AMD vs nVidia Graphics Cards for Gaming

QuestionableUsername · Nov 5, 2014

So recently I've been brainstorming ideas for a computer to build, I'll use it for many things but the one thing that concerns me at the moment is ability to game. I've got everything decided except one thing: the graphics card (GPU). After researching farther into this, I first decided to use an AMD Radeon R9 295X2 Crossfire. As far as I know this is the best for gaming (by looking at benchmarks), then I came across people talking about PhysX. I'm wondering if I have to re-decide and switch from the AMD graphics cards I plan on buying to nVidia for PhysX, as I said I do plan on gaming. I don't want to buy entirely new graphics cards for PhysX later, so I want this is be finalized. I've heard it also depends on your processor and the one I plan on using is the Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E (8-cores) with 64gb of DDR4 RAM. (I'm hoping to get everything off in huge sales, since it's all very expensive.) Will more games use PhysX in the future? I really don't want to miss out on those games later on if they end up using PhysX, but is it really worth getting nVidia just for PhysX?

bloc97 · Nov 5, 2014

PhysX is considered by a lot of people to be a nVidia gimmick. Only few games support it, and the performance hit on the CPU using software mode isn't huge. Go for the R9 295x2 Crossfire. IF you would need PhysX for whatever reason in the future (not like I think you would), just insert an cheap used GT 240 for Physics rendering only.

Regards,

Mac266 · Nov 5, 2014

Are you cross-firing 2 295x2's or just one? If you are using one, you might like to look into a GTX 980 SLI. Will perform a bit better, and use less power.

Just as an option.

QuestionableUsername · Nov 5, 2014

Thanks for the immediate response, what do you mean by "performance hit on the CPU using software mode isn't huge"? Also, it's possible run basic PhysX on an AMD graphics card, correct? Just not advanced. At least that's how I interpreted a video someone made about this.

anbello262 · Nov 5, 2014

I don't think PhysX is such a big feature. The amount of games that will adopt it will most likely stay low, as not many developers want to write code that will only be used by half their customer base.
I don't think you can add a nVidia graphics card later as a PhysX dedicated, though. I heard that nVidia automatically disables PhysX if an AMD card is found. Maybe that has been corrected?

ingtar33 · Nov 5, 2014

QuestionableUsername :

I had nvidia cards from 2007-2013; i've had two AMD cards since. I never, for one minute missed nvidia for PHYSX

1) it's seriously underutilized
2) when it's used it rarely does anything
3) it mattered when cpus were single or dual cored. it does not matter anymore.

that said if i was choosing a 980 or 295x, i'd take the 980

frag06 · Nov 5, 2014

I'd go SLI 970's. It will be cheaper and faster, plus you will get PhysX. With SLI, PhysX isn't going to be much of a performance hit.

Are you just gaming? If so, you don't need a $1000 octo-core processor. Most games only use a few cores right now, so an eight core will give you no performance increase when it comes to gaming.

QuestionableUsername · Nov 5, 2014

Mac266 :

Just figured out how to reply to other's posts...
Any who, I was originally planning on going for cross-firing the 2 292x2's but I have yet to decide. Thanks for your opinion!

anbello262 · Nov 5, 2014

SLI 970 won't be faster, but it will be cheaper, and cooler.
SLI 980 on the other hand will be faster, but a bir more expensive.

I'd go nVidia anyways, though, but not because of PhysX, but because of heat generation/cooling potential. I also really like nVidia, so I'm biased.

frag06 · Nov 5, 2014

anbello262 :

SLI 970's will be faster in many games, but only up to a point. Once you hit 4K or 5760x1080, the 295X2 pulls ahead by a few FPS in some games. Overall, they trade blows depending on the game, but with new drivers that could change some.

Ne1secure · Nov 5, 2014

I had the same challenge as the OP. I decided on Nvidia for the extra cool , lower power consumption of the new chip set. I think that, and the whole g-sync thing may be a better investment. I haven't decided on the exact 980 cards yet though (still a toss up between water cooling and air cooled for me atm).

Agreed with all on PhysX. And I went from the 5960 (8 core) to the 5930 (6 core) to keep the same 40 PCI lanes and having a few extra cores for all the stuff I do while gaming.

Hope this helps.

anbello262 · Nov 5, 2014

I though that a 970 was actually slower than a 290x...

Mac266 · Nov 5, 2014

anbello262 :

They have virtually the same performance at 1080-1440p. At UHD it's a bit slower.

anbello262 · Nov 5, 2014

Oh, that's nice to know then. Sorry for my mistake.

QuestionableUsername · Nov 5, 2014

The reason I picked the AMD one (R9 295X2) is because of the gaming benchmarks, it did that best and intrigued me.
Maybe there is something that I'm missing?

These are the benchmarks for referencing, by this site.

anbello262 · Nov 5, 2014

Well, that's because each 295X2 is actually 2 290x in the same card, so crossfire 295x2 would be quad crossfire...

QuestionableUsername · Nov 5, 2014

anbello262 :

Yes, but my point is that from what I found the 295x2 AMD graphics cards is faster. I may be wrong or incorrect though. I couldn't find any benchmark comparing something similar to the 295x2 besides the Titan Z which I still find out of my price range to SLI (unless it goes for really cheap on a sale) and it's a lot hotter than the 295x2 because of air cooling instead of liquid cooling.
If you know of a good nVidia card that compares more or less to the R9 295x2, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.

anbello262 · Nov 5, 2014

Actually, yes, the 295x2 is better for 4k.
That's because it has a very high memory bandwith, which is very important to achieve playable framerates at that ultra high resolution.
If you intend to play on 4k, then you should get 2x 295x2, or wait until more info is known about the 290x 8gb cards. Maybe they will release a 290x2 16gb, or you could quad-crossfire the 290x 8b maybe (as you will be getting 40PCIe lanes, there wouldn't be a problem running 4 290X at 8/8/8/8, except for heat related issues).
It might be a bit more expensive, especially if you want to watercool all of them, so if it's out of your budget, sitck with the 295x2.

QuestionableUsername · Nov 5, 2014

anbello262 :

Ok, thank you very much. But I still worry about PhysX (and G-Sync) a little bit, I don't think it would be a problem for me but I don't want to be restricted in the future.

bloc97 · Nov 5, 2014

QuestionableUsername :

PhysX can be run with the CPU, albeit with a slower speed. Using nVidia Card as PhysX while using AMD as rendering can be done with a driver mod : http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/the-dedicated-physx-card-faq-read-this-before-asking-any-questions.135891/
For G-Sync, I wouldn't be very worried. If you don't notice Tearing while gaming, don't bother with that. I personally don't find tearing bothering, but technology advances by itself, and things that aren't necessarily practical comes out each year.

To be honest, I would be more worried if you buy nVidia and they never support Mantle. Mantle seems to be a very popular API among big developers. A fair amount of games now support Mantle, and many games have mods to run on Mantle.

Regards,

frag06 · Nov 6, 2014

bloc97 :

QuestionableUsername :

PhysX can be run with the CPU, albeit with a slower speed. Using nVidia Card as PhysX while using AMD as rendering can be done with a driver mod : http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/the-dedicated-physx-card-faq-read-this-before-asking-any-questions.135891/
For G-Sync, I wouldn't be very worried. If you don't notice Tearing while gaming, don't bother with that. I personally don't find tearing bothering, but technology advances by itself, and things that aren't necessarily practical comes out each year.

To be honest, I would be more worried if you buy nVidia and they never support Mantle. Mantle seems to be a very popular API among big developers. A fair amount of games now support Mantle, and many games have mods to run on Mantle.

Regards,

Mantle is geared more toward lower end processors and AMD's own processors, with high-end processors, it's not going to make much of a difference. I wouldn't be worried about it at all.

anbello262 · Nov 6, 2014

I wouldn't worry about Mantle either. And directx 12 is kind of meant to replace Mantle, as it will have the same effect but on a broader landscape.
About Gsync, I heard that a similar product is in development (by AMD i think?), but this one will be open source, so no vendor restrictions...

QuestionableUsername · Nov 6, 2014

anbello262 :

Thanks, now I'm going to pick a best solution and start a new thread which will be different although still in the topic of choosing my graphics card.

Again, thank you to all who helped!

AMD vs nVidia Graphics Cards for Gaming

Reputable

Distinguished

Honorable

Reputable

Distinguished

Glorious

Honorable

Reputable

Distinguished

Honorable

Reputable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Reputable

Share this page