Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Just tell me what graphics card to get

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 3, 2012 5:25:23 PM

Hi guys,
Ive had my pc for a few months just waiting to get graphics card when they come down in price and after buying about 20 games and not being able to run them im just gonna order one.

My rig is basically a 3570k asus, corsair etc components all premium. corsair 650ax psu

monitors 2048x1152

budget can range from 200-350 ish dont really want to spend too much.

i want it to be future proofed for a couple year at least.

ive been looking at the 660/670/7950/7970 but theres so much variation in reviews and benchmarks its hard to choose.

please help.

Henry

More about : graphics card

a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:36:49 PM

I would go for the 670, but this thread isnt really goin to help you because others are going to say the 7970
September 3, 2012 5:38:53 PM

yeah its really hard to decide, is nvidias physX quite important in deciding or not?
Related resources
September 3, 2012 5:40:08 PM

paddys09 said:
I would go for the 670, but this thread isnt really goin to help you because others are going to say the 7970


The 670 is not in his budget i think.
The best cards under $350 are the 660 Ti and the 7950 i think, the 7950 is supposed to compete against the 670 not the 660 Ti also the 7950 is superior in benchmarks i think, also it has 1GB of ram more.
a c 120 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:43:21 PM

hbriggs said:
Hi guys,
Ive had my pc for a few months just waiting to get graphics card when they come down in price and after buying about 20 games and not being able to run them im just gonna order one.

My rig is basically a 3570k asus, corsair etc components all premium. corsair 650ax psu

monitors 2048x1152

budget can range from 200-350 ish dont really want to spend too much.

i want it to be future proofed for a couple year at least.

ive been looking at the 660/670/7950/7970 but theres so much variation in reviews and benchmarks its hard to choose.

please help.

Henry


The 660 and 7950 are both kinda 'meh'. The lowest 7970 is around $410, the good ones with aftermarket coolers are still around $450 give or take.

The 670 can be had for a bit cheaper at around $399 but the 7970 will outperform the 670 by a bit.
a c 273 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:43:45 PM

hbriggs said:
yeah its really hard to decide, is nvidias physX quite important in deciding or not?

Do any of your games use PhysX?
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:43:45 PM

With current drivers, the 7970 generally out-performs the 670 a little and it wins by larger margins when high AA, tessellation and DirectC lighting features are used (Kepler GPUs can't get playable performance with those features, but most games don't support them yet, so it's kinda like AMD's argument against single card PhysX right now).

However, the 7950, with overclocking, is no worse than a 7970 because the 7950 and the 7970 can go equally far when they have the same cooler.

You won't get a 670 nor a 7970 at $350 or lower unless you get lucky with sales or go to a store that sells even Nvidia cards under MSRP (that's usually AMD's thing to do). If you were to get one of them at a price like that, then it would probably be the 7970.

Regardless, again, if you overclock, then the 7950 is the best answer right now. Only the 7970 GHz Edition can consistently get higher average performance in most games with overclocking.

Do PhysX or other features matter to you?

To know this, you'd want to know what games you want to play. Most modern games don't support PhysX and several of those that do don't make much use of it.
a c 120 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:45:12 PM

hbriggs said:
yeah its really hard to decide, is nvidias physX quite important in deciding or not?


PhysX is very nice to have, it's extremely pretty but it is not a "free" technology. It has a computational cost and does detract from the frame rate by a very large amount. It is recommended to run PhysX with either two identical cards in SLI or with a lower model card acting as a dedicated PhysX card as this will negate the gameplay impact. Many people recommend the GTX 460 and 560 as a dedicated PhysX cards
September 3, 2012 5:45:24 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Do any of your games use PhysX?


I dont know ha, bf3, crysis 2 (just posting ones i think may have it)
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:48:53 PM

I don't think that BF3 makes good use of PhysX, but Crysis 2 might. I'll check.
September 3, 2012 5:49:14 PM

sorry i meant £200-350 im live in the uk
a c 120 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:49:34 PM

hbriggs said:
I dont know ha, bf3, crysis 2 (just posting ones i think may have it)


Crysis 2 can use hardware PhysX, BF3 doesn't as it uses its own implementation
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:50:11 PM

I thought so. Does Crysis 2 make good use out of it? Supporting it and using it extensively and well aren't the same.
September 3, 2012 5:52:31 PM

Personally & FWIW, I don't use any AMD cards. I've tried many over the years and have concluded that their drivers are always buggy. I hope you have better luck if you get one. Ths GTX 660ti is probably the best in your price range. I'm about to get one myself.
September 3, 2012 5:55:40 PM

blazorthon said:
I thought so. Does Crysis 2 make good use out of it? Supporting it and using it extensively and well aren't the same.

Are there any games where phyx makes a real difference?
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:57:51 PM

ram1009 said:
Personally & FWIW, I don't use any AMD cards. I've tried many over the years and have concluded that their drivers are always buggy. I hope you have better luck if you get one. Ths GTX 660ti is probably the best in your price range. I'm about to get one myself.


AMD has improved their drivers. Their Catalyst 12.6 and up are the best that they've ever done and are excellent. The 660 TI is also a very unbalanced card that I don't recommend. It isn't worth going $100 cheaper than a 670. If you want a cheaper Nvidia card than the 670, then I suggest waiting for the next cards down from the 660 TI. They should offer extremely similar performance at considerably lower prices like the 670 versus the 680.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 5:58:20 PM

hbriggs said:
Are there any games where phyx makes a real difference?


I think that the Batman series would count as making a significant difference with PhysX.
a c 273 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 6:01:56 PM

hbriggs said:
Are there any games where phyx makes a real difference?

As has already been said, it's just eye candy. If you are say, shooting at someone who is crouching behind a breeze block wall and you are using a small calibre weapon then chunks will fly off the wall but you won't penetrate and if you then switch to a larger calibre weapon which in RL would penetrate, in the game not only will it still not penetrate but the chunks flying off will be exactly the same size as they were when you were using your pop gun.
a c 120 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 6:05:06 PM

blazorthon said:
I thought so. Does Crysis 2 make good use out of it? Supporting it and using it extensively and well aren't the same.


I haven't tried it myself but I believe that it does. Crysis 2 was heavily marketed as a TWIMTBP title and NVidia usually turns the chaos up to 11 in such flagship titles. There are tons of particle effects in that game even with software physics.

hbriggs said:
Are there any games where phyx makes a real difference?


PhysX is purely an aesthetic layer. It largely handles soft-body physics such as cloth and fluid surfaces, as well as particle effects and geometric subdivision. PhysX never feeds back into the game logic and thus doesn't impact gameplay at all, it just makes stuff like hair and clothing look more natural and less like it was precooked into the model.

There are a lot of games which do PhysX really well. Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City do, Metro 2033 (also has DirectCompute so PhysX is not strictly necessary), Borderlands, etc...

Hard body physics such as thrown objects and collisions are almost always handled by the CPU using a separate physics enginer (such as Havok) because this makes it easier to integrate into the game logic.

It is also possible to execute hardware-accelerated level PhysX on just a CPU but it will slow down even a 3960x
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 6:06:02 PM

Its only a handful of games.... I think Borderlands 2 is going to make good use of it.
September 3, 2012 6:07:12 PM

Mousemonkey said:
As has already been said, it's just eye candy. If you are say, shooting at someone who is crouching behind a breeze block wall and you are using a small calibre weapon then chunks will fly off the wall but you won't penetrate and if you then switch to a larger calibre weapon which in RL would penetrate, in the game not only will it still not penetrate but the chunks flying off will be exactly the same size as they were when you were using your pop gun.


Okay thanks for the help ill not include phyx from my purchase
September 3, 2012 6:17:22 PM

Couple more things
1) Will the price for the graphics card come down any more?
2) should i get one with a higher clock speed(say 1000Mhz instead of 950Mhz)
or shud i just up the speed myself?
a c 120 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 6:19:06 PM

hbriggs said:
Couple more things
1) Will the price for the graphics card come down any more?
2) should i get one with a higher clock speed(say 1000Mhz instead of 950Mhz)
or shud i just up the speed myself?


1. Probably. I expect them to drop before or around the holiday season

2. Yes. Manufacturers reserve higher quality chips for the factory overclocked cards. This means that not only are you getting a faster card with a better cooler to begin with, you will most likely be able to take it further should you choose to do so. The extra $10-$20 for a better cooler and higher quality chip is usually worth it even if you leave it at factory settings.
September 3, 2012 6:21:27 PM

blazorthon said:
AMD has improved their drivers. Their Catalyst 12.6 and up are the best that they've ever done and are excellent. The 660 TI is also a very unbalanced card that I don't recommend. It isn't worth going $100 cheaper than a 670. If you want a cheaper Nvidia card than the 670, then I suggest waiting for the next cards down from the 660 TI. They should offer extremely similar performance at considerably lower prices like the 670 versus the 680.



I've heard similar claims before and even fallen for them at times. One release doesn't make a trend even if you're right. BTW, what is your source for the 660 opinion? Everything I've read is positive.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 6:50:23 PM

ram1009 said:
I've heard similar claims before and even fallen for them at times. One release doesn't make a trend even if you're right. BTW, what is your source for the 660 opinion? Everything I've read is positive.


The 660 TI has poor AA performance compared to the 7950 and a 7850 or 7870 with a good enough overclock. The 660 TI has poor minimum frame rates. Nvidia basically took a graphics card, the GTX 670, that was already very memory-bandwidth bottle-necked and cut it's memory bandwidth and ROP count by 25%. It makes the 660 TI very unbalanced. It can have great maximum frame rates, but its minimums tend to be poor.

Throwing AA at it can bring it far below AMD's stock 7950 and overclocked 7800 cards, tessellation doesn't help, and a lot of the positive reviews had some cherry picked 660 Tis that were not representative of what you'd get with one that you buy. A 660 TI really sucks at overclocking when you don't look at the exaggerated reviews. A 7850, with a good overclock, can consistently beat the 660 TI in most games at a much lower price. I'm not saying that it's a bad card, just not a great card, most certainly not for the money and especially not when overclocking is considered.

As for the drivers, I have a 7850 myself. Up until Catalyst 12.6 there were problems with a lot of stuff. Since 12.6, AMD has made huge improvements, granted before 12.6 the drivers were kinda bad (usually not as bad as they were made out to be, but still bad). 12.7 also had large performance improvements in addition to stability improvements.
September 3, 2012 7:58:30 PM

blazorthon said:
The 660 TI has poor AA performance compared to the 7950 and a 7850 or 7870 with a good enough overclock. The 660 TI has poor minimum frame rates. Nvidia basically took a graphics card, the GTX 670, that was already very memory-bandwidth bottle-necked and cut it's memory bandwidth and ROP count by 25%. It makes the 660 TI very unbalanced. It can have great maximum frame rates, but its minimums tend to be poor.

Throwing AA at it can bring it far below AMD's stock 7950 and overclocked 7800 cards, tessellation doesn't help, and a lot of the positive reviews had some cherry picked 660 Tis that were not representative of what you'd get with one that you buy. A 660 TI really sucks at overclocking when you don't look at the exaggerated reviews. A 7850, with a good overclock, can consistently beat the 660 TI in most games at a much lower price. I'm not saying that it's a bad card, just not a great card, most certainly not for the money and especially not when overclocking is considered.

As for the drivers, I have a 7850 myself. Up until Catalyst 12.6 there were problems with a lot of stuff. Since 12.6, AMD has made huge improvements, granted before 12.6 the drivers were kinda bad (usually not as bad as they were made out to be, but still bad). 12.7 also had large performance improvements in addition to stability improvements.



Believe me, I dislike excluding anybody from consideration when I'm looking for the best bang for the buck however it will take more than one person raving about one release to get me to spend money on an AMD card. Your knowledge of the inner workings of GPUs is far greater than mine however I have many years of experience observing bugs with ATI/AMD drivers and watching the reversals when an Nvidia GPU is installed. No offense intended but I prefer to stick with the opinions of reviewers I know.
September 3, 2012 8:04:34 PM

Get a asus direct cu radeon 7970 is only like 380 30 more than your budget just stretch it a bit a 7970 is better than a 670 in my opinion i hate the 670 because it is not that powerful sounding lol
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:09:34 PM

You guys kill me with this AMD drivers are terribad omg stuff. I, as im sure many of you have, owned nvidia and AMD/ATI cards. Only errors I ever got was with my dual 9800 GX2 and driver stopped responding errors. Thats it. nvidia drivers have been a mess since the 600 series came out. Ironic. Think lots of folks just regurgitate what they read others say. Very few have actual first hand experience with said bugs, not saying no one does, a lot of it is "I heard" or "I read", not "Ive experienced said bugs". Guess what im trying to say is, and it isnt directed at anyone in particular, before you take someone elses opinion, including my own, try it out for yourself. If you have decent quality parts in your PC, meaning no POS PSU, or faulty memory, and clean your drivers when you switch from Team Green to Team Red or vice versa, all should work as intended.
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:10:55 PM

ram1009 said:
Believe me, I dislike excluding anybody from consideration when I'm looking for the best bang for the buck however it will take more than one person raving about one release to get me to spend money on an AMD card. Your knowledge of the inner workings of GPUs is far greater than mine however I have many years of experience observing bugs with ATI/AMD drivers and watching the reversals when an Nvidia GPU is installed. No offense intended but I prefer to stick with the opinions of reviewers I know.



its not entirely fiction. the reason why in almost all cases where an amd card beats a nvidia card in resolutions past 1920x1080 is due to the fact that

A) more vram(but this is less relevant, as games wont use up the 3 gb vram unless you using multiple screens)
B) The memory bus

B is the major reason why amd cards work better in 2560x1200 resolution. Now going back to the difference between the 670 and the 660ti, the 670 is basically at the memory bandwidth line of 1920x1080. You can see this by looking at the comparisons between fps in extremely high anti aliasing games like the crysis series. The reason why AMD cards work better is due to that extra bus room size. the 660ti is essentially the 670 with the buss sized nerfed. even sites with outdated game testing like tweaktown who tends to favor nvidia agreed that the 660ti does indeed take hits when antialiasing is put into play. As for driver issues, the hd 7k series has as much issues as the Gtx 600 series. Both sides always happen to have problems and its prevelent when you hang around the gpu section here alot.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:14:52 PM

Ati/AMD drivers have had some bugs for years. I've noticed slow but somewhat steady improvement over the years, emphasis on the slow. The current drivers for Radeon 7000 cards really are great. You could ask other users of these cards with these drivers.

To be fair, Nvidia has had their blunders too (some are very recent with the GTX 600 cards). For example, for several weeks, a lot of people using the newer Nvidia drivers were having severe issues with V-Sync and with a lot of cards severely auto-underclocking. Nvidia has since pretty much fixed the issues, but it shows that they screw up too. During a short period of time, when AMD had Catalyst 12.6 out while Nvidia was still having issues, AMD actually had a better driver for the time than Nvidia did. Now, I'd put both companies as great and usually without issue with current drivers on current hardware.

