Who has the better 'current tech'?

[jamesgalb]

It is quite obvious that NVidia has had the better sales and marketing.... but going on tech alone, who has the 'leg up' going into the next generation?

Essentially, we are looking at Fiji and Tonga vs Maxwell...

Both made big power usage strides and both made big advancements in DX12 related architecture. AMD brought forth HBM technology, while NVidia seems to have edged out a victory in the power/thermal department (both improved).

When isolating the new architectures from the overall success of the new lineups, the 'current generation' looks much more balanced than people would lead you to believe. That said, who would you consider to have the better technology going into the next generation?

An interesting thought, considering how imbalanced the GPU scene appears due to the success of nVidias Maxwell lineup.

 

[AndreRio]

technology:
cpu: amd, gpu: amd

speed (faster):
cpu: intel, gpu: nvidia

 

[doublejack]

Things are muddied on the GPU side. AMD has a legit DX12 implementation and looks to be a little ahead of Nvidia in terms of some bleeding edge tech. However, the fact remains that not only does Nvidia make faster cards, they are more power efficient. One could say that AMD has the edge on tech but is behind on speed.

As far as CPU. sorry but there are exactly zero areas where AMD is ahead of Intel. AMD is woefully behind on speed, and is even further behind on tech.

 

[jamesgalb]

Things are muddied on the GPU side. AMD has a legit DX12 implementation and looks to be a little ahead of Nvidia in terms of some bleeding edge tech. However, the fact remains that not only does Nvidia make faster cards, they are more power efficient. One could say that AMD has the edge on tech but is behind on speed.

As far as CPU. sorry but there are exactly zero areas where AMD is ahead of Intel. AMD is woefully behind on speed, and is even further behind on tech.

A Furxy X is not THAT much slower than a Titan X/980ti...

A Fiji/Tonga are pretty close to Maxwell in terms of power efficiency...

I think the perception that nVidia is drastically ahead of AMD in current tech is pretty blown out of proportion.

That said, AMD has a little more experience with DX12 and HBM going into the next round of tech, which could be advantageous.

 

[Anarchist4000]

A Furxy X is not THAT much slower than a Titan X/980ti...

A Fiji/Tonga are pretty close to Maxwell in terms of power efficiency...

I think the perception that nVidia is drastically ahead of AMD in current tech is pretty blown out of proportion.

That said, AMD has a little more experience with DX12 and HBM going into the next round of tech, which could be advantageous.

I'd agree with most of that. We really need to see more DX12/Vulkan benchmarks to get an idea. A lot of past bottlenecks could be gone, tessellation included. AMDs cards also line up well with the DX12 model so drivers should be on par with if not better than Nvidia's. Difficult to judge power efficiency if the AMD cards weren't able to stretch their legs with DX11.

 

[Nenu]

Tech used is only a determining factor for purchase if the final product is better for your needs.
I could design a new CPU with new tech that others arent using but I can guarantee it wont compete at all.

In other words, dont use the tech used as your reason for purchase.

 

[TheGamerZ]

technology:
cpu: amd, gpu: amd

I'm genuinely curious why you think AMD is ahead in CPU tech. Maybe there's something I don't know about?

 

[DooKey]

"Better tech" isn't worth a crap if it doesn't have better performance than the so called lesser tech. Loser computer hardware company fans harp on "better tech" like it makes a difference in a buying decision.

 

[drescherjm]

technology:
cpu: amd,

I say Bulldozer was a complete failure on the desktop. The concept of taking 125% of the transistors of a Phenom II core to make a 2 core Bulldozer module was not a good idea at all for the desktop (for servers it could have worked). Zen which will replace it will be more like Intel with HT and much wider cores. A single Zen core should have nearly as many transistors as a bulldozer module.

 

[SpongeBob]

AMD is has some great tech but not current. FX is on par with like 2500k using more power and heat. Their APUs are now on par with their own 955's from a few years back. Now that's nothing to sneeze at but holding out might be worth while. I really hope AMD's next gen really shows some gains as I would like one for a server/ steam box.

 

[AndreRio]

"Better tech" isn't worth a crap if it doesn't have better performance than the so called lesser tech. Loser computer hardware company fans harp on "better tech" like it makes a difference in a buying decision.

better tech don't mean nothing I think, is how fast the sucker is that matters imo.

 

[Brackle]

3DFX > all!

 

[Nauseous]

intel/nvidia are better right now imo.

 

[JustReason]

I think what OP was after is not so much about who is better but who brings more advancements and changes to the status quo. Generally it is usually the guy not in first that does this. So AMD does rather fit the bill here. Just think about it for a second. Ramdisk, HBM, HSA, Multi-tasking( based on how AMDs prowess came about back in the day), x86-64, even to a small degree GCN ie: 7970 (one hell of a run), and so on. Nvidia has done a bit with some visuals but usually proprietary,as well as G-sync (though tech Intel and AMD were pushing this long before G-sync/adaptive-sync came into being. Intel is going to be a bit more difficult as most of what they have advantages in is just shear company size and fab process. When one is on top they tend not to advance a great deal away from where they are.

 

[Dayaks]

I would personally go for nVidia. Their tech actually affects my gameplay and that's what I care about when making a decision.

AMD might be better setup for the future, but people have been saying that for years. When the future is here and they have an advantage I'll reassess and maybe I'll favor them. Some techs like HBM/HSA essientially didn't add performance, potentially hurting it in some cases, while increasing cost and supply issues. I am always weary of companies that develop tech without sound reasoning. They should be better setup for next gen HBM you would think.

I treat "future tech" like a bank treats a loan. I don't care if you're going to be doing xx better in a year, come back when you can prove it. People seem to LOVE saying shit like "AMD is going when to be great when..." and is usually followed by disappointment.

 

[TheGamerZ]

better tech don't mean nothing I think, is how fast the sucker is that matters imo.

If speed is that matters, you must be running a 6GHz Pentium 4 right?

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

Well maybe this is one way to say Intel has more technology

List of the top 10 companies to own Patents in the United States

IBM, headquartered in Armonk, New York
Samsung Electronics Co., headquartered in Suwon, Korea
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan
QUALCOMM INC.
GOOGLE, INC.
Toshiba Corporation, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan
Sony Corporation, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan
LG ELECTRONICS INC., headquartered in Seoul, Korea
Intel Corporation, headquartered in Santa Clara, California
Microsoft Corporation, headquartered in Redmond, Washington

Only intel made the list over amd.

I'll admit I'm biased towards intel though. I find that not only intels seems to run faster in just raw horsepower right now, but there are other things that add up to making the total machine run faster seems to be more pushed by intel such as the nvme tech. I'm sure AMD has their equivalent stuff but for the last half decade now it just feels like AMD is just trying to catch up. Having a bunch of technology doesn't mean you're better. It may future proof you, but also may mean that if your current state sucks someone is gonna buy you and now they have the technology.

 

[doublejack]

A Furxy X is not THAT much slower than a Titan X/980ti...

A Fiji/Tonga are pretty close to Maxwell in terms of power efficiency...

I think the perception that nVidia is drastically ahead of AMD in current tech is pretty blown out of proportion.

That said, AMD has a little more experience with DX12 and HBM going into the next round of tech, which could be advantageous.

I'll give you that AMD is at least competitive with Nvidia right now for making the fastest GPUs. That's an improvement over fairly recent history. Nvidia still has a slight edge, though. Also, I did mention that AMD has better DX12 (I'd argue that AMD has implemented some DX12 while Nvidia essentially fakes it entirely). I'm running a geforce 750 right now, and if I had to upgrade to something on the market today I'd probably choose some flavor of R9. That would be my last AMD/ATI card since an x800 GTO2, so it has been a while since I have viewed team red as a legit option.

AMD is has some great tech but not current. FX is on par with like 2500k using more power and heat. Their APUs are now on par with their own 955's from a few years back. Now that's nothing to sneeze at but holding out might be worth while. I really hope AMD's next gen really shows some gains as I would like one for a server/ steam box.

For linux / Steam OS, you would do best to avoid AMD and the APU platform. The drivers are seriously lacking. I own an A10-7850k and was toying with using that to replace my Pentium G3258 / integrated Intel HD graphics setup in my htpc. The gpu performance difference was underwhelming. I have opted to keep the Intel setup because it does several things much faster than the APU, and I still have the option of a half height 750 Ti if I want to improve the gaming performance.

better tech don't mean nothing I think, is how fast the sucker is that matters imo.

Says the guy who, if your sig is accurate, is running an i7.

 

[Armisael]

If speed is that matters, you must be running a 6GHz Pentium 4 right?

Clockspeed is not the only metric for how fast a processor is (and isn't even a particularly useful one, as you know full well).

 

[Aireoth]

From my readings, AMD has the higher tech GPU's but that has not as of yet translated into real world performance. Intel has the better tech CPU's by a long shot.

I don't agree with high-tech being better, its a double edge sword being an early adopter, as for example when DX12 hits the mainstream this year, there will be more and more offerings for DX12 gpu's. Your Fury that you spent a premium on can potentially be outdated, and that fury is currently under performing.

Best thing to do is buy tech appropriate, budget for a new part so you can buy it when the tech level changes, and enjoy the best experience you can get today with your $$$.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I say Bulldozer was a complete failure on the desktop. The concept of taking 125% of the transistors of a Phenom II core to make a 2 core Bulldozer module was not a good idea at all for the desktop (for servers it could have worked). Zen which will replace it will be more like Intel with HT and much wider cores. A single Zen core should have nearly as many transistors as a bulldozer module.

I think they recognized that they were slipping and decided that they couldn't compete with Intel in raw IPC, so they took a gamble and went for 'good enough' IPC with high core counts, hoping software would evolve in that direction. The FX chips were competitive with i7's in truly multithreaded workloads for half the price. Obviously in retrospect they probably should have stuck with a more orthodox design.

The FX chips and their derivatives really aren't as bad as some people make them out to be. I can't tell the difference between my old FX 8320 and my current i7 4930k setup in most situations. I also have a near-silent Kabini system that works great for old games, watching blu-ray rips, surfing, and running some console emulators. I had an i3 machine previously but the iGPU was awful. Movies looked terrible even with all their color/sharpness/skin tone 'enhancements' turned off. The AM1 chip obviously isn't anywhere near as powerful, but movies look great and I can play all my older games without having to fire up my behemoth gaming rig. It only pulls 15-40w on my UPS.

 

[JustReason]

Actually the whole problem with Bulldozer wasn't the design but the eventual clock. It was originally targeted to higher clock rates in the area of 6Ghz or more. This is easy to see when you notice how much of the design was relaxed to allow for high clocks. Unfortunately GloFo couldn't reach that target. What is unsure is whether GloFo was misleading or AMD had targets too high aka: dreaming. Had it worked we might have had a different landscape.

 

[iRUSH]

Actually the whole problem with Bulldozer wasn't the design but the eventual clock. It was originally targeted to higher clock rates in the area of 6Ghz or more. This is easy to see when you notice how much of the design was relaxed to allow for high clocks. Unfortunately GloFo couldn't reach that target. What is unsure is whether GloFo was misleading or AMD had targets too high aka: dreaming. Had it worked we might have had a different landscape.

What would power consumption look like at 6ghz?? Was it ultimately suppose to be more efficient then?

 

[JustReason]

What would power consumption look like at 6ghz?? Was it ultimately suppose to be more efficient then?

to tell you the truth I don't think I have ever seen mention of that part. But I guess it would be the same or just higher as it is now. I doubt they would target 300 watt out of the box.

 

[noko]

Well at times it doesn't matter how many stickers and how shinny the paint job is or chrome mags in a race. It is a matter of crossing the finish line first. Let see, popular games out that push the hardware, (ignore all the slides of how great the product is and utopia future looking sale pitches) and see who does it better. Sounds more like HardOCP philosophy on looking at current results in what you can experience today.

 

[ChosenUno]

I don't understand how when AMD is losing in every single metric except maybe price/perf and they have the better tech?

Better in what metric?

 

[noko]

I don't understand how when AMD is losing in every single metric except maybe price/perf and they have the better tech?

Better in what metric?

Becomes a matter of view (OPINION) I would say. Thread is very vague any ways. Losing in every single metric (hyperbola)? Here is one, performance per size metric ( I know, no one looks at this one - right?) AMD Nano probably creams this one to a large extent. How about CPU/GPU for console metric - hmmm AMD wins here too. There are and could be thousands and thousands of ways to look at things.

 

[ChosenUno]

Becomes a matter of view (OPINION) I would say. Thread is very vague any ways. Losing in every single metric (hyperbola)? Here is one, performance per size metric ( I know, no one looks at this one - right?) AMD Nano probably creams this one to a large extent. How about CPU/GPU for console metric - hmmm AMD wins here too. There are and could be thousands and thousands of ways to look at things.

Well, if nVidia really cared about Nano's market they'd have released a product there. Didn't you see they managed to cram a full 980 into a laptop? What's that you're talking about performance/size?

CPU/GPU for console metric - what's that metric measuring? Are you sure you're not confusing metric with statistics?

 

[Anarchist4000]

'Better' can be a bit misleading. Both have good tech, but they're designed to do different things. Simply put, Nvidia designed specifically for DX11. AMD designed GCN around the Mantle model, which is like DX12/Vulkan. DX12/Vulkan aren't really on PC yet and keep getting delayed. We should have seen more actual DX12 games by now and even Vulkan was ready in November but now doing legal review or something. Consoles have effectively been using them through their low level APIs for a while. So devs shouldn't be tripping over the new API. The performance differences come from this split. AMD has a lot of hardware that is largely useless because of the limits of DX11. Nvidia on the other hand doesn't have some of the capabilities required to really take advantage of DX12/Vulkan. So the advantage most are familiar with Nvidia having with DX11 will probably flip with DX12/Vulkan. At least until new hardware arrives. So if the question was who has the better "current tech" then Nvidia since DX12/Vulkan are struggling to get going. If we had DX12/Vulkan games I'd say AMD.

 

[JustReason]

Well, if nVidia really cared about Nano's market they'd have released a product there. Didn't you see they managed to cram a full 980 into a laptop? What's that you're talking about performance/size?

CPU/GPU for console metric - what's that metric measuring? Are you sure you're not confusing metric with statistics?

First , that has to be the worst rationale ever, "if they cared". Doesn't matter if they do or not, the point of Nano having the highest power to performance ratio is undeniable.

CPU/GPU consoles: consider that steam machines are in competition with consoles and for the most part they are Intel/Nvidia consoles. In the sales Metric they are very very far behind to the point of being non-existent.

 

[Dayaks]

Well, if nVidia really cared about Nano's market they'd have released a product there. Didn't you see they managed to cram a full 980 into a laptop? What's that you're talking about performance/size?

CPU/GPU for console metric - what's that metric measuring? Are you sure you're not confusing metric with statistics?

An OC'd 970 mini is within 20% of a Nano where the Nano costs around 80% more? A 970 is only 18% slower than a 980, about the same speed as a 290x. That's a pretty fast card at a good price they are offering.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

'Better' can be a bit misleading. Both have good tech, but they're designed to do different things. Simply put, Nvidia designed specifically for DX11. AMD designed GCN around the Mantle model, which is like DX12/Vulkan. DX12/Vulkan aren't really on PC yet and keep getting delayed. We should have seen more actual DX12 games by now and even Vulkan was ready in November but now doing legal review or something. Consoles have effectively been using them through their low level APIs for a while. So devs shouldn't be tripping over the new API. The performance differences come from this split. AMD has a lot of hardware that is largely useless because of the limits of DX11. Nvidia on the other hand doesn't have some of the capabilities required to really take advantage of DX12/Vulkan. So the advantage most are familiar with Nvidia having with DX11 will probably flip with DX12/Vulkan. At least until new hardware arrives. So if the question was who has the better "current tech" then Nvidia since DX12/Vulkan are struggling to get going. If we had DX12/Vulkan games I'd say AMD.

This is my only issue with the AMD side of things. You aren't spouting it much but one of the biggest things I always see on the web is the "Yeah well when DX12 comes out AMD will do better.... **crickets**". We've heard it so many times but from what I've seen is with DX12 AMD catches up, and sometimes doesn't get better. People talk about this future speculation, but unfortunately the future can be tomorrow or it could be delayed another 2 years and the now is Nvidia showing AMD to the ground and destroying them performance/power and sometimes cost wise.

 

[Anarchist4000]

This is my only issue with the AMD side of things. You aren't spouting it much but one of the biggest things I always see on the web is the "Yeah well when DX12 comes out AMD will do better.... **crickets**". We've heard it so many times but from what I've seen is with DX12 AMD catches up, and sometimes doesn't get better. People talk about this future speculation, but unfortunately the future can be tomorrow or it could be delayed another 2 years and the now is Nvidia showing AMD to the ground and destroying them performance/power and sometimes cost wise.

If DX12/Vulkan were out now AMD would be doing better, likely even leading by a significant margin on those titles. I don't really see that as a fanboy argument, just a logical assumption. I'm sure Microsoft would love another reason to force upgrades to Win10. AMD shouldn't have any issues as they've been doing it on consoles for years now. That leaves Nvidia holding things up, and it makes a lot of sense. If old hardware doesn't work well, people have to upgrade and they don't have a good option yet. Nvidia is doing well with sales now, so why move ahead when you may lose that lead? If they perform well or are roughly even, there would be little reason for a delay. I see no other reason someone would hold up both DX12 and Vulkan. Who else would benefit from that? My guess is that a year from now a benchmark on current hardware will be telling, but who looks at new benchmarks from last years hardware?

 

[ChosenUno]

First , that has to be the worst rationale ever, "if they cared". Doesn't matter if they do or not, the point of Nano having the highest power to performance ratio is undeniable.

CPU/GPU consoles: consider that steam machines are in competition with consoles and for the most part they are Intel/Nvidia consoles. In the sales Metric they are very very far behind to the point of being non-existent.

Just like how AMD has a huge presence in the phone/tablet space, right? What's that? They don't compete in that market? Exactly. Nvidia doesn't want to enter that slice of the market, therefore they don't release a product specifically for it. How's that hard to understand?

You think Nvidia is unable to release a comparable SKU to the Nano, when the Fury X have worse perf/watt ratio compared to the 980Ti even though the Fury X is watercooled?

Ok. How about this metric: Smartphone/tablet sales. Nvidia is infinitely better at this metric compared to AMD. In the sales metric AMD is literally non-existent.

 

[JustReason]

Just like how AMD has a huge presence in the phone/tablet space, right? What's that? They don't compete in that market? Exactly. Nvidia doesn't want to enter that slice of the market, therefore they don't release a product specifically for it. How's that hard to understand?

You think Nvidia is unable to release a comparable SKU to the Nano, when the Fury X have worse perf/watt ratio compared to the 980Ti even though the Fury X is watercooled?

Ok. How about this metric: Smartphone/tablet sales. Nvidia is infinitely better at this metric compared to AMD. In the sales metric AMD is literally non-existent.

Then all you prove is you are a fool. You argue against the metric then use the same metric for your justification. It matters not whether Nvidia can or cant make a Nano competitor as they have none. Just like your DX12 argument above, Nvidias Nano competitor is nonexistent. Besides the Nano is quite impressive on its own. You are just hating to hate as you have no real substance with which to base your hate.

 

[ChosenUno]

Then all you prove is you are a fool. You argue against the metric then use the same metric for your justification. It matters not whether Nvidia can or cant make a Nano competitor as they have none. Just like your DX12 argument above, Nvidias Nano competitor is nonexistent. Besides the Nano is quite impressive on its own. You are just hating to hate as you have no real substance with which to base your hate.

First of all, I did not bring in the console market argument. I just demonstrated how ridiculous it is.

As for the Nano, you're entitled to your opinions and me to mine. I don't think it's impressive at all, given how its bigger brothers perform against the competition. Given some logic which apparently you seem to lack, I can deduce the following:

A. I can see that Fury X, which is watercooled and has a 300W TDP when overclocked, is still barely on par with a stock clocked GTX 980Ti, which has a TDP of 250W.
B. Now if you reduce a Fury X's TDP to 175W, change the water cooler to a short air cooler, you get a Nano.
C. Since the Fury X had a bigger original TDP AND the advantage of water cooling, it's logical to believe that a GTX 980Ti undergoing A and B like the Fury X will have a higher performance at the same TDP than the Nano.

Follow me? Or is that too hard to understand?

 

[thedocta45]

First of all, I did not bring in the console market argument. I just demonstrated how ridiculous it is.

As for the Nano, you're entitled to your opinions and me to mine. I don't think it's impressive at all, given how its bigger brothers perform against the competition. Given some logic which apparently you seem to lack, I can deduce the following:

A. I can see that Fury X, which is watercooled and has a 300W TDP when overclocked, is still barely on par with a stock clocked GTX 980Ti, which has a TDP of 250W.
B. Now if you reduce a Fury X's TDP to 175W, change the water cooler to a short air cooler, you get a Nano.
C. Since the Fury X had a bigger original TDP AND the advantage of water cooling, it's logical to believe that a GTX 980Ti undergoing A and B like the Fury X will have a higher performance at the same TDP than the Nano.

Follow me? Or is that too hard to understand?

So what your getting at is if Nvidia cared to compete in the sff market they could easily trump AMD just like they have in every other market segment that they compete in?

One at that point would have to surmise that Nvidia is ahead in both performance and technology.

 

[JustReason]

First of all, I did not bring in the console market argument. I just demonstrated how ridiculous it is.

As for the Nano, you're entitled to your opinions and me to mine. I don't think it's impressive at all, given how its bigger brothers perform against the competition. Given some logic which apparently you seem to lack, I can deduce the following:

A. I can see that Fury X, which is watercooled and has a 300W TDP when overclocked, is still barely on par with a stock clocked GTX 980Ti, which has a TDP of 250W.
B. Now if you reduce a Fury X's TDP to 175W, change the water cooler to a short air cooler, you get a Nano.
C. Since the Fury X had a bigger original TDP AND the advantage of water cooling, it's logical to believe that a GTX 980Ti undergoing A and B like the Fury X will have a higher performance at the same TDP than the Nano.

Follow me? Or is that too hard to understand?

No it seems you cant be bothered with anything other than FPS metrics. You have no vision. Look at it this way: HBM adds so much to the possibilities. The Nano is by far without a doubt the Performance to mm^2 leader and by a mile. Given HBM allows for far smaller packages this also means having an APU laptop where nearly everything other than connections are on the package. There is a lot about the Nano that is impressive to reasonable people.

And you have yet to acknowledge the facts: For that size there is nothing from anyone that can beat or match it.

 

[razor1]

No it seems you cant be bothered with anything other than FPS metrics. You have no vision. Look at it this way: HBM adds so much to the possibilities. The Nano is by far without a doubt the Performance to mm^2 leader and by a mile. Given HBM allows for far smaller packages this also means having an APU laptop where nearly everything other than connections are on the package. There is a lot about the Nano that is impressive to reasonable people.

And you have yet to acknowledge the facts: For that size there is nothing from anyone that can beat or match it.

HBM doesn't allow for smaller packages, it allows for smaller die sizes, a package is chip and its supporting rim, the package size actually is bigger because you have to add in the interposer and the memory with the GPU *HBM, with other GDDR memory GDDR isn't part of the package nor is there an interposer.

Performance/mm2 gtx 980 still has an advantage, if we are talking about GPU only. Fiji's die size is ~570mm2 and the dies size of the ~500nm2 while the performance difference of these two GPU's are 10% difference in favor of Nano.

By Package I think you mean card size...

Which yes it does allow smaller card size, but makes no difference, when its cost was $650, its better now after the price cuts but I think its a bit too late for the price cuts, expect a write off at the end of Q2 to add to their quarterly balance sheets.

Any case better tech, both companies have good cards, but nV's came out first, grabbed the marketshare, and AMD came out late and are power hunger, but they have new features like HBM, but HBM by itself means nothing when you can't get the performance needed to remain competitive, at a relatively similar power envelope without using exotic cooling.

 

[JustReason]

HBM doesn't allow for smaller packages, it allows for smaller die sizes, a package is chip and its supporting rim, the package size actually is bigger because you have to add in the interposer and the memory with the GPU *HBM, with other GDDR memory GDDR isn't part of the package nor is there an interposer.

Performance/mm2 gtx 980 still has an advantage, if we are talking about GPU only. Fiji's die size is ~570mm2 and the dies size of the ~500nm2 while the performance difference of these two GPU's are 10% difference in favor of Nano.

By Package I think you mean card size...

Which yes it does allow smaller card size, but makes no difference, when its cost was $650, its better now after the price cuts but I think its a bit too late for the price cuts, expect a write off at the end of Q2 to add to their quarterly balance sheets.

Any case better tech, both companies have good cards, but nV's came out first, grabbed the marketshare, and AMD came out late and are power hunger, but they have new features like HBM, but HBM by itself means nothing when you can't get the performance needed to remain competitive, at a relatively similar power envelope without using exotic cooling.

you seriously have to stop taking everything so literal. I mean package as in CPU/GPU-Ram-NB-SB. Think of a laptop MoBo it can now be quite a bit smaller, talking about 14nm not the old 28nm- 14nm adds a great deal of possibilities.

Besides the only metric most of you are speaking of is FPS. Honestly it doesn't matter a great deal who has what or does what. But what I look at is the possibility going forward. AMD has proven longer legs by a huge margin which could arguably be considered the better tech, especially for the lions share of owners whereas most don't upgrade at 6 month intervals. It also could be argued that the games themselves influence this perception and negate any real facts. Consider GW and how it will ALWAYS lend itself to Nvidia hardware, this will skew the end result and lead to a false positive in this argument.

But again all this is moot when the great deal of you refrain from being reasonable and looking at it from all perspectives.