What's the difference between company's when choosing graphics cards?

[XcRaZeD]

My understanding that each individual company does a bit of fine tuning and just changes it aesthetically. I'm looking to buy a 6800xt and my local memory express has some in stock so I was wondering if I should hold off on purchasing one purely due to what brands may be available or if that matters at all

[JamesTheFolf]

Just now, XcRaZeD said:

My understanding that each individual company does a bit of fine tuning and just changes it aesthetically. I'm looking to buy a 6800xt and my local memory express has some in stock so I was wondering if I should hold off on purchasing one purely due to what brands may be available or if that matters at all

In all reality the branding doesn't matter as much, they all make very similar products. They mostly have different features like out of box overclocking or RGB.

[IceChes]

One key difference is what OS you are using. If you are a Windows guy, go for NVIDIA. If you are a Linux guy, go AMD.

AMDs are also easier to overclock (or so I've heard)

 

I shouldn't say anything. I'm putting a NVIDIA in my Linux build. 

[spartaman64]

They have different coolers and power delivery.

[Downkey]

2 minutes ago, IceChes said:

One key difference is what OS you are using. If you are a Windows guy, go for NVIDIA. If you are a Linux guy, go AMD.

AMDs are also easier to overclock (or so I've heard)

 

I shouldn't say anything. I'm putting a NVIDIA in my Linux build. 

no, hes talking about what the difference between what each company does to the same card. For example some 6800XTS are slightly different from the rest...

[XcRaZeD]

2 minutes ago, IceChes said:

One key difference is what OS you are using. If you are a Windows guy, go for NVIDIA. If you are a Linux guy, go AMD.

AMDs are also easier to overclock (or so I've heard)

 

I shouldn't say anything. I'm putting a NVIDIA in my Linux build. 

I should specify that I'm not looking at NVIDIA vs AMD, but that brands such as MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS etc.

[IceChes]

Just now, XcRaZeD said:

I should specify that I'm not looking at NVIDIA vs AMD, but that brands such as MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS etc.

Ah, ok. Yeah nothing really. Out of the box overclocking, more fans, different ports, but the same graphics processing unit.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Asus for good components, MSI, EVGA next and the gigabyte probably below them and the rest all the way bellow, why ? becasue the rest just don't use high quality components. 

for example 
 

 

 

[Moonzy]

5 hours ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

Asus for good components, MSI, EVGA next and the gigabyte probably below them and the rest all the way bellow, why ? becasue the rest just don't use high quality components. 

for example 
 

 

 

That's a pretty blanket statement and doesn't apply to all generations of GPU

Especially when each company have more than one tier of product for a given GPU core

 

For OP, best way to is look at reviews, don't think there's a tier list for latest GPU yet

 

Gaming performance they should be within 2% of each other so not much difference

What you care is the cooling and the VRM design

[Letgomyleghoe]

5 hours ago, IceChes said:

One key difference is what OS you are using. If you are a Windows guy, go for NVIDIA. If you are a Linux guy, go AMD.

AMDs are also easier to overclock (or so I've heard)

 

I shouldn't say anything. I'm putting a NVIDIA in my Linux build. 

this is highly false. 

While AMD does play better with linux drivers, AMD is still just fine on windows, and nvidia is still just fine on linux. 

AMD does tend to leave more room for overclocking on their cards, but that's not the case with every card. 

[NickTheMajin]

They're all basically the same aside from the cooler used and the customer service you might need to use down the line. Some higher end cards will be factory overclocked or run cooler allowing you to overclock them yourself. 

 

Realistically, they're almost all going to be within 5% of each other performance wise. 

[YoMz]

it's not just aesthetics... it's warranties and RMA and availability as well... take Asia for example, it's much harder to acquire EVGA GPUs here that it is when compared to NA and EU regions, simply because the company is NA based and handling RMAs and warranties is more convenient for those regions... when buying products (especially ones where you are going to extensively use) it is always wise to have a comprehensive  way of doing RMAs and warranty claims if something ever goes wrong...

 

the same idea goes for monitors as well... the products that NA based reviewers have tend to have different sku names when they are released in Asia... and sometimes products are region specific as well... just look at the sheer amount of Asia specific brands for any PC parts you can think of and you will find a lot of brands (and even products) that most NA based consumers have never even heard of... 

my advice is go for the brand that offers the most reliable warranty service for whichever region you are residing right now...

[thrasher_565]

6 hours ago, IceChes said:

One key difference is what OS you are using. If you are a Windows guy, go for NVIDIA. If you are a Linux guy, go AMD.

AMDs are also easier to overclock (or so I've heard)

 

I shouldn't say anything. I'm putting a NVIDIA in my Linux build. 

do you have proof the linux works better for amd?

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to Graphics Cards

[Twolf]

as others have already stated it mostly comes down to aesthetics and options. power delivery/management, cooling, rgb, all those are mostly what the various manufacturers work on. but warranty, customer service, and just prior experience with a brand is what drives my decision when purchasing. Those honestly is what I recommend most people look at, is those last 3, if don't have prior experience with a brand yourself, ask around or look online at reviews/message boards.

[IceChes]

11 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

do you have proof the linux works better for amd?

Yes. AMD usually works out of the box, without driver updates. In fact, I'm pretty sure most Linux distros come packaged with fairly up to date AMD drivers, whereas you have to manually update the absolutely ancient NVIDIA driver. Even then, AMD still gets higher frames, even against an equivalent or even ever so slightly better GPU from NVIDIA.

[IceChes]

12 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

this is highly false. 

While AMD does play better with linux drivers, AMD is still just fine on windows, and nvidia is still just fine on linux. 

AMD does tend to leave more room for overclocking on their cards, but that's not the case with every card. 

AMD is perfectly fine on Windows. I've just seen more Windows builds with NVIDIA graphics cards. There's obviously some sort of reason for that, even if I'm wrong about it performing better.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

13 hours ago, Moonzy said:

That's a pretty blanket statement and doesn't apply to all generations of GPU

Especially when each company have more than one tier of product for a given GPU core

 

For OP, best way to is look at reviews, don't think there's a tier list for latest GPU yet

 

Gaming performance they should be within 2% of each other so not much difference

What you care is the cooling and the VRM design

yes he can look, but he asked me what's "the difference when choosing" cards, i told my reasons. 

[papajo]

The price and aesthetics. If it has a decent enough cooling system(90+% of them do)  buy the cheapest one whatever difference exist is miniscule and can be reached by manually OCing the card.