Can't speak for them, but as somebody with no brand loyalty I don't like it because it's nonsense click-bait vid badly put together by an idiot to give misleading information xDI don't understand why AMD supporters don't like this.
Or is it just because @Gregster posted it so you all assume it was anti AMD.
-
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 V NVidia - Fine Wine testing.
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,758
- Location
- West End, Southampton
Whilst it's nice a card getting stronger and stronger (my Vega64 now smashing out 27k in Firestrike) I don't really care about fine wine to be honest, nor do I buy a card for future performance. For me a GPU purchase is about 2 things, 1) getting double performance upgrade from whatever I have, 2) the price.
Video is turd as well tbh, but cheers for posting @Gregster
Video is turd as well tbh, but cheers for posting @Gregster
To me it is simple. You look at reviews, see price, see performance and then make a decision on whether to go for an AMD or Nvidia card. Say as an example the nvidia card is 100% performance and costs £400 and the AMD card is £350 and offers around 95% the performance of the nvidia card. I would go for the AMD card, where I was happy with the day 1 performance for the price.
If later on AMD through drivers managed to get to 110% performance beating the nvidia card after 2 years, that I would see as a nice bonus. End of the day I get 100% of the performance I paid for on day one with the AMD card, as that was what the performance was when I agreed to buy it after looking at reviews.
Now say if nvidia card offers 100% performance and an amd card offers around 95% performance, but they are both priced £400, then I would go Nvidia as I would rather have the 100% performance I paid for from day one rather than waiting 2 years for the AMD card to catch up or get better. Basically I want what I paid for, I want price for performance day 1.
The point is, historically from what I recall when AMD had the slightly inferior performing card, but they usually priced it cheaper. Therefore you got better price for performance and on top of that you ended up with a better card after a couple years anyway. Hence it was a win win, unless you were happy to pay the extra money to have the extra performance from day one. But you had to pay more. That is why I had a lot of AMD cards as to me extra few percent performance from day one was not a big deal and I preferred better price for performance, therefor I had AMD cards nearly exclusively for about a decade as every time I did the numbers AMD had better price for performance for the performance I needed/wanted at the time.
These days AMD cannot even offer the performance I even want, so they are not even in the game unfortunately. Not only that, but they are also not the price for performance kings they used to be, which was one of the reasons I really liked them. Hopefully they can catch back up in the next 2-3 years so we can have a competitive market where we see our money buying more performance due to competition rather than lining nvidia shareholders pockets.
If later on AMD through drivers managed to get to 110% performance beating the nvidia card after 2 years, that I would see as a nice bonus. End of the day I get 100% of the performance I paid for on day one with the AMD card, as that was what the performance was when I agreed to buy it after looking at reviews.
Now say if nvidia card offers 100% performance and an amd card offers around 95% performance, but they are both priced £400, then I would go Nvidia as I would rather have the 100% performance I paid for from day one rather than waiting 2 years for the AMD card to catch up or get better. Basically I want what I paid for, I want price for performance day 1.
The point is, historically from what I recall when AMD had the slightly inferior performing card, but they usually priced it cheaper. Therefore you got better price for performance and on top of that you ended up with a better card after a couple years anyway. Hence it was a win win, unless you were happy to pay the extra money to have the extra performance from day one. But you had to pay more. That is why I had a lot of AMD cards as to me extra few percent performance from day one was not a big deal and I preferred better price for performance, therefor I had AMD cards nearly exclusively for about a decade as every time I did the numbers AMD had better price for performance for the performance I needed/wanted at the time.
These days AMD cannot even offer the performance I even want, so they are not even in the game unfortunately. Not only that, but they are also not the price for performance kings they used to be, which was one of the reasons I really liked them. Hopefully they can catch back up in the next 2-3 years so we can have a competitive market where we see our money buying more performance due to competition rather than lining nvidia shareholders pockets.
I also buy for what is what at the time. Whilst it is nice getting faster games over time, I generally play a game to death and then move on and rarely revisit, so latter improvements are something that I don't care for. I actually enjoyed the vid and TPU are one of the better testers who do retest on newer drivers instead of some that use old tests.
I totally agree with your points. We were lucky getting a Vega reference at £459 (for me with X3 games). As Vega pricing was ridiculous after the limited deals. However in less than 6 months my v64 paid for itself by mining, and I was still gaming in the evenings with it.
I don't believe in the fine wine theory, really all it illustrates is that over a 5 year period Amd have stagnated in their performance scaling, due to having not innovated past a 4 geometry wide engine. Amd lost a lot of money in the tahiti and hawaii product line.Now Hawaii may have held good performance for it's lifetime, but in power consumption, manufacturing costs, no hdmi2 or any 4k decode/encode it was getting outdated compared to Maxwell.
The rebadging to Grenada was a joke.
Fury well that was a disaster.
Polaris was a very late Gm204 equivalent and Hawaii replacement and provided no upgrade path or value for money over Hawaii.
I was critical prior to launch of Vega and I was critical at launch. But I still bought a v64 and I upgraded to a 32" 1440p 75hz frsync. I feel that the 75hz is a good place to be as I'm not a 200-300fps mouse swiper, I have been impressed with my Vega and it was a good enough jump over my gtx970.
If Vega was hitting 1.9-2ghz then it would have been a totally different story, unfortunately if the refresh on 7nm is that then waiting 1-2 years for about 35% over a stock reference v64 is the exact illusion of this fine wine garnish
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,546
So despite knowing about fine wine I recently bought a 780 GTX over a 290 because it was £80 and I'm broke right now. Most of my games are a few years old so I won't really benefit from fine wine yet much anyway. It's a big upgrade on my 2200G system and my first ever graphics card. It should make Witcher 3 and Kingdom Come Deliverance playable in 1080p. Actually looking it up it actually does better than the 290 in both Witcher 3 and 2 that I want to play. I'm obviously a few years behind the curve though. Anyway I'm very happy with it and just hope it doesn't die anytime soon but if it does that's what my 2200G back up is there for.
If I was buying new it'd definitely be a 570/580 over a 1060 3gb at the same price because I'd like to keep it a few years and when everything goes DX12 it seems AMD has a big advantage but maybe I'm wrong in that perception?
If I was buying new it'd definitely be a 570/580 over a 1060 3gb at the same price because I'd like to keep it a few years and when everything goes DX12 it seems AMD has a big advantage but maybe I'm wrong in that perception?
Fair point, I never thought about adaptive sync as back then when I always had AMD cards there was no G-Sync or Freesync.
As for today, I have no choice, if I want to game at 4K on the latest games, unfortunately only Nvidia can do that and from what I can see the gap will likely only get larger. I already have my G-Sync monitor. Money has already been spent on it due to Vega not delivering what I wanted and Freesync 2 taking forever.
By the time a monitor that is worth upgrading to at a reasonable price comes out in 2-3 years time, AMD should hopefully be able to tame 4K 60fps on latest games. They will just need to competitive and offer better price for performance for me then, not necessarily be the best card. Saying that, RTX, how it pans out and AMD's response to it will have a say on whether I go G-Sync or Freesync 2 next also
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
By the time a monitor that is worth upgrading to at a reasonable price comes out in 2-3 years time, AMD should hopefully be able to tame 4K 60fps on latest games. They will just need to competitive and offer better price for performance for me then, not necessarily be the best card. Saying that, RTX, how it pans out and AMD's response to it will have a say on whether I go G-Sync or Freesync 2 next also
We already have the response, It's called the RX590.
Last edited:
Well kinda yes. Im worried my 1080ti will fall off performance wise because nvidia typically cba and forget to optimises cards from previous gens and just concentrate on current gen.
lolWe already have the response, It's called the RX590.
Release performance is release performance, no one I know purchases based on guessing where it might end up, they purchase on the review data available.
But it's not as simple as driver support over time due to Nv's performance lead time so if it's top end-then AMD don't have a look in.
If I was in the market now for 1060/580 class performance though, I'd pick AMD due to past history with my experience on Nv with W3 and about a dozen or so other titles on Kepler- it needed end users to take Nv to task about rubbish performance but Nv put out a driver fix to rectify poor performance, so bad pr/caring about their customers worked.
So therefore wouldn't take the chance of having to wait a second time for satisfactory performance while they are waiting for me to cave in and upgrade.
But strictly talking long term driver support, I'd go with AMD over Nv through experience.
But it's not as simple as driver support over time due to Nv's performance lead time so if it's top end-then AMD don't have a look in.
If I was in the market now for 1060/580 class performance though, I'd pick AMD due to past history with my experience on Nv with W3 and about a dozen or so other titles on Kepler- it needed end users to take Nv to task about rubbish performance but Nv put out a driver fix to rectify poor performance, so bad pr/caring about their customers worked.
So therefore wouldn't take the chance of having to wait a second time for satisfactory performance while they are waiting for me to cave in and upgrade.
But strictly talking long term driver support, I'd go with AMD over Nv through experience.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,060
When I've been an early adopter of AMD GPU's in the past, albeit some years ago now, I found their early drivers pretty shocking. I'm not surprised they improve with time. I can remember a few different GPU's with choppy movie playback and another case of the driver crashing when remote desktoping to the PC. In each case it took at least a few drivers increments to improve. I had to ditch the card with the RDP problem though as it was crucial to me at that time. I filed a bug but heard nothing on when it would be fixed. If they couldn't get the basics right I'm sure they can improve the gaming performance too with time - they've been poorly optimised on release. Through experience I'm more likely to beleive the "fine wine" is simply optimising what are initially poorly optimised drivers. Put it another way, it's like a GPU being held back on release day and then finally they work out how to get the best performance later.
We're unlikely to know without a doubt if AMD do better than NVidia in maturing drivers. At EOL we have no idea if NV or AMD could optimise performance further.
Last edited:
Going AMD 100%(unoptimised launch drivers) to 130%(optimised+performance gains) is worse than Nv 100%(optimised) to 120%(+performance gains)?
Poorly optimised is immaterial personally through judging driver performance at time of purchase, I'd never buy AMD over Nv if priced the same with AMD 10% slower in hope that AMD would improve via optimisation to equal Nv-that'd be purchasing based on my own stupidity.
Isn't just AMD that has problems 970 had a TDR bug that took months to resolve, if you look in the Nv/AMD driver threads they both have/had issues, Nv's also had other series in the past that needed added voltage as stock voltage wasn't stable, AMD aren't any different as they've had various problems too.
Last edited:
The TDR bug/crash with my 970 NEVER got fully resolved. I also had it with 2 previous Nvidia cards. Which is why I switched to AMD and not had any stability issues since.
Annoyingly Nvidia seem to hard link voltage and clocks somehow, so it's difficult to fix these kind of issues on them.
Annoyingly Nvidia seem to hard link voltage and clocks somehow, so it's difficult to fix these kind of issues on them.
Last edited:
Exactly. That is why I don't get the "I would rather get 100% of the performance day 1" argument. You DO GET 100% you were happy to pay for after looking reviews! Just because the performance gets better over time does not mean you did not get what you paid for, means you got performance for free which you never paid for, unlike Nvidia which typically make you pay for it to have that 5-10% upfront.
If AMD charged the same as Nvidia for less performance on release with the promise of more performance later, then the argument would make sense to me. Unless I am missing something?
It really is that simple.
Pretty sure an unoptimised 75fps delta is equal to an optimised 75fps, 75 is 75, 90 is 90....or am I missing something now
It's a self convinced (flawed)argument used because surely AMD can't provide some kind of advantage, not allowed, total domination kicking sand in the eyes or nothing else.
290X arrived- Nv released new TI gpu
970 arrived-AMD improved drivers
1060 arrived-AMD improved drivers
Vega 56 arrived-Nv released new TI gpu
So you get nowt for free from Nv, whereas AMD have nothing hardware wise so they get you drunk on boosted drivers-yet some will argue an optimised 75fps is an advantage over 75fps.
