Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I need facts Nvidia vs AMD/ATI

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Nvidia
  • AMD
  • ATI
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 8, 2012 3:55:20 AM

I am an Nvidia fan. I have only ever built one computer and only ever used this current Nvidia card. I have had this computer running for about 2 weeks now. I have no issues or anything but my friend claims that me buying my Nvidia card, gtx 560ti (msi twin frozr), was an over priced decision and that i could have gotten a better gpu for less from AMD/ATI. Is this true ? He also says msi is a garbage company. is this true? I have done research and i can overclock my gpu to 1000mhz which will make it out perform a gtx 570 at reference speeds. Which for the price, 256.99, is great! He is on a whole argument that ATI/AMD is better they have faster cards that can out perform nvidia just period. He has no detailed argument. Could someone help me support my end? I've always heard Nvidia has better shader clocks and more power then amd cards.

the main questions i want answered are:

1) Is Nvidia a better Graphics card company overall to ATI/AMD?

2) Is msi a good graphics card manufacturer ?

3) Is Nvidia more powerful and have better shader clocks?

4) is he just mad that nvidia is better and he cant actually argue?

5) was my purchase a bad buy?

im looking for ammo to support my side. I would love stats and hard facts. :bounce: 

More about : facts nvidia amd ati

February 8, 2012 4:16:31 AM

1. Not at all, ATI/AMD is a very respectable company, their cards provide some nice punch for price, their cards are also more overclockable.

2. MSI cards run cool and silent with good clocks, though maybe not my favorite company, I have always preferred EVGA for their lifetime warranties.

3. It all depends, actually, NVidia cards tend to do better at some games, AMD at others, the trend seems to be: High graphical environments: Nvidia, Very large dynamic environments: AMD

4. Is this question douchey?

5. Not at all! I love the GTX 560, I don't have the Ti but the performance is close, It performs well in high-graphics games, but as I said before, large environments cause a massive hit on FPS that AMD simply handles better.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 2:40:24 PM

So if you had to pic a side whose would you take ? because you obviously have had experience with both sides. Also im not saying amd/ati is terrible im just saying in a mile run nvidia wins by inches
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 2:54:29 PM

The pound for pound counterpart to the 560ti is the 6950..... All you are missing out on is bad driver support from amd.
Nvidias drivers have always been better in my experiences. The prices on the higher end are.about the same. The msi twin frozr is one of the best non reference.design cooler models as well as msi being a good company. I have an msi card and love it.
Your friend is just a fanboy douche
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 8, 2012 3:05:45 PM

Frankly, your friend is a retard[ed fanboy].

Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses. The 560 Ti is a really good card, it competes against AMD's 6950. The 6950 is perhaps a tad better on the price/performance scale, but they are super close and either one is great.

As for MSI, they make good GPUs. I don't like their motherboards, though, after I had one die on me.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 3:06:11 PM

I owned ATI - AMD cards from 9600 PRO made by Asus , after that VisionteK 4850 , Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X and now MSI 6950 2GB , and never i had not even a problem with my video cards . What bad drivers ? Those are stories for little kids.
Your 560Ti from MSI is a verry good video card.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 3:06:26 PM

How long have you had your msi card flintironstagg?
Score
0
February 8, 2012 3:30:54 PM

sosofm said:
I owned ATI - AMD cards from 9600 PRO made by Asus , after that VisionteK 4850 , Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X and now MSI 6950 2GB , and never i had not even a problem with my video cards . What bad drivers ? Those are stories for little kids.
Your 560Ti from MSI is a verry good video card.

100% my same experience with AMD/Radeon and Nvidia/Geforece ^
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 3:37:30 PM

wolfram23 said:
Frankly, your friend is a retard[ed fanboy].

Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses. The 560 Ti is a really good card, it competes against AMD's 6950. The 6950 is perhaps a tad better on the price/performance scale, but they are super close and either one is great.

As for MSI, they make good GPUs. I don't like their motherboards, though, after I had one die on me.


Agreed.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 3:37:56 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
The pound for pound counterpart to the 560ti is the 6950..... All you are missing out on is bad driver support from amd.
Nvidias drivers have always been better in my experiences. The prices on the higher end are.about the same. The msi twin frozr is one of the best non reference.design cooler models as well as msi being a good company. I have an msi card and love it.
Your friend is just a fanboy douche

LOL @ ^ I guess that is why lots of people have been jumping ship to Radeon cards and OP GTX 560ti is a great card and I have had all the same driver issues with Nvidia and Radeon which were mostly none existent or not a real big deal at the very worst. OP you cannot say which is better between Radeon vs Nvidia cause they are both top performers and they are all we have to choose from.
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 8, 2012 3:47:37 PM

Gothams Finest said:
Agreed.


You should reply in more threads. Always have the...nicest... avatars. :na: 
Score
0
a c 204 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 3:50:42 PM

I've had both, never had any issues with both. Driver issues are apparent on both, and both will fix the issues. Both have cards priced to compare to each other. Saying one company oc better than the other is like saying chevy is faster than ford, it depends on the car(d). Same goes for "high graphical environments" or "large dynamic environments" that really depends on the game. I've always chose whoever has better bang/buck at the price range I'm looking at. And the 560ti currently won so that is what I have now. I have the tf2 too. MSI is a good gpu company, I've seen issues with their lower priced mobos.

Best graphics card for the money article shows them tied. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 3:54:27 PM

wolfram23 said:
You should reply in more threads. Always have the...nicest... avatars. :na: 


:) 
Score
0
February 8, 2012 3:54:40 PM

In my opinion over the years, I have found this to be opinion based, Nvidia and AMD enthusiasts will tell you different. Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses and coming out at a tie(most of the time)

Personally I have always had Nvidia but I just built my new rig, and for a pretty penny i bought the HIS IceQ Turbo X Radeon HD6970 and this is by far the best card I have owned to date, it has not let me down once.

Either cards are amazing pieces of technology, the choice is really yours to make.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 3:56:21 PM

k1114 said:
I've had both, never had any issues with both. Driver issues are apparent on both, and both will fix the issues. Both have cards priced to compare to each other. Saying one company oc better than the other is like saying chevy is faster than ford, it depends on the car(d). Same goes for "high graphical environments" or "large dynamic environments" that really depends on the game. I've always chose whoever has better bang/buck at the price range I'm looking at. And the 560ti currently won so that is what I have now. I have the tf2 too. MSI is a good gpu company, I've seen issues with their lower priced mobos.

Best graphics card for the money article shows them tied. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

I wouldn't say msi TF II 560ti is a great price/performance offering I would have highly suggested one of the reference GTX 560ti cards for a best value price/performance offering for $40 less but if low noise is a priority than TF II 560ti is a great value as well Radeon 6870 is a far better value than any GTX 560
Score
0
February 8, 2012 4:14:51 PM

sadfacebunny said:
I am an Nvidia fan. I have only ever built one computer and only ever used this current Nvidia card. I have had this computer running for about 2 weeks now. I have no issues or anything but my friend claims that me buying my Nvidia card, gtx 560ti (msi twin frozr), was an over priced decision and that i could have gotten a better gpu for less from AMD/ATI. Is this true ? He also says msi is a garbage company. is this true? I have done research and i can overclock my gpu to 1000mhz which will make it out perform a gtx 570 at reference speeds. Which for the price, 256.99, is great! He is on a whole argument that ATI/AMD is better they have faster cards that can out perform nvidia just period. He has no detailed argument. Could someone help me support my end? I've always heard Nvidia has better shader clocks and more power then amd cards.

the main questions i want answered are:

1) Is Nvidia a better Graphics card company overall to ATI/AMD?

2) Is msi a good graphics card manufacturer ?

3) Is Nvidia more powerful and have better shader clocks?

4) is he just mad that nvidia is better and he cant actually argue?

5) was my purchase a bad buy?

im looking for ammo to support my side. I would love stats and hard facts. :bounce: 





I will not address the hardware issue as I believe both make quality hardware. However my experience with AMD/ATI drivers is that they are consistently buggy. I've tried several over the years, one as recently as last year and noticed the difference almost immediately. You may pay a few dollars more for Nvidia but you will be happy with the product long after you have forgotten what you paid for it. Someone here is sure to point out that everybody has driver bugs occasionally and they are correct. Nvidia corrects theirs promptly. AMD/ATI doesn't always and so they linger for years.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 4:18:46 PM

As the others have already touched on quite thoroughly you can't put your finger down and claim one is better than another. If your look at benchmarks depending on the game the victor will generally trade places.

In general I have noticed that ATI cards are designed to be faster, but they drop processing power, trading it for more speed.

nVidia tends to be slower, but more powerful. Trading the speed for more raw power.

You can compare it to cars. Which is better, a muscle car or a tuner? Both will do what they are designed to very well, but they do it differently. It all comes down to which do you prefer?

