Originally Posted by brettjv
1) Actually, it was the person I was responding to who did the belittling, calling people 'fanboys'. I never belittled anybody in my post. If you'd care to show me the 'belittling', I'm all ears ...
2) Keep in mind that the purpose of my post is that of laying out ALTERNATE explanations aside from 'fanboy-ism' as to why SOMEONE may have chosen Kepler over Tahiti this round. I humbly suggest that you go back and re-read my post with this idea in mind.
3) I've owned both SLI and Crossfire, in numerous configurations, with lots of different cards. IMHO ... what I said about the subject is precisely true. And I know there are many others with the same opinion. It doesn't matter whether I can 'prove that it's fact' ... or not. Given that I'm providing an 'alternate explanation to fanboyism', all that matters is that SOMEONE ... believes what I said to be fact. Are you suggesting that there's NOBODY ... who believes what I said above about SLI vs. Crossfire? Cause I can REALLY easily prove that supposition incorrect. However, as it so happens, there's a number of articles out there showing that microstutter is generally worse in Crossfire vs. SLI. In fact, most of the AMD fans on this site know precisely the articles I'm referring to. So ... did you really need me to dig them up, or are you just being pedantic?
4) Your biggest BOLD, the one you apparently have the BIGGEST problem with ... is CLEARLY stated as being my opinion. I said I WOULDN'T TRADE my card for a 7970. How can you possibly say that I'm incorrectly 'stating my opinion as fact' ... when all I'm talking about is what I, personally, would DO or NOT DO? That's just silly, dude. Try trading me your 7970 for my 670 ... and see what I say. Until you've done so, and you make a liar out of me by my response ... what I said was 100% factual.
5) It's pretty much common knowledge amongst the people who've been paying attention that afa game performance goes, Kepler has higher performance per watt. This was accomplished by removing some compute capability (not needed for gaming in roughly 99.99% of games) from the Kepler chip. One may argue whether this is good or bad (and we have around here, 'til the cows came home, as they say), but it's pretty much a known fact. And again, if you REALLY need me to show you evidence that this is true, I certainly can ... you just let me know. And it's pretty much axiomatic that if perf/watt is better, that the chip runs cooler ... it's simple physics, really
But again, the point of my missive is that these are alternate explanations to people's buying decisions beside fanboy-ism. Ergo, all that I really need to do to prove the case I'm setting forth is to prove that there's at least one person who BELIEVES ... each of the things I've set forth in my post. Given that I know that *I* believe every one of those things ... this validates the overall argument I'm making.
The really paradoxical thing about the situation is that I actually dislike nVidia (and Intel for that matter), and I LOVE LOVE LOVE AMD. But ... I actually prefer the total package provided by the 670/680 over that of the 7950/7970 ... so I held me nose and bought the nV card. I'm certainly NOT, in ANY WAY, saying that the actual piece of nVidia hardware is 'superior' to that provided by AMD. Far from it. I'm simply saying that *I PREFER* the Kepler offerings, as a total package ... and it has NOTHING to do with being a 'fanboy'. Which is what this whole discussion stemmed from, the suggestion that this is the only likely explanation for making that choice