• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD has console gaming in its pocket, but can it squeeze out Nvidia on the PC?

AMD genuinely seem to have the long-term interests of PG gamers (and thus, their industry) at heart... they are doing what they can to bridge PC and console gaming. NV in comparison have never seemed to have those kind of goals in mind.

tomparker95 said:
Interesting read.... Maybe AMD are about to take over the graphics card market for everything, deeming Nvidia useless?!
Click to expand...

Eh?
 
Not in our lifetime they wont. When buying a console you have no choice, PC gamers have a choice and the majority will never chose AMD over nVidia to a point where they have control.
 
spoffle said:
Yes, which isn't happening...
Click to expand...

I've got to agree with Martini on this being semantics. Effectively the biggest games are being developed within the constraints of nearly decade-old hardware, with PC releases sometimes getting only minor texture or lighting upgrades (e.g. DmC), sometimes with the most lazy/ineffectual of UI changes (e.g. Skyrim). A lot of the time the PC versions of games come out half a year to several years later (e.g. Castlevania Lords of Shadow). Whether or not the process is done by porting the effect is exactly the same, so I'm not sure why it matters to gamers? Let's not forget Dark Souls, Crysis 2, Halo, among others. They were hardly meant to be small-time minor releases. The PC just doesn't have the exclusives or the prestige of systems that obviously aren't plagued by piracy, and so I suppose developers are loathe to put more than the minimum desired effort into it.
 
Last edited:
PorkPieCat said:
I've got to agree with Martini on this being semantics. Effectively the biggest games are being developed within the constraints of nearly decade-old hardware, with PC releases sometimes getting only minor texture or lighting upgrades (e.g. DmC), sometimes with the most lazy/ineffectual of UI changes (e.g. Skyrim). A lot of the time the PC versions of games come out half a year to several years later (e.g. Castlevania Lords of Shadow). Whether or not the process is done by porting or not the effect is exactly the same, so I'm not sure why it matters to gamers? The PC just doesn't have the exclusives or the prestige of systems that obviously aren't plagued by piracy.
Click to expand...

Because as I said it encourages ignorance and encourages people to blame bad games on consoles and not the developers.

It's at the point where ignorant people blame anything that's wrong with a PC build on it being a "bad port" and consoles.

Look at it this way, who gets blamed for shoddy games that are PC exclusives?
 
Bummer, why do I always edit posts after someone's replied :p. Mainly wanted to get rid of "whether or not... porting or not" (OCD I swear...).

Anyway, does it? OK firstly, if consoles didn't exist the mean quality of graphics in games would most likely be somewhat higher. Games wouldn't so often be designed for gamepads and then made to work on kb+m afterwards either (so perhaps twitch shooters wouldn't be dead). But idealism aside, I don't think people blame consoles do they? Most of the time when bad "ports" come out it seems people blame devs. Everyone hated Crytek and From Software for Crysis 2 and Dark Souls...

Also doesn't the fact that good and bad "ports" exist in itself already shift the blame away from consoles to developers? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see why it matters.
 
Last edited:
I never understand why the term "port" is so disagreeable. It is a loose term that PC users use. No point in picking posters up on it.
 
I think it will force Nvidia to go to a lot of developers and optimise, this has the potential to get expensive and will take a long time, so games may not run very well on Nvidia GPU's for a little while after release.
AMD's GPU architecture is also very different to Nvidia. game developers who want to be on consoles will encode and optimise specifically for AMD, that can't be good for Nvidia.

But this will benefit AMD in the CPU department more than the GPU, for the first time in many years we may actually see consistent comparability in gaming with Intel.

That is sure to drag the price of Intel's 6 core CPU's down.

This is what developers said on choosing Intel or AMD CPU's for future proofing.

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.
Click to expand...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

While this whole AMD console thing might not be great for Nvidia, for Intel CPU enthusiasts its potentially very good news.

I don't want to derail this thread, a discussion on it is already underway here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18512144&page=2
 
Nvidia have annoyed me with the 7xx series cards just being rebrands of last years cards.
I will however be buying a new card before the year is out but I don't know where to go.
I have always planned of going with Nvidia just on the basis that they have always been well ahead of AMD on high end cards from everything I have read.

Now I feel I would be being ripped off by buying Titian for the ~5% gains but then screwed over if I brought a 780 seen as it is the same card but just artificially tuned down?
 
Well I do think AMD have the potential advantage when the consoles come out for their cards to run games more efficiently. Definitely think its going to sway some people, myself included. But I have also been very disappointed with the recent gtx770, gtx780, gtx690 & Titan release. Despite been more a fan of nvidia hardware, thinking good change will be going back to AMD for next card. Fingers crossed for 8***/9**** whatever its called in October
 
MonsterMoshi said:
Nvidia have annoyed me with the 7xx series cards just being rebrands of last years cards.
I will however be buying a new card before the year is out but I don't know where to go.
I have always planned of going with Nvidia just on the basis that they have always been well ahead of AMD on high end cards from everything I have read.

Now I feel I would be being ripped off by buying Titian for the ~5% gains but then screwed over if I brought a 780 seen as it is the same card but just artificially tuned down?
Click to expand...


The GTX Titan is a great GPU, and 25 / 30% faster than any single core GPU AMD have 'for the moment' but very expensive, the GTX 780 is much better for its price but still over priced and as is obvious now Nvidia released the GTX Titan first to set the tone for the £550 GTX 780, Nvidia like AMD are in it for the money, and they are not stupid, they know exactly how to make room in peoples wallets.

As for the mainstream GPU's Nvidia are no better at all, its actually been proven that the 7000 vs the GTX 600 is often better at more demanding tasks and higher res, and the GTX 700 are just the same as the GTX 600 under a new name...

I know there is consensus among some that Nvidia have better drivers and run smoother, up until recently that has been true, but its nothing to do with the GPU's its self, its a software issue and both have bad and good days, Latency has been completely fixed on a single AMD GPU and they are currently working on CF, that is due out anytime now, as for every day driver operation its actually been AMD that have had the solid drivers with Nvidia having a multitude of problems in the past few months, as I said, good days and bad days.

A lot of whats written out there is based on old no longer relevant info, but there is also a lot of completely untrue Nvidia shilling out there to justify their higher price.

Its shrewd ways of bigging up your own product while mudslinging the other to maximize profits.
 
Last edited:
MonsterMoshi said:
Well when comparing the 680 to the 7970, the two most comparable cards form both companies, the 680 comes out yielding the best frame rates in the majority of games?
Click to expand...

To start with yes, but then AMD introduced a new driver and that changed http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/23.html

The 7970 is also running at lower clocks than it should, hence the 7970 Ghz released after the GTX 680, some argue its still below what it could be as reference.
 
I hope not as the market need competition... I think that if nVidia did get in trouble Intel would buy them out there has been rumors of this happening in the past.

I'm not a fan boy but I think that having just one player in this market will be bad for consumers!

Stelly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom