nvidia v amd

jamster0212 · 2 Jan 2019 at 20:25

when i built my pc. around the devils canyon chipset time (4 years ago)

i always understood that amd ran hot and invidia was more expensive but abit better. is this still true or is it just purely preference now?

asking because i see amd hit it out the park with the ryzen processor so curious about their cards

cheers

dragonslayer · 2 Jan 2019 at 22:19

AMD are currently 1 generation behind Nvidia in the GPU space but they're releasing Navi sometime this year so they could catch up with that card

ANDREW GREEN · 2 Jan 2019 at 22:56

AMD offer better value for money but require more power for the most part. Depends what you want from a card with regards to your gaming resolution, PSU and expectations.

TNA · 3 Jan 2019 at 06:20

ANDREW GREEN said:
AMD offer better value for money but require more power for the most part. Depends what you want from a card with regards to your gaming resolution, PSU and expectations.

Basically this.

If you are not gaming at 4K, then anything under that resolution AMD has a good offering for imo, unless you need crazy high fps and happy to spend over a thousand pounds on a 2080ti.

Do not look at it as what is best. Nvidia have the highest performing cards right now sure, but it comes at a price. Look at what your needs are, your budget, then see which card offers more bang for your buck in that price range and buy that card. That is what I do, currently being at 4K, AMD do not have any offerings for me, so I went with Nvidia.

AMD have great drivers these days also, arguably better with a much more modern and responsive UI. If your are going for a new monitor that is 1440p, going the AMD route with a freesync monitor is the better option from a price for performance point of view and I would recommend that.

LePhuronn · 3 Jan 2019 at 09:49

For me it boils down to this: Nvidia for the extremes, AMD for everything else.

So unless you want super high resolutions, super high frame rates or top quality VR, go AMD.

NMBlack · 3 Jan 2019 at 11:31

jamster0212 said:
when i built my pc. around the devils canyon chipset time (4 years ago)

i always understood that amd ran hot and invidia was more expensive but abit better. is this still true or is it just purely preference now?

asking because i see amd hit it out the park with the ryzen processor so curious about their cards

cheers

For the most part it's still true, but AMD cards don't run quite so hot now.

Shaz12 · 3 Jan 2019 at 12:55

AMD cards are only good for 1080P 144hz and 1440P 60hz. If that's what you are aiming for, you can consider AMD. NVIDIA is required if you intend to game at 4K or 1440P 144hz.

Nasher · 3 Jan 2019 at 12:56

Nothing will do 144fps at 4k. Vega will do 1440 just fine.

AMD cards don't run any hotter these days and you can undervolt them loads.

Kaapstad · 3 Jan 2019 at 15:04

jamster0212 said:
when i built my pc. around the devils canyon chipset time (4 years ago)

i always understood that amd ran hot and invidia was more expensive but abit better. is this still true or is it just purely preference now?

asking because i see amd hit it out the park with the ryzen processor so curious about their cards

cheers

What level of performance are you looking for and what is your budget?

jamster0212 · 3 Jan 2019 at 16:39

TNA said:
Basically this.

If you are not gaming at 4K, then anything under that resolution AMD has a good offering for imo, unless you need crazy high fps and happy to spend over a thousand pounds on a 2080ti.

Do not look at it as what is best. Nvidia have the highest performing cards right now sure, but it comes at a price. Look at what your needs are, your budget, then see which card offers more bang for your buck in that price range and buy that card. That is what I do, currently being at 4K, AMD do not have any offerings for me, so I went with Nvidia.

AMD have great drivers these days also, arguably better with a much more modern and responsive UI. If your are going for a new monitor that is 1440p, going the AMD route with a freesync monitor is the better option from a price for performance point of view and I would recommend that.

Cheers for valuable insight mate. Definitely gives me something to think about.
Currently running a 970 in my rig so was curious if a upgrade would help at all. I play 1080 res and play a wide range of games. I run a 4790k (mentioned incase bottlenecks or something haha)

Marine-RX179 · 3 Jan 2019 at 18:11

jamster0212 said:
Cheers for valuable insight mate. Definitely gives me something to think about.
Currently running a 970 in my rig so was curious if a upgrade would help at all. I play 1080 res and play a wide range of games. I run a 4790k (mentioned incase bottlenecks or something haha)

Coming from a 970, you'd want at least Vega64 or GTX1080 level minimum as an upgrade.

