QOTW: Does AMD or Nvidia offer better value for money?

[HEXUS]

Let's hear it from you, the enthusiasts, which team gives you more?

Read more.

[AskForDetails]

I'd say AMD for most price points, sub £350ish AMD has the cake and eats it.
However i struggle when it comes to the FURY line up, especially the NANO, for the price range of that card i'd say NVIDIA has more to offer.
Also this is just in a desktop sense, would be interesting to see how there mobile chips compare.

[Wrinkly]

AMD offers better forward thinking tech at a better price. Sadly Nvidia control the market.

[Tabbykatze]

For Price/Performance, it's always been AMD for me in the sub £350 ish range (in agreement with AFD). When you get to money is nearly no object, AMD just falls short.

[shaithis]

AMD offers better forward thinking tech at a better price. Sadly Nvidia control the market.

Forward-thinking in a GPU? So by the time that tech is useful, the card is obsolete....no wonder AMD are in trouble.

Like so many of the QOTWs lately, it's a loaded gun with the answer "It depends on what you want from your GPU...."

Any chance we could have a more thoughtful QOTW next time?

[Ttaskmaster]

AMD seems usually first to adopt new tech, like HBM, but that just means Nvidia get to learn from AMD's mistakes and usually do it better or adopt it once the creases are ironed out.
Nvidia certainly seem to do nicer software. AMD's always looks a bit naff and fogeyish. Non-reference Nvidia cards also seem to appeal more to me overall, for some reason.

Ultimately so long as it works, I'm happy with either and have had plenty of good AMD cards in the past, which were all decent performance for the money. Nvidia are probably overpriced, but still feel like you get your money's worth.

I think it's just the green colour that does it!

[kalniel]

With which product? Or do you mean to the shareholders?

[directhex]

Linux gamer. I can buy a £100 GeForce if I want the same performance as a £300 Radeon.

[semitope]

That's really because people aren't thinking and just go nvidia. A lot of people keep their GPUs 2,3,4 years and would benefit more from the robust AMD offering. Its not that its not useful NOW, but its remains relevant even later on. The best example is kepler vs GCN 1.0 and 1.1. The 290x and 290 were very good cards t hen but a lot still went with nvidia, now in dx12 gcn is stronger than any kepler.

AMD offers better forward thinking tech at a better price. Sadly Nvidia control the market.

Forward-thinking in a GPU? So by the time that tech is useful, the card is obsolete....no wonder AMD are in trouble.

Like so many of the QOTWs lately, it's a loaded gun with the answer "It depends on what you want from your GPU...."

Any chance we could have a more thoughtful QOTW next time?

[iranu]

Just bought a R9 390 so have to say AMD for me at that price point. I think it will stand the test of time for 3 years over a 970 offering particularly if I upgrade my monitor.

[dreamer77dd]

AMD APU is a great deal I think.
The reasons being.
Laptops just need one chip.
Buy a CPU and then a dedicated GPU is not cheap.
You can do all the same amount of more for the general public with a APU.
This lowers cost of laptops and other devices.

Dedicated Graphics cards the frames are tighter on a AMD in PC Games these days then Nvidia I bin finding.
Nvidia has the upper hand when it comes to memory onboard with temps which I think will change.
I think when Nvidia comes out with things is a huge leap forward.
HBM 2 will be interesting coming from both companies.

Driver support from AMD even though they are slightly getting better still needs a lot more work.
Nvidia seems sold coming out with drivers.

Overall AMD is still cheaper choice for about similar performance.

[outwar6010]

Amd on the bases that their highest end card has a aio and the competition(780ti) charges over a hundred quid more for it.

[anselhelm]

AMD, except at the very high-end, where they try to charge far too much for inefficient cards that run too hot and use too much power.

Nvidia overcharge whenever and wherever they can, but it is possible to get better prices sometimes, usually during periods of heavy competition. (Alas this hasn't really happened for a while. Really looking forward to AMD actually stepping back into the GPU game.)

[GuidoLS]

At the top end of the GPU lines, all you need to do is flip a coin. I'm still using a 9800GT years after purchase, and it plays everything that's come out that isn't DX11 - perhaps not at 1080p for everything, but more than enough to be playable. When the cash flow improves, and the Pascal chips come out, I'll be getting the 980TI, which should last me until DX17 or some other ridiculous API comes out, at which point I'll probably be dead, or too old to care.

Mid-range? Take your chances. If you want to live for today, and can use currency like it's toilet paper, it doesn't matter, because you'll just replace it when the next semi-big thing comes along.

I'll take the comment made by shaithis a step further - the next time around, can we have a thoughtful QOTW instead of this obvious click/flame bait?

[Plasmastorm]

It's all down to whats around at the time.

My last few cards were x1900XT - 8800GTX - 5850 - 660ti - r9 390

Depends whats best at the time as always.

[uzishan]

I must say AMD. Got 2 non-refference R9 290s for around 230pounds each last year and I'm quite happy with them at 4k. While I also had nVidia cards and still have(on my laptop) I have to say for price/performance and Driver stability I will always pick amd. for pure hardcore gaming performance and fast drivers(not at all stable and I see this everyday on my gtx950m) I'd go for nVidia.