AMD to nVidia: Put Up or Shut Up
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nvidia Representative: Alright, dance-off it is then!
World's fastest video card? Eh, it still going to cost like payment on a car lease.
World's fastest video card? Eh, it still going to cost like payment on a car lease.
I honestly did not enjoy my time with nVidia. I went from an old Ati 9600 to a 260, two 260's and then a 295. Nothing but driver troubles and reliability issues with the Geforce cards I used. Back with an overclocked 6870, happy as can be.
Until nVidia launched their 400 series chipset they'd been behind ATI/AMD since the 9000 series. Basically nVidia had no answer to the ATI/AMD 4000 series chipsets and to be frank, if it wasn't for the 8800GTX and the 8800 Ultra even the nVidia 8000 series would have run 2nd place to ATI/AMD's 3000 series. Even discounting that, that's several series of 'also ran' chipsets against the 4000 series chipsets.Tubez said:
The nVidia 400 series put them back to parity against ATI/AMD's 5000 series and now it seems that the 500 series had edged out the 6000 series in several places (especially as AMD are taking their sweet time about releasing mid-range chipsets for the series)... To be honest the 6000 series has been something of a disappointment and the changing of the model numbering has been a pain in the cock.
Which is, complete coincidence (sarc), around the same time as ATI drivers stopped being such stinking piles of shit.Tethalaki said:
i see so AMD gave up on their Processor rivalry with Intel and instead picked up the war with nVidia when they bought ATI...
yeh seeing that ATI/AMD drivers are shit, my money is on nVidia.
Go go nVidia!
yeh seeing that ATI/AMD drivers are shit, my money is on nVidia.
Go go nVidia!
This is different than any other company because...? At least they have the decency to go to India, where's there's some semblance of labour laws instead of China.Metalhandkerchief said:
I also don't see how the plastic quality of the shroud is going to do anything. They're usually covered in stickers anyway.
Really?Metalhandkerchief said:
Last time I checked, latest nVidia architectures ran hotter than ATi's and weren't as stable or reliable. So I don't know who's candle is brighter, but nVidias seem to run out faster. At least AMD pushes non-proprietary solutions, which is already miles ahead of nVidia.
Lets see from the "tech press" what the latest issues are-
nVidia:
8600M GT (Still used in cheaper laptops) - Distorted video or no video issues for a shit ton of laptop companies, only recently was a replacement plan setup.
GF4XX/5XX - Heat stability issues.
Drivers - NVKDLM (still!) issues on Windows Vista/7.
AMD:
OpenGL - Inconsistent implementation and performance
Drivers - Non Existent *nix support (But wait, They have opensourced drivers therefore nobody cares) - Infrequent issue with some hardware combinations, appears to be fixed in Beta.
incidentally their drivers don't work on my radeon 5870 mobility card. Yeh im going to say they are still piles of shit. just shinier.RhombusHatesYou said:
the man responsible for Omega Drivers need to come back >.<
Its up to the Laptop manufacturer to provide customized drivers for your laptops. AMD (and to a certain extent nVidia) only provide generic drivers, not guaranteed to work if mixed with custom energy saving architecture etc. This is not uncommon.DTWolfwood said:
I always liked that the quickest way to lose a fight with Wobuffet was to start a fight with wobuffet.therandombear said:
Sums it up I guess.
Now to wait and see who runs home crying.
I love this because of how true it is.RhombusHatesYou said:
all i know is i never had this problem with any of my previous nVidia laptops using their generic drivers. and i had 2 of them before making the mistake of getting an ati laptopMorphingDragon said:
CosmicCommander said:
To use a car analogy, it's all about enthusiasts and diminishing returns.
For the majority of users, it's a matter of diminishing returns. Once you hit a certain point on the curve, the amount of money you have to spend to get extra performance really starts to slope. You have to spend more an more for smaller and smaller gains. But there are always the enthusiasts that have to push things to the (often absurd) extreme.
The 2012 Nissan GTR can go from 0-60 mph in 2.9 seconds, and has a manufacturer's suggested retail price of $89,950.00 USD. The 2009 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 has a 0-60 mph time of 2.6 seconds, and a MSRP of $1,705,769.00 USD. For the record, both cars are all wheel drive platforms.
