• Log In
  • Register

SKETCH - Specific Advantages of AMD vs. nVidia

Forum Search


  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam
  • No NSFW content
  • No piracy or key resellers
  • No link shorteners
  • Offensive content will be removed


johnwaskins 76 months ago

OK, what are the specific advantages and disadvantages of AMD or nVidia?

For example, some criterias:

  • AA
  • MSAA
  • AF
  • Tessellation
  • nVidia Experience
  • Gaming Bundles
  • CUDA
  • Open Source Drivers
  • Driver-specific advantages
  • In-depth configuration of each apps 3D settings

These are just ideas. Anyone wanna help explore this further, or is this topic not worth it?

Comments Sorted by:

gbdossman 1 point 76 months ago

I would like some feedback and opinions on this. I'm currently looking at getting a XFX HD 797O GHZ edition or a GTX 680 that is similarly priced around $450. I'm leaning towards the XFX because of a lifetime warranty and plan on using the card for years to come. I have read opinions that the 7970 is faster by a small margin with the new drivers that were released at the end of 2012, but the overall gaming experience was better/smoother with a GTX 680. I know this is subjective, but this is an area I'm not an expert in so I welcome all responses or brand recommendations.
In life I have found most things are based on tradeoffs....if some things increase, others decrease to stay in the same price point. I would like to know what others think about these two card types.

johnwaskins submitter 2 points 76 months ago

Each card offers different advantages or disadvantages... to repeat what others have mentioned before, nVidia offers better PhysX and Tessellation. However, AMD offers better Anti-Aliasing, and certain other features. It depends on the needs of the games you're playing.

Hellvaguy 1 Build 1 point 75 months ago

These 2 cards are so far above what games can fully utilize them, I think your just splitting hairs are to which performs better.

However, that AMD card uses 70 more watts and does run hotter. as you can see from the newegg psu calculator, AMD uses 70 more watts.


johnwaskins submitter 1 point 75 months ago

Well, I'm not talking about which runs hotter, but which runs better for certain games.

For example, FPS is similar. Power consumption ranges wildly. Features range extremely.

In the end, I wanted others to help me make a thread about which brand performs better in certain scenarios, and which games. After all, perhaps it's the games you play that should be one of the major determinants in your choice of GPU.

TestBuilds 1 point 75 months ago

True, if 4 out of 5 games benefit from Nvidia, and the one that benefits from AMD still runs well, then Nvidia makes more sense and vice versa.

johnwaskins submitter 1 point 75 months ago

Well... in the end, I guess it really depends on your games.

GeForce experience is now in open beta, which automatically adjusts the settings of your games automatically, so they run in recommended settings for your graphics card each time.

This makes it the obvious choice for the less tech-savvy person, as this would make their gaming experience awesome.

Now, for the expert, it means much less time finding the right settings, and more time playing as you see fit. For me, because of Tessellation and PhysX, plus GeForce Experience, I just don't see myself going with AMD. They are a great solution, but having PhysX flexibility, Tessellation graphics enhancement, and not having to deal with the trouble of dealing with those annoying settings seems to be just too much not to make a choice right then and there.

AMD does have great FPS... but until they come up with their own physics solution (and it becomes widely accepted and used), or until they come up with the other features which I mentioned that nVidia has, it makes it hard to choose AMD right now. FPS are great, but there is more to gaming than just that - realism is required to make the game really give an immersion sensation to the end user.

TestBuilds 1 point 75 months ago

An important note would be that Nvidia is better for professional video editing and motion graphics, but I'm sure you know that.

johnwaskins submitter 1 point 75 months ago

True. More reason to go with nVidia. After all, FPS is great, but the real reason someone wants to game is to feel an experience that isn't "of this world". They want to immerse themselves in a game, to distract themselves, to let themselves feel something extraordinary, and experience something out of the ordinary.

That's why a gaming monitor has to be specifically selected to offer the best illusion possible; why the graphics card should offer a solution that makes the game look real. Why the audio should feel lifelike, all the more reason for surround sound. Why the CPU and game shouldn't lag.

Immersion is the key word here. Just a good game isn't enough; you need the hardware to back up your plans and help deliver the gamer into a new world, even if only for a few hours.

That's what I seek when building a gaming rig. One that can deliver that "out of this world" experience consistently, magnificently, and impress the living **** out of the user every time he gets on.

This is why gamers exist; to seek out new experience, and immerse themselves in something new, different and exciting.

That's why I would choose nVidia. The PhysX illusion is important, after all, video game physics kind of ruin those moments - PhysX offers better physics to games, and thus helps reinforce that illusion.

Tessellation means your rough polygons are softened, and seem more curvy, more realistic. Tessellation makes 3D images even more realistic than before; and nVidia does it better, and faster than AMD.

GeForce Experience means gamers can automatically have the best setting for their game possible, no hassles. This means instead of fidgeting with settings for hours and hours, you're already ready to game the first time, every time. And that translate into the best graphics at playable frame rates (fps) that your graphics card can handle. This helps strengthen the illusion, and keep you interested, immersed, and excited.

And no, before anyone asks, I'm not a spokesperson for nVidia. I just happen to think deeply, and I happen to be an amateur game designer. (it was many, many years ago... and I was a dreamer)

And, well, I'm an enthusiast of sorts. I like that experience of immersion. I remember the time I bought my first video card. It was amazing. It was an AGP ATI X1650, 512MB. It played well, and even though PCI Express and other solutions were out, it still was gaming grade at the time, and I loved it's quality. Back then it was only DirectX 9.0, but it was enough.

Now we have bigger, better solutions. But I still love that old experience, and when I get on a real gaming machine, and I can actually feel immersed in the game, I feel really happy.

