4 ms·

For general graphics usage (meaning mainly: games) this would not be new. The current R9 300 and Fury cards perform very well against Nvidias lineup, to the poi

by onli 11y ago

For general graphics usage (meaning mainly: games) this would not be new. The current R9 300 and Fury cards perform very well against Nvidias lineup, to the point that they are currently in every price point for most (non-CUDA) usages the best pick (if one does not want the strongest card for 1080p and DX11, which would be the GTX 980 Ti). This might vary with the prices in different markets. But that AMD is the better choice in the 200€/$ price region, which for pure price performance is currently the high point, almost has tradition. It should also be noted that the projected performance gains are qualified as for VR. Those will still be strong cards for normal graphics, but if they were as an enormous leap there as well Nvidia would have said so.

egeozcan 11y ago
I own an AMD 380X and price/performance is why I chose it. However, I think I made the wrong choice, after experiencing how buggy AMD drivers are.
HelloMcFly 11y ago
I think for many like me, the small marginal performance increase an AMD card might deliver is not worth the significant disadvantages AMD brings in software, heat, and noise.
- onli 11y ago
  I honestly do not get that perspective. But please note that this is from a (well, former) gamer perspective, how AMD gpus perform in ML and how the software support is there is just not my area of expertise. For games the performance difference is not marginal. The R9 380 and especially the R9 380X is a lot faster than the GTX 960. The R9 390 is on par with the GTX 970, as long as the Vram of the latter does not become an issue or one plays on higher resolutions. For all of them there is DX12 on the horizon, which so far gives a big boost to all AMD cards and none to Nvidia. Software just is no issue. You find that everywhere on the net, but AMDs drivers in practice just are not worse. I used both, I had problems with both and stable systems with both, there is no meaningful difference there. And professional reviews back that up (note: I'm not talking on how they are to program for. That I don't know). AMD driver for windows are not bad since many many years now, and the Crimson driver update also overhauled the UI in a good way. On linux the situation is more complicated: While Nvidia has absolutely the faster driver, it is closed source. The free AMD driver is capable of playing games now, it made enormous progress in the last year and it is a pleasure to see that. Having a free driver is a big advantage. There is a big difference in heat coming from power usage, Nvidia cards are just better there. Noise should be the same, but since both shut their fans down on idle and since the heating systems from Sapphire & Co are quite good, that is not something where AMD cards are really bad. I do not want to sound too pro-AMD – Nvidia makes great cards and they definitely have their place – but I do not get the negative attitude against AMD.

by onli 11y ago

egeozcan 11y ago

I own an AMD 380X and price/performance is why I chose it. However, I think I made the wrong choice, after experiencing how buggy AMD drivers are.

HelloMcFly 11y ago

I think for many like me, the small marginal performance increase an AMD card might deliver is not worth the significant disadvantages AMD brings in software, heat, and noise.

onli 11y ago
I honestly do not get that perspective. But please note that this is from a (well, former) gamer perspective, how AMD gpus perform in ML and how the software support is there is just not my area of expertise. For games the performance difference is not marginal. The R9 380 and especially the R9 380X is a lot faster than the GTX 960. The R9 390 is on par with the GTX 970, as long as the Vram of the latter does not become an issue or one plays on higher resolutions. For all of them there is DX12 on the horizon, which so far gives a big boost to all AMD cards and none to Nvidia. Software just is no issue. You find that everywhere on the net, but AMDs drivers in practice just are not worse. I used both, I had problems with both and stable systems with both, there is no meaningful difference there. And professional reviews back that up (note: I'm not talking on how they are to program for. That I don't know). AMD driver for windows are not bad since many many years now, and the Crimson driver update also overhauled the UI in a good way. On linux the situation is more complicated: While Nvidia has absolutely the faster driver, it is closed source. The free AMD driver is capable of playing games now, it made enormous progress in the last year and it is a pleasure to see that. Having a free driver is a big advantage. There is a big difference in heat coming from power usage, Nvidia cards are just better there. Noise should be the same, but since both shut their fans down on idle and since the heating systems from Sapphire & Co are quite good, that is not something where AMD cards are really bad. I do not want to sound too pro-AMD – Nvidia makes great cards and they definitely have their place – but I do not get the negative attitude against AMD.