AMD vs Nvidia - Why is Nvidia 'better'?

[MayorPotatoSalad]

I was introduced to the world of PC's when I bought my first desktop back in early 2014, a second hand Alienware Aurora rocking a GTX 480 and a core i7 980x. By September, and the release of the GTX 980, I was hooked, having completely disassembled and reassembled the Alienware multiple times as it was the closest experience I could get to building a PC of my own, I bought myself a GTX 980 to replace my aging 480 and because the 980 was just so shiny, 'high tech' and new. At this point, without even realizing it, I already had developed a conscientious bias against AMD cards. In my eyes, they were hot, loud and hungry, and I had not even used one. 

 

Now, in 2016, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on PC gear be it past present or future but one thing still confuses me, what happened in the race between AMD and Nvidia?

 

I have heard the tales of when AMD was extremely competitive with Nvidia, their cards often being far superior, and wanted to know, why is it not like that today? What happened to AMD, or Nvidia, to cause there to be so much discrepancy between the efficiency of their architectures, leaving Nvidia, for the moment at least with actual performance numbers aside, far more advanced in terms of power consumption, heat output and overclocking headroom. 

 

This topic is not about which brand is the better option for the consumer (I know Nvidia really screw with the market), nor is it which has the better performance, I just want to know why Nvidia's underlying GPU architecture is more advanced than AMD's, in particular in recent years.

 

Or am I just misinformed all together haha

[Made In Canada]

1 minute ago, MayorPotatoSalad said:

I was introduced to the world of PC's when I bought my first desktop back in early 2014, a second hand Alienware Aurora rocking a GTX 480 and a core i7 980x. By September, and the release of the GTX 980, I was hooked, having completely disassembled and reassembled the Alienware multiple times as it was the closest experience I could get to building a PC of my own, I bought myself a GTX 980 to replace my aging 480 and because the 980 was just so shiny, 'high tech' and new. At this point, without even realizing it, I already had developed a conscientious bias against AMD cards. In my eyes, they were hot, loud and hungry, and I had not even used one. 

 

Now, in 2016, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on PC gear be it past present or future but one thing still confuses me, what happened in the race between AMD and Nvidia?

 

I have heard the tales of when AMD was extremely competitive with Nvidia, their cards often being far superior, and wanted to know, why is it not like that today? What happened to AMD, or Nvidia, to cause there to be so much discrepancy between the efficiency of their architectures, leaving Nvidia, for the moment at least with actual performance numbers aside, far more advanced in terms of power consumption, heat output and overclocking headroom. 

 

Or am I just misinformed all together haha

TLDR; I prefer Nvidia for their features and their driver updates, i just dont see AMD as a good choice other than a value perspective, but i prefer Nvidia imo.

[byalexandr]

Because AMD is always the one to push the technology and introduce it first, and then Nvidia capitalizes on it. People saying 'better software and features' are just succumbing to Nvidia's marketing scheme. 

[Mark77]

I know Linux-driver wise, Nvidia is miles ahead of ATI/AMD and has been for quite a considerable period. 

 

But on Windows, I've had much better luck, driver-stability wise, with AMD/ATI's products.  But I'm not a gamer (oh the blasphemy!  guess Linus will have to perm-ban me!), and overall gaming quality is probably the prime consideration of people faced with the choice. 

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Made In Canada said:

TLDR; I prefer Nvidia for their features and their driver updates, i just dont see AMD as a good choice other than a value perspective, but i prefer Nvidia imo.

In my experience (albeit with only Nvidia's desktop GPU, and AMD's mobile GPU), Nvidia releases loads of drivers that go from rock solid on most cards, to down right buggy AF on most of them, while with AMD every single driver across 3 years (start to end of AMD fixed PowerXpress support) with this laptop has been rock solid and given me no issues at all.

[Made In Canada]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

In my experience (albeit with only Nvidia's desktop GPU, and AMD's mobile GPU), Nvidia releases loads of drivers that go from rock solid on most cards, to down right buggy AF on most of them, while with AMD every single driver across 3 years (start to end of AMD fixed PowerXpress support) with this laptop has been rock solid and given me no issues at all.

It is just personal preference, some dont like it, some dont worry about it.

[l3igwill]

 

I just bought an Nvidia, Used, and then stuck with it pretty much that simple..... 

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, Made In Canada said:

TLDR; I prefer Nvidia for their features and their driver updates, i just dont see AMD as a good choice other than a value perspective, but i prefer Nvidia imo.

Yeah I buy nvidia mostly because of features, not price performance

[Izumi Reina]

6 minutes ago, MayorPotatoSalad said:

I was introduced to the world of PC's when I bought my first desktop back in early 2014, a second hand Alienware Aurora rocking a GTX 480 and a core i7 980x. By September, and the release of the GTX 980, I was hooked, having completely disassembled and reassembled the Alienware multiple times as it was the closest experience I could get to building a PC of my own, I bought myself a GTX 980 to replace my aging 480 and because the 980 was just so shiny, 'high tech' and new. At this point, without even realizing it, I already had developed a conscientious bias against AMD cards. In my eyes, they were hot, loud and hungry, and I had not even used one. 

 

Now, in 2016, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on PC gear be it past present or future but one thing still confuses me, what happened in the race between AMD and Nvidia?

 

I have heard the tales of when AMD was extremely competitive with Nvidia, their cards often being far superior, and wanted to know, why is it not like that today? What happened to AMD, or Nvidia, to cause there to be so much discrepancy between the efficiency of their architectures, leaving Nvidia, for the moment at least with actual performance numbers aside, far more advanced in terms of power consumption, heat output and overclocking headroom. 

 

Or am I just misinformed all together haha

From what I know of Nvidia Graphics Cards or more optimized, offer more features, and more games just lean toward Nvidia.

But that doesnt mean Nvidia is superior.

AMD is known for giving better performance at an equal or better price range.

 

I typically see AMD as better in terms of raw performance.

[Energycore]

8 minutes ago, MayorPotatoSalad said:

I was introduced to the world of PC's when I bought my first desktop back in early 2014, a second hand Alienware Aurora rocking a GTX 480 and a core i7 980x. By September, and the release of the GTX 980, I was hooked, having completely disassembled and reassembled the Alienware multiple times as it was the closest experience I could get to building a PC of my own, I bought myself a GTX 980 to replace my aging 480 and because the 980 was just so shiny, 'high tech' and new. At this point, without even realizing it, I already had developed a conscientious bias against AMD cards. In my eyes, they were hot, loud and hungry, and I had not even used one. 

 

Now, in 2016, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on PC gear be it past present or future but one thing still confuses me, what happened in the race between AMD and Nvidia?

 

I have heard the tales of when AMD was extremely competitive with Nvidia, their cards often being far superior, and wanted to know, why is it not like that today? What happened to AMD, or Nvidia, to cause there to be so much discrepancy between the efficiency of their architectures, leaving Nvidia, for the moment at least with actual performance numbers aside, far more advanced in terms of power consumption, heat output and overclocking headroom. 

 

Or am I just misinformed all together haha

Nvidia isn't better.

 

They just have better marketing. And since they have more people who consider they're "better" without looking at reviews, the consensus ends up being that they're better.

 

Their Windows 10 drivers have been plagued with issues that compare to the release of AMD's Crimson.

[MayorPotatoSalad]

1 minute ago, byalexandr said:

Because AMD is always the one to push the technology and introduce it first, and then Nvidia capitalizes on it. People saying 'better software and features' are just succumbing to Nvidia's marketing scheme.

That makes a hell of a lot of sense. AMD are like the guinea pigs for the new, often un-optomised technology, at least at the moment notably with HBM etc, meaning that Nvidia have time to see how it went for AMD and optimize it from there. However, when it comes down to the actual GPU core, it still does not answer how they are behind Nvidia.

[YongKang]

Well, you have to know that Nvidia have more assets. So therefore, they can put more time and money into polishing their product while AMD, on the other hand, is doing what they can to offer something competitive to the market. But with Polaris and Pascal, the race will become very heated as they both use new technologies.( AMD used to be behind. Looks like they manage to catch up)

[MayorPotatoSalad]

4 minutes ago, AsianvsWhite said:

From what I know of Nvidia Graphics Cards or more optimized, offer more features, and more games just lean toward Nvidia.

But that doesnt mean Nvidia is superior.

AMD is known for giving better performance at an equal or better price range.

 

I typically see AMD as better in terms of raw performance.

My question more relates to the actual efficiency and optimization of the graphics chip, namely, why is AMD deemed (or actually is) hotter and far less power efficient.

[glitchmaster0001]

oh god please don't start a flame war but i would perfer AMD for card in the $200 to $300 price range. beyond that then i would have to say nvidia but AMD's r9 380 and r9 390s are the king of price to proformance and they have more vram on the 390 and the 380 has a full useable 4GB while the GT 970 only has 3.5GB 

[Energycore]

The one feature that the most people mention to back the nvidia's better features argument is ShadowPlay.

 

AMD has it too. It's just not called an awesome name like that.

 

 

Effectively, Nvidia benefits from the same "It's better because it's popular" effect that apple does.

[HKZeroFive]

You are completely right on the power consumption, features, heat output and overclocking headroom aspects that NVIDIA does extremely well. But if we were to look at performance numbers and functionality of drivers, AMD is indeed extremely competitive with NVIDIA

 

The thing is, with a 85% (I think) market share, NVIDIA has established themselves as the dominant figure within the GPU world. Their brand name is basically what draws them to being successful, we can clearly see this in the GTX 960 vs R9 380 sector - less so in the tiers above where they're more or less equal. AMD's awful advertising doesn't help either.

 

With DX12 coming up, it has been speculated that AMD will have a bigger advantage than their NVIDIA counterparts due to their 'raw power' as NVIDIA has been more focused on the software aspect which allows them to be what they are today.

 

Performance wise, AMD dominates the mid to high end categories. NVIDIA rules the low and enthusiast categories. They're perfectly equal in my book, but NVIDIA has the better rep.

[MayorPotatoSalad]

Just now, glitchmaster0001 said:

oh god please don't start a flame war but i would perfer AMD for card in the $200 to $300 price range. beyond that then i would have to say nvidia but AMD's r9 380 and r9 390s are the king of price to proformance and they have more vram on the 390 and the 380 has a full useable 4GB while the GT 970 only has 3.5GB 

Not trying to start a flame war haha I just want to know the underlying facts behind why Nvidia, especially in recent years, have a more optomised architecture over AMD.

[Made In Canada]

7 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Yeah I buy nvidia mostly because of features, not price performance

Their price performance is not too bad but yeah, it is on the more pricey side, but their features and perks (driver updates) make up for that imo.

 

When it comes to these GPU topics which lead into a mini war, you almost got to say "imo" in everything...

Edited April 18, 2016 by Made In Canada
Words

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MayorPotatoSalad said:

I was introduced to the world of PC's when I bought my first desktop back in early 2014, a second hand Alienware Aurora rocking a GTX 480 and a core i7 980x. By September, and the release of the GTX 980, I was hooked, having completely disassembled and reassembled the Alienware multiple times as it was the closest experience I could get to building a PC of my own, I bought myself a GTX 980 to replace my aging 480 and because the 980 was just so shiny, 'high tech' and new. At this point, without even realizing it, I already had developed a conscientious bias against AMD cards. In my eyes, they were hot, loud and hungry, and I had not even used one. 

 

Now, in 2016, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on PC gear be it past present or future but one thing still confuses me, what happened in the race between AMD and Nvidia?

 

I have heard the tales of when AMD was extremely competitive with Nvidia, their cards often being far superior, and wanted to know, why is it not like that today? What happened to AMD, or Nvidia, to cause there to be so much discrepancy between the efficiency of their architectures, leaving Nvidia, for the moment at least with actual performance numbers aside, far more advanced in terms of power consumption, heat output and overclocking headroom. 

 

Or am I just misinformed all together haha

Here's why I prefer AMD:

- Superior drivers

- Better price to performance ratios

- Runs cool and power efficient on newer cards

- Generally has better flagship cards

 

Here I can explain:

 

Superior Drivers:

I have only ever run AMD GPUs in every single build that I have done personally. For friends, that's a different thing altogether. When building my friend an engineering PC, I threw in an FX 6300 and a GT 610 or something. I found it extremely hard to just get the right drivers that weren't Gaming ones. I had a similar experience trying to navigate the settings. We have K620s at school and I have had a similar experience with trying to navigate the interface. When taking out a 750 from a friends computer (replaced with a 390) and putting it into an A8 PC, once again, I had trouble getting the drivers because of their confusing website. It should be noted that with the engineering PC, I got the drivers from windows update (they were all up to date, I checked). Compare with AMD, by example, there is a simple Autodetect Utility which is very easy to use. The drivers are very simple to navigate and the graphics card is very easy to overclock. Also, I feel like it's every f****** day that my friend comes up to me to tell me that nvidia has f***ed up again. I find that AMD generally have better drivers on windows and nvidia on linux. Even if the AMD drivers don't work, from personal experience, the beta ones always do

 

Better Price to Performance Ratios:

In Australia, the GTX 970 is the same price as an R9 390. Generally, it has 4.5GB moar vRAM and has better performance at 1080p and 1440p. Thus, better price to performance ratios

 

Runs cool and power efficient on newer cards:

Taking the R9 Fury X and Radeon Pro Duo by example. Has water cooling, runs cooler and runs at 750W.

 

Generally has better flagship cards:

Eg R9 295x2 is better than 2xTitan Xs

R9 390X2 is better than the 980 Ti

[HKZeroFive]

5 minutes ago, jkeasley said:

Eg R9 295x2 is better than 2xTitan Xs

Not to rain on your parade but that's simply not true.

[Guest]

Just now, HKZeroFive said:

Not to rain on your parade but that's simply not true.

I've seen benchmarks where the 295x2 matches, if not better on most games

[HKZeroFive]

Just now, jkeasley said:

I've seen benchmarks where the 295x2 matches, if not better on most games

Show me.

 

A 295X2 is basically two 290Xs in Crossfire. Considering how much more powerful a Titan X is, two will definitely beat out a single R9 295X2.

[Guest]

I lied, just the 1 titan x. Still performs well at 4K throug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dabombinable]

9 minutes ago, jkeasley said:

-snip the disjointed wall-

Generally has better flagship cards:

Eg R9 295x2 is better than 2xTitan Xs

R9 390X2 is better than the 980 Ti

Ok....Titan X=on par with 980ti in gaming. R9 390X2= "16GB" R9 295X2, 2x Titan X will flog both dual GPU cards. And I'm in Australia, and at the time of purchase, it cost $129 less to by my GTX 970 G1 Gaming than it would have to buy a Sapphire 8GB R9 290X (aka, a 390X), and my GTX 970 can and has been run off a 450W PSU with no problems.

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, jkeasley said:

I lied, just the 1 titan x. Still performs well at 4K throug

Thought so...

 

While the 295X2 is a beast of a card, power consumption and Crossfire will potentially present unpleasant problems.