Kyle VS Anand on the 3870X2

Status
Not open for further replies.
noseguard20 said:
I would have kyle or brent run his ip and make sure its coming from microcenter
Click to expand...

You can't tell if the IP is from "microcenter". They're retail stores, they may not own their own ip block.

Also, even if they did, whose to say the guy is posting from work?
 
this is clearly a conspiracy. here's the proof ...

kyle.jpg


btw, now that you've made so much money off of the 3870x2 review Kyle, please buy me a couple of 3870x2 cards. ;)
 
axel said:
The bottom line is that Vista 64-bit and Vista 32-bit are completely different operating systems with completely different video drivers. There is a very real possibility that AMD FUBARed the Vista 64-bit drivers and the performance gains that all the other sites using Vista 32-bit or XP are seeing simply do not apply to the current 64-bit drivers.

Until [H] runs a few tests using Vista 32-bit or XP like nearly ALL of these other sites did, the benchmark results simply cannot be compared. It's exactly like comparing gaming benchmarks between Linux and Windows XP, apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

This is completely[/wrong]. The OS is identical. The video drivers work in the same way. Fixes that are made in 64 bit go to 32 bit and vice versa. They're entirely comparable results. 64 bit only changes the amount of addressable memory you have, not the fundamental way the OS delivers framerates.

That's just plain wrong.
 
axel said:
This exercise would only be meaningful if using 32-bit drivers under Vista 32, just like they did. It's likely that AMD spent more time optimizing the 32-bit drivers due to a larger target audience.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the drivers get the exact same changes.
 
Sr7 said:
This is completely[/wrong]. The OS is identical. The video drivers work in the same way. Fixes that are made in 64 bit go to 32 bit and vice versa. They're entirely comparable results. 64 bit only changes the amount of addressable memory you have, not the fundamental way the OS works.

That's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...


That is wrong in so many ways that I don't even know where to start. There are many fundamentally differences between 32-bit and 64-bit, from adress spacing to instruction sets.

I'm not going to waste time discussing this, but here is so you can educate yourself (no offence ment):

A change from a 32-bit to a 64-bit architecture is a fundamental alteration, as most operating systems must be extensively modified to take advantage of the new architecture. Other software must also be ported to use the new capabilities; older software is usually supported through either a hardware compatibility mode (in which the new processors support the older 32-bit version of the instruction set as well as the 64-bit version), through software emulation, or by the actual implementation of a 32-bit processor core within the 64-bit processor (as with the Itanium processors from Intel, which include an x86 processor core to run 32-bit x86 applications). The operating systems for those 64-bit architectures generally support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
 
Sr7 said:
This is completely[/wrong]. The OS is identical. The video drivers work in the same way. Fixes that are made in 64 bit go to 32 bit and vice versa. They're entirely comparable results. 64 bit only changes the amount of addressable memory you have, not the fundamental way the OS works.

That's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...


If this were true there wouldn't be a need for a 64 bit set and a 32 bit set of drivers.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
That is wrong in so many ways that I don't even know where to start. There are many fundamentally differences between 32-bit and 64-bit, from adress spacing to instruction sets.
Click to expand...

You must be slow.

Of course there are low level differences, but as far as games and driver operation go it makes 0 difference.

Some are trying to say that the reason [H]'s results were different than other sites was the 32-bit vs. 64-bit OS difference. The point is you'll get the same framerate on a 32-bit system as on a 64-bit system, mmmkay?
 
gljvd said:
I pick mine up next wensday. They already told me. I live 15 minutes from the store.

So no shipping for me.. The dude at the store told me it was only $15 off the price it normaly is . I thin kwe will see the other cards at $400 as soon as the launch phase ends
Click to expand...

i'm glad you got a great deal, but i don't expect that price to last. in a few weeks the card will shoot up to 500+ before tax. the microcenter in sunnyvale, ca still sells x850's for 199.99.
 
Superdemon said:
If this were true there wouldn't be a need for a 64 bit set and a 32 bit set of drivers.
Click to expand...

You also are slow. Waiting, lurking, plotting... just reading every post, waiting to pounce in with an obvious point derived from elementary logic. You, sir, are teh WIN!

I obviously don't mean at a low level, I mean at the abstracted level, genius. The games do not run at a faster framerate on 64-bit than 32-bit, so that would not influence results. That is my point.
 
Sr7 said:
You must be slow.

Of course there are low level differences, but as far as games and driver operation go it makes 0 difference.

Some are trying to say that the reason [H]'s results were different than other sites was the 32-bit vs. 64-bit OS difference. The point is you'll get the same framerate on a 32-bit system as on a 64-bit system, mmmkay?
Click to expand...

I don't think you should call others slow here. :p

There are no "low level" differences here, but fundamental differences.

We are talking about beta hardware drivers for 32-bit vs. beta drivers for 64-bit. Its not just to port them over, mmmkay? Drivers can be functional in 32-bit, but not work properly in 64-bit. There are numerous examples of this.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
I don't think you should call others slow here. :p

There are no "low level" differences here, but fundamental differences.

We are talking about beta hardware drivers for 32-bit vs. beta drivers for 64-bit. Its not just to port them over, mmmkay? Drivers can be functional in 32-bit, but not work properly in 64-bit. There are numerous examples of this.
Click to expand...

Right. So many examples that you didn't provide any.

Even if that is true, it is not inherently true. NVIDIA and ATI do not make two separate drivers for 32 and 64 bit. They stem from the same driver, and are packaged differently, to install on each OS.

So you're right, there's no need for a port, because the drivers are not natively either 32-bit or 64-bit. They come from the same place and are packaged by different means.
 
Sr7 said:
Right. So many examples that you didn't provide any.

Even if that is true, it is not inherently true. NVIDIA and ATI do not make two separate drivers for 32 and 64 bit. They stem from the same driver, and are packaged differently, to install on each OS.

So you're right, there's no need for a port, because the drivers are not natively either 32-bit or 64-bit. They come from the same place and are packaged by different means.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to feed you anymore. If you believe that the instruction sets are the same within 32-bit and 64-bit, then go ahead. There is no need to give you examples, since you either didn't read my last link or wasn't capable to understand what it said.

Maybe you understand Nvidia's release notes at least, so you might understand what impact drivers can have on games:
http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/169.25/169.25_WinVista_Forceware_Release_Notes.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top