
Originally Posted by
EarlZ
Whats more absurd to me is that your finding results of a non exsisting hardware ( to consumers ) absurd. I mean do you know the real benchmark results of the R600 then ?
OT:
I sure wish brisbane comes thru, but hearing the initial testing results they arnt that impressive...(yet)
and AMD is having issues with their 65nm process, while intel is already testing 45nm
I haven't had seen any bencmark from R600 except from level505, but I do have lots of benchmarks with g80 and its seems fishy on some results compare to level505. Otherwise if somebody could tell what is like a real or hoax benchmark, I am willing to give this to him or her

.I like watching benchmark and I'm quite sure of what i have seen. I am having problem with my net connection so I could not show some benchmarks here. Maybe next time If my line is fixed.
According to my Uncle Tom:
" Even in F.E.A.R. at the lowest resolution we can see signs of CPU limitations. The difference between the two lowest settings at no AA and trilinear filtering once again shows that we need even faster CPUs to match the graphics horsepower that is still not being tapped. "
Full review below:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/...cpu/page6.html
I hear that as well that they have a problem with brisbane coz there were some unofficial rumor that nobody can really confirmed regarding the core voltage I think, stability problem. I'm glad that they know that they had a problem before they market the chip rather than knowing after they market the chip. It is good news for me coz it is a sign that they really know what they're doing. They still have time to correct it and improved their mpu. otherwise its a waste of my money coz I really do wait for it, I can't help it, LOL.
In case you haven't seen the gpu:
__________________________________________________ _

as cool as ice...