Slashdot Mirror

From what I read at [H]ard|OCP today, the 6850 is an upgrade for a 5830 and below, while a 6870 is an upgrade for a 5850 and below.

source.

Give it a shot. They need the revenue after what EA did to them.

I found this article through your interesting thread: http://www.hardocp.com/news/2010/05/18/bfgtech_exits_graphics

As Notleh on HardForum posted:

"After eight years of providing innovative, high-quality graphics cards to the market, we regret to say that this category is no longer profitable for us, although we will continue to evaluate it going forward", said John Slevin, chairman of BFG Technologies. "We will continue to provide our award-winning power supplies and gaming systems, and are working on a few new products as well. I’d like to stress that we will continue to provide RMA support for our current graphics card warranty holders, as well as for all of our other products such as power supplies, PCs and notebooks."

BFG will continue to offer RMA, telephone and email support for qualified BFG Tech graphics card warranty holders, but will no longer be bringing new graphics card products to market.

First and foremost, I have to say that HardOCP is sad to see BFGTech go. It was a company that opened up new ways of doing business with customers in the graphics card arena. The solid warranties and support you all enjoy now with high-end graphics cards companies can be traced back to BFGTech and its three founders, Scott Herkelman, Ric Lewis, and Shane Vance.

Of course our biggest concern is that our readers that have purchased BFG video cards are taken care of. Speaking this morning with then BFGTech CEO, Scott Herkelman, he assured me that BFG has taken measures to make sure full RMA and support will continue. Eight full time employees and the full group of tech support will remain in place as well as warehouse labor. That means continued 24/7 phone, email, and full RMA support for registered cards. As of today, BFG has a full reserve of cards and monies set aside to sure proper support occurs.

Actually Laches doesn't stop the suit from coming forward. It costs something like a minimum of $20,000 a month to fight a small patent dispute. The real issue with these trolls is they usually hit up the smaller guys first to build their warchest. They know better than to pursue the big players at least until they have a big warchest (and thats even if they ever bother with those with deep pockets). Their goal is a quick settlement. My work got hit by some asshat claiming BS about EVERY modern cooler that uses heatpipes (which is awesome since the research for heatpipes came from NASA). Options are fight the joker until bankruptcy, or pay them some minuscule percentage that will likely never equal one month's fight. Either way the patent troll won't lose any money, his lawyer is almost always running on contingency. Not to mention, anyone who fights the lawsuit will likely just get dropped midway through since that puts their patent in peril, and move onto the next guy. I'm a little disgusted /. doesn't post anything about these shenanigans until it hits the big players.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/04/09/us_based_companies_sued_for_heat_pipe_cpu_coolers

http://hardocp.com/article/2009/12/29/patriot_memorys_box_office_media_player_review/ Patriot Box Office looks pretty good

Forced to compensate? These companies are puppets of bigger groups of people with money,and usually lawyers working purely on percentage of winnings only. These businesses have by nature NO money. They are just a shell game so when things go badly for them the owners just setup another company, transfer a few patents into it, and begin the process again. Hell, I can't understand for the life of me, but .\ won't even post anything up about my submission about a troll pulling the same thing against almost every GOOD CPU cooler on the market atm when they didn't develop a damn thing. This kind of BS has got to stop. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/04/09/us_based_companies_sued_for_heat_pipe_cpu_coolers/

A lot of Microsoft fan sites have been omitting the SP2 part from their headlines so it looks like support for XP is ending. The ever fanatical HardOCP used such a headline to try and generate sales for the beloved Microsoft

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2010/05/10/microsoft_to_end_support_for_windows_2000_xp/

Anyone who looks at HardOCP occasionally will know this is about par for the course.

Here's a review of the same setup by HardOCP. Complete with video of not only gaming but screen setup, etc.

If you have a news item about something that happened at company, and low level person there gives you some information, are you just going to ignore it? Please.

The choices are 1) don't report the information but keep digging until you can come up with a second independent source with with the same information or 2) report the information-- and risk getting burned if your single source turns out to be bad.

Now, if your "number one goal [of your website] is to provide [your] readers with accurate reporting", the choice should be clear.

For your amusement here's a story about single source reporting and blogger credibility.

Counterfeit Intel CPU Saga Comes to a Close

At no time did HardOCP speculate as to what company was supplying the counterfeit processors to Newegg. Our source that informed us of the supplier being D&H Distributing came from within Newegg's organization. We belived the information to be accurate and reported it to our readers. Newegg is stating that IPEX shipped it the counterfeit processors. I am not sure as to why we would get conflicting information, and we will further investigate that.

At this time we offer our apologies to D&H Distributing for naming it as the supplying distributor. HardOCP was simply reporting the information that we believed to be accurate. We would NEVER "speculate" on something of this nature, as there is NOTHING for us to gain by misinforming our readers. We will be investigating further as to why we were misinformed on this detail.

I've been a D&H customer for years, I personally know several members of the family that owns the majority interest in the company and based on my firsthand knowledge and experience, I sincerely doubt that D&H is buying gray market product as was suggested. They have way too much at stake to do such a thing and they have been a very ethical company for too many years to throw away the keys to their success like a mom and pop shop located in a strip mall might do. The story that was referenced at http://hardocp.com/article/2010/03/05/newegg_selling_fake_intel_cpus is based on "sources". Here is a word of caution. Unless the person who reports things from "sources" has independently investigated and corroborated what they heard as hear-say, they are treading on very thin ice by making the statements that are posted at that link. It is unwise to besmirch someone's reputation unless you can prove what you say. Something very wrong occurred here without a doubt. I think we can speculate about it until the cows come home, but unless we get a definitive and honest statement from Newegg, there is likely no one on this thread who can shed light on what actually happened.

HardOCP agrees http://hardocp.com/article/2010/01/14/amds_ati_radeon_hd_5670_review/8

Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate

Pull the other one. It has got bells on it.

Define "full resolution".

If I have a very old 1280x1024 monitor, sure.
If I have a new 1920x1200 monitor, not so much.
If I have a dual 2560x1600 monitor setup, not in this life time.

Also, define "full detail". Is that at medium? High? Maximum? What level of anisotropic filtering? Anti aliasing?

But let's have a look at something a bit realistic and look at "any game", in this case Crysis.

From [H]ard|OCP's review of the 4850 from June 25th, 2008:

Highest Playable Resolution:
1600x1200
No AA | 16x AF

Minimum FPS: 16
Maximum FPS: 42
Average FPS: 28.5

Considering that the Radeon 4870 and Geforce GTX 260 have their highest playable at 1920x1200, I'd say you're flat out wrong in your claim.

Now, you may claim that Crysis doesn't count as it's not "ANY game on the market", so let's use Age of Conan instead:
Woops, that one seems to hit its limit at 1600x1200.

That was my rather convoluted way of saying "you're an idiot".

Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate

Pull the other one. It has got bells on it.

Define "full resolution".

If I have a very old 1280x1024 monitor, sure.
If I have a new 1920x1200 monitor, not so much.
If I have a dual 2560x1600 monitor setup, not in this life time.

Also, define "full detail". Is that at medium? High? Maximum? What level of anisotropic filtering? Anti aliasing?

But let's have a look at something a bit realistic and look at "any game", in this case Crysis.

From [H]ard|OCP's review of the 4850 from June 25th, 2008:

Highest Playable Resolution:
1600x1200
No AA | 16x AF

Minimum FPS: 16
Maximum FPS: 42
Average FPS: 28.5

Considering that the Radeon 4870 and Geforce GTX 260 have their highest playable at 1920x1200, I'd say you're flat out wrong in your claim.

Now, you may claim that Crysis doesn't count as it's not "ANY game on the market", so let's use Age of Conan instead:
Woops, that one seems to hit its limit at 1600x1200.

That was my rather convoluted way of saying "you're an idiot".

Oh, ATI was one of the first to cheat on a graphics benchmark quack.exe anyone?

I was trying not to pimp my own stuff, but since you asked.....

Short story #1, the G200b based cards are huge and need expensive PCBs. They cost more to make than the upcoming and likely faster ATI Juniper parts, so NV will have to wrap a $20 bill around each card to make them sell. Not a long term good business plan. I can't say more because I was prebriefed on the ATI cards and agreed not to talk about them. When you read this, keep in mind that I gave Nvidia a very generous benefit of the doubt. You will understand why a lot better next week or so.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-will-crater-gtx260-and-gtx275-prices-soon/

Short story #2, a short while after I finished the above story, I got a call detailing how the GTX260/275/285 and possibly 295 were being killed. I wrote it up here:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-kills-gtx285-gtx275-gtx260-abandons-mid-and-high-end-market/

If you go back and look, the Nvidia denials and attacks against me are personal and do not address the facts, just attack the messenger. Kyle posted one from Ken Brown at Nvidia here:
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10/07/nvidia_abandons_market6363636363/
Note HOW they say it, and what they do NOT say. They did the EXACT same thing a year ago when they were denying the chipset knifings. You could almost take this as desperate spinning because their pants are so firmly around their ankles that they can't run, and they can't refute the facts because I am right.

Then again, what do I know.

            -Charlie

Note: Cue the Nvidia fanbois in 3.... 2.... 1.....

... if it weren't a complete fabrication.

Speaking of cooler chips, [H]ard|OCP's review found this card to have reduced power draw and temperatures compared to the 4870 and GeForce GTX 285.

It does vary depending on the load the card is under (duh), but for a card that is about twice as powerful as its predecessor, it's quite impressive.

Lots and lots of tests and bechmarks. Looking good.

Intel 'Lynnfield' Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 Performance Testing Introduction :: TweakTown
Intel Core i5 and Core i7: Lynnfield CPUs reviewed - Intel, Core i5, Core i-750, Core i7, Core i7-860, Core i7-870, Lynnfield, Bloomfield, AMD Phenom II X4 - PC Games Hardware
Core i5 750 - Core i7 860 and 870 processor review
HEXUS.net - Review :: Intel Lynnfield Core i5 750, Core i7 860 and Core i7 870 CPU review: bombarding the mid-range : Page - 1/12
Legion Hardware
Intel Core i5 750 & i7 870 Review - Page 1 - The Next Nehalem-based CPU lineup
PC Perspective - Intel Lynnfield Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 Processor Review
Introduction - Intel Lynnfield Core i5 and Core i7 Processors | [H]ard|OCP
In Theory: How Does Lynnfield's On-Die PCI Express Affect Gaming? : Introduction - Review Tom's Hardware
AnandTech: Intel's Core i7 870 & i5 750, Lynnfield: Harder, Better, Faster Stronger[/QUOTE]
Intel Core i5 750 Core i7 870 Review - Overclockers Club
Techgage - Intel Core i7-870 & i5-750 - Nehalem for the Mainstream
Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 Processors Review | Hardware Secrets
Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review - TechSpot News
Intel Core i5 And Core i7: Intel?s Mainstream Magnum Opus : Introduction - Review Tom's Hardware
Intel Lynnfield Core i5-750 & Core i7-870 Processor Review
Intel's Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 processors - The Tech Report - Page 1
bit-tech.net | Review - Intel Core i5 and Core i7 Lynnfield review
bit-tech.net | Feature - Intel Lynnfield: Details and Architecture
Intel Core i5, Core i7 800 Processors and P55 Express - HotHardware
Intel Core i5-750 Processor BX80605I5750 | Intel Core i5-750,BX80605I5750,Lynnfield,LGA1156,CPU,Proocessor, Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield LGA1156 CPU Benchmark Performance Test Processor Review | Benchmark Reviews Performance Tests
Intel Core i7 870/Core i5 750/P55 Express chipset Review :: Introduction :: Motherboards.org

http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzkzMjUsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

I predict that [H]ard|OCP will start posting all pissy news items about this, bitching that it's unfair that a US company has to abide by the laws of the EU, just because they do business there.

Granted, they'll phrase it differently and less obviously, but they've kept it up for Microsoft the entire time since they were first fined for breaking the law, so I doubt it'll be different for Intel.

why does the phone company even send out the bill in this case? obviously, nobody would ever pay it... this reminds me of the guy that got a $60,000 bill for downloading a movie while in mexico. these companies need to learn to call their customers when their bill reaches, say, $1000

There was a comparison between Atom and Nano a while back, and the conclusion was while the Nano does draw a bit more power overall, it does more work per watt. This is even taking into consideration the Atom chip had HyperThreading.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUzNSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/757/1/

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/atom-nano-review.ars

That took a whole 10 seconds of searching on Google.

With regards to the discussion, which would be this open source tablet thingy, I think the Nano is the better choice.

Hard[OCP] has had one of the best writeups so far imo. Admittedly they compare a Phenom II to a top of the line Core2 and i7 in that article, but that's only so they can compare the cores clock for clock which isn't feasable using the cheaper intel parts as an unlocked multiplier is required.