Also, on a smaller note, I agree that I have found ATI drivers to be a little buggier. Not really a big deal, but still slightly annoying.
Score
0
a c 204 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 4:55:51 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
I wouldn't say msi TF II 560ti is a great price/performance offering I would have highly suggested one of the reference GTX 560ti cards for a best value price/performance offering for $40 less but if low noise is a priority than TF II 560ti is a great value as well Radeon 6870 is a far better value than any GTX 560


Well for the features for me it was, I needed a better cooler to OC as well as keeping cool (texas is very hot in the summer). Oc is definitely a big factor in price/performance vs a 6950 1gb. Higher price for a better cooler for noise can be a factor too like you said. I got mine months ago so prices/card offerings have changed quite a bit since then.

6870 vs 560 is a different story, the 6870 would be my choice there.

I just noticed the op got his at $257, that's not really good, it's 245 at newegg and amazon for the longest of times, which is how much it was when I got it. (plus $20 rebate making it 225)
Score
0
February 8, 2012 5:15:00 PM

Fan boys one and all. As has been shown in the past, and still does...The clear winner is and has always been Matrox. FACT
Score
0
February 8, 2012 5:18:22 PM

k1114 said:
Well for the features for me it was, I needed a better cooler to OC as well as keeping cool (texas is very hot in the summer). Oc is definitely a big factor in price/performance vs a 6950 1gb. Higher price for a better cooler for noise can be a factor too like you said. I got mine months ago so prices/card offerings have changed quite a bit since then.

6870 vs 560 is a different story, the 6870 would be my choice there.

I just noticed the op got his at $257, that's not really good, it's 245 at newegg and amazon for the longest of times, which is how much it was when I got it. (plus $20 rebate making is 225)

You can get a reference 560ti from EVGA for like $225 all day and it will still OC to pretty well the same speed of an msi TF II the difference being is the EVGA Reference 560ti card will run hotter, louder, and it just will not look as pretty and TF II does look pretty LOL.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 5:46:44 PM

apesoccer said:
Fan boys one and all. As has been shown in the past, and still does...The clear winner is and has always been Matrox. FACT



Matrox hasn't made a competitive consumer level GPU in over a decade.
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 8, 2012 5:52:45 PM

ram1009 said:
Matrox hasn't made a competitive consumer level GPU in over a decade.


No way bro! Matrox is THE BEST!

:whistle: 
Score
0
February 8, 2012 6:01:00 PM

ram1009 said:
Matrox hasn't made a competitive consumer level GPU in over a decade.

I got Matrox GPU .08mb VRAM 1 stream processor on board no 6pin dongle required it pwns GTX 580 SLI.
Score
0
a c 204 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 6:13:35 PM

Yeah, matrox ftw. :bounce: 

Although gordon you pretty much repeated my reasonings, I never said it oced higher but on average it is a little more. Looks isn't important, imo case windows look dumb so you will never see your components. I also forgot cuda, that helps a bit more than stream for the software I use but that wasn't too big of a factor. And most likely irrelevant for the op. No one said physx yet. Someone is bound to but that's not important.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 6:23:39 PM

k1114 said:
Yeah, matrox ftw. :bounce: 

Although gordon you pretty much repeated my reasonings, I never said it oced higher but on average it is a little more. Looks isn't important, imo case windows look dumb so you will never see your components. I also forgot cuda, that helps a bit more than stream for the software I use but that wasn't too big of a factor. And most likely irrelevant for the op. No one said physx yet. Someone is bound to but that's not important.

Physx is in all of 5 games and it's no big deal just like 3D it is a kids novelty delight thingy IMHO LOL ! The looks are pretty well the main thing well that and the silence that sell me on the TF II/III design cards and I leave my side panel off 24/7 PS try and sell me on Cuda please cause I don't think I quite understand it all the way.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 7:24:52 PM

jaguarskx said:
Here's an interesting article about the upcoming nVidia Kepler graphics card and supposedly some shady ethics that nVidia uses to market Kelper and previous cards.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/01/physics-hardware-mak...

Before I read that article and I will read it I will state right off the hop that Physics which is the proper correct English word not Physx* which is a miss spelling of the word and meaning have been around in games allot longer than Nvidias Physx* and will be around a long time after this Nvidia ( Physx*) craze/charade ends. In short Physx is a feeble attempt to create a monopoly.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 7:26:14 PM

I just answered a similar thread.

AMD and Nvidia are equal enough to not matter.

