![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition Video Card Review @ [H]
- Thread starter Brent_Justice
- Start date
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,920
What? The vast majority of users (even on [H]) don't run higher than that.
Most run 1920x1080 or less if I'm not mistaken.
BababooeyHTJ
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 6,951
Yeah especially since other than a couple of overclockable displays you can't get a high refresh rate display with a higher resolution. 1920x1080 is a super popular resolution.
Unfortunately.
poee
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 257
Over the years I've read various complaints in this forum about how [H] is biased toward Nvidia over ATI (or vice versa, depending on the review's conclusion), or Intel over AMD (or vice versa, again). Most of the time everyone can see the complaints are just fanboys who are rooting for their personal favorite, and that the reviewers here at [H] are working hard to present the facts, whatever they may be, as they uncover them during testing.
But on a few rare occasions, the complaints of "bias" (perceived or genuine) are more understandable. For example, since at least the introduction of the 7970, and certainly since the release of the GTX 680, it seems that when the numbers are close, the benefit of the doubt goes to Nvidia. Now, I wonder if this is due to [H] editors' opinion on the relative merits between Nvidia and AMD GPU drivers, and/or their assumptions about the future of each company's capabilities in that arena. [H] has famously reported on AMD graphics driver issues with a tone of grievance, in a manner more akin to a browbeating than a factual presentation. I have no problem with that in and of itself (I have inveighed against the state of AMD drivers in a few of my own posts), unless these issues inform the reporting and editorial conclusions/recommendations without making it clear what weight is being given to "assumptions about future driver development" in the final recommendation. This can lead to a perception of unfair bias toward Nvidia, even if it IS fair (i.e., even if the driver issues actually are bad enough to overshadow a modest performance advantage).
But on a few rare occasions, the complaints of "bias" (perceived or genuine) are more understandable. For example, since at least the introduction of the 7970, and certainly since the release of the GTX 680, it seems that when the numbers are close, the benefit of the doubt goes to Nvidia. Now, I wonder if this is due to [H] editors' opinion on the relative merits between Nvidia and AMD GPU drivers, and/or their assumptions about the future of each company's capabilities in that arena. [H] has famously reported on AMD graphics driver issues with a tone of grievance, in a manner more akin to a browbeating than a factual presentation. I have no problem with that in and of itself (I have inveighed against the state of AMD drivers in a few of my own posts), unless these issues inform the reporting and editorial conclusions/recommendations without making it clear what weight is being given to "assumptions about future driver development" in the final recommendation. This can lead to a perception of unfair bias toward Nvidia, even if it IS fair (i.e., even if the driver issues actually are bad enough to overshadow a modest performance advantage).
Where are these cards? The [H] review stated the cards would be available 7-10 days after the review; well, its day 10 and haven't seen a single card at any retailers or e-tailers. Interested to see what some third party boards and cooling solutions will be...