Anyhoo, the point is that Phenom II is, clock for clock, slower than Core2. Given how cheap and overclockable a Q6600 w/DDR2 is then it's hard to justify Phenom II for enthusiast purposes - tho I suppose when that reality hits the market retailers will start doing deep discounts and I expect good deals will appear.

What I'd love is, given the above facts, a proper overclocking competition article between a Q6600 or similar Core2 and the new Phenom IIs. The unlocked Phenom II can be had for about £140 here in the UK so if it generally overclocks well then it may be able to whoop Core2s' arse!

...The Atom is the right now the most interesting CPU around...

I really have to disagree with you there. I think the VIA Nano is a bit more interesting, as it basically beats the Atom into the ground with almost everything. Back on topic, I think that the above post was right; most people don't need a high-end computer. Even some of the mid-range to low-end computers might be a little much for some people. AMD should really go for the cheap side, making cheap, low-power processors to tide them over while they redesign their high-end chips to compete with I7.

... Also im pretty sure its possible to find boards with atleast 3 PCI-E slots, so they are missing an extra graphics card there...

[H]ard|OCP just did a video article on 3-way SLI for those who are interested. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

that's doubtful. all three of those solutions are about half the price of the cheapest Atom netbook. perhaps an Atom 330 w/ a generic mini-ITX motherboard would be cheaper than the C7 + EPIA, but a VIA C3 CPU/motherboard combo starts at around $60. and general-purpose processing power isn't what VIA processors aim towards. if you buy a VIA processor, it's going to be for:

• its ridiculously fast encryption capabilities due to VIA's Padlock Security Engine. in AES benchmarks the VIA CoreFusion Luke (based off of the 1 GHz Nehemiah C3 core) performs 13x faster than a 2.4 GHz P4--while using almost 1/7th the amount of power (TDP of 10W versus 67.6W). meanwhile, the 1.2 GHz C3 performs 6x faster than the 3 GHz P4.
• low power consumption->low heat output->longer battery life and less noise. using a 16 stage fully-pipelined superscalar architecture w/ a specialized 128-bit vector FPU (2 in the VIA Nano), SWAR/SIMD instruction sets, out-of-order execution & advanced branch prediction, and on-die encryption & twin RNGs, VIA processors achieve the highest per-Watt performance of just about any processor on the market.
• their multimedia-specific design. VIA embedded processors are exceptionally well suited to multimedia applications when paired with VIA's robust digital media IGP chipsets. not only do they possess on-die Floating Point "media" units, but by offloading processor-intensive tasks like video encoding/decoding and audio processing to off-die coprocessors, VIA embedded systems handle multimedia applications extremely efficiently. because of hardware-accelerated video processing, VIA systems can often match the performance of systems with twice their clock speed.
• hacker-friendly open hardware. features like LVDS connectors, LPC interface, pico-ITX form-factor, Linux support, etc. make VIA embedded solutions perfect for building set-top boxes, embedded devices, and personal hacking projects.

it's simply silly to try to compare Intel Atom netbooks with VIA embedded systems that are designed specifically for embedded multimedia applications. a netbook doesn't come with dual monitor support, TV out, S/PDIF, MPEG-2/4 hardware acceleration, a video capture interface, HDTV encoding, video de-blocking, etc. if you build a VIA set-top box, you're obviously not going to use it for gaming or to run Windows Vista. but as a set-top box, VIA solutions are more than adequate. so any additional processing power is just meaningless dicksizing with no real world benefits.

besides, the C7's successor--the VIA Nano--wipes the floor with the Intel Atom in multimedia encoding (LAME mp3 audio encoding, Windows Media Encoder video encoding, DivX movie encoding, Vista Movie Maker, TMPG VOB to WMV, etc.), HD video playback (1080p), and even in general-purpose computing performance.

Heres a good contrast between a high quality build and results you get from such, and a VERY poor quality build:

The Good
vs
The Very Bad

My personal favorite is when they compare one to the "showgirl" that everyone knows... lol

Heres a good contrast between a high quality build and results you get from such, and a VERY poor quality build:

The Good
vs
The Very Bad

My personal favorite is when they compare one to the "showgirl" that everyone knows... lol

When you have articles like this one floating around, vista takes a perception hit. The kinds of hardcore PC gamers who form the financial base of this hobby (and spend an extra 200 dollars for a few extra FPS) would look at the 20% speed penalty and freak out. We're talking about the kind of people who would plunk down an extra 100 dollars for a mouse with 2,000 DPI in order to gain a slight edge. Any performance numbers that put XP above Vista makes it the gaming rig of choice.

DX 10 as Vista only is basically useless, as most games are designed with DX 9 in mind (Thanks, nameless marketing droid!). If I'm not mistake, I believe that Vista 32-bit's support for more than 3 GB of RAM is a trick of reporting, in that it is showing what's installed and not what's accessible.

The question isn't "Is Vista good enough for games?" It's fine. The question is "Is Vista better for games than XP?" Perhaps this is changing, but the answer for a long time has been a simple "no." That no kills a lot of enthusiasm for PC gaming, which is reflected in sales.

I'd suggest that you view: http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
Notice which resolutions changing out the CPU doesn't matter at...

And yes, 1680x1050 is borderline low-res. 1600x1200 which is what I game at is as well. high-res really starts at 1920x1200.

Also, as another poster has said, you swapped out way more than your proc. If I'm remembering right... didn't the 4200 run with DDR and not DDR2? Yes, if you're running on something that old, I'd imagine that yes, you could be CPU limited (or more likely memory bandwidth limited...)

However, with any modern system, for a decent resolution and AA setting, you're GPU limited.

I agree with most of what donaldm is saying. Though, you may want to check out a dual monitor setup (if your desk is big enough). It really is impressive and gives you the ability to have a web page open with game hints, while you are playing the game on the other screen. Also, if you don't have a clock, you can move the taskbar to that screen and see the clock. If your game crashes and it doesn't fall to the desktop, you've still got the second screen to do stuff in.

Check out what other people are building over at http://www.hardocp.com/.

My favorite shops have already been mentioned: Newegg, ZipZoomFly. I've also had some success with vendors that advertise on pricewatch.

It was found that renaming quake.exe to quack.exe
would affect performance. The reason is that the
driver purposely degrades the quality for stuff
that is used in benchmarks....

Just for the record ISTR only ATI tried this in 2001 on windows only and were outed by HardOCP.

See http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEx for more info.

The Atom is a bit on the slow side. Like using ARM chips for desktop computing; so why not simply use an ARM chip?

Still, if the Atom's paired with a super low powered chipset we might just finally have computers with more than 8 hours of battery life (while still being affordable/portable/small). Imagine taking your computer to work, and then leaving it on all day. A small detail, but makes a big difference.

The Nano is faster, but it also use about 8 watts more power (according to HardOCP). Those 8 watts is a big deal when it comes to battery life, but OTOH Atom is quite a bit faster than even the fastest Atom. The difference being big enough that HardOCP stated that Vista on Nano was notably more resposive - notable enough to be picked up on in blind tests.

So perhaps Atom trades off too much performace...

On average the quad-gpu Radeon solution is definitely quite a bit slower. Xbit used a rather bizarre assortment of games to reach those results. If you take a look at the two reviews from hardocp and pcperspective, the title of "fastest quad-gpu setup" goes to nVidia. This comes as no surprise given that nVidia dominates the single and dual gpu configurations of the same underlying technology (i.e. G92 is quite a bit faster than RV670).

From HardOCP.com's conclusion:

From PCPerspective.com's conclusion:

For winter break I brought my desktop home via my flight. Needless to say, they were very suspicious that I was bringing both a laptop and a desktop home (I know, how dare I?)!

On the trip home, they were frustrated that the metal case seemed to be blocking their x-rays and started swabbing it for explosives (instead of asking me if it could be opened up or anything) and the tests kept coming up positive! I was terrified they were going to blow up my computer. They kept asking if it was a "real computer", as though my Thinkpad isn't a real computer.

Then on the way back to school they made a much smaller fuss (I took it out of the duffel bag before running it through the scanner this time) though they still took it aside to look at it. However, this time the guy was grilling me on the manufacturer (Shuttle) and specs (Wow, 6 USB ports and surround sound? Geepers!) It was more amusing than anything else as luckily I always leave myself plenty of time to get through security.

...and then they paged someone over the PA system to come back to the security checkpoint to claim a purple dime-a-dozen, dentist-give-a-way toothbrush. Half the TSA agents looked very serious when the announcement was made, and the rest were laughing.

Interesting thing is what happens when you stop looking at synthetic benchmarks... and start looking at real gameplay.

Take a read through hardocp's review for an example.

