[GreenBeret]

Someone just sent me the link to the latest accelenation.com's article:

http://accelenation.com/?ac.id.123.1

I swear I've seen that chart months ago on Beyond3D, quoted from some other reviews. If accelenation.com truly made it themselves and posted as an article on the 15th of October, 2003, that chart should have the Radeon 9800s, 9600s and maybe more details about the GFFX family on it. However, that chart ended in 2002...and as a result, has no details about the GFFX.

I've been searching Beyond3D's forums for those old posts but it's very hard to find it... can anyone help ?

[cthellis42]

I've had that article bookmarked for a while, so although its date is recent, I assume it's just because of an update somewhere. It's certainly not date of overall creation.

[Nappe1]

at least they got all major stuff right this time... Sad, but Bitboys stuff is still far from reality. (and I doubt it will ever get fixed. I don't give a shit what those guys think, but I am sad because that article is read like Graphics card encyclopedia... and most of readers keep it like official history document.)

well, Boys did screw up once... about 5 years ago, and they still are paying the bill. I don't wonder anymore why they are so pessimistic about showing AXE performance. (it would definately make more bad than good. it might have been fastest on christmas 2001, but now it wouldn't have much chance and only ppl really interested about the business would understand the meaning of benchmarking it.)

so, am I going to do something to fix that faulty information? No. I don't give a rats ass. Mostly because I am tired all of this. it's endless swamp to try correct all the shit flying around the company I so much admire. while you get one thing fixed, three new "jokes on some forum" starts to spread as a fact.

if some of the article writers reads this, my only message is: "screw you guys, I am going home."

[GreenBeret]

Originally Posted by cthellis42

I've had that article bookmarked for a while, so although its date is recent, I assume it's just because of an update somewhere. It's certainly not date of overall creation.

Ah k, I didn't think of that. Thanks for the info.

And go the Bitboys ! hehehe