Features - QOTW: AMD or Nvidia, who makes the better graphics driver?

[deejayburnout]

Only ever had a couple of each brand of cards so not really able to compare all I have had no real issues with either vendor.

My view is that Nvidia cards are slightly more powerful and slightly more expensive that there AMD counterparts.

Me being a cheap ass, I have a AMD at the moment. .

[Demigod]

Nvidia haas almost always had better drivers niot that they are always flawless by any means but Ati has never had great drivers even when they have great cards the drivers end up letting them down.

[Willzzz]

My view is that Nvidia cards are slightly more powerful

Actually the odd thing is that for equivalent cards the AMD version has far more actual hardware on it, more transistors, larger memory bus, more memory, more power. And yet they trade blows pretty evenly.

The 7950 Boost compared to the 660 Ti has double the memory bus, 50% more TDP, more ROPS and yet can't pull out a convincing win in modern titles. It scores the odd win here and there but just not in a consistent manner.

Technically the Radeon cards ought to win, they bring more firepower to the fight. When they don't win, I can only assume that this is down to drivers.

[cjb110]

Nvidia by a long way, AMD's driver on my E350 system sucks balls. So despite their current performance advantage I wouldn't get an AMD card.

[=assassin=]

Having moved from NVidia to AMD/ATi about 3 years ago, I can say I had a few more issues early on with drivers, but they are pretty much ok overall now. I much prefer the AMD driver interface, though, as it is easier to control fan speeds and clock speeds. I remember with NVidia those options were always well hidden and required a hack. As a summary - AMD/ATi for ease of use, NVidia (in the past) for driver reliability (not hardware though!), from my own personal experiences.

[deividast]

nVidia forever, who cares about a price then buying a good thing

[Jimbo75]

Actually the odd thing is that for equivalent cards the AMD version has far more actual hardware on it, more transistors, larger memory bus, more memory, more power. And yet they trade blows pretty evenly.

The 7950 Boost compared to the 660 Ti has double the memory bus, 50% more TDP, more ROPS and yet can't pull out a convincing win in modern titles. It scores the odd win here and there but just not in a consistent manner.

Technically the Radeon cards ought to win, they bring more firepower to the fight. When they don't win, I can only assume that this is down to drivers.

The cards are a lot closer in raw pixel and texture pushing performance than you might think, but the main reason why the 7950 doesn't run away with more games is that most games aren't really pushing the hardware enough or in the right places.

In some cases where the games are really pushing the hardware, the lead is huge. There's no doubt that AMD's drivers aren't quite as good at the moment though (in gaming terms, but at least they don't have a history of frying cards either.)

[Willzzz]

So it's the games developers that have got it wrong and not AMD? Even though most of these games are part of the Gaming Evolved program?

[Noxvayl]

So it's the games developers that have got it wrong and not AMD? Even though most of these games are part of the Gaming Evolved program?

Games are seldom made only for PC so yes, they are restricted in what they can do and how they can do it. They make a trade off and as a result machines that have the extra performance aren't able to use it as well.

I am hopeful that the new consoles using AMD technology will help fix this problem we have with sub-par quality games on computers, there is so much more our computer hardware can handle and soon the consoles will have a lot more power for developers to work with so I am looking forward to what developers are able to accomplish with the extra performance.

[Willzzz]

So what is the point of Gaming Evolved if they are just plain console ports? Doesn't sound very evolved to me.

It's obviously not that AMD cards have too much power overall, but that different parts are overspecced compared to the rest of the card.
It seems pretty obvious that if the 660 Ti can equal the 7950 then that double width bus probably isn't necessary, the 7870 Tahiti seems to prove this.

[Jimbo75]

Saying the 7950 boost is overspecced is a bit daft - that's what AMD is giving you for the same kind of price and you'd be daft not to take it just because it's only given them an advantage in certain cases.

We also know that the 7950 Boost can overclock enough to blow past even the 680's performance. It wouldn't be able to do that if it was saddled with a 192-bit bus, and no 660 Ti in the world will even get remotely close to the results.





Full article - http://www.overclockers.com/his-hd-7...cs-card-review



You're looking at a 40%-50% lead and the 660 Ti is no great overclocker.

[Noxvayl]

I'm sure Gaming Evolved and The way it is meant to be played are an attempt to address these problems, they seem to be ineffective.

[Willzzz]

Obviously I'm not saying you should go down to a 192bit bus, that would be stupid.
But a 680 can easily exceed 7950 performance on those titles with just a 256bit bus.

Yes a 7950 is a lot more balanced once clocks are bumped up, but I guess not all 7950s can do that or AMD would set default clocks much higher, wouldn't they?

[Jimbo75]

There is also the matter of future proofing with the extra bandwidth and memory.

[Willzzz]

Extra VRAM makes sense to some degree, but extra bandwidth still needs to be there in proportion to shader throughput.

[Jimbo75]

That depends on whether the need for more bandwidth increases.

The 7950 is a far more future proof card because of the hardware you think is wasted. There will be cases where the 7950 doesn't make any gains but there will be cases where the 7950 makes gains that will catapult it past the 680 even at stock. The 660 Ti will never catch up.