Originally Posted by Belimawr
considering the benchmarks would say the GTX680 beats the 7970 how do you class the GTX680 as midrange? as that would mean the 7970 is technically lower quality than the GTX680 making it lower mid range.
as for a higher failure rate in production you are calling Nvidia for scraping bad chips, but had no problem with AMD shipping bad chips as lower models? to me I would be more worried about the firm selling me a chip that failed testing, by re branding it and/or cutting of sections of the chip, to save on lost production costs, technically selling an inferior and faulty product as if it is a 100% tested and working chip.
but really on new tech the fail rate always goes through the roof, when bluray first came out the fail rate was close to 50%, the cell CPU chips came out (they were used in a lot more than just the PS3) the failure rate was about 80%, now both are near 100% success rate, it's just the way new production works.
I doubt you will find anyone who will deny the Nvidia 680 performance is anything but great.
AMD do cut their chips if there is enough to salvage, but they do so in that particular cards silicon range.
Will I ever look at data from a website and say ., it is better, not really cause every test is engineered for one side or the other. AMD simply has never marketed their products through adverts, websites and or tv commercials. Hopefully that will change with the new AMD CEO. Yes Amd runs web ads, but they don't create a bunch of fictitious websites to make there product run better then the competition.
I trust one site that i really dont trust, and that is guru3d. I've used him for decades, and they always been up 3dfx butt , so I take his data with a grain of salt.
I'm looking forward to this summer to see what happens in the video market