Recently I have been examining a few different types of graphics cards and their abilities with the games I play. I have some questions that keep popping up, and there seem to be differing answers across all boards and timelines. As a general rule, I don't trust anything over a year old when it comes to computers, so I feel most of the data I have gathered is too old.
1: I have heard cores and clock speed (in CPU's) compared as hard/slow workers, etc etc. Does it work the same in graphics cards? would 1000 CUDA cores do better @1000 Mhz or would 900 CUDA do better @1200? (or whatever difference in cores and clock speed that you want to make it)
2: I have researched it quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that 2 years ago, there was no difference between Stream processors and CUDA cores.. Is this still the same thought process, or has it changed? I know one is Nvidia and one is AMD, but do they really differ in their abilities? Are they actually Stream and CUDA? Or do the companies just keep changing their names on me?
3: Which is *truly* better for playing high-end games, a higher clock or more cores?
3b: How does RAM play into this story? If I am comparing a card with 3 GB of ram and 1000 Mhz clock speed with 1000 cores...would it do better than a 4 GB card with 900 Mhz clock and 900 cores? What does RAM do to the clock speed and cores..Obviously, more RAM is better..but when does RAM amount outweigh clock speeds and cores? Does it ever? When does clock speed and core count outweigh RAM? Basically, how does it all tie in to each other. Please include an explanation of bits as well. 128, 364,etc. When does a 4GB 128 outweigh a 2GB 364 bit? Does it ever?
4: Which card (of the same power, but not price) would generally be better for games? Nvidia or AMD? I've heard that games are basing more of their engines off of Nvidia control, is this true or bull? Is it also true that Nvidia tends to last longer than
AMD? Or is this another falsehood? In this aspect I'm not sure because each company has their fanboys and their company selling points. I just want straight facts and abilities compared, not preferences.
1: I have heard cores and clock speed (in CPU's) compared as hard/slow workers, etc etc. Does it work the same in graphics cards? would 1000 CUDA cores do better @1000 Mhz or would 900 CUDA do better @1200? (or whatever difference in cores and clock speed that you want to make it)
2: I have researched it quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that 2 years ago, there was no difference between Stream processors and CUDA cores.. Is this still the same thought process, or has it changed? I know one is Nvidia and one is AMD, but do they really differ in their abilities? Are they actually Stream and CUDA? Or do the companies just keep changing their names on me?
3: Which is *truly* better for playing high-end games, a higher clock or more cores?
3b: How does RAM play into this story? If I am comparing a card with 3 GB of ram and 1000 Mhz clock speed with 1000 cores...would it do better than a 4 GB card with 900 Mhz clock and 900 cores? What does RAM do to the clock speed and cores..Obviously, more RAM is better..but when does RAM amount outweigh clock speeds and cores? Does it ever? When does clock speed and core count outweigh RAM? Basically, how does it all tie in to each other. Please include an explanation of bits as well. 128, 364,etc. When does a 4GB 128 outweigh a 2GB 364 bit? Does it ever?
4: Which card (of the same power, but not price) would generally be better for games? Nvidia or AMD? I've heard that games are basing more of their engines off of Nvidia control, is this true or bull? Is it also true that Nvidia tends to last longer than
AMD? Or is this another falsehood? In this aspect I'm not sure because each company has their fanboys and their company selling points. I just want straight facts and abilities compared, not preferences.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram