AMD or Nvidia? (Poll)

Hxdrah said:

I just nodded my head and held my laughter in.

Click to expand...

SUPERVIP101 said:

I don't know if you've heard recently but the AMD 390x is suppose to destroy any Nvidia card. I have a GTX 970 at the moment and I am not impressed. I'm waiting for the AMD card to come out in possibly June so I can run 4k at ultra settings.

What I recommend:
For high performance at a better price go for an AMD card.

As for Nvidia they're meh and really expensive. I does really count down to what you're going to be doing.

.. GTX 970s really do suck... Just no.
I also have a AMD 8350 as a CPU. Not only does it have very good price to performance, it gives me no issues, I've also never used more than around 48% of my CPU running at 4K so far. Intel, well.. I'm speaking a little bias but people fan-boy over Intel way too much. It's overpriced and it's not necessary for 'gamers' to have a $1000+ CPU.

People are too focused on having a Intel CPU because they think it's 'cool' and that their systems will be better because of it when in reality it won't do jack poop for gaming. Maybe if you're an architect rendering models maybe so?

Back to the matter, look up AMD API (Mantle). Having a AMD CPU and a AMD card, that can really optimize your system.

Some advise: Do your research!!!! Watch reviews, get some benchmarks, compare specs, and see for your self what you really need. Having DDR4 RAM with Intel's I7 may be a big improvement on RAM but really.. You seriously DO NOT need that. Unless you're a speed hog that wants a 0.0001 response time on your system you might as well just burn money xD

I wish you luck on your system! And a $90 PC running 1080p Ultra is a lie... Even the graphics card it's self would have to cost more than that

Click to expand...

Ephizav2 said:

AMD Cpu's are horrible lmfao.

just an FYI btw, an 8350 even a 9590 will bottleneck a 970 in certain games.

Click to expand...

SUPERVIP101 said:

How...? Provide evidence and research.

Click to expand...

Ephizav2 said:

you need to provide evidence and research if you're saying that having all AMD will optimize your system.

Click to expand...

• 4GB RAM; Windows 7 (64-bit); OpenCL™ 1.1
• APU: AMD A10 4600M with Radeon™ HD Graphics
• CPU: 4 cores @ 2.3 MHz (turbo 3.2 GHz)
• GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7660G, 6 compute units, 685MHz"

SUPERVIP101 said:

http://developer.amd.com/resources/...hat-is-heterogeneous-system-architecture-hsa/

Find benchmarks with a AMD CPU and AMD GPU together vs a AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU together then we'll talk. IF AMD are wrong in this case go ahead and sue them if possible (Joking here of course, they probs wouldn't care)

"
A program running on the CPU queues work for the GPU using system calls through a device driver stack managed by a completely separate scheduler. This introduces significant dispatch latency, with overhead that makes the process worthwhile only when the application requires a very large amount of parallel computation. Further, if a program running on the GPU wants to directly generate work-items, either for itself or for the CPU, it is impossible today!

HSA creates an improved processor design that exposes the benefits and capabilities of mainstream programmable compute elements, working together seamlessly.

To fully exploit the capabilities of parallel execution units, it is essential for computer system designers to think differently. The designers must re-architect computer systems to tightly integrate the disparate compute elements on a platform into an evolved central processor while providing a programming path that does not require fundamental changes for software developers. This is the primary goal of the new HSA design."

And here:

"

The HSA team at AMD analyzed the performance of Haar Face Detect, a commonly used multi-stage video analysis algorithm used to identify faces in a video stream. The team compared a CPU/GPU implementation in OpenCL™ against an HSA implementation. The HSA version seamlessly shares data between CPU and GPU, without memory copies or cache flushes because it assigns each part of the workload to the most appropriate processor with minimal dispatch overhead. The net result was a 2.3x relative performance gain at a 2.4x reduced power level*. This level of performance is not possible using only multicore CPU, only GPU, or even combined CPU and GPU with today’s driver model. Just as important, it is done using simple extensions to C++, not a totally different programming model.

HW Configuration

• 4GB RAM; Windows 7 (64-bit); OpenCL™ 1.1
• APU: AMD A10 4600M with Radeon™ HD Graphics
• CPU: 4 cores @ 2.3 MHz (turbo 3.2 GHz)
• GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7660G, 6 compute units, 685MHz"

Click to expand...

Ephizav2 said:

Duh amd is going to say they are better, it's their Ultimate Fishing Rod Of Doom website.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-8350

In 1 and 2 core games, the i3 literally demolishes anything by AMD.

Also, intel 1k dollar CPU's aren't really for consumer use.

The fact that you typed so much just proves how much of a idiotic fanboy you are.

Click to expand...

SUPERVIP101 said:

I first of didn't type all of that, that was a quote.
Neither am I a "fanboy". I would also watch what
you say, please delete what you said

And what you linked me isn't even valid... AMD is scoring better than
the i3 if you actually looked? Old tech can be better than new tech. That is a thing.
CPUBoss is a complete rubbish website, it really doesn't give much detail on
anything other than a bunch of numbers that don't really mean much. "Score" lol right.. Come back when you actually have REAL data.

Also, we're talking about having an API with AMD CPU & GPU. This is going far past what the thread is even about. I recommend the CPUs for It's price & performance, and the GPUs because well... 390x vs Titan x? Hop hop Nvidia, they're got a lot of work to do. This is nothing about fanboying, as I owe a Nvidia card anyway.

Reference:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Look at the price to performance. My point is proven there.

Click to expand...

Ephizav2 said:

Still doesn't prove the point that amd's third highest model can barely beat out a CORE i3.

Also, there is no way that the 390x can actually outperform the 980 or titan x for less than a 980.

No need to delete what I said, when your fanboy and bias is very obvious.

AMD Cpu's are bad in comparison to intel's lineup.

Also, literal trash stock coolers on AMD.

AMD Cpu's have horrible single core performance. In games like skyrim, the 8350 causes stuttering when an G3258 doesn't.

A Pentium causes less stuttering in skyrim than an 8350.

Click to expand...