YA Why do you prefer AMD or NV Thread

[Paratus]

Why do you prefer the GPU manufacturer that you do?
Or do you buy based on price, performance, or features regardless of company.

I've ended up with AMD/ATI for a number of reasons.

I've gone with ATI because NV has never had a compelling part when I've been in the market.

(1999) My first ATI card was a Rage Fury Pro with 32mb. I asked a local computer company to build me a machine with a dvd player and that's the card I got. I didb't know at the time if it was any good but it did what I wanted.

(2004) Next I picked up an 9600XT for my first build. My other priced option was an FX56/57XX level card. I don't think I have to explain that choice.

(2006) I needed an AGP replacement and NV had nothing newer than the 7800GS 16 pipe card. My other option was an X1950Pro 512. It was more advanced and a lot faster. It was faster even when the 7900 came out in limited AGP quantities.

(2009/2010) I rebuilt my machine to the one in my sig, (i7 920). So my choice was a slower DX10 GTX 285 or the faster DX11 coHD 5870.

I'd consider NV but so far they've been lacking every time I'm in the market.

 

[Ares1214]

I prefer whoever has the better card at the lowest price. Right now thats the 6850. Just a while back, 4890. Bit before that, 8800.

 

[blastingcap]

In before the lock!

I prefer price/perf as long as the other stuff (power, noise, heat, drivers, features, etc.) are comparable.

Ever since I went triple monitor, single-GPU multi-mon has been an issue for me. If I were still on my 1920x1200 Dell Ultrasharp, I would get a GTX460 768MB for its great price/perf ratio. (The RAM limit is trivial to me since I don't mind playing without AA.) But I'm not. So I'm willing to lose a bit of price/perf to play TF2 and L4D/L4D2 at 5040x1050 at ~60 fps (average, for 6850), rather than play the same games at 1920x1200 at >60fps (which is wasted due to my monitor bottlenecking at 60Hz).

Here's to hoping Kepler has single-monitor Surround so I don't get vendor-locked for yet another year!

 

[tweakboy]

I prefer the daddys of the industry. Intel and nVidia

They are more expensive and better

AMD is a budget company for people that cant afford Intel and nVidia.

 

[WelshBloke]

I prefer whoever has the better card at the lowest arbitrary price point I chose. Right now thats the 6850. Just a while back, 4890. Bit before that, 8800.

FTFY, not that I disagree with your final choice though.

 

[JAG87]

I prefer NV because of their drivers, their consistent multi gpu compatibility/performance, and their transparency anti aliasing in DX10/11.

I have a feeling this thread will degenerate though.

 

[WelshBloke]

I prefer the daddys of the industry. Intel and nVidia

ATI/AMD have been around a lot longer than Nvidia.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I prefer the daddys of the industry. Intel and nVidia

They are more expensive and better

AMD is a budget company for people that cant afford Intel and nVidia.

Of course. Because the GTX480 is so much more expensive than the 5970.

As for Intel...they have the performance crown at the moment. But they sure make you pay for it.

 

[Gikaseixas]

don't have a #1. Performance comes first but lately i've been really impressed by ATI.

 

[Lonyo]

I prefer whoever gives me best value at my chosen price point at the time I decide to upgrade. Historically that had been £200, but it's dropped to £150 ever since ATI started releasing decent cards at that price (last couple of years).

Currently ATI gets the nod because they use less power (or give more performance at the same power level, to be more precise).

(And a 400w PSU is fine for a slightly overclocked HD6850 and Q8300 at 3.2GHz, which is no surprise to me)

 

[Idontcare]

In before the lock!

It won't be locked, it is a valid topic for discussion in the forum.

I have a feeling this thread will degenerate though.

People may try, but if they do then it be at their own peril.

I am positive that folks here will keep it civil and cerebral :thumbsup:

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Arsynic]

I go with what's good at the time. Graphics card manufacturer fanboyism is stupid. I'm a fanboy of whatever I can afford at the time. Last time it was the 6800 GT. This time it's the AMD 6850.

 

[Paratus]

It won't be locked, it is a valid topic for discussion in the forum.



People may try, but if they do then it be at their own peril.

I am positive that folks here will keep it civil and cerebral :thumbsup:

Moderator Idontcare

Thanks IDC!

 

[Skurge]

I Prefer AMD, I've had 5 AMD cards and 1 nV card. I've been happy with each ATI card I've had and been really unhappy with the one nV card I own (FX5500, I don't need to explain why). So I had no reason to pick nV over AMD. Plus I don't like the color Green.

 

[notty22]

I have bought either, but prefer Nvidia. For a more expensive buy especially.
I have followed the company since their first 2d/3d cards after getting a Voodoo 1 to play Quake. Bought the Riva128 for Half Life. Those are distinct enjoyable memories.
I have some bad ones with ATI drivers, especially when they relied on multiple driver packages mainly because of internet bandwidth.
In the future, I always find interesting to check out which company has the first die shrink product.

 

[Schadenfroh]

AMD for mobile graphics, nVidia for desktop graphics. If nvidia directly supported drivers for a particular laptop's GPU without having to use laptopvideo2go, I would be all nVidia.

I prefer the nVidia control panel to Catalyst, the Linux drivers seem to be better as well. PhysX hardware support is nice as well, but not that big of a deal. For a deadlock, it can tip the favor.

However, thanks to the x64 nForce3 driver fiasco, I am staying away from their motherboard chipsets.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I've bought both, mostly nvidia up until 2008 when the ATI 4870 offered much better price/performance in the $300 range. That's still my current card, but I'll probably upgrade soon.

I care about price/performance but also about heat, power use and noise -- at stock speed since I don't OC.

If I were buying today it might be a GTX 460, 6850 or 6870 since all are good cards. I really wish the mythical 475 was out though to offer 470 gaming performance without generating an extra 100 watts of waste heat.

I'd say I have a very slight nvidia bias, because their sleazy marketing practice of buying exclusive game optimizations does mean nv owners get better image quality in some games. It's like Microsoft's bribing of the console game makers -- it's evil, but they do lock up the DLC for the 360 over the PS3.

 

[jjmIII]

I clicked NV fan boy since it's the closest to NV driver fan boy.

 

[sandorski]

AMD/ATI Fanboy. Always been an AMD fanboy on the CPU side, mainly because they were friendly to my Budget.

On the GPU side it's more complicated. My mind was poisoned against Nvidia way back in the 3DFX vs Nvidia days. After 3DFX's demise and my Voodoo 5 5500 no longer performed sufficiently, I went ATI Radeon 8500LE and I haven't looked back since. I used a GeForce 7900 GS for a bit as a friend no longer needed it and I wanted/needed SM 3.0(IIRC---had a x800xl previously). Other than that it has been ATI since the 8500. I know the quirks with ATI and that familiarity is another reason why I stick with them. I have little desire to have to learn Nvidia's quirks or anyone else's for that matter(despite the rumours to the contrary, these quirks do exist as I found out when using the 7900GS).

The AMD/ATI merger was perfect for me. Now if they merged with Coca Cola and the Vancouver Canucks it would be like the Uber Corporation that would receive 100% of my money!

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I don't see an option for me to pick.

I would buy something adequate for my needs within the constraints of my budget. If all things are equal between vendors, I would probably choose AMD. I've used their products for a long time they have been what I expected and more. Their video cards haven't let me down. But I wouldn't hesitate to pick an Nvidia card if it offered a significant advantage. However if things aren't equal then I would weigh my options and see which card is the best fit. At one point when deciding on an HD 2600 or 8600GT I looked at both cards thoroughly and the 8600GT was just more impressive and only slightly costlier ($5-$10), so it was an obvious choice.

I think with the market now timing is key. With HD4000 vs GTX200 we had competition from top to bottom, and now we have competition from top to bottom too. But there were times when one had an advantage, such as ATI getting the 5000 series out sooner or Nvidia's G80 dominance, and that would ultimately affect a consumer's decision as they really have no other option (other than waiting).

 

[Powermoloch]

My gpu history:

Gigabyte FX5200 AGP (meh card but it's ok for the time)
Gigabyte 6600 AGP (1st gpu on my first pc built, pretty awesome)
ATI X850XT AGP (best card ever for the time!)
Evga 7600 GT OC PCI-E ( the card still rocks with the zalman cooler)
Visiontek 3650HD died after a couple years of use
XFX 4650 HD still a strong card when I need it, in a box now with a new cooler just for back up
PNY XLR8 250GTS Still a great card for its price ($100 @ BB) and plays new Medal of honor smoothly @ 1440x900
2 x 5770 powercolor CF on my gaming rig

future:
6870 x 2 upgrade for the 5770s

I can go either way as long the price is right.

 

[Barfo]

I pick whatever offers the best performance for my budget. Lately I've been considering power, heat and noise as well.

If all things were equal, I'd have to decide between choosing nvidia because I like it's control panel better than AMD's CCC or choosing AMD because I perceive nvidia as less consumer friendly than AMD.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Poll is flawed... Either you are a fanboy or unbiased?

Im neither, I lean towards AMD but I wont pass up an Nvidia card if it has better price/performance

In fact, its not that I lean towards AMD, its that like many here on the forum, I am agaisnt what Nvidia has been doing... So it doesnt really have to be AMD, its just that there is no other competitor anyway, but I would pick anyone over Nvidia if offered the same conditions

 

[Arkadrel]

I go for price/performance. (if nvidia had a card that beat the crap out of a AMD at the price range, I was buying Id probably get that (over a AMD card))

but to me I like the performance/watt used too.. I lean more towards amd than nvidia because of that.

for me personally when you factor price/performance + performance/watt, AMD comes out on top.

** Ive had much more nvidia cards than atis looking back.

 

[Idontcare]

Poll is flawed... Either you are a fanboy or unbiased?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of failing to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.

When subsequently asked how biased they themselves were, subjects rated themselves as being much less subject to the biases described than the average person.