Interesting article from Falcon NW

Silus said:
It "clearly shows" nothing. You continue to boost what you want to see and nothing more. This review shows CF scaling better than SLI, yet the bit-tech review shows SLI doing better than CF. Making a fair judgement would be that they are pretty much equal in Vista. Only with more reviews, can we say it's not a draw.

In fact, here's a review, using Vista and also comparing SLI and Crossfire setups:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/radeon-hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=11

The Crossfired XTs only win in Half Life 2 Episode 1 and Oblivion (in this one by 3 frames only). The rest is a win for SLI'ed 8800s.

Since there was a draw before, should we say SLI is better now ? Not quite, but according to what you said, it's what we have so far, so it must mean SLI is better...

That said, I find more disturbing that even 2 months after the launch of the HD 2900 XT, you're still trying to prove that the HD 2900 XT is amazing. Since it didn't work with single card, you've turned your attention to the dual card setups. Are you being paid by AMD/ATI or something ?
Click to expand...

Didn't you read before posting?
We found throughout our benchmarks that Nvidia's SLI support in Windows Vista doesn't tend to scale as well as it long has in Windows XP. AMD's CrossFire support is generally superior in Vista.
Click to expand...

nVidia SLi would be faster in Vista if they fix it but the fact remains Crossfire is faster now.
 
alg7_munif said:
Didn't you read before posting?


nVidia SLi would be faster in Vista if they fix it but the fact remains Crossfire is faster now.
Click to expand...

And did you read my post ? I guess not.

I'll try to shorten it. Two reviews in Vista: 1 says SLI is better, 1 says CF is better. A fair judgement by those who read reviews, is that they are pretty much equal in Vista, in terms of performance (I'm not even discussing IQ).
I presented another review from a reputable site, that shows SLI'ed 8800s being faster overall than CF XTs.
2 reviews say SLI is better, 1 says CF is better. This leads me to believe that SLI is better. But it's not that simple and we still need [H]'s real world gameplay evaluation, for the final judgement. So again, this review means nothing on its own.
 
alg7_munif said:
Didn't you read before posting?

nVidia SLi would be faster in Vista if they fix it but the fact remains Crossfire is faster now.
Click to expand...

I think the scaling is off right now, but due to Nvidias lead in performance with the cards in general it means they still have better performance despite this.

Either way, Nvidia's SLI support has come late in Vista, it's no secret, SLI support wasn't there on release and arrived in several discrete stages of SLI for 7xxx and below, and 8800 both for DX9 and later for DX10. SLI support for the 7950GX2 was also sketchy and still doesn't have quad SLI support.

Add to this that Nvidia publically stated that performance was a 2ndry target, and the fact that steadily over the last few months performance has risen in Vista for single and SLI 8800 cards goes to show that they're clearly addressing issues in vista relating to lower than expected performance. In fact certain users in the Guru3d forums have posted SLI results from FEAR that exceed the frame rate in XP, using the same hardware, this is with the most recent beta drivers.
 
The truth of that matter is, as of right now R600CF in Vista is better (according to the information presented). New drivers from either ATI or Nvidia can change this. However, there has been no evidence presented to show otherwise at this time. :D
Edit: to make clear that I am referring to the R600CF 1024 version per the OP
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Th truth of that matter is, as of right now R600CF in Vista is better (according to the information presented). New drivers from either ATI or Nvidia can change this. However, there has been no evidence presented to show otherwise at this time. :D
Click to expand...

You must really like to start crap or simply have nothing better to do. Reviews have been posted. 2 point to SLI being better. Only 1 shows CF in a better light and you still say there's no evidence presented to show otherwise ? Talk about denial and fanboyism in the same package...
 
Silus said:
You must really like to start crap or simply have nothing better to do. Reviews have been posted. 2 point to SLI being better. Only 1 shows CF in a better light and you still say there's no evidence presented to show otherwise ? Talk about denial and fanboyism in the same package...
Click to expand...

NOWHERE does PC Mag's results contradict the results in Bit Tech and Tech Report. NOWHERE. If you read the writeup for the PC Mag result, you will see it goes out of its way to say the Crossfire win is the result of the combination of poor Nvidia drivers and 1 GB - not 512 MB - 2900XT card . The 2900XT card used by PC Mag is DIFFERENT from the 2900XT cards used in Bit Tech and Tech Report. It is a complete distortion on your part to say the results from Bit Tech and Tech Report calls into question the validity of PC Mag's test. PC Mag used the 1 gig GDDR4 2900XT. Bit Tech and Tech Report used the 512 mg DDR3 2900XT. Why is this basic fact so elusive to you?

