Nvidia fans might change sides

[Youssef Medhat]

when your buying a card u look for a card that u need whats in it .. nivida cards better for video editors and so - if you gaming check videos see which one is better in the money range u can pay - don't waste money on something cuz u just on there side go with the one that will work better for you :)

[Bubben]

'Fan' is just another word for 'stupid'.

[jecho]

I didn't start this thread because I took sides because I will only buy nvidia. I have in the past because nvidia offered much better driver support, although amd has certainly improved. The problem I see is that nvidia has decided that its cards have become a premium priced item. The titan is not worth $1000. It is a great card but not for that price. Although nothing is certain but I am worried that they will price the 700 series too high. Especially the 780. I would like to see people not sheep to buy the next slightly improved product for a much higher price. Use your money as a vote and show nvidia that the titan should have been boycotted to a much lower price. 750-800 USD. Just because the next gen is faster does not mean that the price should increase by 20%. This is all speculation of course but rumors about GPUs tend to be partially true.

[jecho]

Nvidia will have high priced GPUs, because they have to spend on BUILDING more powerful GPUs. A titan is very advanced, and Linus has explained that the cost of the high end is mostly on the R&D, not parts. The 780 which will probably be almost exactly the same as a Titan will be cheaper because they made money off the Titan already to cover some of their R&D. There will likely be a 770 which will be lower binned 780 chips, same for the entire range.

 

Nvidia will still have cards in the $200, $300, $400 ranges as well as the $1000 range just like AMD will.

 

Now, if AMD really is making money they will be able to add to their development and could come up with something better than Nvidia, it's all about the money you can spend on development and Nvidia has had more of that the last few generations.

I am a business finance major an year over year after looking at Nvidia's 10k (financial statement) the R&D cost have increased by approximately the same each year. Also most R&D is focused on tegra tech so nvidia can become a major player in the multi trillion dollar mobile industry.

[Opsilon]

nvidia has always been overpriced so what else is new. One thing we can always expect from team green is higher pricing.

Well Mr. fanboy, when AMD released their 7000 series they were very expensive, same as NV cards on release, the fact is only that NV did not lower prices on 680 cards, the rest of them have ok pricing, and you have to take into account that AMD is doing poorly even with their awesome game deals, sure their stock is up but they are still in debt... they are fighting on 2 sides: CPU and GPU, that is a hard job

As for the green team being more expensive, well until the HD 7000 series, NV was beating AMD for quite a few generations in performance, and if you make something well, you will never sell it cheap, just remember Athlon 64 days, AMD made first extreme chips, and they were expensive, heck they were overpriced. It's not like AMD is cheap because of the goodness of their heart...

AMD cards should be more expensive right now for what performance they have, but they can't they must sell as many cards they can just to keep investors, getting rid of cards they produce, as a matter of fact the 7970 GHZ should be more expensive than the 680, but it is not, they are trying to stay in the game.

 

not on topic but, don't get me wrong i want AMD to come back strong with Steamroller, i am even prepared to skip Haswell an wait for Steamroller, and even if they do make it strong, they will not be able to put a huge price tag on it, if it performs well they will price it like bulldozer at launch, but probably not in the i7 territory + rumor has it they will give free games with CPU-s

 

If eventually AMD comes back they will up their prices, it's what everyone does...

[Ribozyme]

Wow this thread is ridiculous. And I thought some apple fans were sheep.

[TechFan@ic]

remenomen, on 19 May 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

I never was much of a GPU fanboy. I think no one should buy things because they like the company that makes them. For example: Right now, you would be a moron (or uninformed) if you buy an Nvidia card. I did, because they run cooler than AMD cards. (there was also a sale on 660 ti's :P)

AMD wins this generation because they offer a very good price/performance ratio, and a bucketload of free AAA games.

Nvidia cards do NOT run cooler, that's a common misconception, so you were actually miss-informed on this.

Opsilon, on 19 May 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

Well Mr. fanboy, when AMD released their 7000 series they were very expensive, same as NV cards on release, the fact is only that NV did not lower prices on 680 cards, the rest of them have ok pricing,

Please don't call other members fanboys.

The 7970 launched for 550$ & was significantly (60%) more powerful than the GTX 580 which Nvidia was selling for 500$.

So not only did AMD have the fastest card on the market, it also offered the best performance/price.

Quote

and you have to take into account that AMD is doing poorly even with their awesome game deals, sure their stock is up but they are still in debt... they are fighting on 2 sides: CPU and GPU, that is a hard job

The financial statements of a company have nothing to do with the quality of their products. This is affirmed by the HD 7000 series, where AMD offers better performance at every price point as evidenced by every single graphics showdown Linus made, AMD cards always come on top.

THQ which went bankrupt , made some of the best games out there, critically acclaimed Company of Heroes, a 7 year old which is still being played by tens of thousands, & has a huge following of fans.

Metro 2033, Dawn of War, Saints Row, Red Faction, Stalker, Supreme Commander & many others.

There are countless examples of companies that are doing poorly financially but offer outstanding products or services.

