Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd or nvidia?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 12, 2012 9:59:42 AM

so i am trying to pick my parts for a build (my first) and i think i am gonna go with the i5 2500k or the i5 3570k not sure yet but my question is what is the better if there is one card AMD or nvidia and what should i get for my build i think i can spend around 170.00 im on a budget im not gonna be hard core gaming but i will be gaming some so what do u think i should go with amd or nvidia and can you recommend one like i said around 170.00 oh and if you have any thoughts on the cpu and what one i should go with out of the two i have chosen please let me know thanks

More about : amd nvidia

a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 10:15:11 AM

nVidia. Without a doubt. Massively superior delivery of framerates for consistently smooth performance. Problem is that most benchmarking is done with frames/second, but it's a crude, oversimplified and inaccurate measure of smoothness. It's just very well-established and has become the norm in the tech media industry. But take a look at this:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

It's well worth reading the article to the end. It's a new way of testing performance, to more accurately represent the 'smoothness' delivered by a card. We'll be seeing a lot more frame latency benchmarking moving forward.

The AMD fanboys were in uproar (over 200 comments on the article) about how testing on Windows 8 was to blame. So they re-ran the tests on Windows 7:

http://techreport.com/review/24022/does-the-radeon-hd-7...

No change. Windows 8 had some negative effect on some games, and positive effect on others. The GeForce was still hugely superior.

The conclusion:

"A moral victory in the borderline-meaningless FPS sweeps doesn't overcome the fact that the Radeon HD 7950 has a persistent problem with high-latency frames across a range of test scenarios based on the latest games... If you just want bragging rights, by all means, choose the Radeon HD 7950. If you're looking for the friction-free fluidity that only comes from consistently quick frame delivery, though, our recommendation remains the GeForce GTX 660 Ti."
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 10:17:12 AM

And as for the particular model to buy, what currency is your 170? The GTX660 (not Ti) is a real price-performance winner, I'd 100% recommend it.

EDIT: And as for CPUs, people are often stuck between those two. Bottom line - they're both excellent and near enough identical, so grab whichever you find the best price for.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 10:22:17 AM

In his range he's looking at a 7850 not a 7950 and that is a great card for the price. Comparing it to the 650 Ti it is just so much better. I highly recommend this card and this issue above has never been mentioned in any article on this site.

AMD does have this problem when their cards are in CF but it can be fixed with another program called Radeon Pro.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devi...
m
0
l
December 12, 2012 10:23:00 AM

sam_p_lay said:
And as for the particular model to buy, what currency is your 170? The GTX660 (not Ti) is a real price-performance winner, I'd 100% recommend it.

EDIT: And as for CPUs, people are often stuck between those two. Bottom line - they're both excellent and near enough identical, so grab whichever you find the best price for.



170.00 dollars
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 10:27:48 AM

Then maybe a 2GB GTX650 Ti. The GTX660 is hugely superior though, worth stretching to if you can.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:41:56 PM

2gb of vram makes no difference at 1080p bro.

i am pretty unbiased here. i have a 670 myself and a couple of other cards like the gt 520 and a 9800gtx
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 2:48:02 PM

I wouldn't recommend a 1GB card though if you're wanting it to last - games are becoming more demanding all the time (we'd be disappointed if they weren't though!) and you want some longevity for next year's games and the year after. If games are already making use of more than 1GB, it doesn't seem smart for a long-term(ish) solution.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:53:19 PM

by the time vram is useful to run the tesslation, you are already playing at lower settings. tesslation doesnt affect what settings you can play at
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 2:53:35 PM

its also like saying a 580 isnt long term
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 3:01:50 PM

Well the GTX580 is 1.5GB actually so a bit more future-proof. I wasn't talking about tessellation anyway, just general performance and longevity?
m
0
l
a c 112 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 3:20:35 PM

I think by the time games NEED that much vram, the 650 ti will not be able to keep up anyway. Currently things like the Skyrim High Rez texture pack are about all that will get a boost from such amounts of ram on this card.

