Benefits of AMD Radeon vs Nvidia GeForce?
Hey, so I had a few questions about AMD vs Nvidia. So I am planning on buying a new graphics card when Kepler comes out. I'm undecided between 600 or the 7000 series. Here's what I need. I'll be doing a little gaming with friends, mostly Starcraft and Battlefield 3, but I also do some video editing. The part I'm concerned with is that it seems to me that AMDs are a little cheaper, but Nvidias work with the CUDA mercury processing in adobe premiere. This got me thinking. What exactly are the pros and cons of going Nvidia vs AMD. Other than the mercury, I know that AMDs support more monitors, but that's about it. Are there any advantages or disadvantages of going with one versus the other?
- Best answer
ndr2h said:The new 600 series from nVidia will apparently support up to four monitors per card. A lot of speculation at the moment point towards nVidia really coming out ontop with features and performance.
I'd wait until the hit the stores which will be any week now then see what the reviews say.
well the radeons can do 6...
and rumor has it the NDA lifts 23rd March
NVidia's claims to fame have been CUDA, PhysX & 3D Surround
AMD has had Stream and Open CL but haven't heard anything in a while in that regard. CUDA remain solidly in the lead in this arena.
Same with Havoc , mot of AMD press release just say PhysX will die. To many PhysX isn't a big consideration but to me it's like sprinkles on an ice cream cone....if it's available in a game, I want it. If I was putting AMD cards on a box for main GFX service, I'd spare $50 of so in budget for a dedicated PhysX card
AMD 3D I don't know much about, not much in the trade press compared to Surround.
Out of the entire GFX market, the percentage of peeps concerned with those features is relatively small so for most it comes down to gaming performance on single screen without the bell and whistles. As to their performance strengths outside that special interest arena ..... the general rule of thumb is the AMD is gonna take the performance segment below the $200 and nVidia will remain king above $200.
The exception in the 5xx versus 69xx series was the 570 / 6970 which was a virtual wash.
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:
$ 320.00 6970 (526/825) $ 0.61 - $ 0.78
$ 320.00 570 (524/873) $ 0.61 - $ 0.73
As you can see, in single card configurations, there was just a 2 fps difference. In SLI / CF however, the 570 took a 6% performance lead.
The 580 had no competition from AMD but last generation's big winner from nVidia was the 560 Ti. The following summary is a survey of what hardware hit steam servers during the month of February
Card -------------- February Market Share
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 ----- 10.25%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 ----- 4.37%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 ----- 3.83%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 ----- 3.76%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 ----- 1.85%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 ----- 3.02%
ATI Radeon HD 6870 ----- 1.37%
As you can see, the 560 sold more than all the ATI cards combined....almost twice as much in the > $200 category.
I am surprised at the 6870's low market penetration showing in the survey as, performance wise, the 6870 dominates its price category as strongly as the 560's dominated the above $200 category.
Going forward, I'm betting on AMD's 78xx series and nVidias 650 Ti / 660 Ti being the dominant cards on the next round. And I think two of those cards in SLI / CF will easily outperform single top end cards and, more importantly, for a lower cost per frame just as in the previous round.
One more difference which has to be acknowledged is multi-card driver support. The CF problem with the 78xx and 79xx series at present are well documented as historically been the case. AMD has improved greatly, and while nVidia has also had it's issues, most glaring of late in BF3, there's little arguing that AMD takes a bit longer to "get er done" than nVidia does. And CF with more than 2 cards is a place many are unwilling to venture.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-crossfirex-review/15Quote:The one recommendation we always gave you guys is to keep it simple at 2 GPUs maximum, as after 2 GPUs in a CrossfireX setup you quickly run into weird anomalies that can be irritating. AMD limited the 6800 towards 2-way Multi-GPU gaming as such was a very peasant experience. ..... So let's round things up, personally we always say stick to one or maybe two high-end cards as there is so much less driver fuzz to worry about. It's like this with ATI, once you pass 2 GPUs you'll often find yourself compromising a lot with new game titles versus multi-GPU support.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7950-crossfire-review-2-and-3way/19Quote:Our Crossfire experience was a mixed bag of results. When we tested the 7970 in 2-way Crossfire, we barely had any issues. With the 7950 that changed somewhat. You probably missed it in our test session, but Crysis 2 would not scale whatsoever, we had a weird freeze in Far Cry 2, Lost Planet 2 was rather unstable, Dirt 2 showed massive corruption (hence we left it out). So yeah, that's quite a bit to deal with.
Another title that ran into problems was Battlefield 3, 2-way Crossfire worked spotless, but with 3-way crossfire we could not even get into the main menu.
It's for reasons mentioned above that we always suggest you guys that IF you opt a multi-GPU solution, to go with 2 cards maximum. Here again we we like to say that very same thing.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-crossfire-review/21Quote:The past year if you have read up in our forums, AMD's Radeon team has been a step too slow with driver support. While there are monthly updates and hotfixes titles like Rage and Skyrim have been plagued by driver bugs, especially in Crossfire modes. It took AMD weeks to fix. When you drop 60 EUR on game you want to be able to play it on release day, period.
When we relate that to our test suite with CrossfireX in mind AMD did not return with a homerun either. We had some issues, COD MW2 had a negative scaling issue, Anno 1404 refused to scale properly below 1920x1200 (though that one might have been the one title severely CPU limited) and Dirt 2 showed massive graphics corruption. We inserted Anno 1404 but didn't even bother with the other two titles hence I did not include them in the benchmark session.
In summary, if planning on getting the 78xx series or 79xx series, I'd wait till June and allow time for the drivers to get sorted out. I'm not sure who the big winners will be at each price point but, if history serves, I expect the same AMD below $200ish / nVidia above $200ish split ... tho maybe well see that divider creep up a bit due to inflation.
Again I expect the real price / performance to be 2 of the mid range cards in SLI / CF over the "top end" cards. Another reason, besides driver support to wait till June is right now we are seeing "Revision A" hardware.....remember the P67 debacle where SATA ports were borked ?.... remember the early burning 570's ? Once the reference designs hit the street, vendors get to work tweaking ther non-reference boards and these are the ones that bring the "buyer' remorse" to early adopters a the new boards are factory OC'd with bigger cooler and beefed up PCB's more phae in their VRM's that will overclocks significantly higher than the reference designs.
Which one will I put in my builds .... ask me in June ...... but I think it' a pretty safe bet it's going to be a pair of 78xx or 650 Ti / 660 Ti's