Nvidia vs. AMD - The Eternal Struggle

[TheConverter]

But HBM!

 

What is the point in HBM if;

 

1) The chip itself sucks

2) It's the only card with HBM therefor not a single developer optimizes for it

3) It's limited to 4GB

 

 

So it's nothing more then a gimmick and marketing selling point.

HBM V2 or V3 is what is all about, because both AMD and Nvidia will have them in their mainstream and enthusiast cards.

[don_svetlio]

What is the point in HBM if;

 

1) The chip itself sucks

2) It's the only card with HBM therefor not a single developer optimizes for it

3) It's limited to 4GB

 

 

So it's nothing more then a gimmick and marketing selling point.

HBM V2 or V3 is what is all about, because both AMD and Nvidia will have them in their mainstream and enthusiast cards.

VR? Fury X was built for VR - 980 Ti has latency issues from early sources.

[Lethal Seraph]

I had a295x2 and now a 980ti. IDC, I buy whatever I want.

[TheConverter]

VR? Fury X was built for VR - 980 Ti has latency issues from early sources.

 

Until VR actually comes available (everything is now delayed until 2016) the new 2016 GPU's will come out.

[msvelev]

And can't believe how 4% have 970.. that's about 6M Steam Users

When the 970 came out, it was pretty much the only logical choice for a GPU..

[TheConverter]

When the 970 came out, it was pretty much the only logical choice for a GPU..

 

When the 970 came out, the R9 290 was 250$ with real 4GB of vram and 512 bit bus

[msvelev]

When the 970 came out, the R9 290 was 250$ with real 4GB of vram and 512 bit bus

Nope. The 290x was not, for sure. The 290 also wasn't and the 970 outperforms it.

Also from engineering point of view the 970 is more interesting. And DSR was a big feature for me. Also for 1080p and 1440p the bus width doesn't make a difference and the 970 outperforms the 290x there. Right now there is absolutely no point in getting a 970,but back in the day there was.

[TheConverter]

Nope. The 290x was not, for sure. The 290 also wasn't and the 970 outperforms it.

Also from engineering point of view the 970 is more interesting. And DSR was a big feature for me. Also for 1080p and 1440p the bus width doesn't make a difference. Right now there is absolutely no point in getting a 970,but back in the day there was.

 

Only thing that I hated on my R9 290 was no HDMI 2.0 and I had to play games at 30hz on my 4K TV back then but not luckily i got my 980Ti

[Nena Trinity]

Only thing that I hated on my R9 290 was no HDMI 2.0 and I had to play games at 30hz on my 4K TV back then but not luckily i got my 980Ti

You are gaming on a TV? But latency is a pain is it not? :c

[TheConverter]

You are gaming on a TV? But latency is a pain is it not? :c

 

Can't you read my signature?

[Nena Trinity]

Can't you read my signature?

You wrote you where gaming on a 4K TV...

[TheConverter]

You wrote you where gaming on a 4K TV...

 

So you assume somebody can't game on a 4K TV any monitor on the same rig?

 

Why do you think Valve invented the Steam Link?

[Nena Trinity]

So you assume somebody can't game on a 4K TV any monitor on the same rig?

 

Why do you think Valve invented the Steam Link?

So you link and have latency of the TV does it not feel uber slow? :c

[Timmy-P]

I thought development on RadeonPro stopped? Or did the guy continue working on it, or simply it continues to work with latest versions of Catalyst drivers?

It did stop about a year and a half ago, but it still works the way it did back then.  I even have it working with GTA 5 if that says anything.

[TheConverter]

So you link and have latency of the TV does it not feel uber slow? :c

I use glorious hdmi cable

[FinestRyeBread]

I use glorious hdmi cable

Latency on a TV is atleast 10ms+ way slower than an actual monitor

[TheConverter]

Latency on a TV is atleast 10ms+ way slower than an actual monitor

 

So? Can't play Witcher 3 on my TV or what?

[FinestRyeBread]

So? Can't play Witcher 3 on my TV or what?

I was just stating the latency on a TV, never said you couldn't play anything

[TheConverter]

I was just stating the latency on a TV, never said you couldn't play anything

 

I didn't noticed a difference between my TV and LG monitor, maybe because they are made by LG ? 

 

But now since my new monitor I don't really play on my TV anymore  :unsure:

[Prysin]

inb4 the lock

 

/shitpost

[FinestRyeBread]

I didn't noticed a difference between my TV and LG monitor, maybe because they are made by LG ? 

 

But now since my new monitor I don't really play on my TV anymore  :unsure:

It's just latency times

[mathijs727]

Erm - they do? All GCN cards support DX12 and OpenGL 4.5

It only took them more then 8 months and they still dont completely support it:

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=401673

They added all OpenGL 4.5 extensions about a month ago (Nvidia did wayyyyy earlier) but it cant handle Shader Language 450 (part of OpenGL 4.5)...

 

I want AMD to get bigger (or for some other competitor to rise) but i just find them misleading: OpenGL support (fuck off with "soon"^TM), Mantle being open (only took them 1.5 years to release the programming guide/API reference), crying about gameworks, R9 295X not conforming to the PCIe power connector specs.

As a hobby developer im also leaning towards Nvidia as they release a lot of programming resources (tons of GTC talks) and they put a lot of resources into computer graphics research (FXAA or cool new stuff like real-time voxel-based global illumination for current GPUs).

[App4that]

Onboard chipset FTW!

[Dennis01]

My personal preference is nvidia. I've had both but I prefer the ui that comes with nvidia also shadow play.