Is ATI Or Nvidia better?

[celtic_warrior99]

Hi,
I was looking at getting a new GPU. I was looking at an AMD card but someone I know said that i should never get an AMD card because AMD cards have lots of driver issues. He said i should go with Nvidia, even if the performance isn't as good as a similar priced AMD card. What do you guys think?
Thanks

 

[-Lone-]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

 

[VincentP]

There have been driver issues reported for both companies over the years, but generally Nvidia is considered to have better drivers.
Nvidia is also well ahead on power efficiency at the moment.
AMD cards are typically a little cheaper for similar performance.
Then there are features specific to each, like ShadowPlay and g-sync for Nvidia and Mantle for AMD.

I think you have to look at the performance you want and your budget to pick a card.
Right now I would pick Nvidia in most situations. This could change if AMD makes a new release this year.

 

[apcs13]

This thread is kind of the ultimate invite to an opinionated mud-slinging blind fanboyism contest... the reality of the situation is that you have to do your own research and balance your budget with your performance needs.

Honestly, if not for the whole 3.5 GB VRAM fiasco, the 970 would be the best possible card right now (I own one, it works fantastically until 3.5 is used up). However, due to the limited VRAM capabilities and NVIDIA not being 100% truthful about their specs of their card, alongside the price drop of the 290X, that is a good idea also.

It depends on the price range, but honestly do your own research on the 290X/290 vs the 970 and see which one is right for you. Also, apparently the AMD drivers are pretty solid now, I use a laptop with an AMD APU and they are much better now than ever for me so I would assume they're okay for desktop as well.

 

[VincentP]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

 

[SessouXFX]

Depends on what you're looking for. Which card are you looking at?

AMD has improved their drivers as of late, so it's not as if their drivers are a total fail. But depending on what you're looking for out of your GPU, and price range, you really can't do wrong with either company. Do a comparison between the cards of that price range and that's the card you should go with.

 

[-Lone-]

This thread is kind of the ultimate invite to an opinionated mud-slinging blind fanboyism contest... the reality of the situation is that you have to do your own research and balance your budget with your performance needs.

Honestly, if not for the whole 3.5 GB VRAM fiasco, the 970 would be the best possible card right now (I own one, it works fantastically until 3.5 is used up). However, due to the limited VRAM capabilities and NVIDIA not being 100% truthful about their specs of their card, alongside the price drop of the 290X, that is a good idea also.

It depends on the price range, but honestly do your own research on the 290X/290 vs the 970 and see which one is right for you. Also, apparently the AMD drivers are pretty solid now, I use a laptop with an AMD APU and they are much better now than ever for me so I would assume they're okay for desktop as well.

lol, yup, here it comes.

 

[-Lone-]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

Slightly better and only in some games.

 

[celtic_warrior99]

so i should get the card that has the best performance, whether it is ati or nvidia?

 

[-Lone-]

so i should get the card that has the best performance, whether it is ati or nvidia?

Questions to ask yourself.
1. What resolution do you plan to play on for the next few years?
2. What type of games do you play? FPS, Racing, RPG, etc?
3. Do you care about power efficient or not?

 

[VincentP]

so i should get the card that has the best performance, whether it is ati or nvidia?

Yes, unless you specifically want features only offered by one or the other or only one is suitable.
Suitability of some cards may be restricted by your power supply or case.

 

[celtic_warrior99]

Ill be playing on probably 3X HD monitors. I play Racing games and i don't really fuss too much about power efficiency.

 

[11sphere92]

I recomended Lone answer, since yeah he helped me choosing monitor from which graphic card i own.
Since yeah, NVIDIA is better for 1080 - 1440p resolution. But if you want to go 4k, AMD is way better. But yeah, NVIDIA had Gsync, and soon AMD will had Freesync.

About power effecient, NVIDA power is kinda effecient than AMD.

 

[-Lone-]

Ill be playing on probably 3X HD monitors. I play Racing games and i don't really fuss too much about power efficiency.

HD as in High Definition, not Full High Definition? Or you can just say 720p or 1080p, but if you game on 3x 1080p monitors, dual 970s would be the best for you, it may only have 3.5GB of VRAM, but you don't need the full 4GB at 1080p, 3.5GB is even enough for 1440p ultra in most games.

 

[celtic_warrior99]

ok thanks

 

[VincentP]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

Slightly better and only in some games.

Tom's hardware benchmarks published in the GTX 980 release show the GTX 980 ahead of the R9 290X with or without Mantle in every 4K benchmark.
The difference comparing the GTX 980 with the R9 290X with Mantle where available ranged from less than 1% through to 26%, with an average difference of 17%.
In other words, better in all games, slightly in some and significantly in others.

 

[JakeAlmighty]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

A rather silly statement sir - the performance of the cards varies widely by game, and it is known that AMD cards perform very well compared to their NVidia counterparts in 4k resolution because of their wider memory bus.

ie you can see here that the gtx 980 loses handily on Shadow of Mordor at 4k resolution, to only the lowly 290x, nevermind the 295x2 card.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Middle-earth-Shadow-Mordor-Performance-Testing/4K-Testing-and-Closing-Thought


The point is that blanket statements are just ridiculous . You should base your choice of gpu on what you intend to do with it. (and also your budget restraints, if you have them)

Price is also a good point to raise - you can get TWO 290x for the price of a gtx 980 (290x is only $280 after rebate now) and crossfire them, or you can even get a 295x2 as low as $660 now after rebate.

It all depends what your goals with the cards are.

disclaimer - I don't give a rat's ass one way or another about fanboyism. I buy the cards that I need to get the performance I'm looking for. I currently use a Nvidia card until my next upgrade sometime later this year or possibly next year (depends how hard they push the top end of performance - I like to game big) - could be Nvidia again, could be AMD, who knows.

 

[VincentP]

Ill be playing on probably 3X HD monitors. I play Racing games and i don't really fuss too much about power efficiency.

HD as in High Definition, not Full High Definition? Or you can just say 720p or 1080p, but if you game on 3x 1080p monitors, dual 970s would be the best for you, it may only have 3.5GB of VRAM, but you don't need the full 4GB at 1080p, 3.5GB is even enough for 1440p ultra in most games.

The GTX 970 cards in SLI is a good choice, but 3 1080p monitors requires a significantly larger frame buffer (and hence more VRAM) than 1080p or 1440p. Three monitors at 1080p in landscape is a resolution of 5760x1080.

 

[-Lone-]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

Slightly better and only in some games.

Tom's hardware benchmarks published in the GTX 980 release show the GTX 980 ahead of the R9 290X with or without Mantle in every 4K benchmark.
The difference comparing the GTX 980 with the R9 290X with Mantle where available ranged from less than 1% through to 26%, with an average difference of 17%.
In other words, better in all games, slightly in some and significantly in others.

Another thing, I don't feel like using all of my PCIE slots, I prefer 2 in 1 cards than having all 4 jammed on a mobo. Also, the 980 came out nearly 1 year after the 290x, so of course it'd be better, if it was worse, I'd laugh at Nvidia and never get them again.

 

[VincentP]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

A rather silly statement sir - the performance of the cards varies widely by game, and it is known that AMD cards perform very well compared to their NVidia counterparts in 4k resolution because of their wider memory bus.

ie you can see here that the gtx 980 loses handily on Shadow of Mordor at 4k resolution, to only the lowly 290x, nevermind the 295x2 card.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Middle-earth-Shadow-Mordor-Performance-Testing/4K-Testing-and-Closing-Thought


The point is that blanket statements are just ridiculous . You should base your choice of gpu on what you intend to do with it. (and also your budget restraints, if you have them)

Price is also a good point to raise - you can get TWO 290x for the price of a gtx 980 (290x is only $280 after rebate now) and crossfire them, or you can even get a 295x2 as low as $660 now after rebate.

