AMD vs Nvidia: There's no clear winner yet

Batboy can move this thread as I had no idea where to create it but I thought the article interesting enough to share it here.

For those of you that have time to read, you'll find this article very interesting especially this part:

Full Article

Summary of interesting part:

 

aint that desktop cards?

 

thier arch will one day be ported to mobile so it's relevant to us in regard that we can hjave a look at what tomorrow reserve for mobility user

not counting that even if the test consern only desktop card(because most user are conserned only about desktop) the philosophie and mind in wich nvidia lock part of thier gpu when they sell them to home user is the same in mobility and in desktop so there agian it's relevant to us even if the test is not made on mobility cards

 

Exactly my thoughts...


OH AND PLEASE I HAVE NOT LINKED THIS TO HAVE USERS COMMENT ON WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST BUT ONLY SO THEY CAN READ THE ARTICLE AS IT IS VERY INTERESTING. PLEASE NO HATE POST ABOUT ONE COMPANY OR THE OTHER.....

 

these threads get often locked without a look back even if they bring interesting information


on an other point i think it's fair to say the Inquirer is AMD biased
I my self prefer AMD over Nvidia for a wide range of reason but i can tell that if AMD's single precision fp was 2 time that of Nvidia no bechmark could possibly hide AMD's domination in anyway unles it was if AMD detected then fps count 1/2

 

Moving to Gaming (Graphics Card) forum...


Friendly reminder to all -

•While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.

So, with that in mind, go ahead and discuss the article. No trolling or Flaming.

Thanks.

 

We don't want a "winner". We want them to keep each other competitive.

 

What do you mean 'winner'? Do you mean simply who has the most powerful on the market? That doesn't make a winner at all because that area is so niche, the really big battle is in the mid-card section because they sell so many more. Big companies like Nvidia and AMD should be able to make super cards, it's just how relevant they are to the market due to pricing and laptop requirements. For the really powerful dual set ups Nvidia is going to usually win that war, but I feel like they get by these days just on the brand name. AMD are much more reasonable and still manage to be competitive at the top end. In some cases you can spend nearly twice as much money on a Nvidia card and not get any noticable improvement over a much cheaper AMD.

 

QFT. As long as they continue to one-up one another, they will continue to compete and the consumer will benefit.

 

Agreed.........

 

most definitly if one of them was to fall behind seriously (not just 15-20%) the other would jack prices in hell and stop putting out inovation

 

Ahem... GTX 485m ... ahem!

 

It's too bad Imagination Technologies/PowerVR probably won't go back into the computer market outside of the SGX535 being used by Intel in their Atom products under the GMA500/600 moniker. However, if ARM based laptops make some kind of breakthrough, it's guaranteed PowerVR GPUs will be along side many if not most of those ARM CPUs just like in so many portable devices.

 

The winner is.....











































the consumer!

 

Ya no winner between them makes us the winner

Remember when Nvidia was curb-stomping ATI's HD2XXX series? The price jacking was pretty crazy I remember, thankfully it only last for that short period of time.

Using both ATI and Nvidia in the past year I can't really say which one is better, but I have noticed slightly more stable drivers from Nvidia.

 

ahem 6970m costing nearly half and hitting where it hurt

 

i think a winner between them provides more competition actually. seeing how one product will not rule forever, the other company will always try to best out their competitors products. think of it as a boxing match - you want someone to be ahead so the next round it's even more competitive.

but i don't think raw theoretical computing power will determine who has a better GPU. it depends on what you are looking for. scientists might want the extremely high precision for calculations, while gamers could careless.

video games don't take numbers out to that extreme, and half of their calculations are fudged anyways. you don't need the precision while gaming.


i do like AMD cards because they're usually very affordable, but seeing how the 460gtx can be had for $159.99, it's a very nice little deal!

 

I bought my GTX 460 for $100 more than I could have it for now , oh well, thats technology for ya.

 

But it's not available yet, and nVidia is hitting us idiots hard in the pocketbook.

 

This is pretty poor logic. If nVidia was so bad then they would go bankrupt. nVidia makes great desktop graphics cards currently and has made some great GPUs in general in the past too. Just because they aren't the best choice for price/performance in current generation notebooks, doesn't mean the whole company is crap. As stated before, competition is what drives the industry, so without nVidia's previous GPUs, AMD/ATI would never had been challenged to develop such efficient hardware. There's a big difference...

 

Your being an incompetent consumer by limiting yourself to one brand, its obvious your post was meant to stir the pot though. I have used both ATI and Nvidia and I achieved excellent dollar to performance ratio both times.

If ATI would pony up and bring something to challenge Nvidia in the notebook performance sector(maybe there is something coming?) than they wouldn't be able to charge a ransom for their current top-end offerings.

