I did ask if it was in response. Since I couldn't tell by the tiered replies.
I agree. I understand why AMD is preferred by many. Nvidia can be bullies, in my view. It wouldn't stop me from using them, if they were much more suitable for my needs. While I don't have any need for G-sync, I still think it deserves some praise.
I don't use them because to me, I am supporting their actions. So I made a choice a number of years ago to not support nVidia.
One thing that AMD has done wrong? Producing false information. The reported R9, the speeds of those cards were incorrect.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, are you talking about the Tom's Hardware article where they're saying the core speed is 700 odd Mhz? Wasn't that also shown to be because of a faulty card?
Regardless, I'm not a fan of the boosting thing that AMD and nVidia are doing with the cards, I prefer a set clock speed.
Like the article posted about AMD trolling Nvidia's event, if you recall? While we all laughed, it was pretty underhanded.
Whilst I understand the hypocrisy of it, I have a hard time caring to be honest, nVidia have been doing much worse for a long time that I have a hard time feeling remotely sympathetic.
Plus, the stuff I'm talking about with regards to nVidia are much worse, the way they use PhysX and pay developers off, the rubbish they spread and the lies they tell, the way they have paid off numerous developers to try and push down AMD performance.
The whole "AMD BAD DRIVERS" thing is spouted from nVidia as well through nVidia's focus group programme, seriously, the slightest bit of research will show you that nVidia are the ones who actually have had the serious driver problems over the years. I'm not saying AMD doesn't have any, all companies do, but considering the reputation some people give AMD over drivers, it's just ridiculous. No AMD driver has actually killed graphics cards like nVidia ones have, multiple times, upon release of newer graphics cards.
The origin PC thing. Batman AA (the antialiasing code that in basic terms had a clause, disable AA if a non-nVidia card is detected) Crysis 2 (tessellated water being constantly rendered regardless of where you were to drag down everyone's performance, just AMD more). Assassin's Creed (DX10.1 being removed after it gave a performance boost to 10.1 cards, nVidia didn't have any 10.1 cards out). As above, PhysX, the way it drags everyone's performance down with effects that don't
need
to be done on the GPU, as well as nVidia's driver clause of "disable hardware PhysX if AMD GPU is detected". The way they have compromised FP64 performance in their latest cards, to artificially increase the perceived worth of their compute orientated cards, or the way they are selling Titans for $1000, despite the fact that a Titan doesn't cost much more than a GTX580 to produce. Just to name a handful of the underhanded things nVidia has done, not at the expense of their competition, but at the expense of everyone.
It later emerged that the 780 was faster after overclocking. They could have done anything to make that bench an unfair test.
This is one of those things, it depends where you go to read your news, but that aside, who in their right mind trusts reviews or bench marks from manufacturers? They're only going to show their hardware in the best possible light which means they're not to be taken seriously.
That aside, isn't the overclocking thing an issue of the stock/reference cooler being rubbish rather than the cards themselves?
I admit, I'm not fussed that they made them with crap coolers but only because I watercool my graphics cards, so I will go for the cheapest card regardless of cooler, however weren't the benchmarks done with the 290X versus custom cooled 780s?
Of course, I do think they should have made better cooling units, however when you take price in to comparison, it's not the biggest issue, and those who are interested should just wait until there are custom cooling units available.