As to why AMD released? Well, my understanding is that NVidia is looking to release thier own 2-GPU card (9800 GX2) in Feb/March. Given the benchmarks of the current cards, I can't see the 3870 X2 holding up well... so... beat 'em to market. Although when you factor price in, I'd imagine it'll still be competitive; just not anywhere near the fastest.

What I'm waiting to see come out from AMD is the R700 cards... especially if it convinces nvidia to finally release thier true next-gen cards as well (not merely the continued tweaking/shrinking of the G80 architecture). Then we can all have something to look forward to :)

Not full-bore, all the shinies turned on Crysis, but it can run it.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ1MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Remember that expensive network card that was supposed to improve gaming network performance by leaps and bounds, using more buzzwords than Al Gore, and failed to do so?

Or the bajillions of CPU fans out there that don't even perform better than the stock one Intel/AMD ships on the chip?

Or dare I mention Ageia and their PhysX, whose marketing was founded upon misinformation and outright fabrication (especially the Cell Factor demo)?

As for cases... I've seen many a case that claimed some magical airflow design properties... It would not surprise in the least if the vast majority of them never had their airflow measured in any way.

Until I realised that they hadn't once mentioned testing on Linux.

Just because one article or press release was light on details, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Here is what you seek. Intel did mention testing on Linux and some other operating systems.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2OCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
"During a press briefing earlier today, Intel stated that the very first 45nm processor was already up and running and used by the Intel validation team to successfully boot a test system into Windows Vista, Windows XP, Mac OS X and Linux."

You are welcome.

Read the HardOCP review of the iBUYPOWER P4 Custom Build. If there is a HardOCP review for something, I trust it more than any other review. They aren't afraid to rate something terribly, and to tell you everything that is wrong with it. They also go through the buying process and refuse any free stuff they are offered.

I get a chuckle out of people who pay to beta test products.

The truth is that there are a host of issues.

The best experiences I have heard from anyone is that it is almost as good as XP.

Reviews that tested gaming performance, show Vista slower across the board.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCw2LC xoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Testing also revealed that Vista had changed it's driver model to virtualizing Vram into limited user address space, leading to minor things like crashing out in the midst of heated gaming sessions.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=3044

Vista brings networking to a crawl when playing audio:
http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=83112

So we have slower gaming, crashing from memory space exhaustion, and networking reduced to a crawl if you play an audio file, and this is just recently and major headlines.

Basically you are very lucky if it works anywhere near as well as XP. For degraded performance/lower reliability you get what? Aero?

I realize that in a few years most of use will be using Vista, but I never touch a MS OS without at least 1 service pack. Vista is MS most unnecessary upgrade since Millennium.

Are you serious?

You can't see differences like http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1128280140A BTiXJphEC_8_3_l.jpg">these in-game?

You fail at seeing.

I'm sure you're right. You should call AMD and tell those stupid engineers to stop the project.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MTkyN TgsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

As usual Anandtech is extremely thorough: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988 &p=26

[H]ardocp's take: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM 0MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

techPowerUp (Warning, streaming video at the start >.>): http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2900_XT/

The Inquirers expected vapid coverage: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39 580

I think I'll wait for more ATI drivers and some DX10 games before calling this one... Looks a little underwhelming at the moment though. I'm not regreting my 8800GTX purchase yet. ;)

Photo and video editing parallelize nicely. Besides gaming, that's the only CPU intensive process that most home computers will run. On the gaming side, most games don't run any better on quad core, but Supreme Commander is one of the few that do.

According to a writeup on HardOCP back in September, the new design features the ability to pretty much halt cores on-die and save power. (hit next a few times, I wish I could get my hands on the actual Powerpoint)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM 0MSwxNywsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

Bottom line, the 2900XT is "...a day late and a dollar short."

Hmmm. I'm now fairly dubious of the linked review. For two reasons mostly. 1. The Company of heroes numbers seem off. At least the minimum frame rate number. The test machine is an Intel Quad Core w/ a 8800GTX under XP and got a score about 10FPS less than what I get on my 4400X2 AMD processor and 8800GTX under Windows Vista. 2. HardOCP's review seems to contradict the results. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM 0MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== The HardOCP review seems to be more thorough and includes comparisons to both the 8800GTX and GTX boards. They also don't leave out other performance numbers such as max framerate. The most telling comparison is with STALKER which the Radeon suffers badly at low settings compared to the 8800GTX.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=4 02
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM zNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2979
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8593