1 Reply Latest reply on Aug 5, 2015 3:38 PM by esmea

    AMD/ATI vs. Nvidia: Some personal thoughts.

    maelstorm

      I'm not trying to start a war between which video card manufacturer is better, but in my personal opinion, ATI cards are superior to Nvidia cards.

       

      ATI cards have superior hardware quality.

       

      This is true.  I have had four Nvidia cards over the years and every one failed inside of 2 years.  EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.  The last one cost me around $300USD, failed after about 18 months.  Warranty is one year.  For comparison, I have a Radeon 9800 AGP All-In-Wonder card laying around here that still works perfectly.  I have a old Sony laptop with a ATI Rage 128 chip in it which still works fine. My mom's computer has a Radeon X1300 AGP with an AMD 2400XP CPU in it.  That computer was retired recently with a mainboard fault.  CPU and video card still working properly.  I currently run an HD5670 PCIe-X16 and I'm happy with it.  Although, I'm thinking of upgrading it to go with the new mainboard that I have.  It's a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3.  I put an AMD FX-8350 CPU on it with 16GB Ram.

       

      ATI graphics look better.

       

      ATI graphics are sharp and precise.  Nvidia hardware shows blurry images which makes me think that I need glasses.  I don't really use anti-aliasing or edge softening or post processing.

       

      Conclusion.

       

      I don't mind paying a little bit more for good hardware that lasts 5-10 years, which happens to be my upgrade cycle.  I had to upgrade my computer recently because the main board failed.  It ran for 7 years.  I will admit that I did have one ATI card that I had to replace due to hardware failure.  But that's one card that ran for 5 years straight.  I have owned 7 ATI cards over the years.

       

      ATI/AMD video cards are quite simply superior quality to Nvidia.  AMD, you can quote me on that.

        • Re: AMD/ATI vs. Nvidia: Some personal thoughts.
          esmea

          There is a lot more going on in the background.

          AMD usually gets thrashed for having products that don't make current software run better. Many who compare benchmarks at product release are looking for any excuse to nitpick a product, often without statement of the product's design focus. AMD's advances into the multi-core CPU technology made a very large impact, but even to this day few applications fully support it; those that do provide a very interesting view at just how powerful this processor design is. They were also the first company to bring 64-bit consumer processors to the market, which was vital to running the games and applications that we have today.

           

          For GPUs, it's already been a proven fact that Nvidia works harder on individual optimizations for applications than they do on the actual hardware strength. These optimizations are great if you're the type of user that is impatient and doesn't mind having a product tailored for a very specific task, as opposed to having a product that is overall stronger but isn't finely tuned for specific tasks. This doesn't come without drawbacks, though, since many NVidia fans are very quick to insult AMD about driver support even while NVidia drivers aren't so great, either. History shows that Nvidia has had far more serious incidents occur from driver problems, such as the catastrophic incident around their 196.75 driver... which resulted in heat management failures.

           

          In the end, it is vital for a choice to exist between Nvidia and AMD products. Without one, the other would be unchecked in their prices, and they wouldn't have competition to drive innovation. Sometimes it feels as though many fans of AMD competitors don't realize that they -need- AMD, even if they don't need AMD products. CPU/GPU technology would stagnate without them.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful