Page 130 of 158 FirstFirst ... 3080120128129130131132140 ... LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,300 of 1571

Thread: Kepler performance

  1. #1291
    >intel 4004
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    11,281
    They are agruing over micro-stuttering, or "smoothness".
    You may say it's their persistence, but even with GeForce GTX 690, there is still micro-stuttering, no matter how small it is. But they are comfortable with it, so...

  2. #1292
    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...t_mikroruckler this measurement has been done with FRAPS frametime. The author says, that SS3 is an example for obvious micro-stuttering (so results may vary). But the new bridge chip plus optimized synchronization really seems to help GTX690.

    Greetz,
    crs

  3. #1293
    It always strikes me as funny that certain sites can't get certain titles working in xfire(but this changes from site to site, and isn't many different games anyway), but other sites have said game working fine. I'll still say techpowerup had Call of Juarez working in xfire on a 5970, for months, then not long after the 480gtx its 70% lead disappeared as suddenly xfire didn't work any more.

    Then we'll point out things like [H] randomly saying SLI is great while casually ignoring that the game he was talking about did not work with SLI as standard, was unstable and, meh at best, while said game worked flawlessly in xfire.

    95% of these issues to me come down to, reviewers, money, and dishonesty(and sometimes just general user stupidity, I've reviewed stuff, I've installed thousands of systems/variations of Nvidia/AMD, NO ONE is beyond a mistake, myself included).

    What I really can't understand though is, if you have a game with SLI or XFIRE not working, before you publish it as a fault, use your brain, check a few other sites, if they all have it working, maybe its you and not AMD at fault

    Too often reviewers act as if they've been doing it so long they can't be at fault, which is a shame.

  4. #1294
    I wasn't aware they all spoke to each other during the review process, so not sure how they would find out if someone else has it working or not until the NDA is up.

    Anyway, 690 looks like a fantastic card, and compared to the 680 its actually priced rather well, just a pity the 680 is still poorly priced in my opinion

  5. #1295
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    3,478
    Because of the availability.
    Don't buy it and they want/ don't want- will have to decrease the charged money demand.

  6. #1296
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    781
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloBroon View Post
    I wasn't aware they all spoke to each other during the review process, so not sure how they would find out if someone else has it working or not until the NDA is up.

    Anyway, 690 looks like a fantastic card, and compared to the 680 its actually priced rather well, just a pity the 680 is still poorly priced in my opinion
    If they had problems with 7970 in their reviews, like AT had, it wouldn't be a brain melt to check it on other sites for the GTX690 Review.

    Drunkenmaster great post, just what I thought, + more. I also wonder, 2 games don't work for AT, and that breaks Crossfire for them, what about the billion other times they tested it? There was no claim of Crossfire being too broken during the 6990 review, or even the 5970 review.
    Desktop R7 1800X@4.1GHz, MSI X370 Xpower gaming titanium(Bios 1.74), 2x8GB Corsair Vengance LED(Red) DDR4 3200MHz@2933MHz , 2xSamsung 830 256GB & Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD, Sapphire Fury X 1050MHz / 500MHz, Corsair AX1200i.
    Laptop: Lenovo Y700 AMD FX-8800p, R9 M385X, 2x8GB DDR3, 256GB SSD.
    Quote Originally Posted by vain View Post
    From my personal browsing experience, everyone is well endowed.

  7. #1297
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloBroon View Post
    I wasn't aware they all spoke to each other during the review process, so not sure how they would find out if someone else has it working or not until the NDA is up.

    Anyway, 690 looks like a fantastic card, and compared to the 680 its actually priced rather well, just a pity the 680 is still poorly priced in my opinion
    Well, way back when I did a few reviews, I was in contact with other people also doing reviews. But more importantly, you put a review up, you check other reviews, if every other review has something working which you've written up as a huge massive failure for company X(but its always AMD, isn't it ), then well if it was me and I saw an obvious issue I had that no one else had. I'd change my review, or update it at least acknowledging that no one else seemed to have the same problem so its highly unlikely to be a widespread problem, I'd try and track down the problem and if I could fix it, I'd UPDATE(not randomly remove parts of a review) the review with new findings and a likely new conclusion taking into account things like that.


    Good review site, I expect the above, lazy crap website, I expect someone who has a problem no one else had to harp on about it in every future review no matter how wrong they are...... the majority seem to be the latter.

  8. #1298
    Quote Originally Posted by Medallish View Post
    If they had problems with 7970 in their reviews, like AT had, it wouldn't be a brain melt to check it on other sites for the GTX690 Review.

    Drunkenmaster great post, just what I thought, + more. I also wonder, 2 games don't work for AT, and that breaks Crossfire for them, what about the billion other times they tested it? There was no claim of Crossfire being too broken during the 6990 review, or even the 5970 review.
    Nope, tis a bit of a joke. As I've mentioned people have frequently highlighted that Kyle was banging on about 7970xf being great and in general xf working better than SLI, then it comes to a review where they are given hardware(and I will go ahead and assume some advertising money) and all of a sudden SLI is flawless again.

    It's funny how its not a problem till a different review paid for by the other guys.

    Seriously I can't get my head around Wizzard having 5970 xfire working great in AMD's fastest game till weeks after the 480gtx finally launched, when all of a sudden his results are half the speed of before..... no fix, no change, no "wait, this seems odd" just xfire not working in AMD's best showing against the 480gtx. It's as simple as this, maybe he changed a setting, maybe he completely forgot some setting, who knows, it doesn't take an awful lot of digging to spot that the results dropped by 50%(and brought the 5970's overall score a lot closer to the 480gtx).

  9. #1299
    Kinda harsh to suggest he has been taking money from both AMD and Nvidia to lie about SLI/CF.

    Not sure which parts your referring to, as personally i saw no changes to his results, or even his comments from his previous CF/SLI reviews to suggest anything like that.

  10. #1300
    Just had a quick look at the Guru3D review for the GTX690, er first off they use AMD Catalyst (12.1/12.2)
    NVIDIA GeForce series latest WHQL 301 series

    Now the older Catalysts could be in line with the last time we tested that card and haven't retested yet argument,
    but sort of a borderline argument for a site reviewing top end cards.
    Most glaring though is in the test results they show HD7970 Crossfire in the top selected results but drop the HD7970 Crossfire results from the much more visually telling bar graph. why would they do that? is it so the 690 always sits atop the quick glance bar graph.

    The main rival for the GTX690 is GTX680 SLI and HD7970 Crossfire, so the bar graph should show at least those three yet it doesn't and shows an array of other almost irrelevant cards

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux