Support NeoGAF

[KDR_11k]

Seems like a lot of people got burnt by ATi/AMD over the years and have since turned into Nvidia-only users. I'm among them.

I know a monopoly is bad but when one company keeps fucking up and the other one doesn't it's no surprise that things will get one-sided. What we need isn't pity purchases but more companies in the market and that's rather difficult with a product that's as complex and research intensive as these cards. I expect the console contracts to keep AMD alive even if it loses hard to Nvidia on the GPU market.

Though I also seem to remember worries about Nvidia's survival in the past due to Intel being "good enough" for most and Nvidia not having a fallback market.

 

[Renekton]

I disagree. AMD's mind-numbingly stupid strategy of releasing drivers (and Crossfire profiles) every 3-4 months is probably up there in the list of reasons why people defect to team green.

You want them to bloat up the driver codebase by adding an exception for each new AAA title?

Why not just have a long stable version where game developers can target for their development?

 

[Smokey]

As a high end GPU user I've always bought NVIDIA and don't plan to change that any time soon. I like their ecosystem better. Plus bonuses like Andy's GPU Performance Guide's from Nvidia are top notch.

 

[Momentary]

You want them to bloat up the driver codebase by adding an exception for each new AAA title?

If by bloat the driver codebase you mean make my game run smooth on release, then yes.

 

[Kelli Lemondrop]

Seems like a lot of people got burnt by ATi/AMD over the years and have since turned into Nvidia-only users. I'm among them.

I know a monopoly is bad but when one company keeps fucking up and the other one doesn't it's no surprise that things will get one-sided. What we need isn't pity purchases but more companies in the market and that's rather difficult with a product that's as complex and research intensive as these cards. I expect the console contracts to keep AMD alive even if it loses hard to Nvidia on the GPU market.

Though I also seem to remember worries about Nvidia's survival in the past due to Intel being "good enough" for most and Nvidia not having a fallback market.

you are convienently leaving out the fact that nvidia fucked up big time with the GTX 970, and deliberately lied to everyone about it for months until they got caught. that's far, far worse than anything AMD has done with it's gpus thank you very much. and you are also forgetting about the geforce FX series, it wasn't even properly shader model 2.0 compatible, it was a complete and utter disaster far worse than anything AMD has released since the old 9700 pro days. Nvidia are not some bastion of goodness that never makes mistakes here.

 

[Renekton]

If by bloat the driver codebase you mean make my game run smooth on release, then yes.

Yes, a non-holistic means to a short-sighted end.

 

[SMattera]

I've gone back and forth over the years.

My most recent AMD card I purchased in 2012. It turned into a nightmare. I returned it, but when the replacement had the same issue, I spent days going back and forth with HIS support. Ultimately fixed it by tweaking some driver setting.

I'd rather just pay the extra $50-100 if it means no headaches. Also, I think at this point, Nvidia is offering the more compelling perks with G-Sync and in-home streaming.

I never used to care about GPU temps, but I do a lot of my PC gaming in the living room now. Cool and quiet cards are far more ideal for HTPC setups, and Nvidia has the clear edge there.

 

[xenist]

Even when the hardware they have is competitive (and it often is) AMD offers a completely inferior user experience. Whether you use Nvidia's features like Grid, Shadowplay and such them being there show a level of constant involvement on their part. AMD on the other hand is a damn wasteland on the software part. It feels like they spend more time talking about how they plan to make their software competitive than working on it.

 

[reckless]

That's sad AMD (ATI) is usually better price/performance wise, I would be using an AMD card now if it wasn't for bitcoin miners driving up the prices.

I really hope they make a comeback I'm tired of NVIDIA and their "mid range" graphics cards being $400-500.

 

[LumpOfCole]

Nvidia can run their company in questionable ways sometimes but they make really good cards, some really good accessories (like the under-appreciated Shield Portable), and you can count on timely driver releases for just about every big title.

3D Vision support is waning unfortunately, and that 970 kerfuffle was embarrassing, and the Shield Console looks like a waste of time in a world where the Shield Portable exists for the same price. But Nvidia has it where it counts and they'll have my business as long as they keep putting out great cards.

