Which is better, NVidia or AMD Drivers? - page 2

75 answers Last reply
  1. ^ that is BS. In general, ATI has better performance vs price and better performance per watt. I have owned both Nvidia and ATI and i have never had any driver issues that werent easily fixed in the next driver update. The more recent ATI/amd drivers are good, havn't had an issue yet with mine.
  2. iam2thecrowe said:
    ^ that is BS. In general, ATI has better performance vs price and better performance per watt.


    Take any Nvidia and ATI (AMD) graphics card in the same performance tier, and the Nvidia card will almost always have better performance and less problems in-game. This is mostly due to Nvidia having better drivers, and more games being optimized for Nvidia architecture rather than ATI (AMD) architecture.
  3. Viper2, oh really? hmm, 6850 and GTX460 are in the "same performance tier" and 6850 beats it (it's also cheaper, has lower power consumption and OCs better) + you can get a 5800 series card for less and have higher performance... 6950 and 560Ti are also in the "same performance tier" and 6950 is the winner there (it's also cheaper, has lower power consumption and OCs better)... 6970 and 570 are also in the "same performance tier" and here the winner is again AMD's card.
    EDIT: Typos
  4. what are you talking about. :o

    first of all

    The GTX 560 Ti was never meant to compete with the 6950

    GTX 560 TI was targetted at the 6870
    the smae way the GTX 570 was against the HD 6950 and the GTX 580 was against the HD 6970 of which Nvidia won all the battles.

    yes, I agree with the 460, the 6850 was targetted at the 460 also beats it (not a huge margin probably 2-3 fps) but when both are overclocked, the GTX 460 comes ahead.

    performance wise if you overclock the nvidia cards against the amd cards, nvidia clearly would come ahead.

    GTX 560 TI when overclocked comes close to the stock 6970 levels. 6950 is not a good overclocker. I agree that the power consumption is less but It produces a lot of heat. It is a good card but not meant for overclocking to 6970 levels.

    SOrry if I am wrong. But this is what I have read in many of the reviews.
  5. irfan88, first of all GTX560Ti was meant to compete with 6950. GTX560 (non-Ti) was meant to compete with 6870 and in this battle 6870 is the winner. You cannot compare GTX580, which is around 500$ to a 300-350$ 6970. 6950 and 560Ti - neither is a good overclocker, most of 560Tis are limited to around 925Mhz and won't OC further without a good cooler, while 6950 is not meant to be overclocked, it's at stock 10% faster than 560Ti. And again, even at ~1100, which is impossible to reach on a 560Ti, it cannot reach 6970's levels. I also disagree with you in 6850OC vs 460OC case, because 6850 is capable of reaching 1100Mhz, which is 325Mhz gain from stock, while 460 barely reaches 900Mhz (200 Mhz from stock). How much heat the card produces depends on card cooler and usually AMD cards aren't any hotter nor noisier than nVidia (only sometimes, and even then the difference is only 2-3dbA/C)
  6. ok like i said, sorry If I'd gone worng. but I only spoke after looking at guru 3d's conclusion of gtx 560 ti where it says that the 560 ti was against the 6870 and not at a 6950. :p

    no hard feelings right. :D
  7. if you hafe a good AMD video card then you can play all games and the price is lower the a NVidea
  8. Griffolion said:
    Says the Apprentice to all the Addicts and Veterens. I don't say this often, but GTFO.

    The "Addict" and "Veteran" titles provide no indication of actual knowledge and can be obtained by posting questions. They're awarded by post count on this forum. There are members of this forum that are more active on other forums such as XS, G3D, etc, so to attempt to judge someone's knowledge based solely on their forum title is pathetic in itself. Personally, I've been a member of this forum for several years now....yet still have a very low post count. It's idiotic beliefs like your's that having more posts somehow means you actually know more than anyone else, that ruins forums like this one....

    Anonymous said:
    Nvidia graphics cards have always been known for having better drivers and better in-game performance than ATI (now AMD) graphics cards. This is common knowledge in the PC gaming world.

    Always? The Radeon 9k series outperformed their nVidia counterparts, as did the Radeon X and Radeon X1 series....
  9. i'm not gonna vote but i'm gonna comment.

    the finnicky ati drivers way back were not caused by the driver themselves. most of the people who had issues with it was when catalyst requires windows updates (c++ redistrib and the lot).

    and a lot of those who cried foul did not have a legitimate windows XP copy therefore the updates didn't come in handy.

    in the contemporary age of 65nm cards or newer i only had 1 problem with an ati/amd card and it turned out it was a busted 4850 not the drivers.
  10. Lol bunch of idiots on this post :lol:
  11. mainly people that compare 2 gen old cards to new gen cards and claim incorrect performance levels, not you though
  12. I have a AMD graphics card on both my laptop and desktop. What I can say is AMD drivers never really improved performance at all for me. They added new layouts for CCC and gave some new features, but that is about it. Some of the newer features, can be tweaked a little bit to help increase performance a little bit to be honest.

    I have heard that Nvidia drivers actually boost performance a little bit, which is pretty cool. But I would not know, I never owned one.

    For those talking about melting graphics cards,

    Just make sure you have Fraps installed, and make sure you frames per second does not get to high (try to cap it at 60 FPS, in the settings text document for every game). That was the problem for SC2, people's FPS were getting over 700 on the game menus, which means the GPU is rendering to fast which causes it to melt.

    All graphics cards have their problems with drivers though.
  13. Shpati said:
    I have a AMD graphics card on both my laptop and desktop. What I can say is AMD drivers never really improved performance at all for me. They added new layouts for CCC and gave some new features, but that is about it. Some of the newer features, can be tweaked a little bit to help increase performance a little bit to be honest.

    I have heard that Nvidia drivers actually boost performance a little bit, which is pretty cool. But I would not know, I never owned one.

    For those talking about melting graphics cards,

    Just make sure you have Fraps installed, and make sure you frames per second does not get to high (try to cap it at 60 FPS, in the settings text document for every game). That was the problem for SC2, people's FPS were getting over 700 on the game menus, which means the GPU is rendering to fast which causes it to melt.

    All graphics cards have their problems with drivers though.

    Framerate doesn't cause graphics cards to "melt"....lol A graphics card can run at 1K FPS all day long, so long as the heatsink and fan can adequately cool the graphics processor.
  14. sykozis said:
    Framerate doesn't cause graphics cards to "melt"....lol A graphics card can run at 1K FPS all day long, so long as the heatsink and fan can adequately cool the graphics processor.


    Probably right for desktop's.

    But I know this happened to notebook's without question.

    http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/28/blizzard-confirms-starcraft-ii-overheating-bug.aspx
  15. Shpati said:
    Probably right for desktop's.

    But I know this happened to notebook's without question.

    http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/28/blizzard-confirms-starcraft-ii-overheating-bug.aspx

    Nope....even in the case of mobile graphics chips, the framerate itself does absolutely zero damage. Heat is generated by the GPU when current is applied. The heat generated by the GPU increases as a load is placed on the GPU. If the thermal solution used on the graphics card is inadequate, the card will fail. The framerate is simply a coincidence.
  16. sykozis said:
    Nope....even in the case of mobile graphics chips, the framerate itself does absolutely zero damage. Heat is generated by the GPU when current is applied. The heat generated by the GPU increases as a load is placed on the GPU. If the thermal solution used on the graphics card is inadequate, the card will fail. The framerate is simply a coincidence.


    I am pretty sure, because I know a lot of people who played SC2 on their notebooks, had to RMA their notebook due to messed up GPUs (especially ASUS notebooks).
  17. that's all due to poor cooling....which is the cost of mobility.
  18. this thread become more interesting :lol:

    sykozis said:
    Framerate doesn't cause graphics cards to "melt"....lol A graphics card can run at 1K FPS all day long, so long as the heatsink and fan can adequately cool the graphics processor.


    the frame rates willl not melt the graphic card but the when the gpu activity is high the temperature surely goes up. i think that's what he meant. the problem with SC2 is the game does not limit your frame rates even in the start screen menu so the frame rates stays high. your point about cooling is valid but i know some people limit their frames rates so the temperature goes down a bit. however having said that i do not know if this 'cap the frame rates to lower your gpu temp' is true or not :P. if i have the time maybe (just maybe) i will do some experiment on this thing myself :D
  19. Actually, capping my framerate in WoW at 60fps, reduced my GPU temp by about 5C.... Could have something to do with the A/C blowing on the front of my case too, so....
  20. zwink said:
    Honestly, the graphics cards are always so close at release (hardware-wise) that it is hard to tell which to go with. I've been switching back and forth from NVidia to ATI/AMD for years. The reason is that I tend to have problems with one or the others drivers in any given release cycle. Does anyone have any idea which are performing better right now, given the GTX 500 and Radeon 6000 series cards?

    I currently have a 5970, but I cannot upgrade to the latest batch of drivers because they cause random BSODs and hard-locks on my system -- which is SUPER annoying given the price of that card. I'm sure the latest drivers 'improve' its speed some, but they also improve the instability of my system.


    In general NVIDIA drivers are more stable. I had less issues w/ my 8800Gt and 280GT OC w/ NVIDIA.

    I have a 4890 and another 4890CF these 2 machines require more attention/work when i update drivers.

    I always manage to make it work but base on my personal experience NVIDIA drivers is less of an headache compare to ATI drivers
  21. nvidia has too much problems amd are not so much problems so amd is better and cheaper
  22. got problem with your nvidia card?
  23. Quote:
    i had a recent issue with an nvidia driver (beta) 180.19
    basically i had artifacts in internet explorer looked like tiny pause symbols as if u were watching a movie but all across the screen.
    and in 1 game nfs shift 2 i would be playing fine at 60fps vsynced then on the race after would hit 17-25fps max.
    i rolled back to 175.33


    very old driver. the most recent one is 280.xx (also a beta one). why you did not use the latest beta?
  24. google nvlddmkm.sys error, driver stopped responding and has recovered, or dissallowed program driver 125120. I think nvidia is better imo... contrary to the google results.
  25. I've only seen the nvlddmkm.sys error from unstable overclocks....which wouldn't be a driver problem at all.
  26. Quite late reply here but I upgraded the driver on my really arhaic pc with ati radeon 9250 to a version that an amd tool "recommended" and guess what happened? Everything would freeze/pause for 1 second at a quite fast rate even youtube literally everything.

    I want to try this on an arhaic nvidia gpu and see if it will end up way better than ati/amd.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Drivers AMD Nvidia Graphics