Nvidia/Intel vs AMD

[drdiebrein]

OK so firstly this is meant as a Nvidia/Intel vs AMD debate, but please stay civil, and give logical and rational arguments.
I've always been an Intel and Nvidia fan, but lately I've been seeing quite a lot of people saying that AMD isn't as bad as I used to think. So everyone knows that Intel and Nvidia are more expensive for what you get(it seems) but I wanted to know if there are any major drawbacks to using AMD(like driver or performance issues, overheating etc)
(re-post of the first one started in the wrong category)

 

[MOnk]

This is called flamebait and has no redeeming value. Unless you are comparing two SPECIFIC products, having a general discussion about their general products is pointless.

 

[drdiebrein]

Sorry maybe I should have been a bit more clear, I also don't think THIS is flaimbate, the intent of this is not to make people get angry and argue which is "better" I just want to know if there are any major drawbacks common to most AMD CPU's and Graphics cards. I am thinking of switching to AMD as they are cheaper generally. I did not want to compare two specific products because I don't want to know all the technical details about those particular components( I can use google for that)

 

[ArchieChoke]

Sorry maybe I should have been a bit more clear, I also don't think THIS is flaimbate, the intent of this is not to make people get angry and argue which is "better" I just want to know if there are any major drawbacks common to most AMD CPU's and Graphics cards. I am thinking of switching to AMD as they are cheaper generally. I did not want to compare two specific products because I don't want to know all the technical details about those particular components( I can use google for that)

You have to be specific, otherwise people would assume you meant a Intel Celeron Vs a phantom.
Or HD6990 to a GTX220..

 

[TBlaar]

I recently (yesterday) got a new PC, finally, as follows:

- Intel i7-920
- Asys ROG Rampage Gene2 mb
- 8GB RAM
I will be adding either a 7850 of 560Ti, of which the 7850 is better.

So to answer your question, I am happy with either... as long as the CPU stays Intel

 

[Lyt]

I recently (yesterday) got a new PC, finally, as follows:

- Intel i7-920
- Asys ROG Rampage Gene2 mb
- 8GB RAM
I will be adding either a 7850 of 560Ti, of which the 7850 is better.

So to answer your question, I am happy with either... as long as the CPU stays Intel

I wouldn't say that since the the AMD vishera cpu's are out

 

[drdiebrein]

You have to be specific, otherwise people would assume you meant a Intel Celeron Vs a phantom.
Or HD6990 to a GTX220..

Well use a little common sense(really mean no offense) but all Nvidia cards have comparable AMD cards; you don't compare a celeron vs a phantom cause they are not of the same class and generation, just like you don't compare a xbox 360 to a PS1 they're not the same generation, I just want to know if there are obvious drawbacks that are common to all their current generation cards like driver support or just customer support, things like that. I'm basically just asking is it worth the money you save by going over to AMD from Intel and Nvidia.

 

[drdiebrein]

Also if someone could tell me what AMD cpu would compare to an i5 3570K and what AMD graphics card would compare to the GTX670, but that's a side note if I do decide to switch to AMD(considering there aren't any problems like buggy drivers and things like that).

 

[Necuno]

OK so firstly this is meant as a Nvidia/Intel vs AMD debate, but please stay civil, and give logical and rational arguments.
I've always been an Intel and Nvidia fan, but lately I've been seeing quite a lot of people saying that AMD isn't as bad as I used to think. So everyone knows that Intel and Nvidia are more expensive for what you get(it seems) but I wanted to know if there are any major drawbacks to using AMD(like driver or performance issues, overheating etc)

This is simple:

1) best performance to my needs, not yours.
2) decent quality, no one wants kak that doesn't last.

That is what I need and if AMD at that moment can give it to me I will use it, if not then I'll go with intel.

This goes for the other parts as well...

The end.

 

[TBlaar]

The best one is the one YOU want.

 

[VegOtter]

This is simple:

1) best performance to my needs, not yours.
2) decent quality, no one wants kak that doesn't last.

That is what I need and if AMD at that moment can give it to me I will use it, if not then I'll go with intel.

This goes for the other parts as well...

The end.

Can't agree more.

 

[Alien]

You have to be specific, otherwise people would assume you meant a Intel Celeron Vs a phantom.
Or HD6990 to a GTX220..

dont you mean Phenom?

and i believe the only way to compare then is by comparing the two at the same price and what it will be used for

 

[shaddowdragon]

The best one is the one YOU want.

+1

Nothing wrong with AMD however, you have max dual channels to memory available. Intel has triple channel mainstream so memory can be utilised better/more hence more speed. For word processing, difference is not perceivable. For long running tasks, you will notice an hour wait over 30 minutes.

 

[The Joker]

Intel are the cpu performance kings.
AMD are the Graphics kings.
Nvidia lost out this round.

The End...Not quite...

If you're a gamer with a single gpu setup then there is actually very little difference in real world gaming performance between Intel and AMD cpu's.
You won't be able to tell the difference (I have tested this with a couple of friends) The only time Intel really stretches their legs is when you start adding multiple high end gpu's then AMD sort of loses the plot. Although it'll run fine, the intel machine will most likely be 10-15fps faster with multi gpu set ups and 15 fps is noticeable to the naked eye.

On the other hand, if your gaming and you use your machine as a heavy workload machine and your on a budget then AMD are def the way to go right now, The FX8320 offers insane multi threaded performance for very little money if you compare it to lets say a i7 3770k there is roughly R1400 price difference between the 2..If you have the cash to splash then go for the i7 but there is really no real world difference when it comes to heavy workloads and both will perform really well.

Also we are now heading into a world where games are starting to use multi threading, I have a feeling that Crysis 3 will run fantastic on a FX8320 and I reckon that more and more games will start using multi threading as gamers demand, bigger, faster, more detailed graphically intense games...Its just a matter of time.

As far as GPU's go, right now AMD are king of the hill, they have officially taken the performance crown away from nvidia for the 1st time in 6 years and if rumors on the new 8xxx cards turn out to be true I reckon Nvidia will have a bitch of a time catching up to them.

At the end of the day its quite simple..buy what you wanna buy, don't get pulled into the Intel vs AMD vs Nvidia show.

A very basic machine can run most of today's games at high to ultra settings, Most people don't realize that for gaming a cpu is not the most important component, a gpu is a hell of a lot more important.

Ok class dismissed lol

 

[Necuno]

Also we are now heading into a world where games are starting to use multi threading, I have a feeling that Crysis 3 will run fantastic on a

Quake IV already supported SMP, but yes more wide support would be interesting to see how it pans out.

As far as GPU's go, right now AMD are king of the hill

I agree to a degree. ATI already have their GPUs afaik doing the variant speed thing and kelper being first from NV to implement it. One can see this, some issues with it at the moment.

At the end of the day its quite simple..buy what you wanna buy, don't get pulled into the Intel vs AMD vs Nvidia show.

Amen, or the andriod VS iphone. All this peen compare is tiring.

Ok class dismissed lol

RECESS !!!!!!

 

[jangutter]

My decision is not based on speed, but on stability. My main operating system is Linux, but I use Windows for gaming, and there's a couple of important points that you *can* make without referring to specific models, and only manufacturers.

Intel drivers on Linux and Windows, while not the fastest, sure are stable, reliable and just work. But not if you play games. It's no secret that Intel is scarily low on performance, but, for a work laptop, the extra battery life and stability makes up for it, in my opinion.

NVIDIA rules on 3D stability in Windows and Linux. I really have a lot less lockups with NVIDIA than I had with AMD.

AMD/ATI might be faster, but it also crashes MUCH more. And the driver situation is not nearly as stable as NVIDIA. I had to run a third-party driver cleaner to get the control panel to show up after the monthly driver upgrade. And Linux.... wow.... it's just *not* a good fit. I have not tried the open source drivers, however, but again, you're just swapping missing features here.

BUT, in the end, the card you're stuck with, is the card you're stuck with. There are no perfect cards, and sometimes it's better just to learn to work around the bugs and caveats of the device you have than to buy a new one in the hope it's going to solve everything.