• Hey there, Guest! Share your idea for a new trophy in the forums and win bragging rights and a $100 Amazon gift card! Check out the New Community Trophy Contest here!
  • Pardon our dust as we work on some regularly scheduled forum maintenance. You may notice some missing features during this time. Thank you for your patience!

Nvidia or ATI/AMD (explain)

Whose has the best graphics cards (all around best)

  • Nvidia

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • Ati/AMD

    Votes: 29 56.9%

  • Total voters
    51
I like ATI/AMD maybe because i owned just ATI video cards. 9600 PRO , 4850 ,4890, 6950. All the cards have run smooth and i didn't have not a single problem with any of them. And was cheaper than Nvidia cards.
 

truegenius

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2011
2,686
0
21,160
122


:p that's not fair , when i voted their were only 4 votes, and when i commented the number of votes become 5 and my comment is is now at last position :whistle: (seems my typing speed is to slow)
 

vitornob

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2008
988
0
19,060
35
Nvidia, due to:

Pros:
- Cuda technology, I already programmed direct over the GPU cores. Accelerating some math functions by almost 20x comparing with my i7-2600k. Adobe paralled functions receives a GREAT boost (easily surpassing 6-cores CPUs)

- 3D Vision technology, a very mature in-house solution (AMD solution isn't in-house), do not need to use 3rd-party software. Use of REAL full resolution (due to passive method, AMD method cut resoltion in half)

- Physx (couple games that uses it, but it really shines)

- Overall better drivers, support

- Geforce.com with it awesome optimal playable settings based in your Nvidia card, tweak guides, performance guide.

- Heavily invests in "the way it's meant to be played" games, usually comes with good performance to Nvidia cards since the game have heavy support from Nvidia.

- Usually have less problems with non-optimized SLI/Crossfire games.

Cons:
- It's a bit expensive comparing to AMD.
- Usually hotter.

Conclusion, my impression is that:
- Nvidia, heavily focused in gamer's community. Have an awesome website (geforce.com) that helps a lot to optimize the games. Have games graphics breakdowns, where you can really undestand what each setting does.
I would say Nvidia is "gamers for gamers"

- AMD looks more a general company that does graphics card too (and this is true). They don't have that huge appeal to help gamer's community.
 

rage33

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2010
466
0
18,860
34
I like AMD more, but Nvidia definitely has better driver support. However I'll choose AMD every time because they tend to be slightly cheaper for roughly the same performance at each specific price point (at least when gaming, I can not speak as to rendering video and auto cad).

I do find it rather hilarious when fanboys from both camps sing the praise of their companies benchmark scores when the difference from the two cards that are within the same performance/price point are with in 5-10 FPS of each other.

The fact of the matter is both companies make very good cards that perform well above average and in real world game playing 5-10 frames makes little difference. If your not technically inclined and do not like tweaking, spend a little extra and get a Nvidia card, if you don't mind tweaking and finding the right settings save some cash and buy AMD.
 

reccy

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2007
532
0
19,010
13
Nvidia.

I've had problems with drivers and reliability issues with a Ati Radeon 9800pro, costs me a bomb and didnt work as expected.

Been with Nvidia for a long while now, XFX 6800GS XXX was my first "performance" card from Nvidia, and boy it didnt disappoint and is still going today.
 
AMD is my preference. They have better price to performance than nvidia. I don't have any applications that support CUDA, and only 4 games out of more than 100 that support PhysX, so those aren't strong selling points for me. That, and I'm still bitter about the GeForce 4 Ti4200 that failed and the replacement card that failed within a year. I have never had an AMD card fail in that short a time frame. I personally have had few driver issues with AMD, so I have no reason to complain about drivers.
 

inanition02

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2011
1,022
0
19,460
64
I used to be nVidia all the way from the Riva2/TNT to GeForce2 and GeForce4 Ti. But after a couple horrible experiences (FX series card that had to be replaced 2x and a 6800GT where 3 straight cards failed inside of 6 months) I switched over to ATI/AMD with the 38XX series. Whoa - I was blown away by how much quieter it was and the bang for the buck. I've had cards in the 48XX, 57XX, 65XX and 68XX series and haven't yet had an issue with them/drivers - and saved a boatload of money.

That said...if I was building a workstation for advanced processing, I'd probably go nVidia. But a gaming PC (considering I play mostly RTS, flight sims and racing games which aren't the most demanding) and media PC will be AMD all the way.
 
Ati/AMD is better in gaming, Price to performance, Power Consumption (More efficient) and really good eyefinity things that is very good, as you can see on reviews.

However, nvidia has better drivers, CUDA support for video rendering acceleration and in some games you can have a very good PhsyX support.

I don't have any personal preference, but my next build is probably going to be Radeon 7xxx series. I have a lots of nvidia cards though for my tower, I have Geforce 7xxx and 9xxx. But Since I probably do gaming on my next system I will go with Radeon 7xxx.

And truegenius, don't advertise your thread.
 

farrengottu

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2011
912
0
19,160
55
only one thing matters for me... can i run 3 monitors with one video card. and only AMD can.
i wont tolerate microstutter, its as bad as having crap graphics. so two cards is out and 3 is too expensive and a waste of power. so AMD for me.
 

joedjnpc

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2011
295
0
18,810
17
I've had an Nvidia 8800GT, a Radeon HD 5870 and now a Radeon HD 7970, I don't really have a serious preference for either company, they both make really solid GPU's but AMD haven't let me down in the last 3 years.
 
< $200 AMD / ATI ....on price / performance basis, best card here is the 6870
> $200 nVidia ....on price / performance basis, best card here is the 560 Ti (factory overclocked 900Mhz version has better value than stock card)

This has pretty much been the case over the last few generations of GFX cards that the upper end is owned by nVidia and the lower end by AMD / ATI. As for popularity,t Steam site gives a good idea of what peeps hitting their servers are using:

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

-Overall, NVidia cards sit in 7 of the 8 top spots.

-Overall, AMD/ATI has 5 cards in the Top 20 (nVidia has 14).

-Out of the current generation cards (5xx and 69xx), the current market share (December) is as follows:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 8.81%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 4.35%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 3.53%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 3.14%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 1.89%

DX10 cards comprise 61% of the cards hitting steam servers, DX11 only 32%.

For evaluating price / performance I look at dollars per frame and the table below highlights the two price category recommendations I made in the 1st paragraph. Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:

$ 155.00 460-768 MB (314/592) $ 0.49 - $ 0.52
$ 155.00 6850 (371/634) $ 0.42 - $ 0.49
$ 170.00 6870 (434/701) $ 0.39 - $ 0.49
$ 220.00 6950 (479/751) $ 0.46 - $ 0.59
$ 240.00 6950 Frozr OC (484/759) $ 0.50 - $ 0.63
$ 205.00 560 Ti (455/792) $ 0.45 - $ 0.52
$ 320.00 6970 (526/825) $ 0.61 - $ 0.78
$ 215.00 560 Ti - 900 Mhz (495/862) $ 0.43 - $ 0.50
$ 340.00 570 (524/873) $ 0.65 - $ 0.78
$ 500.00 580 (616/953) $ 0.81 - $ 1.05
$ 725.00 6990 (762/903) $ 0.95 - $ 1.61
$ 750.00 590 (881/982) $ 0.85 - $ 1.53

That is for example, the 6870 costs $170, gets 434 fps in the game test suite in a single card configuration, at a cost of 39 cents per frame, and gets 701 in CF configuration costing 49 cents per fframe.
 


Farengottu has said that he is not interested in running SLI or Crossfire due to microstuttering issues, so getting a second card to drive a third display is not an optimal solution for him. Generally speaking nvidia cards cannot drive three displays on a single card, the only exceptions being dual GPU cards like the GTX 590 and a small number of special edition cards where the manufacturer has added in support for more than 2 displays. On mos AMD cards, 3 display support is a standard feature, with many cards capable of driving 4 or possibly more displays.
 

Tavo_Nova

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2011
1,159
0
19,360
38
nvidia is good, mroe expensive and has cuda good for my rendering, but if its just for gaming i see why not get AMD as i voted for it, due to much much more affordable in price by all (students etc.) and performance wise they have it good there at almost the same level as nvidia just that nvidia has better driver support but overall just same, since mostly everyone would upgrade in 3-5 years time
 

Similar threads