AMD to nVidia: Put Up or Shut Up

[deleted_by_strongbad]

I like how they are both strutting and knocking each other over what is pretty much just two of their old cards stuck together. Wow, way to push the envelope and develop something new, neither one has the right to brag about repackaging already released product, and the fact that it took them so long to do it. Both of these cards are scams, the only people who will use that power would get more out of a quadro/firepro.

They can debate on who has the best card when they both put out a new line of cards, my guess is they both ran into some delay with their upcoming generations not living up to the hype and are trying to create a smokescreen while they either try to revamp their next series or create enough corporate love that few will care.

 

[Zer_]

AMD can suck gonads all day long.

They were caught cheating by tweaking their drivers for all those benchmark software and now they want us to believe they've cleaned-up their act, became honest to goodness, no cheating we swear, hardware developer/device drivers coders?

Ha!

The sad thing is I used to love AMD/ATI back when they were Canadians. But my love for them diminished at the speed of their failed drivers, which is to say, faster than light. Since then I've turned my back on them. I only laugh when I hear their name. Cheaters, manipulators and bloated device drivers writers is what they have become. I couldn't care less for the speed their hardware is going at. Chances are, they've found a new way to fix the results. Even if their hardware is faster, 1) what's 3 FPS more really? 2) Cheats and lies are things I won't accept from friends, do you really think I'll accept that from "strangers".

You both (nVidia AND ATI back in the day) broke my trust once and I forgave you, but ATI continued their little scheming behind closed doors. ATI, you won't ever have the opportunity to play with me a third time.

Err, these are third-party benchmark results we're talking about here, not in-house testing. And FYI, both AMD and Nvidia drives blow donkey nuts.

I know what benchmarks are.

ATI wrote special tweakings in the drivers when they detected certain benchmark software were running. What those "tweakings" did was change settings on the fly to push their results higher. nVidia discovered that scheme but kept its mouth shut until it was discovered and made public by another third party. At which point, they disclosed their findings.

That news is like, 5 years old.

And I refute your argument with this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/03/24/asus_geforce_gtx_590_video_card_review/3

HardOCP has already given us some apples to apples benchmarks between the two cards, and overall the 6990 comes out on top.

 

[RA92]

Next, some close-ranged combat between AMD and Intel!

 

[Vigormortis]

Better question- who is willing to pay £500 for some tech that only marginally performs better (in real terms) over it's apparently "outdated" predecessors?

Nvidia and AMD are getting nervous- graphics on the PC are plateauing, and people are moving over to consoles, depriving them of a big money milker. So they just treat every card as if it's revolutionary, despite no real person being able to notice or care about any difference.

PS: Who the fuck does SLI or that Crossfire thing, anyway? Why would you need 2 cards, unless your monitor was the size of a shed?

For starters, these cards aren't "marginal" increases in performance over their predecessors. These things are absolute beasts.

Second, graphics are NOT plateauing. Not by a long shot. Besides, these cards do more than just "prettier" rendering. Having dual GPUs, they actually handle multiple screens, some physics interations, among other things. Also, how can you say PC graphical capabilities plateauing is causing people to move to consoles? Especially when one considers consoles are running hardware that's more than 6 years old. I truly fail to see the logic in that statement.

Lastly, I run Crossfire. As do quite a few people I know. I do it for a number of reasons. Firstly, for a combined price lower than that of cards supposedly twice as good as mine, I can Crossfire two cards and get more than double the performance. Secondly, with two cards handling the graphical end of my system, I can run my system at much lower temps while still increasing performance. And finally, I run two cards because it allows me to display images to multiple monitors AND TVs at the same time without having to hinder my systems performance.

Just because you don't understand the reasoning behind something, doesn't mean it can just be discounted off-hand.

 

[newwiseman]

Better question- who is willing to pay £500 for some tech that only marginally performs better (in real terms) over it's apparently "outdated" predecessors?

Nvidia and AMD are getting nervous- graphics on the PC are plateauing, and people are moving over to consoles, depriving them of a big money milker. So they just treat every card as if it's revolutionary, despite no real person being able to notice or care about any difference.

PS: Who the fuck does SLI or that Crossfire thing, anyway? Why would you need 2 cards, unless your monitor was the size of a shed?

Toms hardware recently did a multi card build test comparison that showed AMD scaled better and had much lower power consumption as it scaled. The test single card through 3 card configurations using the newest i7 processor to eliminate processor chocking.

To answer your question about multi card builds. I do High polycount 3d models and more video processing can cut render time from 5 hours a frame to 4 hours. Crossfire over SLI since it will use the MBs integrated memory as well as the connected cards.

Multi Card builds are also suited for anyone that needs High Res over multiple monitors.

 

[Originality]

Better question- who is willing to pay £500 for some tech that only marginally performs better (in real terms) over it's apparently "outdated" predecessors? Enthusiasts and graphic engineers (the latter not so much)

Nvidia and AMD are getting nervous- graphics on the PC are plateauing, and people are moving over to consoles, depriving them of a big money milker. So they just treat every card as if it's revolutionary, despite no real person being able to notice or care about any difference. nVidia and AMD make the GPUs for the consoles anyway, so they're not losing out. Anyway, they're still pushing for who can play Crysis on max details on 40"+ screens. We're still another generation away from seeing that.

