damn...AMDowned nvidia

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

04dcarraher

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

04dcarraher

I really doubt that there will be many people who buy a top tier card 7970/680 and play on resolutions lower than 1080p. So that the cards perform better than the nvidia counterparts at higher resolutions is pretty relevant.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

ferret-gamer

I really doubt that there will be many people who buy a top tier card 7970/680 and play on resolutions lower than 1080p. So that the cards perform better than the nvidia counterparts at higher resolutions is pretty relevant.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

blaznwiipspman1

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] lol you need to get those blinders off...... it takes the ghz editions at 1920x1200 to actually match or maybe slightly out perform a GTX 680 and that's not even overclocked. So not sure in your mind how AMD owned Nvidia... the only reason the 7950 or 7970 actually surpass the 670/680's beyond 1920x1200 isnt because that they have more transistors its because they have the memory bandwidth to actually allow 1440+ resolutions. 04dcarraher

I really doubt that there will be many people who buy a top tier card 7970/680 and play on resolutions lower than 1080p. So that the cards perform better than the nvidia counterparts at higher resolutions is pretty relevant.

Eh AMD performance gains are not what they should work.

Just yesterdayI put back my hd5850s in CF after one my 460s's fans died.

AMD drivers too amazing.

[spoiler]

You can't even force scaling and over ride applications settings. E.g, I play BF3 at 1280x960, with ATI there is no way to keep it cropped, BF3 ignores catalyst. NVIDIA has an over ride feature.

When I first put my gpus in it said something along the lines of "Cannot control video card", I had to reinstall like 5 times for it to work.
Of course i had the infamous 2nd monitor flickering when I oc'd, I got around this by using my igpu for my 2nd monitor.
Then of course msi afterburner couldn't see my 2nd ati gpu properly so ocing was wack.
And of course even though I had 200fps in BF3, it felt all stuttery.
I tried quake live, and even though I had a constant 125fps and refresh was at 120, it was so stuttery feeling. It was like worse than playing 60hz.
I disabled CF and then it worked.

At this point I realized, I rather just use one 460.

[/spoiler]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

04dcarraher

wait isnt the HD x9xx cards suppose to fight against the GTX x70 x80s?

Eh AMD performance gains are not what they should work.

Just yesterdayI put back my hd5850s in CF after one my 460s's fans died.

AMD drivers too amazing.

[spoiler]

You can't even force scaling and over ride applications settings. E.g, I play BF3 at 1280x960, with ATI there is no way to keep it cropped, BF3 ignores catalyst. NVIDIA has an over ride feature.

When I first put my gpus in it said something along the lines of "Cannot control video card", I had to reinstall like 5 times for it to work.
Of course i had the infamous 2nd monitor flickering when I oc'd, I got around this by using my igpu for my 2nd monitor.
Then of course msi afterburner couldn't see my 2nd ati gpu properly so ocing was wack.
And of course even though I had 200fps in BF3, it felt all stuttery.
I tried quake live, and even though I had a constant 125fps and refresh was at 120, it was so stuttery feeling. It was like worse than playing 60hz.
I disabled CF and then it worked.

At this point I realized, I rather just use one 460.

[/spoiler]

JigglyWiggly_

or you could have just used one 5850 since it is faster than the 460. I dont know why people even complain about dual card configurations, they always have problems. You knew the risks when doing it, so you have no right to complain about it. 99% of people do NOT do dual cards, precisely because of this. Hell, ive seen a geforce 590, a dual gpu card blow up and catch on fire on youtube.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] lol you need to get those blinders off...... it takes the ghz editions at 1920x1200 to actually match or maybe slightly out perform a GTX 680 and that's not even overclocked. So not sure in your mind how AMD owned Nvidia... the only reason the 7950 or 7970 actually surpass the 670/680's beyond 1920x1200 isnt because that they have more transistors its because they have the memory bandwidth to actually allow 1440+ resolutions. 04dcarraher

I really doubt that there will be many people who buy a top tier card 7970/680 and play on resolutions lower than 1080p. So that the cards perform better than the nvidia counterparts at higher resolutions is pretty relevant.

Lets run all our benchmarks at 800x600, remove any doubt.

/Sarcasm.

Are you being for real here?

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Eh AMD performance gains are not what they should work.

Just yesterdayI put back my hd5850s in CF after one my 460s's fans died.

