Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nvidia 7XX series this december

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 8, 2012 9:15:15 PM

I like the comments, they were funny.
a c 107 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 8, 2012 9:22:43 PM

i doubt it will be released in December(holiday season shopping?). They are atm letting the lower models to be pushed out and saturate a bit. If they released it to early, then some people will postpone their gtx 600 purchases as they know its about to be replaced soon, especially for the upper end models like the x70 and x80's. I'd expect like march or april.
Related resources
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 8, 2012 9:48:12 PM

AMD might throw something new out to market before the end of the year (probably not, but maybe), but I highly doubt that Nvidia will. They haven't even completed their current line-up yet and it hasn't even been a year since the GTX 680 launch, let alone since supply on Nvidia's cards finally caught up. It also wouldn't make much sense to me for Nvidia to basically devalue the low-end and lower mid-ranged Kepler-based cards right after their launch with the implications of Geforce 700 cards launching in the following months.
September 8, 2012 9:55:30 PM

Why is the source of this in German???? Nvidia is based in CA.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 8, 2012 10:04:20 PM

A lot of sources for releases like this are from Europe or Asia regardless of where the company is located. They seem to get info such as this earlier in many cases (although they also seem to spread a lot more lies than truth and when they're accurate, it might have simply been mostly lucky guesses) than the Americas.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 8:41:51 AM

I always see funny news like these from some of the sites. I like reading those especially the reader's comment accompanying those . Always hilarious.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 10:55:37 AM

Just another site trolling for traffic.
There have recently been a few sites that should be ignored wccftech is the main one that I have seen repeatedly linked in as a source for info on these and other boards.
wccftech does nothing more than parrot news and rumour that has already been around for a while.

On the subject of the cards in question. Well as with wccftech news, this is nothing more than what has been speculated on forum boards for a good long while now.
Its quite likely that there will be cards based on GK110 chips with disabled units at some point, where and when is all speculation at this time.

Mactronix :) 
September 9, 2012 1:05:33 PM

Damn, i was just about to buy 680.. Now WHATT !!
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 168 Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 1:09:43 PM

redcode said:
Damn, i was just about to buy 680.. Now WHATT !!

Just buy the 680.
September 9, 2012 1:16:38 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Just buy the 680.


No i'll just stick to my 560 ti for now.. i'll have to wait !
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 2:04:59 PM

For most people now the buy or wait inner debate has shifted from needing more performance, to needing to justify the expenditure. I know it has with me anyway.

Chances are that if you already have a top end rig then that's not an issue you need to worry about.
If like the vast majority you have a PC that you like to game on but is not really a gaming rig then what you have is perfectly acceptable performance wise, so you don't need to upgrade and certainly cant justify spending more than you bought your last upgrade for. Especially when what you are going to get is going to be a small increase in performance over what you have already.

I may be wrong but I feel that Redcode is not entirely sincere about being about to buy a 680. Humour dosent transfer too well in text form.

Mactronix :) 
a c 79 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 2:31:57 PM

rndmavis said:
Why is the source of this in German???? Nvidia is based in CA.

actually it's swedish...
SweClockers and all. :sol: 


anyways, when they release a card based on the gk110 chip I dont think they're going to change the rest of the line-up, they'll just price the gk110 cards accordingly (ie really expensive)...
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 3:55:22 PM

For me the timing of the release of any GK110 powered cards will depend on yields. It also depends on AMD being competitive.

Right now things are pretty even and also damn expensive at the top end. Last round AMD released first and set the baseline for pricing. Due to stupidly high AMD pricing and the people that bought them that is where we are now.

Nvidia really lucked out with this scenario as the fact that AMD are so uncompetitive they are able to release a card designed to be mid range at what represents top end performance. The Nvidia top end card has been very problematic so that's why I say they were lucky.
Had AMD made an improvement performance wise this round and had a card that had an increased performance of the level that Nvidia have managed then Nvidia would be all at sea at the top end.

This has allowed Nvidia to use 100% of the chips they are getting from GK110 wafers for the professional market and the huge profit they represent.
While this is going on I have no doubt they are binning the defective chips for use as either lower end professional chips or retail chips. What exactly they use these retail chips for is quite open to what they want to do as they have no pressure from competition they could develop new marketing strategies.

Mactronix :) 
a c 79 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 4:09:22 PM

^^well the gk110 chip is huge, it seems nvidia has been quite optimistic about the TSCM process' for few generations already. Had amd desingned a similarily sized chip they would be in the same boat wiht yield issues etc...
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 4:19:15 PM

Kari said:
^^well the gk110 chip is huge, it seems nvidia has been quite optimistic about the TSCM process' for few generations already. Had amd desingned a similarily sized chip they would be in the same boat wiht yield issues etc...



Is TSMC ready for 500-550mm2 28nm dies? Either way the 780GTX will be a hot hungry beast, maybe 15-20% increase in gaming performance over the 680 , for sure a massive increase in Compute! Ig AMD launches the 8000 series soon than Nvidia will paper launch gauranteed!
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 4:24:55 PM

mactronix said:
For me the timing of the release of any GK110 powered cards will depend on yields. It also depends on AMD being competitive.

Right now things are pretty even and also damn expensive at the top end. Last round AMD released first and set the baseline for pricing. Due to stupidly high AMD pricing and the people that bought them that is where we are now.

Nvidia really lucked out with this scenario as the fact that AMD are so uncompetitive they are able to release a card designed to be mid range at what represents top end performance. The Nvidia top end card has been very problematic so that's why I say they were lucky.
Had AMD made an improvement performance wise this round and had a card that had an increased performance of the level that Nvidia have managed then Nvidia would be all at sea at the top end.

This has allowed Nvidia to use 100% of the chips they are getting from GK110 wafers for the professional market and the huge profit they represent.
While this is going on I have no doubt they are binning the defective chips for use as either lower end professional chips or retail chips. What exactly they use these retail chips for is quite open to what they want to do as they have no pressure from competition they could develop new marketing strategies.

Mactronix :) 


AMD isn't being non-competitive. The GF110/GF100 chips, for example, were these huge 530mm2 behemoths, but they hardly beat out the far smaller Cayman (370mm2 or something like that). Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient. Nvidia doesn't need huge dies to compete with AMD's smaller ones anymore, so Nvidia's huge dies can be used purely for the professional markets where the high prices can make up for the yield problems.
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 4:36:49 PM

blazorthon said:
AMD isn't being non-competitive. The GF110/GF100 chips, for example, were these huge 530mm2 behemoths, but they hardly beat out the far smaller Cayman (370mm2 or something like that). Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient. Nvidia doesn't need huge dies to compete with AMD's smaller ones anymore, so Nvidia's huge dies can be used purely for the professional markets where the high prices can make up for the yield problems.



Yeah but we are not really sure about the direction Nvidia is going to go with the GK110, assuming that the comsumer part will be scaled down from 7 billion transistors. Wider memory bus, more SMX units, I mean the next refresh will still be Kepler based. Nvidia doesnt need huge dies to compete you're right but only for a gaming part, if they want to compete with AMD GNC than yeah their dies will have to grow for the compute aspect
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 4:43:45 PM

redeemer said:
Yeah but we are not really sure about the direction Nvidia is going to go with the GK110, assuming that the comsumer part will be scaled down from 7 billion transistors. Wider memory bus, more SMX units, I mean the next refresh will still be Kepler based. Nvidia doesnt need huge dies to compete you're right but only for a gaming part, if they want to compete with AMD GNC than yeah their dies will have to grow for the compute aspect


The dies might have to grow for compute competition, but my point was that Nvidia no longer needs far larger dies for gaming competition with AMD.
September 9, 2012 5:21:49 PM

Hey Mactronix.. i was going to sell my 330$ Gtx560 Ti For 200$.. and add to them about 530$ to get the Gtx680..now with this news and specs i don't think that i should spent that much of money on a card that'll be outperformed by next year.. Got me now,,Hope u do !
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 5:28:50 PM

A card not being the best available in a year is not a good reason to not buy the card now. There will almost *always* be a faster card in a year or two.
September 9, 2012 6:18:51 PM

blazorthon said:
A card not being the best available in a year is not a good reason to not buy the card now. There will almost *always* be a faster card in a year or two.

Will that makes sense. . i'll see what to do.. buying a GFX needs a lot of consideration specially when you're a video editor..
a c 109 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 6:30:33 PM

I'm pretty sure some of these companies leak their own products!
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 7:05:48 PM

blazorthon said:
AMD isn't being non-competitive. The GF110/GF100 chips, for example, were these huge 530mm2 behemoths, but they hardly beat out the far smaller Cayman (370mm2 or something like that). Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient. Nvidia doesn't need huge dies to compete with AMD's smaller ones anymore, so Nvidia's huge dies can be used purely for the professional markets where the high prices can make up for the yield problems.



Comparing GF100/110 and how they only just beat out Cayman is just stating that I am right. I really don't understand how you can argue other wise.
Your saying Nvidia used to need huge great big chips to beat AMD. Correct.

Key Phrase here, used to that means they have made an improvement, I'm stating that AMD have not kept pace with this improvement. this has made them uncompetitive this round.

I'm saying this round AMD are not competitive, not when you compare performance increases from generation to generation.
The fact that Nvidia has a chip that is 23% smaller (well it would be as its only Nvidias mid chip) and out performed the AMD top chip should be enough proof to even the biggest AMD fan that they are just not competative this time around.

AMD had ~ 30% performance increase from their top end chip to top end chip.
Nvidia had ~ 40% performance increase from a midrange chip that outperforms its old top card by 20% and out performs AMD's top end card.
And they made a chip that was smaller than either Cayanm or Tahiti or the GF114 chip that was their old mid range.
They actually achieved a greater reduction in die size from generation to generation than AMD and still out performed them.

If GK110 did exist as a retail chip it would mean AMD had nothing with a single chip that could even get close.

Chip for chip AMD are way behind. As an example so you cant miss read my meaning. GK104 is the equivalent of Pitcairn chip for chip. I'm sure you can progress up and down from there.

I mean come on you think AMD cards are better than Nvidia cards at PhysX for Christ sake.

Quote:
Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient.


Mactronix :) 
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 7:17:25 PM

mactronix said:
Comparing GF100/110 and how they only just beat out Cayman is just stating that I am right. I really don't understand how you can argue other wise.
Your saying Nvidia used to need huge great big chips to beat AMD. Correct.

Key Phrase here, used to that means they have made an improvement, I'm stating that AMD have not kept pace with this improvement. this has made them uncompetitive this round.

I'm saying this round AMD are not competitive, not when you compare performance increases from generation to generation.
The fact that Nvidia has a chip that is 23% smaller (well it would be as its only Nvidias mid chip) and out performed the AMD top chip should be enough proof to even the biggest AMD fan that they are just not competative this time around.

AMD had ~ 30% performance increase from their top end chip to top end chip.
Nvidia had ~ 40% performance increase from a midrange chip that outperforms its old top card by 20% and out performs AMD's top end card.
And they made a chip that was smaller than either Cayanm or Tahiti or the GF114 chip that was their old mid range.
They actually achieved a greater reduction in die size from generation to generation than AMD and still out performed them.

If GK110 did exist as a retail chip it would mean AMD had nothing with a single chip that could even get close.

Chip for chip AMD are way behind. As an example so you cant miss read my meaning. GK104 is the equivalent of Pitcairn chip for chip. I'm sure you can progress up and down from there.

I mean come on you think AMD cards are better than Nvidia cards at PhysX for Christ sake.

Quote:
Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient.


Mactronix :) 


Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve. Your performance numbers are unbelievably off and far too basic to be accurate.

I never said anything about AMD having better PhysX performance. That wouldn't make sense considering that AMD doesn't support it unless you use a supplementary Nvidia card in unison with an AMD card. I said that they sacrificed all of that relative to Fermi.

Kepler has less tessellation efficiency, less AA efficiency, less PhysX efficiency, and less DirectC efficiency than Fermi. When you use these features and make comparisons, it soon becomes obvious that Nvidia didn't improve, they sacrificed pretty much everything in order to pretend to. Kepler is optimized for BOM, not for modern performance. That's why AMD has consistently higher minimum FPS (far more important than maximum FPS), consistently higher efficiency with any of these features (obviously excluding PhysX) and more, and has far more overclocking headroom and efficiency. Also, Nvidia doesn't out-perform AMD anymore. They only did when AMD didn't have proper driver support.
a c 107 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 7:25:40 PM

I'd like to partially disagree, what kept AMD from having performance gains mostly was its decision to highly underclock the GCN(made so that oems can self overclock and rebadge the name as an OC or GHZ varient). A prime example of it really happening is the recent change of the base clock for 7950. It moved from 800>900 mhz on the reference models. Further example is the difference between a reference 7970 and a 7970 ghz, which ranges from 670 level to 680 OC levels. Its just an example of how extremely underclocked they were. Also on performance, it depends on target audience. The GTX 600 series were much more friendly to the average user. The HD 7k were more friendly for enthusiasts who reach past what the average user does, as the HD 7k is much more efficient in 2560x1200 resolution.
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 168 Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 7:28:09 PM

blazorthon said:
Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve. Your performance numbers are unbelievably off and far too basic to be accurate.

I never said anything about AMD having better PhysX performance. That wouldn't make sense considering that AMD doesn't support it unless you use a supplementary Nvidia card in unison with an AMD card. I said that they sacrificed all of that relative to Fermi.

Kepler has less tessellation efficiency, less AA efficiency, less PhysX efficiency, and less DirectC efficiency than Fermi. When you use these features and make comparisons, it soon becomes obvious that Nvidia didn't improve, they sacrificed pretty much everything in order to pretend to. Kepler is optimized for BOM, not for modern performance. That's why AMD has consistently higher minimum FPS (far more important than maximum FPS), consistently higher efficiency with any of these features (obviously excluding PhysX) and more, and has far more overclocking headroom and efficiency. Also, Nvidia doesn't out-perform AMD anymore. They only did when AMD didn't have proper driver support.

:lol:  :ange: 
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 9, 2012 7:37:14 PM

Quote:
Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve.
:lol:  :pfff:  (not sure which fits better)

Please can you here yourself :pt1cable: 

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise that all the Tech review sites were using pretend performance results to make the card look like it performs better than it does. :lol: 

Thats the bottom line. PERFORMANCE. Joe Blogs dosent care about any of the stuff your dragging up in an effort to make a counter point.

That rant pretty much ends it for me. As you refuse to see the obvious and resort to making such nonsensical statements. I'm done with this discussion.

Mactronix :) 
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 9, 2012 8:46:24 PM

mactronix said:
Quote:
Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve.
:lol:  :pfff:  (not sure which fits better)

Please can you here yourself :pt1cable: 

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise that all the Tech review sites were using pretend performance results to make the card look like it performs better than it does. :lol: 

Thats the bottom line. PERFORMANCE. Joe Blogs dosent care about any of the stuff your dragging up in an effort to make a counter point.

That rant pretty much ends it for me. As you refuse to see the obvious and resort to making such nonsensical statements. I'm done with this discussion.

Mactronix :) 


http://media.bestofmicro.com/U/P/336769/original/tessel...
tessellation efficiency drops.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-perfor...
AA and resolution improvement efficiency drops.
I don't even need to go into how badly Nvidia cut back on compute performance.



Architecturally, Nvidia didn't improve. Of course tripling the core count of the 580 (even without hot clocking) means that performance improves, but with efficiency drops like this, performance is now highly variable. You pay too much attention to performance without much of stuff such as these. A lot of people actually care about it because 2MP resolutions such as 1080p are the most common resolutions played on high-end systems and that's what it takes to make use of a GTX 670/680's or a Radeon 7950/7970's performance at these resolutions.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2012 12:13:19 AM

mactronix said:
Comparing GF100/110 and how they only just beat out Cayman is just stating that I am right. I really don't understand how you can argue other wise.
Your saying Nvidia used to need huge great big chips to beat AMD. Correct.

Key Phrase here, used to that means they have made an improvement, I'm stating that AMD have not kept pace with this improvement. this has made them uncompetitive this round.

I'm saying this round AMD are not competitive, not when you compare performance increases from generation to generation.
The fact that Nvidia has a chip that is 23% smaller (well it would be as its only Nvidias mid chip) and out performed the AMD top chip should be enough proof to even the biggest AMD fan that they are just not competative this time around.

AMD had ~ 30% performance increase from their top end chip to top end chip.
Nvidia had ~ 40% performance increase from a midrange chip that outperforms its old top card by 20% and out performs AMD's top end card.
And they made a chip that was smaller than either Cayanm or Tahiti or the GF114 chip that was their old mid range.
They actually achieved a greater reduction in die size from generation to generation than AMD and still out performed them.

If GK110 did exist as a retail chip it would mean AMD had nothing with a single chip that could even get close.

Chip for chip AMD are way behind. As an example so you cant miss read my meaning. GK104 is the equivalent of Pitcairn chip for chip. I'm sure you can progress up and down from there.

I mean come on you think AMD cards are better than Nvidia cards at PhysX for Christ sake.

Quote:
Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient.


Mactronix :) 



If anything I think it is Nvidia who is not competitive this round, if we are talking execution AMD has a full range of 28nm cards out and it took Nvidia 1 year.

On the architecture front yes Kepler is more efficient but there are sacrifices. AMD 7000 series trades blows with the 600 series, while providing massive compute power. It seems that AMD and Nvidia has switched places this generation, Nvidia being smaller more efficient and AMD larger dies more performance.

Keplers autoboost is also a factor, AMD made the mistake of downclocking the 7000 series yet still retains the overclocking advantage.

Price point again I think AMD is in a solid position

7970
7950
7870
7850

price and performance ratio is solid.
a c 539 U Graphics card
a c 333 Î Nvidia
September 10, 2012 1:15:38 AM

According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 10, 2012 1:20:14 AM

17seconds said:
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.


All that shows is that a lot of people still stick to the Nvidia is the only gaming graphics brand worth having BS that Nvidia's marketing has thrown out over the years and that people who should know better fall for it too. Buying Nvidia doesn't make someone an idiot, they still make great cards if you don't use heavy features extensively enough to cripple them, but the same is true for AMD. Sales do not necessarily reflect quality nor performance.
a c 107 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 10, 2012 3:55:50 AM

Its due to the fact that nvidia is recommended by users more, due to people pushing other people to go nvidia. Nvidia is the dominant seller on the gpu side, but sales doesnt necessary mean its better, its just more refereed to. AMD acts as an underdog in both Gpus and Cpus, and while the gpu side is holding up fine, the cpu is losing its touch at the moment a bit. I mean depending on sales and price points, I would generally recommend one way or the other(like right now, 670 would be a nice buy as ncix has them for i think 385$?). Its much easier to defend nvidias case because it is the majority. The problem is, most people who defend x card have only used that cards side and haven't really had first hand experience with the other.


Its a syndrome like "majority hivemind branding."

Why do people say when buying psus "Corsair, Antec, Seasonic" or buying a Coolermaster case, and proceed to buy a PSU from coolermaster, Choose something like a 550ti over a 7770 at the same price point. Its because some brands are more recognizable to the majority, and it skews decisions to making that purchase. It does not mean those parts are superior, its just picking more recognizable brands.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 10, 2012 5:08:26 AM

17seconds said:
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.