TestBuilds 1 point 75 months ago

That's one thing consoles just don't offer now, immersion. The graphics just aren't good enough, which is why I like computers best.

johnwaskins submitter 1 point 75 months ago

Well, that'll always be true. Consoles have a limited TDP, and are non-upgradeable. How many years now have we had the XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3? All that time without any possible GPU or CPU upgrades.

Consoles do offer immersion; if it was possible pre-1999, it's possible with current gen consoles. The problem is that we need better games, better audio, better video, better storylines, better physics...

If we have great details, we can offer immersion. It was possible back then when great products combined with a great game.

However, part of immersion has to do with the player. Some players are picky, and it takes more for them to feel immersed. While others immerse themselves easily. Those who are pickier need to spend more on their console, components, and/or desktop. Those who aren't as picky don't need as much.

For example, I have the Razer Megalodon 7.1 headset. I don't think I can go back after experiencing this headset, because it's surround is great, it's sound is great, and it's quality is palpable.

I like great quality, and I don't feel immersed in games easily, which is why I need better components to help solidify that illusion.

Remember, you can play on lower graphics and still feel totally immersed. Homeworld 2 is an example of a game with few polygons, yet great storyline, feel, and it can still leave a person immersed in the game easily. Why? Because of it's design, it's meant to be light on graphics and heavy in other areas.

There's a lot more to game immersion than what I've explained so far, but you get the idea.

TestBuilds 1 point 75 months ago

Well for me at least, it's hard to be immersed. The only console games I can be immersed in is Super Smash Bros Melee and Brawl just because of the gameplay. Even with my friends, we could be sitting on the couch taunting each other, yet I don't notice that I'm on the couch with people beside me. For me, it's either graphics or gameplay that immerse me, and few games immerse me with gameplay. I do realize that others don't need quite so much for immersion, but I'm just that picky, and I truly wish I could more easily enjoy things. This is the main reason I dream of ultimate gaming machines, just to experience that out of this world experience!

johnwaskins submitter 1 point 75 months ago

Yeah. That's why getting the right computer is just half the battle. Getting the right game is another part. Now, games are cheap, computers are not.

I'm really excited about Elder Scrolls Online, the next Skyrim DLCs, Guild Wars 2, and other such games. I'm confident many more MMO and RPG games will continue to impress. I personally love what I'm hearing about Elder Scrolls Online.

(Check out what Zenimax Online Studios has on YouTube, and what Bethesda has in store on YouTube. Also, Elder Scrolls Online is accepting people for Closed Beta)

mutantmagnet 1 point 70 months ago

There are 2 reasons that make Nvidia a no brainer choice for the time being.

*1 People discovered by messing around with the settings for 3D vision that if they apply the 3D effect while in 2D mode of their desktop the motion blur dramatically drops thus getting the smoothest gaming experience possible. The effect is very significant when playing first person shooters and other reflex games as proven here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzYZWbov8v4&list=LLb97GHR7stz7Z49IQlhgi4g

There are 3 caveats: You need to be able to run your game at 100+ FPS minimum to achieve this effect.

You have to use specific types of monitors or TVs to get this effect because of how they quickly change the light level of each LED, the technology is called strobed backlighting. That means a TN panel is the only solution for the foreseeable future.

Lastly a consequence of using 3DVision is that it alters the brightness of your monitor in general. Forcing it to work while in 2D mode also distorts the color and locks out your OSD. It's taken months but people have worked on self made drivers to address this issue but if you care about color reproduction using a TN panel would be aggravating.

*2 The frame latency on multigpu setups is flat out better on Nvidia. Even when crossfire worked properly I didn't like the side by side comparisons where despite having the same or better FPS the AMD setup had stutters that were a lot more annoying to me. Nvidia smooths out the stuttering problem with multi-gpus a lot better.

Since this thread is 5 months old I might as well add Shadowplay is a neat perk for choosing Nvidia. Trying to record with fraps is onerous with performance demanding games.

Since Testbuilds made a comment about professional cards, the prices of their lower end firepros are a lot more affordable than lower end quadros while offering superior gaming performance. It's something to consider if you wanted to dabble in serious 3D animation and editing even though professional cards are lacking in driver features for gaming.

johnwaskins submitter 1 point 70 months ago

Something that should be noted: The first advantage only happens with 3D vision gaming. If you don't game in 3D mode, not a serious benefit. If not running at 100+ fps, not worth it.

Regarding frame latency: please note that AMD will fix their drivers on the 31st of July, or so I hear. Other similar issues will be resolved quickly as well.

Regarding Shadowplay: that's important if you do Let's Play videos on YouTube, live streaming via TwitchTV, or something similar.

Finally, you've got to remember that it's quite possible AMD will launch the HD 9000-series cards very shortly (October is the rumor), and the difference between the GTX 770 and HD 9970 will be very similar the difference between GTX 580 and HD 7970 at launch. That's because it's a new generation architecture and a die shrink. (GTX 580 was 40nm, and HD 7970 is 28nm... GTX 770 is 28nm, HD 9970 is supposed to be 20nm).

There's also the Never Settle Bundle.

Also worth noting is that, in spite of this, nVidia often has better driver experience, including GeForce Experience to optimize game settings automatically, and the APEX/PhysX libraries, which are very nice.

mutantmagnet 1 point 70 months ago

I mentioned the 100+ fps and 3D vision equipment requirement but you are mistaken about the 3D mode. Running in 3D mode just means you get 3D effect while wearing glasses. Running 3D in 2D mode makes the 2D smoother and the benefit is big. I provided proof of how how big with the youtube video.

Most people who use this trick noticed similar results in their ability to identify objects at fast speeds that would've been distorted without this.

johnwaskins submitter 1 point 70 months ago

Aahhh... good to know.