That's why I said quality if [H] tested more games all of these sites would become irrelevant.
I think I misread you original post. When you wrote "TPU didn't do the Lightning review as [H] did iirc", I thought you meant that TPU hadn't reviewed the Lightning unlike [H], but I can see now that you meant that whilst TPU had reviewed the Lighting, they didn't do it in the same way that [H] did.
No it didn't. People here seems to have pretty bad memory, a max oced lightning 680 was the faster card, the [H] review is there for you.
This paragraph is not directed to you but rather the thread in general
Now wait a second, I happened to to have a card which was faster than the sample [H] had and when I look at the data, I see that OC 7970 winning in 3 out of 4 tests at the resolution which I have had since 2007: 1600p
That's why I remember 7970 being quite bit faster.
But lets stop reminiscing here.
Thank you, and now, Osjur leaves the party :sneaky:
Did you actually read the review I linked?
You don't need a good memory to remember the wars fondly when they are still happening in March 2016, apparently.
New Nvidia driver , anyone can test again Aots??
Did you actually read the review I linked?
It's one review of one extreme model that was only available for a short time. It doesn't prove overall that the 680 was faster than the 7970 when both were O/C'd.
For those claiming that Ashes of the Singularity is still in BETA so the results don't count..
Because several posters were using the same argument I've seen many users here use... That the game is in BETA so the results don't matter.What kind of dev defends good hardware performance on 30% of market and bad hardware performance on 70% of market, instead of defending his project?
Also, it may be out of context, but its replying to something that never mentioned anything of performance, and he jumped right at that.
So, at what % of user base does it become the Devs responsibility to improve your performance relative to your comp?What kind of dev defends good hardware performance on 30% of market and bad hardware performance on 70% of market, instead of defending his project?
Also, it may be out of context, but its replying to something that never mentioned anything of performance, and he jumped right at that.
What kind of dev defends good hardware performance on 30% of market and bad hardware performance on 70% of market.
Because several posters were using the same argument I've seen many users here use... That the game is in BETA so the results don't matter.
He hit back at that accusation by stating that the game is done engine wise. The campaign mode will be added and then the game launches.
Both NVIDIA and AMD are done supplying optimization suggestions.
Any additional performance will come from drivers (if NVIDIA release that Async compute + graphics driver they've been promising for 7 months now).
So, at what % of user base does it become the Devs responsibility to improve your performance relative to your comp?
Oh,100% of market, devs create a game for the entire market, considering AMD GCN + W10 users is a very low market considering 2016 Feb results, you just cant go and defend that. Its not what a dev that wants to a sell a game to everyone whould do.
We have a quotable quantity. 100% of market.100% of market, devs create a game for the entire market, considering AMD GCN + W10 users is a very low market considering 2016 Feb results, you just cant go and defend that. Its not what a dev that wants to a sell a game to everyone whould do.
100% of market, devs create a game for the entire market, considering AMD GCN + W10 users is a very low market considering 2016 Feb results, you just cant go and defend that. Its not what a dev that wants to a sell a game to everyone whould do.