Any practical benefits of Nvidia + Intel combo? Also why AMD hate?

[The_Icon]

As I browse through various system configurations, one common thing I noticed that people tend to combine Intel CPUs with Nvidia GPUs and AMD CPUs with AMD GPUs. Is there any practical reasoning behind it?

I am using the latest gen i5 with R9 290 for example, I am curious.

Also finally, why people tend to hate AMD so much? I mean intel cpus do perform better, but AMD performance isn't much behind in real world application like video games for example and are much cheaper.

One common issue people tend to attack on AMD with is their reliability? Is is true that AMD is not reliable? Isn't the board manufacturer, say Sapphire, to be blamed for a malfunction instead of the chip designer AMD when it comes to GPU? I mean Sapphire tend to have a big AMD market share for their cheaper cost compared to rivals, maybe their quality is lower? Not sure, as I am using Sapphire TriX R9 290, I have no issues with my card.

Thank you!

 

[jdcranke07]

As I browse through various system configurations, one common thing I noticed that people tend to combine Intel CPUs with Nvidia GPUs and AMD CPUs with AMD GPUs. Is there any practical reasoning behind it?

I am using the latest gen i5 with R9 290 for example, I am curious.

Also finally, why people tend to hate AMD so much? I mean intel cpus do perform better, but AMD performance isn't much behind in real world application like video games for example and are much cheaper.

One common issue people tend to attack on AMD with is their reliability? Is is true that AMD is not reliable? Isn't the board manufacturer, say Sapphire, to be blamed for a malfunction instead of the chip designer AMD when it comes to GPU? I mean Sapphire tend to have a big AMD market share for their cheaper cost compared to rivals, maybe their quality is lower? Not sure, as I am using Sapphire TriX R9 290, I have no issues with my card.

Thank you!

There is not really a big reason for the Intel/Nvidia combo other than Intel is linked to both. Its really just preference to be honest on the combos. I have both an FX-8350 build and an i7-4790K build. The biggest difference in between the Intel chips and the AMD chips both on CPUs and GPUs is that AMD utilized more wattage to attain their faster speeds. More wattage=more heat, which is why most do not like AMD builds. Not to mention, AM3+ is the latest socket for AMD and it is a dead socket after the 9xxx series hit the market. Intel really pulls ahead in single core processing and if you have an i7 the hyper threading is also a plus to boost the multi thread performance as well. The AMD CPUs are lacking in single core performance and are great for multi thread performance until you hit a certain plateau with the Intel lines and then Intel takes off and AMD cannot compete.

So, to summarize, AMD chips are power hungry and create more heat and less proficient at single core performance and good at multithreading. Intel chips are great for single core performance and i7's are great with multithreading as well.

And as far as I have seen AMD GPUs are just as reliable as Nvidia GPUs. Brand does not really play a factor unless one manufacturer states that the GPU will not be compatible with certain equipment. Once you get into SLI and Crossfire setups, thats when you see the difference. SLI is more mature since its older and thus they do not typically have issues with multiple GPUs working together. On the flip side, AMD is ''younger" and so they still have micro stuttering with Crossfire setups. However, this is quickly not becoming an issue with new GPUs being developed.

The difference in price between manufacturers varies depending on the connections that equipped on the card, the amount of VRAM on the card, the cooler that comes on the card, and other things. Best way to compare cards is via benchmarks. Sometimes specs don't tell you how well the card will perform and you need to exclude all the opinions from the die hard Nvidia and AMD fans. They will not give you everything you need to know.

 

[ssddx]

there are no special performance gains between using amd/amd, amd/nvidia, intel/amd and intel/nvidia. you see amd/amd pairings often because typically they are available for cheaper prices with good performance per dollar so make good budget builds. you often see intel/nvidia pairings because they are typically higher priced products which share similar features. of course there is some fanboyism at work in some cases and in others it is just preference.

amd receives hate for a few reasons.
-fanboyism and intel/nvidia users with superiority complexes (enough said, no need to cover this)
-its cpus generally fail against intel in performance, power efficiency and cooling. they only win on the price front if you use a cheaper chip and overclock. otherwise, they lose on all fronts.
-its gpus like the r9-290x run HOT.
-the 970, 990 and 990fx chipsets are antiquated now and so is the am3+ socket. there has been no real innovation just stagnancy for quite awhile.
-even top of the line amd chips cannot touch intel chips http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1260 yet cost the same.
-crossfire is a bit unrefined currently.

