Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

NVIDIA vs AMD

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 11, 2014 2:55:03 PM

NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.

More about : nvidia amd

June 11, 2014 3:05:42 PM

AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...
m
0
l
June 11, 2014 3:12:40 PM

Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 11, 2014 3:21:05 PM

AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.



well for you, it doesnt seem like you'd be someone interested in physx by nvidia, then theres no reason not to get amd....The r7 265 is a good card...i'd suggest choosing an aftermarket card though, amd cards suffer alot from throttling....as long as you get an Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, XFX or MSI, you can choose which one you like better and which one fits your budget, (there isnt a tonne of difference between these different aftermarket cards)
m
0
l
June 11, 2014 3:28:43 PM

Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.



well for you, it doesnt seem like you'd be someone interested in physx by nvidia, then theres no reason not to get amd....The r7 265 is a good card...i'd suggest choosing an aftermarket card though, amd cards suffer alot from throttling....as long as you get an Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, XFX or MSI, you can choose which one you like better and which one fits your budget, (there isnt a tonne of difference between these different aftermarket cards)

I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see, example: http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/K/282152/original/Rad-vs...

m
0
l

Best solution

June 11, 2014 3:35:02 PM

AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.



well for you, it doesnt seem like you'd be someone interested in physx by nvidia, then theres no reason not to get amd....The r7 265 is a good card...i'd suggest choosing an aftermarket card though, amd cards suffer alot from throttling....as long as you get an Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, XFX or MSI, you can choose which one you like better and which one fits your budget, (there isnt a tonne of difference between these different aftermarket cards)

I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.



honestly you dont even need to consider such things. the only reason someone would go for nvidia is for physx (you're not confusing physx with v-sync are you?)....amd has their free-sync technology and nvidia's g-sync monitors are pretty expensive (unless you decide on modding your own) so for you it is no question you'll be better off with amd, you'll get better performance for longer ...btw free-sync and adaptive v-sync fulfil the same purpose


the results of activating v-sync differ from system to system....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing
Share
June 11, 2014 3:48:52 PM

Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.



well for you, it doesnt seem like you'd be someone interested in physx by nvidia, then theres no reason not to get amd....The r7 265 is a good card...i'd suggest choosing an aftermarket card though, amd cards suffer alot from throttling....as long as you get an Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, XFX or MSI, you can choose which one you like better and which one fits your budget, (there isnt a tonne of difference between these different aftermarket cards)

I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.



honestly you dont even need to consider such things. the only reason someone would go for nvidia is for physx (you're not confusing physx with v-sync are you?)....amd has their free-sync technology and nvidia's g-sync monitors are pretty expensive (unless you decide on modding your own) so for you it is no question you'll be better off with amd, you'll get better performance for longer ...btw free-sync and adaptive v-sync fulfil the same purpose


the results of activating v-sync differ from system to system....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing

I don't follow the technology too often, but, is FreeSync even released? Do I need to buy a monitor that supports FreeSync? If not, is it a software that is downloadable?
m
0
l
June 11, 2014 3:58:20 PM

AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.



well for you, it doesnt seem like you'd be someone interested in physx by nvidia, then theres no reason not to get amd....The r7 265 is a good card...i'd suggest choosing an aftermarket card though, amd cards suffer alot from throttling....as long as you get an Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, XFX or MSI, you can choose which one you like better and which one fits your budget, (there isnt a tonne of difference between these different aftermarket cards)

I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.



honestly you dont even need to consider such things. the only reason someone would go for nvidia is for physx (you're not confusing physx with v-sync are you?)....amd has their free-sync technology and nvidia's g-sync monitors are pretty expensive (unless you decide on modding your own) so for you it is no question you'll be better off with amd, you'll get better performance for longer ...btw free-sync and adaptive v-sync fulfil the same purpose


the results of activating v-sync differ from system to system....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing

I don't follow the technology too often, but, is FreeSync even released? Do I need to buy a monitor that supports FreeSync? If not, is it a software that is downloadable?



Freesync is a technology that is still in development, it was showcased at this year's E3....as far as i know, Freesync doesnt require any additional hardware (unlike nvidia's G-sync) and whenever freesync becomes available, i think it'll be like a downloadable driver/ software
m
0
l
June 11, 2014 4:05:32 PM

Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.



you need to change that psu (the 'cx' series from corsair are not reliable)...and only 1x4gb memory? (i would suggest 2x4gb)....now to answer your question, these cards are very very similar in performance (maybe about 10 fps difference) , the amd ones will always beat the nvidia ones though in performance (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-75...)....dont even consider anything below gtx 750/ r7 260....they're entry level for gaming.....the thing about choosing between amd and nvidia is what games do you play?....do you play amd games or nvidia ones?....do you care about physx? ...since you dont have a problem with power consumption/ temps...
physx supported games http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/physx/game...


I don't like new games, I play old school games like Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 2 and similar, but I play Counter-Strike: Source the most in 64 player servers with big maps with lots of action and explosion. I want the frame to always be over 60 in that game at the highest settings with 4×MSAA and 16×AF at 1920×1080. Should AMD Radeon R7 260X with that setup do the job? I've had a PC with Intel Pentium E6300 2.8GHz, ADATA 2×2GB DDR2 800MHz and ATi Sapphire Radeon HD 4350 512MB DDR2 and it ran Counter-Strike: Source completely maxed out at 1360×768 20-100 frames per second on demanding maps and 64 players.



well for you, it doesnt seem like you'd be someone interested in physx by nvidia, then theres no reason not to get amd....The r7 265 is a good card...i'd suggest choosing an aftermarket card though, amd cards suffer alot from throttling....as long as you get an Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, XFX or MSI, you can choose which one you like better and which one fits your budget, (there isnt a tonne of difference between these different aftermarket cards)

I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.



honestly you dont even need to consider such things. the only reason someone would go for nvidia is for physx (you're not confusing physx with v-sync are you?)....amd has their free-sync technology and nvidia's g-sync monitors are pretty expensive (unless you decide on modding your own) so for you it is no question you'll be better off with amd, you'll get better performance for longer ...btw free-sync and adaptive v-sync fulfil the same purpose


the results of activating v-sync differ from system to system....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing

I don't follow the technology too often, but, is FreeSync even released? Do I need to buy a monitor that supports FreeSync? If not, is it a software that is downloadable?



Freesync is a technology that is still in development, it was showcased at this year's E3....as far as i know, Freesync doesnt require any additional hardware (unlike nvidia's G-sync) and whenever freesync becomes available, i think it'll be like a downloadable driver/ software


That's great to hear! Another reason why most of the people recommend and love AMD, and I don't even need to buy a new monitor!
m
0
l
a c 385 Î Nvidia
a c 151 À AMD
June 11, 2014 5:43:20 PM

Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.






I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.

....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing

There's a big difference between AMD's VSync and Nvidia's Adaptive VSync. With AMD's VSync, you run the risk of cutting your FPS in half to 30 whenever your framerate dips below 60. With Adaptive VSync, that never happens. The drivers turn off VSync when FPS dips below 60 and on when it hits 60 FPS or above. Adaptive VSync is worth it for anyone committed to using VSync consistently.

Quote:
"The problem with turning VSync on is that the framerate is locked to multiples of 60. If the framerate drops even just a little below 60 FPS VSync will drop all the way from 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is a huge drop in framerate, and that large change in framerate becomes noticeable to the gamer. The result is called stuttering, and when you are playing a game that consistently changes between only 30 and 60 FPS, the game speeds up and slows down and you feel this difference and it distracts from the gameplay experience. What's worse is that if the framerate drops ever so slightly below 30 FPS the next step down for VSync is 20 FPS, and then the next step down is 15 FPS.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adapti...



Quote:
"Adaptive VSync is a gameplay experience technology that doesn't come across in a table or a graph as clearly as it does when you the gamer are sitting in front of the display. The best we can do is tell you how great it is, and use the data we've accumulated to show you the graphs as we did on the previous page."
"With Adaptive VSync turned on, the feeling of the game felt smoother compared to regular VSync turned on. The performance felt much like the game felt with VSync turned off. This is the kind of technology we like to see which has improved the innate nature of the gameplay experience. If all you need is 60 FPS in a game for it to be playable, then why not just go ahead and cap the game there so it doesn't exceed your refresh rate. Then, if the game has to fall below that, allow the game to perform at its real-time actual framerate, and Adaptive VSync allows that. It really is the best of all worlds, with no drawbacks. We didn't find any negatives to using Adaptive VSync, and we tried it out in a handful of games."
"It's good to finally see VSync's shortcomings tackled by NVIDIA."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adapti...
m
0
l
June 12, 2014 1:50:21 AM

17seconds said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.






I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.

....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing

There's a big difference between AMD's VSync and Nvidia's Adaptive VSync. With AMD's VSync, you run the risk of cutting your FPS in half to 30 whenever your framerate dips below 60. With Adaptive VSync, that never happens. The drivers turn off VSync when FPS dips below 60 and on when it hits 60 FPS or above. Adaptive VSync is worth it for anyone committed to using VSync consistently.

Quote:
"The problem with turning VSync on is that the framerate is locked to multiples of 60. If the framerate drops even just a little below 60 FPS VSync will drop all the way from 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is a huge drop in framerate, and that large change in framerate becomes noticeable to the gamer. The result is called stuttering, and when you are playing a game that consistently changes between only 30 and 60 FPS, the game speeds up and slows down and you feel this difference and it distracts from the gameplay experience. What's worse is that if the framerate drops ever so slightly below 30 FPS the next step down for VSync is 20 FPS, and then the next step down is 15 FPS.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adapti...



Quote:
"Adaptive VSync is a gameplay experience technology that doesn't come across in a table or a graph as clearly as it does when you the gamer are sitting in front of the display. The best we can do is tell you how great it is, and use the data we've accumulated to show you the graphs as we did on the previous page."
"With Adaptive VSync turned on, the feeling of the game felt smoother compared to regular VSync turned on. The performance felt much like the game felt with VSync turned off. This is the kind of technology we like to see which has improved the innate nature of the gameplay experience. If all you need is 60 FPS in a game for it to be playable, then why not just go ahead and cap the game there so it doesn't exceed your refresh rate. Then, if the game has to fall below that, allow the game to perform at its real-time actual framerate, and Adaptive VSync allows that. It really is the best of all worlds, with no drawbacks. We didn't find any negatives to using Adaptive VSync, and we tried it out in a handful of games."
"It's good to finally see VSync's shortcomings tackled by NVIDIA."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adapti...


right i wasnt aware of this fact 17seconds, but someone should not decide between AMD and nvidia based on v-sync. Since both technologies are avalaible on both brand cards. As you yourself mention, adaptive v-sync or just capping frames can be used instead of v-sync anyways.
m
0
l
June 12, 2014 4:37:29 AM

17seconds said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
Leonell12 said:
AMDRadeonHD said:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs AMD Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon R7 265
Which is better in terms of frames per second? I don't care about power consumption and temperature.
P.S.: This will be my gaming PC:
ASRock 960GM-VGS3 FX
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
Kingston HyperX Blu 1×4GB DDR3 1600MHz
Zalman Z3 Plus
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
Corsair CXM Series CX600M
I'll decide on the GPU later when you answer my question.






I will use V-Sync all the time on all games, will it be better with NVIDIA or AMD? I've heard something about FreeSync and G-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync, FreeSync is free and it's better than Adaptive V-Sync? I forgot that I will use 4×MSAA and AAA (AAA anti-aliases stuff like fences, trees and similar objects), because when everyone only uses 4×MSAA, those objects aren't anti-aliased at all, which i HATE to see.

