Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD vs Nvidia for GPUs?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 25, 2014 7:20:52 PM

So what are the pros and cons for each company's GPUs?

Also, what about AMD vs Intel for CPUs?

More about : amd nvidia gpus

May 25, 2014 8:44:54 PM

suming up, performance for best value u choose amd for cpu and gpu.
best performance in cpus in gaming definately intel take a huge advantage.

gpus are very similar price and performance. give it a square

m
0
l
a c 467 à CPUs
a c 138 À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 25, 2014 8:48:03 PM

Intel nvidia gpu pros- better drivers and support, typically cooler, quieter, and more efficient
Intel nvidia gpu cons- more expensive. Harder to SLI

AMD gpu pros- better bang for buck. Easier to crossfire
AMD gpu cons- hot and loud (usually), lacking in driver support sometimes

Intel cpu pros- faster, quieter, more efficient
Intel cpu cons- none

AMD cpu pros- none for the FX line. The A series have superior graphics.
AMD cpu cons- hotter, louder, weak cores, old and outdated platform, way less efficient, power hungry






Wait what? Shouldn't AMD have a few advantages?

Don't they offer more cores? Yeah they do but is it really an advantage when each core is so weak?
Well aren't AMDs cheaper? Yeah they are if you slap them in a cheap motherboard and don't overclock, but then performance will suffer, so by the time you get a decent motherboard and aftermarket cooler, the price advantage is gone.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 25, 2014 8:53:48 PM

That CPU factor was abit favoring Intel too much CTurbo, you put no pros on the AMD cpus. The cost of an AMD cpu's electricity bill is just $10 more and the CPU is so much cheaper. Not like you're going to be using the CPU for more than 5 years or anything. And AMD cpus do the job at half the price of Intel ... You should put Intel cpu cons: twice the price. Because AMD can't manufacture anything to compete above I5 Intel can overprice their I7s I'm using I7 myself so I'm not a fanboy ... But you're just being a fanboy ...
m
2
l
May 25, 2014 8:55:31 PM

Intel has very bad GPUs, unless you mean Nvidia. Nvidia and AMD are competitors.
m
0
l
a c 467 à CPUs
a c 138 À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 25, 2014 9:07:49 PM

But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.
m
0
l
May 26, 2014 4:27:33 AM

CTurbo said:
Intel gpu pros- better drivers and support, typically cooler, quieter, and more efficient
Intel gpu cons- more expensive. Harder to SLI

AMD gpu pros- better bang for buck. Easier to crossfire
AMD gpu cons- hot and loud (usually), lacking in driver support sometimes

Intel cpu pros- faster, quieter, more efficient
Intel cpu cons- none

AMD cpu pros- none for the FX line. The A series have superior graphics.
AMD cpu cons- hotter, louder, weak cores, old and outdated platform, way less efficient, power hungry






Wait what? Shouldn't AMD have a few advantages?

Don't they offer more cores? Yeah they do but is it really an advantage when each core is so weak?
Well aren't AMDs cheaper? Yeah they are if you slap them in a cheap motherboard and don't overclock, but then performance will suffer, so by the time you get a decent motherboard and aftermarket cooler, the price advantage is gone.


Intel makes GPUs? The only GPU I heard Intel make are the integrated ones
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 4:46:57 AM

CTurbo said:
But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.


Exactly. Even in Battlefield 4, which uses all 8 cores perfectly with Mantle, the i5-4670 still beats the FX-8350 by 2-3 fps.

In most games, barring the rare 6 or 8 core optimized ones (aren't there like 5 of those in the world now, compared to hundreds of dual and quad optimized?), the gap is so wide an i3 will outperform an FX-6300.

Kaveri APUs are their only advantage, and on the CPU side those are still poor. It's only on the GPU side they marginally beat out Intel's 4600 chipset. And any serious gaming PC is not going to be relying on integrated graphics either way.
m
0
l
May 26, 2014 7:29:18 AM

APUs are only good for $400-800 budget range, everybody still has to admit Intel destroys AMD in the CPU side :)  Nvidia has better default cooling than AMD But currently AMD has the highest card with the R9 295X2 taking the lead as the Titan Z was delayed. Otherwise I would say Nvidia and Intel are better at the high end and AMD is better when you're budgeting :) 
m
0
l
May 26, 2014 8:40:54 AM

CTurbo said:
Intel gpu pros- better drivers and support, typically cooler, quieter, and more efficient
Intel gpu cons- more expensive. Harder to SLI

AMD gpu pros- better bang for buck. Easier to crossfire
AMD gpu cons- hot and loud (usually), lacking in driver support sometimes

Intel cpu pros- faster, quieter, more efficient
Intel cpu cons- none

AMD cpu pros- none for the FX line. The A series have superior graphics.
AMD cpu cons- hotter, louder, weak cores, old and outdated platform, way less efficient, power hungry






Wait what? Shouldn't AMD have a few advantages?

Don't they offer more cores? Yeah they do but is it really an advantage when each core is so weak?
Well aren't AMDs cheaper? Yeah they are if you slap them in a cheap motherboard and don't overclock, but then performance will suffer, so by the time you get a decent motherboard and aftermarket cooler, the price advantage is gone.



*nvidia gpu's
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 26, 2014 10:20:58 AM

CTurbo said:
But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.


Exactly right.
m
0
l
May 26, 2014 5:49:11 PM

CTurbo said:
But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.


Amd biggest advantage is value for money. I get the same fps (in bf4) with my fx 4350 than my friends i7 4770k. We both have the same gpu (290 windforce) and the only difference is that he gets slightly higher minimun and maximun fps but the difference is lower than 5 fps and that is not worth an extra 200$ IMO. Intel is better performance wise but amd just destroys in value for money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 6:29:33 PM

djcm9819 said:
CTurbo said:
But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.


Amd biggest advantage is value for money. I get the same fps (in bf4) with my fx 4350 than my friends i7 4770k. We both have the same gpu (290 windforce) and the only difference is that he gets slightly higher minimun and maximun fps but the difference is lower than 5 fps and that is not worth an extra 200$ IMO. Intel is better performance wise but amd just destroys in value for money.


Ehm... I don't think you understand entirely how framerates work.
In BF4 and i5-4440 would run just as well as an i7-4770K assuming you're only going for 60 fps, because the GPU is almost always the bottleneck.

I could just as easily say Intel is a better value because an i3-4360 ($150) runs BF4 almost as well as an FX-9590 ($350).


And anyway, an i3-4130 performs better in most games than the FX-6300, and they cost the same. So your "AMD destroys Intel in value" is entirely false.
m
0
l
May 26, 2014 9:07:12 PM

9590 is a disaster, bulldozer is bad. Who buys 9590 anyway?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:26:28 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
AMD all the way man, Nvidia is overpriced and Overrated... screw Intel too also overpriced/overrated/over-hyped haha


Several people here have posted reasons for why Intel beats AMD in a cost/performance ratio in nearly every way. And why Nvidia and AMD are on roughly equal footing for video cards.

If you want to ignore all the evidence and just say "Intel and Nvidia suks lolz" it just makes you look stupid.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:33:21 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
No that's bullshit, Nvidia has far more reliability problems... and Intel is just bunch marketing over-hyped ### haha.

Language - SS



I've had an Nvidia card for 5 years, and another so far for 2 years, neither has caused any problems. Nvidia fail rates are extremely low, same as AMD card fail rates. That's a bullshit claim you made, and I would love to see your "proof".

And an i3-4130 outperforms an FX-6300 in most games.

Saying 'shit' and 'haha' a lot is making you look worse. Like a hyper 14 year old. Calm down and make cohesive points instead of baseless claims. When you say "all the benchmarks lie" it just makes you look ridiculous. Is that your way of saying you have no evidence to support your claims?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:37:36 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
again more bullshit no way does the i3 4130 outperform the fx 6300 haha.


In Skyrim and Shogun 2 the i3-4130 performs better than the non-overclocked FX-8350. The FX-6300 is too low to even rank.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:40:15 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
Hell you can OC the #### out of an FX 4300 and destroy that i3 4130 hahaha

Language - SS


Prove it.
And don't forget, by the time you add an aftermarket cooler and 990FX motherboard, the cost of an FX-4300 will be higher than most Intel CPUs. So your price/performance ratio gets tossed out the window.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:49:42 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
No I'm not saying to get/or buy a 4300 at all just not worth that when the 6300 is about same price/a little more and better performance...


I wasn't going to get an FX-4300. The problem is you're making all sorts of claims about how AMD is better, when every test in almost every games puts an i3 ahead of the FX-6300, and they cost the same. If you're overclocking an FX CPU, it will cost more.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:53:04 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
Benchmarks can be deceiving haha


Yes. For example, most out-of-game benchmarks like Passmark use all cores equally, and therefore unrealistically favor AMD CPUs. In actual games, which usually only use 2-4 cores, Intel CPUs are much faster.

So benchmarks can be deceiving. They sometimes hide just how far ahead Intel is.
And of course, in-game benchmarks are usually entirely accurate, which is why the i3-4130 beats the FX-6300 in those.
m
0
l
a c 193 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 9:54:58 PM

@Hardwarefreak88 Please keep the language civil. You're skirting a ban for trolling and profanity; this is a warning.

