7 Replies Latest reply on May 15, 2016 10:06 PM by brucer

    Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?

    theskytalos

      CALM DOWN! I'm not cussing AMD/ATI.

       

      I don't know why, but I love and I defend them, but it's getting harder...

       

      My question is just WHY! I've been planning to make a R9 Fury X Crossfire in a long future, but looking at Benchmarks and Reviews, ATI is often below the NVIDIA - 980 Ti, in this case -, the same are for Processors. The hardware isn't inferior, then WHY it's getting less FPS than NVIDIA? Who is the guilt? ATI? The Games Developers? Drivers? Windows? WHO?

       

      PS: I don't know if here is the right place to start the discussion. If isn't, just say me where to go.

        • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
          black_zion

          Because nVidia pays developers to use proprietary software which AMD engineers then has to get to work on Radeon cards, that's why performance is usually lower despite AMD having the more powerful cards.

           

          AMD processors are 40% per clock slower than Intel because of a variety of reasons, including that they took a gamble with the Bulldozer architecture and it was not taken advantage of by software developers (all AMD had to do was tie in both integer cores into each other and it would have rolled, but that's just me), and all Bulldozer based (and possibly STARS as well, not sure off the top of my head) were primarily computer designed instead of hand designed, which led to many inefficiencies, but with Zen later this year which AMD engineers have been hand designing and refining for the last 5 years, AMD will get the first actual new "chipset" on the desktop side in the better part of a decade, a unified socket (the requirement of a motherboard chipset on the AM3 line prevented that so far), and performance parity with Intel with a 40% increase in IPC.

           

          Also, nVidia will shortly release the GTX 1080 which, according to them, will best the 980Ti by a significant margin and carry a $699 price tag, so keep an eye out for Fury X  price cuts. AMD will "launch" Polaris later this month to the press, but cards aren't expected in stores until around July, though they will be made on a more advanced process node than nVidia cards.

            • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
              brucer

              They said the 1080 will double the titan x with 1/3rd the power, thats a pretty big leap in performance and efficiency, available May27th...   The one I'm interested in is actually the 1070, that thing is going to be very reasonably priced at $380 and faster than a titan-x, available June 10th..

               

               

              I also watched a video of Doom game play with the gtx1080 running vulcan api and It never went under 60fps, dont know what resolution they were running at.. Doom running on GTX 1080 with Vulkan API - YouTube

               

              I could see the Fury and Fury-x prices dropping by $150 to $200 hundred if the 1070 is priced at $380 and running better than a titan-x.. Amd better have an ace up their sleeve with Polaris, because Pascal, on paper, looks to be a runner..   Nonetheless, prices will be dropping a bunch..

                • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
                  hardcoregames™

                  price rot will be quite good when the new gen cards ship which will fan out the market more than ever

                    • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
                      bearcat22

                      Does it really matter how much they drop the price of the Fury cards if their going to be crippled by bad drivers? I would sooner pay more for a card that works properly out of the box than one that is cheaper but has you waiting on updates to fix problems. I'm certainly not going to be running out and buying a Polaris card unless AMD get's their driver department in order.

                        • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
                          brucer

                          I agree, the Fury, Nano and Fury-x may just have became obsolete if that 1070 runs like they say they will..

                            • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
                              hardcoregames™

                              I am still waiting to see what Radeon will bring to the table, I am not brand loyal to anyone

                               

                              I look for bang for the $ plain and simple

                                • Re: Why AMD/ATI are worse than Intel/NVIDIA?
                                  brucer

                                  The first thing AMD will have to do is prove that async compute and directx 12 will actually become something. Then they need to prove their cards and DRIVERS will perform with or better than nvidia's offerings consistently, as of now AMD has proven nothing to me in the driver support with my Fury gpu..  I havent seen much of anything on dx12 as of yet, I've seen videos of like 2 games running on it and they didnt have that much of an improvement in performance, plus they are amd backed titles...  The msrp of the gpu's will have to be considered, performance per dollar.  Nvidia is saying the 1070 will perform a little better than a titan-x and have an msrp of $380, thats hard to beat for a mid level offering..

                                   

                                  To my understanding, and from what I've read AMD isnt going to be necessarily competing with Nvidia in the upper tier of gpu's. I read amd is going to be more focused on performance per wattage and arent going to concern themselves with the upper tier of gpu's. And you know how that goes, you cant always believe what you read, but from what I've read on the 1070 and 1080 have been spot on actually.