A Survey on Nvidia and ATI Graphics Cards

[DarkOCean]

We usually get inflated prices for NVIDIA cards here in Australia so the choice tends to be AMD most of the time for me.

Example the GTX580 here is currently selling for $540 AUD the lowest whereas 2x 6950's can be bought at $500 AUD lowest. Most of the time it is really a no brainer.

Same thing happens over here but i would't refuse a god offer on nv cards .

 

[the54thvoid]

Do you think that nvidia then achieves better framerate performance by cheating on the picture quality? It wouldn't surprise me if this still goes on.

There's been a debate for quite some time now that AMD has better IQ (Image Quality). To be fair, going from 2 5850's to one 580, I don't get any real difference that i can tell but I certainly don't suffer any fps issues - i definitely had with crossfire 5850's on the very odd occasion. (Fall Out New Vegas was one.)

Though the 6 series are much improved over the 5 series for crossfire. I just don't want bogged down by the chance of one AAA title that doesn't work as well as it ought to in dual card mode (whether it be green or red). If i crossfire or sli again it will be with two top end cards only - that way if drivers haven't been sorted i'll still get high fps with high levels of 'eye candy'.

As for the questions:

1. Which factor do you lean more towards when buying a new graphics card, price or performance?
Not that straightforward. A cheap card wont run fast. You buy what you want to afford.
2. Is buying the latest graphics technology important to you?
Quite. But that's the techy part not wanting to miss out.
3. Do you consider tests and reviews from computer news publications or websites (ex. PCWorld Magazine or Tom's Hardware) when choosing a new graphics card?
Reviews are essential before any tech purchase. Not just from here but many sites - the more you spend, the more sites you should check up on.

 

[Frizz]

Same thing happens over here but i would't refuse a god offer on nv cards .

To be fair I'd have a GTX580 by now if I could have it offered to me around sub $450 AUD, chances of that are slim though.

 

[guitar_man_94]

I voted AMD mainly because of the crap vrms that nVidia is putting on their high end cards. I want good vrms because I overclock and want the card to last a decent amount of time when pushed.

1.Both
2.Yes if the features are worth upgrading to
3.I look at every review I can find

 

[Eric_On_Web]

1. Best ATI onboard graphic because I always go for AMD mobo and since ATI belongs to AMD you know...

2.Kindoff

3. I dont give a damn

 

[qubit]

I must admit I found the same thing when I upgraded from my 9800GT to my current HD5850. All the textures were sharper, much better colour saturation and better contrast definition. This might also, though, because it's a far newer generation card.
I did, however, notice in a few reviews on YouTube, that in tests between the GTX590 & HD6990, the GTX would win some, but appeared to drop frames (which are ignored by progs that count frames) in doing so. Colours also seem to be better on the HD, but it's still a YouTube video, so that can't be overly reliable for showing picture quality.
Seeing this IRL side-by-side would be the only way to check for this for sure.

You know what Jack? This might be a good time to dust off that 2900XT in the cupboard and compare picture quality. Of course, framerate will be much lower, but that's not the point here.

 

[Eric_On_Web]

Then do it jack #2! We are curious

 

[erocker]

Do you think that nvidia then achieves better framerate performance by cheating on the picture quality? It wouldn't surprise me if this still goes on.

How would I know if they deliberately cheat or not? I stated my opinion based off of my experience.

 

[Eric_On_Web]

How would I know if they deliberately cheat or not? I stated my opinion based off of my experience.

My tought as a newb on graphic cards.

Maybe not at slow speed but when the game go faster like car chase and war games i suppose they cut oiff on the quality to achieve better framerates since no one really have the eyes fast enough to see the squarry pixels and parts in the fire action of the game.

My humble opinion

 

[HammerON]

I voted AMD mainly because of the crap vrms that nVidia is putting on their high end cards. I want good vrms because I overclock and want the card to last a decent amount of time when pushed.

1.Both
2.Yes if the features are worth upgrading to
3.I look at every review I can find

In regards to your comment about "crap vrms that nVidia is putting on their high end cards", I will disagree with you as the 2 GTX 580's I have overclock extremely well as did my mid-range GTX 470's.

 

[Dave63]

I voted Nvidia the drivers seem to be more stable.

1. Which factor do you lean more towards when buying a new graphics card, price or performance?
Price is the biggest factor.

2. Is buying the latest graphics technology important to you?
No wait for price drop.

3. Do you consider tests and reviews from computer news publications or websites (ex. PCWorld Magazine or Tom's Hardware) when choosing a new graphics card?
Yes, Is there anyother way to buy tech parts.

 

[Melvis]

I have used both over the past 11yrs, and more so Nvidia until the past few yrs where i have found ATI/AMD to be the better choice in price, performance, Drivers, Design, heat etc. I hated ATI for the most part as there drivers sucked mega ass and Nvidia well it just worked. But ever since Fermi first came on the scene ive disliked Nvidia products since (apart from the 560 Ti) Ive had more trouble with there drivers over ATI/AMD this past few yrs, and there design of there cards i find just not to parr with ATI/AMD's offering in price, performance, drivers, design, heat and so on.

My vote went to ATI/AMD for the moment until Nvidia can catch back up and make a good product in all areas, then i would gladly move to Nvidia again.

 

[Flibolito]

Honestly I think the fermi architecture is the best respectively available from any company. Clock like beasts, stable and play like hell. Over a year ago there was alot to be worried about but it came together quiet well.

 

[adulaamin]

Voted either one

1. price

2. if i can't play my games

3. yes

 

[Spectrum]

I voted that I'd use either one. I've had a 7800gt, a 9600gt, a GTX 285, a GTX 460 768mb and now an EAH6870.
All have worked perfectly... except the 9600 GT... the fan had a habit of cutting out.
1. Performance.
2. Yes it is, as usually, newer technologies mean higher performance.
3. Yes I do, I usually come here and check out the reviews. W1zzard is good.

 

[yogurt_21]

whatever has the best price/performance for my budget at the time is what I buy. I happen to have dual gtx 480's because that's the best solution I could get fro 600$ at the time I bought.


i don't care about heat, noise, power, or space. just the best performance for my budget gets my business.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I chose ATI/AMD.

The truth is, I would accept either of them if the came in at a reasonable price point and had enough juice to cover what I needed.

One of the primary reasons I have leaned towards AMD is drivers (ironic twist). You usually hear people angry about AMD, but my experience is the low mid range Nvidea cards (70 to 120 USD) are not well supported. I never had that issue with AMD. AMD usually tips the scales in price, and recently they have been doing very well on performance.

In short, I would buy a beemer rather than a ferrari. The ferrari might go faster, but speed isn't the only consideration; it makes miserable noise, frying heat, and charges a premium. Go AMD!

1) Price. Performance is nice, but one $700 card can be outperformed to two $250 cards. Why not spend less, have an upgrade path, and still beat out the people who have the "fastest" card on the planet.

2) Nope. Having a proven GPU that is a few months old is no big deal. Even the best of games can run smoothly with slightly older cards. Why pay a price premium for the bleeding edge?

3) I am ambivalent. Some sites use synthetics, which tend not to be accurate reflections of system performance. On the other hand, gaming benchmarks are only useful when that is all you do. Some reviews are worth paying attention to, but the majority have to be sifted for content before they can be trusted.

 

[DannibusX]

Like a Petty Officer on a submarine, I go both ways.

 

[ERazer]

either, both got pros/cons pick ur poison, i go for more bang for my buck and lately its been AMD, its all about almighty wizz review

 

[bostonbuddy]

I went w/ an amd card since the 69xx series scales crazy well in crossfire

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

I have no brand loyalty. The best performance in Frame rate, drivers, efficiency and price are the winning factors for me. Pretty much in that order.

 

[Wile E]

I voted either. Tho currently, I find nVidia's driver to be better than ATI's, so I lean green for this generation. That's from my experience in upgrading from a 4870x2 to a 580GTX.

Tho I'm sure ATI will get back on track and have me going red sometime in the future.

1. Performance is my main factor, but price also plays a part. i usually wait for deals or sales.

2. Not really. I usually wait for things to mature a little. I just upgraded to a DX11 card in the past month or 2.

3. I rely mostly on tpu reviews.

 

[DanTheMan]

1. Which factor do you lean more towards when buying a new graphics card, price or performance?


2. Is buying the latest graphics technology important to you?


3. Do you consider tests and reviews from computer news publications or websites (ex. PCWorld Magazine or Tom's Hardware) when choosing a new graphics card?

I choose AMD for they have always given me the performance/reliability/ and price that I expect.
And to answer your questions:

1.) Price, but it must meet a certain level of performance to be considered.

2.) No, A older generation with a more stable driver with proven performance.

3.) Yes, I normally look at a lot of review sites but when it's time to narrow it down to the final card I base it off of W1zzards reviews.

Build # 2 in two months will have a Sapphire 6950 Flex (I love the reviews of this card) or a ASUS DirectCU II (Both are great cards). And then my final build for this year will be rather a 6990 (if price comes down enough) or (2) 6970's with a Bulldozer 8 core - (Can't wait)

 

[neatfeatguy]

1. Which factor do you lean more towards when buying a new graphics card, price or performance?

2. Is buying the latest graphics technology important to you?

3. Do you consider tests and reviews from computer news publications or websites (ex. PCWorld Magazine or Tom's Hardware) when choosing a new graphics card?

I've only had Nvidia cards, so far at the moment, I tend to stay with Nvidia just out of personal preference.

1) Price and performance factor into the purchase of a new GPU. Only reason I picked up my GTX 280 cards was because the GTX 275/285 cards were still selling for nearly $300 and I was able to get the 280s for $180 a pop, brand new. They gave and still do give, great performance for my needs

2) No, it's not important to me to have the greatest and newest GPU - although I wouldn't mind it if I had the money. I'm usually about 1-2 generations behind in GPU technology when I end up purchasing them.

3) I tend to check the tests/benchmarks and such from a handful of sites before I make a decision when it comes to spending several hundred dollars or more.

My next purchase would probably be 1 or 2 GTX 570s, but that's probably another 8-12 months down the road or I may just wait for the next generation and see what they offer before I venture on with a new GPU(s).

 

[xenocide]

1. I balance them equally. I generally tend to find the best card for a certain price range and go for that regardless of whether it is ATI\AMD or nVidia. ATI\AMD as of recent have been winning the price war, but their drivers leave a lot to be desired. On the opposite end nVidia has released a lot of quality cards, but they tend to be a little marked up below the enthusiast market and their dirty tactics in regards to PhysX really turn me off to them.

2. Kind of an odd question, if you mean having the latest GPU with some of the newer features, then somewhat. I want to have a system that ensures I will be able to grab a new game and run it well. I never really early adopt just for the sake of having that particular feature, since 9/10 times the feature in question isn't implemented universally for several years, and any piece of hardware that adopts it early usually runs it significantly worse.

3. Most definitely. Tom's Hardware has been doing a great job over the years reviewing hardware, and TPU is my new Go-To site. I could never just buy a new piece of computer hardware on a whim, I have to see results before hand.