The No Fanboy thread

[Morg.]

I'm still wondering, why do people here give the advice to get nVidia cards, when all benchmarks say that @ the same price, you should buy AMD ...?

Can anyone bring some "facts" to this discussion ?

(Yes, I prefer nVidia as a company and as an innovator)
(Yes, I recognize that AMD will give everything to be the best offer @ any price point - as long as they can make an offer that's worth it)


Oh and please, no fanboyism, just plain facts, benchmarks (from various sources) links and price tags.


The overwhelming response from the community, and I am proud of you guys for demonstrating a sense of community stewardship as well as exhibiting restraint in your public responses, is that this thread is needlessly inflammatory and contains hyperbole that is not conducive to fostering productive discourse on said topical material.

As such I am closing this thread.

Just to clarify, the subject matter itself is not the problem, it is the "setup" that is problematic.

Feel free to draft an alternate thread that meets the same objective of encouraging productive discussion on the topic of a data-driven basis for AMD vs. Nvidia recommendations and such a thread will be acceptable in VC&G.

Idontcare
Super Moderator

 

[Vette73]

What do you base that off of?

I prefer Ati if everything is equal (price-peformance) yet I have a GTS450 in my main system and a GT240 DDR5 in my HTPC. I got them as they were the cheapest at the time for the performance.
I saw a 5770 at newegg for $80 yesterday so that is good. But prices go back and forth. When I was looking Ati/AMD was way more for what you got. It seems to have moved back now but that can change any time.

 

[Cerb]

nVidia's recent cards have much higher CPU overhead than AMD's, they appear to be artificially crippling OpenGL performance with fermi gaming cards (all the while, D3D is getting more popular in pro apps, so please, nVidia, stop), and they have major issues with some old DX6 games.

AMD cards are running a little cooler for any given performance level, and for the 5 series, drivers seem to have improved minimum frame rates, over time, which used to be a fair flaw. They could stand to really step up to the plate with GPGPU, get better Windows 2D acceleration. Currently, as long as you need MIPS or FLOPS above all else, they've got the fastest DirectCompute option out there. They also have the best multimonitor feature set.

IME, with Windows Vista and 7, both nVidia and AMD have both had their share of driver problems. With AMD trying to stick to a release cycle, I wouldn't get the latest and greatest, if I had an AMD card. nVidia clearly has more and better support for esoteria in their drivers, though, like custom resolutions, custom refresh rates, overscanning, etc., and the CCC does kind of suck.

If I were buying a card at this moment, with just gaming in mind, above $150, I would likely get an AMD. But, right now, they are awfully close to each other.

 

[Borealis7]

why do people here give the advice to get nVidia cards

some of them get paid/free hardware to do it.

 

[nemesismk2]

some of them get paid/free hardware to do it.

Yes they do but atleast now they are told to be open about it.

 

[tincart]

Oh and please, no fanboyism, just plain facts, benchmarks (from various sources) links and price tags.

That kind of evidence are given in each thread where advice is asked for. Many times the advice may be based mail-in rebates or other discounts on the MSRP, specials deals, and the needs of the individual user (what games they play). nVidia and AMD both have competitive products and depending on the needs of the user, one or the other will be better.

To suggest that one company reigns supreme is silly. Are you telling me someone who plays Lost Planet 2, HAWX 2 and Civilization 5 should buy an AMD card? Please explain why.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I've never been married to any one company, and don't understand why people get so worked up about this stuff.

Whenever I'm building/upgrading, I figure out what's the best "bang for the buck" at whatever price point I'm looking at, and that's what I buy. Nvidia, AMD, or 3DFX back in the day, doesn't matter.
Same with motherboard chipsets, processors, etc. Who cares? Just figure out the best one for you at that time, and go with it.

I'm currently looking at upgrading my video card, and they ARE awfully close at the moment, though. Especially around the 150-160 dollar point.

 

[Vicaar]

I've always bought nVidia in the past, simply because they always had the best bang/buck in my price range. Just this weekend, however, I bought a 6850. Even though nVidia had comparable or even equivalent prices, AMD won out this time because of power consumption which was a factor for my setup. Had that not been the case, I probably would have opted for a 460/768mb and saved a few dollars (only a few though - the 6850 deal was a good one) simply out of 'familiarity' with nVidia.

That said, it sounds like if you need Linux or specialized CUDA support, nVidia is still the way to go. I also realize I lose some tessellation power but beyond some FPS in Civ V I'm not sure how badly that affects me in the real world (and LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU because I've already made the purchase and would rather not know now

 

[Zanovar]

some of them get paid/free hardware to do it.

Omfg do they?

 

[Rhezuss]

I've been on the 2 sides and like many others, I buy based on the value I get in the price range i'm willing to spend.

So, my first computer was a 3DFX Diamnond something and from there I bought nVidia and got up from the first Ti (Ti200, Ti 4200, etc), to 6600GT, to 7600GT to 9600GT. Then I switched to a HD 4850, to a HD 5770 to a HD 6850 and now have a GTX 560 Ti.

It's just a matter of circumstances and how much you want to spent.

EDIT: I find it pretty contradictory when in your first sentence you say "I'm still wondering, why do people here give the advice to get nVidia cards, when all benchmarks say that @ the same price, you should buy AMD ...?" and your last you say "Oh and please, no fanboyism, just plain facts, benchmarks (from various sources) links and price tags.". Sweet irony...

 

[Zanovar]

What i don't understand is when peeps start linking benchmark scores - wtf is that all about,there never is a winner when peeps start doing that as there is always a benchmark out there to support their argument there are lies danm lies and benchmarks

 

[Idontcare]

EDIT: I find it pretty contradictory when in your first sentence you say "I'm still wondering, why do people here give the advice to get nVidia cards, when all benchmarks say that @ the same price, you should buy AMD ...?" and your last you say "Oh and please, no fanboyism, just plain facts, benchmarks (from various sources) links and price tags.".

The overwhelming response from the community, and I am proud of you guys for demonstrating a sense of community stewardship as well as exhibiting restraint in your public responses, is that this thread is needlessly inflammatory and contains hyperbole that is not conducive to fostering productive discourse on said topical material.

As such I am closing this thread.

Just to clarify, the subject matter itself is not the problem, it is the "setup" that is problematic.

Feel free to draft an alternate thread that meets the same objective of encouraging productive discussion on the topic of a data-driven basis for AMD vs. Nvidia recommendations and such a thread will be acceptable in VC&G.

Idontcare
Super Moderator