@jason
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
I suspect the 4+4 design isn’t finalised yet or isn’t in the production chain. AMD could have sent a cobbled 8+8 design out to reviewers, but that would have been no use if retail units weren’t available to buy at launch. I think it’s a case that AMD were anxious to get something on the shelves and not so much that if there was a killer 4+4 chip we’d have seen it by now.
I still reckon a 4+ GHz 4+4 chip, especially at around £200, will give a serious headache to Intel.
There’s no weight to the Joy-Cons, so they’d be difficult to break. They do include the HD Rumble feature, a camera, IR sensor, and the usual motion sensors, however, so I guess there’s a lot inside that could become damaged!
No Mercedes. Jukebox Nismo RS.
Got mine from Tesco. No-one else had the neon version (coloured Joy-Cons) available, not even Amazon. I also ordered the standard grey one, which also arrived on launch day. I’ll be sending that back to Amazon unopened. The limited-edition Zelda came direct from Nintendo — again, no-one else had it available.
Hadn’t thought about the screen issue you mention, but seeing that the device can live its entire life in the dock, with the screen off, I would think that a damaged screen would not affect continued use as a TV console. As you say, there may be some gotcha — no doubt someone will tell us soon enough!
The game is, quite frankly, a work of art.
Dave Rice should be ashamed of himself. 😉
Sorry, Bob. 😉
Definitely playing the long game, MS. Longer than they imagined, I suspect — the original Xbox is over 15 years old.
Up to a point, I agree. But they shift millions of each new release, and they’re always eagerly awaited. So there’s a steady, undiminished market, even for the “HD” retreads of older titles. Like I say, if the company is turning a profit, if a small one, and maintaining its profile in the market, why would it be all that concerned if the Xbox outsells it. As far as I know, Microsoft has never made a cent out of its Xbox division, so which company is really the most successful?
Volume for vanity; profit for sanity.
I agree that my experiences don’t necessarily indicate a trend. I was just pointing out that there’s more than one way to measure success. If the company is turning a profit, I would count that as success. You also said that “no-one” bought the Wii U and that no-one used the Wii or bought games for it, as “we all realised we’d been duped”. Those statements are clearly false. That was my only point. As for relying on ’80s IP, that’s true enough, but when the games still sell in the millions and are eagerly awaited, does it matter?
Yes, we have a 3DS. A great machine it is, too. No idea how much they cost now. Got it at launch.
Agreed. Customer service is outstanding.
A rare cock-up, then. Happens. However, almost every day, I get customers saying, “My parcel hasn’t arrived. Where is it?” And when I check, the Amazon tracking shows it’s arrived, sometimes to a neighbour. I always reply back with, “My sincere apologies. It seems you may be the victim of postal fraud or theft. I will need to contact the police and obtain a crime number. The police may contact you. I take these matters very seriously. I’ll get back to you when I have more information from the police. In the meantime, again, my sincere apologies.”
Strange, but 19 times out of 20, I either hear nothing further or receive a message stating that it’s been found.
Amazon do cock up, but not often.
Nintendo are probably on their last chance with the switch, if this one doesn’t deliver, they are finished as a hardware firm, to much hype with little end product. The wii promised loads, and sold loads, but no one actually used them or bought games, as we all realised we had been duped. So no one bought the Wii U. The switch is trading on the DS success and Mario and Zelda. However if Zelda and mario are the highlight (ie no other decent titles on a decent sale) and if the hardware isn’t what the massive hype is hyping it as. Nintendo will be trading on creating mario games for android and ios within 2 year.
You’ve obviously never visited our house. My son and I have sessions on the Wii U whenever he comes back from uni (and the Wii is still plugged in). We’ll be playing Zelda on the Switch today when he returns — launch day today, and I have both ready to go.
You’re forgetting that Nintendo is still posting profits, despite the “failure” of the Wii U. Folks have been talking about the company’s demise since about 1996, when the N64 launched with cartridges instead of CDs. The reality has always been somewhat different to the “alternative facts”.
I don’t expect the Switch to outsell the other two main consoles. Nowhere near. But I’m confident it’ll sell well enough to keep Nintendo in business and to give joy to those many games players who take pleasure from the key Nintendo franchises and appreciate games made with a passion and dedication to detail and excellence that no other publisher comes close to matching.
The Ars review is very biased and overlooks some important factors.
First, it’s clear that AMD’s version of Hyper-Threading isn’t yet working in many titles. Some games benefit from having it turned off. That’s not right, and quick patches to games — not hard to do — should see noticeably gains.
Second, clock-for-clock, AMD is in general only 10-15% behind Intel, and as above, some of that ground may be made up. But here’s the thing. Those extra 4+4 cores aren’t in general any help in games, so clock-for-clock it’s likely that the 4+4 versions of Ryzen will game pretty much the same as the 8+8 versions.
But AMD will be able to ramp up the clocks. The main reason the i7-7700K puts in such a strong hand against the 1800X is because it’s clocked 600 MHz, or 17%, higher. A 4+ GHz 4+4 Ryzen will close the gap significantly, and my guess is it’ll come in at around £200. Would you take a 10% drop in performance for a saving of £120 over an i7-7700K? I would.
We’ve not seen the whole picture yet. Ars and so on are rabbiting on that AMD’s shares dropped 7% on news that gaming performance wasn’t all that. This is true. What Ars failed to mention was that AMD shares were up about 700% on where they were this time last year, so a 7% drop is all but meaningless.
It’s a little bizarre, as clock-for-clock it seems to beat the i7-6900K, even in games, yet clock-for-clock it doesn’t beat the i7-7700K. Yet the underlying cores of both those i7s are more-or-less the same. I’m not sure we’ve got the full picture yet. As things stand, the R7 1800X will eat into some of the very top end, but it won’t eat into the high-end mainstream, as the i7-7700K is cheaper (significantly).
All the action may well be in the i5 space and below, where if the price is right, the R5 and R3 chips could seriously hurt Intel. A 4 GHz 6+6 design at $199 is likely to walk all over an i5, as is a 4+4 design over the i3. I have yet to hear word of any Ryzens with less than 4+4, so there could be some real bargains in the Pentium space.
Still very good value, indeed. Remarkable, in fact.
Maybe, but the original Zero can still be hard to find, and it’s limited to one per customer, which is a problem for folks buying them for schools or bigger projects.
$10 (£9.60) is the official price, not a marked up price.
A couple more questions. Is this a touch screen or a touch pad. Does it show up in device manager and have you tried refresh devices if it dosn’t ?
It’s a small laptop with a touchscreen. It has a touchpad. If it didn’t, no cursor would appear anyway unless a plug-in mouse were used — it would just be a tablet.
Nice, though the price has actually doubled. It’s $10, or £9.60 at UK stockists (all sold out).
I would say you’ve probably pressed a button on the keyboard area, or some function-key combination, that has disabled the touchpad. These buttons are quite common, for use when you’re using a plugged-in mouse and you don’t want inadvertent clicks or movement from the touchpad. Have a good look around the keyboard for some symbol that looks like a touchpad.
They borrowed it? When are they giving it back? 😉
-
AuthorPosts
