did they normalize for differences in the prevalence of AMD and Nvidia cards?

I did not say they weren't doing something about a particular game. I said they should have used tact and indicated that they were doing something, thereby acknowledging the problem, to the game news site. There is a difference, chief.

There is a conflict of interest here with BioWare-devs can and will underplay the flaws of their game. They could have used tact and indicated they were looking into the issue. Well the forums is a small sample size in comparison to the total population. No one can dispute that. However, BioWare is the only party with all the information regarding these issues and considering the conflict of interest, it would be foolish to assume they are being honest. I'm not arguing the majority are having issues- I'm merely saying 95% running the game fine is a number this douche pulled out of his twaat.

The textures look a lot worse than they did in the Beta and these are things that can be toggled on and off. They did the exact same thing with the blocky shadows as well. Removed textures, lowered shadow resolution, denying that many ppl have performance issues. I'm amazed that this is the same developer that made Mass Effect. The hero engine is a buggy bloated piece of twaat.

Dang fanboys. You're not being paid to be Nvidia or AMD zealots so cut it out-it's pathetic. hardware review sites often recommend AMD cards and they often recommend Nvidia cards. They take a look at performance, price, noise, heat, drivers and stability, overclocking, etc. They cover the whole gamut of factors a potential consumer would care about. They don't recommend cards in a vacuum. When they give a 9/10 or editor's choice rating to a midrange card, they are saying it is better than the other midrange cards. Since AMD cards have received such ratings from sites like this in the past, we can infer there are some AMD cards better than their Nvidia counterpart. And vice versa. Really easy **** to understand.

Benchmarks are not hypothetical-they are real world tests with actual games. They are by far the most important factor when choosing a gaming gfx card. If you get a series of reviews from legit review sites like toms hardware, anandtech, hardocp, and hardware canucks, there is nothing else to look at except the price. They'll comment on other factors like temperatures, noise, power draw, drivers, etc. in the review.

How logical a reaction that was. And just because you say something is not disputable, doesn't actually make it so. Who the hell are you anyway?

You quoted me to agree with me? You're just reiterating what I said.

yeah... A crippling state of denial indeed. If you have a 560ti and i7 2600k and get great performance, good for you. There are people with radeon 6970s and gtx 580s who are getting horrible performance. We know many of you are getting great framerates. A *****load of people are not, unfortunately. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. If there is a mental deficit on your end such that you cannot understand this, you have my sympathies.

precisely.

Dude this is not true- I don't even get where people got this from. It depends on how the frames are rendered. The way movies and games are rendered are very different. I can easily tell between 45 and 60fps in SWTOR. I could no longer tell the difference past ~80fps.

Haven't referred to them as ATI for a few yrs-just call it AMD. I build my computers for gaming for the most part and look for performance more than anything else- I don't care for rlly flashy looking cases or excessive PSUs. Since this is gaming focused, I acknowledge most games these days at 1920x1080 are GPU-limited and not CPU limited. That is why with a solid high-end gfx card-based rig, a cheap phenom or i5 750 will do nearly as well as a more expensive Sandy Bridge. That is why I always buy AMD cpus- because they're cheaper. You pay a premium for Intel CPUs if you're focusing on gaming or just general media/multitasking-brand recognition is all it is really. On top of that, Intel-based motherboards have been significantly more pricey than AMD boards. So as of late, I have been building systems based on AMD's CPUs. With the $ saved from getting a cheaper CPU, I just get a better gfx card. As for graphics cards, it's really been a toss-up between AMD and Nvidia for years. I was never invested in either camp. I acknowledge AMD cards tend to have a few more bugs upon release of games but they've improved by leaps such that most of these kinds of issues are resolved within a few weeks of release, if not earlier.