Rage PC Mini-Review

I decided to purchase Rage for a couple reasons. One is I am a big fan of both id Software and Bethesda Softworks, you have to admit, both companies have brought us some of the most popular and influential games in the industries history. Games like Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, The insanely popular Elder Scrolls Series, and the Fallout series of games. All games that I loved and that set many of the standards that made the gaming industry what it is today. They are also working on Fallout 4 and Doom 4. So it's hard to call yourself a gamer and not like these compaines with a list of games and achievements like that.

The second reason is I also love "apocalyptic" or post-apolcalyptic themed games. Fallout being one of my all time favorites. Even though does not share the same exact theme, but they do "feel" like it, I also greatly enjoyed Borderlands and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. So it would stand to reason I should enjoy Rage.

Well, let me start off by saying that I did enjoy the game a great deal. So much so that I played through it just one day. That is where my biggest fault with the game sits, and it is one of the most disappointing aspects of the game, the point that really let me down. It was simply too short and easy to complete even on it's hardest setting. I was able to play through the campaign, completing every quest, finding all the secrets, on its hardest mode, in just under 9 hours.

To me, that's just incredibly short for a game like this, the RPG FPS. Sure, 9 hours is OK for a "normal" FPS, but not a game like this, with this much build up, story, and so much room to expand. As the story developed, it sucks you in, and then all of a sudden it just starts to feel rushed, like its pushing you to complete the final mission.

I just expected a lot more game time, did not expect it to end where it did, and I excepted it to be harder than it was. Or perhaps I am just getting too good at these sort of games. Not sure where to place the blame there. Perhaps I just had too many high expectations for the game.

Even though this was a huge disappointment for me, I can honestly say that I truly enjoyed playing the game a great deal. It was a lot of fun those 9 hours. The game itself does do credit to the names on the box, save for the fact it just felt so short and in the end, rushed.

The game does have a saving grace, one that might be able to redeem it, that there might be DLC in the works. Perhaps to continue the story since it just left open at the end after such a dramatic build up. It just seems like a horrible place to end the game, you expect it to continue. The multiplayer options are also very nice as well and can easily add more game time to the clock.

The game itself ran great, the only problem I had was a common and well known driver issue that would cause the game to flicker and "artifact" on my dual 6970 powered system. However this issue was easily corrected by simply updating to the 12.1 beta drivers from AMD. Other than that, I had no problems at all with the game, no stability issues or graphic anomalies that other people reported. For being a port, it played well on my system.

So would I recommend Rage? Yes, but I would wait for it to go on sale. At the time of this article, the game was $30 at most retail stores and Steam, though I got mine on sale for $15. It really is a great deal of fun to play. If you enjoyed games like Fallout 3, New Vegas, or Borderlands, you should enjoy Rage. Just don't expect it last nearly as long as any of those titles.

Rage has lot of potential, a good storyline, and it really is a lot of fun to play. It would easily get a 9 or 10 out of 10 for me if it was not for the fact it just seemed too short and as you neared the end of the game it started to feel like you were being rushed to complete it. So I have settled on giving it a 7 out of 10 for now. We will see where that goes if and when we get some DLC to continue the story.

Rated: 7/10

BWHGaming Battlefield 3 Servers

Our servers are moderated by a great team of admins to try and deliver those who play in them the a clean hack and grief free experience. These servers are community backed and we are dedicated to making them a success and providing our community, and the BF3 community at large, a long term place to enjoy this wonderful game.
To find us, just search "BWH" from the server browser.

Server #1: ` BWHGaming #1 | 24/7 Caspian Border 64 | No Assholes | NY



The current server configuration is as follows:

Server #1 is 64 players. The registered player count is scaled in real time as people join and leave the server, all the way up to 64.

As you can see from the server rankings, we are quickly moving up the scale and are occupied more often than not. Why not stop in and give us try.

• Ranked
• Preset: Normal
• Punkbuster: Enabled and up to date
• Players needed to start round: 2
• HUD: On
• Minimap: On
• Health Regen: On
• Minimap Spotting: On
• 3D Spotting: On
• Friendly Fire: Off
• Only Squad Leader Spawn: Off
• Team Balance: On
• Vehicles: On
• Vehicle Cam: On
• Kill Cam: On
• Show Enemy Name Tags: On

As always, our servers are open to anyone and everyone. We do out best to provide those who play in our servers the best possible experience. We have good admins and mods to assist whenever its needed. You can also reach us, or just chat about the game, in our newly created Battlefiled 3 forum section, our TeamSpeak 3 server, or just come and check out our community in general.

BWH Battlefield 3 Forum: http://www.bwhgaming.com/forums/m/323223/viewforum/704837

BWHGaming TeamSpeak 3: 63.251.20.106

Home: http://www.bwhgaming.com/

See you on the Battlefield!

Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 .. & More (PC)

Let me start off by saying I think comparing Battlefiled and Call of Duty is like comparing apples to oranges, they have so little in common with one and other, but they will still be compared because they both represent the pinnacle of modern FPS gaming. I am doing this article, my own personal comparison, in response to some of the other comparative reviews I have seen.

I guess the big question is, who wins? Well, winning is a matter of opinion more than a matter of fact. So why don't we list a few facts before we get into my own personal points of view and take a look whats under some of these facts.

1. Modern Warfare 3 will sell more copies worldwide than Battlefield 3.
2. Battlefiled 3 is technologically superior to Modern Warfare 3 in every respect.
   
3. Battlefiled 3 has won far more industry leading awards than MW3.
   
4. Modern Warfare 3 is made for console and ported to PC.
5. Battlefield 3 is made for PC and ported to console.
   
6. Console players of BF3 will still be getting a technologically superior product compared to MW3.
7. There are more console players in the world today than PC.
   

Now that we got the few facts in the situation out in the open, lets talk about them a little.

MW3 will sell more copies worldwide than BF3. This is a given, and it also ties into a few of the other facts I listed. Why will they sell more copies? Is it just because MW3 is just so much better then BF3? No, what game is better is 100% personal opinion. It will sell more because of facts 3 though 5.

Modern Warfare targets the largest player base on the planet, console, and more specifically the XBox 360. Battlefield is far more of a PC game than a console game, and even though the console version of BF3 is still technologically superior to MW3, it's still quite far behind the PC version and it's target base is still more PC than console.

Its simple math. More console players amounts to more sales. Simple as that. Yet people will still be all over "MW3 is better because it sold more", and this leads me to my own personal thoughts as to why MW sells so well.

Blind "fanboy" devotion being the first. One thing I tell people all the time, if you can take a bag of dog crap, slap a Call of Duty logo on it, it will sell by the millions and fanboys of the series will defend it to the death. You're not going to compete with that type of mindset.

Age is the second factor. There are far more "younger" players of the CoD games than there are for the BF games. Battlefield often targets slightly older gamers. That age difference also comes into play because "kids" are far more likely to stick with one game, where their friends are, over switching to something new based on any rational thought process like an adult might do.

Skill and learning curve is the third factor. Yeah, I will get flamed for this one, but I did say skill. I have played every CoD game, and in every case, I really had no problem dominating or holding my own vs players that should have been a lot better than me since I do not spend that much time playing those games vs all the others I play.

MW and BF also play completely different. MW is far more of a run and gun arcade shooter and BF is far more of a tactical shooter. MW pretty much only requires a faster click of the mouse, better control of the mouse, and knowing the maps you play on better than the other players. I would say a firm understanding of gameplay mechanics, but they have not changed since CoD 4, so if you have played one, you have played them all.

Battlefield not only requires the same as MW, but much more. You actually have to play smart, use cover, think about what you want to do, and it takes battlefield and situational awareness to a level well above most other FPS games, including Modern Warfare. This is above most "younger" gamers.

Now before I get flames for saying all that, just ask any Battlefiled "veteran", it's easy as hell to pick out a CoD player in a Battlefiled game. Most don't adapt or try to learn the tactics needed to do better in Battlefield. They don't get the fact the gameplay mechanics are completely different. They try and play BF like its CoD, and then blame BF for their lack of skill or willingness to learn. Many people call this "CoD Syndrome".

Yes, there is also a "BF Syndrome", it's just getting so used to any one style of gameplay that when you step out it, you don't feel nearly as comfortable to do as well as you thought you would. Now speaking of comfort.

All of that adds up to a comfort zone. CoD players are comfortable playing CoD, moving outside of that zone makes them, well, uncomfortable. They don't do as well. Not everyone can just pick up a game and go with it. Some can obviously, this does not apply to them, but there are far more that can't than can. What game would you rather play? The one you're really good at or the one you're not so good at?

So you take all that and add it up. More console players than PC, made for console, targeting console players, target player base is younger, player comfort zone, and it equals Modern Warfare 3 selling more copies overall, worldwide, than Battlefiled 3. However none of that denotes one winning over the other, nor does it constitute one being "better" than the other. Thats all opinion.

Lets look at the games from a technological standpoint. Battlefield 3 is a game made for 2011 PC hardware, Modern Warfare 3 is a game made for 6 year old console hardware. No one can argue that Modern Warfare 3 is lightyears behind Battlefiled technologically. That it's outdated before it even comes out. You, like I said above, fewer PC gamers than console and you really need a PC to fully take advantage of Battlefield 3.

Why did Battlefield 3 win more awards than Modern Warfare 3? Probably because it deserves them. Even though no one has any delusions of what game will sell more, most people in the industry know Battlefield 3 is a superior game in it's own right.

So my opinion on what game is better? That's easy, Battlefiled 3. It's not that I don't like Call of Duty. It's that I hate the fact the series is stale. Activision is feeding their customers the same old crap over and over, in a new skin, and they still keep buying it. That's what makes me hate Call of Duty as it stands today. Not the game itself, but what they have done to it. I am a PC gamer, and I expect a much higher level of quality and advancement in my gaming. Modern Warfare 3 is not modern high-end gaming, it's six year old gaming.

This is not acceptable to me and it's also why I hate console gaming in general. You can expand that "syndrome" analogy out to include consoles. Console syndrome has done a lot of damage to the industry. Companies have no reason to advance their products, why should they? When they have millions worldwide willing to shell out $60 a pop for the same crap and over again.

This is where Call of Duty gets it's sales. It's not a superior game from any factual standpoints, only from personal player opinions. Yes, MW3 will win in sales, but where those sales come from, what they are built on means a lot to an adult gamer like me. One that expects more and understands whats going on in the industry since I have been a part of it for so long. Either as a gamer since the Atari days or a tester more recently.

So in my own personal opinion. Battlefield 3 is the clear winner overall, any game series that advances wins over Call of Duty, not just Battlefiled. I will pick any game that does not shove six year old recycled crap down my thought and expect me to pay $60 for the experience.

The day the Call of Duty series grows up and crawls out of the console pit it's buried in, will be the day I let it back into my pocketbook. Yeah, I will still probably play MW3, only because I have friends who will buy it for me and try and force me to play, just as they did on Black Ops until I was banned from three servers in six hours for being better than the so called "skilled" players, and kicked from many others. That will put a sour taste in anyone's mouth. I am far from the best gamer on the planet, I would never profess to be anything of the sort, yet apparently being better than multiple CoD veterans is a sign of cheating.

Well, there you have it, my take on the BF3 vs MW3 debate. Why I pick BF3, and most any other game, over MW3. Not a popular opinion I am sure, but there it is none the less.

Welcome Back Commodore!

Welcome back Commodore! Wait...What's a Commodore? Well, if you happen to be too young to remember or if this was before your time, then let me explain.

Commodore Computers were some of the best of the "micro-computer" era of the 1980's and some of the best selling computers in history. They were light-years ahead of the competition at the time in the eyes of many users, including myself.

Sadly, Commodore International fell victim to a series of bad business decisions that doomed the company to bankruptcy in 1994, thus ending one of the best lines of computers ever made. If this unfortunate event had not happened, the modern computing world might look quite a bit different than it does today.

Well, to the amazement and joy of an entire generation of users and tech heads, Commodore has been resurrected by Barry Altman in the form of Commodore USA. The company was founded in April of 2010 with the goal of bringing back the Commodore brand and line of computers. In September 2010, the company purchased the rights to the Commodore and Amiga brands.

Not only bringing back the brands, but the fundamental "all-in-one" designs that dominated the market back in the 1980's. Making computers for everyday use that do not require a ton of desk space, power, and that just about anyone can learn to use.

As of the time I am writing this blog entry, there are currently 3 new Commodore computers available.

• Commodore C64 (http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_C64.aspx)
  
• Commodore VIC Pro (http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VICPro.aspx)
• Commodore VIC Slim (http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VICSlim.aspx)

With many more to come, like the Amiga line of systems, as well as few other future designs that I am really looking forward to seeing. You can check them all out over at the official website!

• http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Home.aspx

I can not wait to get my hands on a new Commodore 64! The day I do, I will be flooding my blog with everything I can get it to do. It will be one of those "like a kid in a candy store" moments.

With the looks of some of the products in store for the future of Commodore USA, I will be glued to their website and forum for a long time to come. This is one Commodore fan that will do everything in his power to spread the word of the return of this iconic brand to the market.

I have to say thank you to Barry Altman and everyone who brought Commodore back and you have a supporter for life right here!

AMD Radeon 6990 vs. Nvidia GTX 590. Do We Have A Winner?

In my opinion, the short answer is no. I have been reading and watching literally dozens of reviews and benchmarks on these two cards and I have come to one conclusion. When it comes down to what these cards are designed to do, and that's offer up a single card dual-GPU solution for gaming, they are both evenly matched. Period.

So here we have the two flagship cards from AMD and Nvidia for this generation, once again competing for dominance, and once again fans on both sides of the fence demanding a clear cut winner. "So what card is better?!?!?!"

Many people will not do any actual research on their own and make up their own minds. They always want to be told what to think and then follow the crowd, no matter what side of the fence you may be on. Then blindly proclaim that their card is better, as if it's some sort of pissing contest. I see countless replies and user comments like the following from several different reviews.

• "do the math man, the nvidia card is around 16% faster without considering Hawx 2. if you add Hawx bench theres a 25% diference between them" - Obviously this user has no idea how to do statistical math as he is basing his numbers on a few game benchmarks from a single source.
• "amd radeon graphics sucks!!!NVIDIA IS THE BEST !" - I do love this users advanced understanding of GPU technology. /sarcasm
• "nvidia is a joke, everyone knows AMD is better, nvidia fanboys are just too stupid to admit it" - Seriously? Where does this logic come from?

These are just three of literally hundreds of such comments on both sides of the fence I have found while doing all my research. There are just far too many people out there that really have no clue and constantly show their inability to actually think for themselves. They look at one review, allow themselves to be tainted by one train of thought, and never stop to actually weigh all the facts about the technology they obviously have no real understanding of.

Then you have those who readily admit they don't have a real good technical understanding of the facts about current GPU's and are just trying to make a decision on what will work best for them and they are bombarded with all the aforementioned idiocy. Left to sift through it all and not really knowing what way to turn. Often getting drawn into misinformation or fanboy proclamations.

So that's why I decided to write this blog entry. I want to share the FACTS about both cards and then share my OPINIONS on both cards, and why I would choose the one I would. I wanted to compile the information I have gathered from those dozens of reviews I have read and watched all in one place so anyone who happens across my humble little blog can make up their own mind and not be bombarded by "THE HD 6990 IS BEST" or "THE GTX 590 IS KING" opinions of many of the reviewers.