however in some ways amd makes sense.
-the amd 8320 (not 8350) is good in budget builds since it can be found for $140 (intel i5 is $200+) while giving enough performance for maxing out games (albiet not as good as i5) at a drastically lower price.
-its graphic cards are typically just a bit more powerful then nvidias at a lower cost.
-crossfire can use two non-identical video cards

years ago (back in 2004-ish) amd was the king of cpus and the amd64 line could not be touched by the pentium 4. ever since that time though they have been on the decline. when the i-series chips were released that was the end of them being a serious threat to intel.

to get back on their feet amd really needs to release a great product which can put pressure against the intel i-series lineup which so far they have failed at.

my first homebuilt pc was an amd/nvidia pairing (amd64 3500+/evga 7800gtx) and my current system is an intel/nvidia pairing (i7-920/asus gtx770, was gtx470). i typically pick whatever is best for value at the moment. right now intel has a good lead so i go with them, in the past when amd was on top i went with them. as for video cards i was seriously debating the 280x however it was out of stock and i managed to get this gtx770 for $260 ($380 normal price) so i'm quite happy. i did not like the original ati catalyst software so always avoided ati. however now that amd owns them and its a different software its not really a factor in my decisions anymore and i could go with either.

 

[The_Icon]

Thanks for the responses! My R9 290 Tri X is actually more cooler and quieter than Geforce GTX 780. Based on several benchmarks around the web, maybe the stock r9 290 had sound and heat problems?

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Yeah, the stock 290/290X coolers are hopeless

 

[The_Icon]

What about the driver problems people refer for AMD GPU? What knid of problems? I used Radeon HD 4670, R9 290 now and ATI Radeon 9800 pro ages ago (My fav card of all time lol), but never witnessed any issues with it. The only issue I have with Catalyst is that it looks butt ugly, but I hardly need to use it.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

I think that the driver issues in both directions are blown vastly out of proportion. With the possible exception of some crossfire stuff.

 

[Guest]

What about the driver problems people refer for AMD GPU? What knid of problems? I used Radeon HD 4670, R9 290 now and ATI Radeon 9800 pro ages ago (My fav card of all time lol), but never witnessed any issues with it. The only issue I have with Catalyst is that it looks butt ugly, but I hardly need to use it.

Well, my R9 290 didn't work with drivers properly (bugs, blackscreens and stuff). Tried everything and when nothng helped I RMA-ed the card, service confirmed that card is faulty, I should get money back in matter of days. Anyway, Radeons have bigger chance of not working than NVidia imo. BTW Black screen on Radeon R9 290 is very common bug. Just google R9 290 black screen / no signal. Ofcourse if you get a good card you just saved quite a lot of money by not getting NVidia,

 

[The_Icon]

Thanks, I wanted to get GTX 780, but that card was was 500$ here, I purchased my Sapphire TriX R9 290 OC (and OCed further) for 380$. With that plus benchmarks favoring R9 290, I had to get this.

Wish from 8 series, Nvidia is price competitive.

 

[ssddx]

then we have things like the amd 295x2 (two 290x on one normal size card) which is beastly. in fact the only way to keep it cool is to have it come stock with a liquid cooler.

its $1500 price means its less of a budget choice than 2x290x or 2x780ti and more of in a niche category for either those with only one slot to use who want cf peformance, people on a m-itx motherboard, or people looking for watercooled cf 290x's.

the sapphire toxxic trifan coolers are actually one of the best cooler designs out there. that 290x design doesnt really have as much of a heat problem as some others.

once you start crossfiring 290x's though.... heat tends to build up fast.

 

[The_Icon]

So, SLI is more refined than Crossfire? I can live with that as no way I will ever get dual GPUs.

 

[jdcranke07]

So, SLI is more refined than Crossfire? I can live with that as no way I will ever get dual GPUs.

SLI has been around longer so they've figured out he bugs already. Crossfire still has to catch up, but if your not going to have multiple GPUs then the point is moot.