Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Question Radeon Vs. Nvidia

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 10, 2013 3:01:35 PM

Hi,

I'm considering getting a new graphic card (for my new gaming build) in like a month or so. I'm upgrading from a Radeon HD4870. My biggest problem currently is regarding the brand.Nvidia graphics card allow Nvidia PhyX, and I wanted to know if it was really useful? Since the Radeon have a generally lower price, so if the PhyX isn't really that important, I might go on a Radeon card instead. With that being said, I'm not sure what is important to check when looking for a new graphic card either.

Second question, is all the HDMI graphic cards allow for the sound output? I'm plugging that card on my TV and I want to make sure I'll have the sound that way. It works on my old Radeon HD4870, but I just want to be sure that this feature is present in the Nvidia cards or the newest Radeon.

Thanks in advance, and have a nice day!

More about : question radeon nvidia

a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 3:07:43 PM

PhysX is awesome in games that support it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAfzjTAhpBk&feature=play... (skip about 40 secs in for comparison)

But the big titles with it are just Batman Arkham City, Arkham Asylum, Borderlands 2 and Metro 2033 currently.

Adaptive v-sync is a much bigger selling point.

V-sync (as in basic v-sync) is a technique used to manage framerates, so that if your framerate exceeds your monitor's refresh rate (typically 60Hz), you won't experience screen tearing (Google screen tearing images and you'll see what I mean). All cards support basic v-sync, including Radeons. The drawback is that if your card drops below 60fps, even just slightly, the framerate will be significantly reduced by v-sync.

To sync with the monitor's refresh rate, the frame has to either be rendered in 16ms or less (for 60fps) or it's held over to the next refresh cycle. One frame over two refresh cycles (on 60Hz monitor) results in 30fps. So even if your card would be capable of 50-55fps, you drop to 30fps! So v-sync is really bad for performance if your GPU can't stay above 60fps, but v-sync is needed if you sometimes go over 60fps and so need to prevent tearing.

Adaptive v-sync will deliver smooth, fluid performance, since it won't restrict your framerate like basic v-sync does. With adaptive v-sync, when you drop below 60fps, v-sync just switches itself off so you get 55fps instead of 30fps. As soon as you reach 60fps again, adaptive v-sync switches itself back on. Sounds like a very simple solution, but it must be hard to build into the hardware because AMD still hasn't done it (and it's taken nVidia years to do aswell).

You can read about it in detail at http://hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_v...

"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."

As for relative value, AMD's edge in that regard only applies to low-end stuff. At the mid-range, GTX660 offers exceptional performance for the money and at the top end, GTX670 is excellent. If you're looking for something cheap, a 7750 would be better. All depends on your budget.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 3:10:25 PM

The other major argument for nVidia is stable/consistent framerates vs up/down inconsistent framerates (which make performance appear less smooth):

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

I don't think there's anything wrong with the 7950 inconsistency though - that's been observed in both nVidia and AMD hardware since TR started measuring this in 2011.

So 7950 won't look any less smooth than we're used to (since performance fluctuations have been standard until recently). The GTX660 Ti infact was just as inconsistent in the past, which makes me think what we're seeing there is a driver-based solution, because now it's flawlessly consistent.

I think what it boils down to is that at 30fps, a 7950 will look like 30fps. But with a GTX660 Ti, it will look smoother (since we're used to 30fps with a lot of fluctuation, not pure consistent 30fps).

Most people respond to the performance consistency thing by focusing on the inconsistency of the Radeon (which is understandable when that's exactly what the author does). Author should know better though - there's nothing unusual about fluctuations. What's really significant is the lack of fluctuation with the GTX660 Ti, which is a major improvement.

And I have that same card as you by the way :-) You have the 1GB model?
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 3:57:44 PM

BigMack70 said:
^ To be fair, your description of vsync (55 fps displaying as 30fps) is a worst case scenario for standard vsync


True - 45fps vs 30fps is just a 50% gain for nVidia and 35fps vs 30fps is 16% gain. Still significant though.

BigMack70 said:
AMD has stated that the latency issues will be addressed in a future patch.


They said the same in 2011 when first approached about it. They said they know it's an issue and they're working on it. I've yet to see any evidence that it's been fixed.

BigMack70 said:
That article is insightful, but not nearly enough info to generalize about "AMD vs Nvidia".


True, but all the testing we have so far on it. The entire thing was re-tested with Windows 7 and results confirmed to be the same as on Windows 8.

Don't forget that same GTX660 Ti was delivering inconsistent performance in their previous articles, which suggests a driver-based solution. Why would a driver fix target only the GTX660 Ti? It's much more likely it applies to all Keplers.

BigMack70 said:
And don't forget, AMD pretty much wins across the board if overclocking is considered, and also wins at high resolution and/or very high AA amounts.


Assuming OP wants to overclock. Many people don't. Maybe they don't want to void the warranty, maybe they don't think the gains are worthwhile, maybe they just don't want to screw with that stuff. If OP does want to overclock, it's a valid point (but just to clarify, nVidia hardware can absolutely be overclocked too).

As the old 30" display / triple-screen argument - it's of no more value than PhysX if you stop and think how many people are actually running 2560 displays or triple-screen setups. For those people, it's a consideration, but they account for a tiny minority of gamers. If OP states they're gaming at 2560 or across three screens, it's worth mentioning.
Score
0
January 10, 2013 4:07:16 PM

sam_p_lay said:
PhysX is awesome in games that support it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAfzjTAhpBk&feature=play... (skip about 40 secs in for comparison)

But the big titles with it are just Batman Arkham City, Arkham Asylum, Borderlands 2 and Metro 2033 currently.

Adaptive v-sync is a much bigger selling point.

V-sync (as in basic v-sync) is a technique used to manage framerates, so that if your framerate exceeds your monitor's refresh rate (typically 60Hz), you won't experience screen tearing (Google screen tearing images and you'll see what I mean). All cards support basic v-sync, including Radeons. The drawback is that if your card drops below 60fps, even just slightly, the framerate will be significantly reduced by v-sync.

To sync with the monitor's refresh rate, the frame has to either be rendered in 16ms or less (for 60fps) or it's held over to the next refresh cycle. One frame over two refresh cycles (on 60Hz monitor) results in 30fps. So even if your card would be capable of 50-55fps, you drop to 30fps! So v-sync is really bad for performance if your GPU can't stay above 60fps, but v-sync is needed if you sometimes go over 60fps and so need to prevent tearing.

Adaptive v-sync will deliver smooth, fluid performance, since it won't restrict your framerate like basic v-sync does. With adaptive v-sync, when you drop below 60fps, v-sync just switches itself off so you get 55fps instead of 30fps. As soon as you reach 60fps again, adaptive v-sync switches itself back on. Sounds like a very simple solution, but it must be hard to build into the hardware because AMD still hasn't done it (and it's taken nVidia years to do aswell).

You can read about it in detail at http://hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_v...

"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."

As for relative value, AMD's edge in that regard only applies to low-end stuff. At the mid-range, GTX660 offers exceptional performance for the money and at the top end, GTX670 is excellent. If you're looking for something cheap, a 7750 would be better. All depends on your budget.


"A HANDFUL OF GAMES"
Because that is all there is that supports PhysX, a Handful, the Radeon is the way to go.
Score
0
January 10, 2013 4:10:31 PM

I'm going to play on a 40inches TV at 60Hertz refresh rate, preferably on 1080p, and I don't plan on overclocking. From what I can see from the list of games with PhyX, I don't plan on playing any of these games ( only Borderlands 2, but not enough to justify the PhyX). So, in a range of 250-300$, what would be the best choice? (My 4870 is the 1GB model, by the way)
Score
0
a c 112 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 4:11:56 PM

All current cards should have audio over HDMI, the older Nvidia cards used to requite a S/PDIF cable from the sound card to the video card, but the new ones seem to not require it any more.

All the AMD cards I have used since the 4870(even the low end ones.) have had audio over HDMI.

Both companies are making very good cards right now. so pick a price then read reviews and look at benchmarks for the games YOU play.

Just as an example, I have a GTX 650 ti in my media center for its lower power video playback and quiet operation. It allows 1080 gaming(at reduced details deepening on your preference, but for me, I turn down some settings for better FPS) on many newer games.

Just do not expect MAX settings on mid end cards, in fact from a 4870, I think you will want to push farther then what a GTX 650 ti offers. The 660(and ti) offers FAR better performance.

Honestly, get the FASTEST thing you ca afford. Also running Vsync will reduce power consumption on many games. This is useful in media center cases(and more quiet ).
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 4:16:20 PM

ItsakUneklak said:
Hi,

I'm considering getting a new graphic card (for my new gaming build) in like a month or so. I'm upgrading from a Radeon HD4870. My biggest problem currently is regarding the brand.Nvidia graphics card allow Nvidia PhyX, and I wanted to know if it was really useful? Since the Radeon have a generally lower price, so if the PhyX isn't really that important, I might go on a Radeon card instead. With that being said, I'm not sure what is important to check when looking for a new graphic card either.

Second question, is all the HDMI graphic cards allow for the sound output? I'm plugging that card on my TV and I want to make sure I'll have the sound that way. It works on my old Radeon HD4870, but I just want to be sure that this feature is present in the Nvidia cards or the newest Radeon.

Thanks in advance, and have a nice day!

Better to give a price range so the people can make recommendations
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 4:29:18 PM

BigMack70 said:
Which is why it's entirely reasonable to believe AMD when they say they'll improve on this issue in future driver updates.


The important difference being that nVidia have already demonstrated a solution. AMD haven't. And it doesn't matter so much for AMD now whether it's hardware-based or driver-based with the 8000 series coming soon. It's only important for people needing to upgrade urgently before that time. Like I say, AMD have demonstrated no fix. nVidia have.

Kiowa789 said:
"A HANDFUL OF GAMES"
Because that is all there is that supports PhysX, a Handful, the Radeon is the way to go.


Firstly, no need for the caps - your quote was already in bold in my own post. Secondly, the limited number of games supporting PhysX is not an argument for a Radeon. Even if only one game supported PhysX, that's still a tiny argument for nVidia. It's certainly not an argument against nVidia.

And thirdly, wasn't it you who totally embarrassed yourself with this before when you went on a rant about how you refuse to believe anything from any tech site other than Tom's Hardware? Apologies if that was somebody else, but I'm pretty sure it was you.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM

For your price range you are looking at the GTX 660 ~$220, AMD 7870 ~$240, or GTX 660 TI/AMD 7950 both right around $300. If you are willing to spend the high end of your budget get either a GTX 660 Ti or 7950, you can't go wrong with either one.

For 1080p I would get the GTX 660 Ti for 1440p or 1600p Id get the 7950.
Score
0
January 10, 2013 4:49:38 PM

I can go over that range price if needed.

Someone mentionned that the AMD 8xxx are getting out soon, will that mean that the 7xxx series price will drop? I'm not in a hurry of buying it so I could also wait for that.

Lastly, is there some brand that I should avoid?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 5:05:37 PM

BigMack70 said:
This has no bearing at all on rather AMD is being honest about a forthcoming driver fix. Don't move the goalposts.


Er run that by me again? One company shows evidence of a fix, the other company claims to have a fix. You're usually the one to tell people to not believe everything these companies say, or does that just apply to things nVidia say?

OP, only brand I'd avoid are Sapphire. I've owned three, and all three died on me. I may have just been unlucky though - they obviously can't all be faulty, and plenty of people don't have problems with them. After my experiences though, I definitely won't be buying a fourth.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 5:15:56 PM

ItsakUneklak said:
Hi,

I'm considering getting a new graphic card (for my new gaming build) in like a month or so. I'm upgrading from a Radeon HD4870. My biggest problem currently is regarding the brand.Nvidia graphics card allow Nvidia PhyX, and I wanted to know if it was really useful? Since the Radeon have a generally lower price, so if the PhyX isn't really that important, I might go on a Radeon card instead. With that being said, I'm not sure what is important to check when looking for a new graphic card either.

Second question, is all the HDMI graphic cards allow for the sound output? I'm plugging that card on my TV and I want to make sure I'll have the sound that way. It works on my old Radeon HD4870, but I just want to be sure that this feature is present in the Nvidia cards or the newest Radeon.

Thanks in advance, and have a nice day!


As i say this i would wait on some news with the new gen series if upgrading this way you will have more options
Score
0
January 10, 2013 5:39:32 PM

lovely discussion!!!!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 6:06:35 PM

Go for Nvidia - richie rich Gamer




Go for Radeon HD 7*** - Smart Gamer
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 6:07:23 PM

I smell a flame war coming
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 6:14:11 PM

For this generation I think AMD had better price per performance. So AMD 7870/7950/7970 unless you like the special features nvidia offerrs, then a gtx 660 ti/ 670
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 6:39:42 PM

This is the best example of bad examples. Too many posts with no arguments and filled with fanboys.

This is how it looks to the outside world:

- Chocolate cake is the best!
- No it's not, strawberry beats chocolate.
- But cholocate cake got frosting which give better visuals, its ingridients are better, so the taste is more smooth and balanced! Ofc you want to pay a little more for that, I mean it will pay better off in the end right?
- Lol, you're too rich, frosting isn't working for everyone. Everyone who is smart chooses strawberry, because I say so. And I'm smarter than you all, so I know stuff.. Or something.
- But I'm smarter than you, and I can tell because I'm sitting here in front of my PC and I am an undiscovered genius!
And yadadada..

The worst thing of all this is, that I'm guilty myself.

But try to stay within reason guys. Just saying that one is better than the other doesn't mean you're right. Statistics and REAL examples will actually help the OP to decide what he wants. This isn't a war, this is supposed to be a forum where we help each other out.

I myself ain't an AMD guy, so I would argue against AMD. Still AMD provides just as good GPUs as far as performance goes. There is no real winner here. Nvidia and AMD perform better in different games.

If you want to play on several monitors? Pick AMD.
If you want to play with 3D? Pick Nvidia.
If you don't mind of micro stuttering and some performance drops due to normal Vsync or without? Pick AMD.
If you want to get rid of the above and pay a little more? Pick Nvidia it got Adaptive vsync.
If you want some cool effects in some of the bigger titles and some in the future? Pick Nvidia it got TXAA and PhysX.

Mind that a copy-style of PhysX also can work with AMD GPUs, because it can be put on the CPU, don't ask me how, but it works for some.

I made a little video myself of a little difference between PhysX and no PhysX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STi6rNeYZrY

When you have made up your mind OP, then look at this performance pr. dollar comparison:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7870_joke...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 7:16:15 PM

I love how all the time these discussions come to an end: there is no absolute best, there is the most suitable for what you want and what you need. My marketing lessons come to mind: There is simply no product that can satisfy/fit everybody on earth
Score
0
January 10, 2013 7:16:32 PM

Right now, as far as I can see, Nvidia's card have a SLIGHT advantage in term of performance, but will cost a bit more.
The GTX 660 is starting to become more and more interesting. And the Radeon 7870 also. I think I'll see from here what I'll love the best.

Thanks everyone for all your answer, you all helped me a lot. Now I know what I will be looking for!

Thanks again and have a nice day!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 7:20:56 PM

It will be a few more months till the next round of cards come out.
Score
0
a c 134 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 7:37:15 PM

I would take a look at the games you play and then make a decision based on that if you really want to take a look into Physx. With anything computer wise you want to take a look at what you are currently doing and try to find the solution that best suits your needs. For most they can take a objective look based on the price range they are able to spend and just pick the best card at that price point for them. I feel both companies supply features that would draw my attention. If I was looking for raw performance and multi monitor support I may be persuaded to go with AMD if I was into 3D if I played the games with physx, if I wanted a more overall larger feature set along with the performance I'd go NVIDIA. In the end both companies do amazing things and its just about narrowing it down to the solution that best serves you. There is no need for bias towards either company.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 7:37:56 PM

technoholic said:
I love how all the time these discussions come to an end: there is no absolute best, there is the most suitable for what you want and what you need. My marketing lessons come to mind: There is simply no product that can satisfy/fit everybody on earth


How bout raspberry donuts?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 7:43:31 PM

sam_p_lay said:
How bout raspberry donuts?


OOOOO he got you there!
Score
0
a c 134 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 7:45:18 PM

Naw Sam I hate jelly filled donuts no ty :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 7:48:47 PM

bigshootr8 said:
Naw Sam I hate jelly filled donuts no ty :) 


The things people will lie about to keep their beliefs(edited: Typo!) intact... What has the world come to!
Score
0
January 10, 2013 7:57:38 PM

Ok noob OP listen up.Both vendors provide excellent cards.Both trade blows in perfoamnce. Some games run better on nvidia ,some on ATI and some nuetral. Make your decision and don't make threads like this ever.
Score
0
a c 134 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 7:58:00 PM

Beliefs and no I don't like jelly filled donuts. Apparently on the Graphic forums daily AMD v NVIDIA. Which still bugs me I wish I could of typed ATi I had a bit more respect for that IP. AMD really dropped the ball CPU wise after I first started building computers with my socket 939. AM2 didn't amount to Core 2 Duo AM3 has never caught up to intel oye. But anyway AMD makes good cards just saying I would rather see ATi reborn.
Score
0
a c 230 U Graphics card
a c 81 Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 8:14:19 PM

I always find it useful to see what other reasonable minds are choosing. Of course people generally fall into two camps:

1. Those who believe most reasonable people make informed choices.
2. Those people who believe most people, especially everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. :) 

Here's what your fellow gaming enthusiasts are buying / have bought based upon what's hitting Steam's servers in terms of % market share (DX11 cards)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 1.94%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 1.47%
ATI Radeon HD 7850 1.21%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 1.13%
ATI Radeon HD 7770 1.02%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 0.92%
ATI Radeon HD 7870 0.79%
ATI Radeon HD 7970 0.76%
ATI Radeon HD 7950 0.69%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 0.51%

Total (Current generation) nVidia 5.97% / ATI 4.47%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 5.43%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 4.52%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 3.07%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 2.68%
ATI Radeon HD 6870 2.72%
ATI Radeon HD 6850 2.55%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 2.10%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 1.92%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 0.81%
ATI Radeon HD 6750 0.32%

Total (Last generation) 17.62% nVidia / 8.50% ATI-AMD

My rule of thumb over the last few years, based upon "cost per frame" analysis, is at the higher end (top 2 tiers I generally lean nVidia and below that I lean AMD .... third tier is usually a toss up.

As for PhysX ... my son has twin 560 Ti's OC'd about 25% and playing games like Batman with PhysX on I have to say was a real kick. He also has a 120 Hz screen and I also played it in 3D and as much as I had my mind set to "hate it", (I don't like 3D movies) I have to say it was an extremely impressive experience.

No need to base your choice on what we think, see the video comparison here:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/batman_arkham_asylu...
Score
0
January 10, 2013 8:14:37 PM

What lostgamer posted is the truth plain and simple. No matter what either side fanboys say that's it.


It all depends on you and what you do. Don't let the obvious fanboys deceive you.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2013 8:16:52 PM

sam_p_lay said:
How bout raspberry donuts?

:)  i could take 1 please though somehow i like those with apple more
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 8:21:43 PM

technoholic said:
:)  i could take 1 please though somehow i like those with apple more


Hmmmm OK I think we can compromise there. At least you don't like chocolate donuts :-D

Bigshootr... leave my glazed raspberry donuts alone. Thin ice buddy (narrows eyes)

:lol: 
Score
0
a c 134 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 8:42:44 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
I always find it useful to see what other reasonable minds are choosing. Of course people generally fall into two camps:

1. Those who believe most reasonable people make informed choices.
2. Those people who believe most people, especially everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. :) 

Here's what your fellow gaming enthusiasts are buying / have bought based upon what's hitting Steam's servers in terms of % market share (DX11 cards)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 1.94%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 1.47%
ATI Radeon HD 7850 1.21%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 1.13%
ATI Radeon HD 7770 1.02%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 0.92%
ATI Radeon HD 7870 0.79%
ATI Radeon HD 7970 0.76%
ATI Radeon HD 7950 0.69%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 0.51%

Total (Current generation) nVidia 5.97% / ATI 4.47%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 5.43%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 4.52%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 3.07%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 2.68%
ATI Radeon HD 6870 2.72%
ATI Radeon HD 6850 2.55%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 2.10%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 1.92%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 0.81%
ATI Radeon HD 6750 0.32%

Total (Last generation) 17.62% nVidia / 8.50% ATI-AMD

My rule of thumb over the last few years, based upon "cost per frame" analysis, is at the higher end (top 2 tiers I generally lean nVidia and below that I lean AMD .... third tier is usually a toss up.

As for PhysX ... my son has twin 560 Ti's OC'd about 25% and playing games like Batman with PhysX on I have to say was a real kick. He also has a 120 Hz screen and I also played it in 3D and as much as I had my mind set to "hate it", (I don't like 3D movies) I have to say it was an extremely impressive experience.

No need to base your choice on what we think, see the video comparison here:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/batman_arkham_asylu...


I did not realize that steam has this information stored up that is very interesting. Your son would love Arkham City if he hasn't played it yet.

I checked out Nvidia 3D at blizzcon I want to say 2 years ago now. And I was impressed it added a level of depth to games they were showing off a battleground isle of conquest in 3D.

And also Physx will always be one of those niche things you either like it or hate it. I like it in games like batman and especially in Borderlands 2. I hope they do a better job with it in the new METRO 2033 game because the last game couldn't tell if it was on or off mainly due to the mainly dark lit game.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 8:45:33 PM

Here you go:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Though I'd massively advise against basing a choice on whatever's popular. Following the crowd isn't the way to make an informed decision. How many even chose those cards? Many will have purchased them as part of a system. And of those that bought the card itself, did they base their purchase on benchmarks or memory size? Obviously some will be informed decisions, but they may be based on factors that don't personally affect you. So best to take the time and do your own research (or just ask on the forums) :-)
Score
0
January 10, 2013 8:46:05 PM

I like support and new drivers and getting improvement in games as soon as possible.
So the support "war" is won by nVidia that keeps boosting up game performance releasing multiple driver updates when big titles come and nVidia was expecting to do better on them.
Amd pretty much sits around and cash in.

So to make up your mind look at what lost_gamer said and take into account gaming support.
There is no clear winner on paper but there are winners on some areas mainly on the cooling and noise department which are tied to the manufacturer of the card.
MSI twin froz3r for example is a blast for nvidia and gygabite 3 fan solution is great for AMD.

So you should use the following criteria:
-Support
-OC ability
-Cooling available
-Noise
-Features
-Memory bandwidth(the higher the best performance on high res and on multi monitors)

You said you dont plan to OC and going to run on 1080p so that goes away from the list.What ask yourself:
-Do I want imediate support for new games?Yes: Point nVidia No: Point AMD
-Do I mind running a warmer card?Yes: Point nVidia No: Point AMD
-Do I need adaptive V-sync and physX?Yes: Point nVidia No: Point AMD

There are no wrong answers though,the difference on same price range AMD and nVidia card is small,they trade blows winning some and loosing some.
Score
0
a c 134 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 10, 2013 8:57:44 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Here you go:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Though I'd massively advise against basing a choice on whatever's popular. Following the crowd isn't the way to make an informed decision. How many even chose those cards? Many will have purchased them as part of a system. And of those that bought the card itself, did they base their purchase on benchmarks or memory size? Obviously some will be informed decisions, but they may be based on factors that don't personally affect you. So best to take the time and do your own research (or just ask on the forums) :-)


I know but its still nice to look at you know.

And @ blacknemesist: I agree with anything you will need to go looking for the solution for you with a objective mind set that you are looking for the best solution for you not necessarily what others feel is the best for you. MONEY, FEATURES, PERFORMANCE all kept in mind.
Score
0
!