Question about AMD cards

[Gaming_Addiction]

I've been a NVidia fanboy for awhile and now considering AMD because of their prices and they will be more optimized for BF4. What I want to know is:

 

Does games feel more smooth/the same at 60FPS compared to a NVidia GPU at 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor?

Do they run cooler?

Do they take more power?

Do colors on screens change or look different at all compared to NVidia?

Will it look worst on a PLS monitor? (PB278Q)?

[Darell3]

Does games feel more smooth/the same at 60FPS compared to a NVidia GPU at 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor? Yes, but depends on what Graphics card your talking about and what resolution your running at.

Do they run cooler? Yes.

Do they take more power? No.

Do colors on screens change or look different at all compared to NVidia? No.

Will it look worst on a PLS monitor? (PB278Q)? No.

[Gaming_Addiction]

 

Does games feel more smooth/the same at 60FPS compared to a NVidia GPU at 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor? Yes, but depends on what Graphics card your talking about and what resolution your running at.

Do they run cooler? Yes.

Do they take more power? No.

Do colors on screens change or look different at all compared to NVidia? No.

Will it look worst on a PLS monitor? (PB278Q)? No.

 

So there is no visual difference on the screen? 

[Darell3]

So there is no visual difference on the screen? 

Nope. Those visual difference would be the 'graphics settings' wise in game.

[Gaming_Addiction]

Nope. Those visual difference would be the 'graphics settings' wise in game.

What about PhysX? What does it even do?

[Goldilock]

What about PhysX? What does it even do?

It makes small details become more realistic.

[Gaming_Addiction]

It makes small details become more realistic.

Is it better to get NVidia then? or will 2GB bottleneck a 1440p monitor?

[gylmir]

it doenst matter if you have nvidia or amd if the both run the same game at same settings and performance they are equal.

the temps depends on how much cooling there is on the gpu and your case.

 

i prefer amd because of the price and the performance you get they are a better buy for your dollar compared with nvidia

[brownninja97]

Is it better to get NVidia then? or will 2GB bottleneck a 1440p monitor?

3gb or higher, i would recommend 4gb. Many people and i recommend to wait until the 9000 series drop as they will shake up the market and destroy the horrible prices nvidia have tried to set.

[Vitalius]

I've been a NVidia fanboy for awhile and now considering AMD because of their prices and they will be more optimized for BF4. What I want to know is:

 

Does games feel more smooth/the same at 60FPS compared to a NVidia GPU at 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor?

Do they run cooler?

Do they take more power?

Do colors on screens change or look different at all compared to NVidia?

Will it look worst on a PLS monitor? (PB278Q)?

I have done a lot of research in regards to this in anticipation of the 9970 and buying a GPU for my system. I too used to be a bit of an Nvidia fanboy as I saw it as a quality vs quantity thing, where Nvidia was Quality and AMD was Quantity (never settle, high FPS but bad frame latency, etc).

That depends what you mean. If it is strictly running at the same FPS, it will look and feel the same. However, that is not real world realistic in that it will not run at 60FPS consistently. 

According to frame latency benchmarks that I have seen, Nvidia GPUs have a harder time handling heavy loads. They take a higher FPS drop when faced with things like Crysis 3's exploding arrow turret benchmark than AMD's GPUs. AMD GPUs have better FPS consistency, but lower FPS tier-for-tier compared to Nvidia cards.

These are just to show a concept. I did not get these numbers from a benchmark:

Where the arrow explodes on the turret in Crysis 3, the GPUs are hit with a heavy load dealing with all the effects occurring at once. Where AMD GPUs, when in the same tier of pricing as Nvidia GPUs, would get 45FPS most of the time, they would have 30-35FPS during this explosion.

In comparison, Nvidia GPUs would get 60FPS most of the time, but get 30-35FPS during the same explosion. They take a harder hit, basically, losing more FPS. 25-30FPS difference is obviously more noticeable than a 10-15FPS difference. These are at the exact same settings. PhysX may or may not have anything to do with this.

The GPUs that were tested were the 7970 and 680 in the frame latency test (which showed level of consistency) in the one I saw. The FPS numbers, again, are not the real numbers. Only numbers I used for concept and nothing more.

Tier for Tier, yes. Anandtech's GPU temperature benchmarks show that, consistently, the 7970 runs cooler than the 680 by a few degrees. The 770/780 would likely run a bit warmer than the 680. 

However, the 9970 is a part of the "Volcanic Islands" GPU family. Volcanic. As in hot. And powerful. Expect high temperatures is all I have to say about that.

In that same link above to Anandtech's benchmarks, there are power benchmarks as well. The 7970 consistently uses more power than the 680. However, I am sure it is on par with the 770/780 in terms of power consumption. 

This is a reason that I thought AMD was the quantity brand. They have lower temperatures, but higher power usage for relatively less FPS (considering frame latency, not just average FPS). I was not technically wrong, but yeah, I have already explained that.

As for the 9970, Volcanic. As in heat. As in power. Again, expect high numbers. And yes, the name of the GPU family is kind of all we have to go on for now. People speculate, but it is better to just stick with official stuff before a release to draw conclusions/assumptions from imo.

No. And there is no reason why they would. The video is essentially the same in this aspect.

No. Again, it will not and has no reason to look any different between GPU manufacturers if we ignore FPS, game details, etc.

 

What about PhysX? What does it even do?

 

It makes physics within the game more realistic. Games must be programmed to utilize it however and so not all support it. In fact, many do not.

It is very cool, but not necessary. You can use it with your CPU, but would require a moderately good CPU (4 cores, modern, 3.2GHz, 3570k would be preferred) to not take a major FPS hit doing this as it is intentionally implemented less efficiently on the CPU. Why? Because you are not paying for it like you do with a GPU. That is not official, but it is the obvious logical reason why.

You should be fine with emulating it though on a CPU.

 

Is it better to get NVidia then? or will 2GB bottleneck a 1440p monitor?

2GB would be cutting it close if you use lots of AA at high details. 3GB is safe while 4GB is preferred for future gaming considering all the new technology and advancements in the works. More is better. Always is. 

[Kuzma]

O.o these sound like random fanboys shout blindly...

[Shindo]

are you a fascist? do you enjoy suppressing people of their rights and making them believe a false prophecy? then buy amd. if you respect yourself and others as human beings then go green. get nvidia. 

[eshbop]

I really don't expect BF4 to run better on AMD cards compared to equal tier Nvidia GPUs. What MAY happen is AMD cards will perform better at launch, while nvidia cards will quickly (considering how popular BF4 will be) get the driver updates that get will get them up to scratch.

 

1) Current gen AMD cards seem to handle AA better due to higher memory bandwidth so you may see some lost performance on equal tier Nvidia cards with AA enabled. But In single GPU setups (and now dual GPU setups in most DX10/DX11 tiltes) running 60FPS will be just as smooth on nvidia as AMD.

 

2 & 3) Running cooler and power draw are pretty much negliable between the them in my opinion. Shouldn't really be considered too much when buying a GPU, there's other more important things to consider, and who really cares.

 

4) Colours should be the same.

 

5) On 1440p you want a card with more than 2Gb VRAM & wider (than 256bit) memory bus, especially to make sure the GPU stays relevant for a while.

[TechFan@ic]

are you a fascist? do you enjoy suppressing people of their rights and making them believe a false prophecy? then buy amd. if you respect yourself and others as human beings then go green. get nvidia. 

Did you just call AMD owners fascists ? do you realize what that makes you ?

[Vitalius]

Did you just call AMD owners fascists ? do you realize what that makes you ?

Answer: Naked f***ing Snake. (I said Solid until I looked at his avatar more closely. This is not nearly as awesome.)

'Murica /joke

[igotsnomoney]

From personal Experience I noticed that some amd cards coil whine with certain PSUs. I forgot which one i had, but you may want to look into some posts to make sure you don't have one. coil whine is the most obnoxious sound to hear when gaming if you have it, wear a good pair of headphones and make sure they are closed backed. 

[Gaming_Addiction]

I have done a lot of research in regards to this in anticipation of the 9970 and buying a GPU for my system. I too used to be a bit of an Nvidia fanboy as I saw it as a quality vs quantity thing, where Nvidia was Quality and AMD was Quantity (never settle, high FPS but bad frame latency, etc).

That depends what you mean. If it is strictly running at the same FPS, it will look and feel the same. However, that is not real world realistic in that it will not run at 60FPS consistently. 

According to frame latency benchmarks that I have seen, Nvidia GPUs have a harder time handling heavy loads. They take a higher FPS drop when faced with things like Crysis 3's exploding arrow turret benchmark than AMD's GPUs. AMD GPUs have better FPS consistency, but lower FPS tier-for-tier compared to Nvidia cards.

These are just to show a concept. I did not get these numbers from a benchmark:

Where the arrow explodes on the turret in Crysis 3, the GPUs are hit with a heavy load dealing with all the effects occurring at once. Where AMD GPUs, when in the same tier of pricing as Nvidia GPUs, would get 45FPS most of the time, they would have 30-35FPS during this explosion.

In comparison, Nvidia GPUs would get 60FPS most of the time, but get 30-35FPS during the same explosion. They take a harder hit, basically, losing more FPS. 25-30FPS difference is obviously more noticeable than a 10-15FPS difference. These are at the exact same settings. PhysX may or may not have anything to do with this.

The GPUs that were tested were the 7970 and 680 in the frame latency test (which showed level of consistency) in the one I saw. The FPS numbers, again, are not the real numbers. Only numbers I used for concept and nothing more.

Tier for Tier, yes. Anandtech's GPU temperature benchmarks show that, consistently, the 7970 runs cooler than the 680 by a few degrees. The 770/780 would likely run a bit warmer than the 680. 

However, the 9970 is a part of the "Volcanic Islands" GPU family. Volcanic. As in hot. And powerful. Expect high temperatures is all I have to say about that.

In that same link above to Anandtech's benchmarks, there are power benchmarks as well. The 7970 consistently uses more power than the 680. However, I am sure it is on par with the 770/780 in terms of power consumption. 

This is a reason that I thought AMD was the quantity brand. They have lower temperatures, but higher power usage for relatively less FPS (considering frame latency, not just average FPS). I was not technically wrong, but yeah, I have already explained that.

As for the 9970, Volcanic. As in heat. As in power. Again, expect high numbers. And yes, the name of the GPU family is kind of all we have to go on for now. People speculate, but it is better to just stick with official stuff before a release to draw conclusions/assumptions from imo.

No. And there is no reason why they would. The video is essentially the same in this aspect.

No. Again, it will not and has no reason to look any different between GPU manufacturers if we ignore FPS, game details, etc.

 

 

It makes physics within the game more realistic. Games must be programmed to utilize it however and so not all support it. In fact, many do not.

It is very cool, but not necessary. You can use it with your CPU, but would require a moderately good CPU (4 cores, modern, 3.2GHz, 3570k would be preferred) to not take a major FPS hit doing this as it is intentionally implemented less efficiently on the CPU. Why? Because you are not paying for it like you do with a GPU. That is not official, but it is the obvious logical reason why.

You should be fine with emulating it though on a CPU.

 

2GB would be cutting it close if you use lots of AA at high details. 3GB is safe while 4GB is preferred for future gaming considering all the new technology and advancements in the works. More is better. Always is. 

 

I really don't expect BF4 to run better on AMD cards compared to equal tier Nvidia GPUs. What MAY happen is AMD cards will perform better at launch, while nvidia cards will quickly (considering how popular BF4 will be) get the driver updates that get will get them up to scratch.

 

1) Current gen AMD cards seem to handle AA better due to higher memory bandwidth so you may see some lost performance on equal tier Nvidia cards with AA enabled. But In single GPU setups (and now dual GPU setups in most DX10/DX11 tiltes) running 60FPS will be just as smooth on nvidia as AMD.

 

2 & 3) Running cooler and power draw are pretty much negliable between the them in my opinion. Shouldn't really be considered too much when buying a GPU, there's other more important things to consider, and who really cares.

 

4) Colours should be the same.

 

5) On 1440p you want a card with more than 2Gb VRAM & wider (than 256bit) memory bus, especially to make sure the GPU stays relevant for a while.

 

So what card for BF4 @ 1440P Maxed with 4X MSAA

[eshbop]

So what card for BF4 @ 1440P Maxed with 4X MSAA

To get reasonable frame rates, I'd say nothin less than a 780 or one of the upcoming AMD cards. I think a 7970 will have trouble getting BF4 to >45FPS maxed out. You might be able to go a light litter on the AA due to the higher pixel density on 1440p , netting you higher frame rates, but that's up to you're preferences.

 

Still, if you want a GPU to last any reasonable amount of time on 1440p you'll probably want a pretty high end one, especially considering next gen consoles (therefore devs getting more wiggle room hardware-wise) meaning maxing out games will probably show a bit of a jump in the horsepower you need over current gen titles.

[Gaming_Addiction]

To get reasonable frame rates, I'd say nothin less than a 780 or one of the upcoming AMD cards. I think a 7970 will have trouble getting BF4 to >45FPS maxed out. You might be able to go a light litter on the AA due to the higher pixel density on 1440p , netting you higher frame rates, but that's up to you're preferences.

 

Still, if you want a GPU to last any reasonable amount of time on 1440p you'll probably want a pretty high end one, especially considering next gen consoles (therefore devs getting more wiggle room hardware-wise) meaning maxing out games will probably show a bit of a jump in the horsepower you need over current gen titles.

I guess I'll look at the 780s. What one is the best value in Canada?

[eshbop]

I guess I'll look at the 780s. What one is the best value in Canada?

If you aren't in a massive rush I'd wait for the new AMD cards. They aren't that far away now. See how they perform and once they are out price wars will start. I don't think AMDs flagship GPU will launch at $700 (gtx780 price), though it will surely be pretty close in terms of performance to the 780 (as they always seem to be engineered to perform nearly identical to the other teams equivalent tier GPU, or they might push it further in anticipation for Maxwell, who knows). GTX 780 is priced so high because there's no competition at the moment. Compared to Titan it's a steal, but overall it isn't very good value at it's current price.

[Gaming_Addiction]

If you aren't in a massive rush I'd wait for the new AMD cards. They aren't that far away now. See how they perform and once they are out price wars will start. I don't think AMDs flagship GPU will launch at $700 (gtx780 price), though it will surely be pretty close in terms of performance to the 780 (as they always seem to be engineered to perform nearly identical to the other teams equivalent tier GPU, or they might push it further in anticipation for Maxwell, who knows). GTX 780 is priced so high because there's no competition at the moment. Compared to Titan it's a steal, but overall it isn't very good value at it's current price.

What FPS does a 770 and 780 get in BF3 @ 1440P? Ill just wait till the AMD cards come

[eshbop]

What FPS does a 770 and 780 get in BF3 @ 1440P? Ill just wait till the AMD cards come

770 averages around 60FPS with everything maxed out, the 780 would be high enough to stay over 60FPS pretty much the entire time, probably 70ish FPS.

 

Though having only a 256bit memory bus and 2Gb Vram on the 770 isn't really adequate (if it isn't yet it won't be quiet soon) for 1440p.

[Vitalius]

If you aren't in a massive rush I'd wait for the new AMD cards. They aren't that far away now. See how they perform and once they are out price wars will start. I don't think AMDs flagship GPU will launch at $700 (gtx780 price), though it will surely be pretty close in terms of performance to the 780 (as they always seem to be engineered to perform nearly identical to the other teams equivalent tier GPU, or they might push it further in anticipation for Maxwell, who knows). GTX 780 is priced so high because there's no competition at the moment. Compared to Titan it's a steal, but overall it isn't very good value at it's current price.

This.

I expect the 9970 to be a bit better than the 780 but priced cheaper. It will come with BF4 too. So yeah. You get a game you want and the GPU you want at the same time. Wait for the 9970 to release in early October.

[R4STABAN]

I've been a NVidia fanboy for awhile and now considering AMD because of their prices and they will be more optimized for BF4. What I want to know is:

 

Does games feel more smooth/the same at 60FPS compared to a NVidia GPU at 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor?

Games will be fine on either

Do they run cooler?

Depends on the card in question, but if your talking reference then 7970s run cooler because they make a jet engine sound quiet, compared to reference 680/770 which are much quieter but run hotter.

Do they take more power?

Depends on the card, again the 7970 uses more power than the 680/770

Do colors on screens change or look different at all compared to NVidia?

Some people used to say colours seem richer on AMD hardware and details appeared clear on nvidia hardware. I call B.S and say you won't notice much difference.

Will it look worst on a PLS monitor? (PB278Q)?

No.

[Gaming_Addiction]

770 averages around 60FPS with everything maxed out, the 780 would be high enough to stay over 60FPS pretty much the entire time, probably 70ish FPS.

 

Though having only a 256bit memory bus and 2Gb Vram on the 770 isn't really adequate (if it isn't yet it won't be quiet soon) for 1440p.

I cant really afford a 780 :( Sould I get the Gigabyte 770 4GB or save some money and get the Asus 770 2GB