No Nvidia cards were not they had extreme texture pop in issues at launch and they still do unless you turn off GPU Transcode in the in game setting menu at which point the game looks like crap even more than ever.
No Nvidia cards were not they had extreme texture pop in issues at launch and they still do unless you turn off GPU Transcode in the in game setting menu at which point the game looks like crap even more than ever.You are totally avoiding the issue. The issue is... AMD cards took months to get the game working without user developed hacks. Nvidia cards were playable immediately.
No Nvidia cards were not they had extreme texture pop in issues at launch and they still do unless you turn off GPU Transcode in the in game setting menu at which point the game looks like crap even more than ever.
Whatever man the games sucked for starters and it looks like crap and is buggy and I hope they have it fixed for Doom 4 GPU Transcode was a flop whatever it did and the game was awful so WHO CARES. Also I never said it was a GPU issue I said the game was plauge no matter what vendor of GPU used "hence I indirectly stated it was not a gpu issue" cause it messed up on Nvidia card as well.That's not an issue with the cards. Again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. That's how the engine was designed until they added a patch for you to enable settings that you could access through the .cfg files.
Turning off transcode doesn't change any part of the textures to look worse nor does enabling it make the game look better.
I don't understand what you're talking about. I thought you said certain Nvidia cards had poorer IQ then their AMD equivalents? I thought IQ meant Image Quality? So, I was just interested to know how owning Rage was some kind of evidence of Nvidia having lower Imagine Quality than AMD? Are you saying you were running one of these particular Nvidia cards at the time, when you played Rage, and the IQ sucked? Maybe it sucked on AMD too?Not being funny but how does the buggieness of RAGE have anything to do with my ownership of it. GET OFF MY BACK.
You are confused and mixing up two different ideals. Rage looks like crap on any rig and GPU lol. Do you have a 2xx series GPU ?I don't understand what you're talking about. I thought you said certain Nvidia cards had poorer IQ then their AMD equivalents? I thought IQ meant Image Quality? So, I was just interested to know how owning Rage was some kind of evidence of Nvidia having lower Imagine Quality than AMD? Are you saying you were running one of these particular Nvidia cards at the time, when you played Rage, and the IQ sucked? Maybe it sucked on AMD too?
SLI GTX 460s NICE ! smart choice for maxing out games with top IQ and AA @ 1080P or under. I too like messing around on Linux for IMHO Mint is much better than Windows dam DX is the only reason why i still have to run Windows 7.It depends for me. If its for my gaming rig i'll buy best bang for the buck at the time, thats why im running SLI 460's right now, at the time of purchase all AMD had to offer was the 68xx series and they had just come out and were priced much higher than the 460's.
If its for my HTPC or server or my spare PC ill always buy Nvidia, i usually run linux or BSD on my server and AMD just does not offer the driveres needed for OS's other than windows, there linux drivers are horrid and they dont even bother releasing drivers for BSD or solaris.
Whatever man the games sucked for starters and it looks like crap and is buggy and I hope they have it fixed for Doom 4 GPU Transcode was a flop whatever it did and the game was awful so WHO CARES. Also I never said it was a GPU issue I said the game was plauge no matter what vendor of GPU used "hence I indirectly stated it was not a gpu issue" cause it messed up on Nvidia card as well.
I don't know about how bad AMD cards performed on RAGE but I think is was most likely bad and due to buggy game engine coding and "Megatexters" but would you like me to post up a video of how rediculously lousy and buggy the game RAGE runs on both my nvidia cards.So you avoid the question/issue entirely because you're answer didn't work. The game doesn't matter it's a question of driver support. You obviously don't want to admit that AMD had worse support. Whatever.
I bought a 7xxx series nvidia card back in the day and it performed really cruddy compared to my old 6800GS but I cant remember which 7xxx card i bought it was from Future Shop so it was a crappy overpriced low end junk 7xxx series card but I was still learning the basics then so I though any new series card will always be faster than the series it replaced.Have no probs running rage on my NV card... so..
And hearing it from someone who would imply NV is at fault for a 7600gt performing worse than a 6800gs can only suggest... PEBKAC.
even the version in Batman AC has improved quite a bit and is perfectly playable on the cpu if you have a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge.I am taking a look I ran a search on "PhysX 3.0 SDK" and all I am finding is nvidia Propoganda, biased marketing rhetoric and sensationalistic fervor.
So you avoid the question/issue entirely because you're answer didn't work. The game doesn't matter it's a question of driver support. You obviously don't want to admit that AMD had worse support. Whatever.
Some people see it as useless eye candy, I see it as a new level if interaction with the art.
I just don't understand this attitude.If a company is struggling it is either due to mismanagement or inferior products.
Ehh ? No. That is just so wrong, there are so many other factors that can contribute to this. Topics like market failure, bounded rationality or economies of scale have been beaten to death in just about every econ class these days. Just google / wikipedia some of those terms.
(Of course that doesnt have to mean that AMD is not mismanaged / doesnt have inferior products, just that there are many factors that are out of their hand )
Examples :
Brand recognition is a big thing for nvidia and intel in some developing countries. They carry hefty premium over amd/ati products over there while the price would be very similar in the us. I saw that 20 years ago and when I returned to those countries its even worse, say a 5850 from Asus could carry 50% premium over a 5850 from Powercolor / HIS. People simply dont read reviews, they go by brand names.
Also at the moment Intel enjoy a huge economies of scale meant that it is by nature almost impossible for AMD to compete with Intel.
But to return to topic at hand : Yes I do think we need to be rational when making a purchase.
However, that does not have to mean thinking only of the short term benefits. I also consider the long term, if AMD survives and is competitive to both Intel and Nvidia then we can have great products at cheap price. If not ... well I still remember the age of Intel i.e. the time when 50-60% of the price of a new computer is spent on the CPU. :'(
Why they do have that in the first place?Because of better marketing and solid products.Ehh ? No. That is just so wrong, there are so many other factors that can contribute to this. Topics like market failure, bounded rationality or economies of scale have been beaten to death in just about every econ class these days. Just google / wikipedia some of those terms.
(Of course that doesnt have to mean that AMD is not mismanaged / doesnt have inferior products, just that there are many factors that are out of their hand )
Examples :
Brand recognition is a big thing for nvidia and intel in some developing countries. They carry hefty premium over amd/ati products over there while the price would be very similar in the us. I saw that 20 years ago and when I returned to those countries its even worse, say a 5850 from Asus could carry 50% premium over a 5850 from Powercolor / HIS. People simply dont read reviews, they go by brand names.
Also at the moment Intel enjoy a huge economies of scale meant that it is by nature almost impossible for AMD to compete with Intel.
But to return to topic at hand : Yes I do think we need to be rational when making a purchase.
However, that does not have to mean thinking only of the short term benefits. I also consider the long term, if AMD survives and is competitive to both Intel and Nvidia then we can have great products at cheap price. If not ... well I still remember the age of Intel i.e. the time when 50-60% of the price of a new computer is spent on the CPU. :'(
Ehh ? No. That is just so wrong, there are so many other factors that can contribute to this. Topics like market failure, bounded rationality or economies of scale have been beaten to death in just about every econ class these days. Just google / wikipedia some of those terms.
(Of course that doesnt have to mean that AMD is not mismanaged / doesnt have inferior products, just that there are many factors that are out of their hand )
Examples :
Brand recognition is a big thing for nvidia and intel in some developing countries. They carry hefty premium over amd/ati products over there while the price would be very similar in the us. I saw that 20 years ago and when I returned to those countries its even worse, say a 5850 from Asus could carry 50% premium over a 5850 from Powercolor / HIS. People simply dont read reviews, they go by brand names.
Also at the moment Intel enjoy a huge economies of scale meant that it is by nature almost impossible for AMD to compete with Intel.
But to return to topic at hand : Yes I do think we need to be rational when making a purchase.
However, that does not have to mean thinking only of the short term benefits. I also consider the long term, if AMD survives and is competitive to both Intel and Nvidia then we can have great products at cheap price. If not ... well I still remember the age of Intel i.e. the time when 50-60% of the price of a new computer is spent on the CPU. :'(
No Nvidia cards were not they had extreme texture pop in issues at launch and they still do unless you turn off GPU Transcode in the in game setting menu at which point the game looks like crap even more than ever.