|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13501 |  scottwilkins (55) Dec 10, 2006 - 09:10 pm
| | I was surprised at the ratings. The review read like it was very pro-PS3. To get all around 70% was interesting, though I don't disagree. PS3 is a nice machine, at first. Then it falters quickly in technical and features problems. They outlined them well, no need to post them again here. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13501 | scottwilkins (55) Dec 10, 2006 - 08:07 pm
| » Blu-Ray a "Con" not a "Plus"
I'm sorry, but all-in-all I agree with most statements about the PS3 in the article except that Blu-Ray is a plus. Here's my reasons why:
- Blu-Ray is a sub-standard media format IMHO. 80% less protective coating (It's rumored that Sony DOES NOT put the protective layer on PS3 Blu-Ray discs BTW.) and a weird laser focus just spells disaster for your discs in the future. I wouldn't trust my collection to this format if I had to.
- Blu-Ray movies so far have rated lower in quality than HD-DVD movies released.
- No upscale in the DVD playback.
- "higher capacity" is really not that higher. Sony flaunts the higher 50 gig capacity, but they don't use it well. HD-DVD format for HD movies hold 8 hours, Blu-Ray only gets 9! 12% higher! And, remember HD-DVD has been ranking higher in visual qualities and features from reviewers. HD-DVD actually has more SDTV storage ability, so where's all that room again? You can verify that capacity thing on Blu-Ray's own website too.
- Too much DRM. Blu-Ray has two methods of DRM, where HD-DVD only has one making it much more consumer friendly. I didn't see it here, but I believe the Blu-Ray on the PS3 needs special HDMI cable and HDTV settings to play 1080p anyway. Not many have that.
- Sony has yet to make a media format that has lasted the test of time. Blu-Ray so far is showing that it might be no exception. I'd hate to sink money in another bomb from Sony.
All the issues with Blu-Ray just don't add up to a good investment. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12687 | scottwilkins (55) Oct 16, 2006 - 07:23 am
| » 7950 GX2 doesn't belong
Until ATI produces a dual GPU board, including the GX2 in these test is wrong. That board doesn't have an equal yet and is not a proper gauge for other single GPU boards. Including it only "spins" the proper results, and doesn't show any worthwhile information. I'm surprized you guys are so stupid. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12552 | scottwilkins (55) Oct 05, 2006 - 07:38 am
| » ATI seems poized for future
From this article it seems ATI is more ready for the future than nVidia. Which is a complete turn-around from past.
I was amazed this week at what ATI is doing with the Folding@Home group: http://folding.stanford.edu/ getting a 20x to 30x processing increase by using ATI's awesome archecture. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12496 | scottwilkins (55) Sep 30, 2006 - 01:23 pm
| » Again FS missed the mark with incorrect info...
The comment "PS2 and Xbox (although they activated it well after those console’s releases). " Was very wrong. The original Xbox was marketed with on-line ability even before it hit the stores. It was originally intended to be on-line, and only took a couple months for the full on-line service to become active, not "well after". You guys suck even more with every article. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12426 | scottwilkins (55) Sep 27, 2006 - 07:43 am » Edited on Sep 27, 2006 - 07:46 am
| » HDR?
I do not consider HDR to be a "stuning visual", but rather a sales tool to get you to buy bad games.
Also, the NVIDIA’s GeForce 7950 GX2 is an SLI device, not a single GPU solution so should not be considered in the same pool as other single GPU devices. Bad FS, bad. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12101 | scottwilkins (55) Sep 07, 2006 - 06:39 am
| » It needs games...
I once had an Intel camera for my PC that came with a few simple games. I connected it to my media center PC on my big screen and spent days having a BLAST with it. MS needs to realize the fun in this simple game concept and include some games with this camera if they want it to sell good. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11945 | scottwilkins (55) Aug 29, 2006 - 05:58 am » Edited on Aug 29, 2006 - 06:08 am
| » single against dual is just wrong
Brandon, why do you compare single GPU against dual GPU and call it an equal comparison?
And, why do you leave out cards in certain comparisons. In order for a test to valid you have to include the numbers, no matter what you believe them to be. Your basically shot yourself in the foot and invalidated the whole test.
Also, why test at that 2400x1500 res. Any game player knows the optimum resolution for gaming no matter what video setup is either 1280x1024, or 1440x1024 (? I don't use wide screen so I forget the exact res here). Especially since there is no LCD monitor that can display that resolution. This resolution you push is not usefull or relavent to the scores.
Brandon, you keep goofing up on these tests. I'm really starting to think you've lost your edge. I hope you improve in the future (and don't mouth off about it in your article either, that makes you look bad.) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11855 | scottwilkins (55) Aug 23, 2006 - 06:47 am
| » 10% increase not good?
Brandon, why did you bash the 10% increase over the older ATI? Especially since the memory bandwidth from GDDR3 to GDDR4 was only 10%. Sounds like the increase was exactly what was expected, right?
Are you loosing your mind lately, you seem to make a lot of mistakes like this in your most recent articles... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | scottwilkins (55) Aug 23, 2006 - 06:23 am
| » Old Tired Topic
Brandon,
This topic is really getting old and tired. But, since you are obviously not examining this correctly, you must be informed of the smoke and mirror tricks.
