64 replies to this topic

[SrKain]

I go Intel and nVidia as often as possible. In my experience, they're much more stable, run cooler, have a better wattage-performance ratio, and have a longer life. My experience with AMD has been a bit sloppy at best. They run very hot, are unstable at times, and seem to die faster, basically the inverse of what I said for the Intel.

I refuse to use AMD GFX cards, nVidia is a much more reliable designer, their cards last forever and can handle at least 5 years of games. I've only used one AMD card, and that was way back in '06 when I was about 11 and didn't game, so this one I'm just being a bit biased on.

That said, Intel has gotten way too expensive for me, the chips I really want are always in the 4-500$ ranges. nVidia cards are also following the same trend, but I don't upgrade my GFX cards that often (not that I don't want to ). So right now, I'm running a system with an AMD 1100T Phenom II x6, which has proven to be a little more stable and reliable then my last AMD investment, but no where near as good as an Intel chip. Not to mention, running hot as hell and chewing up wattage. I'm using an nVidia GTX560Ti for my GFX needs. It's a wonky set up, but it gets the job done.

Edit: Grammar mistake..

Edited by SrKain, 13 July 2012 - 06:35 AM.

[Dymitry]

@SrKain. Do you mind defining "stable" and "reliable" ?

[SrKain]

@Dymitry Well, I mean is that when I use an AMD, my system often chokes up and glitches out, often bluescreening or just plain shutting off. I've had three systems with AMD CPU's and they all have this problem, especially when gaming or doing a resource-demanding task like video encoding, so I'm kinda sure it's the processor that's messing with it. I've never had it happen on an Intel system. (Except when I'm screwing around with it purposely and cause Window's to Bluescreen).

I called nVidia reliable because most of their medium-high budget cards last at least 4-5 gaming years with no trouble what-so-ever. I've had a GeForce 8800GT card since 07, and to this day, it still runs 2012 games on medium at a respectable FPS. That's not to say that all their cards will perform like that. But like I said, I love them, and refuse to stray from their products, so I'm a bit bias.

Edited by SrKain, 13 July 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Dymitry]

SrKain, on 13 July 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

@Dymitry Well, I mean is that when I use an AMD, my system often chokes up and glitches out, often bluescreening or just plain shutting off. I've had three systems with AMD CPU's and they all have this problem, especially when gaming or doing a resource-demanding task like video encoding, so I'm kinda sure it's the processor that's messing with it. I've never had it happen on an Intel system. (Except when I'm screwing around with it purposely and cause Window's to Bluescreen).

I called nVidia reliable because most of their medium-high budget cards last at least 4-5 gaming years with no trouble what-so-ever. I've had a GeForce 8800GT card since 07, and to this day, it still runs 2012 games on medium at a respectable FPS. That's not to say that all their cards will perform like that. But like I said, I love them, and refuse to stray from their products, so I'm a bit bias.

To be honest those do not seem like cpu related issues...unless faulty and if working within designated parameters cpus work very closely to be 100% reliable unless design faults (like the pentium 3 1.13 ghz) and edge-case bugs aside (like the phenom x4 one). Bad ram, poor psu/mobo, overheating, there are multiple reasons that could have given you those kind of issues. The only link that I can find to amd is that usually amd processor are used in lower end builds, especially from oems, and for that reason usually come with lower end components - poor assembly. This has arguably also been done the in recent past to increase intel's perceived reliability/quality, but again, I am talking from my experience here.

[silentD11]

SrKain, on 13 July 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

@Dymitry Well, I mean is that when I use an AMD, my system often chokes up and glitches out, often bluescreening or just plain shutting off. I've had three systems with AMD CPU's and they all have this problem, especially when gaming or doing a resource-demanding task like video encoding, so I'm kinda sure it's the processor that's messing with it. I've never had it happen on an Intel system. (Except when I'm screwing around with it purposely and cause Window's to Bluescreen).

I called nVidia reliable because most of their medium-high budget cards last at least 4-5 gaming years with no trouble what-so-ever. I've had a GeForce 8800GT card since 07, and to this day, it still runs 2012 games on medium at a respectable FPS. That's not to say that all their cards will perform like that. But like I said, I love them, and refuse to stray from their products, so I'm a bit bias.

nvidia has historically had a much, MUCH, higher hardware failure rate than ATI/AMD. Entire series of desktop cards had hardware failures, entire chipsets (nforce 6/7) had hadware issues and were bugged to hell and back. Entire mobile ranges (8 mobile series) were so bad Dell, HP, apple had to recall and replace them.

ATI/AMD used to have driver issues, but that's largely gone now. nvidia still takes the case for releasing hardware that does not work and cooks.

[Catamount]

silentD11, on 13 July 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

nvidia has historically had a much, MUCH, higher hardware failure rate than ATI/AMD. Entire series of desktop cards had hardware failures, entire chipsets (nforce 6/7) had hadware issues and were bugged to hell and back. Entire mobile ranges (8 mobile series) were so bad Dell, HP, apple had to recall and replace them. ATI/AMD used to have driver issues, but that's largely gone now. nvidia still takes the case for releasing hardware that does not work and cooks.

Not to mention the Nvidia Vista debacle, which basically was a bigger and longer-lasting driver snafu than anything AMD could ever dream of. Even accounting for marketshare differences at the time, Nvidia's overall driver failure rate in Vista was massively higher than AMD's and so bad, that it was probably significantly (but not solely) responsible for Vista's reputation.


These days, both AMD and Nvidia do fine on drivers. They both follow a similar monthly release schedule, and both write stable drivers that work in almost all cases, with problems fixed and new games optimized relatively quickly.



As for what I prefer to use, it's 100% bang for your buck. Why? Because there isn't a statistically significant difference in reliability that I've ever seen demonstrated between these guys, to the point of creating significant chances that any part from any one of these companies will be any more likely to fail than any other. Oh sure, I've personally had failures with a few companies (Crucial having the worst track record for me, but with Nvidia among these companies), but a handful of mostly bad-batch related failures is not statistically significant.


So with that in mind, if I buy hardware from one or the other, there is a more or less equal probability that that piece of hardware will physically function, as far as I know, and so, I want whatever is going to be fastest for the money invested.


Ethics isn't a non-consideration for me, but I've never had much faith in corporations to be honest on their own anyways, so it's a very secondary consideration.

Edited by Catamount, 13 July 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[silentD11]

Yeah vista was a fiasco.

I use quadro cards for work, for OGL stuff nvidia is better (in most cases). For GPU computing, well the software you use is going to dictate the hardware that you buy. I'm locked into nvidia because of some software.

[Catamount]

silentD11, on 13 July 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Yeah vista was a fiasco.

I use quadro cards for work, for OGL stuff nvidia is better (in most cases). For GPU computing, well the software you use is going to dictate the hardware that you buy. I'm locked into nvidia because of some software.

Yeah, I hear you. Our university workstations use Quaddro cards in the GIS building. They're nice machines (Sandy Bridge quad cores, 16 GB of RAM, some Nvidia workstation card). Most of the stuff isn't GPGPU, even though it'd be great for some of the GIS stuff, but in what few cases GPUs play a role, Nvidia still has the bigger market share there, despite AMD pulling a rabbit out of their hat with Southern Islands (as AMD always does with GPUs...)

[Black Storm]

I have used all 4, or tried to. The last 2 ATI cards I bought, I had to return because the performance was bad and the compatibility (with high performance gaming) was even worse. There are far more graphics issues with ATI cards than there are with Nvidia (just go look at some tech support forums for games. Some games actually have to release an 'ATI only' patch.)

AMD has a few minor issues with software compatibility (not many,) but the performance has never really been up to par. They do cost a lot less. Now there are (sometimes) problems getting a Nvidia card to work with an AMD board (depends on the model and brand.) I expect this has a lot to do with competition, as AMD now owns ATI.

Add in the newer technologies as follows:

SLI vs Crossfire - SLI wins
PhysX - can run on either a Nvidia GPU (200 series and up) for extreme performance or on the CPU for moderate performance (not to mention using up CPU cycles.) PhysX is now owned by Nvidia.
CUDA - Included in the 200 series and newer or you can buy a CUDA card. Not essential, but certainly a nice performance boost.

Intel vs AMD - Too many new performance enhancing and security features to list in the Intel processors. If you want to fork over some big bucks, you could go with the XEON series and really get some bang out your system. Admittedly a massive overkill for a gaming system, and very difficult to justify a few thousand dollars just for the CPU(s.) Those would be (possibly) the processors used for the server hardware.

edited for typos

Edited by Black Storm, 13 July 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Black Storm, on 13 July 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

I have used all 4, or tried to. The last 2 ATI cards I bought, I had to return because the performance was bad and the compatibility (with high performance gaming) was even worse. There are far more graphics issues with ATI cards than there are with Nvidia (just go look at some tech support forums for games. Some games actually have to release an 'ATI only' patch.)

AMD has a few minor issues with software compatibility (not many,) but the performance has never really been up to par. They do cost a lot less. Now there are (sometimes) problems getting a Nvidia card to work with an AMD board (depends on the model and brand.) I expect this has a lot to do with competition, as AMD now owns ATI.

Add in the newer technologies as follows:

SLI vs Crossfire - SLI wins
PhysX - can run on either a Nvidia GPU (200 series and up) for extreme performance or on the CPU for moderate performance (not to mention using up CPU cycles.) PhysX is now owned by Nvidia.
CUDA - Included in the 200 series and newer or you can buy a CUDA card. Not essential, but certainly a nice performance boost

Intel vs AMD - Too many new performance enhancing and security features to list in the Intel processors. If you want to fork over some big bucks, you could with the XEON series and really get some bang out your system. Admittedly a massive overkill for a gaming system, and very difficult to justify a few thousand dollars just for the CPU(s.) Those would be (possibly) the processors used for the server hardware.

Actually you're off a bit here.