These facts, information, and the approximated benchmarks included below, are compiled from dozens of different sites and reviews, here are just a few of ones I visit the most. There are several other sites I came across doing this specific research, but these are the most popular and the ones I recommend the most.

• Tom's Hardware
• Motherboards.org
• Hardware Heaven
• Linus Tech Tips
• Overclock 3D
• Geeks 3D
• Tech PowerUp
• PassMark Software
• Legit Reviews
• Hot Hardware
• AnandTech
  
• And many more individual reviews and benchmarks
  

Basically, I wrote down ALL the test results I found in ALL of my research and then averaged them out and rounded to the nearest five. Because lets be honest, does 1-4 FPS make a difference when we are talking numbers this high? No. So lets look at the facts and the numbers for both cards.

Gaming Performance

I chose to list only DX10 and DX11 capable games and no DX9 games since to be perfectly honest, DX9 is becoming outdated as are the games that use it. These cards are designed to take advantage of DX10 and DX11, pure and simple.

I listed the average overall FPS scores from over a dozen different benchmark sites, including the ones I list above. This way you can get a better overall comparative average on both of these cards and how they perform across different test benches.

I did not list any specific brands since everyone has their own personal preference, and from everything I have read, they all perform almost identical. So you are free to choose your brand. Besides, if you want to stick with a specific brand, then you are better off focusing your research to that brand.

All of the benchmarks were at stock speeds unless otherwise noted with an "OC" indicating they were overclocked.

I also tried to list the same basic graphic settings and most common resolution (1920x1080) across all the reviews to keep it all as level as possible for the best possible comparison.

Now, to the games!

Bulletstorm DX10 (Average FPS - Max Settings - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990 OC: 105
  
• GTX 590 OC: 105

Dragon Age 2 DX11 (Average FPS - Max Settings - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990 OC: 70
  
• GTX 590 OC: 45
  

Stalker Call of Pripyat DX11 (Average FPS - Default Settings - 1920x1200)

• HD 6990: 100
  
• GTX 590: 105
  

Alien vs Predator DX11 (Average FPS - Default Settings - 1920x1200)

• HD 6990: 100
  
• GTX 590: 85
  

Hawx 2 DX11 (Average FPS - High Settings - 8xAA - 16xAF - 1920x1200)

• HD 6990: 190
  
• GTX 590: 250

Battlefield Bad Company 2 DX11 (Average FPS - Highest Setting - 8xAA - 8x/16x MSAA/AF - - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990: 130
  
• GTX 590: 130

F1 2010 DX11 (Average FPS - Ultra Setting - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990: 100
  
• GTX 590: 85

Metro 2033 DX11 (Average FPS - High Settings - AAA- 4xAA - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990: 55
  
• GTX 590: 55

Lost Planet 2 DX11 (Average FPS - High Settings - 8xMSAA - 32xCSAA - AA - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990: 85
• GTX 590: 90

Just Cause 2 DX11 (Average FPS - Highest Settings - 8xMSAA - 16xAF - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

• HD 6990: 75
  
• GTX 590: 70

So as you can see, both of these trade punches back and froth and they both kick ass no matter how you look at it. In most cases, the differences in FPS are minimal, and in EVERY SINGLE CASE totally unnoticeable without benchmark software running in the background.

What does all that mean? Simple, there is NO clear cut winner when it comes to framerates between the HD 6990 and the GTX 590. It will boil down to the game YOU play and the your own personal preferences.

Synthetic Benchmarks

I put very little stock in these numbers since I do not play synthetic benchmarks, I play video games, but I know a lot of people do. They can be a general overall indication of how a card may perform, but they are intended as a standardized platform for scoring based on the benchmark software being used. Not as an end all of how the card will perform in individual games and on individual systems. But here are the numbers anyway. Again, averaged over multiple sites.

3DMark X11 Overall Scores

• HD 6990 GPU: 9300
  
• GTX 590 GPU: 8930
  

• HD 6990 3D Marks: 9180
  
• GTX 590 3D Marks: 8820

3DMark Vantage

• HD 6990: 34500
  
• GTX 590: 38000

• HD 6990 GPU: 22500
  
• GTX 590 GPU: 19400

Again, notice a trend here? The numbers are flopping back and forth between both cards and not exactly Earth shattering in their differences.

So what does it come down to now? When it comes to gaming, both the AMD HD 6990 and Nvidia GTX 590 are pretty darn evenly matched. So now it's really going to come down to the individual user. Here are some other things you can factor in.

Power Consumption and Heat

Both cards are plugged for the same wattage however the HD 6990 will draw more under load than the GTX 590.

So thus, the HD 6990 can run hotter than the GTX 590. The HD 6990 does vent more air outside of the case where as the GTX 590 vents more air into the case.

So this will come down to your power needs, case cooling, and your personal preference yet again.

Noise Level

The HD 6990 is a considerably louder card than the GTX 590 when those fans ramp up to speed under load.

So if you want quiet, then the GTX 590 is better suited for that. If you don't care or control your fan speeds manually, then the HD 6990 may fit your bill nicely. Either way, here we are sitting at personal preference again.

Features

These can be deal makers and breakers for some people, including myself, so we better talk about those.

Do you want CUDA and PhysX Engine support? Looks like you better go with the GTX 590, or any other modern Nvidia GPU.

How about multi-display support. Both the HD 6990 and GTX 590 have it. So what one is "better", well that's going to depend on a few different things.

AMD Radeon cards have had Eyefinity for 3+ display support for a long time now, they can also support over 3 displays where as the GTX 590 can not. It is limited to 3 displays. Also the extra GB of VRAM the HD 6990 has over the GTX 590 will come in handy when gaming on multiple displays, especially if you go nuts and push it to 5 displays.

So in the multi-display gaming category, the HD 6990 would be the better choice.

Want SLI and Crossfire scaling? Well, that depends on the games you play of course, but overall in this case, the GTX 590 scales better than the HD 6990. So the GTX 590 may be the way to go if you are one of those people wanting to run a quad dual-GPU card setup.

If your going to scale, and you want to use AMD, your much better off going with a 6950 or 6970, they scale much better then the 6990.

What about BIOS/OC switch? The HD 6990 has it and the GTX 590 does not. So what does that mean? Flip a switch and you instantly OC the 6990 to 880MHz and it does have a noticeable impact on performance. So do you want BIOS level overclocking? Do you want it under warranty? Then you may want to go with the HD 6990, and more specifically, the XFX HD 6990.

Not to mention, that switch, toggles between two separate BIOS on the card, a protected one and a flash-able one. The same as on the 6950 and 6970. If you ever flash the one BIOS, and it fails for some unforeseen reason, no big deal, no more worries about bricking your card. Just flip the switch back to the other protected BIOS and re-flash the failed one.

Final Thoughts

Yes I am an AMD user, but seriously, how can anyone crown one card the overall winner over the other when they are so evenly matched. Simply put, you can't. Both of these cards run neck and neck, trading punches back and forth all the way down the charts, and they BOTH are still standing at the end of it all. Both of these cards kick ass, pure and simple.

So in the end, like I have said multiple times throughout this review, it's going to come down to YOU and your own preferences. For the love of Pete, if you are on the fence, do some research. Think for yourself, make an educated decision. Once you have done all that, and you still can't decide, go with whatever your fanboy heart tells you too.

My Personal Choice?

XFX Radeon HD 6990. Here are my personal reasons.

• Both cards are even when it comes to gaming. So no preference there.

• I could care less about synthetic benchmarks. So no preference there.

• Power consumption and heat. I have a power supply that's more than capable of powering both cards. I have a case that's more than capable of keeping them both nice and cool. So again, no preference here either.
  

• Noise level. The HD 6990 is louder, but I am one of the few that likes that. I was raised on loud cars and even louder music. I also have a case with 7 huge case fans, not including those on the processor, PSU, and RAM. I also game with high quality headphones and manually control my fan speeds. So I have to go with the HD 6990 on this one.

