I guess he is talking about the competence. .

Just the "8 affaire" is what gives Nvidia a non so good reputation. (and I had two GPU of Nvidia)

Just look at last G2 for destop: gddr3 (laptop has gddr5), GTX 260 in 65 nm, then to 55 (there was two kind of this gpu in this aspect) and how "fast & not very tested" GTX 295 in double PCB was released, then single. All G2 still in Dx 10.0, not 10.1.

What did they both companies said in PC Gaming Alliance? "Less GPU per serie / easier nomenclatures & more popular prices".

I thing ATI is sticking much more to these 3 aspects than Nvidia. (and I am a Nvidia GPU user. But I am no close to change in a very near future )

Basically, they also announced dx 11 released first. So my GTX 260 is waiting to see if with the next GPU gen can move Crysis & STALKER Clear Sky (and Cryostasis) can be finally Dx 10 well move.

ArmA 2 or STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl (with Complete 2009 Mod) are Dx 9 heavy weights too.

Naaaa - I wouldn't support this.
Crytek never used any DX10-specific effects in crysis (well - these don't exist) and when the DX9 fall-back for the "very high"-setting was unlocked, the performance was worse then under DX10. So M$ didn't do anything wrong concerning the hardware-load of DX10 (well: actually how stupid would you have to be, to create tremendous hardware load by defining a couple of commands?).
It's just that Crysis doesn't offer DX10-optimization for sensible graphic parts. All DX10 was used for, were the (above mentioned) senseless features that don't contribute anything to game experience, but create tremendous hardware stress - even though using some of the optimization options DX10 offers.

I neither would agree, that nothing comes close to crysis A.I. or game-play vise. Game-play is basic shooter mechanics and several games (to name one: Deus Ex) in the past included additional elements, that gave much more game-play. And the A.I. in the demo level (I never played more, partily due to this) wasn't impressive at all, I thought it a lot worse then e.g. FarCry. (Though this might be due to the total lack of anything, that might be called "difficulty", in the demo.)

sorry i never should drag crysis in to this in the first place and i agree with u 100% developing a game such as crysis would take painstaking work for 3 years may be more,so anybody have right to criticize such intensive work in anyway.Other thing is after cry-tec done crysis stiill nobody in the whole universe didnt develop game could come close to crysis(im talk about every way graphic, A.I , game-play vise ).Only thing others developers did is when they couldnt develop a game like crysis they criticize it (90%).I actually tried to show here is how bad DX 10 in crysis.Crysis run very smoothly 1680x1050 high settings (DX9),but what about 1680x1050 very high (DX 10),so theres nothing worng done by cry-tec its just that dame new API DX10 (this is also apply to stalker).
Son's of *****es work at MS develop the worst API (DX10)in the history of visual-computing.MS is the biggest son of a ***** who holding the development of pc gaming.Why MS brought a new platform(xbox) to gaming when they already got huge platform (pc or windows) ,closing development studios loyal to pc games(Ensemble) and delaying pc version of games (Alen wake,bionic commnado,red faction,sprint cell conviction).They do this every thing to increase their junk box(xbox) sales and ruin pc as a game platform.Support pc as a gaming platform MS get nothing only the window sales but on consoles they get big chunks form hardware sales and psycho box(xbox) subscription.Now dont tell me im wrong.

Crysis displays a way higher level of graphic detail then Assassins Creed - so obviously it needs way more graphic power. If you reduce Crysis' level of detail to a setting, that is comparable to Assassins Creed, you get actually quite good framerates. I actually played the demo on a 7800GS and it worked finde, so I consider Crysis very well coded.
The designers just have to take a two year course on the topic "develop sensible graphics: how to discriminate between features, that add a lot to the overall visual experience at acceptable system requierments and features, that are a giant waste of computing power". 'cause very high detailed dynamic shadows, highly diversified terrain at every distance and multiple texture-layers and -effects on every surface take a huge toll on hardware requierments, even if they are coded well (and they are) - but they are absolutely unecessary, if you need two minutes and a direct comparision between with and without screenshots to notice them.

They were saying '' we dont deliver slower hardware '' so funny , how could they say such a thing.Here is the thing if programmers dont do the coding simply and efficiently no matter how powerful hardware would be performance go to hell.The perfect example is 8800 series cards can run very well optimize DX 10 games like Far cry 2,Hawx and Assianss creed very smoothly but what about crysis and stalker clears sky running on DX 10.