I say this as someone who HAS 650 ti.

I have never seen this massive frame latency on either AMD(be it on the 5870 cards and 5770 cards) or Nvidia cards. I know some times things can feel jumpy if a card renders frames faster then needed. In those cases Vsync is your best bet.

On that topic. 1920 x 1080 will most certainly need reduced settings on a 650 ti(not that is a bad card for the price).

I like Nvidia's per application settings better as they have had it longer. AMD has more video enhancement options if you use those.

Changing frame rates may be what many users also feel as a jump. After all running 60 then hitting a patch of 30 and back to 60 will feel like a frame delay for sure. If those cases, frame capping as high as you can without the drops may be something worth trying. Don't try Nvidia's half refresh frame cap as it seems to introduce massive input lag(may be fixed with a driver in the future).

I always buy the best I can at the time, be it Nvidia or AMD. Both have been quite good to me(so long as Nvidia's bad Win Vista drivers are left out).

If you are looking at a 2GB 650ti, you may be better to spend the money on a 660 or AMD equivalent.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 3:43:39 PM

Maybe you're not using the same CPU that THG were using for benchmarking, but most of the games were fine with 1080p, AA and high. It was just 2 or 3 (Metro 2033, Max Payne 3, usual suspects) that required AA disabling or settings to be dropped. I'd agree though - GTX660 is a far better choice when there's very little price increase for a big performance increase.

Regarding v-sync, are you talking about adaptive v-sync? If so, it's an awesome feature and very simple - basically a v-sync that disables itself entirely when not needed (i.e. when framerate is below refresh rate) so that sub-60 framerates aren't restricted like they would be with a Radeon's v-sync. I can post a link if you want more details.

As for stuttering, my 8800GTX was always flawlessly smooth, and since that I've used a 4870 and 5970, both of which were pretty bad experiences (for different reasons). The 5970 was supposedly putting out high framerates, but it didn't feel like it. I just tolerated it, but it wasn't good.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 3:43:44 PM

Given the i5s you are looking at, I'd aim to balance the rig and at least get an 7850. It can be found close to that price range, comes with 2 gigs of ram, and overclocks well. It will be a nice pairing.

I have 560s in sli and I still cant max out BF3's AA. Why?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 3:46:45 PM

TheBigTroll said:
by the time vram is useful to run the tesslation, you are already playing at lower settings. tesslation doesnt affect what settings you can play at


By the way, I think you're misunderstanding what tessellation is. Tessellation is a technique used to achieve an increase in the frame's model complexity via more efficient transfer of geometry data. Or to put it another way, it allows game devs to dramatically increase polygon count without impacting too much on performance.

I think the word you were looking for is 'rendering'.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 3:48:00 PM

loops said:
Given the i5s you are looking at, I'd aim to balance the rig and at least get an 7850. It can be found close to that price range, comes with 2 gigs of ram, and overclocks well. It will be a nice pairing.

I have 560s in sli and I still cant max out BF3's AA. Why?


Could be an insufficient frame buffer capacity issue - are you using 1GB models?
m
0
l
a c 112 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 3:57:49 PM

With the Adaptive Vsync, they also have Adaptive (Half Refresh Rate). A feature that seems perfect for RTS or other low action games. It only seems to work in full screen and no windowed games as well.

That one effectively gives you a 30fps cap(for 60Hz refresh screens at least), but had a very negative side effect or huge input delay(much more then vsync it self).

Also, Just Cause 2 seems to speed up and slow down all the time without vsync, again because the card can render high of frames then low as you move around. The average fps would like nice in a benchmark, but the overall feel was VERY bad. Also with the video card pegged at full load it pretty much eliminates cpu bottleneck.

I had a 4870 with no real issues(1920 x 1200). The 5970 could be an issue as crossfire and sli have been known to add latency.

