Officially 10 Years since the ATI AMD merger. Was it a good idea?

[Rroff]

I know you didn't but I would hazard a guess that after all these years it still puts you off. The drivers for ATI's best remembered best remembered cards were not bad though as in 9700/9800/x800/x1900/4870/5870/7970/290 yet this bad driver thing still gets talked about.

You seem to have forgotten all the times around the 9700, etc. where game developers had to patch in work arounds due to how long it took for ATI drivers that worked properly with the game, etc. plus wide spread issues with rendering hardware accelerated surfaces in 2D applications blah blah blah. I was looking after 100s of systems with different GPUs around that time to say ATI's drivers were anything but bad is a joke. That isn't to say everyone had a crippling experience with them but when you compare the 2 brands from a support perspective around that time period over numerous systems its a clear cut story.

 

[Griffildur]

it is not surprising how an experience like mine puts you off buying something in the future, but there you go.

Once you buy into a certain product, as long as you are happy with what you are getting, you have no reason to change.

I was actually considering buying an AMD card and waited for this RX 480, bought into the huge expectations and then it comes out as is pretty much like my old 970. Decision made easy, another Nvidia card and move on, nothing to see.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

I have to say I have had pretty much every AMD high end card since the 9700 barring the 2900 and I have never really had any driver issues to speak of in all those years.

 

[Griffildur]

I know you didn't but I would hazard a guess that after all these years it still puts you off. The drivers for ATI's best remembered best remembered cards were not bad though as in 9700/9800/x800/x1900/4870/5870/7970/290 yet this bad driver thing still gets talked about.

you are correct in a way, of course. It's not just that though.

I am not trying to start another AMD - Nvidia war here, we had enough of those but this is my perception. I've seen lots of people amazed when RX 480, amazed how fluid games were and all that. I could not help but think, yeah already had that for years with my 970. I still wish AMD comes up with something challenges Nvidia, that should lower prices but so far seems the other way around. Nvidia comes up with something and AMD lowers the price on their cards. Not a good position to be in, but hopefully next year it will change.

 

[TheRealDeal]

You seem to have forgotten all the times around the 9700, etc. where game developers had to patch in work arounds due to how long it took for ATI drivers that worked properly with the game, etc. plus wide spread issues with rendering hardware accelerated surfaces in 2D applications blah blah blah. I was looking after 100s of systems with different GPUs around that time to say ATI's drivers were anything but bad is a joke. That isn't to say everyone had a crippling experience with them but when you compare the 2 brands from a support perspective around that time period over numerous systems its a clear cut story.

I had a 9800 pro and I believe you went with the dustbuster 5800 Ultra lol. The 9800 pro in my usage was great and I don't know anyone who given the choice would opt into a 5800 ultra for Nvidia drivers. If the 980 pro had bad drivers I doubt it would be remembered as the great card it was. No point in having a good card if you can't play due to drivers.

 

[Rroff]

I had a 9800 pro and I believe you went with the dustbuster 5800 Ultra lol. The 9800 pro in my usage was great and I don't know anyone who given the choice would opt into a 5800 ultra for Nvidia drivers. If the 980 pro had bad drivers I doubt it would be remembered as the great card it was. No point in having a good card if you can't play due to drivers.

I had the Gainward Golden Sample 5900XT "Ultra" - the only card in the 5 series that didn't suck (basically a completely redesigned card by Gainward with uprated memory, etc.) - mine did something like 40% core overclock, 50% memory overclock or something which meant it could keep up with the ATI 9800 cards.

Sorry but I really can't entertain anyone saying ATI's drivers from that period were anything but bad - they were a nightmare from an IT support perspective, tons of games from the period have extensive patch notes about the problems, etc. the evidence is out there and I've posted it before atleast a couple of times on these forums to prove the point.

 

[TheRealDeal]

I have to say I have had pretty much every AMD high end card since the 9700 barring the 2900 and I have never really had any driver issues to speak of in all those years.

It's been the same for me as well as those I know that have been using AMD hardware since I started using PC's. Multi Gpu is where Nvidia have definitely seemed to be superior

 

[Griffildur]

I am pretty sure that at least on this forum people do a lot of research before they buy any GPU, I know I do and it's always a matter of which card is the best for each individual scenario. No one is buying cards now based on opinions from 10 or more years ago, right?

 

[TheRealDeal]

I had the Gainward Golden Sample 5900XT "Ultra" - the only card in the 5 series that didn't suck - mine did something like 40% core overclock, 50% memory overclock or something which meant it could keep up with the ATI 9800 cards.

Sorry but I really can't entertain anyone saying ATI's drivers from that period were anything but bad - they were a nightmare from an IT support perspective, tons of games from the period have extensive patch notes about the problems, etc. the evidence is out there and I've posted it before atleast a couple of times on these forums to prove the point.

So I gamed a whole lot back then on an actual card I owned but you can't entertain my experience. I have to entertain somebody that chose arguably Nvidia's worst series of cards though and over one of the best cards ever made.

 

[TheRealDeal]

I am pretty sure that at least on this forum people do a lot of research before they buy any GPU, I know I do and it's always a matter of which card is the best for each individual scenario. No one is buying cards now based on opinions from 10 or more years ago, right?

The majority I would say yea. I still see plenty of posters asking about Nvidia only as they don't want to deal with rubbish AMD drivers as that's what they heard and not there actual experience. I am not denying that ATI must have at some point had terrible drivers but in my 14 years of experience using there hardware I have not had it.

 

[Rroff]

So I gamed a whole lot back then on an actual card I owned but you can't entertain my experience.

Don't go just by the setups I have in my sig - as I've mentioned before at times I've worked in IT support and/or PC stores/builders, etc. and lived with several people who are gamers and/or IT professionals - some of whom have mostly bought ATI/AMD - not to mention run several PC setups myself including at times secondary systems with ATI/AMD GPUs.

If you read my earlier posts on the subject i.e. https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14817210&postcount=91 you'll recall I wasn't particularly happy with sticking with nVidia during that period if it hadn't been for the special edition 5900XT I'd have had a very touch choice to make.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Their drivers were terrible before the Catalysts, and thats whats done the damage to their drivers, as its stuck with them, they'll never shake the good cards, but **** drivers that just don't work tag off.

 

[Rroff]

Their drivers were terrible before the Catalysts, and thats whats done the damage, as its stuck with them, they'll never shake the, good cards, but **** drivers that don't work tag off.

It was the version around the end of 9.x - in early 2009 where the change really came - can't remember the exact version number but I think it was the proper release version of this hotfix: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...t-driver-update-accelerates-Far-Cry-2-664125/

It boggles my mind that people seem to have forgotten what they were like before that.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Don't go just by the setups I have in my sig - as I've mentioned before at times I've worked in IT support and/or PC stores/builders, etc. and lived with several people who are gamers and/or IT professionals - some of whom have mostly bought ATI/AMD - not to mention run several PC setups myself including at times secondary systems with ATI/AMD GPUs.

If you read my earlier posts on the subject i.e. https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14817210&postcount=91 you'll recall I wasn't particularly happy with sticking with nVidia during that period if it hadn't been for the special edition 5900XT I'd have had a very touch choice to make.

The thing is i used to play competitive fps for years and there would always be a pause or 2 for somebody crashing. When asked what they were running graphics wise the majority of them were Nvidia. The only time i crashed was due to internet dropping. I am still under no illusions that in the main Nvidia drivers are fine. I am talking only gaming/browsing/movies as that's my usage. The other uses in work places and such might give a different perspective though.

It was the version around the end of 9.x - in early 2009 where the change really came - can't remember the exact version number but I think it was the proper release version of this hotfix: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...t-driver-update-accelerates-Far-Cry-2-664125/

It boggles my mind that people seem to have forgotten what they were like before that.

My main experience has been with the Catalyst drivers and when i first used the 9800 all i did was install and use game menu's for settings. I still pretty much follow this pattern. Install drivers and play games.I feel on both sides people run into problems through to much tweaking.

 

[Rroff]

The thing is i used to play competitive fps for years and there would always be a pause or 2 for somebody crashing. When asked what they were running graphics wise the majority of them were Nvidia. The only time i crashed was due to internet dropping. I am still under no illusions that in the main Nvidia drivers are fine. I am talking only gaming/browsing/movies as that's my usage. The other uses in work places and such might give a different perspective though.

nVidia also much of the time had a vastly larger market share so a higher chance if someone did crash that they were running an nVidia card though I had the opposite experience 9 times out of 10 around that time if someone crashed out in a competitive game they were using like a ATI Radeon 7500 or 8500 series card.

nVidia had their own driver issues but for me there was a key difference in that usually if they put out a few poor drivers there was usually one that wasn't too old that was fine and by the time a game came out that actually required a newer driver usually they were back on form whereas before AMD rejigged the schedule with Catalyst releases you could be waiting upto 2 months depending where on the schedule the release landed without a proper driver if there were problems with a game.

EDIT: Not everyone had a crippling experience with ATI/AMD but if you compared back then over a larger number of users it is a very clear cut picture.

 

[TheRealDeal]

nVidia also much of the time had a vastly larger market share so a higher chance if someone did crash that they were running an nVidia card though I had the opposite experience 9 times out of 10 around that time if someone crashed out in a competitive game they were using like a ATI Radeon 7500 or 8500 series card.

nVidia had their own driver issues but for me there was a key difference in that usually if they put out a few poor drivers there was usually one that wasn't too old that was fine and by the time a game came out that actually required a newer driver usually they were back on form whereas before AMD rejigged the schedule with Catalyst releases you could be waiting upto 2 months depending where on the schedule the release landed without a proper driver if there were problems with a game.

I never knew anyone with those cards tbh. I was just starting out when they were out rocking a Nvidia Mx420 and slow as hell Celeron. It was decent enough to make me want a proper gaming PC so i bought a Pentium 4 9800 setup. As you can imagine this was like a quantum leap for me . Had always been a Console gamer before this with my first computer being an Amiga 1200.

My mate at the time was also on Nvidia but after having a shot of my 9800 he went and got a 9800xt. That was his first taste of AMD and it made a good first impression. He still likes Nvidia but knows AMD put out good hardware as well. I did the same when he let me play on his 8800gtx. I liked it better so that's what went in my machine.

I buy what's best for my budget these days and have no concerns about drivers either way. Nvidia have not matched AMD each time i have bought for a while now.

A car anology would be Skoda. They are good cars these days but a lot of people would not buy one due to the past.

 

[humbug]

Nope I'm looking forward.

In that case a 3.3Ghz 8 core 16 thread 95 Watt Broadwell + IPC AMD CPU is encouraging is it not?

Intel can only manage 3 Ghz 8 Core 16 thread @ 140 Watt.

 

[Rroff]

In that case a 3.3Ghz 8 core 16 thread 95 Watt Broadwell + IPC AMD CPU is encouraging is it not?

Intel can only manage 3 Ghz 8 Core 16 thread @ 140 Watt.

That is the 10 core that is 3GHz the 140 watt TDP is the whole line up the 8 core realistically will be a good bit below that. The problem for Zen though is that just beating the outgoing Intel platforms alone isn't enough - they are already well into their life cycle with faster stuff coming.

 

[humbug]

That is the 10 core that is 3GHz the 140 watt TDP is the whole line up the 8 core realistically will be a good bit below that. The problem for Zen though is that just beating the outgoing Intel platforms alone isn't enough - they are already well into their life cycle with faster stuff coming.

The i7 6900 is 140 Watts, tho at 3.2Ghz base clock http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

Why?

You don't think an AMD CPU at very nearly the same performance as Intel but at a lower cost is viable?

I'm happy to pay $300 for an AMD 6 core 12 thread at 90%+ the performance of an Intel 6 core 12 thread $500 CPU.

Thats assuming Intel manage to get at least 10% more performance out of Sky Lake to Kaby Lake, Intel history from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge to Haswell to Devil Canyon to Sky Lake would suggest not.

 

[Rroff]

The i7 6900 is 140 Watts, tho at 3.2Ghz base clock http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

Whole of the high end Broadwell E line up has 140 watt TDP slapped on it - I doubt on default settings the 8 core has power draw or thermal dissipation anything close to that - infact it needs a substantial overclock past 4GHz to exceed 100 watt power draw in normal use and only significantly exceeds it in synthetic loading.