|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20583 |  Captain_Malcolm_Reynolds (11) Jun 22, 2008 - 09:49 am
| | I think you should also add some without AA.... don't ATI cards do much more poorly with AA enabled? Particularly at ultra-high resolutions on things like Far Cry, I don't think too many people would enable 4x AA and 16x AF when their framerates are about 10-15. Wouldn't it be reasonable to show some non-AA, at least maybe at the highest res? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20553 | Captain_Malcolm_Reynolds (11) Jun 12, 2008 - 11:27 am
| I'd just like to say that this is.. an awesome discussion. I've really been enlightened about the use of "could care less."
Anyway, the idea that you "wouldn't mind seeing the end of the dual cores and the tri-cores taking their place" is great. Except it doesn't make sense, since tri-cores are defective quad-cores with their fourth core deactivated. They weren't made with the intention of being 3-core chips. Dual-core is still needed. Just not right now. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19606 | Captain_Malcolm_Reynolds (11) Feb 15, 2008 - 11:30 am
| Interesting niche they're trying to fill. They could really play it right, if they deployed between the power of integrated graphics, and low-end graphics cards, while still offering on-board DDR, full DX10 support, and HD acceleration.
That would probably be squashed soon enough by nVidia/ATI, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for a while. Who knows, it might let them get some foothold in some area of the graphics market. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=4378 | Captain_Malcolm_Reynolds (11) Oct 24, 2007 - 06:43 pm
| It saddens me that anyone could be as ill-informed and ignorant as all this, rapid, but let me assure you, liberal democrats are not plotting to get us all killed. America was never really in any danger... that is, until we set foot on Iraqi soil. We're creating terrorists, not eradicating them.
George Bush has already been proclaimed as the worst President of the United States by many experts... something unprecedented, as they have historically waited until after he was out of office to reflect. Often a decade or more after.
As for us not being attacked in six years, if he had listened to the intelligence carried over from the Clinton administration, we may have prevented the first attack.
Oh. And how many times were we attacked before that? Once? Pearl Harbor? In how many years? A couple hundred? It looks like you're looking at a false positive.
Please, get informed. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
