GPU card - Nvidia or ATI Radeon? And are ATI's GPU drivers unreliable?

[rfe777]

Hello everyone

I want to buy a new GPU card for my PC. My usage is quite ordinary - casual browsing the web, viewing online multimedia at the highest resolution, and also an occasional game (Starcraft 2 maybe) and sometimes using Photoshop for editing my images (not something serious but I need the GPU to work flawlessly with Photoshop). However, I've heard that lately ATI has serious problems with it's GPU drivers, and with reliability in general... is it correct?

PC specs:

450W power supply

Motherboard - Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3

CPU - Intel i5-2400 socket 1155 Sandy Bridge

Memory - 16GB Kingston DDR3 667MHz


Any help will be greatly appreciated.

TIA

Deleted posts and original thread title restored. This thread will not be moderated.
-- stahlhart

 

[Dribble]

Nvidia drivers are generally more reliable then AMD. Simply a side effect of having a bigger more responsive driver team, and being the make most software is developed with so bugs tend to get spotted earlier. That said AMD is fine if you keep it simple (no xfire, current gen card, popular software).

 

[rfe777]

Nvidia drivers are generally more reliable then AMD. Simply a side effect of having a bigger more responsive driver team, and being the make most software is developed with so bugs tend to get spotted earlier. That said AMD is fine if you keep it simple (no xfire, current gen card, popular software).

Can you give an example for current gen Nvidia cards for basic-mid users like myself?

 

[phantom404]

I have had no problems with AMD drivers and I'm using xfire 290s so the whole as long as you keep it simple thing is rubbish.

I recently did have to reformat my alienware laptop due to nvidia driver issue. Was strange, used the Display Driver Uninstaller and it worked but the driver install kept hanging when trying to reinstall. Other than that I really haven't had any problem with either one.

 

[Zanovar]

Nvidia drivers are generally more reliable then AMD. Simply a side effect of having a bigger more responsive driver team, and being the make most software is developed with so bugs tend to get spotted earlier. That said AMD is fine if you keep it simple (no xfire, current gen card, popular software).

Owning cards from both sides this is simply not true.stop dribbling.

 

[Mem]

Nvidia drivers are generally more reliable then AMD. Simply a side effect of having a bigger more responsive driver team, and being the make most software is developed with so bugs tend to get spotted earlier. That said AMD is fine if you keep it simple (no xfire, current gen card, popular software).

I've had more driver issues with Nvidia then AMD over the years so your statement is not really valid.

Being an owner of both Nvidia and AMD I would say in general both are about the same on driver quality putting my issues aside.

I would certainly not base any new purchase on drivers from either side, but more on price/performance and maybe power usage if you have a lower powered PSU.

 

[Paul98]

What 450w PS do you have, how much power at the 12v rail, how main rails? What is your budget?

 

[rfe777]

What 450w PS do you have, how much power at the 12v rail, how main rails? What is your budget?

Here is my power supply:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ng4ywr1hksyb5w/Power%20supply.jpg?dl=0

My budget is about 100-125$.

 

[Leyawiin]

You could get either a GTX 750 Ti, R7 360 or R7 260X. They'd all fit your budget, work with your power supply and do what you need them to.

 

[Spungo]

However, I've heard that lately ATI has serious problems with it's GPU drivers, and with reliability in general... is it correct?

AMD's drivers work fine these days. I would get a Radeon R7 360. It seems like the best value at this time.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hello everyone

I want to buy a new GPU card for my PC. My usage is quite ordinary - casual browsing the web, viewing online multimedia at the highest resolution, and also an occasional game (Starcraft 2 maybe) and sometimes using Photoshop for editing my images (not something serious but I need the GPU to work flawlessly with Photoshop). However, I've heard that lately ATI has serious problems with it's GPU drivers, and with reliability in general... is it correct?

PC specs:

450W power supply

Motherboard - Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3

CPU - Intel i5-2400 socket 1155 Sandy Bridge

Memory - 16GB Kingston DDR3 667MHz


Any help will be greatly appreciated.

No, AMD drivers are fine for single GPUs but the myth remains. For your purposes, for basic usage,

$80 R7 260X 2GB - best value
$100 GTX750Ti 2GB - 2nd best budget card right now

Depends on how long you want to keep your card (say 5 years), you could get an R9 280 for $150. This card has lifetime warranty which in itself imo is worth $20 if you intend to keep the card for 5+ years based on your occasional usage. Again, I think it might be overkill for your purposes and I hope someone in this thread can chime in if the extra VRAM helps in Photoshop in any way. I am not sure on this point.

Since you'll rarely play games, I think R7 260X or 750Ti are probably good enough. Anyway, here is how the cards stack up to each other just for your information (285 ~ R9 280 on those charts):
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/nvidia-geforce-gtx-950-test/3/#abschnitt_tests_in_1920__1080

R7 260X and 750TI both uses very little power at idle

But 750Ti is more efficient at load:

Again, since I am not a Photoshop user, I cannot comment on how much better it is to move up from an HD7790/R7 260X/750Ti level GPU to the 2nd tier R9 280/GTX760/950/960 but I found this:

My recommendations in Graphics Cards for Photoshop CS6 are:

GeForce GTX 690 $1009 – Serious Video Editing and Motion Graphics
GeForce GTX 760 $229 – Advanced Photo Manipulation, Video Editing
Radeon HD 7770 $109 – Photo Retouching, Basic Graphic Design
http://robertoblake.com/blog/2014/01/best-video-graphics-card-photoshop/

These recommendations are old as far as GPUs go but they give an idea of the GPU power for various Photosho tasks.

Certain elements of Photoshop should be accelerated by AMD's OpenCL while others benefit from NV's CUDA. So it gets pretty complicated depending on what task you are doing.

 

[crisium]

Radeon 265 is the fastest gaming card in your budget of $125 max. The cheapest is $125 exactly, but there is also a $20 mail-in-rebate as a bonus if you are interested:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202096

I don't know about Photoshop, but compared to the Radeon 260X and 750 Ti this get a little better gaming results and will also have no problem running on your PSU.

@RS I think this is his PSU and it has 1x6 pin so a Radeon 280 would be out of the question (as well as being over budget):
http://www.migom.by/IN-WIN-Power-Man-IP-S450BQ3-3-450W-592012/

 

[rfe777]

BTW, I forgot to mention earlier - I was at one of the main computer retailers where I live, and the guy there has recommended the Sapphire ATI Radeon R7 250X ddr5 1GB. Is it a good GPU card?

And BTW, is DDR5 that important? more than core & memory speeds (or whatever it's called...)?

So many options, don't know what to choose...

 

[Hugo Drax]

Hello everyone

I want to buy a new GPU card for my PC. My usage is quite ordinary - casual browsing the web, viewing online multimedia at the highest resolution, and also an occasional game (Starcraft 2 maybe) and sometimes using Photoshop for editing my images (not something serious but I need the GPU to work flawlessly with Photoshop). However, I've heard that lately ATI has serious problems with it's GPU drivers, and with reliability in general... is it correct?

PC specs:

450W power supply

Motherboard - Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3

CPU - Intel i5-2400 socket 1155 Sandy Bridge

Memory - 16GB Kingston DDR3 667MHz


Any help will be greatly appreciated.

TIA


I have been using the ATI R9 285 2gb tonga based card for quite some time, its the Sapphire dual mini DP Compact OC card.

Rock solid, my PC's are never turned off and I Use them for all kinds of tasks, and I just installed a 4K monitor with no issue. Plug and play.

I would not be concerned with reliability with the AMD cards.

 

[crisium]

BTW, I forgot to mention earlier - I was at one of the main computer retailers where I live, and the guy there has recommended the Sapphire ATI Radeon R7 250X ddr5 1GB. Is it a good GPU card?

And BTW, is DDR5 that important? more than core & memory speeds (or whatever it's called...)?

So many options, don't know what to choose...

250X is pretty slow and you can get much faster for your budget. pcpartpicker showed me the Radeon 265 that I posted earlier, and as far as I can tell that is the best deal for your budget of $125 (it's $105 after rebate, $125 before).

Likely the only way to get better than a Radeon 265 is on the used market, and since you have a 1x6pin restriction the only cards faster than the 265 that you can use are the Radeon 270, the GTX 950, and GTX 960 - but only in the used market would they possibly be in your budget. The Radeon 265 is significantly faster than the Radeon 250X.

Fastest video cards compatible with your PSU:

1) GTX 960 (be aware some use 2x6pin)
2) GTX 950
3) Radeon 270 (be aware some use 2x6pin, and don't be confused with the 270X which is 2x6pin)
4) Radeon 265
5) GTX 750 Ti
6) Radeon 260X
7) GTX 750

In the new market, the Radeon 265 is the fastest you can get that I have found, but feel free to shop yourself. Also anyone feel free to offer your input if you think my order is incorrect for 1x6-pin (or no pin) GPU performance on average. Also be advised I'm speaking for general gaming performance, not photoshop.

You should not be worrying about DDR5. All the video cards in your budget range are DDR5.

 

[iiiankiii]

With your budget (~$125), the best option is the GTX 750ti

 

[happy medium]

Starcraft 2 maybe) and sometimes using Photoshop for editing my images

I think a cheap gtx750ti will play StarCraft 2 at 100fps and be just fine for occasional Photoshop duties.
Here is a ASUS overclocked out of the box version for 105$ AR.
. Runs cool and quiet, and most importantly uses only about 70 watts.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121855

AND for those who like the r7 265.
When both the gtx750ti and 265 are overclocked guess what cards wins?
The gtx750ti.!

and the 265 dumps double the heat into your case than a gtx750 ,43 more watts.

 

[Techhog]

snip

You posted two gaming benchmarks showing overclocking results, which OP almost certainly has no plans to do. Nice unbiased and not pathetically desperate contribution to the thread. Also, TIL 43 = 75.

It's fine that you want to promote Nvidia cards, but could you at least be honest about it and post things that the OP will actually care about?

 

[Kenmitch]

I think a cheap gtx750ti will play StarCraft 2 at 100fps and be just fine for occasional Photoshop duties.
Here is a ASUS overclocked out of the box version for 105$ AR.
. Runs cool and quiet, and most importantly uses only about 70 watts.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121855

AND for those who like the r7 265.
When both the gtx750ti and 265 are overclocked guess what cards wins?
The gtx750ti.!

and the 265 dumps double the heat into your case than a gtx750 ,43 more watts.

Really! You snagged graphs from a review that was done in Feb 2014. Most likely the numbers are no longer applicable as far as todays performance goes.

http://www.techspot.com/review/783-geforce-gtx-750-ti-vs-radeon-r7-265/

I'll let you guys fight it out as far as which card to get. Just doesn't seem like the correct info to help the OP as far as I'm concerned at least.

 

[crisium]

In the stock clocks in those games the 750 Ti is right on the heels of the 265. That's not a typical result in 2015.

Bioshock Infinite, it has a 750 Ti -1 FPS to a 265 at 1080 at stock, and +1 FPS to a 265 both max OC.

The modern era, same website, same game:

6FPS lead for 265 at stock

Tomb Raider, the 750 Ti has a +4/+2 lead stock/max OC.

The modern era, same website, same game:

Equal at stock.

So even in 2013 games AMD drivers have made gains, as is standard and typical.

I invite you to look through the rest of the August 2015 review and see the results between 265 and 750 Ti:

http://www.techspot.com/review/1049-nvidia-geforce-gtx-950/

In modern games the 265 is just faster, as you can see for yourself in that review.

 

[happy medium]

Why is it that nobody actually reads my post?

I said that the gtx750ti overclocked vs the 265 overclocked the 750ti would win and use 43 watts less power. and showed overclocked graphs to back it up. Both are the same price, so whats the problem?

In my world where just about everyone on this forum overclocks or should overclock there cards it matters.

The guys plays StarCraft 2 once in a while, who cares if the 265 is a bit faster at stock.
.

 

[iiiankiii]

Why is it that nobody actually reads my post?

I said that the gtx750ti overclocked vs the 265 overclocked the 750ti would win and use 43 watts less power. and showed overclocked graphs to back it up. Both are the same price, so whats the problem?

In my world where just about everyone on this forum overclocks or should overclock there cards it matters.

The guys plays StarCraft 2 once in a while, who cares if the 265 is a bit faster at stock.
.

In those two games, yes. Notice that the GTx 750TI is already faster in Bio Shock at Stock; so an overclock doesn't prove anything. Also,

How about this?

Yo, looks like The GTX 750TI would need to overclocked and gain atleast 15% to catch a STOCK R9 265.

This should paint a more accurate picture. **Note that the R9 265 IS NOT OVERCLOCKED in those benches.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Why is it that nobody actually reads my post?

I said that the gtx750ti overclocked vs the 265 overclocked the 750ti would win and use 43 watts less power. and showed overclocked graphs to back it up. Both are the same price, so whats the problem?

In my world where just about everyone on this forum overclocks or should overclock there cards it matters.

The guys plays StarCraft 2 once in a while, who cares if the 265 is a bit faster at stock.
.

You'd have a point if it were a year and a half ago ...

Recent testing by that very same site that you posted graphs from shows that the R7 265 is faster than the GTX 750 Ti even accounting for overclocking ...

It maybe just my memory but you did hint or said that you valued current performance, am I right ?

 

[Techhog]

Why is it that nobody actually reads my post?

I said that the gtx750ti overclocked vs the 265 overclocked the 750ti would win and use 43 watts less power. and showed overclocked graphs to back it up. Both are the same price, so whats the problem?

In my world where just about everyone on this forum overclocks or should overclock there cards it matters.

The guys plays StarCraft 2 once in a while, who cares if the 265 is a bit faster at stock.
.

Why would you need to overclock for SCII? Also, you're not fooling anyone. We know that there were three benchmarks on the page where you got those benchmarks, and you conveniently left out the one where the 750 Ti lost.

Then there's the fact that there's a possible flaw in this review; it doesn't show the maximum overclock that the R7 265 is actually capable of. They chose to stay within the CCC limits instead of using MSI Afterburner or another tool to get the actual maximum overclock. Considering how small these differences are, if the card can get to 1100MHz (not a stretch at all), it would win all three tests. I guess that's why you had to avoid using HardOCP's review where the 265 won in 3 out of 5 tests both at stock and overclocked. And then we have the fact that the R7 265/370 has better support for modern games... Not that any of that actually matters since the only game that the OP mentioned is freaking StarCraft "I can run on a moldy potato" 2. You are not being helpful at all in this thread, and you know it.

OP, please don't listen to people desperately trying to mislead you due to trying to support a particular company. If you care about power consumption, get the 750 Ti. If you think you might play some other newer titles at some point, the R7 265 is worth considering. If neither of those matter, get the cheapest between the 260X, 750 Ti, and 265 out of what you can find.

 

[JackMDS]

I've had more driver issues with Nvidia then AMD over the years so your statement is not really valid.

Being an owner of both Nvidia and AMD I would say in general both are about the same on driver quality putting my issues aside.

I would certainly not base any new purchase on drivers from either side, but more on price/performance and maybe power usage if you have a lower powered PSU.

+1 QFT.

------------------------
I always had few computer. In the past some GPUs AMD, some nVidia. I bought either according to what was cheaper at the time and can do what I need.

I got tired of following and changing both vendors drivers and tools.

Since I had more nVidia cards I switched everything to nVidia.

If I was a person with commercial interests (or a Shill) I probably will Say nVidia is better buy nVidia.

If I was a young Enthusiasts that his knowledge of computers extents as part of the personality I would say nVidia because that how young Enthusiasts think. I.e., "What ever I do is the best, and thus every one should follow my advise and have what I have.

That said because I am an Old Mature Enthusiasts I can judge a little more objectively and say. "Both AMD and nVidia are good and there is No general advantage of one over the other.

As for -

So many options, don't know what to choose...

Yeah, it is a common problem to many people.

I see it more as a Psychological issue rather technical functional one.

I.e., It does not matter what they have. You look at the options and if you identify one that you know that you currently need or know that you need it in the near future get the card with the options that you need.

Othewise -

I would certainly not base any new purchase on drivers from either side, but more on price/performance and maybe power usage if you have a lower powered PSU.