 

[Kelli Lemondrop]

I've gone back and forth over the years.

My most recent AMD card I purchased in 2012. It turned into a nightmare. I returned it, but when the replacement had the same issue, I spent days going back and forth with HIS support. Ultimately fixed it by tweaking some driver setting.

I'd rather just pay the extra $50-100 if it means no headaches. Also, I think at this point, Nvidia is offering the more compelling perks with G-Sync and in-home streaming.

I never used to care about GPU temps, but I do a lot of my PC gaming in the living room now. Cool and quiet cards are far more ideal for HTPC setups, and Nvidia has the clear edge there.

nvidia cards aren't any quieter than their amd counterparts if you ignore reference coolers (almost nobody has a reference 290/290X, and nobody is making/selling them anymore). they draw more power, true, but nvidias quoted TDP figures are far far too conservative, the cards often exceed them under load, where AMD cards rarely hit their TDP figures (unless overclocked). its just another way nvidia is lying to people really. I have a 290X in a silverstone RVZ01B case, heat isn't an issue, at all, so stop spreading fud please.

would you look at that, aftermarket 290X is quieter than a GTX 970? you don't say?

what's that? 290X only uses 30 - 60 watts more than GTX 970? not the 150+ more watts people are constantly claiming? come on get real with that nonsense about heat/power and noise.

what's this? the aftermarket 290X runs cooler than the GTX 970 (and thus 980 as well)? Gee.......

 

[SparkTR]

Even when the hardware they have is competitive (and it often is) AMD offers a completely inferior user experience. Whether you use Nvidia's features like Grid, Shadowplay and such them being there show a level of constant involvement on their part. AMD on the other hand is a damn wasteland on the software part. It feels like they spend more time talking about how they plan to make their software competitive than working on it.

Also stuff like PhysX. I dislike vendor specific stuff, but especially later on in the generation what else are you going to push using high-end cards for multiplatform games? It felt like a clear advantage having a Nvidia card for stuff like Mirrors Edge and Batman AA at the time.

 

[Momentary]

That's sad AMD (ATI) is usually better price/performance wise, I would be using an AMD card now if it wasn't for bitcoin miners driving up the prices.

I really hope they make a comeback I'm tired of NVIDIA and their "mid range" graphics cards being $400-500.

GTX 970 is 270 bucks brand new... 960 is $190.

 

[Gaogaogao]

Yes, a non-holistic means to a short-sighted end.

uh, hmm. please, enlighten us.

 

[AmyS]

Nvidia had only two console GPU contracts (original Xbox and PS3) while ATI/AMD have had many more (Gamecube, Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PS4, Xbox One) yet it doesn't seem to matter for shit. Nvidia has absolutely decimated them over the years. Sad.

 

[SneakyStephan]

nvidia cards aren't any quieter than their amd counterparts if you ignore reference coolers (almost nobody has a reference 290/290X, and nobody is making/selling them anymore). they draw more power, true, but nvidias quoted TDP figures are far far too conservative, the cards often exceed them under load, where AMD cards rarely hit their TDP figures (unless overclocked). its just another way nvidia is lying to people really. I have a 290X in a silverstone RVZ01B case, heat isn't an issue, at all, so stop spreading fud please.

The TDP part is true.
Nvidia cards are more power efficient but nvidia seriously underreport their power consumption (false advertising is what they are good at) and amd always quotes a maximum (that is rarely ever reached in games)

The difference isn't as big as it looks on paper.

 

[Momentary]

Nvidia had only two console GPU contracts (original Xbox and PS3) while ATI/AMD have had many more (Gamecube, Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PS4, Xbox One) yet it doesn't seem to matter for shit. Nvidia has absolutely decimated them over the years. Sad.

Because they get the contracts that are actually worth a damn. The console side of MS has barely pushed a profit since it came to fruition.

 

[reckless]

GTX 970 is 270 bucks brand new... 960 is $190.

970 was going to be $399 when it was released, if AMD continues to die then they won't have competition forcing them to drop the price.

 

[Kieli]

GTX 970 is 270 bucks brand new... 960 is $190.

GTX970 is now about $430 beaver bucks.