I'm not telling you to get AMD. If you don't want to, then it's your choice to make. Just be aware that AMD has never done a better job than they have with this current generation with current drivers and hardware too. They' basically fixed VLIW5/4's issues with tessellation, compute, and much more without sacrificing anything except for their long time between launch and getting proper drivers. Instead of improving, Nvidia stepped back in this stuff and more to make way for shear GPU power that is held back by the low memory bandwidth anyway.
a c 273 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:21:34 PM

vrumor said:
You guys kill me with this AMD drivers are terribad omg stuff. I, as im sure many of you have, owned nvidia and AMD/ATI cards. Only errors I ever got was with my dual 9800 GX2 and driver stopped responding errors. Thats it. nvidia drivers have been a mess since the 600 series came out. Ironic. Think lots of folks just regurgitate what they read others say. Very few have actual first hand experience with said bugs, not saying no one does, a lot of it is "I heard" or "I read", not "Ive experienced said bugs". Guess what im trying to say is, and it isnt directed at anyone in particular, before you take someone elses opinion, including my own, try it out for yourself. If you have decent quality parts in your PC, meaning no POS PSU, or faulty memory, and clean your drivers when you switch from Team Green to Team Red or vice versa, all should work as intended.

I've had no issues with drivers since the 600 series came out and the fact that AMD themselves have announced that they are no longer going follow a monthly schedule because it allowed too many bugs getting overlooked and carried over to the next release and that sometimes releases were nothing more that a change in the release number means that everyone who has slagged off ATi/AMD drivers for being buggy bits of crap have been totally exonerated and folk such as yourself have been shown to be talking out of what most of us just use for sitting on and defecating out of.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:30:40 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I've had no issues with drivers since the 600 series came out and the fact that AMD themselves have announced that they are no longer going follow a monthly schedule because it allowed too many bugs getting overlooked and carried over to the next release and that sometimes releases were nothing more that a change in the release number means that everyone who has slagged off ATi/AMD drivers for being buggy bits of crap have been totally exonerated and folk such as yourself have been shown to be talking out of what most of us just use for sitting on and defecating out of.


AMD switched away from the monthly schedule to do what Nvidia does; release new drivers when they feel good reason to rather than on a tight schedule... It had nothing to do with AMD thinking that they couldn't do the job right. My 7850 hasn't had any issues at all since Catalyst 12.6 was released.

Beyond that, you know better than to think that your experience was shared by everyone with the GTX 600 cards. Nvidia made friggin press releases or whatever about how they were fixing the issues and that there were in fact driver issues and Tom's even did an article about it.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:31:07 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I've had no issues with drivers since the 600 series came out and the fact that AMD themselves have announced that they are no longer going follow a monthly schedule because it allowed too many bugs getting overlooked and carried over to the next release and that sometimes releases were nothing more that a change in the release number means that everyone who has slagged off ATi/AMD drivers for being buggy bits of crap have been totally exonerated and folk such as yourself have been shown to be talking out of what most of us just use for sitting on and defecating out of.


Thanx for proving my point there mousemonkey. However since you havent had issues with the 600 drivers and many others have, I guess that means that people like me are exonerated as well. Same as many others having issues with AMD and I havent had a single one. See how that works? Didnt realize it would be taken so personally, by a mod no less. I can speak only of my experience with both. Which I believe is what I was doing in my previous post and urging people to go with their experiences, not others. But I can see how you took this personally and attacked me. Bravo.
a c 273 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:33:18 PM

blazorthon said:
AMD switched away from the monthly schedule to do what Nvidia does; release new drivers when they feel good reason to rather than on a tight schedule... It had nothing to do with AMD thinking that they couldn't do the job right. My 7850 hasn't had any issues at all since Catalyst 12.6 was released.

Beyond that, you know better than to think that your experience was shared by everyone with the GTX 600 cards. Nvidia made friggin press releases about how they were fixing the issues and that there were in fact driver issues and Tom's did an article about it.

So if I find and quote the article I saw that says otherwise, will you accept a ban for spreading misinformation? :whistle: 
a c 273 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:45:51 PM

vrumor said:
Thanx for proving my point there mousemonkey. However since you havent had issues with the 600 drivers and many others have, I guess that means that people like me are exonerated as well. Same as many others having issues with AMD and I havent had a single one. See how that works? Didnt realize it would be taken so personally, by a mod no less. I can speak only of my experience with both. Which I believe is what I was doing in my previous post and urging people to go with their experiences, not others. But I can see how you took this personally and attacked me. Bravo.




AMD’s monthly commitment meant AMD had to release drivers whether they had something new or not.
Not personal, fact. Something that both of you seem to think your opinions are.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 8:51:02 PM

Not sure what got you so riled up. Not sure how stating an opinion, mine in this case, is enough to warrant a response like this "folk such as yourself have been shown to be talking out of what most of us just use for sitting on and defecating out of". If I had said that to you im sure I would be sitting out for 3 days. There are posts here and 100 other sites going both ways. Ill try and not tell people to go with their experiences anymore. Ill just refer them to you so you can set them straight.
a c 273 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 9:04:06 PM

vrumor said:
Not sure what got you so riled up. Not sure how stating an opinion, mine in this case, is enough to warrant a response like this "folk such as yourself have been shown to be talking out of what most of us just use for sitting on and defecating out of". If I had said that to you im sure I would be sitting out for 3 days. There are posts here and 100 other sites going both ways. Ill try and not tell people to go with their experiences anymore. Ill just refer them to you so you can set them straight.

The point is that AMD have admitted that there is and always has been a problem with sticking to a monthly release schedule and despite many people pointing it over the years there are still those that claim its not a problem, so why then did AMD change a perfect system?
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 9:12:25 PM

LOL Pinhedd......Have a look at my comment its the second on this thread

I knew this was going to happen.

To the OP you have a choice to make..... The 7970 or the 670. Your not going to get a straight answer anywhere or on any forum. Its completely up to yourself!

You'll win either way
a c 120 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 9:16:51 PM

paddys09 said:
LOL Pinhedd......Have a look at my comment its the second on this thread

I knew this was going to happen.

To the OP you have a choice to make..... The 7970 or the 670. Your not going to get a straight answer anywhere or on any forum. Its completely up to yourself!

You'll win either way


It used to actually take some serious effort at trolling to start a flamewar, now all you have to do is "670 or 7970?"
September 3, 2012 9:23:53 PM

hbriggs said:
sorry i meant £200-350 im live in the uk


Just to cut to the chase here, your question is really simple.
For 300 Euro you get about 380 USD

Now, consider:
Cooler Design
Memory Interface
Dedicated Memory
Overclockability
Temps.
Power Draw (which, IMO is not that important with a premium system)

Since your budget tops at 350Euro, I suggest you to get a 300 Euro Card, that will perform just as a 350 one.
My PERSONAL suggestion would be to buy an HD7950, from sapphire and then overclock it. These card have excellent coolers and overclock really well, you can match the performance of a 7970 with no sweat.

If you buy a 7950, this puts it in the table alongside the 660Ti (kinda, 7950 is a little bit more expensive) but the 7950 has a 384-bit interface and 3gb total memory. This means that, even when a 660Ti will drive most games just fine, if you push higher resolutions and heavier antialiasing, it will be brought to its knees with 2gb ram and 192-bit interface. Since you can overclock the 7950 for free performance (people can get 1300Mhz without overvolting) its my personal choice, and with its great performance/price ratio, you can futureproof your machine for quite a while. It will be just fine for every game out there, pretty much. And its cheaper than a 670, 680 and 7970, so if you feel like so, you can get another 7950 and xfire.

Hope this helps c:

Edit: Here's a link to a 320USD card. My suggestion is about this line. I prefer sapphire, but there are other great 7950 designs out there, like the ones from XFX double dissipation
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
September 3, 2012 9:26:34 PM

blazorthon said:
Ati/AMD drivers have had some bugs for years. I've noticed slow but somewhat steady improvement over the years, emphasis on the slow. The current drivers for Radeon 7000 cards really are great. You could ask other users of these cards with these drivers.

To be fair, Nvidia has had their blunders too (some are very recent with the GTX 600 cards). For example, for several weeks, a lot of people using the newer Nvidia drivers were having severe issues with V-Sync and with a lot of cards severely auto-underclocking. Nvidia has since pretty much fixed the issues, but it shows that they screw up too. During a short period of time, when AMD had Catalyst 12.6 out while Nvidia was still having issues, AMD actually had a better driver for the time than Nvidia did. Now, I'd put both companies as great and usually without issue with current drivers on current hardware.

