Intel / AMD & AMD / NVIDIA

[Andrew]

Refreshed for 2018, please make your selections above. In a change of pace we welcome discussion in the topic surrounding your preferences, but please be mindful of the Community Guidelines.
 
Last year's poll for comparison is here.

[Steven P.]

I voted Intel (CPU) and Nvidia (GPU) but I might upgrade to AMD Threadripper later this year lol. Depends, I have a 4th gen i5 (4440 Haswell) atm from 2013 so it might be time for a new board and cpu heheh.

 

GPU is GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) which is fine for what I do guyzzzzz.

[Mando]

im Intel/NV all the way, personally and work wise.

[Xahid]

AMD/Nvidia

More cores and without restrictions....

[xendrome]

2 minutes ago, Xahid said:

AMD/Nvidia

More cores and without restrictions....

What restrictions do you speak of?

[Xahid]

8 minutes ago, xendrome said:

What restrictions do you speak of?

K and non-K based processors.

[+Zagadka]

I'm iffy on the CPU side. I did AMD for most everything until 3.2 GHz (Phenom II) and only recently switched to Intel in the past 2 builds. I would probably stick with Intel in a future build. It really help determine motherboard selection, though.

 

GPU is clear cut.  Nvidia just does a better job of it. AMD has been notorious for driver errors, and I've never had a problem with Nvidia cards while having better performance (in my experience). I suppose I just trust them more.

[Mando]

6 minutes ago, Xahid said:

K and non-K based processors.

id say paying an extra £30 on a £300 cpu for unlocked multiplier is good value. OFc if you wish to have this, most users wont have a need or desire to have an unlocked multiplier out the box (they already have Turbo boost above the registered CPU clock on non-K series)

[xendrome]

6 minutes ago, Xahid said:

K and non-K based processors.

I guess your right, Ryzen/Threadripper need to be overclocked to be even close to Intel single-core speeds/benchmarks, so it wouldn't be fair for AMD to charge even more to still be in second place (first loser)

[Xahid]

3 minutes ago, Mando said:

id say paying an extra £30 on a £300 cpu for unlocked multiplier is good value. OFc if you wish to have this, most users wont have a need or desire.

That's not my point, I just share my opinion.

[Mando]

Just now, Xahid said:

That's not my point, I just share my opinion.

thats cool mate  was just saying  all good mate.

[satukoro]

I still haven't played anything that my R7 1700 and RX580 can't handle maxed out (usually minus motion blur). I haven't touched the OC settings yet.

My first Compaq had an AMD Athlon x2 with an integrated nvidia Geforce Go 6150 and it was the worst. AMD has come a long way since then.

[xendrome]

25 minutes ago, satukoro said:

I still haven't played anything that my R7 1700 and RX580 can't handle maxed out (usually minus motion blur). I haven't touched the OC settings yet.

My first Compaq had an AMD Athlon x2 with an integrated nvidia Geforce Go 6150 and it was the worst. AMD has come a long way since then.

1080p I'm guessing. 1440p and 4k are where you'll have difficulty.

[satukoro]

28 minutes ago, xendrome said:

1080p I'm guessing. 1440p and 4k are where you'll have difficulty.

Yeah, both my 23" and 40" displays are 1920x1080. I don't have anything of a higher resolution.

Coming from medium (at best) settings at 720p on various laptops over the years, this is incredible for me.

[StrikedOut]

Intel and nVidia for me. It is time for me to upgrade my GPU, it is my biggest bottle neck at the moment and with a 1440 monitor, I am getting stutter on some games.

[Mindovermaster]

I had nothing but trouble with AMD GPUs. I moved to NVIDIA long ago...

[+Starry]

Can't complain about my Ryzen and 1070 except that G-Sync bothers me.  Someday I might go back to AMD.  Already got a Freesync 2 display.

[PGHammer]

I've almost always been an Intel CPU guy (the exception has been in notebooks - even there, the exception was limited); oddly enough, I've mostly been AMD (and ATI before that) in terms of graphics; where I moved was nVidia's Fermi and successors (I pointed out that I went from Fermi to Pascal in terms of desktop graphics).  It wasn't lack of interest (but lack of money) that kept me out of the intervening generations; I pulled the trigger on desktop Pascal on the dip.

[boydo]

AMD CPU for me (I just built my Threadripper 1950X rig) but Nvidia GPU - if I can pickup a 1080 Ti on the cheap I will, otherwise I'll see if I can hang on until the next-gen GPUs come out.

[Steven P.]

Just now, boydo said:

AMD CPU for me (I just built my Threadripper 1950X rig) but Nvidia GPU - if I can pickup a 1080 Ti on the cheap I will, otherwise I'll see if I can hang on until the next-gen GPUs come out.

Check Nvidia.com in your region they are actually linking retailers that are putting the 10xx series on sale, which also include the 1080, this is ahead of the 11xx launch, so you are buying at the right time

[LaP]

On 8/2/2018 at 12:23 AM, LostCat said:

Can't complain about my Ryzen and 1070 except that G-Sync bothers me.  Someday I might go back to AMD.  Already got a Freesync 2 display.

Yeah i prefer nVidia gpu and drivers but G-Sync monitors prices are ridiculous. I simply can't find any G-Sync monitors over 23 inches for under 800$ where i live. I don't like buying monitors online from USA. I can easily find good 27 inches IPS 2k and 4K FreeSync monitors for around 400-500$. G-Sync 2k IPS are pretty much all over 800. The 4k IPS G-Sync ones are pretty much all over 1k. That's ridiculous on paper they are not even better than the FreeSync 2k and 4k IPS ones sold at around 500$ in Canada.

 

nVidia will need to wake up with G-Sync. Either they reduce the price or ditch it for FreeSync. From all the reviews i've read G-Sync is not really better than FreeSync. It's not worth paying around 50% more for a G-Sync monitor with the same specs as a FreeSync one.

 

If the price of G-Sync monitors don't come down in Canada i'll have to go with AMD next time if their gpu are close enough. Right now they are Vega 56 is pretty much equals to a 1070 if not slightly better. The TI cards are just too expensive to even consider them.

 

I just built my new workstation with a Ryzen 1800x and i'm 100% satisfied with it. I don't have enough money to justify having both a workstation and a gaming computer so i game on my workstation. I could have both but why since my workstation requires a good cpu and gpu for my work anyway.  The fact AMD gpus are doing very good at compute and FreeSync is significantly less expensive in Canada those are very strong selling points to me. More than enough to make me ditch Intel/nVidia even if i've been using both for the last 15 years or so.

[Steven P.]

55 minutes ago, LaP said:

Yeah i prefer nVidia gpu and drivers but G-Sync monitors prices are ridiculous. I simply can't find any G-Sync monitors over 23 inches for under 800$ where i live. I don't like buying monitors online from USA. I can easily find good 27 inches IPS 2k and 4K FreeSync monitors for around 400-500$. G-Sync 2k IPS are pretty much all over 800. The 4k IPS G-Sync ones are pretty much all over 1k. That's ridiculous on paper they are not even better than the FreeSync 2k and 4k IPS ones sold at around 500$ in Canada.

 

nVidia will need to wake up with G-Sync. Either they reduce the price or ditch it for FreeSync. From all the reviews i've read G-Sync is not really better than FreeSync. It's not worth paying around 50% more for a G-Sync monitor with the same specs as a FreeSync one.

 

If the price of G-Sync monitors don't come down in Canada i'll have to go with AMD next time if their gpu are close enough. Right now they are Vega 56 is pretty much equals to a 1070 if not slightly better. The TI cards are just too expensive to even consider them.

 

I just built my new workstation with a Ryzen 1800x and i'm 100% satisfied with it. I don't have enough money to justify having both a workstation and a gaming computer so i game on my workstation. I could have both but why since my workstation requires a good cpu and gpu for my work anyway.  The fact AMD gpus are doing very good at compute and FreeSync is significantly less expensive in Canada those are very strong selling points to me. More than enough to make me ditch Intel/nVidia even if i've been using both for the last 15 years or so.

What is so special about G-Sync / FreeSync and why does it cost so much over "normal" monitors?  

[LaP]

19 minutes ago, Steven P. said:

What is so special about G-Sync / FreeSync and why does it cost so much over "normal" monitors?  

It gives you the advantage of v-sync without the high cost in fps. If you can stand tearing and play without v-sync enabled then it gives you nothing. Personally i simply can't stand any level of tearing so i always turn v-sync on but the cost in fps is high and it induces input lags too in some games. FreeSync monitors cost pretty much the same as non FreeSync monitors. As for G-Sync monitors i don't know why they are so expensive (often they are 200 to 300$ CAD more than equally specked FreeSync monitors in Canada).

[Steven P.]

Thanks @LaP 

[+Starry]

7 hours ago, LaP said:

As for G-Sync monitors i don't know why they are so expensive (often they are 200 to 300$ CAD more than equally specked FreeSync monitors in Canada).

Freesync basically just requires an upgraded scaler from the usual makers, where G-Sync requires a custom hardware module from NV in there.  

 

So making a mon with G-Sync costs more to begin with, the market for it is lower and they have to recover R&D and make money off it in general (otherwise why even bother releasing it.)

 

Personally I have two Freesync mons and a laptop that uses Freesync, alongside the Xbox One X of course.  I don't currently have a desktop GPU or TV that use it, though I definitely plan to get both at some point.