81 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

Technoviking, on 17 July 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

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.

And on the note of tesselation, with GCN AMD has caught up substantially. And which they may very well improve more on in sea islands.

also... terapixel technology? When without tessellation we aren't at 5 megapixels for gaming? I know you can fit a good number of triangles within a single polygon with tessellation, however I don't see how you can fit 100,000 triangles within a pixel, at least within what we currently have or I would think we would have in the near future.

[Nuclear Xmas]

Because friends always know what they're talking about...

[Vulpesveritas]

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

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.

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.

1. Because most games don't need a driver rollback, and those that do are a minority of games, and it makes more sense for a company which is struggling against it's competitors as it is to save money and gain higher profit overall by making better drivers for new games than hunt down the two or three older titles that have stopped working 100% correctly with the new cards? Especially if someone wants to play it badly enough there are plenty of resources out there to make them work?

2. Eyefinity 3D, DX11.1 Direct 3D, Samsung 3D which prefers AMD to Nvidia (for whatever reason).

3. As 1.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 17 July 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[The Justicar]

Vulpesveritas, on 17 July 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

1. Because most games don't need a driver rollback, and those that do are a minority of games, and it makes more sense for a company which is struggling against it's competitors as it is to save money and gain higher profit overall by making better drivers for new games than hunt down the two or three older titles that have stopped working 100% correctly with the new cards? Especially if someone wants to play it badly enough there are plenty of resources out there to make them work?

Oh so its okay that the second most-used game engine in history requires at minimum a driver rollback (don't forget you also have to restore to play new games) and at most a rollback and easter-egg hunt on google to find the proper OpenGL files. Got it. The problem with your logic is that the games that don't work are not only some of the most popular games to ever be sold, but there is NO REASON they shouldn't work other than Radeon drivers being sub-par even at their best revisions. There's a reason AMD is struggling to compete with nvidia, and one of the biggest reasons is DRIVERS (whether or not this is still an issue is a moot point - it DOES affect sales) and compatibility.

I've stated very, very solid reasons why I prefer nvidia cards, and still get ****** like this guy:

Scilya, on 17 July 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

everything you say is wrong,..

Thanks for that extremely useful and correct post. Not.

[Nuclear Xmas]

I hope I don't sound like a jerk for saying this but it's Radeon not Radion.

[Vulpesveritas]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Oh so its okay that the second most-used game engine in history requires at minimum a driver rollback (don't forget you also have to restore to play new games) and at most a rollback and easter-egg hunt on google to find the proper OpenGL files. Got it. The problem with your logic is that the games that don't work are not only some of the most popular games to ever be sold, but there is NO REASON they shouldn't work other than Radeon drivers being sub-par even at their best revisions. There's a reason AMD is struggling to compete with nvidia, and one of the biggest reasons is DRIVERS (whether or not this is still an issue is a moot point - it DOES affect sales) and compatibility.

"sub par even at their best revisions"

Can say that about Nvidia drivers in Linux when compared to AMD Linux drivers.


On the point of Windows, it comes down to what makes more profit for the company, supporting past drivers which have issues in only a small number of games, or for support for new games which people are out buying now.

It is as simple as that.

In my personal experience, the only compatibility issue for any game I have ever played that I have yet found, and I am running AMD Radeon right now, was for Activision's Machines, and that was a Windows 7 compatibility issue. Which has since been fixed.

Do some people run into issues on drivers with AMD? Sure. But so do Nvidia users. But with Nvidia they get a pat on the shoulder and they get "oh it's just bad luck, rollback the driver and you'll be fine."
When it is an AMD card they get a laugh and "OH LOL ATI DRIVERS SUX."

I've never understood why Intel/Nvidia fanboys are so much more vocal and oppressive than AMD/ATI fanboys.

[The Justicar]

I'm not an nvidia fanboy, but all the problems I've had running older games on Radeon have been solved by using an nvidia card.

I love AMD, I mean I ran AMD procs almost exclusively until Sandy Bridge. Hell I still, to this day, build more deneb/990fx machines than Intel machines. I just have had enough negative experiences with Radeon cards that I prefer GeForce ones. The day I start having the same issues with GeForce (or stop having it with Radeon) is the day I lay the hatchet down and go with price/performance which looks like AMD will own for the forseeable future.

Edited by The Justicar, 17 July 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I'm not an nvidia fanboy, but all the problems I've had running older games on Radeon have been solved by using an nvidia card.

I love AMD, I mean I ran AMD procs almost exclusively until Sandy Bridge. Hell I still, to this day, build more deneb/990fx machines than Intel machines. I just have had enough negative experiences with Radeon cards that I prefer GeForce ones. The day I start having the same issues with GeForce (or stop having it with Radeon) is the day I lay the hatchet down and go with price/performance which looks like AMD will own for the forseeable future.

