137 replies to this topic

[SilentWolff]

I bought a 680 and installed in last week. This card is an absolute BEAST. Cant wait to really put it thru the paces when MWO finally comes out. Crysis3 with all graphic settings set to max! Cant wait.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

One for Vulp and Cata
http://www.tomshardw...hics,15289.html

Ruh Roh, bad boy Nvidia bad!

[Catamount]

Tsk tsk

Nvidia has actually done this sort of rebranding for a long time. So has AMD, but usually when they rebrand, it's in a way that doesn't produce this sort of confusion. For instance, the Mobility Radeon HD 4650.

For instance, when I was buying my laptop a couple years ago, these were also on the Market: http://www.amd.com/u...v-overview.aspx

But you'll note that AMD not only separates the nomenclature from that of their main product line, but also specifically tells you you're buying a 4000 series rebrand on the product page. The 560v is a rebranded 4650, so it's a respectable card, even today (if you already own one that is; otherwise Llano is better).


However, this past generation, AMD was also guilty of it: http://www.anandtech...rks-rides-again

This one was pretty shameful; the 5770 -> 6770 I don't mind, because the 6770 is a low tier product than the 5770, and was still a great card. But they didn't knock down where these mobile GPUs sat in the mobile lineup. In fairness to AMD, this was done to please OEMs by getting them products in time for CES 2011, whereas Nvidia just does it to screw people out of money (half the cards in their entire Fermi lineup were practically called the "GTX 460"), as CES is no longer around the corner, and Nvidia does it habitually instead of occasionally, and unlike AMD, Nvidia is doing it and has been doing it outside the OEM market, but just the same, a far bigger shame for Nvidia doesn't mean AMD shouldn't be called out for doing it too their own extend.

Also, we can see Nvidia's larger market share in this poll here finally. Even as AMD products have ranged from markedly better to absurdly better for the past three generations, Nvidia still ends up leading in the polls. That's typical though.

Edited by Catamount, 12 April 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Wyzak]

I haven't really owned a modern Nvidia card - I gave up buying them a long time ago (2001). I bought an Nvidia card to replace my Voodoo3, and it didn't work (wouldn't boot on the computer I bought it for, but worked with a few others.) Also bought another full-fledged card and that was a bad experience. Then I started buying Radeon (9650 SE) and kept buying it. When I bought my laptop in 2007, I got Nvidia mobility circuitry with it and that was horrible - the graphics performed way worse then even the gimped laptop specs justified - with 512MB of shared memory allocated to the Nvidia mobile. I recognize these are only my personal experiences, and that Nvidia's discrete graphics have probably improved a lot since the early 2000s - but I'm not going to pay a proportionately higher price to find out.

Edited by Wyzak, 12 April 2012 - 08:30 AM.

[Rambo Calrissian]

If you go straight after performance, then well ... just do that. Sometimes Nvidia will have the best price/performance-value in the price-range you're aiming at, and sometimes AMD does.

For reliability you should check reviews and buy the cards from "well known" brands (there are AMD/NVidia cards from Gigabyte, Zotac, MSI, Sapphire, XFX, etc.). You should also check, how loud the cooling is, if that's important for you.
I for my part have used Nvidia for years now. There was one card (the GT6600 I think), which is known for going broken after a few years (and so did mine), but apart from that I haven't had any problems.
Dunno about AMD ... it's been a while since I had one (I think my last was actually an ATI card with the gigantic amount of 4MB RAM =D).

Nvidia is rather good with their drivers and usually updates faster for new games. They are also pushing 3D (for me this is a big plus), and they support PhysX (this is rather "prestige" though if you ask me).
AMD on the other hand has Eyefinity.
But after all you can still get a 3-monitor-setup working on an Nvidia card, and you can still have 3D on AMD cards. If any of that is important for you, you might want to google, if there are any problems, or if anything runs smooth).



I prefer Nvidia simply because I have used it for a long time now, know the driver-settings etc. and everything works.
Still I wouldn't buy an Nvidia, if there's an AMD card with a better price/performance-value in the price-segment I'm aiming at. So I usually wait until Nvidia gets the "price-performance-throne" in the mid-segment back (AMD and Nvidia actually switch 1st place every few months) and then buy a new card, if I need one.



Edit:
Ok, forget, what I wrote about Eyefinity and 3D.
I've just read an article, and AMD seems to have native 3D now and Nvidia something similar to Eyefinity.
And both now feature some new kinds of Anti Aliasing, which is very interesting as well.

Edited by Rambo Calrissian, 12 April 2012 - 09:23 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Catamount, on 12 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Tsk tsk

Nvidia has actually done this sort of rebranding for a long time. So has AMD, but usually when they rebrand, it's in a way that doesn't produce this sort of confusion. For instance, the Mobility Radeon HD 4650.

For instance, when I was buying my laptop a couple years ago, these were also on the Market: http://www.amd.com/u...v-overview.aspx

But you'll note that AMD not only separates the nomenclature from that of their main product line, but also specifically tells you you're buying a 4000 series rebrand on the product page. The 560v is a rebranded 4650, so it's a respectable card, even today (if you already own one that is; otherwise Llano is better).


However, this past generation, AMD was also guilty of it: http://www.anandtech...rks-rides-again

This one was pretty shameful; the 5770 -> 6770 I don't mind, because the 6770 is a low tier product than the 5770, and was still a great card. But they didn't knock down where these mobile GPUs sat in the mobile lineup. In fairness to AMD, this was done to please OEMs by getting them products in time for CES 2011, whereas Nvidia just does it to screw people out of money (half the cards in their entire Fermi lineup were practically called the "GTX 460"), as CES is no longer around the corner, and Nvidia does it habitually instead of occasionally, and unlike AMD, Nvidia is doing it and has been doing it outside the OEM market, but just the same, a far bigger shame for Nvidia doesn't mean AMD shouldn't be called out for doing it too their own extend.

Also, we can see Nvidia's larger market share in this poll here finally. Even as AMD products have ranged from markedly better to absurdly better for the past three generations, Nvidia still ends up leading in the polls. That's typical though.

To be honest when you do a bit more research than the one article link i posted i would expect AMD to be doing the same in the very near future, they just cant get their hands on enough 28nm chips.

[Catamount]

No one can get their hands on enough 28nm chips. Nvidia's having problems too, which is why Apple dumped the idea of Kepler in their new MBPs. Part of it's Apple's fault for their contract dictating they get way too big a portion of TSMC's manufacturing capability (their contract specifies they get first pick of the facilities, and everyone else just gets what's left over), part of it is just that chips are harder and harder to make in volume as they get smaller and smaller. In other words, welcome to the post - Moore's Law world.

I suspect few shrinks will be seen after 28nm, and on the CPU side I think the same thing will quickly begin to happen, despite pipe dreams by Intel of 10nm chips being just a few years out.


It's just as well. If chip yields weren't going to screw us, then quantum mechanics was going to. We're coming awfully close to the size range for bad quantum tunneling effects (uncontrollable at or just below 10nm or so, according to a paper I read a few years back).

Edited by Catamount, 12 April 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[jlbdeath]

at least can we all agree that on board video sucks? good for browsing the inter net but gaming they just suck. any thing is better

[Catamount]

jlbdeath, on 12 April 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

at least can we all agree that on board video sucks? good for browsing the inter net but gaming they just suck. any thing is better

Now anymore

http://www.notebookc...0G.54675.0.html

http://en.wikipedia....ano#A8_Series_2

[Fresh Meat]

JUST ORDERED AN EVGA SUPER CLOCKED GTX 680, WHOOP!

[MagnusEffect]

Honestly, I've never noticed a difference. I have found I'm usually persuaded by best bang for my buck; I usually get whatever the second-to-latest hardware comes out... usually there is significant price drop around that point.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 13 April 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[Ryuu Tetsuhara]

The race between Nvidia and AMD(ATI) is too close to call, it seems ... well, it looks as if I will opt for Nvidia (670) again when getting a new PC desktop system (my 7800 GS AGP will hardly be sufficient to thoroughly enjoy the game) since I will not be playing at very high resolutions, although the ATI 7870 could also be an interesting option as well ...

[Joe3142]

I like both brands of cards, got a AMD at the moment

I like both brands of cards, got a AMD at the moment

[eNeRgY 2k]

I had SLI ATI4890s and had odd driver/artificating with them. Then I built an i7 rig with GTX570s sli and haven't had any issues, even overclocking the CPU is rock solid.

[Aidan]

Here is a link to a recent review of the NVIDIA GTX 680 by Anandtech.

http://www.anandtech...-gtx-680-review

Note the better perfomance of the AMD/ATI GPUs in the Crysis tests. Although for many of the other tests the GTX 680 wins. Also Anandtech has declared the GTX 680 to be the current performance king for a single GPU card.

You choose.

[Vulpesveritas]

Aidan, on 21 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Here is a link to a recent review of the NVIDIA GTX 680 by Anandtech.

http://www.anandtech...-gtx-680-review

Note the better perfomance of the AMD/ATI GPUs in the Crysis tests. Although for many of the other tests the GTX 680 wins. Also Anandtech has declared the GTX 680 to be the current performance king for a single GPU card.

You choose.

really now?

\
And the 7970 is cheaper now.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Aidan, on 21 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Here is a link to a recent review of the NVIDIA GTX 680 by Anandtech.

http://www.anandtech...-gtx-680-review

Note the better perfomance of the AMD/ATI GPUs in the Crysis tests. Although for many of the other tests the GTX 680 wins. Also Anandtech has declared the GTX 680 to be the current performance king for a single GPU card.

You choose.

Shame thats run on Crysis Warhead.

http://www.guru3d.co...x-680-review/23

Uses Crysis 2 HD pack. 680 beats both 7X series AMD cards.

Oh and one more for good measure
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3161-9.html

Aidan if your going to use benchmarks at least use relevant ones.

[Vulpesveritas]

Quite true. Though in the end, there's really not a ton of difference in framerates between a 680 and a 7970.

Note 2.7 Frames per second. That makes the 680, which is priced 6% higher (now) and almost impossible to find, 4% faster in CryENGINE 3. Although you do get PhysX with the 680 if that is important to you, and for both cards, with most 60hz monitors, you won't see a difference as your monitor will cap at 60 frames per second.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 21 April 2012 - 12:06 PM.

[Victor Morson]

AMD hardware as good as nVidia's.
AMD hardware is cheaper than nVidia.
AMD drivers are absolutely terrible and always have been.

This one fact that keeps popping up time and time again - every single time I try to give AMD the benefit of the doubt - makes me completely committed to nVidia. Though, admittedly, they dropped the ball with driver bugs on their last cards, they've generally got a reputation for excellent driver support and inclusion of impressive features (nVidia 3D for example) in their drivers.

If you want to avoid headaches, go nVidia.

[Catamount]

Victor Morson, on 21 April 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

AMD hardware as good as nVidia's.
AMD hardware is cheaper than nVidia.
AMD drivers are absolutely terrible and always have been.

This one fact that keeps popping up time and time again - every single time I try to give AMD the benefit of the doubt - makes me completely committed to nVidia. Though, admittedly, they dropped the ball with driver bugs on their last cards, they've generally got a reputation for excellent driver support and inclusion of impressive features (nVidia 3D for example) in their drivers.

If you want to avoid headaches, go nVidia.

This is age old FUD, I'm sorry to say (actually I'm glad to say). Since ATI's acquisition by AMD, not only have AMD drivers matched Nvidias in pretty much every way, down to adopting a similar release schedule, but statistically, they were considerably better, as recently as 2007.

http://downloadsquad...nvidia-drivers/

There are the "better" Nvidia drivers, suffering three times more lockups than Ati drivers. As I understand it, not every single one of these crashes leads to a Bugcheck, since Windows can reset the graphics driver, sometimes, but this still means that the drivers were locking up three times as often, and so either way, causing three times as many OS crashes. It's rather revealing that these "better" drivers are a major part of the reason Vista was branded so unstable in the first place; it wasn't the OS's fault, it was nVidia's fault.


So yeah, I think I'll avoid headaches by avoiding nVidia. Switching from my 8800GTS to my 4870 was the single biggest headache relief I've ever had. It was so nice being able to actually play Battlefield 2142, after nVidia's failed for more than a year to fix a driver error that made anti-aliasing completely unusable (it would make the whole screen black; Nvidia acknowledged the problem, then never fixed it).