Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Nvidia vs amd

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 6, 2012 1:47:51 AM

which is better with the gpu for gaming ?

More about : nvidia amd

a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 6, 2012 2:05:10 AM

There's definitely not a clear favorite. It depends almost entirely on your price range, and even then it can often go either way. What are your other specs and what are you looking to spend?
Score
0
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 6, 2012 2:06:58 AM

^^+1
They are both good and bad. They are mostly good. Since AMD has out the 7xxx series that puts them on top and when the Kepler, the Nvidia 6xx series comes out then it will be neck and neck again

Now before the AMD 7xxx series came out Nvidia had the better card on the upper end where as AMD had more cards to choose from and they were better on the lower end. What it boiles down to is the user's preference.

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/grap...
Score
0
Related resources
February 6, 2012 2:08:27 AM

Depends on the game so I'd suggest looking for benchmarks on the games you plan on playing to decide which to go for.
Score
0
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 6, 2012 2:11:03 AM

^+1
I was going on the thread topic question but what both gentelmen have stated is true. That way you can figure out which one to get. I back both of them up.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 6, 2012 1:50:01 PM

is a constant war, they are the same, just using different marketing approaches, I've used both and no problems . Its your personal choice in the end. AMD driver are much better now.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 3:11:10 PM

A BIG factor others rarely mention, is driver support.

Nvidia is incredible with their updates. Sometimes before games are even released, Nvidia has beta drivers to enable SLI for the game, give a 3D rating, and/or boost performance with the actual driver update. e.g. "... Up to 11% performance increase in Diablo III with SLI".

I think right after Skyrim was released, Nvidia had a beta driver which helped some graphics issues, and allowed for SLI. It took AMD at least a couple weeks for their corresponding driver update.

Overall when I had a 6950, I found AMD driver update frequency to be crap
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 6, 2012 3:17:57 PM

AMD gpu's are generally cheaper and more efficient than Nvidia gpu's.
Score
0
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 6, 2012 4:20:25 PM

nVidia GPU's are generally have better drivers and support. But, this is just wars and this is depending on the budget, personal preference, etc.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 6, 2012 5:03:20 PM

That's a fanboy myth. Never had a problem with a driver in over 5yrs. Never even heard Tom's mention any driver issues in their AMD reviews either.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 5:23:48 PM

AMD is simply cheaper and superior 90% of the time at the same price range.


Score
0
February 6, 2012 5:33:14 PM

Don't forget that if you plan to have more than two monitor, Nvidia would require SLI. AMD can hold up to 4 or more depending on the card.
Score
0
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 6, 2012 5:38:26 PM

TheApocalypse said:
Depends on the game so I'd suggest looking for benchmarks on the games you plan on playing to decide which to go for.



This is defiantly the best way to go.
It really depends on what you want from the card.
If you just want the fastest card for your budget for gaming then check reviews to see if one makers card is clearly better for your games and if there is no real difference just buy the best deal regardless of who makes it.

For HTPC duties watching films etc I have always favoured AMD cards

If you want PhysX or use encoding software that can take advantage of CUDA technology then it has to be an Nvidia card.

Mactronix :) 
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 172 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 6, 2012 5:45:09 PM

geekapproved said:
That's a fanboy myth. Never had a problem with a driver in over 5yrs. Never even heard Tom's mention any driver issues in their AMD reviews either.


I can recall an article from a couple of years ago where it was mentioned that AMD drivers could be problematic when it came to setting up Crossfire.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 5:56:07 PM

geekapproved said:
That's a fanboy myth. Never had a problem with a driver in over 5yrs. Never even heard Tom's mention any driver issues in their AMD reviews either.



In my personal GPU history, I've jumped back and forth from Nvidia to AMD. Most recently from a 6950, now to a GTX 590. With my 6950 there would be months at a time without any kind of updated driver support.

While Tom's may not have mentioned it in reviews, I can say with certainty Nvidia blows AMD out of the water with drivers. Frequent driver updates are very important for the hardware to optimize it's performance for new releases.



An unrelated note, Nvidia has overall better 3D performance in more games. Nvidia 3d utilises SLI, whereas AMD 3D can not utilise CF. This is an important difference, as 3D is much more taxing on graphics performance. On the other hand, AMD offers flexibility in screens, 3D glasses.
Score
0
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 6, 2012 6:00:48 PM


The route cause of 99% of driver issues can be traced back to the interface between the chair and the keyboard.
FACT.

Mactronix :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 6, 2012 7:14:10 PM

mactronix said:
The route cause of 99% of driver issues can be traced back to the interface between the chair and the keyboard.
FACT.

Mactronix :) 


Thank you.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 6, 2012 9:24:46 PM

One thing that I've noticed is that nVidia gives a few more features besides performance. Specifically, I have wanted to use CUDA apps and have not been able to because my card is AMD, and nVidia has free drivers for running games on 3d monitors, but you have to buy the driver separately for AMD cards.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 6, 2012 11:34:48 PM

internetswag said:
AMD is simply cheaper and superior 90% of the time at the same price range.

If you don't have anything useful to say, please don't say anything. If you have evidence, please let us know.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 6, 2012 11:59:55 PM

jk47 said:
With my 6950 there would be months at a time without any kind of updated driver support.

AMD releases at LEAST 1 driver a month.....nVidia's driver updates have been very infrequent over the last 2-3 years.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 172 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 7, 2012 12:05:47 AM

sykozis said:
AMD releases at LEAST 1 driver a month.....nVidia's driver updates have been very infrequent over the last 2-3 years.

There have been 15 driver releases from Nvidia in less than a year, how is that infrequent? :heink: 
Score
0
a c 643 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 435 Î Nvidia
a c 170 À AMD
February 7, 2012 12:20:16 AM

This is an interesting quote from the conclusion of the HardOCP review of the 7950:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/30/amd_radeon_hd...

Quote:
Troubled Games and CrossFireX
AMD still has its work cut out with CrossFireX drivers. We've encountered two games here that do not seem to do well with Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX. Batman was the worse, the performance was unusually slow with Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX, possibly indicating immature drivers for a game that was released in November of 2011. Skyrim also performed rather poorly in comparison, also a title released in November of last year. NVIDIA has a leg up on AMD with Skyrim multi-GPU performance. Of course, NVIDIA also had SLI support for Skyrim months before AMD had any CrossFireX support in the game.

There is always an aspect of gameplay performance that is hard to relate to gamers through a graph, or even words. We are talking about physically "feeling" a game as you play it. What people perceive as playable performance is not always attached to framerate. This seems to be a fact of CrossFireX that we've encountered in our gameplay testing. At times, the framerate being displayed on the screen doesn't match what we are "feeling" as we play the game.

For example, if 40 or 50 FPS is indicated, even though that should be playable since its above 30 FPS it won't necessarily feel playable. We have to shoot for higher FPS. We experience some kind of lag or choppiness in gameplay with CrossFireX even though the framerate indicates it should be playable. This means you cannot always rely on framerate alone to determine playable performance.

This is a difference that separates CrossFireX from SLI. With SLI we do not experience this phenomenon as much. With SLI, framerates seem smoother at lower framerates, than these do with CrossFireX. For example, we often find we need to aim for higher framerates in order for CrossFireX to feel like it’s playable. Whereas, with SLI we often find we can settle with lower framerates, because it feels playable at those framerates. Trust us, we do not go by framerates when evaluating how these cards actually game. The framerates lie.

Some of this can be seen in the graphs, when we talk about consistency. We've shown it in this evaluation, look back at the Deus Ex or Skyrim graphs and you will see SLI producing a more consistent framerate. These are just facts between CrossFireX and SLI, but it makes it so that SLI feels smoother and better to us, than CrossFireX does often. This was the case a lot of the time testing Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX versus GeForce GTX 580 SLI. We just felt GeForce GTX 580 SLI offered a smoother experience, in pretty much every game, even the ones where Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX allowed higher in-game settings.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 7, 2012 12:24:16 AM

The 7950 is less than a week on the market. I know that's not a good excuse, but it can be expected to improve.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 172 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 7, 2012 12:27:14 AM

kajabla said:
The 7950 is less than a week on the market. I know that's not a good excuse, but it can be expected to improve.

So what, using a unified driver and being 'ready' for release one would think that AMD would have at least tested the darn thing before selling it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 7, 2012 12:29:07 AM

It works, doesn't it? Slightly inferior performance isn't like the Rage glitches.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 12:32:58 AM

kajabla said:
If you don't have anything useful to say, please don't say anything. If you have evidence, please let us know.


You mad at facts? I don't owe you evidence, go look at the benchmarks on this very site.

6870 vs 560 - 6870 is cheaper and faster at games without physx - http://www.hwcompare.com/11005/geforce-gtx-560-vs-radeo...


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

20$ cheaper for a faster card.

Come at me bro.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 172 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 7, 2012 12:39:09 AM
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 7, 2012 12:41:30 AM

Texel rates are virtually meaningless. What matters is game performance. Page through these benchmarks: the cards trade games roughly evenly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-amp...
Sort Newegg by price: the cards have almost exactly the same price range. The 6870 wins slightly on its cheapest card's rebate. You posted two cards that are $20 apart, yes, but I could have posted these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My point here is that the cards are quite close together. The 6950/560 Ti and 6970/570 are even worse. AMD owns the high end for now, but I suspect we'll have a close race again as soon as Kepler comes out.
My real point is that's it's unfair to say that "AMD is simply cheaper and superior 90% of the time at the same price range."
Score
0
February 7, 2012 12:43:50 AM

kajabla said:
The 6870 wins


Then my work here is done.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 12:50:06 AM

Personally I think nVidia cards are the best. I never have any problems with them driver wise but ATi Cards, I do.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 12:55:26 AM

sykozis said:
AMD releases at LEAST 1 driver a month.....nVidia's driver updates have been very infrequent over the last 2-3 years.


Tell that to the AMD CF users who bought skyrim, and had to wait weeks for an update that allowed the CF to work with skyrim.

Nvidia often PRE-RELEASES drivers for new games.

Score
0
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 7, 2012 1:52:26 AM

kajabla said:
Texel rates are virtually meaningless. What matters is game performance. Page through these benchmarks: the cards trade games roughly evenly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-amp...
Sort Newegg by price: the cards have almost exactly the same price range. The 6870 wins slightly on its cheapest card's rebate. You posted two cards that are $20 apart, yes, but I could have posted these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My point here is that the cards are quite close together. The 6950/560 Ti and 6970/570 are even worse. AMD owns the high end for now, but I suspect we'll have a close race again as soon as Kepler comes out.
My real point is that's it's unfair to say that "AMD is simply cheaper and superior 90% of the time at the same price range."


^^
I agree with kajabla. As I stated in my first post on this thread that it is a neck and neck race to out do each other since they are the only two.

Every card that is made is supposed to be the same, and what I mean by that is for example all the 560's are suppose to be the same in it's class, and all the 6870's, etc.

But we all know that some cards come OC'd and some have problems and some are just duds. Most everybody on here has had a bad and a good experince with both Nvidias and AMD.

Like I said before it comes down to personal preference and the need to get the card to fill one's needs. The difference in most cards from both sides are so scant that the brand defines which one will be bought.

Everybody can show all those benchmarks and charts and they are a good tool. I have found out on the benchmarks that other people you have the same setup almost all the time come up with different scores.

This is always going to be a war on the cards just like sports you have one team and there fans and the same with the other side, and course you will see one side try to out do the other.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 2:16:09 AM

There Is Nothing Wrong With AMD Or NVidia Its Mostly Preferance, I Prefer Nvidia Because They Generally Have Better Drivers And GPGPU Is More Perevelantly Supported (For The Current Moment That Is, It Will Soon Change)

It All Depends On Your Price Range, System Specs And Prefered Performance Characteristics

Id Personally Reccomend The GTX560 Range
Score
0
February 7, 2012 5:33:21 AM

Both are good, i found AMD is slightly cheaper with a good range,, a few years ago i found their software updates where hard to navigate, but they have fixed that.
I just recently upgraded my card (like 3days ago :)  ) i went from a GTX 285, and now i have a 7950, and im loving it,, everything maxed, easy to do a simple OC with the software, really comes down to money and availabilty,, the good thing with the 7xxx series is when u xfire them u great responces like 100% increase in performance
Score
0
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 7, 2012 10:31:00 AM

fight again.... in a short time two fights? what's this?
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 172 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 7, 2012 11:10:50 AM

Well people have had their say and the OP has not responded so we can end it here methinks.
Score
0
!