I'm not claiming you're a Nvidia fanboy, merely pointing out Nvidia / Intel fanboys tend to be more vocal.

As far as it goes, personal experience is personal experience. It differs from person to person.

[Elkarlo]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I'm not an nvidia fanboy, but all the problems I've had running older games on Radeon have been solved by using an nvidia card.

Strangly i went the other way round. Because Greenteam wanted me to get rid of my Nvidia card and get a new one.
( When the 400 Series came out Nvidia cut the performance in my Gainward Goldensample edition, without Problems the 9800GT Gs is a 9800gtx+ Oc+ running 818mhz smoothly with all proztessors enabled... with the drivers it was suddenly a GT with 650 mhz and los 20% of the prozessor, and that was not only this card but nearly all OC edition cards from all Manufactures, i think simply because the OC Card users tend to buy faster new Cards.)
So i went for a HD6000 series... no problems at all.

I had some of the ATI Grafik card... and holy they are Grab in drivers and all along but since the HD 4000 Series most problems are solved and the HD 5000 series no problems at all... and i still use some of my Nvidia cards but to say it, driver support at AMD is better ATM.

Edited by Elkarlo, 17 July 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[Cepeza]

When comparing nvidia and radeon in general and if you trust the statistics Radeon's flagship is a couple FPS further than nvidia's.
I've got a feeling my AMD FX-4170 on a ASRock AMD 990FX combined with GeForce GTX 285 and 8GB G.Skill (1333MHz) RAM is a perfect match. I'm looking forward to a new nvidia card though. But honestly, the only reason I chose nvidia for graphics is because of the switchable RGB and YCbCr color palette. My Acer S243HLAbmii display is YCrCb capable, the only way to see real black color on a LCD. As far as I know you can not switch to YCrCb on an radeon card.

[Hawk819]

Romulus Stahl, on 17 July 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

[GoaHead]

ThunderMax, on 17 July 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

I am the owner of a computer shop...I build custom computers frequently and I am a Intel Registered Partner and am apart of the NVIDIA PartnerForce Program.

Here is ONE SIMPLE RULE to help with compatibility issues...keep Intel with NVIDIA and AMD with ATI...however you can mix the two and there is very little chance you will have a problem whatsoever. It is strictly a personal preference but I prefer Intel and NVIDIA compared to the competition...I simply know alot more about their technologies and feel like they tend to stay ahead of the competition. AMD and ATI is however cheaper in price and when on a budget can make a powerful rig for the price.

If you need help with your custom computer let me know...anything for a MechWarrior fan. Give me your budget and what you expect out of it and I'll help you with a parts list... I recommend Newegg.com for you're parts and you can get the case wherever you like...make sure you check reviews on the case for air flow, cable management, clearance, etc...basically if it's got a good rating and alot of reviews it's probably a good case.

Let me know,
ThunderMax

I use always the faster CPU with ATI cards, at the moment i use an I7 920 working hand in hand with my ATI HD6970 (ATI HD 6950 with an 6970 Bios to unlock ) witout anny problems or performence lost.

My experiance is to take the faster CPU with an GPU that give you the best price/performence balace.

I thing every GPU (Nvidia/ATI) has advanteges and disatvateges.

The ATI cards has much more power in GPU compute (Opemn CL) but the Nvidia can use Physics on GPU

[Vulpesveritas]

GoaHead, on 18 July 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

I use always the faster CPU with ATI cards, at the moment i use an I7 920 working hand in hand with my ATI HD6970 (ATI HD 6950 with an 6970 Bios to unlock ) witout anny problems or performence lost.

My experiance is to take the faster CPU with an GPU that give you the best price/performence balace.

I thing every GPU (Nvidia/ATI) has advanteges and disatvateges.

The ATI cards has much more power in GPU compute (Opemn CL) but the Nvidia can use Physics on GPU

The only time a faster CPU vs a faster GPU is the better route to go is if you're doing encoding or other heavy CPU tasks, or are playing mostly RTS titles.
Otherwise, you'll have larger gains from a faster GPU in most scenarios.

[Der Pizzadieb]

7970 vs 680 .. or more like 670

Gigabyte Radeon 7970 WindForce 3X 427€
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 OC (with WF3 cooler) 386€

Asus Radeon HD 7970 DirectCU II Top 470€
Asus GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II TOP 429€

Since 670 is superious to 7970, i'm gonna compare prices to that:
Cheapest 7970 - 372€
Cheapest 670 - 348€


Battlefield 3 1920x1200 4xAA
7970 Stock: 64.4 FPS
670 Stock: 65.9 FPS
680 Stock: 71.8 FPS
670 DCU II T: 72.9 FPS


Why would i ever compare a single GPU card to a dual GPU card?
While i admit it might have been a bit far off, there is not even a price released on the 7970 GHZ edition.
I might have better compared it to an OC 680, which runs BF3 at 78.3 FPS, where the 7970 GHZ reaches "only" 72.3 FPS.

So, nVidia Cards are usually Cheaper (at least the high end class), granting more frames.


We could continue that, or we just meet at the point where the resulting FPS heavily relies on which engine you are running.
Some favour AMD, some nVidia.

But when it comes to stuff like watt usage and custom cooling/oc'ed card selection, nVidia easily wins and thats a big reason for me
to buy nVidia cards over AMD.


(all prices are based on those of my fav hardwarestore)

Edited by Der Pizzadieb, 18 July 2012 - 06:05 AM.

[Catamount]

The Justicar, on 17 July 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I'm not an nvidia fanboy, but all the problems I've had running older games on Radeon have been solved by using an nvidia card.

I love AMD, I mean I ran AMD procs almost exclusively until Sandy Bridge. Hell I still, to this day, build more deneb/990fx machines than Intel machines. I just have had enough negative experiences with Radeon cards that I prefer GeForce ones. The day I start having the same issues with GeForce (or stop having it with Radeon) is the day I lay the hatchet down and go with price/performance which looks like AMD will own for the forseeable future.

Justicar, no one doubts your sincerity here, anymore than anyone doubts that AMD have their issues (OpenGL being their Achilles Heel), it's just that it's a little one-sided to disregard the myriad of crippling issues Nvidia has had. Again, AMD never began blowing up their own video cards with bad drivers. And again, BF2142 wasn't some little insignificant title either. It's predecessor has sold over 9 million copies (and BF2 might well have had the same problem, since it was using exactly the same engine). And the fact that as of the last Windows operating system, Nvidia was causing almost three times as many system crashes as AMD (around twice as many after you account for marketshare differences at the time, iirc) shows that even looking beyond isolated cases, Nvidia drivers have not only not been better than AMD drivers in relatively recent history, but have actually been worse in many regards (not counting the whole exploding video card fiasco )

[Vulpesveritas]

Der Pizzadieb, on 18 July 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

7970 vs 680 .. or more like 670

Gigabyte Radeon 7970 WindForce 3X 427€
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 OC (with WF3 cooler) 386€

Asus Radeon HD 7970 DirectCU II Top 470€
Asus GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II TOP 429€

Since 670 is superious to 7970, i'm gonna compare prices to that:
Cheapest 7970 - 372€
Cheapest 670 - 348€


Battlefield 3 1920x1200 4xAA
7970 Stock: 64.4 FPS
670 Stock: 65.9 FPS
680 Stock: 71.8 FPS
670 DCU II T: 72.9 FPS


Why would i ever compare a single GPU card to a dual GPU card?
While i admit it might have been a bit far off, there is not even a price released on the 7970 GHZ edition.
I might have better compared it to an OC 680, which runs BF3 at 78.3 FPS, where the 7970 GHZ reaches "only" 72.3 FPS.

So, nVidia Cards are usually Cheaper (at least the high end class), granting more frames.


We could continue that, or we just meet at the point where the resulting FPS heavily relies on which engine you are running.
Some favour AMD, some nVidia.

But when it comes to stuff like watt usage and custom cooling/oc'ed card selection, nVidia easily wins and thats a big reason for me
to buy nVidia cards over AMD.


(all prices are based on those of my fav hardwarestore)

First off, AMD has released pricing for the 7970ghz edition, at $500, while the standard 7970 has gotten a price reduction to $430.

Let's look at games other than Battlefield 3...

Crysis 2:


Batman: Arkham City


Metro 2033:


Overall Performance:


And let's not forget that the Radeon HD 7970 is three to four times faster (or more) on average than a GTX 680 in GPGPU, and comes with three games.

[CeeKay Boques]

Gigaflops Mothafugga, Gigaflops.

[Endless Ike]

1.21 jiggapixels

[Der Pizzadieb]

You AMD Freaks cant read, i clearly said we can continue since different engines favor different manufacturers.

Btw

Upps, do i see more FPS in Crysis 2?
I dont say its bad, its just not superior to nVidia cards.

Three to four times faster, do you even know what that means?

#edit
i'm quitting this discussion now btw

Edited by Der Pizzadieb, 18 July 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[Dymitry]

Der Pizzadieb, on 18 July 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Three to four times faster, do you even know what that means?

Do you know what GPGPU is ?