Is there actually a difference?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
PC-Noobist

PC-Noobist

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2014
296
0
18,910
Is there actually a difference between AMD and NVIDIA? is there actually much wrong with AMD other than temps and power and the occasional driver? (i realise both have issues) Also what actually handles graphics? The card or the engine? Does it matter between cards with graphics in terms of visuals? Or does the engine handle the graphics and the card adds performance to handle the engine? sorry about all the questions i like to try and know all i possibly can. Thanks :)
 
Solution
MagicPants
You can buy a GSync monitor already, you can't buy one with adaptive timing. Nvidia 3d monitors were on the market for at least a year before anyone bothered to do it with AMD (without cludging up the drivers).

Mantel is okay, but what it does more than anything is allow a good gpu to take over some of the workload from a bad cpu. In most cases it's not that useful. Not to mention it requires special coding, You didn't see Glide supported in games after DX came out, and DX12 is going to make Mantel largely irrelevant.

That said, all of my current cards are AMD (2 7870s and 2 290xs) because I don't like the fact that all of Nvidia's stuff is proprietary, I'd rather support open standards. BUT... Nvidia, does get the tech first...
Sort by date Sort by votes
emdea22

emdea22

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2011
1,689
0
20,460
AMD has more raw power but its architecture makes using it a bit harder. NVIDIA has a more uniform style, all of its CUDA cores are in theory identical whereas AMDs cores have different functions. Both have its pros and cons. Since nvidia can optimize better it can achieve good performance with little power where AMD has to brute force until it can optimize. So in a nutshell nvidia has better optimization while amd has better brute-force. I like both honestly but with Mantle AMD has the upper hand as it can fully utilize its GPUs.

Hope it helped. I'm certainly no expert on this but i think this is the general idea.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MagicPants

MagicPants

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2006
1,315
0
19,660
It depends on the game. Watch Dogs for instance has some graphic effects that only work on nvidia (enhanced shadows I think), while Tomb Raider has better hair on AMD.

Nvidia's SLI also tends to work better(fewer bugs) than AMD's crossfire. I do find that AMD's cards tend to support newer DX features better than Nvidia, as they seem to be a little more general propose than Nvidia. Also AMD works a little better with multi-display setups.

Nvidia has better product integration, from stereoscopic 3d, to streaming to a tablet, and g-sync. Nvidia got there first, and is leading the way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JUICEhunter

JUICEhunter

Honorable
Oct 23, 2013
1,391
0
11,960
Both have great high/mid/low end cards, I always use videocardbenchmark.net to figure out what the best bang for my buck is which is why over the years I've ended up with a 6850/670/780ti and each GPU has felt like a new computer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

dkulprit

Honorable
Nov 29, 2012
314
0
10,860
"Nvidia has better product integration, from stereoscopic 3d, to streaming to a tablet, and g-sync. Nvidia got there first, and is leading the way."

Not really anymore. Since VESA announced all DP will have an active sync technology, their great innovation that would require you to either buy a special, unique , expensive monitor; or take apart and mount an expensive chip into a monitor you already had has been wiped.

AMD has mantle, which allows developers to code using their API that allows them directly take advantage of every aspect of their cards. Which means better graphics, better fps, more detail , etc without having to purchase more expensive equipment or mod your current equipment.

Up until the recent AMD reshuffle Nvidia beat AMD hands down. Sure AMD cards worked, but blow for blow Nvidia beat AMD in every aspect. This got their heads pretty big and they could charge high prices for low innovation.

Since the shuffle at AMD, AMD has been consumer focused that gives the consumer the best innovation without passing the cost onto the consumer. Nvidia really needs to change their mentality if they want to stay competitive in the gaming market.

TL;DR:

Nvidia makes solid cards that are worth the cost if you are also doing editing or graphics.

AMD makes solid cards that are great for gaming at a great cost that allows you to benefit from their innovation with software updates instead of having to purchase more equipment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MagicPants

MagicPants

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2006
1,315
0
19,660
You can buy a GSync monitor already, you can't buy one with adaptive timing. Nvidia 3d monitors were on the market for at least a year before anyone bothered to do it with AMD (without cludging up the drivers).

Mantel is okay, but what it does more than anything is allow a good gpu to take over some of the workload from a bad cpu. In most cases it's not that useful. Not to mention it requires special coding, You didn't see Glide supported in games after DX came out, and DX12 is going to make Mantel largely irrelevant.

That said, all of my current cards are AMD (2 7870s and 2 290xs) because I don't like the fact that all of Nvidia's stuff is proprietary, I'd rather support open standards. BUT... Nvidia, does get the tech first.



 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom