Fair enough, maybe I did. It was a while back to be fair. Bit sad you actually searched through the post to one up me, but hey, good show.
I‘d like to state for the record that my initial response to your tweets certainly wasn’t motivated by any ill will or warrior mentality. I don’t believe in that kind of thinking as a way of understanding the tech. It is all purely logical for me unless explicitly stated otherwise lol.
I knew of the bit of intellectual back and forth about RDNA 1/1.5/2, etc. We had the conference where Cerny mentions “custom RDNA 2.0 based” as well as Dr. Su pretty much confirming RDNA 2.0 and after reading your mention of RDNA 1.5 I was genuinely curious about your train of thought.
I might also add that, while you might feel it was sad for a member to search posts to strengthen a rebuttal or response, that’s fair game. I’d rather members attack one another’s logic and thinking/claims than one another personally (ad hominems).
As for the reasoning behind it, 1up or not, that’s fair game I think? and we’d ultimately have to ask his/her motivations for searching through your previous posts. Either way, once we hit “post reply” on these forums, we should brace ourselves or at least be prepared to discuss or elaborate further. We make claims, we publicly present those claims/thoughts and/or evidence and we submit them for all else to see, analyze, scrutinize, etc. I think it’s good work to do that (thoroughly searching and researching for a strong response) rather than relying on memory for example.
Thanks again for your tech thinking and sharing it
.