Not at all, I've stated that although it's raw power is excellent, the drivers are might be less polished than those in Nvidia, which can also be troublesome, especially if Optimus is used. I've actually suggested all three brands - Intel (for HD 3000), Nvidia (more polished, less power) and ATI (more power, less polished), while you seem to have special bias towards AMD.Originally Posted by code_glitch
With my Asus HD 6780 and XFX HD 6770 in the office, I've been using most driver versions from 12.x series, including 12.8 on all fresh installs. Neither allowed to turn on/off VSync and multisampling in Direct3D 9. If you enable VSync in Catalyst, it doesn't work - you have to use D3DOverrider. Enabling multisampling in Catalyst for random app will force it on any other application. If you don't use any of these features, or somewhat complex GLSL shaders in OpenGL in Linux/Mac OS X, then there's nothing to worry about.
Please don't be upset for contradicting your recommendations. There is no need to start another [Overclock, AMD GPUs, SSDs] vs [Not-overlock, other GPUs, HDDs] religious war. As for the reasoning I've quoted, I'm sure you understand why it is a logical fallacy.
P.S. Our drives failed after 2-3 months of use, not 2 years.
For the record, we've disabled SWAP file on SSD and used certified Asus motherboards with latest BIOS updates. Why our SSDs died out quicker? Probably because of usage patterns as we've been recompiling and linking projects many times daily, not to mention full 20-30 Gb project rebuilds.
You also didn't mention that lifespan of SSD might be considerably lower than of HDD under certain usage patterns due to limited write cycles. However, if we don't mention write cycles, many problems in SSD are due to bugs in firmware logic. For practical applications, SSDs should not fail under any of usage scenarios unless write cycles become a problem (and even those are mediated by using some random relocation). That's why I suggested using SSDs being as playing a roulette - in your case they did not fail (yet), but in many others they do, so the question remains: do the benefit of improved hard disk seek time outweigh the additional purchase cost and the risks of sudden SDD failure along with full data loss? This is something OP needs to take into account for purchase. You've put SSDs as perfect choice, albeit expensive. I've added increased risks to the equation.
Yes, calculating such risks is not easy, but with HDD you have warning signs (e.g. mechanical wear) and as long as plates are undamaged you can still recover your data, while in SSDs with fauly logic chip you may get data corruption even before you experience complete failure.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks