Weekend Poll: AMD or NVIDIA?

We're back in business here with the weekend polls, and to be honest I can't believe I haven't already asked this question yet. Which of the two major graphics card manufacturers do you prefer? You could put down which company powers the graphics in your current PC, the company with the fastest hardware or just which one you prefer overall and try to include in your newest builds.

Anyway everyone here at Neowin hopes that you're having a great weekend, and happy Father's Day for many people worldwide. Next week should be a very busy week in tech with inbound announcements from Microsoft, Nokia and Verizon all occurring on Monday June 18th, followed by Microsoft's Windows Phone Developer Summit across June 20-21 - and we'll be there to cover both of Microsoft's events.

So leave your votes and comments below, and enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Poll

AMD or NVIDIA?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Rumor: Amazon to cut Kindle Fire price by $50

Next Story

Neowin Member Reviews: Samsung Galaxy S3

143 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm not loyal to any company anywhere for anything. I use whatever I feel is best at the time. So i've owned both Nvidia and AMD cards. I have two HTPC's, one used AMD the other uses Nvidia. I prefer the AMD card for that.
My main gaming machine has had both in it at one point or another.

I have always preferred AMD, I think the price ranges are great and the fact that I can run Eyefinity on my 6950 is excellent for the price I paid (£180). I have never had any driver issues with AMD (other than Windows 8 CP when it first came out ) and NVIDIA's naming scheme confuses me.

I prefer Catalyst as well, I think the interface is a lot easier to use and even if I went NVIDIA I would have to buy two cards in SLI to get my 3 monitors to work

Ever since my first dud of a nVidia card in the early 2000's crapped out on me, I've been just always buying ATI from then on out lol. I'm not the kind of guy that continually updates my graphics card's drivers unless i necessarily need to so never had any drivers issues. Nothing against nVidia, I would try another one if it had a better value over an AMD equivalent.

My only ATI dud was a really bad 5870 eyefinity that pretty much wouldn't work, but Sapphire swapped it with a 6950 that has been working like a dream.

I'm another old Nvida user (TNT2, GeForce) who switched to the ATI/AMD product line since getting a Radeon 8500 (since then upgraded to 9600, X1650 Pro, 5750HD and now a 6870HD product).

My primary concern is price and power (mid-range not top-of-line) - I want to be able to enjoy the best graphics I can without losing my mind trying to keep up with the latest high-end card.

I started out with nvidia way back in the day with TNT... went a bit off the map with gaming and graphics cards for a while, then came back and decided on ATI for my graphics solution.... best bang for my ££ I have had my 2x4870 in my system since and they haven't given me any problems at all. Even on the new games. So the answer to the poll.... I don't favour any camp. I look at the options. Look at my budget. Look at how much performance I am going to get and then choose. You have a brain in your head…….. use it..

Had an AMD card since I built my PC this time last year. Started with a 5770 which was a decent card and ran Battlefield 3 great at medium whilst I watched my friends cry over their nVidia 560 Ti's crumble under the artifacting problem that they faced until December time.

I upgraded a couple of days ago to the 6870 and so far it's been good- can play BF3 on High - Ultra so I'm happy. I would get an nVidia card but I'm usually on a tight budget when I do upgrade and the decent nVidia cards aren't usually cheap.

I may switch to nVidia though next time to see if the superior driver argument is correct (which, in fairness, probably is).

Lastwebpage said,
I think polls like this should contain a entry for Intels and AMDs built-in GPUs.

That's pointless because it's obvious AMD will win in that dept since those are at least decent where as Intel's are pretty much total crap for gaming.

It all depends on what you do on the machine. I have 2 desktop systems that are identical except for hdd and graphics cards, for general use i use the machine with the amd hd4770 as the picture quality seems better on video playback but if i want to do video editing and sfx work i use the machine with the gtx550ti because cuda is better supported.

I must say that the problems with ati/amd drivers all seem to stem from when amd purchased ati and then made them use amd's compiler and heavily optimised their driver for amd cpus but made them unstable on intel chips.

AMD (actually ATI) has traditionally been more reliable, but Nvidia has more cutting-edge, advanced technology. Which one is better depends on needs and application.

So after about 6.5 years of using GeForce cards in my primary system, I was hoping for good things from AMD when I tried out the 7850.

Didn't work out. Good hardware but the drivers are pants. I wasn't convinced that waiting it out would solve issues I had.

So I went back to the grassy green side. Plus the GTX 670 threw in wrenches for what was traditionally AMD's domain - low power consumption and cost.

All the video cards i ever owned...

