Show Posts

I'm talking about sli and high resolutions.

Obviously the GTX 690 is better at normal gaming, but it's just that the Titan, a single GPU card is able to keep up with a GTX 690, a dual GPU card which is fantastic. It's like they packed the GTX 690 into a smaller card.

The Titan was made to handle huge resolutions and take huge advantage of sli.

A tri-sli or even sli Titans will be able to beat quad-sli GTX 690.

I mean there's even instances where a single Titan will be faster than tri-sli Titans.
And no I'm not trying to hate against the GTX 690, it's definitely the fastest card out there today (not counting workstation GPUs), but the Titan can keep up without a sweat.

But both cards are way too overrated.

9170

Off Topic / Re: Sorry

« on: May 19, 2013, 06:53:54 PM »

Brodude12345 was hilarious. It's almost as if he is handicapped, oh wait.

9171

Off Topic / Re: Another year on this planet

« on: May 19, 2013, 04:45:12 PM »

2 more years and you're legal. if you know what i mean, if you catch my drift, if you can solve the puzzle, if you can gather the pieces ive laid out for you.

9172

Off Topic / Re: I might return a GTX 670 FTW

« on: May 19, 2013, 03:23:32 PM »

based on a lot of benchmarks and tests, the titan is better than a gtx 690 or 7990 at higher resolution gaming.

9173

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 19, 2013, 11:45:35 AM »

Quote from: Nymethus on May 19, 2013, 11:36:35 AM

A thermonuclear weapon is a type of nuclear weapon. Anyway, you should watch the video since you seem interested in the subject.

no thanks. I like educational videos, not random conspiracies that are pulled from thin air.

Quote from: devildogelite on May 19, 2013, 11:28:57 AM

But how does a building collapse on itself, that's not how they're designed! Oh wait, that's exactly what they're designed to do if they're going to fall!

that's not what I'm trying to say. I meant that you can clearly see the building starts to go down from the middle or where the airplane hit it and it just goes down. but if a thermo-nuclear demolition happened basically the tower would fall down into a hole without damaging it's upper level that much until it's completely gone as it goes down.
hard to explain but from the looks of it, it never happened.

and I think OP said that it turns the building into dust, which it doesn't. the building collapsed and it got completely pulverized due to the building collapsing(shock)

9174

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 19, 2013, 11:07:33 AM »

Quote from: Menen on May 19, 2013, 11:02:12 AM

Or, you know. Several thousand tons of steel, stone, and glass falling 100 stories to the earth won't produce the same effect.

Its obvious you have never seen any of the aftershots of the tower's rubble. Also don't you think if a nuke went off, there would be radiation?

He's talking about thermo-nuclear demolition, which is real but it doesn't have the same effects as an actual nuclear bomb.

Anyway, this 'thermo-nuclear demolition' never happened. One of the towers begins to fall on itself from the middle, if a nuclear demolition would've happened the tower would've collapsed on itself from the bottom. There was also an explosion in the middle of one of the towers from the fuel and fire which caused it to fall and weaken the other tower.

The proof of this being an actual thermo-nuclear demolition is almost 1 to none.

Edit: and 1 being that they found chemicals around the site, which could've been from anywhere like the tower itself or the airplanes.

9175