As far as NVIDIA would examples be like Mafia II, or more recently Watch_Dogs?
Comment has been collapsed.
I paid quite a bit of money for my Nvidia GTX 770 and Watch_Dogs runs like garbage. A lot of games advertise a specific partner for graphics technology but it really just comes down to whether their developers created a well optimised game.
Don't be too influenced by what games are best played with which cards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch Dogs requires an obscene amount of vram. I assume your 770 only has 2gb? Turn down a few settings and/or remove anti-aliasing.
Some people would say cards with 4gb like the rog 760 are just a gimmick used to trick consumers since running most any game at 1920x1080 wont use all that memory. I assure you though, Watch Dogs won't be the last game to require such a large frame buffer. Time to upgrade to a card with more vram or start running sli/xfire.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes it's only 2GB of VRAM, but the developers should have considered that most people won't have 3 or 4GB. That card wasn't cheap and was brand new when I bought it!
Frame rate is all over the place. There are moments when it hits rock bottom, like less than 10 frames. I can tolerate no anti-aliasing, but I'm not willing to play the game on lower specs than what I've paid for (my PC was not cheap :x). Then there's the graphical glitches with the shadows and the shoddy mouse movement. Was extremely frustrating.
This is the first game I've played with my current rig that gives me hell. I'm just pissed that after all the money I've spent, I can't even play the game at an acceptable standard, let alone play it at the standard I should be playing it at.
Definitely the last Ubisoft game I ever pre-order.
(sorry for the rant!)
Comment has been collapsed.
Nvidia and AMD do not run certain"genres better. There's not possible way of doing that.
If a game runs better on an Nvidia or and AMD card it's because
Just go for whatever is best in your price range.
Comment has been collapsed.
ATIs graphic cards are monstruous, but their drivers just suck. NVidia cards are good enough, and their drivers are awesome. I would go for an ATI if it is only for gaming, and for an Nvidia if you use your graphic card for other things too (such as CG). Anyways, that's what i would do, but it is your money, and i'm just some random guy on the internet, so you have the final word.
Comment has been collapsed.
Computer Graphics, or Computer Generated, the one you like best. Go to http://www.cgsociety.org/ to see what a good piece of software and a skilled user can achieve with some time and a decent graphic card (or even none, but of course, having a good gpu will save you a LOT of rendering time).
Comment has been collapsed.
This is terrible advice imo.
One: The driver issue idea has always been largely non-existent. You know how there are vocal minority detractors for EVERYTHING out there that make it look like huge populations hate/have issues with/etc something? Bingo. I've been using both ATI cards and nvidia cards off and on for 15-ish years (dating back to a Riva TNT 2 iirc), and never had any more problems with driver from AMD than nvidia. Recently nvidia drivers have been touted as sucking far more often. So take all that crap with a grain of salt.
Two: Suggesting the AMD card for gaming, and nvidia for doing other things is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of what's appropriate. Nvidia often has equal or slightly higher benchmarks in gaming, but it's literally EVERYTHING ELSE that AMD cards destroy them at. They actually have multiprocessing capabilities on the high end AMD cards, to they can take over some of the otherwise CPU specific rendering and encoding tasks, which nvidia cannot. There are other strong points as well which have always enabled AMD/ATI cards to destroy nvidia cards at things like cryptocurrency mining.
So... tl;dr - The reality is this: Drivers are about equal. So, AMD for anything mid-range, if you want better Price:Performance, if you want to have a card that can multitask and do things other than gaming better, or if you want to crypto-mine. Nvidia if you really just have to pay obscene amounts to get slightly better performance, but exclusive to gaming tasks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey boy, calm down, i just exposed my point of view, and even told you all that i'm just a random guy on the internet. I have two high gamma PCs here at home, and i like doing CG (Computer generated, or computer graphics, the one you prefer). One of them, has a Titan GTX while the other has a Radeon R9 270x. Guess what? In mid complexity scenes, i saved like 1 hour of render time with my NVidia card. This is my benchmark, and i'm well sure that both graphic cards have a really nice performance, but i found out that my Radeon works better for gaming than it does for CG. So, please, be gentle the next time you reply a comment. And about the drivers... Really? Non-existent? I can find plenty of forums where this issue is still in discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
A) There's nothing there to imply I'm not calm.
B) You're comparing a $1000 GPU to a $190 GPU. Of course the Titan does better. That's a ridiculous comparison. The Titan isn't even particularly designed for games, so even a GTX 780 out benchmarks one at gaming, thus the 270x should also.
C) What part of vocal minority making things appear to be a bigger issue did I make unclear, as you clearly missed that whole point. There were years of people making a big fuss about it, but it was only a minority of the population. It became meme'd more than every being actually true. I've had just as many, and just as significant driver issues with nvidia cards. The argument is largely fanboyisms and illogical brand loyalties, which are foolish imo. Both companies make good cards, it just depends on what you're intending to do. The driver issues being more prevalent to one or the other is largely just a fallacy made to seem larger via repetition. Finding mention of it on boards is part of that repetition, and there are ALWAYS driver issues for some people, with any brand, and any type of driver. So there will always be ongoing discussion of issues. If there were no issues at all with drivers, then driver updates wouldn't be needed.
Comment has been collapsed.
2014
still thinks amd drivers are bad...
dude, since amd bought ati, thare have not been the problems every one talks about.
switches from nvidia to amd and i never looked back.
better cards, lower price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nvidia has PhysX and usually has better drivers, AMD gives you good value and much better bang for your buck. It has nothing to do with genre's it just simply how powerful the card is and whether the game is optimized for amd or nvidia. I currently have a Radeon HD 7950 3GB but will be buying a Radeon R9 290 Windforce at the end of this year, it goes toe to toe with a GTX 780ti for a fraction of the price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much same difference. NVIDIA cards make use of PhysX, AMD cards will use Mantle though which might possibly make a difference in the future. Just get something that fits your the rest of your rig and has good price/power/power-consumption ratio.
Comment has been collapsed.
I recommend you a Nvidia Geforce GTX 760- well in price for a 950$ PC
Comment has been collapsed.
In general:
AMD the driver is a bullshit and you need more "power" to do the same, and their cards are hotter cards than nvidia, and there aren't many games optimitzed for AMD cards
NVIDIA the drivers are frequently updated and are well optimized and if you want to record you have the shadowplay and you have the pishyx tecnologi that is just amazing,a lot of games are optimized for NVIDIA cards
And for 950$ PC i recomend you a NVIDIA GTX 760 (Not the referenc one... maybe the MSI or the WINFORCE (don't be scammed for the winforce 3 fans (it have the same temps than the MSI due to the het pipes)))
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the last place you will want opinions on AMD vs Nvidia. Go look for the statistics on Google and you will see it all wires down to what you plan on doing with it. Both company's cards are capable of running any game, but there are different features you get with them. AMD usually has more vram and higher resolution stability over Nvidia. Nvidia is more stable with overclocking, mobile streaming capabilities, and better 3D capabilities. In the end you basically get what you pay for.
Comment has been collapsed.
nope, but they handle games diferently. AMD cards ussually come with more VRAM over nVidia, and are stable at high resolutions, but for the price of stability, their drivers sometimes go rogue...; nVidia cards support overclocking and Cross-fire if you consider using multiple screens, but a single card won't handle 2 screens at the same time so good because of lower VRAM pool. TL;DR: AMD: Stable at high resolutions with plenty of memory; nVidia: Powerfull GPU, best 3D-rendering but consider cross-fire for extra VRAM
Comment has been collapsed.
Uh no AMD can overclock too and even better by a bit. But the card has a lot of heat issues. Also, nVidia does not support CROSSFIRE they support SLI.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had 2 nvidia cards, both died on me. My AMD card is still alive and well, kicking, for the ~4th year now - my (in it's time) mid-end HD5750 still runs pretty much anything (well, probably not watchdogs). Planning to upgrade to R9 270x or 280x in the winter. Also, AMD cards are integrated into a lot of stuff, they have really good tech and you'll see them in a lot of devices in the future. Kinda affordable too. Haven't heard same news about nVidia, but hey, might be just the lack of news I read.
Comment has been collapsed.
dude you don't know how pick hardware why in world did pick and old date AMD 760G motherboard chipset that wasn't made for AMD FX CPU best get at least a 970 or 990FX for that CPU and spend a ex $10 get 600 watt model and you don't need 16GB and best to go for is G.Skill Ripjaws Series 1866MHz
Comment has been collapsed.
Useful topic. Thanks for all the replies, they helped me too.
I'm looking for a similar rig. It should be optimised for gamedevelopment and Unity specifically, UDK/UE4 too.
I'm a programmer so I won't have to render too much. And if I do, it won't be anything detailed.
I'm looking at the Radeon R9 270X. Any comments about that?
I think i'm going for an Intel I7 4790 as cpu but those 8-core AMD cpus looks pretty fancy too. Would that benefit me a lot as a programmer or is that only useful as artist? recommendations of other parts are always welcome too :D
Comment has been collapsed.
11 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by Mohamed74
47,140 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by JMM72
8 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by szacsoka
0 Comments - Created 2 hours ago by pb1
16,403 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MLD
31 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by NoctuaVentus
20 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
471 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Shanti
32 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Shanti
286 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Arthur13
58 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by BlackbeardXIII
9,464 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by TTRM
42 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by ToatsMcGoats
24 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by Revadike
I am in the process of building a gaming PC tank, I have save up about $950 and am selecting all my parts. I am selecting my graphics card right now, I heard from friend, YouTube, Forums, ect. that AMD and NVIDIA are very close in specs but each one has thier own "niche" in gaming- each one runs specific types/genres of games better.
Is that true? If it is what genre does AMD run better and what genre does NVIDIA run better. TY guys :).
Comment has been collapsed.