Will you buy AMD or Nvidia when next gen GPUs are available?

[Relentless81]

I'm hesitant to go Nvidia due to the 970 scam which was my last Nvidia GPU, I've had three AMD GPUs since then

However I might consider one if they offer the best performance per £ which lets be honest is doubtful

What GPU I buy will need to replace my Vega 56 and be a worthwhile upgrade for less than £400

 

[HEADRAT]

Deffo AMD just to support the competition, NVIDIA have shown that they have no compunction with raising the bar in terms of pricing, their generational performance improvements just aren't worth that increase.

At the very heigh end they have been allowed to gouge the consumer as AMD don't really have a response, hopefully Big NAVI will redress that.

At best I'm a casual gamer so AMDs next high end offering will be good enough for me, I don't need "bleeding edge". I've been running a VEGA 64 AIO for nearly 3 years without really anywhere to upgrade, 5700XT just wasn't a big enough jump to warrant the expense, especially as there were no AIO cards that you could just buy off the shelf.

 

[ots3go]

Whichever is best at a price point I can afford.

If, however, there was an equally performing card from each vendor, at the same price point, I would buy the AMD card.

 

[andybird123]

Probably Nvidia. I have a VR headset coming with eyetracking and foveated rendering currently only supports VRS (and gives a 30-40% improvement in frame rate). So an AMD card would have to be 40% faster at the same price point to be interesting.

 

[Mensy]

price to performance gets my money

 

[kevman]

Gsync here so planning on going nvidia unless they really mess things up

 

[McManicMan]

no, i have a RTX RoG Strix 2080Super, that will last a year or two

 

[Minstadave]

Probably AMD for me. Itching to upgrade my 1080 which struggles to push decent framerates at 3440x1440P these days.

 

[wookiee87]

depends for me, i have a gsync compatible screen but is native freesync so have the best of both worlds regarding choice, 70/30 nvidia first then amd but know knows, will wait until all cards are on the table and make my choice then

 

[CuriousTomCat]

I just buy from whichever manufactuer has the smallest market share each gen. Too many people bought Nvidia's 9 & 10 series gpus so that encouraged complacency. RTX would have been much faster in my opinion if they had more competition.

When people buy the fastest GPU, they end up with a slower GPU next gen due to complacency.

 

[oldbanana]

Nvidia, unless LG adds freesync support for OLED.

 

[Bacalhau]

Will buy nvidia no matter what.

 

[Aretak]

Whatever the best option proves to be, should I buy one at all. People with unflinching loyalty to a brand are dumb.

 

[g67575]

I'm leaning towards AMD tbh, I've always brought AMD / ATI cards, the sole reason being they were what I could afford. Actually might've had a Nvidia card 10-15 years ago, but can't remember the model.

Also, if I'm happy with 50-60 FPS, is there any reason to be concerned about technologies like Free Sync or G-Sync? Don't they basically just allow monitors to have refresh rate over 60 hertz, and therefore display higher FPS?

Maybe useful for competitive play / Esports.

I used Free Sync on my 4K monitor (display port) in the past and didn't notice much difference, and it just caused resolution problems in some games like Civ 6.

 

[kingteeb]

Whatever performs well at a decent price of course?! No loyalties here

 

[wookiee87]

Also, if I'm happy with 50-60 FPS, is there any reason to be concerned about technologies like Free Sync or G-Sync? Don't they basically just allow monitors to display >60 Frames Per Second?

I used Free Sync in the past and didn't notice much difference, and it just caused resolution problems in some games like Civ 6.

i used t run generic moniters with no tech in them, then i started buying nvidia stuff and when i heard about gsync moniters i though what the hey and ponied up the cash for one, since then havent looked back, gysnc is really good as long as you have a gpu that can match the fps rate of the screen, expensive yes but well worth it, if amd sort there drivers out then freesync coulld be just as good, hell even better than nvidia's equivalent tech, but amd has to work on their display drives

 

[dragonslayer]

I'll buy which ever is best for the price bracket I'm looking in the only time I'd go for a slightly more expensive one over the other is if they had a free game that I intended to buy anyway making it cheaper than the competitors

 

[g67575]

At first glance, Free Sync and G Sync seem like a bit of a gimmick, as they don't increase the refresh rate massively. Free Sync 2 / Free Sync Premium looks good though as that includes at least 120hz in the monitor spec.

You can buy 4k resolution monitors with 120/144 hertz, they just cost a lot (about 3x/4x as much).

The cheapest one I found was the ACER NITRO XV273KP 27" 4K, which costs around £700.

No 240hz at 4k is available yet as far as I know, but who knows if that even matters (does anyone even have a GPU that can run over 120 FPS at 4K?).

The tech seems a bit undeveloped currently, as monitors still don't seem to be supporting 4K at max hertz without DisplayPort, HDMI 2.1 would be better for compatibility, also DisplayPort seems to have more software issues.

EDIT - Eve will be selling HDMI 2.1 4k monitors by the end of the year, that support 144Hz

 

[g67575]

Would anyone be kind enough to let me know of any fixes for MSI Afterburner + overclocking causing black / blank screens after waking my PC from sleep mode?

I have a Radeon R9 390 GPU.

Also, does AMD's software support increasing a GPU's core Voltage with Navi GPUs? I can't do this on my current GPU, so can't overclock at all without Afterburner.

 

[Yaayuh!]

EDIT - Eve will be selling HDMI 2.1 4k monitors by the end of the year, that support 144Hz

Shame it’s only 27” though.