81 replies to this topic

[buckaroo]

Barbaric Soul, on 17 July 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Der Pizzadied, may I introduce you to Vulpesveritas, MW:O's very knowledgable AMD fanboy.

Aw, give Vulpes some slack - I couldn't afford Intel when I was his age either.

If he were a real fanboy, he'd be recommending Bulldozer and not Phenom II x4s.

Edited by buckaroo, 17 July 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[OrbitalshocK]

GeForce products that i've had over hte years have been less prone to driver issues (i think it's fair to say it's that way across the board). and no i'm not a fan boy i've had more radeons than geforce..and i always had driver/game issues that usually were easy to sort out.

radeon/amd cards are more for tinkerers in my opinion as i've read a few articles that state that overclocking has more of a calling with the radeon/amd fans. However, i have my GTX 460 stable and always running @ 850 core clock, 1900 memory clock (stock 648/1700) and i usually get a 5-15fps increase from it. My card never gets above 60c.

Edited by OrbitalshocK, 17 July 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[GamingWithVersarius]

I have had no problems with my new build that cost me $465. I went with a ASUS 990 fx mb, A fx4100 OC'ed to 4.5 ghz, 8 gigs ddr3 1866 and 2 Nvidia 550ti's in sli. I hover around 60 fps at 1080p. I am very happy with it.

[Odins Fist]

Been running AMD CPUs with Nvidia GPUs forever, (ZERO ISSUES)... Except (one set of) BETA drivers which aren't guaranteed...
.
Looks like a 670 or 680 will be in my future, and maybe SLI.... Just going to wait and see the actual game first, before I make a decision.

[Scilya]

Der Pizzadieb, on 17 July 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

exaclty where?

680 is superior to a 7970 most of the times
670 OC is superior to a 680 stock
670 OC is at the Price of a 7970 OC, in the case of Gigabyte even below
Power consumption of a 670 and 680 are by 50-80 watts lower than the 7970
I'm curious when and whats coming with the 660s.
The 7970 Ghz Edition is not even out yet and needs to compete with the 690.



AMD grafics cards were better before the 6xx series was released, though i dont understand why they still hold the RAM at a minimum on nVidia cards.


As for AMD vs Intel .. its pretty clear AMD cant compete with Intel.
But if you want something cheap with enough power, get the AMD FX-4170. It runs at 4.2 Ghz and usually 4 cores are completely enough for gaming and games gain more improvements with higher clocks than more cores.

OHHH MYYYY GOD,..

first of all,.
i looked on newegg now im english and over here the differance is way bigger BUT

7970 vs 680

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130768
EVGA 02G-P4-2680-KR GeForce GTX 680 : $499.99

http://www.newegg.co...Black%20Edition
XFX FX-797A-TNBC Radeon HD 7970 Black Edition $429.99

+ 3 free games! with amd's 3 for free promotion

ok so 7970 is $60 cheaper than the 680 at there lowest price points AND it comes with 3 free games

now,...

Quote

The 7970 Ghz Edition is not even out yet and needs to compete with the 690.

***!!!!! WHY OH WHY would you EVER be asking a SINGLE CORE graphics card (remember most of the OC partner cards out there are clocked over 1Ghz) to compete with DUAL GPU CARD???????? are you just so,.... that you don't understand the differences between those 2 cards,.....

From reviews we already knew that a Overclocked 670 could beat an stock 680. But comparing a good overclocked 680 with a good overclocked 670 shows that performance are very close.
The difference in overclock overhead almost makes up for disabled SMX in the 670 providing 680 performance at a 80% of its price.

but then again from reviews we ALSO know that a 7950 can ALAO be overclocked faster than a 7970 and come very close to the 680

so once aain it comes down to price,...

MSI N670GTX-PM2D2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 670 $399.99 ($30 less than a 7970,..)

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814127675

MSI R7950 Twin Frozr 3GD5/OC Radeon HD 7950 $329.99 (309 after mail in rebate)
http://www.newegg.co...eon%20HD%207950
and again you get 3 free games with amd's 3 for free

im sorry dude but ALL price points belong to AMD for value

now i suck with graphs but im sure vulps will provide pleanty as well as a nice and clear put down of your daft comments so ill leve mine here, i have to come to terms with the nonsance your prattling

buckaroo, on 17 July 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Aw, give Vulpes some slack - I couldn't afford Intel when I was his age either.

If he were a real fanboy, he'd be recommending Bulldozer and not Phenom II x4s.

us true fan boys are not stupid Im a amd fanboy through and through but i will touch bulldozer alot less than vulps will

Edited by Scilya, 17 July 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

buckaroo, on 17 July 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Aw, give Vulpes some slack - I couldn't afford Intel when I was his age either.

If he were a real fanboy, he'd be recommending Bulldozer and not Phenom II x4s.

I wasn't insulting Vulpes

[Raptor8009]

I run a AMD 6100 FX with 2 570's in SLI and it runs perfectly. I have a gigabyte mainboard. You can mix and match

[The Justicar]

Its not a fanboy thing, but I absolutely hate radeon cards. Compatibility issues, the drivers themselves, the companies that make the cards, there just isn't a single good thing about radeon cards except price v performance. Sorry, but I'll gladly pay a little premium for a card that works from a company that doesn't get off on giving its customers headaches.

For instance, the card I'm using right now (computer I'm borrowing until I rebuild) has a radeon in it. Half the games I have work, although at low fps because its a super low-end card, and half don't work at all without downloading older revisions of atioglxx.dll. I've never had to do things like that with an nvidia card.

[Aznpersuasion89]

Well don't low fps coincide with super low end cards? If people got really high fps with cheap ******* cards then why bother buy a $400 card?

[Outlaw10449]

what series is the mobo. if its amd 9 series you can crossfire or sli so it wouldn't matter what brand you buy. if its 8 series or less you can only crossfire. if you don't really care about using 2 or more video cards then it also won't really matter.

[WaddeHaddeDudeda]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

For instance, the card I'm using right now (computer I'm borrowing until I rebuild) has a radeon in it. Half the games I have work, although at low fps because its a super low-end card

Lmao. Your problem is not the radeon. Your problem is that you're using a low end card. *** do you expect to happens? Wouldn't be any different with a low end nVidia card. o_O


Sorry for derailing now, but what's wrong with bulldozer CPU's?

[Elkarlo]

Vulpesveritas, on 17 July 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

It's unfounded, but unfortunately one of those myths that for whatever reason has propagated over the years. But you can ask any reviewer or long term system builder, there is no difference in performance between AMD and Nvidia graphics on either an Intel or AMD system.

Though if I may suggest a better brand than PNY for the add in board partner, they aren't known for very good customer service.

Mostly True but AMD HD ( not Radeon ) Card would be preferable.

First reason: Some AMD Chipsets have problem with Nvidia Cards.
Secound reason: All in one driver for CPU Chipset and GPU with better Idle performance as it is one Driver.

When you have an Intel System... AMD and Nvidia no problem which of both.
But AMD System... AMD HD don't have a lesser Fail ratio and you get better Driver toys.

AMD Current AMD Chipsets of the 800/900 Series are very unlikely to have Nvidia problems. 700 Series not unheard sadly. 600... about 3-5% of the boards.

[buckaroo]

WaddeHaddeDudeda2, on 17 July 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Lmao. Your problem is not the radeon. Your problem is that you're using a low end card. *** do you expect to happens? Wouldn't be any different with a low end nVidia card. o_O


Sorry for derailing now, but what's wrong with bulldozer CPU's?

Because they have a lower IPC than the Phenom IIs they "replaced," the "8 core" bulldozer only has four FPU units, they aren't compatible with as many AM3 motherboards, and were a bit of an overhyped disappointment all around. Instead of being a big step forward that would make AMD competitive with Intel again at all performance brackets, they didn't really bring anything new to the table.

In addition, AMD takes brute-force approaches to things like power management that Intel hardware handles with more finesse and sophistication.

Price/performance is ok, though. They be cheap. And the APUs spank Atom rigs fior low-end gaming, because of the Radeon graphics. (And Atom is a cell phone processor with big ideas.)

Edited by buckaroo, 17 July 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[The Justicar]

WaddeHaddeDudeda2, on 17 July 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Lmao. Your problem is not the radeon. Your problem is that you're using a low end card. *** do you expect to happens? Wouldn't be any different with a low end nVidia card. o_O


Sorry for derailing now, but what's wrong with bulldozer CPU's?

Simply wrong. You either didn't read the post or are truly ignorant in the subject matter.

[WaddeHaddeDudeda]

Well, you've stated that you're currently using a radeon card which is "super-low-end" and that you can run half the games with ****** framerates while the other half will give you some serious headache because of technical problems.

I think you'd encounter the same problems with ANY "super-low-end" card no matter the brand or manufacturer.
Having used more radeon's than geforce cards within the last decade I'm not a fanboy for either brand, but actually I never had any problems with any of them (except once when the fan of a geforce 4 ti 4200 died without any reasons -but thats clearly not the fault of nVidia).

Just saying that you, of course, will run into problems with low-end GPU cards if you want to play actual games.



@ buckaroo, thanks for the breakdown

[Catamount]

Anyone who hasn't had problems with Geforce cards, or thinks there aren't problems, probably doesn't have a very long history with them. Microsoft's own documentation with Vista showed that amply.

Now, I use Nvidia cards, and I like them. It's rare that I don't have at least some machine running them (now being the exception because Fermi was still an abject failure the last time I was in the market for a GPU). But I've encountered more than my fair share of the well known issues that have cropped up over the years. In fact, I replaced my Geforce 8800 card precisely because Nvidia's supposedly superior drivers semi-permanently broke anti-aliasing in Battlefield 2142 (from some point in the 17x.xx drivers onward, it took them YEARS to fix that). I popped in its replacement Radeon HD 4870, and guess what? Catalyst drivers lacked the problems Nvidia had with the game.

Also, I'm pretty sure AMD never had a driver release that caused mosfets to explode. When they managed a failure that abysmal, then we can talk about how bad AMD drivers are, but for now, that dubious distinction remains one only Nvidia can claim. Of course, that isn't to claim that Nvidia is necessarily worse overall, even if that was a particularly grievous mistake.


Both have issues, and these issues are broadly encountered, and go beyond the simple anecdotal "I had a card that didn't work on me once" type testimonies. Both also do a very good job at keeping those issues minimal, and have regular driver releases.

Edited by Catamount, 17 July 2012 - 07:03 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Its not a fanboy thing, but I absolutely hate radeon cards. Compatibility issues, the drivers themselves, the companies that make the cards, there just isn't a single good thing about radeon cards except price v performance. Sorry, but I'll gladly pay a little premium for a card that works from a company that doesn't get off on giving its customers headaches.

Compatibility issues: The only compatibility issues AMD Radeon HD cards have are compatibility with Nvidia drivers... and why would they be compatible with Nvidia drivers?
Drivers: These days they have just as good of drivers as Nvidia in most cases.
Companies that make the cards: Outside of Diamond, Visiontek, and Club 3d, the rest of AMD's AIB partners are very good. HIS, Sapphire, Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, XFX, and Powercolor all make great cards. (albeit XFX and Powercolor have somewhat subpar customer service) Nvidia also has it's share of bad AIB partners.

[The Justicar]

I can't believe you'd shrug the compatibility argument aside like that with all your knowledge of hardware, Vulp.

Take for instance an older Q3E game, now I know what you're thinking, its a ten year old engine. But its successor is still used today. Team green handles these games out of the box, but Radeon? You'd have better luck seducing a rock. And you might say "stop playing old games," but really, some of the greatest games ever made are more than 6-7 years old. Why on earth would I buy a card that doesn't support them without driver rollbacks and scouring the internet for a specific revision of a dll?

And that's not even considering 3D. Radeon has eyefinity, great. But try and set up a 3D system using Radeons. Go ahead, I'll wait.

WaddeHaddeDudeda2, on 17 July 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Well, you've stated that you're currently using a radeon card which is "super-low-end" and that you can run half the games with ****** framerates while the other half will give you some serious headache because of technical problems.

I think you'd encounter the same problems with ANY "super-low-end" card no matter the brand or manufacturer.
Having used more radeon's than geforce cards within the last decade I'm not a fanboy for either brand, but actually I never had any problems with any of them (except once when the fan of a geforce 4 ti 4200 died without any reasons -but thats clearly not the fault of nVidia).

Just saying that you, of course, will run into problems with low-end GPU cards if you want to play actual games.

The card I'm running right now annhiliates the recommended spec of the game when it was released. The problem isn't lack of horsepower, its lack of compatibility. Radeons are notrorious for their compatibility issues with aging games. It baffles me how this has actually devolved into a debate.

Edited by The Justicar, 17 July 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[Scilya]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

I can't believe you'd shrug the compatibility argument aside like that with all your knowledge of hardware, Vulp.

Take for instance an older Q3E game, now I know what you're thinking, its a ten year old engine. But its successor is still used today. Team green handles these games out of the box, but Radeon? You'd have better luck seducing a rock. And you might say "stop playing old games," but really, some of the greatest games ever made are more than 6-7 years old. Why on earth would I buy a card that doesn't support them without driver rollbacks and scouring the internet for a specific revision of a dll?

And that's not even considering 3D. Radeon has eyefinity, great. But try and set up a 3D system using Radeons. Go ahead, I'll wait.

everything you say is wrong,..

[CeeKay Boques]

I think a lot of you are missing out on the digitalification of the gigapixels. The compound Tesselation requires way more in house, down home gpu cycles then most Anti Aliasing requires. While Radeon has strong Videofication at a lower cost, Nvidia is able to eek out monetary gains using terrapixel technology. Just something to think about.