AMD currently holds the performance crown with the 7970 Ghz edition and Catalyst 12.7 drivers. Otherwise, save for the $400 price point with the Geforce GTX 670, AMD more or less owns the performance crown at all price points. (save when those 570s go on sale at $250, but they eat twice as much power as the nearly as fast factory overclocked 7850s.)

SLI vs Crossfire;
Crossfire has far better scaling.
SLI is compatible with more games.

[silentD11]

I hate to burst your bubbles here but...

PhysX- largely a gimick and hilariously unimportant, don't bother with it. That nvidia has been deliberately screwing it up on CPUs to sell cards speaks vlumes about them.

CUDA- worthless unless you are doing GPU computing, and even then general GPU computing is far superior. CUDA is only OK right now because nvidia was first out of the gate on GPU computing and thus got a head start, but it's not the future.

nvidia works VERY closely with the companies that design professional aps. So if you're working in CAD/CAM or similar items, quadros spank the crap out of fireGL cards. They are faster, less buggy, the software is designed for them, the AMD cards just lack all that, always have.

As for XEONs, XEONs are the same as their desktop version, some versions just have teh ability to use them in multi socket system. However outside of that, there isn't a difference between a XEON i7 and a core i7 of the same socket type, it won't be any faster.

Ever since socket 775 (and in several cases before that) you've been able to put xeons into desktop boards, the work just fine. The kicker is with multi socket systems, where you cannot put two of the desktop CPUs in, because (in say the case of socket 1366) they lack the extra QPI link to talk to each other.

[Viper69]

I like my ATI HD5870 but my biggest gripe was I had to flash the cards bios as soon as I bought it. The reason being is the Gigabyte video card could not play media player videos without crashing the computer. That was annoying but once fixed the cards screams.

[Odins Fist]

.
.

.
.
Decide for yourself it's a Pepsi versus Coke argument... Sometimes..

[Adm Awesome]

I have an AMD set up, because I went for most bang for your buck, I really don't think that should be on the poll, since that's another way to say AMD... I got the FX6100 3.3GHz 6 core processor, and it works amazingly, and is very versatile and easy to Overclock. My little guy is sitting stable at 4.5GHz and is keeping an amazing temperature. This is my everyday clock too, I leave my computer on 24/7 and so far at 4.5GHz, I'm not having any errors at all. I know someone who's brought it up to 4.7, so might try to get up there if I feel the need to. As for graphics card, I have a Radeon HD 6950, which I'm enjoying as well. I really think if you know how to work with your computer, AMD is the best deal for you. I might post my 3D Mark Vantage scores later if anyone is interested, along with the rest of my build.

[DEADTIME]

I'm agnostic, I've been a hardcore AMD guy until recently but I've switched to various set ups depending on what I want. I still stick with AMD video cards but with cpu's I drift back and forth.

I have 3 rigs in the home currently 2 with AMD CPUs and one with an Intel 6 core 3930k, my son uses an AMD 8 core 8150. All of them use AMD video cards, 2 5970s and a 6990 I'm very happy with them but will be upgrading to a 7990 as soon as its released.

I'll use whatever is best for the task, cost vs use so I'd definitely say I'm an AMD video card fan but with CPUs I'll use whatever works best for the task.

[Alkazar]

Price/performance is the only reasonable response. Anyone picking one over the other definatively is either not thinking the question through or is a very silly person in general. If a friend asks me to build him a computer for $1000, I'll almost certainly use an Intel CPU for higher performance at a higher price. If the same friend instead asked me to build a $600 computer strictly with gaming in mind, an AMD CPU would probably be better for the price.


On video cards, the choice of brand is even less important. The only real consideration when buying a video card is one of price/performance, and at certain price points AMD or Nvidia have better products for your dollars.

[Lightdragon]

hes tryin to troll the fanboys into going at eachothers throats...

[Scouten]

Intel has always been my goto for Cpus i just like their MOBO options WAY MORE and AMD has always been my lead GPU company even though their Drivers are shoddy at best



Edit: just for the record

Intel 960 I7@ 3.8Ghz with Crossfired 6950s @850/1250

Edited by Scouten, 14 July 2012 - 07:31 AM.

[Myssi]

Vulpesveritas, on 13 July 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

SLI vs Crossfire;
Crossfire has far better scaling.
SLI is compatible with more games.

Crossfire having far better scaling is something I don't buy, at least not with the latest generation of GPUs
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_670_SLI/27.html
http://www.guru3d.co...0-sli-review/19
http://www.techpower...ossFire/26.html
http://www.techpower...ossFire/26.html

670, 680 SLi and 7970, 7950 crossfire reviews and I don't see anything there that gives crossfire far better scaling.
To me they both sides seem to do a pretty good job with the scaling.

[Catamount]

I would agree that SLI scaling seems to be just as good. Both do a fine job with their multi-GPU tech, but it doesn't stop it from sucking on both ends, so unless people run into situations where single high end cards just aren't enough (all what, .1% of the gaming community?), it's a moot point for either side to bring up.