 

Since when was a GTX 260m a poor GPU?

 

Between this post and the beauty one earlier on the Dragon Age 2 thread it is quite obvious you have no clue and just fabricate things. The 260m GTX is not a weak card. AMD/ATI does the exact same thing Nvidia does, it is quite obvious by now that Valve games run better on AMD hardware than Nvidia.

Notebooks are a niche mark market for graphics cards, the desktops is where the focus of both companies has been, and they have BOTH released competitive and fairly priced cards to stay in contention. To say one company is grossly overpriced would be a complete lie, and that company would be in trouble if it were true, which it is not.

 

I don't know about laptops specifically, but in desktops, they both have similar offerings pretty much all the way up the price ladder. I would be pretty surprised if the situation weren't similar in notebooks. Obviously day to day or maybe even month to month one company might have a little edge, but overall? Probably about equal is my guess.

 

As stated, it's not opinion. Show me any real life situation where the 5850M obliterates the GTX 260M several times over. Yeah it might be 2x as good when the FPS rates at max resolution settings are 8 FPS vs. 4 FPS, but when you scale down, it's not as different as you make it seem. And no, for current desktop GPUs, nVidia and ATI are fairly evenly matched for pricing, performance, and power consumption. Please read some reviews and visit online stores such as Newegg before you claim things that are not true.

 

Mediocre? I owned a GTX 260m and it was a fantastic card. No, it wasn't the most powerful, even of it's time. Yes, it's outstripped by the current crop of mobile GPUs.

Oblitered several times over by the 5850? Mediocre for gamers? I think not. Where is your data?

 

Competition is healthy, no one should hope one company bankrupts the other, if that ever happened you'd see garbage for products and a stagnation in the market place. Also they feed off each others ideas, great for innovation.
Regardless they both need to standardize hardware for a longer product cycle. Now I know everyones going to say "well you don't need to upgrade every year" which is true, but for at least the last 5 years there could have been 2 BIG hardware releases instead of the 1 a year they've been following. I think you'd see stronger product support and wider adoption from consumers and developers alike.

 

As a consumer I love these AMD vs Nvidia battles. They just keep producing more powerful video cards. Better for us!

Keep on arguing! woohh

 

Yes, please share these instances where the 5850m "obliterates" the 260m GTX several times over. I expect another delaying post containing nothing of substance.

You most certainly seem to be trolling on purpose, I don't know how you could post any of that garbage without.

The Nvidia 560 GTX Ti retails for around $250, and the HD 6950 retails for $280-$300.

Now follow this link and it will show you the cheaper card matching the more expensive card on a regular basis. There are most certainly instances like this on both sides, my point is there is pretty good parity in the graphics card world right now. Fairly priced, competitive cards are being released from both AMD/ATI and Nvidia.

And until AMD/ATI decides to release anything to challenge the 485m(Mobility 6970 is not out yet, but should be stronger from what I have seen), they are going to charge more, it only makes sense. They will most certainly have to lower the price when the 6970m is released.

 

These are not arguments.

The 8800 had some fabrication problems and so forth. The 9800 was the same chip as the 8800, why you bought it was... well for you to disclosure.

The gtx 200 series is a great series, but since it was performing better than what AMD offered they put the price accordingly, exactly the same thing tat happened when AMD put out the 5000 series, they charged whatever they wanted.

Usually nvidia tries to charge more for their products, and this surcharge is also base on logic, since the die of their chips is usually bigger than AMD you can get less chips from the same sized waffer, thus inevitaby bringing the costs up.

The heated battle of price happens in the 200 dollar mark, this is the sweet spot, thats why the 6800 and 6950 have suffered some tweaks to offer a competition to the 560Ti.

The lower range its still dominated by AMD, as is for sometime, the lack of lower gt 400 offerins undermines Nvidia, and the 9000 series cant handle much more against the 5600 and the 5500 not to mention the lowering of the retail prices of the 5700, the only card that offers real competition from Nvidia is the great gtx 460 which retails now for lowly 120 or less.

The high end market, each company charge whatever they want, being nvidia the more expensive one, this isnt a price sensitive market. Amd usually targets the release of dual gpu cards to counter the best of what Nvidia has to offer. The 6970 now counter the gtx 570, as it was the same when the gtx 400 was launched, and the history goes but I think you get the point.

Anyway, its the market law that govern both of the companies, basic supply and demand, try to learn basic microeconomics and you would understand this process.

 

As a general reminder, and reiterating BatBoy's earlier post, stay on topic and leave out the bashing, or this thread will be closed. If you think someone is wrong, use evidence and logic to prove them wrong instead of insults. If you can't avoid arguing, don't post.