Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD or Nvidia.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 13, 2013 6:10:26 PM

Im looking to buy a new graphics card that will really help make my games look good i know Nvidia has physx but does AMD have something like physx? im looking at either a 660-670 to a 7850-7870

More about : amd nvidia

February 13, 2013 6:14:47 PM

If you can afford a 670, you might as well go for the HD 7950, with a little overclock it will outperform the 670, for a lower price.
m
0
l
a c 230 U Graphics card
a c 77 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 13, 2013 6:16:03 PM

You can use PhysX, and by that I mean "real PhysX" not CPU based PhysX with an MAD card as your main by adding an inexpensive nVidia card to handle the PhysX chores. Here's an old THG article on the topic with links to where ya get the driver tools.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ATI-physx-patch...

As for performance, I generally take user opinions w/ a grain of salt and "just look at the numbers" at reputable web sites (make sure tests highlighting one cards "new drivers" are also using current drivers for the cards they are being compared against....more often then not, they ain't). Here's a couple of my favorites:

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/2725/8/nvidia-geforce-g...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670...
m
0
l
Related resources
February 13, 2013 6:16:52 PM

+1 exeedorbit
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 13, 2013 6:18:25 PM

Even the cheapest 7870 XT can best a reference-clocked 670 at stock voltage according to Tom's, but IDK how it'll fare in a comparison with it using overvolting to get more overclocking compared to an overclocked 670 (which is voltage locked, meaning no overvolting at all for the 670). I do already know that most good 7950s can best all 670s (on average and not significantly, but still) when it comes to overclocking.

That's not to say that the 670 isn't a great card; it's just not the best value these days for overclocking users.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 13, 2013 6:19:20 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
You can use PhysX, and by that I mean "real PhysX" not CPU based PhysX with an MAD card as your main by adding an inexpensive nVidia card to handle the PhysX chores. Here's an old THG article on the topic with links to where ya get the driver tools.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ATI-physx-patch...

As for performance, just look at the numbers of a few web sites. Here's a couple of my favorites:

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/2725/8/nvidia-geforce-g...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670...


No offense, but your "favorites" are extremely outdated and not relevant in the face of current drivers.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2013 6:24:51 PM

Bellow the 670 price point I'd go AMD. At or above the 670 price point I'd go 670.

This is somewhat less true given the real VALUE of AMD that cost less and can reach 670 levels. Past a 670 level of gpu you start to get less and less for what you pay for unless you got some 3 monitor gaming set up...
m
0
l
February 13, 2013 6:43:40 PM

Im planning on using 1 24 or 27in monitor im not sure yet using the HDMI connection through whichever GPU i buy...Im planning on mainly playing Borderlands 2 and want a video card that can really make it look great..right now i have a ATI radeon 5450 and i can run on all high settings but it looks like sh!t(probably my monitors) ive seen what Physx on max can look like, So knowing that what would give me the best performance? Im not looking to spend over 300$ but will spend a max of 350 if i have to
m
0
l
February 13, 2013 7:07:39 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
You can use PhysX, and by that I mean "real PhysX" not CPU based PhysX with an MAD card as your main by adding an inexpensive nVidia card to handle the PhysX chores. Here's an old THG article on the topic with links to where ya get the driver tools.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ATI-physx-patch...

As for performance, I generally take user opinions w/ a grain of salt and "just look at the numbers" at reputable web sites (make sure tests highlighting one cards "new drivers" are also using current drivers for the cards they are being compared against....more often then not, they ain't). Here's a couple of my favorites:

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/2725/8/nvidia-geforce-g...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670...



I only have 1 PCI-E slot on my MB...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2013 7:20:40 PM

What make is your motherboard. Also check your inbox I PMd you.
m
0
l
a c 230 U Graphics card
a c 77 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 13, 2013 7:36:24 PM

blazorthon said:
Your "favorites" are extremely outdated and not relevant in the face of current drivers.


I went with the apples and apples thing .... I disregard sites (like the one most often referenced in support of this "new drivers" position) that test one card's new drivers against another card's two generation old drivers. Can't really understand the championing of wonderful new drivers when the reader didn't bother to check or intentionally ignored what driver was used for the competition on the new test. I also see little relevance in "optimizations" that sacrifice image quality in order to tweak benchmark scores.

Not saying that AMD is the only one guilty of this tactic, nVidia has done it's "optimizations" too over the years. Benchmarks become more useless month after month as both card makers tweak their drivers to perform well in popular benchmarks..... but that's all you get .... improvements in benchmark performance. Do the same test for a different portion of the game and these new optimizations often don't change beans.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Accuses-Nvidia-of-Ch...

Should we also be more concerned about what most reviewers are not testing ? ..... Should we care more about latency than whether one cards gets 79 versus 75 fps for the other ...... it's those "nasty spikes into the 50 and 60 millisecond range" that put the downer on the gaming experience, so this is a factor I will be looking to see reported on more in future testing. Start at the link below and follow thru the rest of the benchies....in most cases, they compete well ...90 - 95 % of the time....in the other 5 - 10%, we see moderate to severe lags

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

Last round (GTX5xx / HD6xxx), it was easy ....nVidia above $200 and AMD below. This round, to my mind, since the AMD took the axe to its pricing structure, it's hard to make the wrong choice on a cost per frame basis no matter which way you go. The user's I typically build for (speaking strictly of $200 cards and up) seem to prefer the nVidia cards about 2:1 over the corresponding AMD card (this ratio is echo'd by what is hitting steam servers and hence what people are buying ... see link below) but I don't have much invested in their choice so don't have an "emotional" involvement.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

GTX 670 has 2.11% of the DX11 market, up 0.17% in the last month
HD7970 has0.81% of the DX11 market, up 0.05% in the last month
HD 7950 has0.77% of the DX11 market, up 0.08% in the last month

The nVidia / AMD battle today is as competitive as I can remember. New driver arguments are only valid however when:

a) The tests use current drivers from both manufacturers
b) The tests don't limit their testing to a short list of games so as to produce a predetermined conclusion
c) The test settings are not selected to favor one side or the other.

There are many people from both the red and the green teams who are quite happy to ignore all the above if it produces their desired conclusion. Ya don't like my links (I chose them for the wide number of games and wide variation in settings), post your own. My advice to the potential purchaser however remains the same..... look at many reviews.....look beyond the surface into the reviews and:

1. Check both manufacturer's web sites to make sure that all drivers used in the test are current.
2. Ignore any site / review with < 10 games in their testing protocol ... the more, the better.
3. Give more weight to sites that use variety of settings and resolutions to paint a complete picture.
4. Look at the individual games in the tests and give greater weight to the ones you are likely to play.
5. Look at other factors besides average fps.
6. Don't accept statements in forum posts that don't have links supporting the position..... and evaluate the links based upon 1 - 5 above.

Again, there is no "wrong choice" in the market at this time......do ya research, validate it and make your own choices.

m
0
l
a c 230 U Graphics card
a c 77 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
February 13, 2013 7:49:55 PM

Alec Huskey said:
I only have 1 PCI-E slot on my MB...


In that case, if ya find PhysX interesting ... ya may want to look at the following:

This one's a bit old when PhysX req'd high powered cards but it's the user experience i want to point to. I have to agree .... it's one of those things you don't miss until you have experienced it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylu...

Quote:
.... the eye candy is a lot of fun to watch. Once you've turned it on, it's not something you'll turn off if your hardware can handle it.


I do have to warn ya tho .... PhysX and 3D can be a bit much first time through. I played Batman AC on a 3D box (120Hz Monitor, twin 560 Ti's) and was fully prepared to hate it .... I do not like 3D movies. I started playing BAC and I had a negative physical reaction after about 20 minutes .... like motion sickness. I took another shot a few days later and I had a ball...... my body adjusted to the virtual reality thing and I got a real kick outta the game. The 3D added a whole new aspect of playing and the difference with PhysX on and PhysX off was major .... still don't like 3D movies tho :) 

Again, I find it enjoyable and if there's two cards at the same relative cost per frame, I'd grab the one with PhysX. But don't listen to me.....watch this and make ya own decision.

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


m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 13, 2013 8:14:10 PM

I agree that a lot of sites do their driver comparisons with new driver releases on one side but old drivers on the other. However, driver improvements are real. For example, last Tom's did a serious look into them, going from launch to modern drivers for the 58xx cards (old example, but it's what we've got from Tom's) allowed the 5850 to improve to the point of where the 5870 was with the original drivers and the 5870 took off even more. Driver improvements have been done to an even greater extent with the GCN cards and although tom's hasn't done a direct comparison to thoroughly point it out, the writers have often mentioned how drivers have made a significant impact this generation, especially for AMD, but still to a great extent for Nvidia too. Not only that, a lot of game patches lately have improved performance overall too. Sorry, but I just can't can't go for using old benchmarks. My own tests, although arguably not professional, have shown to me that the drivers most certainly have made big differences, especially for the 79xx cards.

I do agree that 3D in gaming, especially for Nvidia, is far more enjoyable once you get used to it than 3D in movies. Movies usually can't come anywhere close to the level of utilization and quality that Nvidia's 3D Vision offers in gaming. I don't use it often since I don't own a 3D display myself and I've been using mostly AMD cards this generation, but that's not to say that I wouldn't use it more often if I had the option more readily available to me.

Also, against PhysX, AMD does have far better support for some advanced lighting features that rely on OpenCL/Direct compute. It's not the same, but it's arguably a competing feature, at least for the Tahiti-based cards that can really handle it.

EDIT: Also, there are some places where you can find up to date driver comparisons between AMD and Nvidia. Sometimes, you really have to look to find them, but they're around. For example, when I was looking for reviews of the various Catalyst 12.11 betas as the important ones came out (there were what, ten versions? I lost count, lol), I continually found comparisons between them and the current Nvidia driver for their time, granted most links I went through to find them in my searches were useless...
m
0
l
February 13, 2013 8:25:38 PM

hero1 said:
What make is your motherboard. Also check your inbox I PMd you.



ASUS M4A78LT-M motherboard...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2013 9:55:43 PM

Ok. Well, you can get either AMD HD 7970 or Nvidia GTx 670. It's your choice. But if you want PhysX then get Nvidia. Cheers!
m
0
l
February 13, 2013 10:11:33 PM

loops said:
Bellow the 670 price point I'd go AMD. At or above the 670 price point I'd go 670.

This is somewhat less true given the real VALUE of AMD that cost less and can reach 670 levels. Past a 670 level of gpu you start to get less and less for what you pay for unless you got some 3 monitor gaming set up...



AMD Radeon hd 7970 >>>Gtx 670. They are at the same price
m
0
l
!