While trying to bring to light issues is good and great, again nothing new here. First I noticed the way he portrayed the issue at the beginning like he was uncovering something the vast majority of users didn't know. Now I get he was actually trying to convey explicitly the issues but word choice up to that point did not give that air. For the most part seemed short and not too extensive but to be expected with trying to utilize new technology to get answers. Now generally I believe that any opinions in a review need to wait till the end and by then if the writer feels the need to rip said company a new one then so be it. Unfortunately in a lot of articles and lately pcpers in whole, the tone of negativity starts in the beginning. But ok maybe they are frustrated with what they thought should have been fixed when they first noticed it. Alas that doesn't make great journalism or Pulitzer material.
Now I want to use a section of the article to point out tone and how it could have been done.
But for gamers that consider multi-GPU a feature they want to have available at any time, CrossFire isn't standing up well to SLI.
My hope is that AMD will not only fix 4K and Eyefinity for Hawaii users later in the year but will also help gamers that have invested in the HD 7000-series of graphics cards and have already purchased their Eyefinity configurations on the promise of a great experience. AMD was able to push forward with the Catalyst 13.8 beta builds on a mostly reasonable schedule and I am holding out hope that the company will do the same thing for CrossFire + Eyefinity.
The gamers deserve it.
Now a lot of what is wrong here is how it is conveyed. Crossfire for most ,and most as in 90% or more, is fixed, but here it seems like only the single GPU for AMD has merit. It is quite misleading and exists quite a bit throughout the article. Also the mention of time frame for a fix makes it sound way off when in fact it could be next week or 3 months. It is September LATER IN THE YEAR is next week. The impact has the same effect if it were January, again word choice here is misleading. A scientific impersonal approach is best. So I will give you what I know to be true:
SINGLE GPU: BOTH are awesome and get the job done. For the largest portion of the gaming population you can game on worry-free.
DUAL GPU: Both companies are awesome up to 2560x1600. For the largest portion of Dual card gamers but smallest part of total gamers you have little to no worries ( little being unsupported CF/SLI and non-optimized ).
DUAL GPU EYEFINITY AND SURROUND: Nvidia is the only guaranteed (not sure it is a fact but seems we are told it is: I don't have Nvidia nor run surround ) solution at the present. For the Smallest potion of dual card/ multi-display users and the smallest portion of the smallest portion of gamers (intentional repeat there) only Nvidia can guarantee worry-free.
Simple and easy with no slant and states the evident facts to let purchasers know what they need to be informed.
Now all this is just for the moderate user. The one that has issues with configuring and not comfortable with anything outside of plug and play. But then would one as such go eyefinity or surround? Generally that is for the hardcore and they for the most part know how or are willing to learn to get the best experience possible. I don't have either and likely not interested till I get even older than I am and my eyesight starts to fail me. For now 23" 1920x1080 is just fine, well would like a little higher resolution but everything still looks great for now. But I have seen a lot of users post no issues with eyefinity. Could be they are unaware, or too many screens to see all of it
. Or some configuring took care of it. Again I don't have the setup and never thought to ask how they don't have issues.