Opsilon, on 19 May 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

well until the HD 7000 series, NV was beating AMD for quite a few generations in performance, and if you make something well, you will never sell it cheap, just remember Athlon 64 days, AMD made first extreme chips, and they were expensive, heck they were overpriced. It's not like AMD is cheap because of the goodness of their heart...

This is utterly untrue, going back to 2008, Nvidia released two cards in the summer, the GTX 280 for 650$ & the GTX 260 for 400$, AMD released their HD 4870 3 weeks after the 260, it beat it by 7%, ran cooler, quieter and cost 100$ less.

So in fact AMD "made something well" & priced it modestly.

You're also wrong on the athlon 64, AMD was beating intel at every price point at the time by 50-100% even their FX line (intel extreme equivalent name) was faster than intel extreme edition CPUs & cost the same.

So by definition they were not overpriced, because how can something be overpriced if it costs the same or less than other products on the market and be 50-100% faster ?

Whether you think AMD is kind-hearted or not is irreverent & very subjective.

I don't want to get into an argument about which company is more moral than the other, even though history tells AMD/ATi did the least morally questionable acts if any in the last 15 years compared to Intel & Nvidia.

Opsilon, on 19 May 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

AMD cards should be more expensive right now for what performance they have.

NO THEY SHOULD NOT ! , Nvidia's 600 series should be CHEAPER ! not the opposite !

[G.Freeman]

There was a gtx 660 2gb for 154 dollars. Is that overpriced to you?

There was ... Can you cite the source to when nvidia officially dropped the pricing on the whole GTX lineup ?

[Guest]

I don't get peoples problem with AMD graphics cards, at the end of the day the only thing consistantly higher on Nvidia cards than AMD/ATI cards is the price, (excluding the odd few exceptions like the HD7990 which seams to be a bit more pricey than the GTX690 where I live) in terms of performance ok if you buy a GTX680 it will be ever so slightly faster than a HD7970 in theory, but really its a minimal difference made even less by the sheer amount of games optimized for AMD cards, Ive used both and while I have never had any complaints about an Nvidia card being sub-standard in terms of performance I must say the same about AMD/ATI cards, I don't think I have ever brought one where I have then taken a step back and said "wow, this is rubbish" they do exactly as the price point suggests and if anything offer a bit more bang for buck than Nvidia.

 

I'm not trying to sound like an AMD Fanboy or anything here but from my perspective I genuinely think a lot of people go with Nvidia as the name holds a certain degree of prestige, rather than going with it because they have researched the cards properly, I am not saying Nvidia are a bad choice, I have had many Nvidia cards in the past and they have been phenomenal, I'm just saying some people seam to dismiss Radeon graphics under a false assumption they are a lesser brand, when they really are not.

[G.Freeman]

And i highly disagree about Nvidia overclocking better overall than AMD cards.

Who said nvidia OCs good clearly never read the facts. They also obviously never heard about "Green Light" 

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/26082/nvidia_s_green_light_program_are_we_seeing_the_beginning_of_the_end_of_overclocking_gpus/index.html

[KaareKanin]

nvidia has always been overpriced so what else is new. One thing we can always expect from team green is higher pricing.

Them $$$z be green yo!

 

The way I see it, overpriced can be seen at from two sides. The side that should matter the most to the consumer, which is price/performance, and here, the green team seems to be losing out seriously. But then there's the other one which is how much is the product priced at versus how much the customer is willing to pay for it. And it seems to me that they are doing very well on that point. Nvidia is in it to make money, and that means balancing the price to maximize income. It could very well be that if they lowered their prices, they would sell more, but that the lower profits from each sale would be lowering their total profits.

 

Edit: Bottom line, as long as we are willing to pay their price, they'll keep it high :(

 

Nvidia cards do NOT run cooler, that's a common misconception, so you were actually miss-informed on this.

 

 

AMD certainly seems to get lower temps, yes. That seems to be achieved through better coolers though, as the TDP of a 7970 should be at 230W and a 680 should be at 195W (according to wikipedia). So there's a misconception about the situation, but that misconception could get it roots from the fact that the green camp seems to be producing less heat. I fully support your effort to educate people on this, but I think you should paint the whole picture ;)

 

Also, are those tests run with reference coolers? What are the results when someone like Asus throws their coolers into the mix?

[G.Freeman]

The way I see it, overpriced can be seen at from two sides. The side that should matter the most to the consumer, which is price/performance

Lets be honest that's what matters most.

[KaareKanin]

Lets be honest that's what matters most.

To consumers, it should be, no doubt. But then why are people still buying nvidia?

[G.Freeman]

But then why are people still buying nvidia?

One word "Marketing" nivida is king at "Marketing". It's the sizzle that sell the steak kind o thing.

[TechFan@ic]

AMD certainly seems to get lower temps, yes. That seems to be achieved through better coolers though, as the TDP of a 7970 should be at 230W and a 680 should be at 195W (according to wikipedia). So there's a misconception about the situation, but that misconception could get it roots from the fact that the green camp seems to be producing less heat. I fully support your effort to educate people on this, but I think you should paint the whole picture ;)

The whole misconception does not revolve around which card consumes more power, rather by the fact that most people believe in the incorrect notion that Nvidia cards have better reference coolers compared to their AMD counterparts which has been proven wrong time & time again.

 

[KaareKanin]

One word "Marketing" nivida is king at "Marketing". It's the sizzle that sell the steak kind o thing.

 

Apart from the in game nvidia slogan on certain games, I've never (to my recollection) seen any nvidia marketing. It also could be that a their bad standings in the cpu market rubs of on gpu. Intel are by most accounts the best when it comes to cpus, and by association, amd are "bad". There's very well a possibility that that stigma has carried over. Maybe things would have looked a little different if they kept the ati name?

[MzCatieB]

all cooling solutions with fans are based around the same technology.

graphics cards are restricted to no more than 1/3 pci slots at the back of a computer (when air cooled) if you look at Asus's ROG series of DCU2 coolers and there past generations with the cards you will see that its about evolution of the technology,

Asus ROG are both AMD and Nvidia and use the exact same technology.

although there are GPU dependent companies out there it is not down to marketing or any of that, its about who got there first and who is more reliable.

 

The reason why people buy Nvidia graphics cards is cause they are reliable and run extremly well for long periods of time, they offer CUDA support for software and PhysX for in game.

AMD however do not support PhysX or CUDA cause the core technology is completely different, AMD are largely dedicated to gamers because the AMD approach is more about power and FPS in games.

overall if you are looking at just the gaming side, they both have there own merits. 

however from a workstations perspective Nvidia offer allot more than AMD cause of there Tegra GPU's and how they work.

 

overall each side are both good, its just dependent on what you are looking for.

and the coolers just select the cores that will most likely work best with there cooling design

[Aunik]

At the end of the day I'm with NVIDIA

[kaneandtaker]

I'm already semi anti-Nvidia because of their voltage locked GPUs on the 680. I'm using Nvidia right now because SLI has less frame times issue.

[TechFan@ic]

I'm already semi anti-Nvidia because of their voltage locked GPUs on the 680. I'm using Nvidia right now because SLI has less frame times issue.

I agree with your first & second statement.

 

The reason why people buy Nvidia graphics cards is cause they are reliable and run extremly well for long periods of time, they offer CUDA support for software and PhysX for in game.

AMD however do not support PhysX or CUDA cause the core technology is completely different, AMD are largely dedicated to gamers because the AMD approach is more about power and FPS in games.

overall if you are looking at just the gaming side, they both have there own merits. 

however from a workstations perspective Nvidia offer allot more than AMD cause of there Tegra GPU's and how they work.

Reliability falls largely on the add in board partner, both AMD & Nvidia have fantastic exclusive & non-exclusive board partners so I disagree with you on the reliability argument, I personally owned 4 Nvidia graphics cards & 2 AMD graphics cards, 2 of the 4 Nvidia cards died one died after 6 months of use, the other died after much longer than that.

Both of my AMD cards are still working, one of which is 9 years old, the other is 5 years old.

AMD's GCN architecture has the best compute performance bar-none & they have a massive edge over Nvidia in bitcoin mining, with the 7970 out-performing the 680 by 448%.

So to state that AMD is only for gaming is completely false.

[XiaoPigs]

I always read reviews before purchasing my cards. Back when I bought my 670(sometime during August of 2012). It was the best price to performance ratio card and could out perform a 680 even, when overclocked to it's fullest potential. There are pros and cons to choosing either sides and all depends on what you're willing to sacrifice to gain what you need. 

[Lukiose]

I was from Nvidia, almost went for a 660Ti when it came out but decided against it and went for a 7950 in the end, then Catalyst 13.1 drivers came out. (The update that made AMD cards go apeshit on Nvidia)

[Akula]

I'm not happy with the driver support i got from AMD, recently i switched to 7970's and to be honest id pay the extra cash for Nvidia.

[joelthezombie15]

I will go with whoever suits my needs more and im willing to pay a bit more if it makes sense.

[GamerDude]

I'm not happy with the driver support i got from AMD, recently i switched to 7970's and to be honest id pay the extra cash for Nvidia.

What driver are you using? I have Cat13.5 Beta2 installed on my main rig in sig, and Metro Last Light runs silky smooth @5760x1200, no SSAA, no Advanced PhysX, but max/On everything else.....awesome gaming experience. I'm a long time user of ATi (now AMD) cards since buying a 9700Pr back then. That's not to say I don't buy nV cards as well, a 4200 Ti 128MB to my present 2x GTX670 in my 2nd rig. With AMD cards, there's a little of a learning curve, some tweaking needed here and there every once in a while, but damn, the performance one can get from an AMD card is well worth the effort. In all honesty, I've had very little trouble with AMD cards, driver support as of late has been excellent. I'd expected Last Light to run like crap on my rig, but the performance in surround mode is breath-taking. For my GTX670 in SLi mode, I have 320.00 installed and am running Last Light at max setting @1080P quite easily. I've not updated to 320.14 Beta s there have been feedback over at guru3d of it causing all sorts of trouble,,,,,,the funny thing about drivers is this: Most of the time, most have no issue with driver....but sometimes, it's like a Gremlin has popped up causing issue in one system, and none in a similarly configured system...