48)

Finray wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

WOW it runs at 200 fps average compared to one that runs 150 fps average. Then when someone throws a smoke, fuuu 20fps vs 30fps. Which one was more important again? Obviously minimum fps.

While this is true, it's been the case forever, and yet the average consumer has always gone by the average FPS. Anyone who's supporting nVidia and their Fermi always runs to the "minimum FPS" excuse, as that's the only thing it has over the ATi counterparts. For power consumption, heat, noise, efficiency, price, and release date, ATi has it pinned.

Ever wonder why average consumer goes by average fps figures? Because it suits very well for PR. It simply put sucks that only minority of hardware sites put minimum fps figures in their reviews. Best ones do tho, and I would like it to get more popular.

Everyone puts maximum fps in there too, because it suits PR even better, oh look it did 400fps in the game X. And maximum fps tells pretty much nothing about anything, you don't look in the sky all the time while playing BC2, do you?

Average gamer is vulnerable to PR bullcrap. Sad but true fact.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-03-29 09:57:10)

menzo wrote:

Finray wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

WOW it runs at 200 fps average compared to one that runs 150 fps average. Then when someone throws a smoke, fuuu 20fps vs 30fps. Which one was more important again? Obviously minimum fps.

While this is true, it's been the case forever, and yet the average consumer has always gone by the average FPS. Anyone who's supporting nVidia and their Fermi always runs to the "minimum FPS" excuse, as that's the only thing it has over the ATi counterparts. For power consumption, heat, noise, efficiency, price, and release date, ATi has it pinned.

no, the average consumer goes by the highest product numbers and amount of ram

And what ever fan boy tendancies run his life.