QA Consultants concludes that AMD has the most stable graphics driver in the industry.

[TonyTurbo78]

Image quality and detail in games I've found to be better on my RXVega64 rig than on my recording rig which has a 1080ti in it. I've noticed it quite a lot in the last 6 or so months, not sure if that's down to driver optimisation or better hardware, but it's definitely a thing.

 

[V F]

Actually, nvidia just borrows Windows' interface:

Amusing that such a huge company cannot make something decent.

 

[Kaapstad]

Who has the best drivers has always been pretty near the bottom of the list of things I consider when buying new GPUs

The reason for this is software is continually changing with each new driver that turns up.

AMD or NVidia drivers may be fantastic one month and total pants the next.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Not very independent.

It be like if a Conservative government "commissioned" a investigation into Labour polices using a "independent" company. You would take it with a massive grain of salt then.

 

[4K8KW10]

Image quality and detail in games I've found to be better on my RXVega64 rig than on my recording rig which has a 1080ti in it. I've noticed it quite a lot in the last 6 or so months, not sure if that's down to driver optimisation or better hardware, but it's definitely a thing.

I bet both. Back in the day, Matrox and ATi provided superior 2D quality because:

...
Muddiness is caused by the analogue signal having insufficient video bandwidth. The signal leaving the RAMDAC is, by its very nature, nigh on flawless. Thus, a 350MHz RAMDAC has 350MHz of video bandwidth. That's something like 2048x1536@75. To be FCC compliant, a card has to have an RF filtering stage composed of a choke and a cap which will limit this bandwidth. Normally the bandwidth is limited to something like 150-200MHz - half of the RAMDAC. If we were to try putting a 2048x1536@75 signal through there, there's not a chance in hell it would retain clarity. The RAMDAC's pristine square waves would be smoothed off to something approaching a sine wave. The lack of distinction between high and low results in the horizontal blurring of high contrast areas. The dragon Geafors, according to legend, has a magical power that causes its blurring to be more noticable. Studies have been unable to reproduce this.
...

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=643516

To the present day, nVidia hasn't addressed the complaints and their cards provide noticeably worse image quality.

Amusing that such a huge company cannot make something decent.

Probably policy and priorities. Not that they cannot, just that they sell their cards, anyways, so why even bother to make the interface modern like the Android-tiles and Windows Settings-resembling Radeon Settings.

 

[Bazzards]

Perhaps they haven't updated the interface because most users couldn't give two monkeys how it looks? I spend so little time looking at the driver screens that I certainly don't.

 

[Rroff]

Actually, nvidia just borrows Windows' interface:

Doesn't really borrow that is how a UI programmed the standard way (API) is rendered in Windows. I don't get the fascination with a fancy UI they are almost always visually more noisy and I barely go in the control panel and when I do just want to quickly find the option I'm looking for and leave.

Image quality and detail in games I've found to be better on my RXVega64 rig than on my recording rig which has a 1080ti in it. I've noticed it quite a lot in the last 6 or so months, not sure if that's down to driver optimisation or better hardware, but it's definitely a thing.

Check all setting like quality, etc. are actually equivalent you shouldn't see any difference in things like detail normally - if you have identical setups you might notice the rendered image on the monitor for some reason is very slightly more vibrant on AMD but it is a very small difference.

 

[Gerard]

Doesn't really borrow that is how a UI programmed the standard way (API) is rendered in Windows. I don't get the fascination with a fancy UI they are almost always visually more noisy and I barely go in the control panel and when I do just want to quickly find the option I'm looking for and leave.

Doesn't have to be fancy but if it looks good it shows a bit of effort was put into it. The nvidia driver panel is very slow when you first go into it for some reason. Could use an update.

 

[Rroff]

Doesn't have to be fancy but if it looks good it shows a bit of effort was put into it. The nvidia driver panel is very slow when you first go into it for some reason. Could use an update.

Depends what part you use last - it opens instantly on some screens like the home bit but others like 3D settings have to gather information. If it really bothers you I posted a method to always open to the home screen which should be instant.

 

[4K8KW10]

Doesn't really borrow that is how a UI programmed the standard way (API) is rendered in Windows. I don't get the fascination with a fancy UI they are almost always visually more noisy and I barely go in the control panel and when I do just want to quickly find the option I'm looking for and leave.

I do spend a lot of time in the Settings changing some things often. Obviously, a better graphics design is preferable.
The Radeon Settings with tiles is more efficient and probably requires less mouse clicks in order to get something done.

About graphics design - I really don't understand nvidia and why they would call something fancy.
Which thing would you prefer - the first is year 1996 design, the second is year 2006 design?
2018 design is even better.

 

[Rroff]

I do spend a lot of time in the Settings changing some things often. Obviously, a better graphics design is preferable.
The Radeon Settings with tiles is more efficient and probably requires less mouse clicks in order to get something done.

About graphics design - I really don't understand nvidia and why they would call something fancy.
Which thing would you prefer - the first is year 1996 design, the second is year 2006 design?
2018 design is even better.

I really don't care when it comes to control panels.

In terms of those cars the 2006 design is hideous and the 1996 bland and a touch odd - not a great comparison - there are also some great looking 1996 cars - infact some of the best looking cars are 70s and 80s performance/super classics and while I'm not a huge fan arguable many of the older Ferraris, etc. most people would consider far better looking than many 2018 designs.

 

[Zeed]

From someone that went from NEW AMD UI to NV UI.....
I like NV UI better i like very minimalistic windows and UI design in general.
**** for me it could be in TEXT .

More about options than looks. And AFAIK AMD got more options atm in the drivers

 

[Kaapstad]

Doesn't have to be fancy but if it looks good it shows a bit of effort was put into it. The nvidia driver panel is very slow when you first go into it for some reason. Could use an update.

I have always found the exact opposite, NVidia is much quicker to get into.

Also for mGPU use with more than 2 cards the new AMD software can be a real dog, it was some much better with the old software. Even doing something simple like changing the crossfire config with 3 or 4 cards can be a real pain whereas back with the old driver software it was really fast and put NVidia to shame. Then there is Wattman which is great with one or two cards but can be a real pain and very unreliable with 3 or 4 cards. Fortunately or unfortunately mGPU is not going to be doing much until the game devs get their act together with DX12.

Having said all that I still don't understand why people want to debate about things like vendor x driver software is faster to do xyz as these are things you tend to do only on a few occasions and once they are set it is job done.

It is far more logical to highlight things like AMD at default tend to have a more brighter punchier image as this is something you look at all the time when gaming.

 

[Zeed]

I really don't care when it comes to control panels.

In terms of those cars the 2006 design is hideous and the 1996 bland and a touch odd - not a great comparison - there are also some great looking 1996 cars - infact some of the best looking cars are 70s and 80s performance/super classics and while I'm not a huge fan arguable many of the older Ferraris, etc. most people would consider far better looking than many 2018 designs.

I'm one of people that dont like MOST of new car designs. I'm 90s and start of 2000's Japanese design person.
Practicality > Looks.

Thats why I love GTR and new Honda type R design. It supposet to Work not look

 

[Rroff]

I'm one of people that dont like MOST of new car designs. I'm 90s and start of 2000's Japanese design person.
Practicality > Looks.

Thats why I love GTR and new Honda type R design. It supposet to Work not look

Yeah - personally I'm a big fan of the Skyline and the first round of the R35 design - not so gone on the more recent updates on the GTR look though I'd still have one hah.

 

[Zeed]

I have always found the exact opposite, NVidia is much quicker to get into.

Also for mGPU use with more than 2 cards the new AMD software can be a real dog, it was some much better with the old software. Even doing something simple like changing the crossfire config with 3 or 4 cards can be a real pain whereas back with the old driver software it was really fast and put NVidia to shame. Then there is Wattman which is great with one or two cards but can be a real pain and very unreliable with 3 or 4 cards. Fortunately or unfortunately mGPU is not going to be doing much until the game devs get their act together with DX12.

Having said all that I still don't understand why people want to debate about things like vendor x driver software is faster to do xyz as these are things you tend to do only on a few occasions and once they are set it is job done.

It is far more logical to highlight things like AMD at default tend to have a more brighter punchier image as this is something you look at all the time when gaming.

Re install drivers do some basic magic with NV profile inspector dont touch till next drivers come out. It's like people complaing about Boot time of AMD vs Intel. Ye those extra 10 seconds on ryzen makes the whole amd platform USELESS cause half of the time one spends on pc reboots

 

[Zeed]

Yeah - personally I'm a big fan of the Skyline and the first round of the R35 design - not so gone on the more recent updates on the GTR look though I'd still have one hah.

Thats why Moving from DC2 to 350Z i well.LOVE the interior of 350z its plain black simple practical. One opf things that people moan about and for me its one of best designs ever. I dont like having lights buzzers and crap distracting me when driving.

Same goes for NV panel I look click set done. Looks simple and practical to ME.
then Again I would go back to Windows XP in a second if it was running as good as this W10 insider build. But no DX12 is a killer especialy with wow going in to DX12

 

[4K8KW10]

Re install drivers do some basic magic with NV profile inspector dont touch till next drivers come out. It's like people complaing about Boot time of AMD vs Intel. Ye those extra 10 seconds on ryzen makes the whole amd platform USELESS cause half of the time one spends on pc reboots

What I have seen a slower Core 2 Quad 95W boot than Core 2 Duo 35W boot...
Intel boot times are anything but great, too.

 

[ubersonic]

Back in the day, Matrox and ATi provided superior 2D quality because: /snip

Actually it was because Nvidia used to gimp their image quality to boost FPS.

Not even joking, around 2004 they lowered all the settings in the drivers, the new very high was the same as the old high, the new high was the same as the old medium, etc. This resulted in the dawn of the 3rd party drivers era with the leader being the Omegadrivers which increased Nvidia IQ to match ATi's (at the expense of FPS obviously).

 

[AlphaOne]

Two points:

1-Most crashes on NVIDIA side happened on Qaudro cards, same for AMD (on Pro cards). Geforce and Radeon cards had comparable results.
2-The QA used the wrong driver for Quadros on Windows 1803. That's why Quadros had more crashes.

So they manipulated the results in favor of AMD, which isn't unusual given they were paid by AMD.


Ryan Smith:

but I find the OS and driver selection odd. Win10 1803 was a bug-riddled mess, and they didn't use NVIDIA's official 1803 drivers for Quadro (R396), which were out at the time.