81 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

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

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

I can read actually... and wow, an overclocked card beating a stock card... sooo impressive. You do realize the 7970 ghz edition is an entirely new sku, right? With changes to the architecture?

and yes, the 7970 is 3-4 times faster in GPGPU computing.

And I take it you're leaving as you can't come up with anything solid to support your opinion.

[Der Pizzadieb]

Which gamer cares about GPGPU computing?

Quote

I can read actually... and wow, an overclocked card beating a stock card... sooo impressive

Well, if you werent as biased, you would know this sentence makes no sense at all.
I could overclock and old 8800 and it wouldnt beat a stock 7970 .. see what i did there?

The fact is, a 430€ card (which is the third highest card in the nvidia repertoire) beats your fully new SKU 500 Bucks AMDs next best thing card (when it comes to gaming, seems like i have to mention that to exclude GPGPU computing which no gamer will ever need).

I wanted to stop that discussion because it makes no sense btw, i tried to find and get an AMD card when the 560s werent available but there was just nothing acceptable on AMDs side. Like i said, the only reason to buy an AMD card were multi monitor setups and more ram than nVidia cards.

I know its hard to admit as an AMD Fan that nVidia currently have the best fps/consumtion/price cards, but as an AMD processor fanboy, i can admit that they suck compared to ivy bridge. Do the same, i know you can!

Edited by Der Pizzadieb, 18 July 2012 - 09:58 AM.

[buckaroo]

Vulpesveritas, on 18 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I can read actually... and wow, an overclocked card beating a stock card... sooo impressive. You do realize the 7970 ghz edition is an entirely new sku, right? With changes to the architecture?

It's a binned 7970 with a different BIOS. You can flash the vanilla 7970 into a GHz edition if you're lucky.

[WaddeHaddeDudeda]

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

It baffles me how this has actually devolved into a debate.

Because you've stated that radeons have huge compatibility issues (just like your current-temp-replacement card) and you somewhat "forgot" to mention that you're talking about running old games on them.
I've been assuming you're talking about running current games - and there I've never had any problems with either brand.

At this point I'm taking the next exit because I haven't made any experiences with running old games on new computers (still using a PII 400 MHz with Win 98 SE to run the real old gems).

[Romulus Stahl]

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've been playing with 3d cards since they first hit the market, Ran an Orchid Righteous 3d (voodoo 1) with a Matrox Millennium, moved on to some VD2's in SLI with another Matrox card, played with both Nvidia and ATI over the years. At this time I'm running a HD69XX (watercooled), I'm thinking of moving on to a GTX670 (definitely EVGA maybe one of the 4gb cards as I haven't seen a bad review on it) to get on the better side of the power curve for MWO. After reading a few reviews on Newegg on the GTX 670 cards it would seem that green is having some driver issues and hardware issues as well.

Edited by Romulus Stahl, 18 July 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Scilya]

buckaroo, on 18 July 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

It's a binned 7970 with a different BIOS. You can flash the vanilla 7970 into a GHz edition if you're lucky.

there are some slight tweaks to the GHz edition its not just an overclocked 7970 its close tho
( think about it an exact OC 7970 is already being sold at over 1Ghz by Bord partners so there would be no point in re releasing whats already being sold under a new name and lowering the price of the same product thats all-ready out there)

[SNOWHOUND]

not another lot of people saying i love nvidia, amd are cr*p / i love AMD / AMD with ONLY AMD / Intel with ONLY Nvidia.

you given individuals are all wrong (mainly on the first few pages).

jesus christ.

[Vulpesveritas]

Der Pizzadieb, on 18 July 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Which gamer cares about GPGPU computing?


Well, if you werent as biased, you would know this sentence makes no sense at all.
I could overclock and old 8800 and it wouldnt beat a stock 7970 .. see what i did there?

The fact is, a 430€ card (which is the third highest card in the nvidia repertoire) beats your fully new SKU 500 Bucks AMDs next best thing card (when it comes to gaming, seems like i have to mention that to exclude GPGPU computing which no gamer will ever need).

I wanted to stop that discussion because it makes no sense btw, i tried to find and get an AMD card when the 560s werent available but there was just nothing acceptable on AMDs side. Like i said, the only reason to buy an AMD card were multi monitor setups and more ram than nVidia cards.

I know its hard to admit as an AMD Fan that nVidia currently have the best fps/consumtion/price cards, but as an AMD processor fanboy, i can admit that they suck compared to ivy bridge. Do the same, i know you can!

Let's look at this then shall we;

For 5 top single GPU cards at stock speeds:
Rank 1: Radeon HD 7970 GHZ edition; $500
Rank 2: Geforce GTX 680; $500
Rank 3: Geforce GTX 670; $400
Rank 4: Radeon HD 7970; $430, comes with 3 games
Rank 5: Radepon HD 7950; $350, comes with 3 games

"nothing acceptable when the 560's weren't available" So... the Radeon HD 6870, which is slightly faster than a 560, uses less power, but lacks PhysX, isn't acceptable for the same price?


Also "what gamer cares about GPGPU computing?"

• A gamer who bitcoin mines
  
• A gamer who uses their gaming PC for work as well
  
• A gamer who uses folding @ home

[Shivus]

Der Pizzadieb, on 18 July 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Which gamer cares about GPGPU computing?


Well, if you werent as biased, you would know this sentence makes no sense at all.
I could overclock and old 8800 and it wouldnt beat a stock 7970 .. see what i did there?

The fact is, a 430€ card (which is the third highest card in the nvidia repertoire) beats your fully new SKU 500 Bucks AMDs next best thing card (when it comes to gaming, seems like i have to mention that to exclude GPGPU computing which no gamer will ever need).

I wanted to stop that discussion because it makes no sense btw, i tried to find and get an AMD card when the 560s werent available but there was just nothing acceptable on AMDs side. Like i said, the only reason to buy an AMD card were multi monitor setups and more ram than nVidia cards.

I know its hard to admit as an AMD Fan that nVidia currently have the best fps/consumtion/price cards, but as an AMD processor fanboy, i can admit that they suck compared to ivy bridge. Do the same, i know you can!

Excuse me. I'm a gamer and use GPGPU functions on a daily basis. Your condescending know-it-all attitude is offensive and just shows that you're grasping at straws and possibly just trolling. In fact your final jab just shows you have no interest in proper debate instead resorting to personal attacks to inflame the issue.

[Der Pizzadieb]

Quote

So... the Radeon HD 6870, which is slightly faster than a 560, uses less power, but lacks PhysX, isn't acceptable for the same price?

Simple answer: no
I dont know if it changed till now, but when i bought it, there was a strong lack of custom cooled cards and since i care about noise/temperature/oc stock coolers are a bit no-go.



I wonder why you still ignore that you can get an overclocked 670, which beats a stock 680 and a 6970, for less than one of those last named cards.

Quote

So... the Radeon HD 6870, which is slightly faster than a 560, uses less power, but lacks PhysX, isn't acceptable for the same price?

Simple answer: no
I dont know if it changed till now, but when i bought it, there was a strong lack of custom cooled cards and since i care about noise/temperature/oc stock coolers are a bit no-go.


I wonder why you still ignore that you can get an overclocked 670, which beats a stock 680 and a 6970, for less than one of those last named cards.


@Shivus
You are kidding me no?

Edited by Der Pizzadieb, 18 July 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Der Pizzadieb, on 18 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Simple answer: no
I dont know if it changed till now, but when i bought it, there was a strong lack of custom cooled cards and since i care about noise/temperature/oc stock coolers are a bit no-go.

I wonder why you still ignore that you can get an overclocked 670, which beats a stock 680 and a 6970, for less than one of those last named cards.

I don't ignore that you can get an overclocked 670, but then you are ignoring you can get an overclocked 7970 that beats an overclocked 670 and most overclocked 680s.


And yes, the 6870 had a large number of custom coolers for a good amount of time, now the HIS IceQ X is the only really good custom cooler for quiet operation right now, and I don't know of any non-reference 560s available via newegg right now, except one overclocked EVGA card.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 18 July 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[Catamount]

Shivus, on 18 July 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

[@Der Pizzadieb]
Excuse me. I'm a gamer and use GPGPU functions on a daily basis. Your condescending know-it-all attitude is offensive and just shows that you're grasping at straws and possibly just trolling. In fact your final jab just shows you have no interest in proper debate instead resorting to personal attacks to inflame the issue.

Yeah, I think that just about sums up what I'd say in this thread too, at this point, but since it's already been said, I suppose it would be redundant.


Der Pizzadieb, you're new here, I get that, and I realize that everyone has both their more and less graceful days on the interwebz, but might I suggest that you take a step back for a moment and realize that one of your very first showings on this forum is essentially endearing you to no one? Might I humbly suggest that you either quit while you're ahead (or at last before you've dug your hole any deeper), as your claimed you'd do, or at the very least, try to examine why it is that you're meeting with little success in either convincing people of your position, or even successfully interacting with others on our forum?

It might be of benefit if you hope to have continued interaction here.

Edited by Catamount, 18 July 2012 - 07:45 PM.

[Grey Weasel]

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.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority.

Simple fact is you've been proven wrong far too often for people to take this argument as truth. AMD/Intel and Nvidia/Radeon are matters of preference and little more. It's an age-old argument that can only possibly end if one or the other goes belly-up.

