Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nvidia or ATI/AMD (explain)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Whose has the best graphics cards (all around best)

Total: 68 votes (17 blank votes)

  • Nvidia
  • 43 %
  • Ati/AMD
  • 58 %
January 17, 2012 4:45:57 AM

Answer this with Nvidia and ATI in mind as a group

More about : nvidia ati amd explain

a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
January 17, 2012 5:30:16 AM

I like ATI/AMD maybe because i owned just ATI video cards. 9600 PRO , 4850 ,4890, 6950. All the cards have run smooth and i didn't have not a single problem with any of them. And was cheaper than Nvidia cards.
a c 109 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
January 17, 2012 6:01:28 AM

I choose nvidia because of CUDA support and helps getting my videos rendered faster! ;) 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 6:02:48 AM

i have both ati and nvidia, but due to drivers i like nvidia
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 6:09:09 AM

amuffin said:
I choose nvidia because of CUDA support and helps getting my videos rendered faster! ;) 


:p  that's not fair , when i voted their were only 4 votes, and when i commented the number of votes become 5 and my comment is is now at last position :whistle:  (seems my typing speed is to slow)
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 8:21:25 AM

Nvidia, due to:

Pros:
- Cuda technology, I already programmed direct over the GPU cores. Accelerating some math functions by almost 20x comparing with my i7-2600k. Adobe paralled functions receives a GREAT boost (easily surpassing 6-cores CPUs)

- 3D Vision technology, a very mature in-house solution (AMD solution isn't in-house), do not need to use 3rd-party software. Use of REAL full resolution (due to passive method, AMD method cut resoltion in half)

- Physx (couple games that uses it, but it really shines)

- Overall better drivers, support

- Geforce.com with it awesome optimal playable settings based in your Nvidia card, tweak guides, performance guide.

- Heavily invests in "the way it's meant to be played" games, usually comes with good performance to Nvidia cards since the game have heavy support from Nvidia.

- Usually have less problems with non-optimized SLI/Crossfire games.

Cons:
- It's a bit expensive comparing to AMD.
- Usually hotter.

Conclusion, my impression is that:
- Nvidia, heavily focused in gamer's community. Have an awesome website (geforce.com) that helps a lot to optimize the games. Have games graphics breakdowns, where you can really undestand what each setting does.
I would say Nvidia is "gamers for gamers"

- AMD looks more a general company that does graphics card too (and this is true). They don't have that huge appeal to help gamer's community.
a c 109 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
January 17, 2012 8:37:30 AM

Honestly programs that are gpu accelerated perform much better on an nvidia card than an amd one.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 9:06:55 AM

I like AMD more, but Nvidia definitely has better driver support. However I'll choose AMD every time because they tend to be slightly cheaper for roughly the same performance at each specific price point (at least when gaming, I can not speak as to rendering video and auto cad).

I do find it rather hilarious when fanboys from both camps sing the praise of their companies benchmark scores when the difference from the two cards that are within the same performance/price point are with in 5-10 FPS of each other.

The fact of the matter is both companies make very good cards that perform well above average and in real world game playing 5-10 frames makes little difference. If your not technically inclined and do not like tweaking, spend a little extra and get a Nvidia card, if you don't mind tweaking and finding the right settings save some cash and buy AMD.
January 17, 2012 9:17:20 AM

Nvidia :bounce:  :bounce:  :bounce:  for physics
January 17, 2012 9:25:59 AM

Nvidia for PhsyX, CUDA, 32x CSAA (Supported in games)
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 10:23:24 AM

Nvidia.

I've had problems with drivers and reliability issues with a Ati Radeon 9800pro, costs me a bomb and didnt work as expected.

Been with Nvidia for a long while now, XFX 6800GS XXX was my first "performance" card from Nvidia, and boy it didnt disappoint and is still going today.
a c 141 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 17, 2012 10:49:32 AM

AMD is my preference. They have better price to performance than nvidia. I don't have any applications that support CUDA, and only 4 games out of more than 100 that support PhysX, so those aren't strong selling points for me. That, and I'm still bitter about the GeForce 4 Ti4200 that failed and the replacement card that failed within a year. I have never had an AMD card fail in that short a time frame. I personally have had few driver issues with AMD, so I have no reason to complain about drivers.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 10:56:58 AM

I used to be nVidia all the way from the Riva2/TNT to GeForce2 and GeForce4 Ti. But after a couple horrible experiences (FX series card that had to be replaced 2x and a 6800GT where 3 straight cards failed inside of 6 months) I switched over to ATI/AMD with the 38XX series. Whoa - I was blown away by how much quieter it was and the bang for the buck. I've had cards in the 48XX, 57XX, 65XX and 68XX series and haven't yet had an issue with them/drivers - and saved a boatload of money.

That said...if I was building a workstation for advanced processing, I'd probably go nVidia. But a gaming PC (considering I play mostly RTS, flight sims and racing games which aren't the most demanding) and media PC will be AMD all the way.
a c 84 U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 11:07:00 AM

i have use both od them ati and nvidia but i like ati for gaming and nvidia for drivers and performance.:) 
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 17, 2012 11:49:26 AM

Ati/AMD is better in gaming, Price to performance, Power Consumption (More efficient) and really good eyefinity things that is very good, as you can see on reviews.

However, nvidia has better drivers, CUDA support for video rendering acceleration and in some games you can have a very good PhsyX support.

I don't have any personal preference, but my next build is probably going to be Radeon 7xxx series. I have a lots of nvidia cards though for my tower, I have Geforce 7xxx and 9xxx. But Since I probably do gaming on my next system I will go with Radeon 7xxx.

And truegenius, don't advertise your thread.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 11:55:31 AM

only one thing matters for me... can i run 3 monitors with one video card. and only AMD can.
i wont tolerate microstutter, its as bad as having crap graphics. so two cards is out and 3 is too expensive and a waste of power. so AMD for me.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 12:14:37 PM

I've had an Nvidia 8800GT, a Radeon HD 5870 and now a Radeon HD 7970, I don't really have a serious preference for either company, they both make really solid GPU's but AMD haven't let me down in the last 3 years.
a c 225 U Graphics card
a c 75 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
January 17, 2012 12:16:31 PM

< $200 AMD / ATI ....on price / performance basis, best card here is the 6870
> $200 nVidia ....on price / performance basis, best card here is the 560 Ti (factory overclocked 900Mhz version has better value than stock card)

This has pretty much been the case over the last few generations of GFX cards that the upper end is owned by nVidia and the lower end by AMD / ATI. As for popularity,t Steam site gives a good idea of what peeps hitting their servers are using:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

-Overall, NVidia cards sit in 7 of the 8 top spots.

-Overall, AMD/ATI has 5 cards in the Top 20 (nVidia has 14).

-Out of the current generation cards (5xx and 69xx), the current market share (December) is as follows:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 8.81%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 4.35%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 3.53%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 3.14%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 1.89%

DX10 cards comprise 61% of the cards hitting steam servers, DX11 only 32%.

For evaluating price / performance I look at dollars per frame and the table below highlights the two price category recommendations I made in the 1st paragraph. Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:

$ 155.00 460-768 MB (314/592) $ 0.49 - $ 0.52
$ 155.00 6850 (371/634) $ 0.42 - $ 0.49
$ 170.00 6870 (434/701) $ 0.39 - $ 0.49
$ 220.00 6950 (479/751) $ 0.46 - $ 0.59
$ 240.00 6950 Frozr OC (484/759) $ 0.50 - $ 0.63
$ 205.00 560 Ti (455/792) $ 0.45 - $ 0.52
$ 320.00 6970 (526/825) $ 0.61 - $ 0.78
$ 215.00 560 Ti - 900 Mhz (495/862) $ 0.43 - $ 0.50
$ 340.00 570 (524/873) $ 0.65 - $ 0.78
$ 500.00 580 (616/953) $ 0.81 - $ 1.05
$ 725.00 6990 (762/903) $ 0.95 - $ 1.61
$ 750.00 590 (881/982) $ 0.85 - $ 1.53

That is for example, the 6870 costs $170, gets 434 fps in the game test suite in a single card configuration, at a cost of 39 cents per frame, and gets 701 in CF configuration costing 49 cents per fframe.
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 171 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
January 17, 2012 12:31:11 PM

farrengottu said:
only one thing matters for me... can i run 3 monitors with one video card. and only AMD can.


:non:  That's not entirely true is it?
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 17, 2012 1:03:20 PM

farrengottu said:
only one thing matters for me... can i run 3 monitors with one video card. and only AMD can.

SLI one of this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And if I am not wrong you can play with 3 monitor without a problem (Haven't try though).
a c 141 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 17, 2012 3:08:14 PM

refillable said:
SLI one of this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And if I am not wrong you can play with 3 monitor without a problem (Haven't try though).


Farengottu has said that he is not interested in running SLI or Crossfire due to microstuttering issues, so getting a second card to drive a third display is not an optimal solution for him. Generally speaking nvidia cards cannot drive three displays on a single card, the only exceptions being dual GPU cards like the GTX 590 and a small number of special edition cards where the manufacturer has added in support for more than 2 displays. On mos AMD cards, 3 display support is a standard feature, with many cards capable of driving 4 or possibly more displays.
January 17, 2012 3:17:59 PM

sadfacebunny said:
Answer this with Nvidia and ATI in mind as a group



Everybody has an occasional driver issue. AMD/ATI has chronic driver issues that never get solved.
January 17, 2012 4:18:33 PM

nvidia is good, mroe expensive and has cuda good for my rendering, but if its just for gaming i see why not get AMD as i voted for it, due to much much more affordable in price by all (students etc.) and performance wise they have it good there at almost the same level as nvidia just that nvidia has better driver support but overall just same, since mostly everyone would upgrade in 3-5 years time
January 17, 2012 4:46:36 PM

I'm primarily nvidia at the moment. Been running sli with a few different gens and they have scaled great. Currently running 3x gtx 580's and though the new amd 7970's do look absolutely delicious, I'm still not green with envy. I'm just green :) 

I used primarily ati until 2008 and Nvidia has really impressed me. A lot of sub-vendors like to put silly stickers on them but they don't feel like toys, and seem very well designed. The drivers and sli support is rock solid. I couldn't be happier with my setup at the moment. An ivy perhaps.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 4:49:31 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
< $200 AMD / ATI ....on price / performance basis, best card here is the 6870
> $200 nVidia ....on price / performance basis, best card here is the 560 Ti (factory overclocked 900Mhz version has better value than stock card)

This has pretty much been the case over the last few generations of GFX cards that the upper end is owned by nVidia and the lower end by AMD / ATI. As for popularity,t Steam site gives a good idea of what peeps hitting their servers are using:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

-Overall, NVidia cards sit in 7 of the 8 top spots.

-Overall, AMD/ATI has 5 cards in the Top 20 (nVidia has 14).

-Out of the current generation cards (5xx and 69xx), the current market share (December) is as follows:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 8.81%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 4.35%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 3.53%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 3.14%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 1.89%

DX10 cards comprise 61% of the cards hitting steam servers, DX11 only 32%.

For evaluating price / performance I look at dollars per frame and the table below highlights the two price category recommendations I made in the 1st paragraph. Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:

$ 155.00 460-768 MB (314/592) $ 0.49 - $ 0.52
$ 155.00 6850 (371/634) $ 0.42 - $ 0.49
$ 170.00 6870 (434/701) $ 0.39 - $ 0.49
$ 220.00 6950 (479/751) $ 0.46 - $ 0.59
$ 240.00 6950 Frozr OC (484/759) $ 0.50 - $ 0.63
$ 205.00 560 Ti (455/792) $ 0.45 - $ 0.52
$ 320.00 6970 (526/825) $ 0.61 - $ 0.78
$ 215.00 560 Ti - 900 Mhz (495/862) $ 0.43 - $ 0.50
$ 340.00 570 (524/873) $ 0.65 - $ 0.78
$ 500.00 580 (616/953) $ 0.81 - $ 1.05
$ 725.00 6990 (762/903) $ 0.95 - $ 1.61
$ 750.00 590 (881/982) $ 0.85 - $ 1.53

That is for example, the 6870 costs $170, gets 434 fps in the game test suite in a single card configuration, at a cost of 39 cents per frame, and gets 701 in CF configuration costing 49 cents per fframe.


Where are you finding a 560Ti for $215USD? The GTX 560 Ti retails closer to $235 on sale and is closer in-line with the HD6950. The GTX 560 (no Ti) is in the same performance to price as the HD6870
January 17, 2012 5:03:10 PM

i have always had Nvidia cards and i still stay with nvidia because of the better drivers. i had a loaner ATI card in the past and the drivers were a nightmare
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 5:36:38 PM

I dont really get what issues every has with AMD drivers - I install them, they work. Sometimes it prompts for an upgrade, which is pretty painless. And switching cards is even pretty easy. Maybe I've just been lucky?
a c 141 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 17, 2012 6:19:46 PM

I agree on that, at least on the single GPU single monitor setups AMD drivers seem to be fairly solid, I personally haven't had many problems. The worst I've had was with FreeSpace 2 Open on an x1600, and that was because ATI screwed up the OpenGL drivers for that series of cards. I think most of the problems that do appear these days involve Crossfire support and Eyefinity. I don't use those features so I have no personal experience on that front, but that seems to be where most of the complaints are.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2012 8:44:30 PM

Supernova1138 said:
I agree on that, at least on the single GPU single monitor setups AMD drivers seem to be fairly solid, I personally haven't had many problems. The worst I've had was with FreeSpace 2 Open on an x1600, and that was because ATI screwed up the OpenGL drivers for that series of cards. I think most of the problems that do appear these days involve Crossfire support and Eyefinity. I don't use those features so I have no personal experience on that front, but that seems to be where most of the complaints are.


Must be Crossfire related - I know the profiles are a bit picky sometimes. I've always stayed with single card setups - though I currently run Eyefinity with three monitors (and have for about 18 months or so now).
!