I'm not going to get into this debate.
m
0
l
May 26, 2014 10:22:25 PM

Od keep in mind that Nvidia has the GPU Physix effect along with many others. I don't know about AMD, but Nvidia also provides you with a free pgorgam that automaticly adjusts your game settings, updates your drivers and if possible, controlls your LED lights on the GPU. It can also record the screen of your game, and while it is still in BETA, I've tried it many times and I'l quite satisfied with the video quality. Many games also like to partner with Nvidia. I would personally go for Nvidia, but I don't know the state of the AMD market that well, yet I think Nvidia is a good choice.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 10:47:04 PM

Hardwarefreak88 said:
come on man battlefield is tailored to run with AMD/ATI xD


Yes, BF4 is one of the few games where AMD CPUs are actually a better value. An FX-8350 in BF4 gets roughly the same performance as an i5-4670k and costs ~$40 less.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 26, 2014 11:00:07 PM

Sarloh said:
From what I know Nvidia has Physx. This is a video I found showing it off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x9B_4qBAkk


Yes. PhysX is one of the main reasons I continue to buy Nvidia cards. I strongly support better physics and dynamic effects.
m
0
l
a c 193 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 27, 2014 12:40:47 AM

As I understand it, it doesn't do anything for the actual underlying game physics; it's just better mass particle effects.
m
0
l
May 27, 2014 12:59:32 AM

All this fanboy going on is bullshit, I own AMD, Intel and Nvidia. From what I see AMD seems to be the buck banger of the three, AMD does run hot with stock coolers though. Nvidia seems to be more on the quality side than performance. I've been using Intel cpus since 2002 when I was just a little boy playing make ice cream games and the learn with me maths games, etc.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2014 7:17:49 AM

I thought this was a GPU discussion between Nvidia and AMD? Suddenly it turns into a CPU war with fanboys ranting and carrying on.

First off: Nvidia isn't intel. Ok?

Secondly: It doesn't matter what CPU you have. You can stick an Nvidia gpu into an AMD system, and AMD GPU into an intel system, no problems. I see this silly question come up all the time, where people believe they need to pair AMD cpus with AMD gpus, or Intel CPUs with Nvidia GPUs...you don't. Get whatever you want in the either department and they will all work fine.

Now, I have had issues with different games from both GPU companies products. Both have had, and do have, their standouts. Both have been, and will be, at the top at various moment. I have loved TNTs, my Geforce 256, my 6800GT...and I have loved my Radeons, both ATI and AMD. Currently, I run AMD because it really is the best bang for the buck...at the moment.

And that is the key. Both sides have their strengths at different times. From my experience, you cannot go wrong with either, they are both great product lineups.

AMD + Nvidia = Win for us, either way. Let us hope they both stay healthy and competitive for the future to come.
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 27, 2014 7:20:29 AM

sapperastro said:


AMD + Nvidia = Win for us, either way. Let us hope they both stay healthy and competitive for the future to come.


You've just disregarded the evidence I've posted to make an unsupported claim. Good for you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2014 7:37:55 AM

Rationale said:
sapperastro said:


AMD + Nvidia = Win for us, either way. Let us hope they both stay healthy and competitive for the future to come.


You've just disregarded the evidence I've posted to make an unsupported claim. Good for you.


Oh god, it is one of the fanboys from earlier...what cardinal sin have I made this time? Daring to say I enjoy both GPU manufacturers products?



m
0
l
May 27, 2014 8:59:53 AM

Don't mind the fanboys sapper, they always say ridiculous things :p 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 27, 2014 3:30:24 PM

sapperastro said:
Rationale said:
sapperastro said:


AMD + Nvidia = Win for us, either way. Let us hope they both stay healthy and competitive for the future to come.


You've just disregarded the evidence I've posted to make an unsupported claim. Good for you.


Oh god, it is one of the fanboys from earlier...what cardinal sin have I made this time? Daring to say I enjoy both GPU manufacturers products?





Hang on, I wasn't saying anything about GPUs. AMD and Nvidia make good GPUs. I thought you were saying Nvidia GPU + AMD CPU. And AMD CPUs are very far behind.
m
0
l
May 27, 2014 5:56:40 PM

Rationale said:
djcm9819 said:
CTurbo said:
But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.


Amd biggest advantage is value for money. I get the same fps (in bf4) with my fx 4350 than my friends i7 4770k. We both have the same gpu (290 windforce) and the only difference is that he gets slightly higher minimun and maximun fps but the difference is lower than 5 fps and that is not worth an extra 200$ IMO. Intel is better performance wise but amd just destroys in value for money.


Ehm... I don't think you understand entirely how framerates work.
In BF4 and i5-4440 would run just as well as an i7-4770K assuming you're only going for 60 fps, because the GPU is almost always the bottleneck.

I could just as easily say Intel is a better value because an i3-4360 ($150) runs BF4 almost as well as an FX-9590 ($350).


And anyway, an i3-4130 performs better in most games than the FX-6300, and they cost the same. So your "AMD destroys Intel in value" is entirely false.



Not really amd does have better value for money over intel overall. I get what you mean saying that intels i3 does have good value for money but overall it performs worse than similarilly priced amd ones(fx 43xx, 63xx). Also in most games the gpu is the bottleneck so just get one that won't bottleneck your gpu and your all set.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 27, 2014 6:44:18 PM

djcm9819 said:
Rationale said:
djcm9819 said:
CTurbo said:
But AMD doesn't have even one advantage. Name one. Having more cores for the money is the only thing they even remotely have to any advantage unless you want to talk about the A series superior igpu. Ok fair enough. That one I didn't think about earlier.


Amd biggest advantage is value for money. I get the same fps (in bf4) with my fx 4350 than my friends i7 4770k. We both have the same gpu (290 windforce) and the only difference is that he gets slightly higher minimun and maximun fps but the difference is lower than 5 fps and that is not worth an extra 200$ IMO. Intel is better performance wise but amd just destroys in value for money.


Ehm... I don't think you understand entirely how framerates work.
In BF4 and i5-4440 would run just as well as an i7-4770K assuming you're only going for 60 fps, because the GPU is almost always the bottleneck.

I could just as easily say Intel is a better value because an i3-4360 ($150) runs BF4 almost as well as an FX-9590 ($350).


And anyway, an i3-4130 performs better in most games than the FX-6300, and they cost the same. So your "AMD destroys Intel in value" is entirely false.



Not really amd does have better value for money over intel overall. I get what you mean saying that intels i3 does have good value for money but overall it performs worse than similarilly priced amd ones(fx 43xx, 63xx). Also in most games the gpu is the bottleneck so just get one that won't bottleneck your gpu and your all set.


I have posted links of the i3-4130 outperforming the FX-6300 in several games.
m
0
l
a c 193 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 27, 2014 11:42:25 PM

That said, there are still many games when it goes the other way, and the FX is OCable.

From the Best CPUs for the money article:
Quote:
The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs $10 less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.
m
0
l
May 27, 2014 11:54:33 PM

CPU war when this was a question asking about Nvidia vs AMD? :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 28, 2014 12:26:05 AM

Someone Somewhere said:
That said, there are still many games when it goes the other way, and the FX is OCable.

From the Best CPUs for the money article:
Quote:
The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs $10 less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.


Don't forget, actually overclocking the FX-6300 will cost an absolute minimum of $50 extra between a new cooler and stronger motherboard.
They're both good values, but I'm hesitant to ever call an unlocked multiplier a significant advantage considering to utilize it you'll need to spend enough that you could just upgrade to a better CPU from the start.

I'm not what you'd call an Intel fanboy; I will defend any company which uses less power, on that merit alone if necessary. Though in this case Intel actually happens to have a speed advantage in many games as well. People tend to disregard green computing, but it's becoming more and more necessary all the time. AMD lost my support when they released generation after generation of 100-200w CPUs. That's pretty ridiculous power consumption under load. I would love to see AMD make a return next generation with low wattage true 8-core CPUs, or hell, even true 4-core CPUs again like the early Phenoms and Athlons. But when the performance is so close between a budget i3 and a budget FX, I can't in good conscience recommend a CPU that takes more than double the power under load.

And it really does get annoying after a while, people saying AMD has much better value, after I've seen many benchmarks show a $100 Intel CPU and a $100 AMD CPU trade blows from game to game.

On the GPU side, more to the actual topic, I'm impressed with the performance AMD was able to deliver on the R series of video cards for a relatively low cost. Their power consumption is more under control now as well. I won't move away from PhysX, but for people not playing PhysX or HBAO supported games, I generally recommend AMD GPUs.
m
0
l
a c 193 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
May 28, 2014 12:55:21 AM

AMD's motherboards tend to be cheaper in the first place, though. A decent-ish B85 board is going to set you back ~$60, while a comparable cheap AM3+ board is going to be ~$50. To get a reasonably OCable AM3+ board, you can spend ~$70.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
June 2, 2014 6:54:22 PM

I use Amd. The main reason was price. Also the performance was more more tham I really needed. That said my next
Build may very well be intel based. It will still be more than I need. I have used Nvidia it did not work for me. So I use an
Amd Video Card. But I am thankful for the competition. Intel vs Amd and Amd vs Nvidia. Hopefully you will all rememder
that without these brands competing, prices would be higher and the technology would not be as good. So we all need a
liitle respect for all these brands as well as one another. Just saying. So what ever Brand you use. good for you.
Share
!