What to look for in a GPU...

[EvanJackPenn]

...or What is the difference between AMD and NVIDIA GPUs.

Excuse the alternate title. It was to avoid fanboys or flamers. I know that this thread may cause fanboy-ism, but I'm not interested in WHICH IS BEST. I'd like to ask you to just ignore the flamers

On with the thread!

I'm loooking at getting a new graphics card. As you obviously know, there are two camps - AMD and NVIDIA. But they are more than just two manufacturers of the same product; their GPUs are very different. I know that NVIDIA ones tend to have higher speed cores of a lower quantity, whereas AMD GPUs are more cores.

What effect does this have on my graphics? I understand that, as shown in benchmarks, one manufacturer may excel in certain games where the other falls behind. Why is this so? Are there particular things that one make of GPU is better at than the other?

I'd also like to ask about graphics RAM. Would buying a 2GB 6950 have any difference in terms of noticable performance increase over a 1GB 6950. I would be gaming on a 1920x1080 screen, pretty high settings, with a i5-2500k or possibly an FX-8150.

Thanks for you time and (hopefully) your non-fanboyism. All I get at school is "NVIDIA is better because it has more MHz" -.-

[kalniel]

I know that NVIDIA ones tend to have higher speed cores of a lower quantity, whereas AMD GPUs are more cores.

Sort of used to. With VLIW4 cores AMD switched to a more nVidia like strategy in a way. It's then just a different way of counting the same thing.

What effect does this have on my graphics? I understand that, as shown in benchmarks, one manufacturer may excel in certain games where the other falls behind. Why is this so? Are there particular things that one make of GPU is better at than the other?

There kind of isn't any inherent difference in performance, but different cards (not just different manufacturers even) have different characteristics which can either be taken advantage of or deliberately exposed. To create an effect with one card you might have to program it slightly differently to another, despite supposed standards. Your effect can even be coded to be efficient on one card, and not so efficient on another. If you get expertise from a particular manufacturer guess which way of coding they're going to encourage? You also get absurd situations like crysis 2.. I won't copy it here, but google it (with tesselation). Getting developers to negatively exploit a slight weakness in your competitor by having the GPU render water tessellation for a completely dry scene is just disgraceful.

But I doubt it's limited to one side, they probably both do it to some extent. Bottom line is look at the benchmarks for the games you're interested in and choose accordingly.

I'd also like to ask about graphics RAM. Would buying a 2GB 6950 have any difference in terms of noticable performance increase over a 1GB 6950. I would be gaming on a 1920x1080 screen, pretty high settings, with a i5-2500k or possibly an FX-8150.

No.

Thanks for you time and (hopefully) your non-fanboyism. All I get at school is "NVIDIA is better because it has more MHz" -.-

Yeah well..

[Zak33]

OK, from personal heavy use of the following cards:

GTX 260 and 275 and 285
Radeon 4870, 4890 and now 6950 2gig

and of light use of litereally scores of both brands

these are my thoughts:

Nvidia's CUDA makes my Dad smile for video encoding. A GTX 260 rips throuh films much faster than the Intel QX6700 that is in the same rig. If you make movies and if your software supports CUDA, nVidia will take your breath away. A modern nvidia card is monumental at video encoding.

Nvidia's lower grade cards are often the better bet for cheaper rigs because they seem to remodel their previous generation technology onto newer production lines to save power and electricity and heat much better than AMD (see Green Edition 9800 cards as a superb example.. they need NO PCI express power, are single slot and still play games very well, as well as the 8800 GTX models of a few years ago)

Both makes have good drivers now, and both hae good and bad moments. I personally have no issues with either, but I find ATI Catalyst drivers make more sense in their control panel.. but that's personal.

Having upgraded from a GTX 275 with 3/4 gig DDR3 ram to a 6950 with 2 gig of DDR5 ram.. unless you'e got a monster screen don't bust a gut over amount of ram. On a 22" at 1680 x 1050, which is what I still use, 1 gig is enough. It's the speed that counts.

And lastly..... noise.

This is down to the brand.. but I have found that although very long, the nvidia's last gen default coolers with a fan at one end and an exhaust port out of the PCI express bracker are far superior for case cooling, airflow and quietness than the latest stock of them with single fan in the centre.

think air flow and read EVERY review.. noise is NOT essential.. you do NOT need a loud fan.

[EvanJackPenn]

Thanks for the advice. So really, I should look for benchmarks and value.

Also, what is this (alleged) XDR2 memory in the Radeon 6900s?

[Zak33]

Thanks for the advice. So really, I should look for benchmarks and value.

value YES.. not to be tight.. but because I think many people over spend on a graphics card when it turns out they only play basic games, or spend all day in Excel.. or have a 19" 1280x1024 monitor.

Dare I ask what you play and what monitor it's for?

and indeed.. what card you have now?

[Zak33]

XDR2 is uber fast.. but as far as I know it's planned for next gen 7900 cards.. and might turn up in 6900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDR2_DRAM

it's allegedly twice as fast as GDDR5.. but as I've moved from GDDR3 to GDDR5 and only did it cos it was cheap... I'd not hurt yourself worrying about it chap.

But... lets face it.. if you NEED uber .e-peen bragging rights you COULD open every post saying/claiming you're GOING to get it.. when in reality you buy a 6900 or a 560GTX and crack on with life right now

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It seems Nvidia has abandoned the entry level gaming market. TBH,AMD more or less have the best offerings under £90 now. The budget replacements for the EOL 9800GT have been relatively poor in regards to performance. The GT240 was slower than a 9600GT,the GT340 was a rebrand and the GT440 is no better than the GT240 in most cases.

The standard GTS450 is only as fast as an HD5750 from 2009 and the highly overclocked GTS450 cards are around HD5770 level. On top of this they consume more power too. The GT440 GDDR5 is slower than the cheaper HD5670 GDDR5 and consumes more power too. The HD5670 was replaced by the HD6670 which is faster and consumes less power.

[EvanJackPenn]

It is the e-peen I'm after

what card you have now?

Well.... I'm currently on a kinda old laptop So it's the specs in my system to the left. But I'm looking to do a complete new build. Around 1k budget. So quite top-midrange

Dare I ask what you play and what monitor it's for?

I'm wanting to play things like Skyrim and BF3, Guild Wars 2, Arkham City, things like that. Not just little flash games I'm thinking of getting an LG IPS236V, not the highest end monitor. But I quite like colours

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It is the e-peen I'm after


Well.... I'm currently on a kinda old laptop So it's the specs in my system to the left. But I'm looking to do a complete new build. Around 1k budget. So quite top-midrange


I'm wanting to play things like Skyrim and BF3, Guild Wars 2, Arkham City, things like that. Not just little flash games I'm thinking of getting an LG IPS236V, not the highest end monitor. But I quite like colours

If you can get an HD6950 2GB for under £200 it would be a good deal. The HD6950 1GB and GTX560TI 1GB trade blows in most games.

[Hoonigan]

I'm wanting to play things like Skyrim and BF3, Guild Wars 2, Arkham City, things like that. Not just little flash games I'm thinking of getting an LG IPS236V, not the highest end monitor. But I quite like colours

On a monitor with a resolution of 1920x1080 and games like BF3 and Arkham City, you're gonna need a decent bit of graphics grunt.

I'd suggest looking at the GTX580 or Radeon HD 6950, if you've got that kind of money to spend and want it to last a while.

Looking at this graph shows the sort of performance you get from these cards at 1920x1080

[Pob255]

Personally I'd say a gtx560ti or 6950 would be the most I'd be willing to go to for a single monitor setup. (£180-190)

But at the same time dropping down to a 6850 or 460gtx is a better price vs performance point and still plenty fast. £120ish

[kalniel]

Personally I'd say a gtx560ti or 6950 would be the most I'd be willing to go to for a single monitor setup. (£180-190)

But at the same time dropping down to a 6850 or 460gtx is a better price vs performance point and still plenty fast. £120ish

Or 560 non-ti. That's the most recent card we bought and at £138 it gives amazing performance for the price - ti matching if overclocked as well.

Wait for BF3 to come out and see how it performs (actually, give it another month if you can, as drivers will be optimised hugely in short space of time). That's likely to be the most demanding of the games you're looking at, by some way, so if you get a card that does OK there it'll cope fine with the rest. I don't know of any reason the engine should be subject to the dirty tactics I mentioned in my first reply, so a generic overall fast card should be fine - the 6950 would be a likely candidate IMHO, but wait for the benches and see if a 560 (non-ti) does well enough for the decent saving.

LOL at the '580 or 6950' comment above

[Bagnaj97]

It may well not affect you but Nvidia's Linux drivers are still vastly superior to AMD's. If you're not planning to use Linux any time soon then ignore me I wont go into any other details as performance info has been covered by others.

[shaithis]

A 2gig card may become of use in the future at 1080p but at the moment I haven't found anything that maxes the 1GB on my GTX460 @1080p

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Personally I'd say a gtx560ti or 6950 would be the most I'd be willing to go to for a single monitor setup. (£180-190)

But at the same time dropping down to a 6850 or 460gtx is a better price vs performance point and still plenty fast. £120ish

Or 560 non-ti. That's the most recent card we bought and at £138 it gives amazing performance for the price - ti matching if overclocked as well.

The HD6870 1GB can be had for around £120 to £130,with a few games and ends up selling out very quickly at that price. I have seen it happen over the last few weeks at Scan,OcUK and Aria. It seems to be in stock at that price quite often.

I looked at Aria,Dabs,Ebuyer,Scan, OcUK and Novatech and so far I have seen three HD6870 1GB cards in stock today at £133 to £135. One of them came with both DiRT3 and the latest Deus Ex game. There is one GTX560 at £138 I can see and it is a Palit card. The HD6850 and GTX460 are around £110 to £120 although there are more cheaper GTX460 cards.

[EvanJackPenn]

I haven't really looked into the 6870s. What are they like? 1920x1080, single monitor is the max I'll be going in the foreseeable future.

I read that NVIDIA Kepler's are rumoured to be mid-2012. Any news on Radeon 7000s?