AMD to nVidia: Put Up or Shut Up

[Buizel91]

Sums it up I guess.

Now to wait and see who runs home crying.

Dude (or dudess...cba to check profile) That is one awesome Picture and you deserve a cookie for showing me it!

Spoiler

OT: this is nice to see, some nice rivalry, can easily be healthy for both competitors.

It's a nice change from the common Sony and Microsoft statements such as "your not as good as us go away bla bla bla"

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It's a nice change from the common Sony and Microsoft statements such as "your not as good as us go away bla bla bla"

Well they can't throw raw performance numbers and hardware specs at each other or their own fanboys would start calling them PC Elitists.

 

[MrTub]

Im not so good with those old cards considering I was quite young and my brothers helped me whenever I had problems with my computer/wanted to buy a new one, but he said that AMD have had been on top for some time which isnt really true since 400/500vs5000/6000 nvidia have always had faster cards (Single gpu cards)

Hey! Those cards aren't that old... If I dug in my parts box I could dig out a GeForce 2 and a Blade 3D... and if that's not old enough, a Hercules monochrome display adaptor card.

One thing is, even when nVidia cards have been faster I've never considered them worth the typical price difference there is between them and similar AMD card. 25-100+% price increase for a 5-10% performance increase? That's pretty much dropping below my 'acceptable' threshold for diminishing returns.

well I can dig up a old laptop with something around 64mb ram =P but sadly no graphic cards

and top of the line is the best performing card not the cheapest second best performing =)

I bought my cards simply cause I did not think the 5000 serie was anything to have if you compared to a 480 but I would have gladly bought something from the 9000 serie

 

[Jennacide]

I honestly don't care either way, because I will remain with nVidia for 2 reasons. 1) Better support of putting out new drivers when a new game doesn't work with the current ones as well as it should. and 2) PhysX is awesome.

Now I know the second one may be petty, and AMD cards can do PhysX too, they just do it's fucking horribly. And some will claim that's because nVidia knowingly made it work specifically for their hardware, but I really fail to see how that is "wrong" or "crooked" in any way.

 

[Fingerthing]

I fucking hate AMD. Down to the bone, like really. I can't spend a day in Team Fortress 2 without it crashing on me. Apparently the problem has been around for a year now and AMD has still not gotten of there lazy arses and fixed it. I have looked around in forums and solution vary from OS to RAM to CPU to overheating to... Quite simply i'm going to buy an Nvidia card.

 

[ThongBonerstorm]

Who ever wins...
We also win! =)

That's pretty much it. nothing drives development like some good competition.

 

[Nurb]

Are the fast cards to the point where they don't turn your computer into a space heater or require a damn radiator?

With only a few big releases on the pc now, it seems hard for companies to justify dumping so much R&D into small incriments, and it means people are going to be spending money on video cards less frequently when there's only a few demanding games per year because it's hard for customers to justify spending 300-800 bucks on something that will only be able to max out the eye-candy for maybe 6-8 games in one or two years. After that the new bloated graphics engines will strain it releatively quickly if you absolutely need the best visuals.

Also, it'd be great if they slowed down development a bit; they're in such a rush, they don't improve performance enough per release cycle or whatever, so they push clock speeds to the point people are afraid their PC will catch fire, even with the huge fans and heatsinks.

 

[TiefBlau]

Better question- who is willing to pay £500 for some tech that only marginally performs better (in real terms) over it's apparently "outdated" predecessors?

Nvidia and AMD are getting nervous- graphics on the PC are plateauing-

Ahahahahahahaha xD

Yeah, that was all I needed to read.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Better question- who is willing to pay £500 for some tech that only marginally performs better (in real terms) over it's apparently "outdated" predecessors?

Nvidia and AMD are getting nervous- graphics on the PC are plateauing, and people are moving over to consoles, depriving them of a big money milker. So they just treat every card as if it's revolutionary, despite no real person being able to notice or care about any difference.

PS: Who the fuck does SLI or that Crossfire thing, anyway? Why would you need 2 cards, unless your monitor was the size of a shed?

Their flagship cards are only for publicity, you haveto remember most people are not all too bright, so they will look at which company has the fastest card then buy the cheapest product they sell...

To Nvidia and AMD the top end cards hold a measly percentage of their income, the big bucks come from the mid-range/integrated market and console chips.
So even if everyone moves to the consoles they still make tons of money.

 

[Zer_]

Am I the only one who shakes his head in disbelief when seeing that MASSIVE BLOCK of a card people are somehow supposed to jam into their cases?
I mean jeez, I thought mine was almost too big already.

Also how about instead of the "fastest", they make the coolest one for once?
Cause my graphics card loooves toiling towards over 90°C if I don't tone the graphics down and my laptop kept dying because its card fried itself.

AMD cards run cooler than nVidia's counterparts.

 

[MercurySteam]

I think that because the 6990 is built with two underclocked beastly 6970s inside at default and then has a switch that sends the whole card into overdrive, cranking the voltage up and restoring both the 6970s to their regular clock speed allows it to overtake the GTX 590. I never imagined that the 6990 would beat the GTX 590, though.

Goodonya AMD.

 

[pepitko]

Good on them, let's see them fight it out in public. Most reviewers indeed say that the AMD card is the fast one.

 

[Goody]

That's fair enough. But then the 'every single game' in your post should have read 'every single game I've tried', otherwise it is misleading.

I did actually mean to say that, I hate when I miss bits of sentences (it's not uncommon)

 

[Goody]

m8.. Cpu doesnt do graphics.

Try telling that to Dice (Bad company 2 is very Processor dependant)

 

[Pilkingtube]

"World's Fastest Graphics Card."

Not for long. I'll give it about 2 days before a better version comes out.

By my understanding, the reason that AMD is calling nVidia out is because it failed it's goals. Usually, they release one after the other so that the best card is the newest lineup from whatever company, E.g. AMD brings out new top-line card, it's fastest, nVidia brings out new top-line card, it's fastest etc etc.. but the nVidia card is actually the newest one, yet it's slower than the older AMD card, hence being called out on it.

What makes it worse is that it alos means that AMD is next to bring out a new line of cards, meaning that they've been top for a while.

(I think!)

Yes the 590 is a month newer then the 6990 and I do think Amd "won" that match and it wasnt even surprising considering Fermi loves their watt. But before that 580 was top of the line so I wouldnt really say AMD have been on top for a while...

Yeah! That's my point! It's supposed to go nVidia>AMD>nVidia>AMD>nVidia>AMD as each company brings out a new lineup, which is why the latest nVidia card not being the most powerful is so unusual.

 

[Radelaide]

Who ever wins...
We also win! =)

Pretty much this.

While the competition is going to get expensive, in the end the consumer will win. It'll force better quality products that will hopefully have a longer life.

 

[matt87_50]

nice!!!

...


now make some DAMN GAMES that actually use all that power!! seriously! **** the decrepit consoles.

this graphics card is by any measure, THIRTEEN TIMES more powerful than the ones in the consoles.

THIRTEEN!!!

(suddenly it doesn't look soo expensive either amirite?)

 

[UtopiaV1]

Christ I hope neither side "wins". Who wants one side to have a goddam monopoly? That would only screw consumers.

I've always liked the rivalry between Nvidia and ATI, but I always thought it was a little more grown-up and not as heated as this. This is childish. Could both companies please go back to making superior graphics cards, and not start a boring PR battle.

Settle performance differences on gpureview.com for gawds sake!

 

[ph0b0s123]

Until nVidia launched their 400 series chipset they'd been behind ATI/AMD since the 9000 series. Basically nVidia had no answer to the ATI/AMD 4000 series chipsets and to be frank, if it wasn't for the 8800GTX and the 8800 Ultra even the nVidia 8000 series would have run 2nd place to ATI/AMD's 3000 series. Even discounting that, that's several series of 'also ran' chipsets against the 4000 series chipsets.

"Basically nVidia had no answer to the ATI/AMD 4000 series chipsets and to be frank"
The GTX 200 was acknowledged to be the same if not a bit faster than it's 4000 counterpart, so that is untrue. The 4000 series was ATI returning to being competitive with Nvidia after the 3000 series. Certainly the GTX 285 was faster than the 4870 when launched.

I have to call you out as your post was way too biased and generalised. The reality is that Nvidia and ATI have been trading blows all the way down the price range for the past few years. The only time ATI have had outright superiority is when Nvidia have not turned up to the party, with late GPU refreshes. 400 series was hideously late.

Nvidia normally put out faster GPU's, by using dumb brute force of more transistors, which means their GPU's are normally too hot and consume vast amounts of power. ATI on the other hand make optimised GPUs that need less transistors and so are cooler etc. GPU's that are great, but just are not as fast as Nvidia's monsters GPU vs GPU.

The side effect is that Nvidia with their approach have been late with their GPU's recently due to manufacturing complexity, so ATI have had months competing against old Nvidia GPU's. And as a second side effect Nvidia have big problems fitting two GPU's on to one card, so ATI get to claim fastest card.

Who has the fastest single card, was always a dumb battle. Who cares about about how many down clocked GPU's you can shoe horned on to a single card, when it is much more useful to know who has the fastest GPU and then buy two of those cards for about the same price instead. Why pay a premium just to have two GPU's on one card.

The GTX 280 was the same or faster than the Radeon 4870
The GTX 480 was the same or faster than the Radeon 5870 (but months too late)
The GTX 580 is than the AMD 6970

 

[matt87_50]

Christ I hope neither side "wins". Who wants one side to have a goddam monopoly? That would only screw consumers.

I've always liked the rivalry between Nvidia and ATI, but I always thought it was a little more grown-up and not as heated as this. This is childish. Could both companies please go back to making superior graphics cards, and not start a boring PR battle.

Settle performance differences on gpureview.com for gawds sake!

unfortunately this is nothing new, especially for nvidia... and they have done far more juvenile things than this over the years...

but really, they make graphics cards... for gamers... gamers are their target market... so I think its kinda cute that they try to tap in to the whole competitive gamer trash talk type thing. ultimately, the more they argue, the more they will compete... all in good fun! (though seriously... not that I'm taking sides... but some of the things nvidia have done - especially against Intel... SOOO LAME!!)