PS: Who the fuck does SLI or that Crossfire thing, anyway? Why would you need 2 cards, unless your monitor was the size of a shed? Again, Enthusiasts, for bragging rights, and graphic engineers (those doing modelling, animation and HD film rendering). And Folders. And you don't need a monitor the size of a shed - a high-end projector is enough.

^Edited.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Who really cares? I mean until the consoles get updated to the newer version like Xbox 720, were not going to see graphical enhancements on the PC. Consoles are holding back what any of these GPUs can really do because every game on the PC is Multi-Platform pretty much. I will say yes we still get higher graphics on those games with like Direct X 11 but nothing major like what these developers spout about their graphics card.

The GTX 580 alone is way above the current generation graphics but here we are using it for games such as Call of Duty Black Ops. The rivalry is nice to have but seriously? I'll stick to my GTX 460 considering it runs everything on high still because graphics won't go anywhere till we get a new damn console to handle it.

It's kind of a moot point when we keep getting console-to-PC ports that barely run at all, expensive graphics cards or not. Besides, some of us like being able to play new releases on our three-year-old computers without top-of-the-line cards, thank you very much.

 

[Goody]

My 5770 can run every single game at max settings on 1080p (1920x1080, 60hz, progressive scan) with 4x AA and 8X anisotrpic filtering, admittedly I have to push the fan speed up when I go on a game, but it does it none the less.

 

[imperialreign]

Nice - we haven't seen the two go at it since the days of the X1900 and 7900 series.


As to all the other tripe that has quickly filled this thread - some users need to actually do some research before making claims.

 

[Wolfram23]

I like how they are both strutting and knocking each other over what is pretty much just two of their old cards stuck together. Wow, way to push the envelope and develop something new, neither one has the right to brag about repackaging already released product, and the fact that it took them so long to do it. Both of these cards are scams, the only people who will use that power would get more out of a quadro/firepro.

They can debate on who has the best card when they both put out a new line of cards, my guess is they both ran into some delay with their upcoming generations not living up to the hype and are trying to create a smokescreen while they either try to revamp their next series or create enough corporate love that few will care.

...What? The 590 is two 580 GPUs downclocked and the 6990 is two 6970 GPUs downclocked. Both the 500 and 6000 series cards are brand spanking new.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Yeah! Rivalry, Brawl style, let them duke it out! Show us who is best! Rise to the challenge! Exclamation point!

 

[Jamous]

...COMBINE TO MAKE AN EPIC HYBRID!

 

[Wolfram23]

Threads like these are fun with console lovers who never bothered to research PC hardware start to spout shit about who needs it, no point, etc. (Not saying that's everyone who likes consoles, but there's already a few posts like that)

There's a few reasons for cards like this. For example, some people want to play on huge screens. I'm not talking about a 40" 1080p HDTV, because the image quality on that is far worse than a 24" 1080p monitor (read: pixel density). Just the other day I saw an amazing PC this guy is building. 4 GTX 580s in quad SLI, to power 3 30" 2560x1600 screens. Granted, he claimed to already have spent over $11000 on it (including a $1500 CPU) and I think it's excessive, but, that's the kind of person who wants these cards.

Also, the point of a dual GPU card, as opposed to the cheaper and faster option of doing, for example, two 6970s or two 580s, is twofold (although related). PCIe has bandwidth. 16 lanes of bandwidth being the highest. For a lot of people, when you put 2 cards in SLI/CF you wind up with them each getting only 8 lanes of bandwidth (the i5 760's P55 chipset does this, as do most of the new Sandy Bridge i5 2600 P67 chipsets). 8 lanes will bottleneck the top end cards like 6970, 570, 580 etc. So it's possible that a dual gpu card on a single 16x lane is faster than two cards on 8x lanes. Then there's quadfire/quad SLI. You may not have 4 PCIe slots at 8x/8x/8x/8x - or if you do, again, you could just use two lanes at 16x/16x. So like before, the single card using more bandwidth can maybe be faster than more cards at lower bandwidth. And with certain $300 P67 motherboards, they do actually allow 16x/16x thanks to the NF200 chip, so there's another place that the two dual gpu cards can reign supreme.

 

[Velociferocks]

Whats the big whup? In three months there will be an even more powerful card than these two put together.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Oh, I would just love this rivalry to get a little teeth again.

 

[Scrythe]

I'm not the conspiracy theory type, but I swear nVidia and AMD are the same goddamned company.

 

[Blemontea]

Nvidia if your reading this i just want to say this
your graphics card in my laptop as of right now is... SHIT! and by that i mean it crashes, a lot. You certainly dont have my vote right now until i see some improvment.
From
A GeForce GT 130M User

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm sorry ATI you have catching up to do for all the years of shitty service you've given many laptop owners with no updates for the mobile cards.
Fastest card my ass is all I'll say for the shit I went through to get games running on a video card that could have run the game 4 times over