Question Why does the overall gaming GPU market treat AMD like they have AIDS?

[VirtualLarry]

I guess I get the (sub-liminal) "The way it's meant to be played" ads from NVidia, along with the recurring FUD tropes about "AMD drivers", but I honestly don't get the sales disparity, especially for the price.

I've owned both NVidia-powered as well as AMD powered GPUs, and IMHO, AMD is (generally) just as good. Maybe 99% as good.

Edit: And I think that there's something to be said about the viability of AMD technologies, when they're in both major console brands.

 

[Ranulf]

Freesync is a poor man's Gsync

And yet Gsync is effectively dead. Freesync sucked because AMD was too hands off on standards and well, typical lazy AMD. Then again, things sorted themselves out after 4-5 years and Nvidia finally let what, pascal cards onwards use Freesync.

 

[fleshconsumed]

At the end of the day, people that use AMD cards are the less fortunate that couldn't make it into the walled garden of NV Valhalla. Everyone wants NV. And for everyone else, there is AMD.

That is why AMD are treated like they have AIDS.

Can't tell if serious or not...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Freesync sucked

Did you use it back then? I had a Samsung monitor in 2016 that supported FreeSync over HDMI. I consider it one of the best things that ever happened to low budget gaming. Suddenly holding 60fps wasn't necessary anymore. No more screen tearing either. Using it with a RX470 and FX8350, made for a flawless budget banger.

If our community had any self respect, they'd back AMD for embracing open standards. Linux gaming is progressing rapidly thanks to AMD and Valve. Freesync and FSR are the patron saints of low budget gaming. How anyone can nut hug RTX is beyond me. GTX owners would be left out in the cold if not for FS winning the VRR war, and AMD FSR support. Hell, even XeSS works on competitors cards. It needs to mature of course, but I appreciate that Intel is making the effort. They could have locked it to their hardware but didn't.

Inclusive > exclusive.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

GN benchmarks hardware, not games.

Exactly. Thanks for putting it succinctly. I enjoy most of their content. I do not, as stated, use them as a gaming resource for the very reason quoted. You can only derive a baseline idea, at times not even that, of what hardware will do in a particular title, based on their testing methodology. What it is like to play any particular title with said hardware, you need to go elsewhere for.

I personally have examples of where the numbers and frame time graphs they use fail to convey the experience the hardware provides. It is obvious no one sits and monitors the bench runs for every piece of hardware tested, to see if -

Assets are popping in.
A.I. are missing.
Graphical corruption and other IQ issues.
Audio issues.

None of those show up in the data files spit out.

I will add the EDIT: The reason people here can't understand is that they are using high end parts. They are going to play every game well with zero issues that are not the game's fault. For the rest of us gamers, a much bigger group, things get much more sketchy. I have a system that is fast enough for everything, but I also game on retro and low end, even APUs. My experiences often do not reflect their reviews of that hardware.

It isn't that they did anything wrong. They use a scientifically sound testing methodology. The issue is it is inadequate when you drop below a certain level of hardware. Because the data files produced no longer tell the whole tale.

 

[Dribble]

Hear this every time, and I think people who love AMD live in a pro-AMD echo chamber where they do no wrong.
-There are driver issues, it is not unusual for a new AMD card to have both playability and performance issues for the first year. This normally goes hand in hand with the people who say "but this time I'll try AMD", own the card for six months, praise it in all the forums to much back slapping, but keep quiet about the really annoying issues it has, eventually get sick of the problems and go back to Nvidia swearing never again. Nvidia cards tend to come out the gate with better stability and performance, fine wine is not really a good thing, it just shows how long AMD take to make stuff work properly.

-There are stock issues, often you simply can't buy the AMD cards, where as Nvidia has better availability. Again everyone with selective memory forgets this - e.g. the 6xxx series was mostly unavailable for the first year or so, sure Nvidia wasn't easy to get either but the steam sales show it was a lot easier to buy an Nvidia card.

-The price for most of the cards is not that cheap. Sure AMD tend to do a fake RRP and sell a few cards at that price when they release (mostly to the AMD red fan thing whatever it was called so they praise it on the forums), late in the life of the card they get cheap, and sure a few people have got great bargains, but most people when they take a look can't find those amazing prices anywhere.

-Lack of features do matter, no matter how many times people say DLSS is fake trash (now replaced with it's fine but use FSR now AMD has that) or ray tracing won't be worth it for 5 years whatever it's just not true. People want the features they see used in the AAA games, and Nvidia make sure the AAA games support RT and DLSS.

-Even if Nvdia is evil nobody cares. All AMD fans just don't understand how you can buy a card from such a nasty company, you've gotta support the underdog (which is really the basis for this thread). Most people just don't care when it comes to their money, including a lot of AMD fans who will recommend AMD to everyone in every thread, but when it comes to spending their money quietly buy Nvidia.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Diatribe goes here

TLDR: AMD is AIDS.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Wasn't there a review site back in the day (may still be around, who knows) where the reviewer would actually play a small segment of the game. It was admittedly and very blatantly not a like for like comparison between different cards but the reviewer provided a more in depth commentary on the "game-feel" and was able to catch stuff like subpar IQ, stuttering, jaggies etc that other reviewers didn't catch because there was an actual person playing an actual segment of a game.

This was back in the HD4xxx/5xxx/6xxx era.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Wasn't there a review site back in the day (may still be around, who knows) where the reviewer would actually play a small segment of the game. It was admittedly and very blatantly not a like for like comparison between different cards but the reviewer provided a more in depth commentary on the "game-feel" and was able to catch stuff like subpar IQ, stuttering, jaggies etc that other reviewers didn't catch because there was an actual person playing an actual segment of a game.

This was back in the HD4xxx/5xxx/6xxx era.

It was HardOCP. They took major flack for it. I have cited here before, that they were ahead of their time.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Wasn't there a review site back in the day (may still be around, who knows) where the reviewer would actually play a small segment of the game. It was admittedly and very blatantly not a like for like comparison between different cards but the reviewer provided a more in depth commentary on the "game-feel" and was able to catch stuff like subpar IQ, stuttering, jaggies etc that other reviewers didn't catch because there was an actual person playing an actual segment of a game.

Tech Deals on YT did that too. Haven't seen him much lately, hope he's OK.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

IMHO, the non-gaming extras make all the difference.


As already noted by others (see replies #3 and #9 in this thread), Nvidia cards provide functions that are unavailable on AMD cards.
Video encoding/decoding capabilities are extraordinary assets. Because these cards are not just for gaming. They're usable in other scenarios as well, aside from mining.


I've been an AMD fan for a couple of decades now, but I hated the RX570 with a passion: big, noisy and troublesome while playing Wolfenstein games, despite trying multiple drivers packs and settings. The GTX1650 (DDR6) that replaced it is better by any measurable standard, and I can also use it for encoding video on the fly.

Add into the mix the terrible power consumption of the AMD cards, and you're basically faced with a dilemma: buy AMD cards just because they're cheaper one-trick poneys, or Nvidia because they cover multiple usage needs?

 

[mastertech01]

There always has to be an underdog, otherwise the market would fall flat. As long as there are fan boys, especially wealthy fan boys, the hype will always keep the gaming community alive and profits rolling in.

 

[Ranulf]

Did you use it back then? I had a Samsung monitor in 2016 that supported FreeSync over HDMI. I consider it one of the best things that ever happened to low budget gaming. Suddenly holding 60fps wasn't necessary anymore. No more screen tearing either. Using it with a RX470 and FX8350, made for a flawless budget banger.

If our community had any self respect, they'd back AMD for embracing open standards.

Did I say that it didn't work out well? Many theorized that AMD would win this one, simply because of the cost. Did I say that I don't prefer it to a locked eco system of $150 extra gsync modules? Only that it had a rough start. I didn't buy into Gsync either early on and really by the time that gsync was possibly worth the money and being locked into nvidia only, Freesync was more reliable across most monitors that claimed to have it.

Also, re linux and Valve. They support Linux because its in the best financial interests to do so. That has been obvious since Win8's built in software store. Not that I'm not happy that they and AMD have better Linux support either.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Add into the mix the terrible power consumption of the AMD cards,

That isn't accurate. And AMD, Intel, and Nvidia are all on the same page now. That is, you need to undervolt or otherwise power limit all of their higher end hardware, for the best experience, while losing very little performance. And the performance per watt from my 6600 and 6600XT are most impressive.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Did I say that it didn't work out well? Many theorized that AMD would win this one, simply because of the cost. Did I say that I don't prefer it to a locked eco system of $150 extra gsync modules? Only that it had a rough start. I didn't buy into Gsync either early on and really by the time that gsync was possibly worth the money and being locked into nvidia only, Freesync was more reliable across most monitors that claimed to have it.

Also, re linux and Valve. They support Linux because its in the best financial interests to do so. That has been obvious since Win8's built in software store. Not that I'm not happy that they and AMD have better Linux support either.

No need to get defensive dude. You commented it sucked. I considered that hyperbole. Flaws yes, sucked, no.

HaHa reaction removed. That felt passive-aggressive, and that's not cool. Apologies.

 

[Leeea]

IMHO, the non-gaming extras make all the difference.


As already noted by others (see replies #3 and #9 in this thread), Nvidia cards provide functions that are unavailable on AMD cards.
Video encoding/decoding capabilities are extraordinary assets. Because these cards are not just for gaming. They're usable in other scenarios as well, aside from mining.

Your rx570 had both encoding and decoding. Did you attempt to use it?

I've been an AMD fan for a couple of decades now, but I hated the RX570 with a passion: big, noisy and troublesome while playing Wolfenstein games, despite trying multiple drivers packs and settings.

Seems wolfenstein was a bit of a rocky experience for plenty of nvidia folks also:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wolfenstein+issues+nvidia

The GTX1650 (DDR6) that replaced it is better by any measurable standard, and I can also use it for encoding video on the fly.

That is not a very fair comparison.

Your comparing a $170 card released in 2017 to a $200 card released in 2020.

"replaced it is better by any measurable standard,":
rx570 was available in 2017, so for three years its performance was vastly superior to the gtx1650(ddr6) in every way.
The rx570 was released at $170, making it $30 cheaper. By the time 2020 rolled around, it would have been $130.

Add into the mix the terrible power consumption of the AMD cards, and you're basically faced with a dilemma: buy AMD cards just because they're cheaper one-trick poneys, or Nvidia because they cover multiple usage needs?

So your comparing a card with 150w power consumption with a card built 3 years later with 75 watt consumption, and blaming that on AMD?



You indicate you feel amd is a one trick pony. ok. What feature does your gtx1650(ddr6) card have that you use that your rx550 did not have?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

That is not a very fair comparison. Your comparing a $170 card released in 2017 to a $200 card released in 2020.
So your comparing a card with 150w power consumption with a card built 3 years later with 75 watt consumption, and blaming that on AMD?

You indicate you feel amd is a one trick pony. ok. What feature does your gtx1650(ddr6) card have that you use that your rx550 did not have?

The devil is in the details. First of all, please remember the prices and availability are different outside the US. Your quoted MSRP prices are useless here. Also, FWIW, I bought the RX570 in December 2019, a few months before the pandemic. So at least in theory it *should* have ironed all the bugs by then.

Second, a card that's just dropped in the machine and instantly works with any game or application you throw at it should be the normal experience. Yet, the RX570 even had trouble displaying 4K content (multiple HDCP issues every day, no matter how many HDMI cables I changed), aside from gaming. It was also unable to use hardware encoding in software packages like ClownBD. And that was in 2020, a good 3 years after it became available.

Yes, AMD got better hardware encoding in the next generation, but even then it trailed Nvidia spectacularly. You don't have to take my word for it. See this detailed comparison:

Ultimate Encoder Quality Analysis 2020 (NVENC vs AMF vs QuickSync vs X264)

After far too many requests to updated my previous X264 vs NVENC and NVENC vs AMF/VCE videos with newer AMD drivers, I've finally put together what I consider to be the ultimate package of encoder quality comparisons. This is the state of...

obsproject.com

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Video encoding/decoding capabilities are extraordinary assets.

Wait, what? AMD has had both for eons. Even my ancient HD5450 could do HD video decoding fine. Encoding was added in the HD7000-series I think.

AMDs encoder isn't that bad. It's obviously not as good as pure CPU encoding, but does the job.

 

[Hitman928]

Second, a card that's just dropped in the machine and instantly works with any game or application you throw at it should be the normal experience. Yet, the RX570 even had trouble displaying 4K content (multiple HDCP issues every day, no matter how many HDMI cables I changed), aside from gaming. It was also unable to use hardware encoding in software packages like ClownBD. And that was in 2020, a good 3 years after it became available.

You seem to be completely ignoring Nvidia's issues over the years and only pointing out that some times AMD has driver/compatibility issues. I've owned several cards from both brands over the years and have had roughly equal experiences in this regard. Nvidia has literally had drivers with failed safe guards in place that ended up killing people's cards. They had a full RGB display bug that persisted for years. Many people do not have a, just drop it in and it works, type of experience with Nvidia. Larry just posted a video in another thread from JTC where his ASUS 4090 fails to give any display output on an AM5 motherboard unless he loads the driver for it using a different card. Even then, the ASUS card still doesn't work right. The AMD has worse drivers/compatibility line is old and tired and just not true anymore.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

You seem to be completely ignoring Nvidia's issues over the years [...] The AMD has worse drivers/compatibility line is old and tired and just not true anymore.

Dude... Why is is that these discussions have to degenerate into whataboutism, rabid partisanship, specious arguments and logic contortions?

Like I said earlier, I consider myself an AMD fan, and I'm also old enough to remember the times when ATI/AMD were king of the hill when it came to video capture/encoding (X800 AIW , anyone?)... But those days are long gone.

In the end, I'm only talking about MY experience. Granted, it may not be identical or similar to yours, but this is what I've seen and had to deal with - and why I concluded current Nvidia cards are better for my needs, since they never caused me any trouble.

Am I an outlier? Judging from many other discussions online, not really:

-

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/vl14bj

-

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/l6gi2n

- https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/jnt6ie/why_amd_has_no_interest_in_making_a_good_encoder/

 

[Hitman928]

Dude... Why is is that these discussions have to degenerate into whataboutism, rabid partisanship and contortions of arguments?

Like I said earlier, I consider myself an AMD fan, and I'm also old enough to remember the times when ATI/AMD were king of the hill when it came to video capture/encoding (X800 AIW , anyone?)... But those days are long gone.

In the end, I'm only talking about MY experience. Granted, it may not be identical or similar to yours, but this is what I've seen and had to deal with - and why I concluded Nvidia cards are better for my needs, since they never caused me any trouble.

Am I an outlier? Judging from many other discussions online, not really:

-

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/vl14bj

-

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/l6gi2n

- https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/jnt6ie/why_amd_has_no_interest_in_making_a_good_encoder/

I said nothing about AMD's encoder so I don't know why you are posting links about it as an argument against my post. I actually agree with you on the encoder front, though AMD's latest encoder iteration has by and large caught up with Nvidia's. My point was on drivers and general compatibility. Posting an anecdotal experience from 1 card is not helpful when making a generalized statement about why people choose Nvidia over AMD. There are just as many examples of Nvidia driver issues as there are AMD. This isn't whataboutism when the point is literally comparing the state of drivers between the two.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

In the end, I'm only talking about MY experience. Granted, it may not be identical or similar to yours, but this is what I've seen and had to deal with - and why I concluded Nvidia cards are better for my needs, since they never caused me any trouble.

That's fair.

I have used quite a few Nvidia and AMD cards in the last 6yrs. I have had more issues with AMD. I still have one when attempting to use my old Onkyo A/V I have yet to replace. It has audio cutout issues with streaming content on all 3 6000 series cards I have. I've tried 4 different drivers, no joy. My 3060ti and GTX 1080 work fine with it. If I connect a 6000 series directly to the TV and don't use HDMI passthrough with the A/V no issues. Can't say I am happy about not being able to use a AMD 6000 series for my HTPC, but that's where I am at. I surmise when I buy the new A/V, the problem will no longer exist. Still annoying.

The Sapphire 5700XT reference version I preordered was hot garbage, literally. Quality of life was terrible using it. It went back for a EVGA 2060 Super that was flawless until selling it for a profit during the dark times.

All that said, I will continue to buy and use AMD GPUs despite having more issues than with Nvidia. They get better each iterations now. Bring the best bang for buck for a gaming build. And support open source standards in a commendable way. Nvidia biz practices continue to get worse and worse. EVGA bailing speaks volumes to where things are at.

 

[kognak]

Add into the mix the terrible power consumption of the AMD cards

AMD GPUs were most energy efficient of last generation. Hands down. 5000-series wasn't bad either, about equal to Nvidia. AMD is about to launch 3rd generation after last GCN-based furnace, this thought of AMD being power hungry should die already.

 

[mastertech01]

There just isnt enough levity in this thread, so let me tell you what I have been running in my system for the past 10 years HIS Radeon HD 7750 .................. Well it worked for Ghost Recon Gold all these years Can you blame me for waiting for the great flood of GPU this winter?

 

[amenx]

I wonder if in a couple years Intel GPU fanboys will join the NV vs AMD fray.

 

[mastertech01]

I wonder if in a couple years Intel GPU fanboys will join the NV vs AMD fray.

Ive been running UHD750 built in to my processor since April. Im thinking you wont have to worry about that