TheMyrco
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15105 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 02:21 PM |
Are there some significant differences from both graphics cards (from the same level (like Rad 7650 and GTX 560)) or something a like?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 02:27 PM |
I'd go with radeon personally
But only because I understand their naming methods.
XYYY
X = Generation YYY = Awesomeness |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 02:32 PM |
| People seem to prefer nVidia because it has better support/stability when it comes to OpenGL, but honestly, if you're on Windows, a lot of the big games use DirectX, so it shouldn't be of too much concern to you. Shaders should also theoretically be faster on Radeon HD cards because they typically have far more shader cores than nVidia cards do, and each runs at a pretty fast speed. Another plus to Radeon HD is that it has the awesome Catalyst Control Center, while nVidia only has the crappy nTune or whatever it's called. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
TheMyrco
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15105 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 02:37 PM |
Now you're talkign about it, I'm wondering about Windows 8. I'm _probably_ going to get a new pc next year, and hopefully it will be released by then.
But ok, so for a windows pc, Radeon is a better choice, or atleast there won't be a more significant difference between preformance and it's got that Catalyst Control thingy you were talking about.
Now to the prices, not much a difference, right? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LocalChum
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 6906 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 02:50 PM |
| I personally *hate* those graphics card control programs in your system tray, they do nothing for me except spawn extra processes on your machine. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Oysi
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2009 |
| Total Posts: 9058 |
|
| |
|
pighead10
|
  |
| Joined: 03 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10341 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 02:58 PM |
"That's complete"
FYI, you're still on the roblox forums
I say GTX because I have one. I have nothing to compare it with, but I've seen that radeons seem to be a lot more expensive for the same quality. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Oysi
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2009 |
| Total Posts: 9058 |
|
| |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 03:10 PM |
"And remember, amount of cores > clock speed."
Funny NVidia's approach is faster clock speeds with fewer cores (and more house fires!) while AMDs is MOAR COREZ (and less drivers)!
Also, AMD tends to be better for hasing (specifically sha2) than NVidia.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Oysi
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2009 |
| Total Posts: 9058 |
|
| |
|
TheMyrco
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15105 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 03:46 PM |
| Atm I've got a NviDia 330 :3 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 04:27 PM |
"His cost approx twice as much as mine, and mine runs better."
wat
He must have bought it somewhere differently than you, because you can take a nice look at Newegg, and for an AMD card comparable to an nVidia one, the AMD card is almost always cheaper. When I was looking at low-profile cards for my computer (oh, the woes of buying a slimline OEM!) I not only had more choices of AMD cards, but my choices were far cheaper and less power-consuming than the choices I had with nVidia cards. I ended up getting an HD 5450, which was cheaper than the nVidia alternative with comparable specs (I forget the model). The only nVidia card of the same price had the same amount/type of RAM (1GB, GDDR3), but the card had a lower clock speed, as well as 10x less cores (and while they say the shader clock is about 2x as fast as on my 5450, with 10x less shader cores, it's still 5x slower). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 04:30 PM |
| Also, pro-tip for your friend: the Radeon HD 6950 is not a high-end card. The high-end Radeon HD cards are usually the x770, x870, and the x970, where x is the series number. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 04:33 PM |
@Poke
wait what
what about 6670? :L |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 04:37 PM |
| @Trapping: Take a look at Wikiepedia's entry on the Radeon cards for naming conventions. Technically, the x770 cards aren't high end, but they're still quite nice. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LPGhatguy
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4725 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 04:42 PM |
>the Radeon HD 6950 is not a high-end card.
Yeah... it is? It's one step below the 6970? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 05:24 PM |
"Yeah... it is? It's one step below the 6970?"
Shhhh.... it's in the high-end series, but it's a crap high-end card from what I've heard. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 05:38 PM |
@trappingnoobs
XYY
X=Gen. Y=Awesomeness.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 05:40 PM |
"AMD cards are like UK buses,
Big, red, and have bad drivers." -CentrallyProcessed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 06:04 PM |
""AMD cards are like UK buses,
Big, red, and have bad drivers." -CentrallyProcessed."
Which brings us back to OpenGL support, because AMD having bad drivers is heavily based around it having less stability when it comes to OpenGL than nVidia cards do. As a note, I've never had driver problems on my AMD card, because the only game I can think of that I play that is based around OpenGL is Minecraft, and my card runs it flawlessly at over 100FPS, which is nice for a cheap $50 (now $34) low-profile graphics card. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LPGhatguy
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4725 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 06:13 PM |
I have an AMD Radeon HD 6750. And it works great. I can run Skyrim on ultra, and BF3 on high.
It works. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 06:43 PM |
AMD: These graphics cards are like bulldozers. They will usually maintain quite a constant framerate. My Radeon HD 6870 gets 170 fps most of the time. Under a load, they can get down to about 80~100 fps, so you don't see much difference. They have a low internal clock speed, but THOUSANDS of stream processors.
When it hits a wall, it plows through it.
NVIDIA: These GPUs are like Formula 1 racecars, they are EXPENSIVE, and they have high fps with no load (~400 in some cases) they have a fast internal clock, but they have relatively few stream processors. So while most of the time it's fine, the framerate varies wildly. If there are a bunch of explosions, your framerate will have a noticable drop, unlike the other one, which can last a bit better. Most games are designed for NVIDIA graphics cards, so there usually wont be much problems.
When it hits a wall, it crunches and slows.
That's my opinion, so it's up to you to decide. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 08:14 PM |
"Most games are designed for NVIDIA graphics cards, so there usually wont be much problems."
Wat
lolno, if a game designer designs for any specific GPU or GPU manufacturer, they are either incredibly stupid or they've sold themselves out to that manufacturer. If we want to make this argument, though, saying they're made for AMD cards is more valid because AMD has amazing support for DirectX, which a lot of big games run on unless you're one of those weird Mac gamers (I won't mention Linux - if you run it and call yourself a gamer, you are not really a gamer but someone who plays simple OpenGL games that are found in your distro's software center). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
TheMyrco
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15105 |
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 12:33 AM |
| This is getting more and more interesting by each post. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 02:47 AM |
@pokelover980
ROBLOX can use both OpenGL and DirectX. I've edited my ROBLOX settings to always use OpenGL. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|