Amd vs nvidia

[omar80747326]

What's the difference between amd and nvidia's gpus., and what makes nvidia's cards the best.

 

[10tacle]

There is no best card between the two. Each are their own and each have their own strengths and weaknesses in games if that is what you are referring too. Some AMD video cards perform better in some games, and some Nvidia video cards perform better in others. However, Nvidia owns the high end video card market with the GTX 1080 Ti which AMD for whatever reason has chosen to not persue in competition.

My suggestion would be to look at gaming benchmarks for the series of video card you are looking at. Say for example an RX 64 vs. GTX 1080. But I will say this: AMD has put most of their R&D money in Ryzen which is leaving little for investment in GPU advancement.

 

[omar80747326]

I've heard that amd cards have problems especially with the shader engine property

 

[10tacle]

I've heard that amd cards have problems especially with the shader engine property

Nah. Some of their older GPUs had issues with drivers and whatnot, but AMD video cards have never had design flaws like that. Not sure who told you that or where you read it, but it is patently false information. There are plenty of hardware reviews out there of the latest game titles like Far Cry 5 comparing say a GTX 1080 and RX 64 in image quality. There is no difference in eye candy quality.

 

[RobCrezz]

However, Nvidia owns the high end video card market with the GTX 1080 Ti which AMD for whatever reason has chosen to not persue in competition.

Come on... AMD totally wanted the high end market, it was just that Vega didnt turn out good enough to compete.

 

[10tacle]

Come on... AMD totally wanted the high end market, it was just that Vega didnt turn out good enough to compete.

Well that was true with the Fury X targeting the GTX 980 Ti and you are correct there. It didn't stack up, so to speak. However, they threw in the towel with the RX series and trying to compete with the 1080 Ti. While the RX 56 does well against the 1070 and the RX 64 does well against the 1080, AMD didn't even try to launch a high end RX to go up against the 1080 Ti. I really wish they would though, but my guess is they only have so much GPU R&D money to work with balancing it with Ryzen development.

 

[RobCrezz]

Come on... AMD totally wanted the high end market, it was just that Vega didnt turn out good enough to compete.

Well that was true with the Fury X targeting the GTX 980 Ti and you are correct there. It didn't stack up, so to speak. However, they threw in the towel with the RX series and trying to compete with the 1080 Ti. While the RX 56 does well against the 1070 and the RX 64 does well against the 1080, AMD didn't even try to launch a high end RX to go up against the 1080 Ti. I really wish they would though, but my guess is they only have so much GPU R&D money to work with balancing it with Ryzen development.

Im pretty sure the Vega 64 was meant to compete with the 1080 ti. Either it just didnt perform as well as they hoped, or they didnt expect the performance of the 1080 ti to be as high.

 

[10tacle]

Im pretty sure the Vega 64 was meant to compete with the 1080 ti. Either it just didnt perform as well as they hoped, or they didnt expect the performance of the 1080 ti to be as high.

I had to go back and refresh my memory since it's nearly been a year since Vega was released. The reference launch price of the RX 64 was $499 (and $399 for the RX 56). Far from 1080 Ti pricing territory and squarely aimed at the 1080 market price segment (excluding real world out of control GPU pricing of course). To quote Anandtech:

"With a finite capacity to design chips, AMD’s decision to focus on the mid-range market with the Polaris series meant that the company effectively ceded the high-end video card market to NVIDIA once the latter’s GeForce GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 launched."

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review

 

[RobCrezz]

Im pretty sure the Vega 64 was meant to compete with the 1080 ti. Either it just didnt perform as well as they hoped, or they didnt expect the performance of the 1080 ti to be as high.

I had to go back and refresh my memory since it's nearly been a year since Vega was released. The reference launch price of the RX 64 was $499 (and $399 for the RX 56). Far from 1080 Ti pricing territory and squarely aimed at the 1080 market price segment (excluding real world out of control GPU pricing of course). To quote Anandtech:

"With a finite capacity to design chips, AMD’s decision to focus on the mid-range market with the Polaris series meant that the company effectively ceded the high-end video card market to NVIDIA once the latter’s GeForce GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 launched."

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review

Yeah, because the performance wasnt good enough...

 

[10tacle]

Well I think they chose wisely between sacrificing the top end GPU market and giving us Ryzen, vs. another Fury X and subsequent Bulldozer dud. If Ryzen keeps on producing results and increasing market share, perhaps we may once again see a true top level Ti competitor from AMD.