• CUDA and PhysX. Don't care for either. Why? AMD has DirectCompute and that works just fine for me. There are far fewer games that support PhysX than do. The simple fact of the matter is, most of the games out there and that are coming out over this next year do not use PhysX. They either use Havoc or their own physics engine. Game developers are not willing to alienate such a large portion of their customer base and use PhysX when it's proprietary and is only allowed to run on Nvidia cards, not when it comes to their money maker titles. It's far more logical to use an engine, or make one yourself, that runs on all cards, regardless of brand. So I have to go HD 6990 here too.

• Multi-display support. I like Eyefinity, Nvidia is just too new to multi-display gaming. The only reason the GTX 590 can even support 3 displays is because its a dual-GPU card. Where as most all modern AMD/ATI cards have support for 3, or more, displays. So the HD 6990 would be my choice. Not to mention that extra GB of VRAM.
  

• SLI or Crossfire. The GTX 590 scales better than the HD 6990. However, I would never run a multi-card setup with either card. There is no point. It's overkill and the only benefit from it would be bragging rights and synthetic scores. Neither mean a damn thing to me. If I am going to run a multi-card setup, I would run dual 6950's for under $500. You get great scaling, anywhere from 30 to 100% depending on the game. It's cheaper than both the 6990 and 590, and you get real performance boosts. Anything beyond that is back to bragging rights and synthetic numbers again. When we are already talking FPS numbers this high and stable with two cards in SLI or Crossfire, there is no point to go any further. The game will see no gameplay benefits. So I have no preference here.

• The BIOS/OC switch. I like that feature. I never have to worry about bricking my card and I can get that instant OC. If I buy XFX, my card is still covered when running at the OC rate of 880MHz. So I have to choose AMD over Nvidia on this one.

So there is my own personal thought process and why I would buy the HD 6990 over the GTX 590. That, and for the simple fact there are just too evenly matched and I would just have to go with my "fanboy" roots.

The point of this all is. Use your own thought process, make up your own mind, because based on all the facts these cards are equal. So I have to give kudos to both Nvidia and AMD for giving us two kick ass cards to choose from and that have the power to deliver great performance across the board. When the race is this close, the real winners are the end users. We are the ones that end up benefiting from the race. Each company pushing the envelope to try and come out on top and thus giving us more and more power to play with.

In the end though, why did I do all this, do I plan on actually buying one of these dual-GPU cards? The answer is no. I am very happy with my XFX 6950 2GB card as it powers through any and all games at all maximum settings at 1920x1080 with no problems. I do plan on Crossfire, but it will be two 6950's and that will have me set for what I do, game, for a good time to come. Both of these cards are overkill for someone like me and a waste of money in my opinion when available SLI and Crossfire solutions are often less expensive and offer similar performance and enough of an overall boost to keep any gamer playing at max everything. However, these are my own personal opinions. Like I say over and over, I am not an enthusiast, I am a realist.

I did this because even though I am an admitted AMD "fanboy", I get sick of all the BS, blind proclamations, and misguided information I see when I sit down and research these sorts of things. So it was a way for me to vent a little, bring together facts and information in one location for others to compare, and to share my opinions. So if someone finds all this useful, then great, I am not looking for anyone to agree or disagree with me. Just to think for themselves and look at the entire picture.

So who is the winner?

WE ARE!

In most all game benchmarks these cards are within only a few percent of each other. In a few they are all over the place because Nvidia and AMD cards are completely different architecture. I each and every case, these cards trade blows back and forth, and they BOTH come out standing at the end. Both cards would be fantastic for anyone looking for the best dual=GPU solution out there.

With AMD and Nvidia both competing this hard for top billing and the "Fastest Video Card in the World". We will be the ones that come out on top with better and faster maturing drivers, new features and technologies, and thus better gaming performance.

Want to follow the battle anyway? http://www.legitreviews.com/news/10358/

No matter what either company says. I stand by my conclusion, these cards are equal.