Bit Tech and Tech Report results show is the 2900XT 512 MB Crossfire loses to SLI under Vista. PC Mag shows that the 2900XT 1 GB Crossfire wins under Vista. No contradiction at all. Bit Tech and Tech Report are great sites, I don't doubt their results. Maybe the additional memory makes the difference under the high resolutions. Maybe the faster memory and additional bandwidth is the reason. I dunno. But to cite Bit Tech and Tech Report's tests as the reason you should discount the PC Mag results - even though the first two reviews used a different version of Crossfire than PC Mag - well, that's just plain idiotic.
 
Silus said:
You must really like to start crap or simply have nothing better to do. Reviews have been posted. 2 point to SLI being better. Only 1 shows CF in a better light and you still say there's no evidence presented to show otherwise ? Talk about denial and fanboyism in the same package...
Click to expand...

Unless you can provide a review of the R600CF using 1024meg versions your post has no merit. As I posted before, at this time the R600CF (using the 1024meg version per the OP) shows itself to be a real competitor beating GTX SLI under vista. Do you have information to show otherwise? I am not the one attempting to de-rail the conversation from the 1024 to the 512 meg version ;). So by your own actions shows who is in denial. In the future it would help your creditability to use the word correctly (fanboy). Not when I don't agree with you or refuse to allow this conversation to go from the R600 1024meg version to the 512meg version :)
 
Frosteh said:
I think the scaling is off right now, but due to Nvidias lead in performance with the cards in general it means they still have better performance despite this.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The SLI SHOULD perform better. It is clearly limited by sub-optimal Nvidia drivers and the Falcon NW writeup goes out of its way to point that out, it's not the hardware but the software. And for those claiming bias against Nvidia, Falcon's writeup says go with SLI if you're using XP because "Nvidia’s faster hardware wins." However drivers go hand in hand with the card; one can't operate without the other so if you're determined to use Vista, the choice becomes a little bit harder. You have to either trust that Nvidia will eventually get the Vista SLI drivers in decent shape or go with the results as they are now. In fact, the Falcon writeup says at the end he's seen beta drivers that bring SLI results close to the Crossfire. So what you choose is up to you.

I think you're too willing to give Nvidia a break. They have had six months to release decent SLI Vista drivers. How much longer is a customer supposed to wait? A fair argument can be made that good Vista SLI drivers should have existed at launch but reasonable people can disagree. But six months later? The point is, for someone who has the money to buy a setup like this, it's fair to assume he wants performance NOW. It's makes little sense to say go ahead, buy the Ferrari but it won't be able to go faster than 60 mph until new drivers are released but we don't know when that'll be. I mean, if he's willing to wait for good Nvidia SLI Vista drivers to be released, he should just wait until the next gen cards are released in a couple more months. But for the customer buying now with a budget for a system like this, it's is entirely fair to say to him, based on the current state of affairs, a Crossfire 1GB setup will give you better performance than SLI.
 
ddarko said:
NOWHERE does PC Mag's results contradict the results in Bit Tech and Tech Report. NOWHERE. If you read the writeup for the PC Mag result, you will see it goes out of its way to say the Crossfire win is the result of the combination of poor Nvidia drivers and 1 GB - not 512 MB - 2900XT card . The 2900XT card used by PC Mag is DIFFERENT from the 2900XT cards used in Bit Tech and Tech Report. It is a complete distortion on your part to say the results from Bit Tech and Tech Report calls into question the validity of PC Mag's test. PC Mag used the 1 gig GDDR4 2900XT. Bit Tech and Tech Report used the 512 mg DDR3 2900XT. Why is this basic fact so elusive to you?

Bit Tech and Tech Report results show is the 2900XT 512 MB Crossfire loses to SLI under Vista. PC Mag shows that the 2900XT 1 GB Crossfire wins under Vista. No contradiction at all. Bit Tech and Tech Report are great sites, I don't doubt their results. Maybe the additional memory makes the difference under the high resolutions. Maybe the faster memory and additional bandwidth is the reason. I dunno. But to cite Bit Tech and Tech Report's tests as the reason you should discount the PC Mag results - even though the first two reviews used a different version of Crossfire than PC Mag - well, that's just plain idiotic.
Click to expand...

