What's the advantage of the NVIDIA cards over the Radeon cards ?

A

adobian

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
274
It seems to me that for the same price you pay for lets say a 1050 ti or 1060ti or 1070ti, you can always find an RX series card that is faster. Is that true ? I wonder why Nividia is normally pricier than AMD Radeon
 
because nvidia have an actually better brand name... in order to AMD keep being competitive it have to offer quite similar performance at cheaper prices. actually to me, nothing else, beside they are more power hungry but that doesn't matter to me, in the past there were things as better Nvidia drivers and better gaming support but AMD have actually improved a lot still not at Nvidia levels but they are actually quite good, sadly AMD only offer mid to low-end range choices which it's the camp where always AMD had better offers.

Other's advantage are more tied to some game dev's and game engines as they tend to favor a lot more Nvidia over AMD, games as WoW and Engines as Unreal Engine play a big role in favor of Nvidia..
 
Algrim said:
AMD's current lineup doesn't include a card to compete with the 1070, 1080, Titan X, or 1080 Ti. Until AMD has a card or two or three to compete in the top tier, your premise is false.
Click to expand...
Actually the furyX is close with the 1070 in a few cases. But over that you are correct.
 
Two Fury X in crossfire will beat two 1070 in SLI in many cases. Crossfire scales better than SLI.

But yes AMD doesn't have an answer to the Nvidia 1080 or 1080ti in single card performance.

For all intensive purposes the Fury X is just a smidge behind the 1070, and more equitable to the 980ti. Until you do two or three way crossfire vs two or three way SLI.
 
Last edited:
JustReason said:
Actually the furyX is close with the 1070 in a few cases. But over that you are correct.
Click to expand...

Not a card you can take seriously anymore, because games are starting to be VRAM-limited on 4GB cards. If that happens, the performance drops well below the 1070.

It wasn't a problem when it was released almost two years ago, but now it's a concern. ESPECIALLY if you go Crossfire and crank the resolution.
 
whateverer said:
Not a card you can take seriously anymore, because games are starting to be VRAM-limited on 4GB cards. If that happens, the performance drops well below the 1070.

It wasn't a problem when it was released almost two years ago, but now it's a concern. ESPECIALLY if you go Crossfire and crank the resolution.
Click to expand...
That was the sentiment with [H] first review and they expected CF to fall flat... but as we saw in their follow-up review it outperformed the 6Gb 980Ti SLI and seemed the 4Gb weren't quite the issue everyone wanted it to be. Not saying you wont need/want more but it isn't really as big an issue at the moment as some want it to be.
 
Archaea said:
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html

Not so much

Here a pair of crossfires Fury X comes out pretty equitable to a pair of 12GB titans in SLI at triple screen 4k gaming. 11520x2160 resolution.

By the time the 4GB HBM RAM limitation is a serious problem - so is the processing speed.
Click to expand...

Battlefield 4 is a game that's already 2 years old when this review took place. It's a video game that could be played at 1080p on 1GB graphics cards, and my GTX 960 2GB coud own it at 1440p.

NOTHING could make the Fury X run out of VRAM when it launched, but we now have games expecting MORE VRAM.

Show me that SAME 4k x 3 stunt on Battlefield 1, and I'll shut up. But I'm sure you can't. That's why I can no-longer recommend such old cards from AMD.


And there's a lot of new games that don't scale well on Fury X, even ignoring VRAM issues.

bf1-benchmark-4k-dx11.png


AMD keeps-pace against the 1060 like they should in a well-optimized title, but the Fury X falls behind the 1070.
 
Last edited:
whateverer said:
Battlefield 4 is a game that's already 2 years old when this review took place. It's a video game that could be played at 1080p on 1GB graphics cards, and my GTX 960 2GB coud own it at 1440p.

NOTHING could make the Fury X run out of VRAM when it launched, but we now have games expecting MORE VRAM.

Show me that SAME 4k x 3 stunt on Battlefield 1, and I'll shut up. But I'm sure you can't. That's why I can no-longer recommend such old cards from AMD.

Here, I'll provide the evidence, from multiplayer benchmarks:

bf1-benchmark-4k-dx11.png


AMD keeps-pace against the 1060 like they should in a well-optimized title, but the Fury X falls behind the 1070.
Click to expand...

You aren't being intellectually honest.
And you're wrong

I suspect you didn't read the link I sent you either.

Minimum frame rate is 2fps difference between 1070 and Fury X on the game benchmark you chose to make your point. The Fury X is 10 FPS faster than the 1060 at minimum. So Fury X is holding up just fine and is clearly more comparable to 1070 than1060.

I'd be willing to wager the Fury X in crossfire is quite competitive to the 1070 in SLI at >=4K resolutions, just as the tweaktown article shows on the older titles. Crossfire scales better than SLI for quite a long time now. Be honest. Had you not read that two year old tweaktown artcle about 12k resolution would you have believed for one second a pair of Fury X could be so equitable to the 12GB Titan X at 11,520x2160?

Of course not.

The 4GB of HBM isn't the limitation you say it is. It simply isn't the same as 4GB GDDR5.

I have three 2k monitors in eyefinity, a pair of Fury X cards and battlefield 1. I can fire it up and tell you FPS, but sadly no 1070 cards in SLI to compare.
 
Last edited:
Nvidia wins out in terms of power, performance and cooling...AMD wins out in terms of price
 
whateverer said:
Battlefield 4 is a game that's already 2 years old when this review took place. It's a video game that could be played at 1080p on 1GB graphics cards, and my GTX 960 2GB coud own it at 1440p.

NOTHING could make the Fury X run out of VRAM when it launched, but we now have games expecting MORE VRAM.

Show me that SAME 4k x 3 stunt on Battlefield 1, and I'll shut up. But I'm sure you can't. That's why I can no-longer recommend such old cards from AMD.


And there's a lot of new games that don't scale well on Fury X, even ignoring VRAM issues.

bf1-benchmark-4k-dx11.png


AMD keeps-pace against the 1060 like they should in a well-optimized title, but the Fury X falls behind the 1070.
Click to expand...
MATH TIME...

Fury to 1070 6.3 fps

fury to 1060 8 fps

So it is closer to the 1070 than the 1060.

Here I used 4k because apparently 4Gb Vram is an issue, or is it? Below at lower resolutions the 1070 was ahead.
upload_2017-3-17_21-42-17.png



Now I was just looking for 2 fairly recent games so that is why I used this one, although looks to be a performing turd.
upload_2017-3-17_21-43-10.png



In DX11 they are very close.

upload_2017-3-17_21-43-21.png


In DX12 not so much.

At any rate I could likely find benches all over the map to prove either side, much like you did to prove your point ie: one solitary graph. However what you should see is that the FuryX is close enough to be considered a competing product with the 1070 being the 480 is the 1060 competitor. And as I stated earlier, above that AMD has nothing.
 
I love how easy it is to use compared to my 290. I can adjust and tweak things for my Korean panel a lot easier, and I actually get rapid driver updates. The 7xxx series was the last series that truly cemented AMD as a true rival, and not the cheap(not in price), hot, busted ass solution.
 
Archaea said:
Two Fury X in crossfire will beat two 1070 in SLI in many cases. Crossfire scales better than SLI.

But yes AMD doesn't have an answer to the Nvidia 1080 or 1080ti in single card performance.

For all intensive purposes the Fury X is just a smidge behind the 1070, and more equitable to the 980ti. Until you do two or three way crossfire vs two or three way SLI.
Click to expand...

That purpose must be super intense unless you mean "for all intents and purposes" :D
 
The Fiji cards do OK using dynamic memory but can have hesitation etc. You just can't go by average frame rates. Still for the most part a Fury X is in the same ballpark as a 1070 and at times can beat it with DX 12 titles. They are virtually irrelevant now since they are hard to buy unless you buy a used one or one that is way overpriced. You have a few Fury's and some Nano's left in stock - that generation is past.
 
"Advantage" is a very loose term here as each side of the camp has their ups, downs and benefits.

I used Nvidia for many years before AMD's price and performance was right where I needed it to be when I was shopping, and they were bringing something I actually cared about to market (Eyefinity).
My 5850 was amazing for what it cost and drove 3 screens very well. My 7970 has been probably the best card I have ever owned. Moderate OC has kept it running strong (1125 / 1400 @ 60 to 70c) for a very long time (cycle wise) without every missing a beat trying to push more recent titles and eye candy.

After that nothing they have produced on the high end has really been worth it for the cost though I have been waiting and watching. The 290 was essentially the same card, the 3xx similar, Fury very expensive (and while good in crossfire I did not want to jump in to to test HBM and I prefer single card solutions), the 480 mid range.

I am switching back to NVidia once my 1080 Ti arrives now simply because they actually have modern products to sell that perform well. If Vega comes along and does well I will gladly come back to AMD once the 1080 Ti has run its course or I sell it.
 
Over the years they have both tended to swing back and forth on who had the best performing video card for the buck. I have used Nvidia cards and AMD/ATI over the years. Had issues with both sides as well, so to me neither one is better than the other when it comes to drivers. Right now Nvidia has the fastest cards and AMD has a good low dollar card for the masses. But for the high end spectrum there is only Nvidia at the moment until Vega comes out. I always buy the card that is best at my budget at the time. I see the days of upgrading the video card so often to be coming to a end except for maybe the 4K people as I still am just fine with my 290x, only a few games can pummel it at 1080p.
 
I had a fury nitro and sold it. It was a solid step up from my RX480s, but it required two 8 pin connectors and i dont like mixing cards in my rigs. I sold my fury for a small profit not including shipping / fees. stick with my 7 rx 480s until vega ships.
 
Last edited:
buttons said:
I had a fury and sold it. It was a solid step up from my RX480s, but it required two 8 pin connectors and i dont like mixing cards in my rigs. I sold my fury for a small profit not including shipping / fees. stick with my 7 rx 480s until vega ships.
Click to expand...
I'm also running RX 480 Crossfire while I wait for Vega. I don't think it will be much longer.
 
adobian said:
It seems to me that for the same price you pay for lets say a 1050 ti or 1060ti or 1070, you can always find an RX series card that is faster. Is that true ? I wonder why Nividia is normally pricier than AMD Radeon
Click to expand...

I fixed that for you. There is no "1070Ti." As others have said, AMD has nothing to compete with the GTX 1080, Titan X, or GTX 1080Ti. The GTX 1070 is generally faster as well. It seems the two are close enough that the R9 Fury X is a reasonable alternative for the right price.

Bandalo said:
Nvidia has a much nicer logo.
Click to expand...

I think so too.

Araxie said:
because nvidia have an actually better brand name... in order to AMD keep being competitive it have to offer quite similar performance at cheaper prices. actually to me, nothing else, beside they are more power hungry but that doesn't matter to me, in the past there were things as better Nvidia drivers and better gaming support but AMD have actually improved a lot still not at Nvidia levels but they are actually quite good, sadly AMD only offer mid to low-end range choices which it's the camp where always AMD had better offers.

Other's advantage are more tied to some game dev's and game engines as they tend to favor a lot more Nvidia over AMD, games as WoW and Engines as Unreal Engine play a big role in favor of Nvidia..
Click to expand...

Brand recognition is one reason why NVIDIA has been more successful than AMD when the two have been more evenly matched. AMD drivers aren't what they used to be. They have been vastly improved over their older efforts.


Algrim said:
AMD's current lineup doesn't include a card to compete with the 1070, 1080, Titan X, or 1080 Ti. Until AMD has a card or two or three to compete in the top tier, your premise is false.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Archaea said:
Two Fury X in crossfire will beat two 1070 in SLI in many cases. Crossfire scales better than SLI.

But yes AMD doesn't have an answer to the Nvidia 1080 or 1080ti in single card performance.

For all intensive purposes the Fury X is just a smidge behind the 1070, and more equitable to the 980ti. Until you do two or three way crossfire vs two or three way SLI.
Click to expand...

Crossfire does scale better than SLI when games can leverage multiGPU technologies at all. That's an unfortunate reality. Ultimately, the high end NVIDIA solutions are still faster. You've got three decisively faster NVIDIA cards and one that's a tiny bit faster. That's four cards above and beyond what AMD has to offer right now.

cybereality said:
With AMD you get a warm fuzzy feeling from supporting the underdog.
Click to expand...

I don't care about that. I try not to personify corporate entities. It leads to emotional decision making. Outside of chassis and peripherals that has little to no value in computer hardware purchase decision making.
 
Last edited:
I hope its here soon. i am going bonkers plus 1080s are getting more and more affordable...
 
Last edited:
Maddness said:
Yep and unless AMD releases more Vega info, more peole who are actually waiting may start to feel the same way.
Click to expand...

AMD Had plenty of time to get some specs and some details out beyond sometime this year. Unfortunately for them after the blah 290, 3xx, Fury and no way for a 480 (good for what it is but no thanks) Nvidia dropped the other card I was waiting for so I bought the 1080 Ti. It should last me a good long time and we'll see what AMD has to offer next time I am in the market. Loved my last two AMD's and I really hope they can get some traction with solid cards again as they and the market needs it.

But just like buying these things, if you wait to long, something else will come along.
 
AMD Pro Duo.

:)
HeavensCloud said:
You still happen to be. Find me an AMD card faster than the 1080Ti while you're at it.
Click to expand...

I say this tongue in cheek so don't get offended, I know it's really 2 cards on the same PCB (two Fury Nanos), but technically the Radeon Pro Duo probably meets your criteria. ;).

$800
https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16814202217




(Couldn't find a comparison of the 1080ti vs pro duo directly, but 1080 is shown in the benchmark above and we know ti variant is 15 to 35% faster generally.)

No way anyone should pick a pro duo over a 1080 ti at this point, but it's there.
 
If you want to bring in cards that AMD marketed strictly as a workstation card, then let's have it compared against the GP-100. (And I'm not being tongue in cheek here...)
 
Can someone explain me how that guy scored one GTX 1080 and one GTX 1070 way before their launch dates? and not only that, the video was published 12 days before the 1080 launch date, and almost one month before the GTX 1070 launch, disabled votes? fake video.. fake numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imre
like this
Archaea said:
AMD Pro Duo.
Click to expand...
Also known as "Fuck me, my eyes hurt from that microstutter"? Because that's what this card was good for. Hell, even your own link with actual crossfired Fury Xs had evidence of that: worse minimums in all but 2 titles.

And excuse me, i have my suspicion about usage of classic clickbait for thumbnails, so that video is marked as fake in my book.
 
Check the AMD processor forums... the big advantage is that on AMD cards the performance is mindblowing compared to nVidia.

A guy swapped out his nvidia for some 480s and his benchmarks were surpassing and/or keeping up neck to neck with a 7700K intel on Nvidia. Thats the big difference riight now as far as Ryzen is concerned if that is what you are running.

If Intel clearly nVidia is sleeping with their CEO or something because the performance is higher.
 
Micro stutter is a reality on Crossfire or SLI, perhaps Vulkan may finally fix that and yes I have used both so that is from experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top