It's like Intel vs Intel. Neither is vastly superior, unless AMD/Nvidia can pull off something like the i5 2500k did to the 955 BE graphics competition will be all about who gets out their cards first.

Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 8, 2012 7:41:44 PM

jaguarskx said:
Here's an interesting article about the upcoming nVidia Kepler graphics card and supposedly some shady ethics that nVidia uses to market Kelper and previous cards.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/01/physics-hardware-mak...


Whoa. I think I have some reading to do.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 7:46:23 PM

jaguarskx said:
Here's an interesting article about the upcoming nVidia Kepler graphics card and supposedly some shady ethics that nVidia uses to market Kelper and previous cards.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/01/physics-hardware-mak...

That article and site you linked confirms everything I knew was true about Nvidia but never could really prove so thanks and it wuz a great read.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 8:11:03 PM

jaguarskx said:
Here's an interesting article about the upcoming nVidia Kepler graphics card and supposedly some shady ethics that nVidia uses to market Kelper and previous cards.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/01/physics-hardware-mak...

Solution IMHO is for game develops to use and make there own software Physics like it mostly is anyway and for nvidia and radeon to just continue to make the best GPUs they can. Nvidia Physx is the biggest scam the PC gaming scene has ever witnessed LOL and it seems to be stagnant anyway so I say put the old beast down.
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 8, 2012 8:24:26 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
Solution IMHO is for game develops to use and make there own software Physics like it mostly is anyway and for nvidia and radeon to just continue to make the best GPUs they can. Nvidia Physx is the biggest scam the PC gaming scene has ever witnessed LOL and it seems to be stagnant anyway so I say put the old beast down.

There's already Bullet and Havoc physics engines which run just fine on CPUs, although as far as I know they don't generally use the "advanced" cloth and particle stuff you get in PhysX games like Batman and Cryostasis.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 8:39:49 PM

wolfram23 said:
There's already Bullet and Havoc physics engines which run just fine on CPUs, although as far as I know they don't generally use the "advanced" cloth and particle stuff you get in PhysX games like Batman and Cryostasis.

Doesn't matter that so called advanced physx* crap is garbage and just slows games down plus I will add Source engine and many other game engines have there own Physx* and nobody complains about them but when Nvidia does it some how is more than the some of its part BS and turns into something of a ( Mantra ) to green biased fan boys. PS notice how I called out the physx* with a * for it is misspelled and not even a real word with any real meaning and I like Nvidia and AMD no bias here.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 8:41:54 PM

wolfram23 said:
There's already Bullet and Havoc physics engines which run just fine on CPUs, although as far as I know they don't generally use the "advanced" cloth and particle stuff you get in PhysX games like Batman and Cryostasis.

and Havoc physics are just fine and dandy with me Bullet I haven't heard of by I am sure I have unwittingly used.
Score
0
a c 365 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a c 123 À AMD
February 8, 2012 8:50:16 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
PS notice how I called out the physx* with a * for it is misspelled and not even a real word with any real meaning and I like Nvidia and AMD no bias here.


No need to get bent out of shape by the word Physx. Yes, it is not a real word, it is a name given to the engine. Much like how Crysis is not a real word, it is just the name given to the game.


To counter balance the article I linked to, AMD/ATI have also cheated in the past (I believe it was briefly mentioned in the article. But it is been a while since I heard of any cheating done by them. Either AMD/ATI does not cheat as much as nVidia (I think they have been accused of cheating on something every 2 years or so), or to be cynical, AMD/ATI are just better at not getting caught.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 9:00:02 PM

jaguarskx said:
No need to get bent out of shape by the word Physx. Yes, it is not a real word, it is a name given to the engine. Much like how Crysis is not a real word, it is just the name given to the game.


To counter balance the article I linked to, AMD/ATI have also cheated in the past (I believe it was briefly mentioned in the article. But it is been a while since I heard of any cheating done by them. Either AMD/ATI does not cheat as much as nVidia (I think they have been accused of cheating on something every 2 years or so), or to be cynical, AMD/ATI are just better at not getting caught.

Well the difference between the Crysis and Physx thing is that the word Crysis was not exploited to sell the game it was just the name of it whereas Physx was systematically marketed as a tool of deceit against those less tech savvy individuals as well those that are more susceptible to PR propaganda and slick marketing campaigns is why it piss me off and its GREASY.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 173 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 8, 2012 9:05:45 PM

These kind of threads are so tiresome that in future I'm going to delete them as soon as I see them.
Score
0
!