....there is no real difference between amd vsync and nvidia vsync...exact same thing

There's a big difference between AMD's VSync and Nvidia's Adaptive VSync. With AMD's VSync, you run the risk of cutting your FPS in half to 30 whenever your framerate dips below 60. With Adaptive VSync, that never happens. The drivers turn off VSync when FPS dips below 60 and on when it hits 60 FPS or above. Adaptive VSync is worth it for anyone committed to using VSync consistently.

Quote:
"The problem with turning VSync on is that the framerate is locked to multiples of 60. If the framerate drops even just a little below 60 FPS VSync will drop all the way from 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is a huge drop in framerate, and that large change in framerate becomes noticeable to the gamer. The result is called stuttering, and when you are playing a game that consistently changes between only 30 and 60 FPS, the game speeds up and slows down and you feel this difference and it distracts from the gameplay experience. What's worse is that if the framerate drops ever so slightly below 30 FPS the next step down for VSync is 20 FPS, and then the next step down is 15 FPS.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adapti...



Quote:
"Adaptive VSync is a gameplay experience technology that doesn't come across in a table or a graph as clearly as it does when you the gamer are sitting in front of the display. The best we can do is tell you how great it is, and use the data we've accumulated to show you the graphs as we did on the previous page."
"With Adaptive VSync turned on, the feeling of the game felt smoother compared to regular VSync turned on. The performance felt much like the game felt with VSync turned off. This is the kind of technology we like to see which has improved the innate nature of the gameplay experience. If all you need is 60 FPS in a game for it to be playable, then why not just go ahead and cap the game there so it doesn't exceed your refresh rate. Then, if the game has to fall below that, allow the game to perform at its real-time actual framerate, and Adaptive VSync allows that. It really is the best of all worlds, with no drawbacks. We didn't find any negatives to using Adaptive VSync, and we tried it out in a handful of games."
"It's good to finally see VSync's shortcomings tackled by NVIDIA."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adapti...


But still, FreeSync will be free and just as good as or better than NVIDIA's Adaptive V-Sync :p 
m
0
l
a c 385 Î Nvidia
a c 151 À AMD
June 12, 2014 6:59:01 AM

AMDRadeonHD said:

But still, FreeSync will be free and just as good as or better than NVIDIA's Adaptive V-Sync :p 

Then you better get the 260 then. It's the only card on your list that will support free sync. And, by the way, this is the deal with being an AMD fan... things just don't work like they should and fixes take forever.

Quote:
"What is not good news though is that this feature isn't going to be supported on the full range of AMD Radeon graphics cards. Only the Radeon R9 290/290X and R7 260/260X (and the R9 295X2 of course) will actually be able to support the "FreeSync" technology. Compare that to NVIDIA's G-Sync: it is supported by NVIDIA's entire GTX 700 and GTX 600 series of cards."
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Demonstrat...

m
0
l
June 12, 2014 1:48:13 PM

Are you sure the 265 wont be supported?...it is a 260 series card right?. and AMDRadeonHD, as far as what is required to run freesync, turns out you do need a compatible monitor to be able to use freesync, kinda sad :(  ...but i say again, stuff like this will keep coming and going, this should not be your deciding factor
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
June 12, 2014 2:01:08 PM

Leonell12 said:
Are you sure the 265 wont be supported?...it is a 260 series card right?

260 and 260x are based on Bonaire silicon, the 265 is older Pitcairn chip (slightly crippled 270(x) first launched as 7850/7870)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7754/the-amd-radeon-r7-26...


also it seems the freesync tech is still changing quite a lot, or at least the rumours are :D D It was supposed to work on all the GCN cards but as 17seconds pointed out now it seems only the GCN 1.1 cards will support it. I quess we'll know when it actually launches...

also freesync is alternative to nvidias g-sync, adaptive vsync is something completely different
m
0
l
!