It's obvious nVidia is using some settings that increase AA at lower settings in order to get it to look better than it should at proper settings, so giving them cudos on that shows you are not examining the issues correctly. Sorry, ATI is much more exact in their settings, as they don't turn on AA when it's not turned on. nVidia is well documented for "cheating" in this area. Their BF2 problems show that they are more interested in pushing the limits to sell cards rather than make the games better. If you fell for that smoke and mirror trick, then I can't read any more of your articles with an open mind. Sorry. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11499 | scottwilkins (55) Aug 04, 2006 - 06:54 am
| » I'd still go with the 6600
It makes more sense to go with the 6600 because of the double cache size. Less than $100 more and you'd still have a ton of overclock ability and twice the cache probably outperforming the 6400 in all tests. Seems to be the biggest bang for your buck to me. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11345 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 27, 2006 - 09:04 am
| | Riiiiight, your asleep at the wheel on that one. ATI already produces chips for both integrated solutions and high end solutions. Guess what, so does AMD. Go Figure. The combined companies will produce chips for all levels of computing for as long as they are producing chips. Why would they do anything else? What excuse can you possibly dream up for them not to produce high end graphics? There is none, and they won't stop. Plus, they will continue to produce graphics solutions that work with Intel boards too. Intel doesn't own the PC. PC design is actually governed by a consortium, so as long as this group continues to shape the PC, all manufactures will continue to make stuff that works together. Where do you people dream this end of the world stuff up? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11345 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 27, 2006 - 08:55 am
| | American and Canadian has zero to do with this. Nor will it affect it much. You must be under a rock to not see the globalization needed to produce any computer component today. It takes a handful of countries just to make a chip. nVidia is all about the $$, which is their downfall. ATI and AMD are about the product and how it performs. They are a perfect mix. Both have produced chips that perform as good if not better using less power and less clock rates over the years more often than either nVidia or Intel. They are made for each other. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11345 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 27, 2006 - 08:54 am
| | Misanthrop you are over simplifying. There are many different market levels in computer products. AMD will not want to harm any of those levels. They will continue to produce CPU and GPU units for both the low end and the ultra high end for as long as they are in business. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11345 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 27, 2006 - 08:51 am » Edited on Jul 27, 2006 - 08:51 am
| » Consumers will not lose out, short, medium or long
I disagree with the general premis of the article in that consumers will lose out. Especially in the short term. First, this move will cause some slight slow downs in the industry, which right now is an extremely good thing. 6 month product cycles are stupid and anti-consumer. Second, This mix will up the lower end. Right now a lot of game makers are complaining that the #1 graphics is not game oriented. Intel's strangle hold on the integrated graphics market has caused PC gaming to falter. With ATI in the board level even stronger now, the basic integrated graphics ability will grow substantially, increasing the games that will come to the PC market and increasing those game's abilities.
This is a win-win deal. We are going to see some major changes in the next 2 years that will give the consumer better choice, and better products. I'm stoked at the possibilities. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11245 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 21, 2006 - 01:14 pm
| » It's all B.S. anyway.
If all components are tested with the same software, then it really doesn't matter in the end anyway. Real or not, on equal grounds you will understand the level at which each can perform. One millisecond to the next, it just doesn't matter how "real" it is or not. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10989 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 12, 2006 - 07:18 am
| » A little off on comparison
First, Live Silver does allow game play on certain days with other players.
Second, 1080i vs. 1080p is a null arguement. LCD, DLP and Plasmas don't display interlaced video. Only the components decoding the video are either slow (i = cheaper) or fast (p = more expensive) Image quality between the two is exctly the same on these types of sets. On CRT or projection screens there will be a difference in quaility, albiet unoticable by most.
Third, Blu-Ray is a mistake. Hugh mistake. The discs are very easy to damage and make unplayable even with the slightest smudge. I'm not trusting my game collection on a sub-standard media. Even with the so-called "stronger coating", with only 20% of the protective layer and physical tracks so thin, these discs are going to be a major problem for the PS3. Most likely the majority of games for the PS3 will be in DVD format. Most games for the older Xbox and PS2 were never above 1 gig, which wasted the majority of DVD discs. It will be the same here.
Last, both consoles are extremely identical in power and ability. Though different in component number, they equal due to differences in component types and abilities. The PS3 processors have no cache which will slow it down tremendously. And both consoles video are based on the same generation of chips. It's a tie for power and ability, so paying a 50% premium for the PS3 will be it's downfall.
Sony is in trouble, real trouble. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10972 | scottwilkins (55) Jul 12, 2006 - 06:47 am » Edited on Jul 12, 2006 - 06:48 am
| » Nope, still sucks
Sony is going down hill FAST!
They need to give up on Blu-Ray. Tests of Blu-Ray discs so far show they are highly easy to damage with scratches. NO, the "special coating" didn't work. They even have issues playing discs with slight finger prints and smudges. ACK! I'm not going to trust my game and movie collection on an inferior product. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