960s float in the low 300s.

Am cry.

 

[Kelli Lemondrop]

GTX 970 is 270 bucks brand new... 960 is $190.

lies, GTX 970 is $300 (a single model is $300, the rest are $320 - 370), there isn't a single $270 GTX 970 listed in pcpartpicker's database. you nvidia fanboys sure do love to spread the fud don't you?

 

[SneakyStephan]

GTX 970 is 270 bucks brand new... 960 is $190.

I wish they were that here.
Where I live they start at 380 euros, and that's for some shitty palit version , if you want one with a decent cooler it's 400 euros

And remember the 970 is the lower of the midrange cards (hd 4850 equivalent instead of 4870)

 

[Momentary]

970 was going to be $399 when it was released, if AMD continues to die then they won't have competition forcing them to drop the price.

The 970 launched at $329 and the 960 at $200. Also, you said "being" which I take as "currently" and "at this very moment".

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Yes, a non-holistic means to a short-sighted end.

Yep, I much prefer the AMD approach of making every game run poorly.

 

[Momentary]

lies, GTX 970 is $300 (a single model is $300, the rest are $320 - 370), there isn't a single $270 GTX 970 listed in pcpartpicker's database. you nvidia fanboys sure do love to spread the fud don't you?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...125685R&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-125-685R-_-Product

Here's one that's out of stock.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...121899R&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-121-899R-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...125706R&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-125-706R-_-Product

That took me about 30 seconds to find.

Open box. So what.

$190 960
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127844&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-127-844-_-Product

 

[Kelli Lemondrop]

Yep, I much prefer the AMD approach of making every game run poorly.

again with the fud and nonsense... the 290X ($300) is only ~8% slower on average than the GTX 980 ($560). if you wan't to compare cards in the same price class, the 295x2 ($650) is roughly 80% faster on average than the GTX 980 ($560, and the 290X ($300) is roughly 10% faster than the GTX 970 ($300+). so get out of here with the games running poorly nonsense.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...125685R&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-125-685R-_-Product

Here's one that's out of stock.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...125706R&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-125-706R-_-Product

open box means USED, not new. sorry. try again. find a NEW as in not an open box model for $270, i dare you. cheapest one is $300 (temporarily). out of stock also means not currently at that price. so again, stop spreading nonsense.

open box so what? open box means USED, just like it does for video games. stop moving the goalposts when it suits your agenda. your fanboy nonsense is sickening.

 

[Derp]

My body is ready for the Nvidia monopoly to start.

But seriously. I don't like this at all. There's not enough competition. How on earth will I be able to afford the my future 1080ti (i'm skipping the 980ti, if such a thing will even exist)

 

[reckless]

The 970 launched at $329 and the 960 at $200. Also, you said "being" which I take as "currently" and "at this very moment".

The original plan was for a $399 launch of the 970, they backed down to $329. If AMD continues to become irrelevant, they won't be forced to drop it.

And anyways $330 for their "(lower) midrange" card is insane. Remember the days of the 8800GT being mid range and launching for $199 - $249?

The 960 is low end.

 

[Momentary]

again with the fud and nonsense... the 290X ($300) is only ~8% slower on average than the GTX 980 ($560). if you wan't to compare cards in the same price class, the 295x2 ($650) is roughly 80% faster on average than the GTX 980 ($560). so get out of here with the games running poorly nonsense.



open box means USED, not new. sorry. try again. find a NEW as in not an open box model for $270, i dare you. cheapest one is $300 (temporarily). out of stock also means not currently at that price. so again, stop spreading nonsense.

I just did a quick search knowing that mid-range cards are 190-330 dollars and not 400-500. Where's your attack for the other party misinforming folks, hero?

The 960 is low end.

GTX 960 is advertised and reported as midrange.

http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-release-geforce-gtx-960-mid-range-maxwell/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-12.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6...06-overview-new-mid-range-champion/index.html
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/introducing-the-geforce-gtx-960

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Wait for the 300 series to launch before panicking. If the market share doesn't increase substantially, that's when you'll know it's time.

 

[synce]

I think nvidia (and intel's) rising dominance is just based on the fact no one buys PCs anymore. You're left with a bunch of hardcore users who will always put performance ahead of price, and that means nvidia/intel

 

[Foxyone]

Isn't one of AMD's main problems their cruddy DX11 drivers, compared to Nvidia's?

 

[No Love]

Fuck that. NVIDIA does not deserve that marketshare. They've been way too scummy. I love their products but hate the company's behavior.

 

[Qassim]

Wow, I didn't realise it had gotten that bad. When I last had an ATI card, it was the 5800 series (2x 5850s) and during that period NVIDIA had some troubles with their first Fermi cards and it reflected in their marketshare - you can see it on that graph when NVIDIA had around 55 vs ATI's 45.

I think NVIDIA do have the money to better add value to their cards in terms of the new features they develop (in which AMD usually follow), those things grab headlines, they add to the value of the brand, along with things like Gameworks and the NVIDIA logo appearing in more games.

It'll be a real shame if AMD doesn't start competing better soon - their hardware is good, they have good aggressive pricing, but the things they don't compete as well on are things that require a lot of continued investment.

 

[Sir Abacus]

AMD have had a reputation in the toilet because of their drivers for years.

I use Nvidia at the moment because G-Sync is the god tier upgrade that PC gaming deserves and AMD are nearly a year late to the party. I won't be turning back to AMD for quite some time at this rate and I'm waiting for a 6GB or 8GB VRAM 980 to upgrade to.

 

[Renekton]

Isn't one of AMD's main problems their cruddy DX11 drivers, compared to Nvidia's?

The CPU utilization part :<

 

[Timedog]

What happens when you have a bad driver issue? What are people so upset at AMD about? I literally have no idea what a driver issue even is, because all my gaming on AMD cards has been clear sailing. Everything just worked.

The only game I've had problems with is Steam GOTY Fallout 3, which a megafuckton of people have problems with.

 

[RenegadeXV8]

I disagree. AMD's mind-numbingly stupid strategy of releasing drivers (and Crossfire profiles) every 3-4 months is probably up there in the list of reasons why people defect to team green.

But that's like a very recent thing. Up until November last year they released drivers monthly.

And the "quarterly driver release" thing is only for WHQL drivers. They've already released 2 beta drivers in less than a month, and there's another coming out in a couple of weeks.

 

[zoobzone]

Can't help it AMD hasn't released anything significant for almost 2 full years.

Nvidia drivers are also more stable in my experience, my group of friends only recommend green cards these days.

 

[NascentGecko]

[removed]

 

[PoweredBySoy]

I hear nothing but bad stuff about ATI and driver support.

Once had an ATI card and had endless compatibility problems. Was so excited for Command and Conquer 3 and the fucking thing never worked for more than 20 minutes before crashing.

Meanwhile I've never had a problem with nvidia, both mobile and desktop GPUs.

ATI can get fucked.

Command and Conquer 3? Even you have to know you're ignorant.

 

[Seanspeed]

again with the fud and nonsense... the 290X ($300) is only ~8% slower on average than the GTX 980 ($560). if you wan't to compare cards in the same price class, the 295x2 ($650) is roughly 80% faster on average than the GTX 980 ($560, and the 290X ($300) is roughly 10% faster than the GTX 970 ($300+). so get out of here with the games running poorly nonsense.

No, it's not and you've failed to show this before, but here you are, saying it again anyways.

You even have to resort to using a double GPU in comparison with a single GPU, knowing full well the complications that arise in this situation. You make valid points here and there, but you sprinkle it with so much fud and nonsense yourself, that your posts become truly cringe worthy to read.

Anyways, AMD have the opportunity to gain back some marketshare coming up, I think. It might mean an aggressive pricing strategy, but this headstart on stacked memory isn't to be ignored.

 

[justgames7604]

I'll share my experience. Last year I was building a mid-range workstation and I needed a cheap graphics card for 3D modeling, rendering, and light gaming. I had always used NVIDIA, but I had heard pretty good things about AMD so I thought I'd give them a shot (I ended up buying an R7 260X).

