If NVIDIA and AMD ran at exactly the same price/performance/heat/RAM ratios...

[Tebor0]

What would you go with and why?

Consider that the cards are the same except for the other specs that are not typically highlighted on the box.

I'm running a 560Ti and no longer interested in the 960GTX. At first I defaulted to looking at the 970GTX but I don't want to get caught up in marketing or even just a fear of change.
I can sort through the reviews to figure out the best bang for the buck when it comes to framerate but I'm curious to know what sort of things I'll be gaining or losing by switching brands.

Things like..
Better image quality? Like the old 16 vs 32bit?
Am I getting a newer port version with one? (Displayport 1.3 vs 1.2?)
Is Physics still dependent on running NVIDIA? Am I going to find games with greyed out options with one brand over the other?
Does one brand work better with modifying refresh rates. What about the display sync tech coming up?

Or is everything equal and the price/performance metric is really the only thing to consider?
TIA!

 

[blake0812]

at this point both are currently a letdown, the gtx 960 doesn't seem to be very good and it'll be awhile until the (inevitable) Ti version comes out.

AMD hasn't shown off much of Mantle and the performance differences aren't that great, either.

 

[Tebor0]

at this point both are currently a letdown, the gtx 960 doesn't seem to be very good and it'll be awhile until the (inevitable) Ti version comes out.

AMD hasn't shown off much of Mantle and the performance differences aren't that great, either.

In this thread exercise there is no letdown. Both unspecified cards are running your favorite game at some random ideal fps. You spend $XXX.xx either way on either of these imaginary cards.

^^ In this case.. Why are you going NVIDIA or why are you going AMD?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

In this thread exercise there is no letdown. Both unspecified cards are running your favorite game at some random ideal fps. You spend $XXX.xx either way on either of these imaginary cards.

^^ In this case.. Why are you going NVIDIA or why are you going AMD?

Because one has a better game bundle than the other?

 

[RussianSensation]

If price/performance, absolute performance, VRAM, heat, power usage, noise where absolutely identical, at this time with 70/30% market share, I'd go with AMD to try to help and even out overall GPU market share at 50/50% so that competition is the strongest moving forward. If the conditions you describe in your post remain thereafter, 50/50% market share is reached, I'd flip a coin.

Otherwise, I'd focus on features like HDMI 2.0, DP 1.3, video encoder, etc. and which cards perform faster in distributed computing for SP and DP clients.

 

[ultimatebob]

Nvidia, because they tend to have better drivers.

 

[Vesku]

Nvidia because their viral marketing and customer self marketing is superior so the resale value of my purchase will likely be better.

 

[Tebor0]

If price/performance, absolute performance, VRAM, heat, power usage, noise where absolutely identical, at this time with 70/30% market share, I'd go with AMD to try to help and even out overall GPU market share at 50/50% so that competition is the strongest moving forward. If the conditions you describe in your post remain thereafter, 50/50% market share is reached, I'd flip a coin.

Otherwise, I'd focus on features like HDMI 2.0, DP 1.3, video encoder, etc. and which cards perform faster in distributed computing for SP and DP clients.

The above quote in bold. That's exactly what I want to know about right now. Which brand card is giving me those extra features?

 

[Tebor0]

Nvidia, because they tend to have better drivers.

Is this still the general consensus? Sounds like a fallacy that's just been carried forward from many years ago. I know HDMI coloring is questionable on both sides but I haven't heard it directed at one specific brand.

 

[Tebor0]

Nvidia because their viral marketing and customer self marketing is superior so the resale value of my purchase will likely be better.

I usually just give my old cards to family but that is a very good point that I didn't consider. Resale value.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Is this still the general consensus? Sounds like a fallacy that's just been carried forward from many years ago. I know HDMI coloring is questionable on both sides but I haven't heard it directed at one specific brand.

It's been given new life because people are saying that AMD's drivers handle DirectX worse than Nvidia's drivers do (and that this might be an effort on AMD's part to make Mantle look better.)

Personally, I swore off AMD when I had a 5970 that rattled all the time, didn't look smooth in some games and gave me serious issues with stability - in 2D low power mode it was unstable. I had to up the 2D clock from 150mhz to 300mhz IIRC, else it would crash. If I ran without the AMD drivers, I was fine. If I installed the AMD drivers, I couldn't run Windows unless I was in safe mode.

So I had to boot into safe mode and overclock the 2D speeds and THEN I could run Windows normally. It was that whole exercise that made me sell my 5970 eventually and get a GTX580....and why, while AMD might be fine these days, I just skip looking at ANY AMD offerings.

 

[sandorski]

Given that the scenario of exact sameness doesn't exist, I'm confused why extra features is so important. What I mean by this is, you have setup a hypothetical scenario, which is fine, but at the same time you seem intent on Upgrading and looking for some almost trivial technological differences to help make that choice. Far be it from me to tell someone how to choose an upgrade, but this just seems really strange to me.

Anyway, hypothetically speaking, I would choose AMD for a number of reasons:

1) Pure fanboyism
2) Support of the Underdog, especially on the CPU side
3) Bang for buck, especially, these days, on the Video Card side

That's pretty much it.

 

[Tebor0]

It's been given new life because people are saying that AMD's drivers handle DirectX worse than Nvidia's drivers do (and that this might be an effort on AMD's part to make Mantle look better.)

Personally, I swore off AMD when I had a 5970 that rattled all the time, didn't look smooth in some games and gave me serious issues with stability - in 2D low power mode it was unstable. I had to up the 2D clock from 150mhz to 300mhz IIRC, else it would crash. If I ran without the AMD drivers, I was fine. If I installed the AMD drivers, I couldn't run Windows unless I was in safe mode.

So I had to boot into safe mode and overclock the 2D speeds and THEN I could run Windows normally. It was that whole exercise that made me sell my 5970 eventually and get a GTX580....and why, while AMD might be fine these days, I just skip looking at ANY AMD offerings.

Ah, ok, I could believe this. The whole MANTLE vs DX12 thing definitely doesn't work in AMD's favor.

 

[Tebor0]

Given that the scenario of exact sameness doesn't exist, I'm confused why extra features is so important. What I mean by this is, you have setup a hypothetical scenario, which is fine, but at the same time you seem intent on Upgrading and looking for some almost trivial technological differences to help make that choice. Far be it from me to tell someone how to choose an upgrade, but this just seems really strange to me.

Anyway, hypothetically speaking, I would choose AMD for a number of reasons:

1) Pure fanboyism
2) Support of the Underdog, especially on the CPU side
3) Bang for buck, especially, these days, on the Video Card side

That's pretty much it.

I have been very happy with my NVIDIA cards. Specifically with EVGA but with the warranty offered no longer lifetime and the apparent flop of the 960GTX I find myself reconsidering what was once an assumed purchase.

My hypothetical situation strips away (or hopes to, anyway) the answer that is given in every general review posted on the web. My intent is to focus on the smaller tangibles that might not be obvious but should affect a purchase decision. I don't care about the underdog but I'm happy to pay for quality. I want to be happy with my purchase and without surprises if I chose to switch brands.

With an admitted bias I'm looking for a reason to consider AMD other than price/performance. (I know if I pay more I get a faster car... but maybe that slower car has seat warmers? edit: Or I guess better for my own topic. Maybe the cheaper but still faster car doesn't come with those seat warmers?)

 

[Silverforce11]

I bought the 670 when it was the same price as the 7950. No issues at all with swapping to whatever brand as long as performance, efficiency & features stack up well.

 

[ultimatebob]

Is this still the general consensus? Sounds like a fallacy that's just been carried forward from many years ago. I know HDMI coloring is questionable on both sides but I haven't heard it directed at one specific brand.

I still hold a grudge from the absolutely horrible drivers that AMD has had in the past... especially the drivers from their AllInWonder cards.

I'd had a few flaky Catalyst driver versions recently as well, although some of that might come from me overclocking the card.

 

[Tebor0]

Here's an example of the sort of differences I'm looking to learn about: See Here

 

[WittyRemark]

Most likely AMD, as freesync is supposed to be cheaper than g-sync.
I've had issues with my gt450, gave me bsod while gaming, driver not responding, tried everything literally but nothing changed l,So I guess it was a faulty card or something.
bought a hd6870, no issues whatsoever.
But still I won't mind switching to green if the card is right, I would've bought GTX970 is it wasn't so overpriced In my country. NVIDIA is overpriced here mind you.
Frankly having issues with a single card(made by x) doesn't makes me totally skip that brand products.

 

[Tebor0]

Most likely AMD, as freesync is supposed to be cheaper than g-sync.
I've had issues with my gt450, gave me bsod while gaming, driver not responding, tried everything literally but nothing changed l,So I guess it was a faulty card or something.
bought a hd6870, no issues whatsoever.
But still I won't mind switching to green if the card is right, I would've bought GTX970 is it wasn't so overpriced In my country. NVIDIA is overpriced here mind you.
Frankly having issues with a single card(made by x) doesn't makes me totally skip that brand products.

Me too.. and really one of the biggest reasons for this thread I suppose. The whole price/performance numbers don't match with the prices I have available here.

 

[wanderer27]

I have to go with nVidia.

Reason being Driver Support (or lack there of).

It's been my impression/understanding that nVidia's Driver Support has been far superior to ATI's.

I could be totally off base on this, but that's my impression . . . I've seen an awful lot of complaints about ATI's Drivers long after a product is released.


.

 

[bystander36]

I'd likely choose Nvidia due to 3D Vision. 3d Vision has better support than AMD's HD3D, which relies on 3rd party software. 3D Vision also has a mod community that fixes games for it, where as AMD's HD3D is done in such a way, that the moders are not able to fix games for it.

 

[dguy6789]

I'd go with AMD due to better driver support.

 

[cmdrdredd]

SLI works better in more games. Also DSR is a real winner when playing games on a 1080p TV and scaling up to 1440p or higher if performance is there. Nvidia wins for me

I still hold a grudge from the absolutely horrible drivers that AMD has had in the past... especially the drivers from their AllInWonder cards.

I'd had a few flaky Catalyst driver versions recently as well, although some of that might come from me overclocking the card.

Lets not forget terrible Crossfire support and performance when the 280/290 released. I know I remember it well which is pretty much what solidified my GTX 670 purchase back then.

 

[Silverforce11]

SLI works better in more games. Also DSR is a real winner when playing games on a 1080p TV and scaling up to 1440p or higher if performance is there. Nvidia wins for me



Lets not forget terrible Crossfire support and performance when the 280/290 released. I know I remember it well which is pretty much what solidified my GTX 670 purchase back then.

R290/X CF has been widely touted by reviewers (the same ones who hark on about smoothness & latency!) to be superior to SLI on Kepler, it took Maxwell to match it for smoothness and high res performance.

Also, SLI works better in NV sponsored games. That is true. Except for WD, don't know what happened there. Also FC4 with the horrible shadow corruption bugs on SLI (at least it works, CF was disabled by Ubifail).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Maybe it was before the 290/280 and I'm misremembering but at some point it took them 6 months to even get it working properly and it was a mess even when it worked.