AMD vs NVIDIA Drivers....FIGHT!

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,510
AMD commissioned QA Consultants to do stability testing on its GPUs and drivers compared to NVIDIA's. AMD video cards in the test included Vega 64, RX 580, and RX560 cards. NVIDIA cards included GTX 1080 Ti, GTX 1060, and GTX 1050. AMD came out ahead of NVIDIA by a 10% margin overall. The full detailed report can be read in this PDF. There are charts that show every failure logged starting on page 6 of the PDF. Let the fanboy arguments begin!

Check out the video.

In May 2018, AMD commissioned QA Consultants to independently evaluate the stability of several of the latest graphics drivers from both AMD and NVIDIA. A pool of 6 AMD and 6 NVIDIA graphics accelerators were subjected to 12 days of 24-hour stress testing using CRASH from Microsoft’s Windows Hardware Lab Kit (HLK). Gaming and Workstation products from both graphics vendors were equally represented. The aggregate of AMD products passed 93% of scheduled tests whereas the aggregate of NVIDIA products passed 82% of scheduled tests (See Figure 1).
 
I never had outright crash problems with AMD, but rather wildly inconsistent performance or visual issues in new titles.

I'm told both these aspects have been improved considerably in recent years, but those were the bugaboos I used to have. Crashes were rare / non-existent.
 
Nvidia has been going down hill for a while now when it came to drivers

The few times this year I updated my drivers for games I came to regret it

First was FarCry 5
Driver optimized for FC5 caused crashes, confirmed by Nvidia

Second was for Battletech, drivers didn't even install
Confirmed by Nvidia as well

And that's just the updates I personally cared about

I'll let other be the canaries from now on
 
I am not sure I 100% buy it, but they have gotten waaaay better than they used to be, and the quicker updates have been nice too.
 
Even included some Workstation Cards - I notice this morning on AMD's website some Vega 64 in stock at $599, pricing is slowly getting closer to where it needs to be vs. performance/quality - Personally I've always been happy with AMD Workstation Card pricing vs. Quadro's.
 
Pardon my skepticism, but this is like expert witnesses in court cases: you can always find one that will testify in favor of your side.
If this study had shown NVidia winning, we never would have heard of it.

Not that I think NVidia drivers are better-- I have no recent experience with AMD drivers, and I haven't been gaming recently either.
 
I find it very interesting that the workstation cards had the higher rate of crashes. While this test may be a marketing "win" for AMD, both vendors should look at this with some concern for the stability of their "professional" products.
 
My GPU drivers can beat up your GPU drivers!
7NLEr7V.gif
 
Excellent having this confirmed! I had my suspicions for a while, just reading about all of the issues Nvidia has been having with their patches actually BREAKING functionality. AMD had a few bad years with drivers, but turned things around...while Nvidia has gotten fat and complacent!
 
Commissioned by AMD eh? I never had a driver issuse with Nvidia. I update every time a new one comes out too.
 
I know this is about windows drivers. Still I wonder how much AMDs open source driver team support has helped their windows side.

AMDs Linux drivers went from.... meh to fantastic in less then a year after they really committed to supporting the open team. Their old closed Linux drivers where rock solid if not super impressive in terms of performance. Their new open source drivers however deliver on both performance and stability.

Good to see AMD has figured out drivers make a GPU. AMD/ATI cards have always been seen as cards that will get better as they age partly because the drivers are always so so day one. Hopefully that has completely changed. That they already have code for their Vega 20 in the Linux kernel is a good sign I would say.
 
i personally think that amd was bad and it has gotten way better, while nvidia was great and has gotten worst...

That's exactly been my experience.

I'm sure Nvidia still puts more resources into their drivers overall, but those resources have become so heavily skewed towards performance that stability has suffered.
 
Need to read that when I get home from work so I can poke the green and red fan boy/girls with a sharp stick :)
 
Still waiting for AMD to release:
A video card that competes with the top Nvidia video card.
A CPU that competes with the top Intel CPU.
 
I know this is about windows drivers. Still I wonder how much AMDs open source driver team support has helped their windows side.

AMDs Linux drivers went from.... meh to fantastic in less then a year after they really committed to supporting the open team. Their old closed Linux drivers where rock solid if not super impressive in terms of performance. Their new open source drivers however deliver on both performance and stability.

Good to see AMD has figured out drivers make a GPU. AMD/ATI cards have always been seen as cards that will get better as they age partly because the drivers are always so so day one. Hopefully that has completely changed. That they already have code for their Vega 20 in the Linux kernel is a good sign I would say.

Their Linux drivers are improving but they still have a little ways too go compared to where Mesa sits. Still nice that they at least try and work with the open source community.
 
The last Nvidia update killed Arma 3 on my machine. Even a roll back would not get it working.
 
AMDs Linux drivers went from.... meh to fantastic in less then a year after they really committed to supporting the open team. Their old closed Linux drivers where rock solid if not super impressive in terms of performance. Their new open source drivers however deliver on both performance and stability.
I have some complaints. Firstly the AMDGPU-PRO driver still has a bug that causes Kodi to pagefault. The open source drivers don't have this problem, so I use them. Also, the open source drivers don't work well with some HDTV's cause they can't read that EDID chip too well, while the AMDGPU-PRO drivers don't have this problem. There's a fix for this, but it should have been fixed years ago. Also, the open source driver for the Radeon HD 5000/6000 cards don't have OpenGL support beyond 3.3 because there's no soft FP64 support.
 
Back when I was using crossfired 2x HD 6950's, I had to configure a hotkey to set my memory and core clock speeds since the driver would automatically downclock my cards when entering 3D applications. The stupid fucking thing would use 3D speeds when browsing, but would switch to a 2D profile automatically when I launched a game. What the shit... I've never had to do anything remotely similar to that with Nvidia. OTOH, I've never seen a BSOD or crash that could be traced back to an AMD driver like I have w Nvidia.
 
So, my take away is that they used one synthetic test configuration to determine stability across a variety of hardware from a few different generations with a variety of drivers. Does anyone know if this is the same method of testing that is involved with whql certification? Regardless, this seems like way too small of a set of information to draw any useful conclusions, considering the large scope of hardware.
 
Last edited:
I see .. a 2 vs 1 battle and AMD still holds its own against nVIdia and Intel .... and only getting better/stronger
 
Yep. Ever hear of the i9 or 1080Ti?

Are you honestly going to counter with the Threadripper and Vega 64?

Yeah, the Threadripper is more powerful than anything Intel offers, which is why they embarrassed themselves with that liquid cooled 28 core failbox. Just because it doesn't perform as well with OLD games doesn't make Intel better. Also, AMD uses solder, not toothpaste (TIM) on their chips, no need to de-lid.

And Vega64 is pretty damn powerful. Especially with games that are developed with it in mind. (it beats the 1080ti on the Battlefield V alpha) DX12 games generally run better on AMD. I will take (and took, as of last week!) a freesync monitor and Vega74 over a 1080ti any day of the week.
 
i personally think that amd was bad and it has gotten way better, while nvidia was great and has gotten worst...
amd was ok and un spectacular then better and better

nvidia was ok then bad then worse now they seem good...
 
As someone who used AMD from 2004-2015.... and has been back with Team Green for the past 3 years:

Overall, both have had their fair share of bad driver-sets....

AMD had that mouse cursor corruption business for the longest time. (happened at complete random and required a reboot)

Nvidia, I haven't had a real issue to speak of....

But that's mostly because after years of AMD shenanigans, I became accustomed to "cherry-picking" driver sets / waiting for forum impressions etc.

Like right now, I'm still on 391.35 and their solid as a rock *shrugs
 
Last edited:
Yep. Ever hear of the i9 or 1080Ti?

Are you honestly going to counter with the Threadripper and Vega 64?


Lol. you said competitive
I'd say that the 2700x competes pretty well with the 8700k.
2700x:
Cheaper
Competitive in gaming (doesn't beat the 8700k on average)
Soldered IHS.

8700k:
more expensive
higher clockspeed (therefore faster in games)
Takes a hit with the Meltdown patches.

probably equal if you factor in price/perf with an edge to the 2700x.

If gaming is all you ever do on your computer, than you'll be fine with a 8700k.
However, lots of people do more than just play games so, yeah a Threadripper would be better overall than your 8700k.
You could say the same thing about the Intel HEDT CPUs.
Gaming? 8700k > Intel HEDT anything.
Everything else? 8700k < HEDT AMD or Intel

Intels i9 stuff is a joke right now unless you delid or have a custom loop.
Intel's going to have a harder time when the 32 core Threadripper is out.
Sure the Intel 7980xe may be marginally faster than the 1950x but at what cost? you could buy 2 1950x's for the price of one 7980xe.

What I like about Ryzen is that I can get the 1700 or 2700 and overclock it to 1800x 2700x all core speeds.
Thats like making a 8600k as fast as a 8700k in everything, but sadly that can never happen due to no hyperthreading on the 8600k.

the word you were probably looking for was "faster in gaming"

Personally I'm on a budget and it was either a i5 8600k or a 1700.
Wasn't really that hard for me to pick since I knew that Intel was 100% guaranteed to make the socket obsolete by the time their next gen CPUs come out and I don't upgrade every year.
The 1700 was cheaper and faster than the 8600k in basically everything that I do except for Quake Live, but I don't need anymore FPS than 144 so.......................

Judging by your sig I'd say that you have the money upgrade to the fastest stuff whenever it comes out regardless of cost, so its Intel for you.
Pretty much everyone else looks at price/perf

Edit: kind of off topic, sorry.
back on topic, I like working with AMD's drivers vastly more than my Nvidia 850m laptop. Opening the panel or changing any setting the program just hangs for 10 sec everytime. AMD's stuff is fast and fluid and I use relive recording all the time. (No experience using Shadowplay)
 
Yeah, the Threadripper is more powerful than anything Intel offers, which is why they embarrassed themselves with that liquid cooled 28 core failbox. Just because it doesn't perform as well with OLD games doesn't make Intel better. Also, AMD uses solder, not toothpaste (TIM) on their chips, no need to de-lid.

And Vega64 is pretty damn powerful. Especially with games that are developed with it in mind. (it beats the 1080ti on the Battlefield V alpha) DX12 games generally run better on AMD. I will take (and took, as of last week!) a freesync monitor and Vega74 over a 1080ti any day of the week.


Actually the threadripper isn't near as powerful as the i9.

And the Vega64 doesn't touch the 1080Ti, let alone the Titan X.
 
I had such bad issues with AMD that I just stopped with their products. I tried some in my kids' PC not long ago and the whole driver setup was foreign at this point b/c I'm just used to 1 thing.
 
Back
Top