I'm not telling you to get AMD. If you don't want to, then it's your choice to make. Just be aware that AMD has never done a better job than they have with this current generation with current drivers and hardware too. They' basically fixed VLIW5/4's issues with tessellation, compute, and much more without sacrificing anything except for their long time between launch and getting proper drivers. Instead of improving, Nvidia stepped back in this stuff and more to make way for shear GPU power that is held back by the low memory bandwidth anyway.



Everybody has driver bugs occasionally. It's unavoidable, I'm sure. The difference is that Nvidia fixes theirs immediately whereas AMD/ATI sometimes allows theirs to ride on for years as you point out. I hope you advocates are right about recent driver improvements. I'll be watching.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:15:23 PM

ram1009 said:
Everybody has driver bugs occasionally. It's unavoidable, I'm sure. The difference is that Nvidia fixes theirs immediately whereas AMD/ATI sometimes allows theirs to ride on for years as you point out. I hope you advocates are right about recent driver improvements. I'll be watching.


It took Nvidia several weeks to fix some of their issues from the article that I linked next to the AMD driver update schedule article. That is faster than AMD usually is, but it is not immediately. I agree in that pretty much everyone who makes drivers and such for something screws up at some point.

Also, it wasn't that AMD kept the same issues for years (although there are some things that people say still don't work as well as they should, such as OpenGL performance), it's that AMD has improved in overall quality over the years.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:26:11 PM

He'll probably buy neither card now that everyone has bad mouthed them so much lol
September 3, 2012 11:15:47 PM

blazorthon said:
It took Nvidia several weeks to fix some of their issues from the article that I linked next to the AMD driver update schedule article. That is faster than AMD usually is, but it is not immediately. I agree in that pretty much everyone who makes drivers and such for something screws up at some point.

Also, it wasn't that AMD kept the same issues for years (although there are some things that people say still don't work as well as they should, such as OpenGL performance), it's that AMD has improved in overall quality over the years.



I probably should mention that what I call bugs don't always relate to games. One things I can remember vividly concerns ordinary text display on web pages and such. I would sometimes see lines of text overlaying each other or possibly split horizontally with the top half missing. I never see this with Nvidia.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:30:53 PM

ram1009 said:
I probably should mention that what I call bugs don't always relate to games. One things I can remember vividly concerns ordinary text display on web pages and such. I would sometimes see lines of text overlaying each other or possibly split horizontally with the top half missing. I never see this with Nvidia.


I don't have that problem as that on my 7850 nor have I had that problem on my previous cards from either company. I do understand what you mean by bugs not necessarily being related to games, but I just don't see them. I've had some issues in the past, but never that issue. I also have no issues with my 7850 at all, but maybe some other people have been less fortunate.
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 4, 2012 12:16:21 AM

Mousemonkey said:
The point is that AMD have admitted that there is and always has been a problem with sticking to a monthly release schedule and despite many people pointing it over the years there are still those that claim its not a problem, so why then did AMD change a perfect system?


One month is not much time to find a problem with the previous driver, find a way to fix it, implement that way, make sure it works (repeat as necessary if it doesn't work), and do the same if there were other problems. Beyond that, when there aren't many problems, then why update the drivers if you're not changing much of anything? Also, if AMD's driver system was perfect, why was Nvidia often doing better with drivers?

I also never claimed that AMD's 1 month schedule was better than Nvidia's "update when they have an update" schedule. AMD admitting that their update schedule needed improvement and then improving it only helps my point in that AMD has been trying to solve their issues and has done a seemingly great job of doing so recently.

Maybe a lot of people still think that the monthly update schedule was better... Well, I think that they were wrong. I completely agree with you in that it was not ideal (well, that's what you seem to be saying).
September 4, 2012 1:12:02 AM

IMHO this argument about 1 month update cycles is absurd. My observations about their drivers are that they had problems unremedied for years.
!