-3DFX Voodoo 4MB (1996-1997) (basically the first 'good' gaming graphics chip. the exact graphics card i had was a 'Diamond Monster 3D' (which i still have sitting in my shelf for nostalgia sake (had it in a Pentium 133mhz PC))
-3DFX Voodoo 3 (series) 16MB (i think it was 2000 and 3000 models as i had a couple of these and still have them (or at least one of them) collecting dust in my room. i think i had these in a PC i had in the year 2000 in a Emachines 500mhz Celeron PC.)
-Geforce 2 GTS 32MB (came with a Alienware PC i got in 2001)
-Geforce 3 Ti200 64MB (replaced the Geforce 2 above as an upgrade)
-Geforce 7900GT 256MB (which i got in March 2006 when i built my PC for the first time)
-Radeon 5670 512MB (got in about mid-2010 as i needed it for Mafia II which replaced the Geforce 7900GT card as a upgrade as on Mafia II's benchmark with the 7900GT card it ran @ 8.5fps where as swapping to that Radeon 5670 card it basically ran on high @ 1920x1080 at around 25-30fps which is obviously a big increase. that was on a AMD Athlon X2 3600+ dual core CPU 2.0ghz overclocked to 2.4ghz. i have recently upgrade my CPU/mobo/ram though as my CPU is now i3-2120 which is obviously a huge upgrade)

the Radeon 5670 512MB is my current card and overall it's solid as it sips power and offers decent gaming performance and it don't take up a ton of space inside the case either.

i never really had any real driver issues with either NVDIA or ATI/AMD so no negatives either way there for me.

but i do notice, even recently, on the Radeon 5670 card that when i was playing Max Payne 3 that a couple of times it froze my system (but it even did that on my old PC that this graphics card was in to on Crysis 2 a little) to where i had to power off and back on. but overall it's not really a big deal as i was playing that game pretty heavily for probably 12-18hours worth (maybe more) and i think it only did it twice and once the game itself crashed. but the game runs pretty solidly though considering that Radeon 5670 card is in Geforce terms a little shy of a Geforce 9800GT (or noticeably ahead of the Geforce 8800 line of cards) which is nothing fancy.

so right now... ill go with AMD as they offer video cards that sip power and give you respectable gaming performance if paired with a decent CPU but i generally had nothing but positive experiences with NVIDIA though but at the time i got my card i needed something cheap and decent gaming performance and that Radeon 5670 card sips power vs most of the other cards at the time etc as it idles around 20watts which is pretty hard to complain about.

I was mad at nVidia after buying 3dfx and killing my precious Voodoo5 drivers. So I went to ATI for a few cards. Currently on nVidia, and honestly I don't notice a difference, but I'm a software developer and do basic stuff in Photoshop... so me not noticing doesn't mean much.

Been with AMD Based Systems since 2003 Myself, Have one AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.40ghz, with Low Profile AMD Graphics card installed in that machine, and my brand new System HP P6-2133W, AMD APU based system with Radeon 6530D Discrete Graphics.

My Old PC was AMD Processor with Nvidia video and had terrible performance in games, so i'm very glad to be now on Full AMD System, Performance is so much better, than even the AMD Athlon 64 X2 one

Sticking with AMD Systems probably for way into the future most likely here

I buy which is ever the better card for the money at the time, I had a Geforce 8800, now i have a Radion 6800...

No point in been loyal to one brand, had good experiences with both over the years.

nVidia on my laptops, desktop and every work machine I built in the past.

They just have the best overall driver support across various operating systems - even if Linus doesn't seem to think so. They just work on Linux like a charm.

I prefer Nvidia, however AMD/ATI have always been very good value for money (ie. bang for buck). So at present I'm running an overclocked AMD Radeon HD 6950.

Would very much like a nice top of the range Nvidia card though, if I had the money.

AMD Own a 6950 and unlike a lot of other people the drivers behave perfectly for me, and have now for 3 generations of ATI products. nVidia's on the other hand i've had nothing but trouble with. Plus you tend to get better bang for your buck with ATI, nVidia cards almost always seem to be more expensive at the same performance level.

I was always an Nvidia loyalist, then around 2 years ago i bought a ATi 4890 because apparently it was a good spec for the price, which in a way it was! However the poxy fan on it is so annoying, it actually drove me crazy.

It would spin up and slow down all the time when just on the desktop, you would hear the fan kick up a gear and then slow down, then kick up and slow down, it wouldnt just idle at a steady speed.

As you can imagine, this will be the last ATi Card i ever buy.


(Yes i do know you can manually set the fan speed to a constant medium in the graphics card settings)

I don't have a "preferred brand", I simply pick the best of class at the time. Last time I bought a graphics card, that was ATI, and the time before that it was Nvidia

Stopped owning NVidia cards when I got tired of the message: display driver has stopped working and recovered. Also when my 9800 decided not to increase the fan speed automatically ending up in countless reboots. Then their first dual core burned out and died (GrillForce) and now no Win8 drivers

My first card was a nVidia Riva TNT and brought nVidia exclusively up til three years ago when nVidia cards were hot and noisy and expensive, so I brought an AMD 4890 and never had any problems with it (which I was kind of expecting considering all the ATI bitching people do.)

Current card is an AMD 6870 and is also working flawlessly.

My next card will be based on whoever is providing the best bang for buck. I'm just happy there's two good companies out there providing competition and choice and keeping the other one honest.

Hahahaha. The most idiotics comments ever i readed in this post. "i use nvidia since riva", "i use ati since radeon 7200"...
LOL. i always buy what is the best for the money at the moment.
right now, i vote nvidia, 2 months ago i would vote ati. and in 3 months who knows...

always been Nvidia (1st was riva tnt) except for one ATI card, I bought a 9800pro AIW, I refused to buy a FX series of nvidia so went ati, after 3 of them developing faulty ram chips i vowed never again. Granted it was more the card manufacturer to blame but put me off ATI for life.

NVIDIA preferred, for a couple of reasons: better driver UI and experience for me, better OpenGL support, better video decoding in GPU, CUDA!. But I have owned both and like both.

Can I choose 'No real preference'? I currently have AMD/ATI cards in system, but have had nVidia in the system before this one. Why did I go with ATI over nVidia for this build? Simple the most bang for the buck and also the best bang for the dB level (aka, the best fanless card at the time).

i prefer ati for price and driver stability reasons. nvidia produces os specific gpu's, then drivers are failing on a new OS, IMO. i think we will see lots of driver issues with w8 on nvidia. ati will just work. and newer ati cards seems more power efficient.

I've had both nvidia and ati gpus. I havent had any issues with any of them but since my gaming laptop has a 6990m and its been working perfectly, i voted for AMD.

Voted NVIDIA, but I'm on an ATI card right now (5770). I'm planning on switching back to NVIDIA when I've got enough money for a decent Kepler card (probably around the end of September when my student loan comes in ), partially because I'd like the performance boost (although it's not as great as I hoped it would be), and partially because I've had quite a few BSODs over the past 12 months or so, and every time it happens, it's due to atikmpag.sys (which is a part of the ATI drivers).

Personally,
I prefer ATI any day, but no one sells them around here, so all of my machines but 1 have Nviida! When you need a graphics card, you need it now, not 6-8 days later, and I have never had a need to just buy a card for the heck of it!

Also, personally, I think Nvidia drivers suck green donkey d**k!!

These things always amused me. Especially when the fan boys get all riled up over who has the crappy drivers. XD When people start blaming the cards for its defects, they never seem to take into account the fact that it might be the CPU/RAM/GPU/chipset combination, or even BIOS settings. My system was quite unstable once when I upgraded to a EVGA GTX 260, with constant lock-ups as well as BSOD's. But after I looked up the error code and found that it was a memory error. I fiddled around with the memory timings and other BIOS settings, and my system became rock solid.

Remember people. When installing components in your machine, it is not always the most recent components fault. Other hardware combinations play a role, and it could just be that your BIOS, chipset or settings does not like your current combo. this is why you always have a variation on hit and miss experiences on both sides of the playing field.

Geforce 2
Geforce 4 TI
Geforce 7600
ATI HD 3850
GTX 285 (it broke)
ATI HD 4890
GTX 580 (some occasional driver problems)

I do prefer NVIDIA, but overall, my ATI's NEVER had problems, wether they be hardware or software.

had an nVidia 8600gt, it's capacitor blew up. got a replacement, again same problem.
using an amd 6850 now.

AMD. Having had nothing but problems with the last 3 of the 5 nvidia cards i've owned has done a decent job of turning me off of them. Have yet to have any of the hassles with any of the 6 ATI/AMD cards i've had over the years. Maybe i'll give nvidia another go when they manage to put together GPU's that have a higher percentage of lasting (atleast) a year than they have in recent times.

Having had to support both for customers, nVidia is the absolute hands down winner. Every time.

I've personally only ever owned nVidia, and i'd never look back. Literally.

Everytime i have an nvidia card i wish i had ati's monitor support, and eveytime i have an ati i wish i had nvidia's linux drivers. That keeps happening over and over on features and capabilities.

I would enjoy and prefer nVidia, however, my nVidia card does not work with sleep function.

It crashes.

So I choose to use a different card, which works with sleep function.

amd all the way, after nvidia laptop gpu defects a few years back, and the crappy drivers that they keep putting out. never had any problems with amd/ati, drivers always worked, never caused me issues. nvidia's crappy support/solution for their defective gpu parts is unforgivable. any computer i recommend to ppl; has amd gpu parts, that's 30 something computers nvidia will never see.

