The GPU Vendor Bias Admission Thread

[Arachnotronic]

Sweet and simple...in this thread, I'd love for people to vote in the anonymous poll I've included. Please be 100% honest.

If you simply prefer one GPU vendor over another because whatever, choose that one in the poll!

I suspect this thread will be fairly light on posts given the sensitive nature of the subject, but if you're willing to openly post the brand to which you are biased (or if you genuinely have no bias and want to tell us so), go for it!

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I have no bias and I believe that Nvidia is justified in promoting their hardware with their GameWorks program ...

There's going to be a lot of salt, gasps, tears, pitchforks, and some torches in this thread ...

 

[sandorski]

AMD, always

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I ever so slightly lean toward AMD, only because they're the clear underdog in either the CPU or GPU fight. This doesn't translate to a bias in purchasing their products however: I have almost perfectly flipped between NV and AMD with subsequent new card purchases (and have been on Intel for the last few years).

I am also very hard on AMD's business practices and would like to see them play hardball like NV does to ensure they keep making money so the GPU space remains competitive.

So I would really like to think my AMD bias manifests itself in an atypical way, where I actually end up being a little harder on AMD in my opinions because I really do want them to thrive as a company.

 

[Silverforce11]

My history as a PC gamer, I have used more NV GPUs than ATI/AMD over the years.

However, for the past few years, NV's really dirty play with GameWorks leaves me no choice but to go with AMD.

If NV take the open source approach too, then it's all down to the best products.

 

[ultima_trev]

Slight lean towards AMD although I have bought nVidia GPUs in the past when it was the best choice. Radeon 5xxx/6xxx (Evergreen/Cayman) was clearly the inferior architecture at the time with abysmal performance in that day's tessellation heavy titles (Crysis 2, Metro 2033) so at the time I had a GTX 470.

As hot, power hungry and loud as it was I grabbed the HD 7850 after its debut, which did everything better and was cooler and quieter.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Slight lean towards AMD although I have bought nVidia GPUs in the past when it was the best choice. Radeon 5xxx/6xxx (Evergreen/Cayman) was clearly the inferior architecture at the time with abysmal performance in that day's tessellation heavy titles (Crysis 2, Metro 2033) so at the time I had a GTX 470.

As hot, power hungry and loud as it was I grabbed the HD 7850 after its debut, which did everything better and was cooler and quieter.

I had tri-SLI GTX 470 and dang was that a miserable time from a heat/noise perspective.

 

[hawtdawg]

Whats faster is what is faster.

The only bias i currently have is one against AMD fanboys.

 

[Shmee]

Keep it squeaky clean or stay out.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I'm an underdog supporter. Rationally I know that Nvidia's GPUs are much more power efficient, but for some reason, I gun for the little guy. This includes CPUs too actually.

 

[beginner99]

I prefer AMD due to Nvidias shady tactics and focus on proprietary stuff. Yes, it makes sense as a company to do the later but for me as a consumer it sucks. If you buy a GSync Monitor, your locked into NV. If they also adapted the free standard free sync, consumers could freely switch between AMD and NV.

Then there is CUDA. I despise CUDA. It proprietary, closed source. Then you read some papers (publications) about a new method /algorithm in my specific field done with GPGPU, published in an Open Access journal that requires you to provide source code. And at the end of the article it is mentioned that it was done with CUDA and hence you need to have an NV GPU to make use of it. This is just stupid. Do it in OpenCL and anyone even with an intel iGPU can use it.

EDIT:

But in case AMD actually does really suck in performance/$, I would still buy NV. But when was that the case last time?

 

[desprado]

I prefer the best overall and i do not care if it is AMD or Nvidia. That is why i have GTX 980 TI lightning edition which is simply 25% to 30% faster then fury X.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'm an underdog supporter. Rationally I know that Nvidia's GPUs are much more power efficient, but for some reason, I gun for the little guy. This includes CPUs too actually.

Exactly the kind of honest, no-nonsense response that I'm looking for in this thread, thanks!

 

[crashtech]

My last couple have been AMD and I prefer them somewhat, since in the mid-high range they seem to make cards that stay relevant longer even if they are not class leaders. Also I have less HDMI surround sound issues on my HTPC with AMD for some reason.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Don't really care as long as the card does what I need it for. At the time I bought my card, I needed CUDA, and my budget was about $200. Grabbed a 960 for $165. Now it sits in my rig quietly, probably crying to itself when I bring out Goat Simulator.

 

[Bacon1]

I prefer whatever company that provides the best product for gamers.

That is not Nvidia lately with how anti-gamer they are and pro-making money.

I've owned way more Nvidia cards than AMD but their business practices lately are awful and anti-gamer. Too much locking into propitiatory BS. They are doing their best to hold back new and standards so they can make the most money off people. Lying about hardware specs and features. Its sad to see them still have support. Any other company would end up going bankrupt due to backlash if they pulled this shit.

 

[desprado]

I prefer whatever company that provides the best product for gamers.

That is not Nvidia lately with how anti-gamer they are and pro-making money.

I've owned way more Nvidia cards than AMD but their business practices lately are awful and anti-gamer. Too much locking into propitiatory BS. They are doing their best to hold back new and standards so they can make the most money off people. Lying about hardware specs and features. Its sad to see them still have support. Any other company would end up going bankrupt due to backlash if they pulled this shit.

Fun fact though AMD lied more about Fury X then nvidia did with GTX 970.

 

[Bacon1]

Fun fact though AMD lied more about Fury X then nvidia did with GTX 970.

Really? How so?

Nvidia lied about hardware features

4GB of RAM

56 vs 64 ROPS

1792 KB of L2 Cache vs 2048 KB

Those hardware specs were sent to reviewers to publish.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Still have a preference for nvidia because they were first with per game settings in the control panel, custom resolutions with downsampling (don't mean dsr, just a custom res way above monitor res), pre rendered frames, shadowplay, gsync. Amd now has that stuff too, except for maybe pre rendered frames? But you can set that with radeonpro if it's impossible in the game cfg.

There's still the dx11 overhead that makes me prefer nvidia, but there's no way I'd buy a 970 and a gsync screen if I can get a 390 and a the equivalent freesync screen for way less.

 

[AtenRa]

Up to the Fermi era I was 50/50, but since NV started the GW initiative and I have began to see the results, I have become way too AMD BIASED.
But, if AMD will start doing stupid things like NV does lately (anti consumer/anti gamer), I will change again in a heart bit.

So for today, I vote AMD preference.

 

[desprado]

Still have a preference for nvidia because they were first with per game settings in the control panel, custom resolutions with downsampling (don't mean dsr, just a custom res way above monitor res), pre rendered frames, shadowplay, gsync. Amd now has that stuff too, except for maybe pre rendered frames? But you can set that with radeonpro if it's impossible in the game cfg.

There's still the dx11 overhead that makes me prefer nvidia, but there's no way I'd buy a 970 and a gsync screen if I can get a 390 and a the equivalent freesync screen for way less.

and god father of first gaming card with memory and shaders.

 

[SimianR]

and god father of first gaming card with memory and shaders.

I'd probably give the title of first gaming card to 3dfx but to each his own.

As for me, I don't actually have a brand preference, it seems like each generation I've flipped from NVIDIA to AMD and then back, but I am finding it hard to buy NVIDIA products the last few years with how one sided the market share situation has become. When 3dfx went out of business years ago I remember feeling nervous that there wasn't going to be any real competition for NVIDIA but then ATI really stepped up with the original Radeon. This time it's hard to imagine who would replace them if they disappear and I don't really think a single GPU company would serve PC gamers very well, so as insignificant as my one purchase might be, I've been leaning AMD as of late. It doesn't hurt that they tend to offer more performance/$ either.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'd probably give the title of first gaming card to 3dfx but to each his own.

Rendition Verite. 2D + 3D + built in AA and AF on the hardware level. 3dfx was an addon, not a true video card capable of everything.

 

[MrTeal]

I lean pretty heavily to AMD in the graphics space.

 

[Erenhardt]

I always wanted nvidia card. I had GTX 8800GTS, and ever since I couldn't force myself into spending premium. I'm a cheapskate.
I almost bought GTS450 from b-stock, but noticed it was a bit too slow for my taste. So I was looking for a 550ti, but decided to grab quite a bit faster hd7770 for almost the same $.
Later GTX660ti was haunting me, but I grabbed used 7950 for half the price of 660ti.
Now I have used 290 I grabbed for $200.

So I'm slightly nv biased, but am so cheap, that I will never pay premium to fill my bias.