Either way, My vote goes to the 660(or better) if it can be found for the right price. I am actually a picky user.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 4:08:07 PM

Are you sure you're not confusing 'half refresh rate' with standard v-sync? Standard (AMD) v-sync will drop you to 30fps if your framerate drops below 60fps. If your 'natural' framerate dropped below 30fps, you'd be capped at 20fps. Then 15fps, 12fps, 10fps, 6fps, 4fps, 3fps, 2fps and 1fps. That's how standard v-sync works - it's a crappy solution that syncs your output to factors of 60 (or factors of whatever your refresh rate is). It's why adaptive v-sync is so much superior - you're totally unrestricted below 60, and then limited at refresh rate when you hit it. Best of both worlds. Take a look at this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/201 [...] y_review/3.

"With Adaptive VSync turned on, the feeling of the game felt smoother compared to regular VSync turned on. The performance felt much like the game felt with VSync turned off. This is the kind of technology we like to see which has improved the innate nature of the gameplay experience. If all you need is 60 FPS in a game for it to be playable, then why not just go ahead and cap the game there so it doesn't exceed your refresh rate. Then, if the game has to fall below that, allow the game to perform at its real-time actual framerate, and Adaptive VSync allows that. It really is the best of all worlds, with no drawbacks. We didn't find any negatives to using Adaptive VSync, and we tried it out in a handful of games."
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 4:10:01 PM

All that being said though, this is the real deal-breaker:

http://techreport.com/review/24022/does-the-radeon-hd-7...

First page for an explanation of testing methodology (well-worth reading if you don't know about frame latency benching) and second page onwards for benchmarks.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 4:15:46 PM

Bottom line - AMD has best mid priced cards.
-Bruce
EDIT I've been vidia for a few years.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 4:23:00 PM

dish_moose said:
Bottom line - AMD has best mid priced cards.
-Bruce
EDIT I've been vidia for a few years.


Looks like you're not aware of the frame latency issues... it's worth taking 5-10 mins reading the Tech Report article - it changes everything. You have the same setup as me by the way except graphics :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 4:25:46 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Could be an insufficient frame buffer capacity issue - are you using 1GB models?



I got the 1GB ones. I dont have the vram for the job. Mr Toll stated that there is no need for more than 1GB right now. I was baiting him.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 4:30:16 PM

loops said:
I got the 1GB ones. I dont have the vram for the job. Mr Toll stated that there is no need for more than 1GB right now. I was baiting him.


LOL sorry, I didn't spot that :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 4:41:31 PM

Looking at cards out of the OP price range - stick to the task at hand - AMD has better mid range cards. At $170 nvidia does not compare.
-Bruce
And yes I did read the article - sounds like a stats man securing his job.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 4:47:12 PM

dish_moose said:
Looking at cards out of the OP price range - stick to the task at hand - AMD has better mid range cards. At $170 nvidia does not compare.
-Bruce
And yes I did read the article - sounds like a stats man securing his job.


I should have mentioned that the GPUs are not the same, but architecturally very similar - the findings are still very relevant. Frames/second doesn't tell the whole story (or even half the story!). I'm not really into statistical techniques either, but what he's saying is sound. We're gonna be seeing a lot more frame latency benchmarking moving forward.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 4:53:15 PM

I find it difficult to recommend nVidia at their current price points this generation. Also, keep in mind that AMD is due for a refresh next quarter.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 4:56:09 PM

This is a good point - new cards are not at all far away now. We should also be seeing the GTX700 launch around March. If you can wait until then, it's worth doing. Even if you buy a Radeon 8000 (maybe they'll have resolved the latency problems by then!) it would be worth waiting for the GTX700 launch to drive down prices.

As for this generation... not actually correct I'm afraid. GTX660 is a price/performance behemoth. You're looking at close to GTX580 level performance for mid-range money - it's an exceptional buy.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:20:45 PM

This thread is the Geek equivalent of the Ford vs Chevy argument red necks like me used to have as teenagers.

AMD and Nvidia both design excellent cards and there really isn’t a difference in performance at different pricing points. The big differences come from how the individual manufacturers overclock and package those cards.

My first nice card was a EVGA 8800 GTS. The 640mb. My wife still uses it and it outperforms every other card in the house except my new 460 GTX (in my daughters computer). But on my profile you will see that my current build is an HD 4650 Gigabyte- on an AGP motherboard. It plays Crysis on medium settings. No complaints.

Your first decision is what do I want to pay. Then it’s how much card can I get for that price. Overall Nvidea cards will have less shaders than the Radeon equivalent. The number of shaders is a good indicator of card power. A good mid range Nvidea will have at least 360 shaders. A good mid range Radeon will have 700-900.

Although a gaming computer needs a great graphics card more than it needs a powerful processor, knowing your desires is the most important thing. Most gamers will be happy with a 460 GTX or a Radeon 7770. Buying the best card out there but pairing it with a 5600 speed hard drive and 1333 DDR3 is silly. There are other solutions that will give you more bang for your buck.

Companies that I am comfortable with are: EVGA, Sapphire, XFX, Gigabyte, ASUS and Powercolor.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 5:25:37 PM

I would personally avoid Sapphire (like the plague) and Powercolor. But EVGA and Asus are excellent, Gigabyte also.
m
0
l
a c 112 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 5:42:03 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Are you sure you're not confusing 'half refresh rate' with standard v-sync? Standard (AMD) v-sync will drop you to 30fps if your framerate drops below 60fps. If your 'natural' framerate dropped below 30fps, you'd be capped at 20fps. Then 15fps, 12fps, 10fps, 6fps, 4fps, 3fps, 2fps and 1fps. That's how standard v-sync works - it's a crappy solution that syncs your output to factors of 60 (or factors of whatever your refresh rate is). It's why adaptive v-sync is so much superior - you're totally unrestricted below 60, and then limited at refresh rate when you hit it. Best of both worlds. Take a look at this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/201 [...] y_review/3.

"With Adaptive VSync turned on, the feeling of the game felt smoother compared to regular VSync turned on. The performance felt much like the game felt with VSync turned off. This is the kind of technology we like to see which has improved the innate nature of the gameplay experience. If all you need is 60 FPS in a game for it to be playable, then why not just go ahead and cap the game there so it doesn't exceed your refresh rate. Then, if the game has to fall below that, allow the game to perform at its real-time actual framerate, and Adaptive VSync allows that. It really is the best of all worlds, with no drawbacks. We didn't find any negatives to using Adaptive VSync, and we tried it out in a handful of games."

Ok, we have gone well beyond the point of the OP now.

Nvidia Adaptive Vsync DOES come in 2 flavors. normal(vsync on over 60 and off under 59 and a half refresh rate that is 30 fps on 60 Hz displays all the time[NOTHING TO DO WITH AMD. Vsync it self has nothing to do with AMD either.])

Clearly you have it out for AMD not sure why, Vsync + triple buffer also solves the syncing 30fps once hitting under 60 as well.

Since you seem to not understand that I am talking about an Nvidia option here ya go.

This seemed very ideal for low action games as it reduces power consumption(heat/noise), but again, it did have a negative impact on game play. I tested games with built in FPS limiting with this issue.

Interestingly enough, this adaptive vsync did not work on Just Cause 2 or SC2(windowed full screen) in a window, only full screen.

I have honestly not had a game drop from 60-30 in years many games make use of a third buffer to avoid this. Down side, it takes more vram.

Also it is important to know on the driver front, both companies have had issues and none is better then the other.

Check this out(Full card speed watching video in media center? beta drive fixes it right up.). Sounds like a minor issue, but is on that sucks when playing media back(more noise/heat. Lucky the MSI cyclone cooler is very quiet either way.).
http://imageshack.us/a/img211/3241/nvidiamediacenter.pn...

I am more then satisfied with both companies cards and pick based on performance or power/heat for the given task.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 5:50:52 PM

For one, I'll add my vote to the AMD side because the price is to the point that it undercuts every Nvidia option.

As for DDR3 1333 speed memory that really doesn't matter much and would be fine pared with even the other best equipment, although I still recommend 1600 because it's about the same price and does give a slight performance gain (although I doubt most could ever notice it). CPU on the other hand is normally a much more significant limiting factor.

Lastly there are brands everyone hates. Personally I like Sapphire and MSI the most while the two I wouldn't get are XFX and powercolor (along with any reference cooler). HIS is also up there in some cases and I like ASUS but their three slot cards are hard to recommend when you can't consider CF/SLI anymore.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 6:17:03 PM

nukemaster said:
Ok, we have gone well beyond the point of the OP now.


Not really. 'Amd or nvidia?' is the title.

nukemaster said:
[NOTHING TO DO WITH AMD. Vsync it self has nothing to do with AMD either.])


I placed 'AMD' in brackets to clarify for readers that I was talking about the solution that Radeon-users have to put up with. I'm aware both companies offer standard v-sync, but nobody with a GeForce would consider using standard v-sync when they can use adaptive.

nukemaster said:
Clearly you have it out for AMD not sure why, Vsync + triple buffer also solves the syncing 30fps once hitting under 60 as well.


I wouldn't say I have it out for AMD - I'm using a Radoen. The regulars on here will know I recommend nVidia hardware, but not because I'm a 'fanboy', but because it has a lot more to offer currently. But I'll also recommend AMD CPUs.

What I say is based on fact. If the information is wrong, I'm always open to discuss that. More often than not, there's no real discussion but simply a flat-out refusal of the facts. AMD fanboys often get upset by my recommendations, but I'm not going to let that stop me from recommending the best solution. As for triple buffering, I use it (obviously - it's the best option available to me) but it's a weak alternative to adaptive v-sync.

nukemaster said:
Since you seem to not understand that I am talking about an Nvidia option here ya go.


Yeah I can't check an nVidia control panel on my system because I have a Radeon.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2012 7:12:23 PM

^ Reported. I hate these spammers.

Edit: there was a spammer above me before it was removed.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a c 81 Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 7:36:44 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Looks like you're not aware of the frame latency issues... it's worth taking 5-10 mins reading the Tech Report article - it changes everything. You have the same setup as me by the way except graphics :-)


Latency isn't really a big issue for most people, and is not what causes the lack of fluidness, though for me, latency is a bigger issue, as it causes me simulator sickness.

What was shown, and definitely an issue for the AMD cards was a lack of consistency between frames. You see wide inconsistent frame rendering times. That affects the smoothness.

Either way, thanks for the link. I've seen other such studies that had shown similar issues, though there was a program that can solve things for AMD that THG posted in one of their comparisons. I'll see if I can't find it for you. From what I recall, it was a pain to use, but it did fix the inconsistent frame rendering times.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a c 81 Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 7:40:56 PM

Found the link to THG's comparison of the 690 and 7990's. It showed the disparity in microstuttering too, but it did have a fix for AMD that required you to configure each and every game for it to work, but it worked well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devi...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devi...

With the RadeonPro software, you can solve the microstutter issue, but like I said, they found it difficult to use, or at least complicated. It may also only work with crossfire, they didn't mention if it helps for non crossfire setups.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2012 8:56:40 PM

Yeah a few people have mentioned RadeonPro... but you've already highlighted the flaws so not much else to be said really :-) Despite the drawbacks, it's an impressive bit of work and makes you wonder why AMD don't offer the functionality as standard (they need to hire the guy that wrote this!). I was also unclear as to whether it can fix the performance inconsistency of single-GPU setups, since it was mentioned in the context of multi-GPU configurations.

And as for the spamming, it got a bit nuts today... looks like somebody opened a bunch of THG accounts :-S I think we're all accustomed to just downvoting the news comments now until they go away, but it's not an option in the forums. Mods are gonna be busy.
m
0
l
!