31 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I'll buy the ethics thing, but like i have said before not many people care they are asking those in the know for the best options, and quite frankly your not giving them the best options because you can not remain objective in your stance.

You are already burning cash on PC parts and electricity to game for fun, what %of power a GPU consumes or does to your electricity bill should be either totally irrelevant or the last thing you look at.

The 550TI is better than the 7750 for gaming performance period.

given the new MWO trailer has an nividia badge at the end alongside PGI....i wonder if Nvidia has paid them to make the game run better on their cards...

[Vulpesveritas]

DV^McKenna, on 28 February 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

I'll buy the ethics thing, but like i have said before not many people care they are asking those in the know for the best options, and quite frankly your not giving them the best options because you can not remain objective in your stance.

You are already burning cash on PC parts and electricity to game for fun, what %of power a GPU consumes or does to your electricity bill should be either totally irrelevant or the last thing you look at.

The 550TI is better than the 7750 for gaming performance period.

given the new MWO trailer has an nividia badge at the end alongside PGI....i wonder if Nvidia has paid them to make the game run better on their cards...

stock 550ti is better than the stock 7750 by 1% in actual -brute power- performance while putting out a considerable amount more heat and using more power, which would make me assert that with overclocking the 7750 may be better. And let's not forget the 7750 is $10 cheaper. I would say it would either be a tie, or that the 7750 has an edge to an overclocker, but if you don't want to tinker with it at all and don't care about the ethics part of it said 550ti might be better.
And also- CryENGINE 3 I believe has that nvidea stamping. Although the engine is not one of those hampered by Nvidea bu the appearance of benches. Not to mention GCN finally has started to catch up in tesselation performance.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 28 February 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 28 February 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Honestly, I am not such an ATI fanboy, I am an ethical company fanboy, if Nvidea or Intel were ethical companies I would have no qualms with reccomending them, and if Nvidea were more competitive then i could recommend them like I will give Intel options CPU wise. But here is the 3dmark score which more or less measures brute power;
http://www.techspot....7750/page4.html
that Nvidea is 1% faster brute force wise, however;
http://www.techspot....7750/page8.html
it uses 73% more power. And given that the 7950 is $10 cheaper initially, which is the better deal? Also, AMD is in the top 20 ethical fortune 500 companies, and doesn't pay video game makers to cripple it's competition's cards in select games, disable functions of it's cards if anther comapine's cards are used in the same machine, or market multiple cards under the same name.

The two links unless i am reading it wrong do not support what you just said.

Quote

According to 3Dmark 11, the HD 7770 is 33% faster than the HD 6770 and 15% faster than the HD 6790. The HD 7750 on the other hand was 4% faster than the HD 6770 and 24% faster than the HD 6750 while being 2% slower than the GTX 550 Ti

Quote

The HD 7750 cut electricity bill further, and although it was 2% slower than the GTX 550 Ti on average, it used 27% less power.

Now i can see what you have done here by reversing the numbers to make your claim the ATI card is better but lets try not to mislead people here.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 29 February 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV^McKenna, on 29 February 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

The two links unless i am reading it wrong do not support what you just said.






Now i can see what you have done here by reversing the numbers to make your claim the ATI card is better but lets try not to mislead people here.

umm, apparently you don't do the math yourself of the posted benchmark results;
550ti score: 4816
7750 score: 4732
% difference; 1.744% Admittedly, I rounded down. Although that is still not much of a difference.

And i did the math wrong on the power consumption. I'll admit that. Anyhow.

Cost:
7750: $109/119
550ti: $119/199 (re-manufactured cards and open box cards $109 min.)
price difference: 8%/41%/--

Price vs performance, the 7750 wins unless you are buying a re-manufactured 550ti.

Anyone have any benches for the 7750 OC'd? I'm curious how the Sapphire, Asus, and MSI cards with the larger coolers are doing, and how much OC'ing headroom it has. That would really be the only way to settle this argument with any hard evidence one way or the other. If the 7750 sucks at OCing then I would tip the hat for performance to the 550ti, but I would think the 28nm wouldn't suck at OCing. Eh. Course this is just assumption.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

1.744% there is absolutely no reason to round down above 1.5% you would always go with 1.5% or if you like rounding things 2%, and these are benchmark results if you look at the FPS results in some games the difference between the 2 cards is actually noticeable (more than a 1-3 FPS difference).

Yes you got the math wrong very wrong on the power consumption, still why are you doing your own math for it? The graphs you link show the result perfectly.
I can only assume you like doing math or do it to try to convince people Nvidia cards are bad and hope you don't get noticed.

For the record i think its the first, as your too clever for it to be the second.

Given that the 7750 only just about competes with the 550ti, it will be interesting to see what Nvidia's kepler low budget card has to offer, i do not think the 7750 will even be in the picture then, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV^McKenna, on 29 February 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

1.744% there is absolutely no reason to round down above 1.5% you would always go with 1.5% or if you like rounding things 2%, and these are benchmark results if you look at the FPS results in some games the difference between the 2 cards is actually noticeable (more than a 1-3 FPS difference).

Yes you got the math wrong very wrong on the power consumption, still why are you doing your own math for it? The graphs you link show the result perfectly.
I can only assume you like doing math or do it to try to convince people Nvidia cards are bad and hope you don't get noticed.

For the record i think its the first, as your too clever for it to be the second.

Given that the 7750 only just about competes with the 550ti, it will be interesting to see what Nvidia's kepler low budget card has to offer, i do not think the 7750 will even be in the picture then, but we'll have to wait and see.

Yes I like doing math. Anyhow. Yeah Kepler will be interesting, though I wouldn't be surprised if AMD just lowers the prices to compete with their cards if Kepler outperforms at any price point. And i forgot to subtract one after dividing the scores as to how I got it wrong. lol. Anyhow. I think the prices are as high as they are for GCN because AMD knows Kepler is coming out, and they don't know how good Kepler is going to be, so they have the prices set higher than they'd otherwise put it to make as much money as they can initially from people who buy now instead of wait.

[HeroicTofu]

Personally, with the 7750, I do appreciate it's low power draw. As far as pricing is concerned, right now the lowest price (including rebates) I can find of the 550TI on newegg.com is http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814134130 at $109.99 (again, to be sure, including rebates) with $7.56 shipping. The cheapest 7750 is http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814102969 at $109.99 (This one is rebate free) with $6.98 shipping. So... as far as price discrepancy, as long as you're willing to wait for the rebate, you can have both at the same relative price, saving only $.68 with the shipping on the 7750.

Now, we can go into the specific strengths of each card. AMD's new GCN (Graphics Core Next) will allow the card to do all sorts of productivity work that previous generations couldn't handle as well. There's also Eyefinity to consider...While this card wouldn't necessarily have the strength to play MWO in Eyefinity, from a multitasking perspective, it's awesome. nVidia's cards have the Fermi architecture which is also pretty strong at productivity, especially if you are a user of Adobe software. It favors nVidia at this time. The card is also a little faster depending on the game.

I'm sure as drivers roll out from AMD, the performance and efficiency of the GCN architecture will improve and eventually the 7750 could fully outperform the 550TI...but most likely by then, new cards from nVidia will come out, forcing the cards to be less expensive.

tl;dr: Save your money until both Kepler and MWO itself rolls out.

[Catamount]

I feel obliged to point out that 1-2% is well within the margin of error for a GPU benchmark, so by those numbers, the 550ti and 7750 are identical, not just practically identical, but actually identical (to the point that you can't measure the difference).

So you can pay the same price, for the same performance, and either buy the card that consumes more power and puts out more heat, or get the one that consumes less power and emits less heat. Unless you specifically want to buy from Nvidia just for the sake of buying from Nvidia, there really isn't any reason to get a 550ti.

Edited by Catamount, 29 February 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[Chas]

Lorcan Lladd, on 26 February 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Yes, I know, I should just build a new one from scratch, or at least get a new motherboard; I'm too cheap for that, however, so I'd have to ask you which component is primarily responsible for the issues I'm experiencing so that I might replace it.

The real question is: What does your budget look like? In real dollars?

That'll give us a better idea of what can be done with your setup.

Upgrading the RAM will be a big first step. Right now you're barely running enough RAM to keep a fully patched XP that isn't running anything but basic OS functions (no apps) happy. Adding more RAM won't really speed you up any. But it'll keep the system responsive as you pile more things on.

With an idea of what your budget looks like, we can start making more realistic suggestions.

[Chas]

Catamount, on 29 February 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

I feel obliged to point out that 1-2% is well within the margin of error for a GPU benchmark, so by those numbers, the 550ti and 7750 are identical, not just practically identical, but actually identical (to the point that you can't measure the difference). So you can pay the same price, for the same performance, and either buy the card that consumes more power and puts out more heat, or get the one that consumes less power and emits less heat. Unless you specifically want to buy from Nvidia just for the sake of buying from Nvidia, there really isn't any reason to get a 550ti.

Depends on your luck with the Catalyst driver package.
I know people who've had ZERO problems with Catalyst and love ATI/AMD.
On the flip side, I know people who've had nothing but terrible problems out of Catalyst and wound up having to play "musical driver versions" until they found something marginally stable.

For DirectX games, it's not too bad. But if you're playing anything using the OpenGL stack, you're better off going nVidia. While the nVidia drivers for OGL aren't the greatest, they're orders of magnitude more stable than the Catalyst OGL stack.

[Catamount]

Chas, on 01 March 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Depends on your luck with the Catalyst driver package.
I know people who've had ZERO problems with Catalyst and love ATI/AMD.
On the flip side, I know people who've had nothing but terrible problems out of Catalyst and wound up having to play "musical driver versions" until they found something marginally stable.

For DirectX games, it's not too bad. But if you're playing anything using the OpenGL stack, you're better off going nVidia. While the nVidia drivers for OGL aren't the greatest, they're orders of magnitude more stable than the Catalyst OGL stack.

I've had horrible and great experiences on both ends, but you are right about OpenGL, and it shouldn't be surprising, since Nvidia's focus is in GPGPU and professional applications, whereas AMD focuses on the almost-exclusively DirectX gaming market.

[Lorcan Lladd]

I hate to be bumping my own thread, but it seems as though this is more likely to be read by other posters if I make a new post.

I have already upgraded my RAM to capacity as supported by my motherboard; to be more specific, that would be some 4000Mb DDR2 approximately, running at dual channel interleaved and at a frequency of 667Mhz - it's not great, but it should at least prevent any problems with memory shortage.

The next component to be upgraded is my GPU, though I probably won't get to it until much later this year.