GTX1080ti use to be pretty good bang for bucks being the roughly 30% faster card than the above 2 cards, but now they have became EOL and their price has gone up to ridiculous level due to no more stock, and the new 20 series cards from Nvidia are a rip-off because Nvidia bumped the price so much while offering performance no higher in the same price brackets as cards that were launch 2 years ago.

IMO just for 1080p GTX970 should still do ok for now, and you should probably hold-off upgrading wait for 7nm to drop later this year...unless you don't mind 2nd hand cards and can find a 2nd hand 1080ti at a reasonable price.

pete910 · 3 Jan 2019 at 19:37

Shaz12 said:
and 1440P 60hz

In what?
Mine must be lying to me, that or samsung + OS is lying about the monitors refresh rate being 144hz @ 1440p. Then seeing the fps counter @ 144 :confused:

Oh hang on, You are trolling

Shaz12 · 3 Jan 2019 at 19:45

pete910 said:
In what?
Mine must be lying to me, that or samsung + OS is lying about the monitors refresh rate being 144hz @ 1440p. Then seeing the fps counter @ 144

Oh hang on, You are trolling

Gaming at max settings. AMD's top card can't handle 144hz at 1440p without dialling the settings down. Even the 2080 barely manages it.

pete910 · 3 Jan 2019 at 19:50

Shaz12 said:
Gaming at max settings. AMD's top card can't handle 144hz at 1440p without dialling the settings down. Even the 2080 barely manages it.

Kinda meaningless unless you state a particular game in which you was referring too, I agree not all but a lot will just fine.

So the blanket statement of 1400p @ 60hz is wrong

shankly1985 · 3 Jan 2019 at 19:58

Shaz12 said:
AMD cards are only good for 1080P 144hz and 1440P 60hz. If that's what you are aiming for, you can consider AMD. NVIDIA is required if you intend to game at 4K or 1440P 144hz.

My Vega 64 disagrees. I have zero issues hitting high frame rates at 1440p 144hz

Brazo · 3 Jan 2019 at 20:05

Nobody needs to argue Vega 64 1440p average FPS it’s all here in B&W. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-12-20-radeon-rx-vega-64-benchmarks-7001

It’s certainly not 60fps nor is it close to 144.

Davedree · 3 Jan 2019 at 20:23

Brazo said:
Nobody needs to argue Vega 64 1440p average FPS it’s all here in B&W. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-12-20-radeon-rx-vega-64-benchmarks-7001

It’s certainly not 60fps nor is it close to 144.

I've run a vega64 on a 1440p 75hz freesync monitor for over a year, I'd say there are just as many games I've struggled to hold 75fps as there are games where I'm capping by 25-40% @75hz>
Poor performance without lowering settings, for me include (kingdom come, ass' creed origins, scum)
Games that **** 1440p max settings (elite, GTA5, dishonored, prey, Wolfenstein,)
I would say V64 is generally a strong 55-100fps @1440p when using the highest of settings.
It's down to user preference as to what settings you use I guess. But as for a strong 144hz 1440p gcard, only the 2080ti would be it surely

shankly1985 · 3 Jan 2019 at 20:30

Davedree said:
I've run a vega64 on a 1440p 75hz freesync monitor for over a year, I'd say there are just as many games I've struggled to hold 75fps as there are games where I'm capping by 25-40% @75hz>
Poor performance without lowering settings, for me include (kingdom come, ass' creed origins, scum)
Games that **** 1440p max settings (elite, GTA5, dishonored, prey, Wolfenstein,)
I would say V64 is generally a strong 55-100fps @1440p when using the highest of settings.
It's down to user preference as to what settings you use I guess. But as for a strong 144hz 1440p gcard, only the 2080ti would be it surely

Also depends on poor quality of games optimisation.
Kingdom come is a very demanding game.

This is just out in the wilderness, towns are even more demanding.

Davedree · 3 Jan 2019 at 20:37

shankly1985 said:
Also depends on poor quality of games optimisation.
Kingdom come is a very demanding game.

Oh yeah no question kingdom come is demanding with the elderly Cryengine. Game engines have been fixed and stagnated for far too long now, if developers write for Vega we may see an uplift in future titles, however my feelings are that Vega is going to struggle if devs don't work with the disabled hardware features.

Scania · 4 Jan 2019 at 07:27

jamster0212 said:
I play 1080 res and play a wide range of games. I run a 4790k (mentioned incase bottlenecks or something haha)

Im running a 4790 non K with a 1080ti @4k, you certainly won’t have any bottleneck issues imo.

As for your card requirements personally for 1080p I’d stick with the 970 and only consider a GPU upgrade once you’ve got a better monitor.