Graphic Cards AMD directly challenges NVIDIA

Also ATI stops support for accelerators once a new series is refreshed. The difference for driver improvements and performance gain diminished as HD5xxx series saturated the market. Drivers from both camps are just as problematic though. They are still not out-of-the-box perfect, and tap the full potential of the GPUs features. AA/AF broken, vSync fail, broken xFireX. Am sure it is also difficult for ATI/nVidia to keep up with game development releases -- so post retail, bugs are identified and the patching starts. Heck, is that what not drivers are these days. Patch-over-patch..!

:)
 
HailStonE said:
I was never inclined with those figures. I never even care about FPS unless I get decent frame-rate for the resolution I want with enough eye-candy... Those figures are any day irrelevant to me....
Click to expand...
umm, will they be relevant to you if a game runs at 25fps and after driver update at 40fps??? I think yes...
 
I use GNU/Linux. The thing is that in GNU/Linux, there are no games to challenge either of the cards. For video Playback, both are pretty sufficient. I can easily play HD videos on my system with only 10-15% CPU load.
 
Amd is cost effective and good. nvidia is good but way overpriced....:) what would indians choose;) (atleast majority).. but amd has great gpu's.
 
The thing is, the users who supports nVidia is either they never have tried ATI before nor in Future too, the logic is too simple they never want to switch to a new company and want to mess their head with the new UI and the Drivers. The same goes for ATI users too, Even I was like that before a year back, am too a fanboy of nVidia never let there side off.. But after switching to ATI, I will say both sides have very good card, for example nVidia 9600GT one of their best Card out at that time, and now HD5850 from ATI, and well when it comes to UI surely nVidia rocks when compared with ATI. The thing is I never has faced a stupid driver issue like "The nVidia driver has stopped responding" under ATI, the users who have used both of the cards will know it for sure :)

@comp@ddict: Yes that true , nVidia release note info are dam wrong, if the driver release note states that there is 10% to 20% boost, the user should at-least get around 11% to 15% boost (according to me)..

@HailStonE: Normal users never cares about the Frame Rate unless they find the game drops FPS significantly, but power users like me will sure check for the figures. As i will use the card to its Max... :D So release notes plays a important role.

When it comes to overall VALUE for money ATI stands far from the reach of nVidia, all knows it. ATI wins there.... ATI Price tag, power consumption, and heat dispatched all are better then nVidia cards... No one gonna say no for this..
 
Neither the 6990 nor the 590 can claim to be the fastest graphics card. Read Anandtech's well-written conclusion to the 590 review and look through the benchmarks and it is clear why. The architecture of the 590 and the 6990 are very very different. Yet, on an average they perform very similarly. Many games perform better under the 590 and many games perform better on the 6990. AMD's justification that the 6990 sores higher on 3dmark and hence it is the fastest card is bogus. 3dmark11 has never really reflected real world performance and is to be used just as an approximate measure of performance with an error margin of at least 10%. In the past, and I am sure it will happen in the future, both companies have released drivers which are optimized to give higher scores on 3dmark by resorting to various tricks. AMD has a 5% advantage over NVIDIA in 3dmark11 extreme. This is too insignificant, and could easily be nullified with a driver update. Anyway my view is that NVIDIA should not have claimed to be that the 590 is the fastest card, simply because it is not! The 6990 was the fastest card when it launched, but it no longer is. AMD is doing the very smart move of asking Nvidia to justify its statement knowing very well that NVIDIA has no way of justifying. My gut feeling is that in a few days a new beta driver for the 590 will launch on which the 590 will narrowly beat the 6990 on 3dmark11, and this useless debate will just continue!
 
^^ Actually its not just a question of 3DMark 11 score alone, but reviews also showed that 6990 has an edge at higher resolutions (1080p and above) in several games. A typical 6990/590 consumer would not be running at less than 1080p resolutions. While AMD might just be using a benchmark to make its claims, for end users it also matters if the 6990 is better suited for the resolutions that they play at. While for some, the gap between the two might not be enough to declare a clear winner, the fast that GTX590's are burning down like anything with a bit of stress/overclocking on the GPU widens the gap between the two cards to declare a clear winner of the crown.
 
DanDroiD said:
Clearly, Nvidia has better Linux driver support than ATI. I am not a fanboy of either one over the other, but I have to agree that IMO nvidia has more polished drivers with better overall support.
Click to expand...
Well keeping the proprietary drievrs aside. the open source stack of ATI is far better than that of nv. Which makes ATI card perform better in MESA/Xv environment + better compatibility ootb.
 
unixguru said:
Neither the 6990 nor the 590 can claim to be the fastest graphics card. Read Anandtech's well-written conclusion to the 590 review and look through the benchmarks and it is clear why. The architecture of the 590 and the 6990 are very very different. Yet, on an average they perform very similarly. Many games perform better under the 590 and many games perform better on the 6990. AMD's justification that the 6990 sores higher on 3dmark and hence it is the fastest card is bogus. 3dmark11 has never really reflected real world performance and is to be used just as an approximate measure of performance with an error margin of at least 10%. In the past, and I am sure it will happen in the future, both companies have released drivers which are optimized to give higher scores on 3dmark by resorting to various tricks. AMD has a 5% advantage over NVIDIA in 3dmark11 extreme. This is too insignificant, and could easily be nullified with a driver update. Anyway my view is that NVIDIA should not have claimed to be that the 590 is the fastest card, simply because it is not! The 6990 was the fastest card when it launched, but it no longer is. AMD is doing the very smart move of asking Nvidia to justify its statement knowing very well that NVIDIA has no way of justifying. My gut feeling is that in a few days a new beta driver for the 590 will launch on which the 590 will narrowly beat the 6990 on 3dmark11, and this useless debate will just continue!
Click to expand...
It actually is, in majority of DX11 Titles GTX 590 loses to HD6990 by 10-20%.

If we removed Far Cry 2 from the results, we would actually have the GTX 590 to be 2% slower than the Radeon HD 6990. It's also interesting to note that a vast majority of the GTX 590's losses were in DX11 titles: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat (-15%), Metro 2033 (-20%), Battlefield Bad Company 2 (-9%), and Aliens vs. Predator (-10%).
Click to expand...

Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 Review: Dual-GPU Wars > Final Thoughts - TechSpot
My gut feeling is that in a few days a new beta driver for the 590 will launch on which the 590 will narrowly beat the 6990 on 3dmark11, and this useless debate will just continue!
Click to expand...

Same can be said for HD6990. Innit?
 
It actually is, in majority of DX11 Titles GTX 590 loses to HD6990 by 10-20%.
Click to expand...

and that in itself is the most significant conclusion. Since buyers of such cards expect no less than to play the latest DX11 titles in their full glory, here's where HD6990 makes much much more real sense..
 
Back
Top