Crossfire limitation
- Thread starter Slappi
- Start date
Well, consider that many people may not have taken it seriously back then. Even in the original post there was a caveat that maybe ATI will fix the issue before launch. Except now it seems that the information is confirmed, and since the launch is finally happening, it's being taken much more seriously.geo said:
Doesn't mean there isn't an e-mail floating around, of course, but bear in mind that with or without such an e-mail, it is the response of the community that decides whether or not to give the issue any "time in the sun."
geo said:
I honestly think it has more to do with the fact that "Many" expected/hoped it would be improved. When a product is months from release its easy to say "Well that might be changed" However when considering the issue that its less than a week or two or away from release makes people far more nervous.
Well, just consider that mudslinging does have its good side. That is to say, those who are most likely to point out the weaknesses of a product are a product's competitors. Some companies may actively spend money on discovering weaknesses in others' products.
This actually helps the end-user, to some extent, in the long-run, because it means that the other company won't be able to "slip things by" the buying public, or, at least, not the enthusiast buying public.
If it was nVidia, for instance, that is sending out e-mails pointing out the shortcomings of ATI's products, ATI owes it to the buying public to send out similar e-mails to the buying public about nVidia's products (I would expect them to...I don't think any other company would do this, as they're the only competitors in this market segment).
Of course, this can turn horribly bad if the mudslinging turns to inaccurate information. One would just hope that these companies will keep their decorum and stick to valid info as much as possible.
This actually helps the end-user, to some extent, in the long-run, because it means that the other company won't be able to "slip things by" the buying public, or, at least, not the enthusiast buying public.
If it was nVidia, for instance, that is sending out e-mails pointing out the shortcomings of ATI's products, ATI owes it to the buying public to send out similar e-mails to the buying public about nVidia's products (I would expect them to...I don't think any other company would do this, as they're the only competitors in this market segment).
Of course, this can turn horribly bad if the mudslinging turns to inaccurate information. One would just hope that these companies will keep their decorum and stick to valid info as much as possible.
ChrisRay said:
And would it be fair to characterize your initial correspondents on this issue a couple weeks ago as competitors of ATI?
Look, I haven't tilted at windmills in a long time, but I'm tempted to put Bobby Kennedy in my sig after R520 release. "I dream of things that never were and ask 'why not?'"
It is so self-evidently clear that "the other side" has the largest group of highly-qualified technical people on the planet to be picking at the seams of your technology that it barely is worth pointing out. Both sides. It is also self-evidently clear that the community needs to know about it when that group of highly-qualified, etc finds something potentially significant to point at.
But it doesn't have to be this way. And this way is corrosive of a lot of "goods".
Well geo. Its really not any different than early SLI fud. Even if Nvidia did alledgedly leak this info.((Though I'm not sure I'd call it a leak since its been available for anyone to see)) I dont really see it as any different than the whole "SLI profile" fud I have read across the web.
As to why I myself or someone else didnt post earlier. Well I cant comment on others. But I had nothing concrete, nor do I make a habit of trying to comment on unreleased hardware. If this happened to be fixed by the time Crossfire is released. It would only make the people who complained ((no offense ratchet
)) or myself look a bit foolish. I personally am not counting on that it will be fixed between now and release. But I also am not a betting man either to make such a claim either. Call me conservative if you will.
As to why I myself or someone else didnt post earlier. Well I cant comment on others. But I had nothing concrete, nor do I make a habit of trying to comment on unreleased hardware. If this happened to be fixed by the time Crossfire is released. It would only make the people who complained ((no offense ratchet
)) or myself look a bit foolish. I personally am not counting on that it will be fixed between now and release. But I also am not a betting man either to make such a claim either. Call me conservative if you will.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see why the need of all this fuss about this limitation to apparently be so negative about the product.
If it proves to deliver better performance,stability & compatibility in comparison to NVidias SLI of wich imo fails to deliver (redarding in account the costs this technology needs to acquire/upgrade in comparison to the benefits it was intented (but not delivered imo) to deliver to the market) from several reviews around websites.
If it proves to deliver better performance,stability & compatibility in comparison to NVidias SLI of wich imo fails to deliver (redarding in account the costs this technology needs to acquire/upgrade in comparison to the benefits it was intented (but not delivered imo) to deliver to the market) from several reviews around websites.
ChrisRay said:
That profile stuff might be an ever nastier boomerang for ATI, if they don't keep their drivers for multi-GPU systems transparent. And no before anyone says it, I believe it only when I see it that they don't have profiles in their drivers.
Ailuros said:
I would think they must. The difference would be if their default mode is CrossFire is ON when a profile doesn't exist for that game, and that works every single time without visual aberration and at least modest performance increase. Add on top of that the ability to play with other modes for that app to see if they "do better" than the default, and that seems pretty workable to me.
geo said:
If they don't they deserve to be shot heh...
Typical 19" CRT stretch content usually beyond a 1024 height. If you know the exact measurements of the viewable area of the monitor and it's dot pitch size, it's easy to figure out where it doesn't stretch.
If you have a 0.25 dot pitch for instance and want to reach a 1536 width, you'd need a height of the viewable screen of 384mm. Usually a 21" CRT is around 305mm
Bear in mind that nVidia has been taking great strides to improve the performance and compatibility of their SLI solution. So if you're talking about reviews from when it was first released, you're talking about old news.doob said:
Edit:
I'm expecting nVidia to try to get some websites to publish some new SLI reviews closer to ATI's Crossfire launch.