AMD drivers too amazing.

[spoiler]

You can't even force scaling and over ride applications settings. E.g, I play BF3 at 1280x960, with ATI there is no way to keep it cropped, BF3 ignores catalyst. NVIDIA has an over ride feature.

When I first put my gpus in it said something along the lines of "Cannot control video card", I had to reinstall like 5 times for it to work.
Of course i had the infamous 2nd monitor flickering when I oc'd, I got around this by using my igpu for my 2nd monitor.
Then of course msi afterburner couldn't see my 2nd ati gpu properly so ocing was wack.
And of course even though I had 200fps in BF3, it felt all stuttery.
I tried quake live, and even though I had a constant 125fps and refresh was at 120, it was so stuttery feeling. It was like worse than playing 60hz.
I disabled CF and then it worked.

At this point I realized, I rather just use one 460.

[/spoiler]

blaznwiipspman1

or you could have just used one 5850 since it is faster than the 460. I dont know why people even complain about dual card configurations, they always have problems. You knew the risks when doing it, so you have no right to complain about it. 99% of people do NOT do dual cards, precisely because of this. Hell, ive seen a geforce 590, a dual gpu card blow up and catch on fire on youtube.

My gtx 460s in SLI ran flawlessly.

It's just that gigabyte's 1gb gtx 460s all fail. (Check the reviews, they went from 5 stars initially to 2 and a half now)

So basically, avoid non reference cards at all cost.

Also if I just used one 5850, I couldn't play in 4:3 for BF3.

EDIT: I lied about going back to my 460.

Why work when you can nag your rich parents? :3

670 tomorrow

ah ye

Lol, AMD consolation thread. There's a few things TC overlooked:

1. AMD/ATI cards mostly perform better at higher resolutions because their cards always have more memory. GTX 680 has 2GB RAM while the HD 7970 has 3GB. Two years ago, the HD 6870 had 2GB of RAM while the GTX 580 had only 1536MB. This has been the case since the HD 5970. The difference becomes even more apparent with duel gpu or SLI/Crossfire setups. So yeah, performance at higher resolutions are a no brainer.

2. The HD 7970 came out almost a year ago, about 10 months to be exact. Back, then, it lost to the GTX 680 in most areas, even Crysis 2 and non-Unreal engine games. The 680's lead over the 7970 in terms of framerate was small, but if this little edge is all AMD/ATI can come up with after 10 months, I'm not sure if it's something worth getting excited about. 10 months is quite a long time. For all you know, Nvidia already has a trump card, but is holding back on releasing it just to see what AMD can come up with.

3. And the whole assumption about transistors is quite pointless nowdays. Yes, more transistors GENERALLY give an indication of how powerful a card is. A card with 4 billion transistors will most likely be more powerful than a card with only 800 million transistors. However, the GTX 680 had 3.54 billion transistors compared to the 7970's 4.31 billion, and yet, 10 months ago, the GTX 680 won the 7970 in many areas. This isn't the NES era, where the strength in hardware boiled down to bits. The 7970 is 512-bit while the 680 is only 384-bit. All these figures about transistors and bits are abstract and superficial in today's day and age. Performance nowadays is all about ARCHITECTURE. And expanding upwards isn't necessarily better than expending say....sideways.

4. The article posted is about AMD's Catalyst, which is a driver. It's software, not hardware. What AMD did was optimize their code for the cards. So what we can say for sure is that the 7970 isn't necessarily weaker than the 680, but it's vice versa. Maybe Nvidia drivers for the 600 series cards are unoptimized as well. And maybe Nvidia just can't be bothered because they may be focusing their resources on the next generation of cards.

Bottom line - Don't compare two cards which came out 10 months ago based on a driver for one card which came out 10 months later. There's no such thing as a perfect driver. The more work they put into driver optimization, the better it will be. That's definite. The bigger question that Nvidia and AMD would ponder is - would it be better to focus on their current cards, or future cards?

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Is performing better on higher resolutions a bad thing now?

I really doubt that there will be many people who buy a top tier card 7970/680 and play on resolutions lower than 1080p. So that the cards perform better than the nvidia counterparts at higher resolutions is pretty relevant.

Lets run all our benchmarks at 800x600, remove any doubt.

/Sarcasm.

Are you being for real here?

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] lol you need to get those blinders off...... it takes the ghz editions at 1920x1200 to actually to become on par or maybe slightly faster. those 670/680 and that's not even overclocked. So not sure why in your mind how AMD owned Nvidia... the only reason the 7950 or 7970 actually surpass the 670/680's beyond 1920x1200 isnt because that they have more transistors its because they have the memory bandwidth to actually allow 1440+ resolutions to flow. Because if it was because they had more raw processing power you should see a major difference in performance at 1920x1200.

04dcarraher

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

7970 GE's 1Ghz speed is no different to any CPU vendor setting it's product's clockspeed.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/1.html

Basically, the 7970 is on par or stronger than the 680 gtx. Supposedly AMD was figuring out how to optimize drivers for a new architecture which is why theres alot of performance increases coming so late. It makes sense because the 7970 has more transistors than the 680 gtx meaning more raw power. AMD really pulled the wool over nvidias eyes with this one. On a side note, why didn't ionusx post this??

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

Lol, AMD consolation thread. There's a few things TC overlooked:

1. AMD/ATI cards mostly perform better at higher resolutions because their cards always have more memory. GTX 680 has 2GB RAM while the HD 7970 has 3GB. Two years ago, the HD 6870 had 2GB of RAM while the GTX 580 had only 1536MB. This has been the case since the HD 5970. The difference becomes even more apparent with duel gpu or SLI/Crossfire setups. So yeah, performance at higher resolutions are a no brainer.

2. The HD 7970 came out almost a year ago, about 10 months to be exact. Back, then, it lost to the GTX 680 in most areas, even Crysis 2 and non-Unreal engine games. The 680's lead over the 7970 in terms of framerate was small, but if this little edge is all AMD/ATI can come up with after 10 months, I'm not sure if it's something worth getting excited about. 10 months is quite a long time. For all you know, Nvidia already has a trump card, but is holding back on releasing it just to see what AMD can come up with.

3. And the whole assumption about transistors is quite pointless nowdays. Yes, more transistors GENERALLY give an indication of how powerful a card is. A card with 4 billion transistors will most likely be more powerful than a card with only 800 million transistors. However, the GTX 680 had 3.54 billion transistors compared to the 7970's 4.31 billion, and yet, 10 months ago, the GTX 680 won the 7970 in many areas. This isn't the NES era, where the strength in hardware boiled down to bits. The 7970 is 512-bit while the 680 is only 384-bit. All these figures about transistors and bits are abstract and superficial in today's day and age. Performance nowadays is all about ARCHITECTURE. And expanding upwards isn't necessarily better than expending say....sideways.

4. The article posted is about AMD's Catalyst, which is a driver. It's software, not hardware. What AMD did was optimize their code for the cards. So what we can say for sure is that the 7970 isn't necessarily weaker than the 680, but it's vice versa. Maybe Nvidia drivers for the 600 series cards are unoptimized as well. And maybe Nvidia just can't be bothered because they may be focusing their resources on the next generation of cards.

Bottom line - Don't compare two cards which came out 10 months ago based on a driver for one card which came out 10 months later. There's no such thing as a perfect driver. The more work they put into driver optimization, the better it will be. That's definite. The bigger question that Nvidia and AMD would ponder is - would it be better to focus on their current cards, or future cards?

jhcho2

For point 2.

http://techreport.com/review/22653/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-graphics-processor-reviewed/11

Techreport uses newer Catalyst driver (Catalyst 8.95.5-120224a) compared techpowerup's (8.921.2 RC11) http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/6.html

Radeon HD 8xx0 GCN still uses CU with 64 ALU cluster.

For point 3.

79x0 has additional support for practical double floats and better cache/local data storage(LDS)/buffer vs ALU count ratio.

For driver side's just in time re-complier, there are large differences between VLIW (i.e. AMD Evergreen/Cayman) vs SIMD (i.e. AMD GCN) architectures.

Your "7970 is 512-bit while the 680 is only 384-bit" statement is not correct i.e. 7970 has 384 bit wide bus while 680 has 256 bit wide bus.