A few weeks in, I started experiencing frequent black screen crashes that would always require a hard reset. Many hours of diagnostics turned up nothing - all the parts were fine. I searched online and found out that the problem was fairly widespread and that the only solution was to try a clean install of the latest beta drivers from AMD. I tried uninstalling the drivers through Windows (8.1), but it kept giving me an error for some reason, so I tried using the official clean uninstall utility from AMD's website which made things even worse (also fairly widespread). The screen turned black and Windows basic display drivers wouldn't even initialize, even after several reboots. Ultimately, I had to remove the AMD card and switch to Intel's integrated graphics, boot into safe mode at POST, uninstall AMDs mess using a third party tool (DDU), then install the latest beta drivers from AMD. After all of this, the problem still isn't completely fixed. The last few drivers have reduced the frequency of crashes, but the problem still exists. In the past 8 years since I started PC gaming, I have never experienced any problems with NVIDIA, and this was my first experience with AMD. Needless to say, I'll never buy another AMD product again.

Still similar or worse stories can be found about nvidia. Like I hear alot of storues about how you cant locate 4gb of vram on GTX 970s even though its still advertised as 4gb.

 

[xenist]

Nvidia drivers are also more stable in my experience, my group of friends only recommend green cards these days.

And even when they crash they handle it more more elegantly than AMD.

 

[Wyndstryker]

Not too surprised at this point. In the past I had an ATI card and the drivers were atrocious. Only problems I had with nVidia cards is mostly due to bad ventilation in my PC case which ends up getting dusty then the card heats up.

 

[Seanspeed]

Still similar or worse stories can be found about nvidia. Like I hear alot of storues about how you cant locate 4gb of vram on GTX 970s even though its still advertised as 4gb.

That's completely unrelated to driver/stability issues.

 

[Wagram]

I'll probably purchase a AMD card when this GTX680 dies. The driver support has been terrible in my experience and I liked the software my old 5850 had better. I purchased nvidia based on recommendation but i'll likely switch back to AMD.

 

[justgames7604]

That's completely unrelated to driver/stability issues.

yea its worse since you cant ever fix it.

 

[OnionPowder]

After using AMD CPUs for years I'm put off from ever using their GPU products. I'd rather just not deal with them

 

[Kelli Lemondrop]

No, it's not and you've failed to show this before, but here you are, saying it again anyways.

You even have to resort to using a double GPU in comparison with a single GPU, knowing full well the complications that arise in this situation. You make valid points here and there, but you sprinkle it with so much fud and nonsense yourself, that your posts become truly cringe worthy to read.

Anyways, AMD have the opportunity to gain back some marketshare coming up, I think. It might mean an aggressive pricing strategy, but this headstart on stacked memory isn't to be ignored.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index8.html

it's very clearly faster than even a highly overclocked 970 in all but one game at 1440p. significantly so in some games. so yes, yes it is faster than a 970, while also being cheaper. and comparing a dual card to a single card is fair game when they are in the same price class. even with the issues, the 295x2is a MUCH faster card than nvidia's closest priced competitor (the gtx 980), and faster than the $1000 titan-x in most cases as well.. so its a completely fair comparison. the GTX 980 is embarassingly poor for its pricepoint compared to a $300 290X as well, it costs $200 more than it should given its performance. and those are simply the facts. were the GTX 980 $379 - 399, i wouldnt even be arguing against it. at $560, its a complete joke. AMD's 18 month old card that currently retails for $300 is fairly competitive, and that says a whole lot, especially given Nvidia's massive cash reserves to devote to R&D, the 980 shouldve been 50% faster than the 290X at its pricepoint, and with the time advantage nvidia had.

 

[itchyass86]

I've always viewed AMD's offerings as pretty competitive from a pricing standpoint. Anyone else who tries to persuade me otherwise would just be trying to undermine my experience with with both AMD/ATI and nVidia hardware. I switch off between the GPU-makers' offerings every generation - each piece of hardware has done very well for me for both desktop and mobile environments.

I'm not gonna blame anyone for choosing or not choosing to use the competitor's hardware. Everyone's experiences will be different. It's just very unfortunate to see an underdog hardware company fall so low. I do worry for AMD and the hardware market as a whole.