Always been NVIDIA with my builds but decided to go AMD (6850) this time around and have no complaints. All my games work fine and performance is great.

I've also been a bit turned off by NVIDIA and the 8600m GT fiasco in the 2008 MacBook Pro. Mine finally bit the dust last year.

Edited by mattmatik, Jun 17 2012, 5:36am :

I go for whichever brand has the best performance. For this generation I went with the nVidia GTX680 SLI but previously I had the AMD HD5970. I prefer nVidia drivers overall but there really isn't much difference between the two companies.

I'm not going to vote in this poll. I'm no longer brand-loyal. The next time I buy a new graphics card, it won't matter whether the card has "AMD" or "nVidia" stamped on it. It all depends on how well the card meets my needs.

Chugworth said,
I'm not going to vote in this poll. I'm no longer brand-loyal. The next time I buy a new graphics card, it won't matter whether the card has "AMD" or "nVidia" stamped on it. It all depends on how well the card meets my needs.

I agree. Furthermore, there are cases which is better (economically speaking) to purchase a certain video card and wait for a next-gen appear, which will surpass the most powerful older ones.

Chugworth said,
I'm not going to vote in this poll. I'm no longer brand-loyal. The next time I buy a new graphics card, it won't matter whether the card has "AMD" or "nVidia" stamped on it. It all depends on how well the card meets my needs.

To quote the OP: "You could put down which company powers the graphics in your current PC."

I'm brand loyal simply for the fact I love to go against the majority.

Disclaimer before I start - I'm a Mac user so the choice is made for me when I upgrade but with that being said I have a bias towards ATI primarily because of two reasons:

1) nVidia drivers on Mac OS X really do suck - it is one thing to blame the operating system but when you have older generations of Radeon out perform newer version of nVidia under Mac OS X then things don't seem quite right. Apple may choose the hardware but like Microsoft they're very much dependent on the hardware vendors to provide the drivers with nVidia having done a pretty shocking job so far hence my happiness knowing that I had upgraded my MacBook Pro when I had the chance rather than waiting till now.

2) Quality issues relating to the 8600M debacle and the fact that the replacement motherboards still contained the fault prone GPU because nVidia refused to fix up the fault in their design - the result? Mac users having upwards of 12 motherboard replacements which IMHO borderline on the ridiculous.

I'm not closed minded but it is difficult to have confidence in an organisation who are unable to get some fundamental things correct.

Both make equivalent products for very similar prices, so it's a matter of brand loyalty, which I don't have. I've owned several different ATI and NVIDIA cards and most were **** regardless of manufacturer. They are hot, loud, unstable, they have horrible drivers, they are expensive and they get obsolete quickly. Nonetheless, I like to encourage competition so AMD gets my vote.

moby63 said,
NVIDIA! jumping from 295 to 690

lol hold onto your hat and something to stop yourself getting blown over with the performance boost

Only time I owned an AMD card was when it came with a pre-built PC. Gave it to my best friend and built me a new rig with an NVIDIA, been rocking NVIDIA for years, ain't about to stop now.

3dfx!!!

In all seriousness though NVIDIA.

Never had good experiences with ATi/AMD cards. I've used NVIDIA since my GeForce 3 Ti 200 replaced my Voodoo 5.

lunarx3dfx said,
3dfx!!!

In all seriousness though NVIDIA.

Never had good experiences with ATi/AMD cards. I've used NVIDIA since my GeForce 3 Ti 200 replaced my Voodoo 5.

One of my early systems had two 3dfx Voodo 2 cards (sli), with an Aureal A3D sound card. Unreal Tournament was AWESOME back in the day

Jason Stillion said,

One of my early systems had two 3dfx Voodo 2 cards (sli), with an Aureal A3D sound card. Unreal Tournament was AWESOME back in the day

Ditto bud, aint it amazing that with SLI`d voodoo IIs you could jump from VGA to SVGA...1024x768 in a game.....breathtaking lol how things have accelerated eh

I was ATI until AMD took it over... but still personally prefer AMD processors -- the irony of how they can make a good processor(my personal opinion), but let the graphic chips suffer.

I had good luck with a Radeon 7000 and 9000 they performed well for what I need them to. Also had a Rage Pro which performed well. (all of which were Sapphire)

But then as soon as AMD bought them out - then video drivers started to get erratic... especially the ones that required .net - (which it always said I didn't have installed, but I was already one step above in that regard and had to manually edit the file to get it to install.)

redvamp128 said,
I had good luck with a Radeon 7000 and 9000 they performed well for what I need them to. Also had a Rage Pro which performed well. (all of which were Sapphire)

But then as soon as AMD bought them out - then video drivers started to get erratic... especially the ones that required .net - (which it always said I didn't have installed, but I was already one step above in that regard and had to manually edit the file to get it to install.)


hmm, my experience is that ATI/AMD drivers became much better when AMD took over ATI. If i recall correctly, this was around the times of Vista and Win7 beta's when slowly the drivers improved from horrid random BSOD's and horrid graphical performance to a much stabler system with more power comming from the same video card. AMD doesnt even require a reboot for a driver update/install for 2 or so years.
Last time I've installed Nvidia drivers (2-3 months ago) it still demanded me to reboot the system

Shadowzz said,

hmm, my experience is that ATI/AMD drivers became much better when AMD took over ATI. If i recall correctly, this was around the times of Vista and Win7 beta's when slowly the drivers improved from horrid random BSOD's and horrid graphical performance to a much stabler system with more power comming from the same video card. AMD doesnt even require a reboot for a driver update/install for 2 or so years.
Last time I've installed Nvidia drivers (2-3 months ago) it still demanded me to reboot the system

Except one problem-- I was running XP at the time and there were rock stable before they bought them out, but horrible after.

And to noteI have not had a "reboot" with my system for the past five Nvidia drivers. All I see is the flash where it switches one to the next"

yardmanflex said,
I have a dell xps m1350 with NVidia gpu and man that ish over heat like it's in hell...ATI/AMD all the way..

I have an XPS M1330 and it has the same problem, but thats not NVIDIAs fault, its the stupid idea by Dell to cool not only the CPU but also the GPU on the same cooling circuit.

I have always owned an Nvidia card...... but it worries me that they took so long to release drivers for the current release of windows 8.

nVidia..

I used to be an ATI Fanboi, but I finally had enough with their drivers.. Though I still have 2 computers [ desktop and laptop ] with ATI/AMD graphics, they are still not near as stable as my nVidia systems.

That being said, I'm always open.. I'm sure I'll try AMD again some day..

parengputik said,
I wonder why Linus hates NVIDIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA

Wow he's so old. I'll bet most young linux fans don't realise what a fossil he is.

anyway, to save everyone else having to listen to almost an hour of drivel, if you really want to hear Linus make a fool of himself, its just before the 50 minute mark.

Nvidia are hugely successful, and obviously aren't interested in supporting a losers operating system. If they thought it was worth their while commercially then they would.

so, in summary Linus - F**K you!

dvb2000 said,

...

I wouldn't call him a 'fossil' just because he has trouble expressing some of his opinions. That actually adds more credibility to him, because it shows what a geek he is. At the end of that speech he looks like ok thank god that is over, now let me just get back to a computer so I can start coding.

Oh and just because Linux isn't raking in money like Nvidia doesn't mean it is a 'loser's' operating system.

dvb2000 said,
<Whine>

Hater much? Has Linus somehow offended you?

Having used both ATI and Nvidia graphics cards under Linux, Linux is far from a "Loser" operating system, it's just not a standard one. It's also capable of being a gaming OS. Valve seem to think so, at least, and given that I game quite a lot on my Linux system, I'd be inclined to agree

dvb2000 said,
so, in summary Linus - F**K you!

I wish we could down vote things in here, like with Digg and Reddit - we could get rid of people like you quick.

Majesticmerc said,

Hater much? Has Linus somehow offended you?

Having used both ATI and Nvidia graphics cards under Linux, Linux is far from a "Loser" operating system, it's just not a standard one. It's also capable of being a gaming OS. Valve seem to think so, at least, and given that I game quite a lot on my Linux system, I'd be inclined to agree


linux a gamer OS? really? the only linux distro for gaming is the playstation 3...
nvidia even bypasses xwindow because it sucks. OpenGL is easily outperformed by DirectX with any well designed challenge you throw at them. Would be somewhat true if it still where XP days. But with microsofts redesigned video model.. its unbeatable by any Linux computer.
I've ran linux from time to time. FreeBSD, Debian, Ubuntu (which is basically a gay Debian sid), opensuse, red hat and few more. But even old games like WC3 run like sh*t in Wine... many, many games where unable to run at all. Some ran better on outdated versions of wine then on latest release... and more junk came at me. not even mentioning the horrible process of getting 3d support to even work in any distro i've encountered. The only way Linux will ever be able to outperform Windows in games, graphical power and what not... is for them to rewrite the whole kernel from scratch, as Microsoft did with Vista.

I didn't say that Windows wasn't better for gaming, and I agree that it is better than Linux for gaming. To say that Linux is completely incapable of playing games is completely false.

As I said, I play games on mine, and the games that I play work fine. That said, for high-demand games I will go back to Windows to play because it is better at what it does, and Direct3D is better than OpenGL But I still game plenty in Linux too.

And if you're running your games in WINE, is there any wonder your games run like crap? If you jump into Linux expecting your Windows games to run in WINE as well as they run in Windows, you're going to have a bad time.

As I said, Valve are bringing Steam to Linux, so Linux must be capable of playing games, otherwise why would they bother?

What issues did you have regarding 3D support? For me, 3D support was simply a case of installing the correct drivers .

Anyway, my point wasn't to state that Linux was a gaming OS (because primarily, even in my case, it's not), it was simply to call dvb2000 on the BS he was spouting. His post was basically a personal attack on Linus and Linux users like myself, and I simply wanted to post a rebuttal.

dvb2000 said,

Wow he's so old. I'll bet most young linux fans don't realise what a fossil he is.

anyway, to save everyone else having to listen to almost an hour of drivel, if you really want to hear Linus make a fool of himself, its just before the 50 minute mark.

Nvidia are hugely successful, and obviously aren't interested in supporting a losers operating system. If they thought it was worth their while commercially then they would.

so, in summary Linus - F**K you!

You kinda missed the whole point of the rant. nVidia make mobile graphics chips. Android runs on the Linux kernel.

Shadowzz said,

linux a gamer OS? really? the only linux distro for gaming is the playstation 3...
nvidia even bypasses xwindow because it sucks. OpenGL is easily outperformed by DirectX with any well designed challenge you throw at them. Would be somewhat true if it still where XP days. But with microsofts redesigned video model.. its unbeatable by any Linux computer.
I've ran linux from time to time. FreeBSD, Debian, Ubuntu (which is basically a gay Debian sid), opensuse, red hat and few more. But even old games like WC3 run like sh*t in Wine... many, many games where unable to run at all. Some ran better on outdated versions of wine then on latest release... and more junk came at me. not even mentioning the horrible process of getting 3d support to even work in any distro i've encountered. The only way Linux will ever be able to outperform Windows in games, graphical power and what not... is for them to rewrite the whole kernel from scratch, as Microsoft did with Vista.

I had no trouble getting my GTX 680 working under Debian, and I find it much easier for C++ development than Windows because installing libraries is a so easy with apt. Some of us have legitimate reasons to use Linux other than "because it's not Windows". Some of us genuinely find it easier to use.

(That said, OS X is also reasonably easy to develop for thanks to the Homebrew package manager)

Last ATi card I owned was the Sapphire Radeon 9600XT, quite a while ago. The GeForce 6800GT bought me back and I've never looked back.

ATI card drivers for Linux are horrible and they have turned a blind eye to this fact. So I have turned a blind eye towards them.

I haven't bought another ATI/AMD video card after the X300 and I recently ordered the GTX 670 which offers ~60c at heavy load with fans (3 fans) only at 40% speed!

Been using Radeon HD 5750 for more than 2 years...able to play latest game such as Max Payne 3 at 1080p high setting without problem

Will never buy Nvidia coz my laptop with nvidia graphic are overheat and performance suck to the max...

The Radeon HD 6750m proved to be an excellent notebook graphics card, there is no game that I haven't been able to play thanks to amd.

I've had both and like both. But, when it comes down to it, AMD wins the price war and isn't just blistered by the performance of Nvidia when it comes to real-world eye tests.

Depends, when I buy a new video card, I figure out how much I'm willing to spend, research the cards from AMD & Nvidia in my price range then pick the one that is a mix of features and price / performance.

My current card is an Ati 6950, my previous card was a Geforce 460.

In the past Ati seemed to not be able to make a driver, however that situation seemed to go away once AMD bought them out.

Jason Stillion said,
Depends, when I buy a new video card, I figure out how much I'm willing to spend, research the cards from AMD & Nvidia in my price range then pick the one that is a mix of features and price / performance.

My current card is an Ati 6950, my previous card was a Geforce 460.

In the past Ati seemed to not be able to make a driver, however that situation seemed to go away once AMD bought them out.

Yeah, I stopped using ATI due to bad drivers and a couple bad cards some years back. Until Nvidia does me wrong, I'll be sticking with them. I particularly like how they're getting involved with the gamer community too by creating user tweak guides for popular games. The one they did for Skyrim for example was incredibly in depth.

dead.cell said,

Yeah, I stopped using ATI due to bad drivers and a couple bad cards some years back. Until Nvidia does me wrong, I'll be sticking with them. I particularly like how they're getting involved with the gamer community too by creating user tweak guides for popular games. The one they did for Skyrim for example was incredibly in depth.

I've had both do me wrong, Ati with there Rage128 nothing like using Rage Underground forums using hacked drivers to get a stable performing card and had Nvidia Geforce FX (5 series) which had horrible performance issues.

Nvidia with the Geforce FX series created this programming language, that if used, could make this card do amazing things. However... direct x had to be translated to this programming language adding this additional translation layer... while ATI (at this time) did direct direct x which made there cards much faster.

(Edit) Also had a laptop that had the wonderful Geforce 8xxx series gpu that had that manufacturing defect where it would fail with enough cycles of the chip heating up and cooling down.

Edited by Jason Stillion, Jun 17 2012, 10:39am :

dead.cell said,

Yeah, I stopped using ATI due to bad drivers and a couple bad cards some years back. Until Nvidia does me wrong, I'll be sticking with them. I particularly like how they're getting involved with the gamer community too by creating user tweak guides for popular games. The one they did for Skyrim for example was incredibly in depth.


Catalyst comes with a ton of settings for a wide array of games too tho.
I've often switched between nvidia and ati/amd, and even tho AMD drivers sucked ass untill last year, 2 years ago or something. But eventho my own experience is that nvidia pumps out better graphics on the same game. ATI/AMD usually pump out a much higher FPS. And I for one prefer higher FPS over good graphics any time

Jason Stillion said,

I've had both do me wrong, Ati with there Rage128 nothing like using Rage Underground forums using hacked drivers to get a stable performing card and had Nvidia Geforce FX (5 series) which had horrible performance issues.

Yeah, I made the jump from Nvidia to ATi back when I had a Geforce FX series too. That was when the Radeon 9000 series was hot if I remember, and I stuck with them until they offered butchered support for AGP. (like they shouldn't say they're capable of supporting certain cards if their drivers really don't for example)

I'm still a fan of AMD as a whole though. I just won't be using their video cards until Nvidia screws up or they somehow come out miles ahead of them.

dead.cell said,

I particularly like how they're getting involved with the gamer community too by creating user tweak guides for popular games. The one they did for Skyrim for example was incredibly in depth.

It's the TweakGuides guy writing them so no surprise at their usefulness.

Nvidia all the way. It's not so much that I hate AMD (my first PC had an AMD CPU and GPU and it was great) just I'm more heavily invested in Nvidia these days. Currently own a Nvidia GPU and plan to replace it with another Nvidia GPU. Plus, most importantly, I'm very happy with Nvidia as well.

The only experience I've had with a (then) ATI product was a video card in a notebook. The drivers were awful and it eventually overheated and killed itself.

Never had an issue with anything nVidia I've owned (desktop and mobile).

ahhell said,
You have LESS issues with games with AMD?
I find that very hard to believe.

Ohh, god forbid he's had a different experience then you...

I too have only ever purchased AMD, and I too have never had any issues.

I did fit a NVIDIA 450GTS in my friends computer than that died after a couple of months. But I don't blame NVIDIA, I blame the manufacturer more than anything...

erikpienk said,
i was an Nvidia guy, but i have to say, AMD is pretty good, and more efficient.
and also had less issues with games....

Same here I was with Nvidia from the Rive TNT to the 7800 agp. Got my first AMD/ATI with the Sapphire 3850 agp and have not looked back. Far less driver problems and no BSOD unlike my Intel/Nvidia 560 rig that will BSOD just sitting at the desktop.

ahhell said,
You have LESS issues with games with AMD?
I find that very hard to believe.

And why would he lie?

I think you'll find that your beliefs don't alter his experiences.

With my own systems anyway, typically have better results with AMD under Windows and nVidia under BSD. Voted AMD as I'm usually under Windows most of the time.

Max Norris said,
With my own systems anyway, typically have better results with AMD under Windows and nVidia under BSD. Voted AMD as I'm usually under Windows most of the time.

Amen to that. ATI proprietaries suck!

I've been switching between the two ever since I started purchasing graphics cards.

I currently have an AMD card, but I must say that I prefer Nvidia's software over AMD's. Though, I recently discovered nHancer is no longer in active development. Really disappointing news.

MythicaL said,
I've been switching between the two ever since I started purchasing graphics cards.

I currently have an AMD card, but I must say that I prefer Nvidia's software over AMD's. Though, I recently discovered nHancer is no longer in active development. Really disappointing news.


Yep. Haven't bought NV in a while but I can enthusiastically say "Who cares? It's not like the games suddenly change by whose card you buy."

Same here. Happy enough with my 5870's performance, but had a couple issues with the software. Never had any issues with nVIDIA, so I'll almost certainly switch back when I upgrade.

randomevent said,

Yep. Haven't bought NV in a while but I can enthusiastically say "Who cares? It's not like the games suddenly change by whose card you buy."

Performance from games can and often do suddenly change depending what graphics card you are using, either AMD/nvidia. AMD uses streams and nvidia uses cores. It makes a big difference in some games due to the way the two technologies work.
Not only that, but if you have a full AMD based system, you can sometimes expect an additional 20% bump in graphics speed from the chipset that is often overlooked by people buying a new card.

sagum said,

Performance from games can and often do suddenly change depending what graphics card you are using, either AMD/nvidia. AMD uses streams and nvidia uses cores. It makes a big difference in some games due to the way the two technologies work.
Not only that, but if you have a full AMD based system, you can sometimes expect an additional 20% bump in graphics speed from the chipset that is often overlooked by people buying a new card.


This, i got a cheap ass video card (40 euros 3 years ago) some modified radeon HD 3450 or something. 512mb ram, **** shader and what not. but it runs many games smooth as hell. not the latest offcourse. however it did run Mafia 2 on high settings without breaking a sweat. I had an almost identical machine, just with nvidia and intel chipsets/cpu, and it performed allot slower and worse then my full AMD system (Asus motherboard, all Ati stuff... nvidia onboard video card which i use for my 2nd monitor)

sagum said,
Performance from games can and often do suddenly change depending what graphics card you are using, either AMD/nvidia. AMD uses streams and nvidia uses cores. It makes a big difference in some games due to the way the two technologies work.

Of course, but for most people it's not going to be a huge difference. My criteria for picking the 6870 was 'does it run everything smoothly' not 'does another card get 5fps more in Battlefield 3 or not'

And there's also hardware PhysX, which I also suspect people rarely care about. If NV ever actually upgraded their software codebase off of x87 floating point I doubt there'd even be a point to it.

There's a lot of variables, but most of the time they don't make much difference anymore unless you're buying cheap or top end cards.

chicken-royal said,
Same here. Happy enough with my 5870's performance, but had a couple issues with the software. Never had any issues with nVIDIA, so I'll almost certainly switch back when I upgrade.

I'm in the exact boat as you. My 5870 is strong but latest games on my u3011 are starting to slow up. It's back to nvidia baby (after using an 8800gt with zero problems.)

MorganX said,
I'm small form factor so the only choice is AMD. Nvidia has nothing close to a low power low profile 6670.

AMD has fallen behind in performance, but the lower ends are really shining on this generation. The 7750 runs on the power provided through the PCIe (40-60 watts iirc), and operates at nearly the performance of a 5830.

That's like Crysis on high settings on the PSU of a stock midrange Dell.

bjoswald said,
Nvidia all the way. Been a loyal customer since the GeForce 256!
Same. NVIDIA graphic cards always have satisfy me.

link6155 said,
Same. NVIDIA graphic cards always have satisfy me.

Same here, been buying nVidia since the Riva TNT There were a few so so cards however, the majority were great. I've also tried a few ATI cards, and it's not that the hardware is bad, its just that ATI's drivers are a hit or miss more so then nVidia's drivers.

dvb2000 said,
ATI still have no native 3D support.

What?? AMD do have H3D technology since AMD 6 series...
Only few games like Dirt3, Deus Ex Human Revolution are supported.

Zlip792 said,

What?? AMD do have H3D technology since AMD 6 series...
Only few games like Dirt3, Deus Ex Human Revolution are supported.

Surely you joke. minimal screen resolutions, you need to install "middleware" drivers, there are no 3D AMD glasses, there is what - 3 games that support.

No way do AMD support 3D. If you want 3D, the only choice is Nvidia, no screen resolution limitations, no middleware, 3d windows, hardware available, glasses available, pretty much EVERY 3d Monitor and TV supported, many, many, many 3d applications and games.

dvb2000 said,

Surely you joke. minimal screen resolutions, you need to install "middleware" drivers, there are no 3D AMD glasses, there is what - 3 games that support.

No way do AMD support 3D. If you want 3D, the only choice is Nvidia, no screen resolution limitations, no middleware, 3d windows, hardware available, glasses available, pretty much EVERY 3d Monitor and TV supported, many, many, many 3d applications and games.

Something is better than nothing. As far as 3D goes, it is not mature and so there is no need to make fuzz.
Let DX11.1 come with its native 3D API, which means Game developer does not have to hassle with using both vendors specific APIs and can benefit from using only one API.

Zlip792 said,
Something is better than nothing. As far as 3D goes, it is not mature and so there is no need to make fuzz.

3D is extremely mature. Nvidia has been doing it for years and very successfully. They started from nothing and totally built an end to end solution. AMD has totally dropped that ball on 3D. Maybe they don't have the skills to work out how to do it?

dvb2000 said,

Surely you joke. minimal screen resolutions, you need to install "middleware" drivers, there are no 3D AMD glasses, there is what - 3 games that support.

No way do AMD support 3D. If you want 3D, the only choice is Nvidia, no screen resolution limitations, no middleware, 3d windows, hardware available, glasses available, pretty much EVERY 3d Monitor and TV supported, many, many, many 3d applications and games.


not sure as i dont use it, but catalyst comes with 3d support. as i never used it, dont know how good this is.
other then that, i dont like the 3dness anyways. (hate glasses for one)