[Der Pizzadieb]

Vulpesveritas, on 18 July 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

I don't ignore that you can get an overclocked 670, but then you are ignoring you can get an overclocked 7970 that beats an overclocked 670 and most overclocked 680s.


And yes, the 6870 had a large number of custom coolers for a good amount of time, now the HIS IceQ X is the only really good custom cooler for quiet operation right now, and I don't know of any non-reference 560s available via newegg right now, except one overclocked EVGA card.

Thanks, i somehow like that post and it feels way less provoking than the last ones.

I know that you can get oc'ed 7970s aswell, but even stock ones are more expensive than the cheapest (gigabyte) 670.
The stock 680 gets beaten by a OC 7970 in higher resolutions than 1920x1080 while being equal at said resolution and slower below.
The Lighning and LCS 7970 beat the stock 680 on lower resolutions, 1 Frame (LCS) and 5 frames (lightning) at 1920x1080 (Compared to the Witcher 2 engine since BF3 heavily favours nVidia till you reach 2560x1600, thanks to only 2gb of RAM).

AMD shines in really high resolutions, where nVidia fails to their limited RAM.

I dont know about newegg, but in europe we have like 8 different custom coolers, with 4-5 from the launch. I believe at the time they launched AMD had none, but not sure about that.


@Shivus and Catamount
I'm very much interested in a proper discussion, but on my side the posts regarding the AMD cards were pretty much looking to me like mine did to you. Also i tried to exit the conversation but you get just dragged back into it with provokation. Shame on me i bit to that. I think i even tried to put it down even earlier when i stated that it all comes to the engine used, some favour nVidia, some AMD.

Tolling is such an overused word, often ripped out of its meaning. I never ment to provoke anyone, neither were my posts completely out of context.
Imho i'm trying to compare €/$ per FPS of both brands and, at least with the prices in europe, nVidia wins in my opinion.

i excuse myself for letting myself go a little and pick the wrong words though

Edited by Der Pizzadieb, 19 July 2012 - 07:34 AM.

[Co Starring]

Come to a conclusion guys, I'm running out of popcorn...

[Vulpesveritas]

Co Starring, on 20 July 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Come to a conclusion guys, I'm running out of popcorn...

The simple fact is, it doesn't make a difference unless you are looking at a multi-GPU setup, and in that case the only thing you have to make sure on the AMD side is that you have a Nvidia or 990FX chipset.

[Freaky]

Wow what a bunch of fanboy crap this thread dribbled down to.

To answer the question straight up no it doesn't matter which graphics card you use with which CPU. Assuming equal performance of both CPU's and GPU's then a Nvidia or ATI card will perform close enough to the same on an AMD or Intel CPU. Also there are NO compatibility issues related to CPU and GPU combinations that I'm aware of, actually since PCI-e became a common standard there have been almost none.

Another thing worth noting is that if you're spending that much on a GTX 670 don't buy an AMD CPU - don't get me wrong they're AMD do make quality products but you get what you pay for and the truth is for the majority of workloads an Intel CPU will beat the AMD per clock, almost any serious gamer with a clue will be running an Intel CPU. The main advantage of an AMD CPU is many of their CPU's remain socket compatible so you can put a much newer CPU in and old motherboard. I'd recommend an i5 3570 / i7 3770 / i5 2500k depending on budget and availability the 2500k is an amazing over clocker for it's price and all the CPU's i've recommended perform amazingly well out the box.

Next thing to consider is SLI/Xfire - now unless you're getting 2gb or larger cards, and running 3 or more monitors don't bother, the issues with both technologies are certainly much better than they used to be, but quite often single monitor performance will be worse than running a single card as quite often you'll achieve lower minimum frame rates (but a higher max and average).This is of course dependant on what you're playing some games have excellent multi-gpu support. A single high end single GPU card is usually better than multiple cheaper ones for reliability, power, and depending on the game. Graphics cards these days are insanely powerful, even my 1gb 560 Ti can power many games triple monitor (rendering on the 560 Ti with a GT520 to drive the 3rd monitor as the 560 can only drive 2 at once) at good detail levels without issue that's 5760x1080 resolution, the limitations to detail levels are usually due to vram limitations I believe.

Now Nvidia/ATI really both manufacturers make excellent cards and if you're buying a mid to high range card it will make little difference on a single/dual monitor setup. One general observation I've made is quite often Nvidia cards maintain a better minimum frame rate across more titles, there are of course exceptions to this where ATI kills Nvidia but on average I think it leans more towards Nvidia. ATI cards having eyefinity is handy too (although keep in mind in a lot of cases you'll need an active DP connector if your monitor doen't have DP one - check the available connectors prior to purchase).

Hopefully that provides a more objective point of view for everyone, If you have any questions please feel free to ask I'd be glad to help out in any way I can

Klaxon, on 17 July 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Hi. Im building my first computer (partly to run MWO :-D) and was planning on buying a PNY Geforce GFX 570 GPU. I am also planning to use an AMD processor (Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition) and one of my friends advised me it would be better to get a Radion graphics card as it would mean my CPU and my GPU would work together better (because of being the same manufacturer) . Is he right or is this unfounded?

Any help for a relative hardware noob would be appreciated.

Also he wanted me to buy everything else corsair because he thinks i am made of money. Not going to happen.

[Vulpesveritas]

Freaky, on 02 August 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Wow what a bunch of fanboy crap this thread dribbled down to.

To answer the question straight up no it doesn't matter which graphics card you use with which CPU. Assuming equal performance of both CPU's and GPU's then a Nvidia or ATI card will perform close enough to the same on an AMD or Intel CPU. Also there are NO compatibility issues related to CPU and GPU combinations that I'm aware of, actually since PCI-e became a common standard there have been almost none.

Another thing worth noting is that if you're spending that much on a GTX 670 don't buy an AMD CPU - don't get me wrong they're AMD do make quality products but you get what you pay for and the truth is for the majority of workloads an Intel CPU will beat the AMD per clock, almost any serious gamer with a clue will be running an Intel CPU. The main advantage of an AMD CPU is many of their CPU's remain socket compatible so you can put a much newer CPU in and old motherboard. I'd recommend an i5 3570 / i7 3770 / i5 2500k depending on budget and availability the 2500k is an amazing over clocker for it's price and all the CPU's i've recommended perform amazingly well out the box.

While the i5s and i7s are wonderful CPUs... they're not exactly budget friendly. To be fully honest, if gaming is someone's concern, it comes down to what they play. If graphically-demanding FPS type games (MWO included being CryENGINE 3) are what they look at, then an AMD CPU + $100 more CPU generally is the best way to go. Turn based RTS titles I don't really know of why you would really need huge frames per second given their nature. Role playing games tend to be a tossup, and depend on their engine more, and real time RTS titles would prefer the better CPU.

Given DirectX 11 taking off on the CPU loads and increasing GPU load however, and given that the market is moving towards more and more graphically demanding titles, having a stronger graphics card is far, far more important once you have a capable quad-core CPU in your system.

And if MWO is your only real concern, then by all means, a Phenom II X4 is a far better buy than an i5-2500k given that it is $100 less.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 03 August 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[Freaky]

I hadn't seen how low the prices on the x4 965's had got $100 is a bargain for a CPU like that. You're right that games are beginning to transition towards being less CPU intensive and more GPU intensive, but there are still many titles which put significant loads on both components.

If those Crysis 2 benchmarks are any indication then for MWO an AMD CPU may be fine as they indicate that the game was GPU bound not CPU bound. Still many games which aren't as optimised for multiple cores, or which don't utilise the GPU to offload tasks from the CPU will benefit from the extra grunt that an Intel CPU can offer.

But yes definitely if MWO is the only game you're interested in then I agree the x4 965 looks like it might be a great choice especially if budget is a concern

Vulpesveritas, on 03 August 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

While the i5s and i7s are wonderful CPUs... they're not exactly budget friendly. To be fully honest, if gaming is someone's concern, it comes down to what they play. If graphically-demanding FPS type games (MWO included being CryENGINE 3) are what they look at, then an AMD CPU + $100 more CPU generally is the best way to go. Turn based RTS titles I don't really know of why you would really need huge frames per second given their nature. Role playing games tend to be a tossup, and depend on their engine more, and real time RTS titles would prefer the better CPU.

Given DirectX 11 taking off on the CPU loads and increasing GPU load however, and given that the market is moving towards more and more graphically demanding titles, having a stronger graphics card is far, far more important once you have a capable quad-core CPU in your system.

And if MWO is your only real concern, then by all means, a Phenom II X4 is a far better buy than an i5-2500k given that it is $100 less.

[Randall Flagg]

Go Nvidia. AMD was great at one time but that time is not now. Grab a 2500K and a P67 board and get a Nvidia graphics card. I used AMD for years and I've had a Athlon 650, 1GHZ TBird, 2800+, 4800x2, etc. Videocards: 8500, X700, 3870 crossfire, 5770 crossfire, 5870, etc..
The drivers are terrible. Hardware wise AMD offers more ram per dollar but the support isn't there. Nothing like getting a new card than having to use BETA drivers because it is the only stable release.. save yourself a lot of agony and just get Nvidia.