Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Storm 9 Jun 2016, 5:04

Which GPUs do you prefer? NVidia GeForce or ATI Radeon?

Do have a liquid cooled ATI Radeon for my gaming rig and I assembled my dream PC almost half a year back. I would like to know your perspectives and opinions so as to expand my general knowledge about those happening today.

Posted by: mr_Skittles 9 Jun 2016, 7:17

im happy with my nvidia gtx 660, handles most modern games on high/ultra, prob iv got now is my cpu, i3 war for the overworld is pushing it to 80% use

Posted by: Storm 9 Jun 2016, 17:26

Good Lord! i3 is pretty old to keep up. Keep the system resources free as much as you could! Kill the services & processes (turn them to manual or disabled) which you do not need else your PC would be on the verge of a crash when you play that game.

Posted by: Mirrowel 9 Jun 2016, 18:46

ATI no longer exists, you know.
AMD bought them.
I have AMD Radeon HD 7950 GPU and Intel i7 4770k CPU. Everything works great.

I prefer AMD graphics cards and Intel processor for reasons:
AMD graphics:
1) Cheaper.
2) Same perfomance.
But i do hate both Nvidia and AMD for paying game companies so they optimize their games for only certain manufacturer.
As for CPU... this should be obvious.
Intel i7 beats any AMD CPU with same or lower cost by all parameters.

Posted by: mr_Skittles 9 Jun 2016, 19:52

its steam itself thats causeing the high cpu use on the game.

i downloaded and tried the game out before i bought it to test it on my system.
which i always do, im not paying for a game just to find its performance sucks, and majority of those benchmark test sites are wrong from experiance
nosteam version - 50% tex res/ 1280x1024 res / cpu use of 52%
steam version (paid for) - 25% tex res/ 1024 x 768 res / cpu use of 73 %

Posted by: Storm 9 Jun 2016, 21:32

Iknow Its kind of a habit which I did not care to correct ... it would just come out while speaking or referring as ATI rather than AMD.



Agreed! And the mother of all motherboards would be ASUS!

Posted by: Storm 9 Jun 2016, 21:40

Hate Steam. It sucks, imho. It hogs up the memory of your PC and keeps up with all the hopeless shit on the internet. I was literally pissed of when Valve decided to team up with Steam for its Half-life compendium.

what I meant was at least you could free up the system resources used by the needless programs so that when steam causes a high CPU volatility, your OS wouldhave a wee bit stability.

Posted by: Planardweller 16 Jun 2016, 12:56

If you really want top performance you go Nvidia, cost efficiency is AMD's trick at the moment. Overall i'm more fond of Nvidia tech. Besides new 1070 cards are really impressive for their cost.
For the same reason - i would go Intel CPU for gaming PC and AMD for office computers.

Posted by: Mirrowel 16 Jun 2016, 14:40

Actually AMD CPUs are inferior, but GPUs have almost the same performance. Nvidia and AMD have their pros and cons.Like if i play BF4 on mantle(Directx for AMD) i have huge FPS boost.

The only thing i really don't like is optimizing a game for only one manufacturer.

Posted by: Planardweller 16 Jun 2016, 16:55

I rather mean that Nvidia has highest computational power per single GPU graphics card, while there are comparable and cost-efficient cards from both companies.
And i guess you know why that happens with BF4 while using Mantle - because AMD/ATI was able to fine-tune its own GPUs to work better with Mantle API that they have themselves designed. From the other side DICE made an effort so that BF 4 would work properly on Mantle too.

I am pretty curious what will shape out of Mantle's successor - Vulcan. I honestly want Vulcan to be better than DirectX 12, so that MS would lose dominance on games too.

Posted by: Mirrowel 16 Jun 2016, 18:21

Well... Mantle was developed by AMD.

Posted by: (USA)Bruce 17 Aug 2016, 20:36

>Sees lots of techno talk here


So are we at the middle of a "next gen" or will we start to see the stuff you guys mentioned dropped on the market?