AMD and NVIDIA

[Natherul]

first off let me apologize if theres a topic about this already on the forum, but I cant find one.

 

To settle my own curiosity, what is the difference between the 2 designers of GPUs?

 

I mean how do they fare in different things? multi monitor use, gaming, streaming, video editing and so on? Also heard that AMD cards are unable to use advanced PhysX, what kind of a difference will that actually make in a game?

 

thanks in advance!

[Samdb]

AMD cards can't use PhysX and have frame pacing issues, but that's being worked on and PhysX can be done on your CPU. There really isn't any difference between the two at the moment, however I would say that Eyefinity is better than Nvidia surround.

[frontliner]

Gaming = the same/no difference (although a few games tend either manufacturer)

multimonitor = easier on AMD

streaming = streaming doesn't rely on a good graphics card, just cpu to do the encode

video editing = is your program CUDA supported? use NVIDIA. does it support OpenCL? use AMD

PhysX is done on the CPU if using AMD, done by the card if using NVIDIA

 

Just to clarify what Samdb, frame pacing is only an issue with crossfire on AMD cards and dual-gpu cards.

 

EDIT: Most users only opt for single gpu cards anyway, so frame pacing is less of an issue for the majority of users (not that it doesn't need addressing)

[DrunkAssassin]

PhysX is all for show and just makes the game look a little bit better there is a mirrors edge demonstration with it and all it does stuff like make more glass particles when windows smash. Usually AMD has a better price to performance ratio but Nvidia has most of the high end cards. Also AMD has mantle which could be a game changer (pun intended).

[Cyberpunk177]

PhysX is all for show and just makes the game look a little bit better

Says the guy who owns an AMD card. In all honesty, both manufacturers don't differ much. It all comes down to what programs you use and what would be best suited for that specific program. 

 

Metro Last Light

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DHjsa6YpcY

 

Hawken

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIOVGSGyirc

 

Go to youtube for more video comparisons.

 

 

Trust me,you'll notice when it's enabled or not. You can put the load on the CPU. Having an Nvidia GPU however doesn't reduce game performance when physx is enabled.

[TechFan@ic]

What @frontliner said.
Plus a few other differences.


Frame pacing is the coordination between two GPUs or more to push out frame after frame with a very consistent time between each frame & the one after it.
This is different from what traditionally was being done, which is basically letting each GPU render a frame EXACTLY after the other GPU, this led to the first frame being shown for a fraction of the time of the frame after it, this gives the illusion that only one frame was drawn rather than two which makes the image look significantly less fluid.

Example.
 

Traditional rendering       : Frame1,Frame2,..........................Frame1,Frame2,................................Frame1,Frame2
What happens here is that frame1 remains on the screen for such a small amount of time that you do not even notice it most of the time, this cuts the fluidity of the image by almost half.
Frame-paced rendering : Frame1,.............Frame2,..............Frame1,...............Frame2,.................Frame1,..............Frame2
Here each frame remains on the screen for exactly as much as the other frame, so you can actually see and notice the two, which vastly improves fluidity.
 

The first area of differentiation between AMD & Nvidia is in multiple-GPU configurations.
This is where you add an additional card or more for added performance, usually the sweet spot is two cards, more than that and the cost/performance because too great.
AMD cards still do not support frame-pacing in DX9 games, in eyefinity or with more than two cards installed.
So to have frame-pacing you need to use a single monitor (no eyefinity) & use no more than two cards (Up to CrossFire) on DX10 or newer titles.
Frame pacing support for DX9 games, eyefinity, TriFire & QuadFire is coming in the future via a driver update, but currently that's where the AMD solution stands.

Nvidia 600 series cards and newer, support frame-pacing on up to three monitors & with up to three cards (That's why you always see Nvidia marketing their cards as up to 3-way SLI capable even though you can use up to 4 cards).
So this is an area where Nvidia definitely has the edge.


The second area of differentiation between the two is performance scaling with higher resolutions.

At the same price point, Nvidia GPUs perform better at lower resolutions, AMD GPUs perform better at higher resolutions.
This is due to the highly parallel nature of AMD's GCN architecture, AMD GPUs also tend to have more memory bandwidth and more video memory at each given price point.
This gives the AMD GPUs an edge on higher resolutions.

To illustrate this lets look at an R9 280X review.


https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/65796-amd-and-nvidia/#entry898863

You can see that the GTX 770 beats the R9 280X at 900P & loses in 1440P, this is because the 280X will lose less performance with the increase of the resolution (Performance scales better).
This becomes even more apparent at even higher resolutions.
Where even a 7950 beats a GTX 680 at 4K.

What does this mean for you ? well if you play on 1920x1080 it's pretty much a tie, higher than that and AMD becomes a better option (most of the time) lower than that & Nvidia becomes a better option (most of the time).

The performance scaling isn't just tied to the resolution, it's tied to anything memory intensive, so textures & anti aliasing as well.

AMD cards will not lose nearly as much performance as most Nvidia cards with anti aliasing.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297-18.html


I hope this helps
 

[Natherul]

thanks for all the excellent replies!

 

Now when I know the more exact differences between them I can actually compare them in my head  

[BCMods]

I never bother considering these points when buying. Just get the best price:performance card within your budget.

[TheSLSAMG]

PhysX is all for show and just makes the game look a little bit better there is a mirrors edge demonstration with it and all it does stuff like make more glass particles when windows smash. Usually AMD has a better price to performance ratio but Nvidia has most of the high end cards. Also AMD has mantle which could be a game changer (pun intended).

 

First off, as much as I don't want to start a war, PhysX really does improve more than that. Also, NVIDIA has had their own API for a while now, NVAPI. It's used in games like Battlefield 3 and even Battlefield 4 will use it. I don't think Mantle is going to change much if NVAPI didn't.

[lachyman]

NVidia cards work better in SLI than AMD in CF, but it has been fixed with 290 series of cards. NVidia has PhysX which is used by a few games, AMD on the other hand, has Mantle which should noticably improve FPS in supported games (Frostbite 3) compared to DirectX. AMD is also a lot cheaper and their cards have generally more VRAM than their NVidia counterparts.

I've made a graph of what brand to choose at diffirent price segments if you don't have any special needs:

AMD APU 

GTX650Ti Boost 2GB>R7 260X (more performance)

GTX660=HD7870/R9 270X (basically the same)

GTX660Ti/GTX760<HD7950 (More VRAM, more performance if OC)

GTX680/GTX770<R9 280X ($100 cheaper, + same as above)

GTX780=/=R9 290 (We don't have any benchmarks but the 290 is $100 cheaper)

GTX Titan=/=R9 290X (A lot of mist around this, rumors say that the 290X is faster than Titan, but the price is at least $300 less)

[EmmaLong]

First off, as much as I don't want to start a war, PhysX really does improve more than that. Also, NVIDIA has had their own API for a while now, NVAPI. It's used in games like Battlefield 3 and even Battlefield 4 will use it. I don't think Mantle is going to change much if NVAPI didn't.

NVAPI is NOT a low level API rather a development tool, BF3 has been using it all along so it doesn't seem to offer significant performance improvements because we can clearly see that AMD cards are still just as fast if not faster than their Nvidia counterparts in BF3.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/67354722

 

PhysX is highly subjective some people like it some don't & some just don't care.

I usually keep it off especially in multiplayer games because it adds too much clutter which becomes very distracting.

[TEDWARDS]

Should take a look at GeForce experience that's pretty awesome as well as shadow play coming soon

[A/C]

NVAPI is NOT a low level API rather a development tool, BF3 has been using it all along so it doesn't seem to offer significant performance improvements because we can clearly see that AMD cards are still just as fast if not faster than their Nvidia counterparts in BF3.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/67354722

 

PhysX is highly subjective some people like it some don't & some just don't care.

I usually keep it off especially in multiplayer games because it adds too much clutter which becomes very distracting.

 

I'm sorry, AMD faster in BF3? I think the internets has something to say about that: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming/7.html . But they're so neck-a-neck it accually DOES NOT MATTER. The 3fps +/- difference won't be noticeable even if you play on 30fps. What I can say in AMD's defence is that AMD's price points are much better than nvidia's. So it accually makes much more sense to buy an AMD card now because of what I already said. The 3fps +/- is an unnoticable difference and definately not worth the extra 100-150$ premium you pay for an nvidia card. Especially to a regular gaming enthusiast.

 

But that's not what I have a quarrel with in your post. It's that you said the way the game looks (e.g. physx) doesn't matter to people. Might as well play on a console then. Sure, you can run physx on the cpu but at what cost. I wonder how many people who say "you can run physx on the cpu you know..." ever accually ran it on the cpu. It's bad, first you have to tinker with it to make it work and even then it's not as smooth as "real" physx on an nvidia card, and it eats your cpu performance. Now I'm not saying the physx is very important, because most titles don't support it in the first place. BUT most AAA titles do, and if you don't care how they look, like I said, might as well play it on a console. Would I buy an nvidia card just for the physx?- I wouldn't if it was significately more expensive than an AMD one. But bear in mind that nvidia cards process pyhsx and manage to deliver the same performance of an amd counterpart which doesn't run physx but offloads it on the CPU. Hell, I even own an nvidia-certified 3d vision monitor with glasses and I wouldn't buy an nvidia card just so I could play in 3d if the card is too expensive compared to say a 280x or a 290... But if they're similarly priced I'd get the nvidia because of all the bells and whistles it brings. Now take notice that I'm writing this from a gamer standpoint and that I ignore some of my bad experiences with ATI cards I had in the past. So I try to write objectively and unbiased.

 

In any case this debate is older than time iteslf, and the reason it's still going on is because both sides have their strong sides, sometimes AMD wins the battle, sometimes nvidia (and even this is debateable and relative depending on your point of view), but the "gpu war" is still going on.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Should take a look at GeForce experience that's pretty awesome   as well as shadow play coming soon 

 

 

And why is it awesome? I have it and it's pretty useless. Frankly if you buy a 250$+ card and can't be bothered to optmize the game for yourself but let someone, or something else do it for you, you don't really need the card. And in AMD's defense they have the AMD raptr so there. 

Edited October 15, 2013 by A/C

[EmmaLong]

Like I said R9 280X is just as fast as the 770 in BF3 if not faster.

http://www.overclockers.com/his-r9-280x-ipower-iceq-x2-turbo-review


http://benchmarkreviews.com/7351/his-radeon-r9-280x-ipower-iceq-x%C2%B2-turbo-boost-video-card-review/9/

Graphs are too large to be copied :
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/asus_r9_280x_directcu_ii_top_review,16.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/his_radeon_r9_280x_iceq_x2_turbo_review,16.html


PhysX can be fully processed on the CPU.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-games-1000004/borderlands-2-with-physx-runs-better-on-hd-7970-th-29294612/

Also I find your "play on consoles" argument mute & almost insulting, especially when just a handful of good games support PhysX & on most of these games you can run PhysX on your CPU just as well of not better than running PhysX on a GTX 680/770 .

[KamiKatze]

Whats the difference between Intel and AMD for CPUs then? I don't want to open a new topic, just curious. Why do AMD CPUs allways need way higher clock to do the same performance as an Intel chip? I feel like they have to be super beasty but don't know what to do with their power. There used to be times when AMD was on top of the CPU market but that's definitley not the case with high end gaming rigs.

[Chivpcgamer]

Nvidia cards run hot and amd cards have bad drivers. Im joking, but you might read that in other, not so good forums : )

[Chivpcgamer]

And why is it awesome? I have it and it's pretty useless. Frankly if you buy a 250$+ card and can't be bothered to optmize the game for yourself but let someone, or something else do it for you, you don't really need the card. And in AMD's defense they have the AMD raptr so there.

Well yeah you would need the card otherwise you wouldnt be able to run the game. Nvidia actually does a very good job at optimizing the game which can save time, arma 3 is a nightmare for me to get performance visuals balanced how i want. So its an example of how it can be useful.

[Marion Barfs]

Red and Green, the colors of fury and envy. None is better than the other but to choose between both is to test one's character in the sea of uncertainty.
(This debate has been well, debated for as long as I can remember, there isn't an absolute best here, get what suits you best.)

 

Follow your needs but not your urges, one will lead you to the path of solitude the other will only inherit your soul with the burdens of regret.
(Ask yourself what you want to do with the card first, do you want to run multiple monitors ? play games at high resolutions ? do a lot of video rendering ?, don't be persuaded by the clever marketing that goes on in this extremely competitive market, so buy what you need, not what you think you want.)

[Natherul]

Red and Green, the colors of fury and envy. None is better than the other but to choose between both is to test one's character in the sea of uncertainty.

(This debate has been well, debated for as long as I can remember, there isn't an absolute best here, get what suits you best.)

 

Follow your needs but not your urges, one will lead you to the path of solitude the other will only inherit your soul with the burdens of regret.

(Ask yourself what you want to do with the card first, do you want to run multiple monitors ? play games at high resolutions ? do a lot of video rendering ?, don't be persuaded by the clever marketing that goes on in this extremely competitive market, so buy what you need, not what you think you want.)

 

Exactly the thought I had once I started the thread, But I needed to know the exact differences they have in order for me to make a good decision whats best for ME!

 

However I am interested to know more about physx (how to get it to work on hte CPU, what games that use advanced physx, what difference it really makes ingame between using it or now and how much performance is lost by running it on the CPU).

 

So far though this is growing to become a great source for my curiosity! And so thanks everyone for posting!

[GPUXPert]

Well PhysX is very much like AMD's TressFX, it's a physics simulation for specific things, like fluids and projectiles.
And just like AMD's TressFX runs better on AMD cards, PhysX runs better on Nvidia cards.
Although TressFX can't be offloaded to the CPU and has to be rendered with the GPU, PhysX can be offloaded to the CPU usually without any serious performance penalties.

There are a few issues with PhysX the most important one is the fact that very few games support it, and those games usually don't look all the visually appetizing so PhysX doesn't complement it very well.
The other issue is quality, more often than not PhysX would just fill your screen with clutter rather than improve your visual experience, that's why I end up turning it off in Borderlands 2, especially in Caustic Caverns where it just becomes annoying.

Water PhysX doesn't look very watery either, more like balls of goo but they use it for water none the less which is just annoying.

In any case if you go with an Nvidia card you will lose on AMD's Mantle which will implement GPU Physics among other visual goodies, if you go with AMD however you can still run PhysX on your CPU.