I didn't speak of a contradiction. I mentioned that other sites that evaluated performance in Vista, showed a different story. If you know anything about video cards, you also should know that not only the HD 2900 XT is not starved for more memory bandwidth (since it even beats the 8800 Ultra in that), but also that the extra memory will not yield any significant performance boost. It will only help @ extremely high resolutions, where the more memory, the better. So yes, the cards are different, but the chip is exactly the same, albeit clocked higher and with 1 GB of GDDR4.
Also, I didn't discount PC Mag. You just don't read that well. I said that this review on its own, is worth almost nothing. We need more reviews to know exactly what to expect from this card in either Crossfire or Single setups.
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Unless you can provide a review of the R600CF using 1024meg versions your post has no merit. As I posted before, at this time the R600CF (using the 1024meg version per the OP) shows itself to be a real competitor beating GTX SLI under vista. Do you have information to show otherwise? I am not the one attempting to de-rail the conversation from the 1024 to the 512 meg version ;). So by your own actions shows who is in denial. In the future it would help your creditability to use the word correctly (fanboy). Not when I don't agree with you or refuse to allow this conversation to go from the R600 1024meg version to the 512meg version :)
Click to expand...

No, I used the word correctly.

As for the R600 1 GB vs R600 512 MB, if you actually read graphics card reviews/evaluations, you would know that with the exact same chip, but having more memory, the performance difference is almost non-existent. It only helps @ extremely high resolutions, where the the bigger the memory buffer, the better. So using the 512 MB version for comparison, is fair game.
You can keep on believing whatever pleases you the most. As I've said to you in my other post, this confirms nothing until we have more reviews.
 
Silus said:
No, I used the word correctly.

As for the R600 1 GB vs R600 512 MB, if you actually read graphics card reviews/evaluations, you would know that with the exact same chip, but having more memory, the performance difference is almost non-existent. It only helps @ extremely high resolutions, where the the bigger the memory buffer, the better. So using the 512 MB version for comparison, is fair game.
You can keep on believing whatever pleases you the most. As I've said to you in my other post, this confirms nothing until we have more reviews.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't use the word correctly LOL. In any case you've provided no valid information and now you are arguing. No need to continue this rant.
 
Silus said:
I didn't speak of a contradiction. I mentioned that other sites that evaluated performance in Vista, showed a different story.
Click to expand...

When you wrote, "2 reviews say SLI is better, 1 says CF is better" what were you doing except saying there was a contradiction? And it is not "a fair judgment," as you wrote, that the proper conclusion to draw from the three reviews is "that they are pretty much equal in Vista." This is not math, we are not averaging results. The "fair judgment" to be drawn from these benchmarks is that SLI beats a 512 MB Crossfire under Vista whereas a 1 GB Crossfire beats SLI under Vista.

You claim that the configuration shouldn't make a difference - except where "it will only help @ extremely high resolutions" which is presumably exactly the situation a Crossfire/SLI rig would be running and where PC Mag benchmarks show the greatest performance difference - but this is classic example of ignoring facts in favor of dogma. Of course we need more reviews but the reviews we have show interesting results and the results should not be dismissed, as other posters have tried, simply because they do not accord with expectations. I initially posted because of the absurd posts suggesting Falcon NW or PC Mag had rigged their results. Neither has an ax to grind against Nvidia and ATI. Falcon will gladly sell you its massively inflated system regardless of what's inside the box.
 
It's pretty sad if you have to rely on PC Magazine as an authoritative gaming source.

Poor Falcon is probably worrying about getting stuck with those cards. :p
 
pxc said:
It's pretty sad if you have to rely on PC Magazine as an authoritative gaming source.

Poor Falcon is probably worrying about getting stuck with those cards. :p
Click to expand...

As opposed to the authoritative word of anonymous posters on an Internet site who neither own nor tested the systems that they are so quick to pass judgment on? Posts like yours are nothing but ad hominem attacks. You have no evidence to refute or corroborate the benchmarks so you try to smear the reputation. Pretty sad, meet pxc; pxc, meet pretty sad.

As for Falcon, it doesn't stockpile large quantities of any component so there is nothing to be stuck with. I guess when Nvidia/ATI/Intel/AMD funnel the very first batch of their latest and greatest hardware to disreputable, fly-by-night sleazy operations like Falcon or PC Mag, they're just don't know what they're doing, huh? Be sure to post when you're trusted by these companies with advanced, confidential NDA tech and equipment.
 
ddarko said:
As opposed to the authoritative word of anonymous posters on an Internet site who neither own nor tested the systems that they are so quick to pass judgment on? Posts like yours are nothing but ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...
Not really. PC Magazine's game reviews are very sparse on information and their results contradict many other sites. Their gaming methodology is pretty poor (guess the settings, drivers, etc). Sorry if I somehow offended you personally, but PC Magazine is a poor source for video gaming benchmarking and reviews.

And see, I made a whole post without attacking anyone personally. :rolleyes:
 
pxc said:
Not really. PC Magazine's game reviews are very sparse on information and their results contradict many other sites. Their gaming methodology is pretty poor (guess the settings, drivers, etc):
Click to expand...

Fair enough, the benchmark settings should be more exposed. However, PC Mag is the sister publication to ExtremeTech and they run the same benchmarks so if you want to know what went behind PC Mag's setup, take a look at the 2900XT review at ExtremeTech where the methodology is laid out. And I apologize for my heated tone.
 
Any review that shows the 8800GTX is slower than HD2900XT even at a specific configuration is considered a poor review :rolleyes:
 
ddarko said:
When you wrote, "2 reviews say SLI is better, 1 says CF is better" what were you doing except saying there was a contradiction? And it is not "a fair judgment," as you wrote, that the proper conclusion to draw from the three reviews is "that they are pretty much equal in Vista." This is not math, we are not averaging results. The "fair judgment" to be drawn from these benchmarks is that SLI beats a 512 MB Crossfire under Vista whereas a 1 GB Crossfire beats SLI under Vista.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to read very well. How exactly is saying that 2 reviews show SLI is better and 1 that CF is better, is a contradiction ? Do you know what a contradiction is for that matter ?
I simply said that by Eastcoasthandle's words, if 2 reviews say SLi is better and only 1 that CF is better, then one could say SLI is better overall.
But as I pointed out, it's not quite that simple and that's why we need more reviews. One review filled with synthetic benchmarks means little to nothing. That's why we visit [H] for real-world evaluation, which no other site does.

And yes, it's a fair judgement. What Kyle calls "canned benchmarks" are NOT, in any way, to be taken as the same as real world numbers. They will NOT, in 90% of the cases, have the same numbers. You do not seem know this, which is why you are still arguing about the validity of the benchmarks from Falcon. I suggest you read some of [H]'s articles to have that understanding, because they are the only ones that do it in this business.

ddarko said:
You claim that the configuration shouldn't make a difference - except where "it will only help @ extremely high resolutions" which is presumably exactly the situation a Crossfire/SLI rig would be running and where PC Mag benchmarks show the greatest performance difference - but this is classic example of ignoring facts in favor of dogma. Of course we need more reviews but the reviews we have show interesting results and the results should not be dismissed, as other posters have tried, simply because they do not accord with expectations. I initially posted because of the absurd posts suggesting Falcon NW or PC Mag had rigged their results. Neither has an ax to grind against Nvidia and ATI. Falcon will gladly sell you its massively inflated system regardless of what's inside the box.
Click to expand...

I claimed nothing. It's a fact. The fact that it's a 1 GB GDDR4 card, will yield it little to no difference in performance, when compared to the 512 MB version. It's going to be faster than the 512 MB model, mainly because of its higher clock frequencies of around 850 Mhz. The added memory will only be useful at extremely high resolutions, but will NOT impact performance as you see in those benchmarks.

About expectations, what exactly are you doing then ? You are dismissing every other Vista review, that shows SLI in a better light. Given the fact that, as I mentioned before, and you can confirm it, in any review/evaluation out there, (that the extra memory does not boost any significant performance increase) using the 512 MB model as comparison, is fair game.

Again, I recommend you read more reviews/evaluations, because you clearly are putting too much faith in these numbers, when you don't even know about something as simple as the impact more memory frame buffer, has on performance.
 
PC mag has very limited set of gaming tests and the tests they include only the ATI wins, which greatly tilts the "review".

The only overlap between Tech Report and PC mag was the 3dmark and both places show a lead for the ATI crossfire setup. So there is no sign the 1GB card is really performing differently or the setups are different. If you had run the same games on either setup I suspect similar results.

But tech report has a much larger swath of games and when looking at the bigger picture 8800 GTX SLI comes out ahead again.

GTX SLI still wins: Stalker, Supreme Commander, Battlefield, Rainbow Six and Oblivion at higher settings.

ATI with crossfire enables ATI to add a couple to the win column, not pull an overall win.

Conclusion. Little has changed. ATI is still behind, but crossfire does allow it a couple of wins.

I suppose if you are desperate to make your case, you can conclude that ATI is competitive in a dual card setup. But you don't include only the winning games and call it a coup. There are a set of games which tilts it completely the other way as well.

ATI lost this generation. Get over it, move on.

Eastcoast: Are you actually thinking of setup like this? Personally I won't touch a single top end card of either variety and I would laugh at anyone I knew if they spent $1000 on graphics cards and the power supply to drive them.

I only look at cards up to about $250 max and the DX10 cards from either camp have nothing to offer me. I will wait for a better midrange like the ATI 1950pro was in the last generation.
 
ddarko said:
Yes, PC Magazine, a venerable magazine publishing in the U.S. for oh, 20 years, and Falcon NW, a well known boutique gaming manufacturer, have FABRICATED benchmark numbers. Totally made it up. How do we know? Because RussianHAXOR doesn't believe them. Nope, he just doesn't believe them. You read it here first.

Back to reality for those of us less stubborn, less conspiracy minded and willing to actually read. This was a test done in Vista only for dual card configurations. The piece readily acknowledge that the Crossfire win is the result of weak Nvidia drivers under VISTA AND VISTA ONLY. He recommends Nvidia if you're using an XP-based dual card system. Here is the critical paragraph:

"It’s no secret Nvidia has had huge Vista driver issues, despite being first to market with a Vista-ready DX10 card by 5 months. Under XP, where both Nvidia and ATI have established and polished drivers, Nvidia’s faster hardware wins. For any of our customers running Windows XP, I’d recommend Nvidia’s cards over any of the new Radeons. When you move to Vista, scores start to even out. And when you move to dual card setups under Vista, SLI encounters significant scaling problems. Crossfire scales up performance well. The end result is what you see on that benchmark chart."

Maybe next time it would help to educate yourself before accusing reputable people and publications of lying. I'll take their words over yours any day.
Click to expand...

I can completely believe them if they werent so self contradictory within the article itself. I mean they take the X2900XT and bench an X2900XTX? Which in essence is an overclocked version.... Why dont we compare an overclocked ultra with the X2900XT and then say its just an 8800GTX. If this article used its own benchmarks and it didnt use different names i might consider the article more realistic but it doesnt and didnt. So i wont. :D
 
Wait HD2900XTX is out? I thought that only HD2900XT is out and it is available in two version, 512MB DDR3 and 1GB DDR4.
 
Has been, but its an OEM only card. Well it was, they kinda gave up on it and stopped making em since they were too hot and cost too much.
 
Guys there is no XTX and it's explained in the article (if you read the #3 statement in the article found in the OP). :D
However, I still wait for reviews of the HD 2900XT 1024 in CF using Vista. I am sure they will turn up.:)
 
RussianHAXOR said:
Whats wrong with them?
Click to expand...

Well with my limited forum activity, I think they are considered the least reliable "IT news" source of the Internet. Sure they get it right sometimes, but you can kill a fly with a shotgun if you shoot enought many times.
 
sam0t said:
Well with my limited forum activity, I think they are considered the least reliable "IT news" source of the Internet. Sure they get it right sometimes, but you can kill a fly with a shotgun if you shoot enought many times.
Click to expand...

Actually I think they are particularly disliked by Fanchildren of ATI, because they released a whole bunch of negative performance issues about the HD 2x00 series. People would howl anytime someone posed Fudzilla info. But in the end it pretty much all turned out to be true of course.

I would say they are fairly accurate, but they do post info from questionable sources occasionally but they are fun to read if you like to be on the bleeding edge of tech news and can use your brain to filter the wheat from the chaf.


Silus said:
At last, you realized that this review on its own means little to nothing. That's good!
Click to expand...

Nah he is just choosing to live in denial. The overlap of the techreport 3dmark test shows that this was not an anomalous result. The PCmag just had only the winning benchmarks for ATI cherry picked. The 1G card has essentially the same performance.

He is waiting for the review that exactly meets his wishes of 1G cards, Vista, Xfire, done by magical gnomes on the solstice that will show the true majesty of ATI cards. Such is the life of Fanchildren.
 
Snowdog said:
Actually I think they are particularly disliked by Fanchildren of ATI, because they released a whole bunch of negative performance issues about the HD 2x00 series. People would howl anytime someone posed Fudzilla info. But in the end it pretty much all turned out to be true of course.

I would say they are fairly accurate, but they do post info from questionable sources occasionally but they are fun to read if you like to be on the bleeding edge of tech news and can use your brain to filter the wheat from the chaf.
Click to expand...

Lol FUDzilla is hardly accurate but one thing that is good about FUDzilla is that their FUD are neutral. FUDzilla is not biased towards AMD nor Intel nor nVidia but biased towards false information. Some times ago someone played a prank on FUDzilla by sending them a faked benchmark of Barcelona and guess what, they took the bait and became a laughing stock ever since. Btw if you think FUDzilla is true, then please continue quoting FUDzilla's articles for your arguments :D .
 
alg7_munif said:
Lol FUDzilla is hardly accurate but one thing that is good about FUDzilla is that their FUD are neutral. FUDzilla is not biased towards AMD nor Intel nor nVidia but biased towards false information. Some times ago someone played a prank on FUDzilla by sending them a faked benchmark of Barcelona and guess what, they took the bait and became a laughing stock ever since. Btw if you think FUDzilla is true, then please continue quoting FUDzilla's articles for your arguments :D .
Click to expand...

So What? Reuters and many other "real" news sources have been spoofed as well.

On a digital camera forum I responded to an obvious fake rumor posting saying that if you are going fake it at least do a better job, something like this:.. I proceeded to demonstrate what a more credible bit of fake news might look like.

Now it was completely clear that I was responding sarcastically with my own fake news as a demo. Over the next couple of months my post content made it's rounds of the Globe as the possible next hot cameras and I wasn't even trying, and it should have been clear I was not posting real news...

Fudzilla makes an attempt to capture early news and rumors. This way they can catch pre-NDA news and they have been fairly successful at it. Yes this does leave them a bit more open to spoofers but I would say overall they are right quite a bit more often than wrong.

Again. If you want bleeding edge news and have a fairly good mental filter for separating wheat from chaff, read FZ. If you only want news after it is confirmed then don't.

But in my recent experience in this forum, most of the loudest complaints about FZ started when the released a lot of early information about poor performance of HD 2x00 cards from ATI. This information was correct and they were the first to bring a lot of it to light.

Furthermore and perhaps critically. The news that was linked from FZ was easy to verify. Just go to the Falcon NW site and check for yourself. I did. It is accurate, you can Select ATI HD 2900 XTX cards from their config page. Another case of shoot the messenger before the facts are ascertained. FalconNW contradicts themselves by selling these as XTX.

FalconNW also has an exclusive on these cards, so their unconfirmed reports of enhanced performance are just a little suspect. Especially when they cherry pick the ATI only winning tests. The same tests are won by normal XT cards in Xfire too BTW.

This is a case of Falcon getting exclusive cards and hyping them as better with dubious testing. Nothing more.
 
alg7_munif said:
ATi has never officially listed a HD2900XTX in their product line up, Falcon made a mistake by using the XTX name for the card and guess what, the good old FUDzilla did their best job at spreading false information.
Click to expand...

Again trying to paint FZ as badguys. Why?

All FZ showed is that you can order something called 2900 XTX from FalconNW. Only FalconNW knows if they are not really XTX cards, they are choosing to call them that and it is not a mistake, it is purposeful. You can check right now and see falconNW showing XTX cards as an option.

FZ is accurately reporting FalconNW webpage.

If there is an issue, it is with FalconNW posting misleading information. Not FZ reporting it.

Note the FZ headline: "First with HD 2900 XTX?" Note the question mark.

When GW Bush tells lies and the media reports it. Do you blame the media for lying?

If you have an issue you need to take that up with FalconNW. They are the one involved in being misleading and confusing people here.
 
Lol, if you wanna choose FUDzilla as your source of information then be my guest :D Btw Falcon made a mistake by listing XTX as an option in their configuration page and they are only confusing people who are interested to buy their system. They never claimed that they are the first one to use a HD2900XTX and made a public announcement about it. FUDzilla on the other hand, takes every single piece of information available out there without any confirmation and publish it as a big news just to get more hits on their page. Like sam0t said, you can kill a fly with a shotgun if you shoot plenty enough. This makes FUDzilla not a credible source.
 
FZ is making fun of FNW, I don't know how you guys missed that. FNW even stated there is no such thing as an XTX but some people are using that name as marketing to distiguish the card. The sarcasim is quite obivious......
 
I think Kyle should lock the ATi forum for the time being, and rename it the 'The Forum of Broken Hearts and Shattered Dreams'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top