For point 4,

Radeon HD 8870 still sports GCN architectures with some changes i.e. it's basically 7970 without 384-bit bus and practical double floats support i.e. scaled 7870 to 7970's CU count. The driver improvements for 7xx0 GCN would be applicable for the next 8xx0 GCN.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

ronvalencia

7970 GE's 1Ghz speed is no different to any CPU vendor setting it's product's clockspeed.

yep and thats what most people fail to realize

:o

Two still ignore the point at hand. Compare one set of revised gpu's vs another set of gpu's that haven't been modified or overclocked. Anywhere else that would be considered lopsided and bias.....The review is just to show the differences between the drivers but still also shows us that even with the new drivers the 7970 ghz is only 1-7% faster depending on resolution. While the vanilla 7970 is still 2-9% slower depending on resolution. How about Nvidia drivers.... we have no idea what drivers they are using.... the newer 310 beta drivers or the latest driver set 306 or the older 304's

Because the beta 310's can see as much as 10% increase in fps with certain games vs the 306.... that sounds alot like what these newer drivers did for AMD.

Here is the point, if we are to correctly compare the performance between AMD and Nvidia flagship cards they both need to use latest drivers and have clockrates that are at the same ratio. Not compare a revised aka factory overclocked gpu with latest drivers vs standard gpu with unknown set of (most likley older)drivers. And claim AMD owned Nvidia or the tables have been reversed. You have to look at all the angles.

Lol you guys.

:o

Two still ignore the point at hand. Compare one set of revised gpu's vs another set of gpu's that haven't been modified or overclocked. Anywhere else that would be considered lopsided and bias.....The review is just to show the differences between the drivers but still also shows us that even with the new drivers the 7970 ghz is only 1-7% faster depending on resolution. While the vanilla 7970 is still 2-9% slower depending on resolution. How about Nvidia drivers.... we have no idea what drivers they are using.... the newer 310 beta drivers or the latest driver set 306 or the older 304's

Because the beta 310's can see as much as 10% increase in fps with certain games vs the 306.... that sounds alot like what these newer drivers did for AMD.

Here is the point, if we are to correctly compare the performance between AMD and Nvidia flagship cards they both need to use latest drivers and have clockrates that are at the same ratio. Not compare a revised aka factory overclocked gpu with latest drivers vs standard gpu with unknown set of (most likley older)drivers. And claim AMD owned Nvidia or the tables have been reversed. You have to look at all the angles.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Eh AMD performance gains are not what they should work.

Just yesterdayI put back my hd5850s in CF after one my 460s's fans died.

AMD drivers too amazing.

[spoiler]

You can't even force scaling and over ride applications settings. E.g, I play BF3 at 1280x960, with ATI there is no way to keep it cropped, BF3 ignores catalyst. NVIDIA has an over ride feature.

When I first put my gpus in it said something along the lines of "Cannot control video card", I had to reinstall like 5 times for it to work.
Of course i had the infamous 2nd monitor flickering when I oc'd, I got around this by using my igpu for my 2nd monitor.
Then of course msi afterburner couldn't see my 2nd ati gpu properly so ocing was wack.
And of course even though I had 200fps in BF3, it felt all stuttery.
I tried quake live, and even though I had a constant 125fps and refresh was at 120, it was so stuttery feeling. It was like worse than playing 60hz.
I disabled CF and then it worked.

At this point I realized, I rather just use one 460.

[/spoiler]

blaznwiipspman1

or you could have just used one 5850 since it is faster than the 460. I dont know why people even complain about dual card configurations, they always have problems. You knew the risks when doing it, so you have no right to complain about it. 99% of people do NOT do dual cards, precisely because of this. Hell, ive seen a geforce 590, a dual gpu card blow up and catch on fire on youtube.

Switched over to AMD a few months ago, I'm loving it.ShadowDeathX

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Switched over to AMD a few months ago, I'm loving it.Addict187

Geforce GTX 680 has it's own issues e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMP0ETuyQzw&noredirect=1

PS: My last Geforce CUDA was Geforce 8600M GT GDDR3 (dead, ASUS G1S laptop), 9500M GS GDDR2 (ASUS G1SN** replaced dead G1S), 9650M GT (ASUS N80vn, unstable/BSOD with Win7/Vista X64, but fine with Vista/Win7 32bit, may try Win8 X64 later, the motherboard has been replaced and ASUS gave up on the fix). ASUS N80vn's Windows 64bit issues caused me to purchased Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Radeon HD 4650M.

**ASUS G1SN overheats and cracked(hair line fracture) the case around the heat sink.

[QUOTE="Addict187"][QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Switched over to AMD a few months ago, I'm loving it.ronvalencia

Geforce GTX 680 has it's own issues e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMP0ETuyQzw&noredirect=1

PS: My last Geforce CUDA was Geforce 8600M GT GDDR3 (dead, ASUS G1S laptop), 9500M GS GDDR2 (ASUS G1SN** replaced dead G1S), 9650M GT (ASUS N80vn, unstable/BSOD with Win7/Vista X64, but fine with Vista/Win7 32bit, may try Win8 X64 later, the motherboard has been replaced and ASUS gave up on the fix). ASUS N80vn's Windows 64bit issues caused me to purchased Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Radeon HD 4650M.

**ASUS G1SN overheats and cracked(hair line fracture) the case around the heat sink.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Addict187"] I switched to Nivida this time i may never go back AMD. Sorry to say this but everything just works. Not so much with AMD but I used them for the last 6 years and did not know any better. I figuerd that saving a few bucks was the way to go. And now wish I made the change over a long time ago. All my Need for Speed games finlly just work without problems. Everything just runs better I find. I went from a 6870 to gtx 670 and dame i have beem missing out here. I had 4890 when they came out had problems with a few games. 6870 same thing 6870 crossfire dont get me started with that ordeal. GTX 670 all probems are gone Addict187

Geforce GTX 680 has it's own issues e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMP0ETuyQzw&noredirect=1

PS: My last Geforce CUDA was Geforce 8600M GT GDDR3 (dead, ASUS G1S laptop), 9500M GS GDDR2 (ASUS G1SN** replaced dead G1S), 9650M GT (ASUS N80vn, unstable/BSOD with Win7/Vista X64, but fine with Vista/Win7 32bit, may try Win8 X64 later, the motherboard has been replaced and ASUS gave up on the fix). ASUS N80vn's Windows 64bit issues caused me to purchased Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Radeon HD 4650M.

**ASUS G1SN overheats and cracked(hair line fracture) the case around the heat sink.

i havent had any problems with nfs games or any game so far on my radeon card, except for oblivion which freezes in one cave area. Can't blame AMD though, the game is 7 years old now. My geforce 460 i used to have refused to play metro 2033 until i patched the game and ive seen plenty of faulty hardware issues with nvidia cards...ie baking cards (geforce 8800) and cards catching fire (gtx 590). My radeon 9200 from way back in 2002 is still working lol.

[QUOTE="Addict187"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

Geforce GTX 680 has it's own issues e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMP0ETuyQzw&noredirect=1

PS: My last Geforce CUDA was Geforce 8600M GT GDDR3 (dead, ASUS G1S laptop), 9500M GS GDDR2 (ASUS G1SN** replaced dead G1S), 9650M GT (ASUS N80vn, unstable/BSOD with Win7/Vista X64, but fine with Vista/Win7 32bit, may try Win8 X64 later, the motherboard has been replaced and ASUS gave up on the fix). ASUS N80vn's Windows 64bit issues caused me to purchased Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Radeon HD 4650M.

**ASUS G1SN overheats and cracked(hair line fracture) the case around the heat sink.

blaznwiipspman1

i havent had any problems with nfs games or any game so far on my radeon card, except for oblivion which freezes in one cave area. Can't blame AMD though, the game is 7 years old now. My geforce 460 i used to have refused to play metro 2033 until i patched the game and ive seen plenty of faulty hardware issues with nvidia cards...ie baking cards (geforce 8800) and cards catching fire (gtx 590). My radeon 9200 from way back in 2002 is still working lol.

You finding faults with only Nvidia gpu's who could have guessed....

All gpu's can have issues and both companies can have problems with specific games and models of cards. I never had any issue with NFS games Metro or oblivion with my 8800's or 560 or 7750, I had two 8800's in sli from late 2008 to 2011 never had a issue (first gpu from 2007), my brother also has a 8800GT since 2008 and its still working to this day.You have to know what your doing to maintain hardware especially something like the 8800GT's or gtx 590's with their single slot coolers or high TDP. If you had a GTX 590 and "it caught on fire" as you say, you had cooling problems or psu issues, And even if the card was in fault you could have gotten it RMA'ed and kept that superior graphics card.

Now you claiming your 9200 is still working, I still have a Geforce 4 mx440, a FX 5200 and a 6600GT that are in working order to this day. The older the card the power needed and heat produced is much lower allowing them to last longer.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="Addict187"] I had this same problem with AMD. it is a simpel fix. You have to create a custom rez slitley less then 1080p. This is a problem within the game it self. I have the game so i know what im talking about. This is only a problem with DX11 settings. set it back to DX9 and it ill run fine regardless AMD or Nivid. Or make a custom rez04dcarraher

i havent had any problems with nfs games or any game so far on my radeon card, except for oblivion which freezes in one cave area. Can't blame AMD though, the game is 7 years old now. My geforce 460 i used to have refused to play metro 2033 until i patched the game and ive seen plenty of faulty hardware issues with nvidia cards...ie baking cards (geforce 8800) and cards catching fire (gtx 590). My radeon 9200 from way back in 2002 is still working lol.

You finding faults with only Nvidia gpu's who could have guessed....

All gpu's can have issues and both companies can have problems with specific games and models of cards. I never had any issue with NFS games Metro or oblivion with my 8800's or 560 or 7750, I had two 8800's in sli from late 2008 to 2011 never had a issue (first gpu from 2007), my brother also has a 8800GT since 2008 and its still working to this day.You have to know what your doing to maintain hardware especially something like the 8800GT's or gtx 590's with their single slot coolers or high TDP. If you had a GTX 590 and "it caught on fire" as you say, you had cooling problems or psu issues, And even if the card was in fault you could have gotten it RMA'ed and kept that superior graphics card.

Now you claiming your 9200 is still working, I still have a Geforce 4 mx440, a FX 5200 and a 6600GT that are in working order to this day. The older the card the power needed and heat produced is much lower allowing them to last longer.

One problem, laptop PC's annual unit sale exceeds desktop PC's annual unit sales.

In terms of failure rate, NVIDIA "bumpgate" rivals Xbox 360's RROD.

I still have my working Geforce 4200 TI AGP, FX 5950 Ultra AGP, 8600 GT GDDR3 (desktop, DIY ViDock/eGPU with ExpressCard slot), but my Dell Inspiron 5150 work laptop with mobile Pentium IV 3Ghz + Geforce Go 5200 FX is dead.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

i havent had any problems with nfs games or any game so far on my radeon card, except for oblivion which freezes in one cave area. Can't blame AMD though, the game is 7 years old now. My geforce 460 i used to have refused to play metro 2033 until i patched the game and ive seen plenty of faulty hardware issues with nvidia cards...ie baking cards (geforce 8800) and cards catching fire (gtx 590). My radeon 9200 from way back in 2002 is still working lol.

ronvalencia

You finding faults with only Nvidia gpu's who could have guessed....

All gpu's can have issues and both companies can have problems with specific games and models of cards. I never had any issue with NFS games Metro or oblivion with my 8800's or 560 or 7750, I had two 8800's in sli from late 2008 to 2011 never had a issue (first gpu from 2007), my brother also has a 8800GT since 2008 and its still working to this day.You have to know what your doing to maintain hardware especially something like the 8800GT's or gtx 590's with their single slot coolers or high TDP. If you had a GTX 590 and "it caught on fire" as you say, you had cooling problems or psu issues, And even if the card was in fault you could have gotten it RMA'ed and kept that superior graphics card.

Now you claiming your 9200 is still working, I still have a Geforce 4 mx440, a FX 5200 and a 6600GT that are in working order to this day. The older the card the power needed and heat produced is much lower allowing them to last longer.

One problem, laptop PC's annual unit sale exceeds desktop PC's annual unit sales.

In terms of failure rate, NVIDIA "bumpgate" rivals Xbox 360's RROD.

I still have my working Geforce 4200 TI AGP, FX 5950 Ultra AGP, 8600 GT GDDR3 (desktop, DIY ViDock/eGPU with ExpressCard slot), but my Dell Inspiron 5150 work laptop with mobile Pentium IV 3Ghz + Geforce Go 5200 FX is dead.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

You finding faults with only Nvidia gpu's who could have guessed....

All gpu's can have issues and both companies can have problems with specific games and models of cards. I never had any issue with NFS games Metro or oblivion with my 8800's or 560 or 7750, I had two 8800's in sli from late 2008 to 2011 never had a issue (first gpu from 2007), my brother also has a 8800GT since 2008 and its still working to this day.You have to know what your doing to maintain hardware especially something like the 8800GT's or gtx 590's with their single slot coolers or high TDP. If you had a GTX 590 and "it caught on fire" as you say, you had cooling problems or psu issues, And even if the card was in fault you could have gotten it RMA'ed and kept that superior graphics card.

Now you claiming your 9200 is still working, I still have a Geforce 4 mx440, a FX 5200 and a 6600GT that are in working order to this day. The older the card the power needed and heat produced is much lower allowing them to last longer.

04dcarraher

One problem, laptop PC's annual unit sale exceeds desktop PC's annual unit sales.

In terms of failure rate, NVIDIA "bumpgate" rivals Xbox 360's RROD.

I still have my working Geforce 4200 TI AGP, FX 5950 Ultra AGP, 8600 GT GDDR3 (desktop, DIY ViDock/eGPU with ExpressCard slot), but my Dell Inspiron 5150 work laptop with mobile Pentium IV 3Ghz + Geforce Go 5200 FX is dead.

Yes, it was sad...

My other old work laptop ASUS W3J (14 inch) laptop with mobility Radeon X1600 Pro still works. ASUS N80vn(14 inch) was the laptop to replace ASUS W3J.

ASUS G1S/G1Sn and Sony VGN-FW-45 laptops are my personal laptops.

My current DELL Studio XPS 1645 laptop is powerful enough (i.e. quad-core/8 threads) to run my dev work within VMWARE Workstation and my normal home workloads.

Anyway, my next year's upgrade cycle might have mid-range NV Geforce 8xx(~35 watts) or AMD Radeon 86x0M(~35 watts), but key part would be Intel Haswell's release.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

One problem, laptop PC's annual unit sale exceeds desktop PC's annual unit sales.

In terms of failure rate, NVIDIA "bumpgate" rivals Xbox 360's RROD.

I still have my working Geforce 4200 TI AGP, FX 5950 Ultra AGP, 8600 GT GDDR3 (desktop, DIY ViDock/eGPU with ExpressCard slot), but my Dell Inspiron 5150 work laptop with mobile Pentium IV 3Ghz + Geforce Go 5200 FX is dead.

ronvalencia

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] lol you need to get those blinders off...... it takes the ghz editions at 1920x1200 to actually to become on par or maybe slightly faster. those 670/680 and that's not even overclocked. So not sure why in your mind how AMD owned Nvidia... the only reason the 7950 or 7970 actually surpass the 670/680's beyond 1920x1200 isnt because that they have more transistors its because they have the memory bandwidth to actually allow 1440+ resolutions to flow. Because if it was because they had more raw processing power you should see a major difference in performance at 1920x1200.

ronvalencia

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

The reason im saying the 79xx cards has more raw power is because of the games it does well in compared to the geforce ones. For example, battlefield 3, crysis 1 and2, shogun, metro 2033, whereas nvidia does better in games with the UE3 engine aka borderlands 2, batman etc etc. Also the 79xx ghz editions are also at stock...they can be overclocked to 1-200mhz more pretty easily on air. I remember when the 680gtx came out everyone was bashing the 7970....looks like the situation is reversed now.

jhcho2

Metro 2033 is a Nvidia "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" title and the 7970 didn't exist during the design of Metro 2033.

http://www.nzone.ro/object/nzone_twimtbp_gameslist_uk.html search for metro 2033

7970 didn't win with light weight Blizzard created games, Call of Duty 4 DX9, which skewed the averages.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] they just didnt get the concepts of reliability and testing. This became painfully clear with their flailing over the bumpgate fiasco. The talking point was that it was a new area of science, and not understood by anyone. Having talked to five separate packaging engineers who all understood the problem, and gave me the exact same reasoning for its occurrence, Originally I thought they were just trying to make me believe their version of the truth, but I later found out that was not the case. This dawned on me when I noticed Nvidia was hiring a lot of thermal engineers in late 2008 to solve the problem retroactively. The disconnect was that the bumpgate failures were not due to a thermal problem per se. The chips did not cook to death. Nvidias bumps were cracking due to repeated thermal stresses, leading to physical failure. Hiring thermal engineers to fix that is much akin to hiring more gas station attendants to improve a cars fuel economy, it was addressing the wrong problem. The fixes showed some creative but problematic engineering choices. By this point, things had gone from morbid humor to rather sad. Flailing is fun to watch for a bit, but it gets old, even if you call it dancing in a press release. The short story is that Nvidia was not testing properly, and the result was dead chips. That is the science that the company didnt understand, and while its implementation may be complex, the concept most definitely is not.04dcarraher