It all depends what your goals with the cards are.

disclaimer - I don't give a rat's ass one way or another about fanboyism. I buy the cards that I need to get the performance I'm looking for. I currently use a Nvidia card until my next upgrade sometime later this year or possibly next year (depends how hard they push the top end of performance - I like to game big) - could be Nvidia again, could be AMD, who knows.

I'm not saying one is better than the other necessary, just arguing this idea you would choose AMD specifically for 4K.
The different memory bus widths are not comparable because of different compression technology.
Every benchmark I have seen previously shows the GTX 980 ahead of the R9 290X. You have one where it is ahead, but this is typical of other games.
The R9 295X2 is not a single GPU card. It is comparable to GTX 980 cards in SLI or R9 290X cards in Crossfire, where again the GTX 980 in SLI is ahead.
Cost is an important factor to some people, but then power efficiency is important to others.
Power efficiency means less heat and generally less noise. You need a higher rated power supply to handle it and significantly more cooling in your case. We are talking about more than 200W of extra power being converted into heat in the R9 290X crossfire setup compared to GTX 780 cards in SLI.

 

[VincentP]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

Slightly better and only in some games.

Tom's hardware benchmarks published in the GTX 980 release show the GTX 980 ahead of the R9 290X with or without Mantle in every 4K benchmark.
The difference comparing the GTX 980 with the R9 290X with Mantle where available ranged from less than 1% through to 26%, with an average difference of 17%.
In other words, better in all games, slightly in some and significantly in others.

Another thing, I don't feel like using all of my PCIE slots, I prefer 2 in 1 cards than having all 4 jammed on a mobo. Also, the 980 came out nearly 1 year after the 290x, so of course it'd be better, if it was worse, I'd laugh at Nvidia and never get them again.

What is the reference to PCI slots?
Both the GTX 980 and R9 290X are single GPU, dual slot cards.
AMD has the R9 295X2 as a dual GPU card. Nvidia's equivalent at the moment is the GTX Titan Z, although this is due to be replaced by a Maxwell card.
Yes the AMD cards are older, but you can only compare what is currently available. If AMD can come out with something to match the performance and efficiency of the current Nvidia cards I would happily recommend them.
Unfortunately AMD hasn't been able to match Nvidia for efficiency since the release of the GTX 600 series. The Radeon HD 5000 series were great when released.

 

[-Lone-]

Simple fact that I tell myself, get Nvidia for 1080p or 1440p gaming. Get AMD for 4k or higher resolution gaming, that's how I choose

The Nvidia GTX 980 is the fastest single GPU card available at the moment. I'm not sure why you would choose an AMD card over this for 4K resolutions.

Slightly better and only in some games.

Tom's hardware benchmarks published in the GTX 980 release show the GTX 980 ahead of the R9 290X with or without Mantle in every 4K benchmark.
The difference comparing the GTX 980 with the R9 290X with Mantle where available ranged from less than 1% through to 26%, with an average difference of 17%.
In other words, better in all games, slightly in some and significantly in others.

Another thing, I don't feel like using all of my PCIE slots, I prefer 2 in 1 cards than having all 4 jammed on a mobo. Also, the 980 came out nearly 1 year after the 290x, so of course it'd be better, if it was worse, I'd laugh at Nvidia and never get them again.

What is the reference to PCI slots?
Both the GTX 980 and R9 290X are single GPU, dual slot cards.
AMD has the R9 295X2 as a dual GPU card. Nvidia's equivalent at the moment is the GTX Titan Z, although this is due to be replaced by a Maxwell card.
Yes the AMD cards are older, but you can only compare what is currently available. If AMD can come out with something to match the performance and efficiency of the current Nvidia cards I would happily recommend them.
Unfortunately AMD hasn't been able to match Nvidia for efficiency since the release of the GTX 600 series. The Radeon HD 5000 series were great when released.

Everyone and everything has it's weaknesses. Fortunately power is something I don't care about, if they want me to use 3000w then so be it, I do what is necessary, don't care much about the challenges.