+1

Mactronix :) 
September 10, 2012 9:09:53 AM

The gtx 670 is probably better for people who don't overclock, but if you get a 7970, you're seriously wasting it if you don't OC it.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2012 3:56:25 PM

17seconds said:
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.



I find that halarious considering the how Kepler supply was non-exsistent, Nvidia blaming TSMC for short supplies. Only in recent weeks have supply constraints eased.

Nvidia PR at its finest!!
September 10, 2012 5:43:23 PM

You also have to take into account personal experiences. I have always used AMD video cards and I switched to Nvidia with my new build and got a GTX680. The card did not work properly from the word go, wouldn't wake from sleep, couldn't play some games, etc. So I returned it and bought a 670, which just launched and had great numbers from tech sites. Same issues. Returned it, bought a 7870 and voila, no issues and everything ran just as well/better than the two Nvidia cards.

Maybe that makes me an AMD fanboy now, but I know what works and has worked for me, so I will be sticking with AMD until they do me wrong.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 10, 2012 6:04:34 PM

Bolivious said:
You also have to take into account personal experiences. I have always used AMD video cards and I switched to Nvidia with my new build and got a GTX680. The card did not work properly from the word go, wouldn't wake from sleep, couldn't play some games, etc. So I returned it and bought a 670, which just launched and had great numbers from tech sites. Same issues. Returned it, bought a 7870 and voila, no issues and everything ran just as well/better than the two Nvidia cards.

Maybe that makes me an AMD fanboy now, but I know what works and has worked for me, so I will be sticking with AMD until they do me wrong.


Really? I prefer AMD's 28nm cards this generation right now, but at least when I first got my 7850 a while before Catalyst 12.6 launched, although I was able to fix any issues that crept up, the drivers seemed inferior to Nvidia's drivers in some ways, especially in the ways that you mentioned. Nvidia had problems of their own, but what you described was generally AMD's issues. Nvidia had mostly stuttering/V-Sync and underclocking related problems. Weird, but I suppose that it shows that no matter what, drivers can be finicky.
September 10, 2012 6:49:32 PM

I had always heard how AMD drivers are terrible and how Nvidias were superior and so I figured, Hey, most powerful card of this gen, can't go wrong right? Huh, no, ok lets try the second most powerful. Nope.

To each his own. I don't think you can go wrong either way, I love my 7870 and it has performed fantastically since install.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 10, 2012 7:21:40 PM

Bolivious said:
I had always heard how AMD drivers are terrible and how Nvidias were superior and so I figured, Hey, most powerful card of this gen, can't go wrong right? Huh, no, ok lets try the second most powerful. Nope.

To each his own. I don't think you can go wrong either way, I love my 7870 and it has performed fantastically since install.


Terrible was almost always an overstatement.

I stuck with my 7850 through the bad and I couldn't be happier with it since Catalyst 12.6 launched. I wouldn't trade it for any other graphics card in its league even if Nvidia had their competing cards out. I'd be stuck with a weaker memory bus if I go for Nvidia once Nvidia gets competing Kepler cards into retail and that's just unacceptable with GPUs this powerful IMO.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2012 10:16:17 PM

Bolivious said:
You also have to take into account personal experiences. I have always used AMD video cards and I switched to Nvidia with my new build and got a GTX680. The card did not work properly from the word go, wouldn't wake from sleep, couldn't play some games, etc. So I returned it and bought a 670, which just launched and had great numbers from tech sites. Same issues. Returned it, bought a 7870 and voila, no issues and everything ran just as well/better than the two Nvidia cards.

Maybe that makes me an AMD fanboy now, but I know what works and has worked for me, so I will be sticking with AMD until they do me wrong.



Be careful I posted something similar and I was told not to cite anecdotes lol
!