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] they just didnt get the concepts of reliability and testing. This became painfully clear with their flailing over the bumpgate fiasco. The talking point was that it was a new area of science, and not understood by anyone. Having talked to five separate packaging engineers who all understood the problem, and gave me the exact same reasoning for its occurrence, Originally I thought they were just trying to make me believe their version of the truth, but I later found out that was not the case. This dawned on me when I noticed Nvidia was hiring a lot of thermal engineers in late 2008 to solve the problem retroactively. The disconnect was that the bumpgate failures were not due to a thermal problem per se. The chips did not cook to death. Nvidias bumps were cracking due to repeated thermal stresses, leading to physical failure. Hiring thermal engineers to fix that is much akin to hiring more gas station attendants to improve a cars fuel economy, it was addressing the wrong problem. The fixes showed some creative but problematic engineering choices. By this point, things had gone from morbid humor to rather sad. Flailing is fun to watch for a bit, but it gets old, even if you call it dancing in a press release. The short story is that Nvidia was not testing properly, and the result was dead chips. That is the science that the company didnt understand, and while its implementation may be complex, the concept most definitely is not.04dcarraher

funnily enough, the only laptop that ever died on me had an nvidia graphics card. I paid close to $1500 for the asus z71v back in 2005, it had some of the best specs for a laptop back in those days, a high end intel graphics card, large HDD, wifi, plus a geforce graphics card capable of high settings in most games. After 3-4 years the laptop started artifacting, then it became stuck on lowest res and overheating like crazy. The culprit was the graphics chip, the geforce 6200 GO. In my books, nvidia just isn' known for quality hardware.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] My other old work laptop ASUS W3J (14 inch) laptop with mobility Radeon X1600 Pro still works. ASUS N80vn(14 inch) was the laptop to replace ASUS W3J.blaznwiipspman1

funnily enough, the only laptop that ever died on me had an nvidia graphics card. I paid close to $1500 for the asus z71v back in 2005, it had some of the best specs for a laptop back in those days, a high end intel graphics card, large HDD, wifi, plus a geforce graphics card capable of high settings in most games. After 3-4 years the laptop started artifacting, then it became stuck on lowest res and overheating like crazy. The culprit was the graphics chip, the geforce 6200 GO. In my books, nvidia just isn' known for quality hardware.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Alot of laptops are still working with nvidia gpu's that are 5 years old or more.

V4LENT1NE

funnily enough, the only laptop that ever died on me had an nvidia graphics card. I paid close to $1500 for the asus z71v back in 2005, it had some of the best specs for a laptop back in those days, a high end intel graphics card, large HDD, wifi, plus a geforce graphics card capable of high settings in most games. After 3-4 years the laptop started artifacting, then it became stuck on lowest res and overheating like crazy. The culprit was the graphics chip, the geforce 6200 GO. In my books, nvidia just isn' known for quality hardware.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] 680 didn't win with heavy PC games e.g. Metro 2033. ronvalencia

Metro 2033 is a Nvidia "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" title and the 7970 didn't exist during the design of Metro 2033.

http://www.nzone.ro/object/nzone_twimtbp_gameslist_uk.html search for metro 2033

7970 didn't win with light weight Blizzard created games, Call of Duty 4 DX9, which skewed the averages.

Are you new to benchmarks? Metro 2033 has always yielded unfavourable results to Nvidia cards. ATI cards that would lose to certain Nvidia cards in every benchmark would suddenly win for Metro 2033. So far, I have identified two games which I would never use as a fair comparison between Nvidia and ATI. One is Enemy Territories: Quake Wars. The other is Metro 2033.

Second thing, next time post benchmarks from other sites like Guru3D or Tom's Hardware as well. Their results seems to show something different about Crysis 2.

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

funnily enough, the only laptop that ever died on me had an nvidia graphics card. I paid close to $1500 for the asus z71v back in 2005, it had some of the best specs for a laptop back in those days, a high end intel graphics card, large HDD, wifi, plus a geforce graphics card capable of high settings in most games.

After 3-4 years the laptop started artifacting, then it became stuck on lowest res and overheating like crazy. The culprit was the graphics chip, the geforce 6200 GO. In my books, nvidia just isn' known for quality hardware.

JohnF111