So the GTR costs ~$31,017.24 USD per second in that 0-60mph time. The Veyron costs $656,065.00 USD per second. Or for a better example, subtract the difference. GTR's 2.9sec - Veyron's 2.6sec = .3 second difference. Veyron's $1,705,769.00 USD - GTR's $89,950.00 USD = $1,615,819.00 USD. Divide that by 3, and it costs you $538,806.33 USD.
So it costs $538,806.33 USD per tenth of a second in increased performance above the Nissan GTR's 2.9sec 0-60mph time and $89,950.00 price tag. Most of us would be happy with the GTR, but there are still some people crazy enough to buy the $2 million Veyron, and so it's exists.
Anybody short of a professionally trained race car driver (NASCAR doesn't count) probably wouldn't even notice the difference, let alone be able to handle the car in a way to optimize and utilize the extra performance. To the layman, they're both just damn fast. But you could still almost 19 GTR's for the price of one Veyron. An extreme example, but it makes a good point.
Ultratwinkie said:
Actually, game publishers use that as an excuse to release shoddy ports of their console games on PC hoping that the extra horsepower makes up for their slip-shod coding and porting.
I built my rig back in late 08', and it plays well ported games very well. Mass Effect 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, FarCry 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Just Cause 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Rainbow Six VEGAS 2, Fallout 3 & New Vegas, and Left 4 Dead 2 all run beautifully.
However it has trouble with stuff from Volition (Red Faction Gurellia and Saint's Row 2, both of which are notoriously terrible port jobs). GTA IV has trouble, but works. But the worst offender in the Call of Duty franchise. The most recent one, Black Ops, uses the same engine from Modern Warfare. MW runs like a dream, BO runs like absolute shit. Both games look and run beautifully on the 360. But the PC specs for the game have skyrocketed, and the amount of extra power that the PC requires does not match the extra visual fidelity. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure BO looked a little better, but it was hard to tell with the game's frame rate hiccuping every 20 seconds or so. Regardless, the increase in power is substantial, the increase in visuals is not.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
System Requirements
Required (minimum) Specs
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.4 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM) 64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported
RAM: 512MB RAM (768MB for Windows Vista)
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 6600
or better or ATI(R) Radeon(R) 9800 Pro or better
Recommended Specs
CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core or better
RAM: 1G for XP; 2G for Vista
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better
OR get an Xbox 360.
Call of Duty: Black Ops
MINIMUM System Requirements:
? OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7
? CPU: Dualcore Intel 3 GHZ or AMD 6500+
? RAM: 1GB
? HDD: 12GB of free space
? VIDEO: Shader 3.0 or better; 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT DirectX 9.0c or better / Ati x1900 or better
? SOUND: DirectX 9.0c-compatible
? DirectX: 9.0c
Recommended system requirements:
? Intel Processor - Quadcore Intel 2.6 ghz
? AMD Processor - Phenom II 955
? Nvidia Graphics Card - DirectX GeForce GTX 260
? ATI Graphics Card - ATI Radeon HD 5800 with 512 MB VRAM ? DirectX 10
? RAM Memory - 2 GB
? Hard Disk Space - 12 GB
? Direct X - 9
OR get an Xbox 360.
It's the same engine running on the same console, but the specs for the PC requirements really jump. And that's bullshit, I can understand a slight increase, but this is just terrible. The extra visual fidelity is lost because I have to turn down all of the options to get the game running somewhat decently. I can play MW with everything maxed (and Crysis with everything on High in DX9 mode, so it's still no slouch), so MW ends up looking a hell of a lot better. That's crap, and it's why I'm not buying anything else from Activision until they shape up their act, because their current treatment of the PC community can be summed up as 'willful neglect'.
If only all opposing companies would just go and directly challenge each other like this...
"We've got the fastest hardware on the market!"
"Oh, no you don't! We do!"
"Oh really?"
[Independent benchmark results come in.]
"Yeah, really."
"Curses! We'll get you next year! Just you wait!"
Isn't that so much more satisfying than sneaking in insults all the time?
"We've got the fastest hardware on the market!"
"Oh, no you don't! We do!"
"Oh really?"
[Independent benchmark results come in.]
"Yeah, really."
"Curses! We'll get you next year! Just you wait!"
Isn't that so much more satisfying than sneaking in insults all the time?