Nvidia vs AMD

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

OK so my graphic card is coming up to 2 years old this decemeber (HD Radeon 6970) it cost me somewhere around £300 when I bought it last year. So I've been scanning for a new card, I'm not planning on buying one anytime soon just having a browze if the inevitable happens and my graphic card can't handle the pressure...

I notice many games advitise Nvidia but the Radeon at the time was easier to work out series wise, now I've brushed up on my Nvidia knowledge I noticed that the GeForce GTX 690 which was launched in April is pretty bad ass, but I compared the price to AMD's latest piece the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz Edition and there's like a £500 difference...

For example there is a Sapphire HD 7970 VAPOR-X GHZ Edition 3GB GDDR5 going for £385.77

GPU
1050 MHz Core Clock
28 nm Chip
2048 x Stream Processors

Memory
3072 MB Size
384 bit GDDR5
6000 MHz Effective


or a Asus GTX 690 4GB GDDR5 going for £836.87

GPU
915 MHz
28 nm
3072 x CUDA Cores


Memory
4 GB
512 bit GDDR5 SDRAM
6.008 GHz Effective


Nvidia is no doubt the most expensive hardware at the moment for gaming PC's but is Radeon so cheap becase of it's lastability? or is it just value for money? I'm wanting to buy a card that is going to last me as long as possible, but I've noticed that even though my current graphic card is capable of handling all my games with the odd few on full spec it still doesn't like it a jerks occasionally, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the clockrates memory as I've noticed those of the GeForce are around 4 times more powerful then the Radeons in that department??

I just get the sense that Nvidia's probably run the games a lot smoother where as the AMD's even when cappible of handeling full specs still tend to not like the full specs being used??

So I'm not sure if I should go for low budget and changing once every 2 years or risk paying substantial amount of money knowing I can use full specs, does anyone know how long an Nvidia card lasts before it's pretty much out dated??

 

[Challenger1978]

OK so my graphic card is coming up to 2 years old this decemeber (HD Radeon 6970) it cost me somewhere around £300 when I bought it last year. So I've been scanning for a new card, I'm not planning on buying one anytime soon just having a browze if the inevitable happens and my graphic card can't handle the pressure...

I notice many games advitise Nvidia but the Radeon at the time was easier to work out series wise, now I've brushed up on my Nvidia knowledge I noticed that the GeForce GTX 690 which was launched in April is pretty bad ass, but I compared the price to AMD's latest piece the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz Edition and there's like a £500 difference...

For example there is a Sapphire HD 7970 VAPOR-X GHZ Edition 3GB GDDR5 going for £385.77

GPU
1050 MHz Core Clock
28 nm Chip
2048 x Stream Processors

Memory
3072 MB Size
384 bit GDDR5
6000 MHz Effective


or a Asus GTX 690 4GB GDDR5 going for £836.87

GPU
915 MHz
28 nm
3072 x CUDA Cores


Memory
4 GB
512 bit GDDR5 SDRAM
6.008 GHz Effective


Nvidia is no doubt the most expensive hardware at the moment for gaming PC's but is Radeon so cheap becase of it's lastability? or is it just value for money? I'm wanting to buy a card that is going to last me as long as possible, but I've noticed that even though my current graphic card is capable of handling all my games with the odd few on full spec it still doesn't like it a jerks occasionally, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the clockrates memory as I've noticed those of the GeForce are around 4 times more powerful then the Radeons in that department??

I just get the sense that Nvidia's probably run the games a lot smoother where as the AMD's even when cappible of handeling full specs still tend to not like the full specs being used??

So I'm not sure if I should go for low budget and changing once every 2 years or risk paying substantial amount of money knowing I can use full specs, does anyone know how long an Nvidia card lasts before it's pretty much out dated??

Its nothing to do with lastability its just they're so far behind Nvidia.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

OK so my graphic card is coming up to 2 years old this decemeber (HD Radeon 6970) it cost me somewhere around £300 when I bought it last year. So I've been scanning for a new card, I'm not planning on buying one anytime soon just having a browze if the inevitable happens and my graphic card can't handle the pressure...

I notice many games advitise Nvidia but the Radeon at the time was easier to work out series wise, now I've brushed up on my Nvidia knowledge I noticed that the GeForce GTX 690 which was launched in April is pretty bad ass, but I compared the price to AMD's latest piece the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz Edition and there's like a £500 difference...

For example there is a Sapphire HD 7970 VAPOR-X GHZ Edition 3GB GDDR5 going for £385.77

GPU
1050 MHz Core Clock
28 nm Chip
2048 x Stream Processors

Memory
3072 MB Size
384 bit GDDR5
6000 MHz Effective


or a Asus GTX 690 4GB GDDR5 going for £836.87

GPU
915 MHz
28 nm
3072 x CUDA Cores


Memory
4 GB
512 bit GDDR5 SDRAM
6.008 GHz Effective


Nvidia is no doubt the most expensive hardware at the moment for gaming PC's but is Radeon so cheap becase of it's lastability? or is it just value for money? I'm wanting to buy a card that is going to last me as long as possible, but I've noticed that even though my current graphic card is capable of handling all my games with the odd few on full spec it still doesn't like it a jerks occasionally, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the clockrates memory as I've noticed those of the GeForce are around 4 times more powerful then the Radeons in that department??

I just get the sense that Nvidia's probably run the games a lot smoother where as the AMD's even when cappible of handeling full specs still tend to not like the full specs being used??

So I'm not sure if I should go for low budget and changing once every 2 years or risk paying substantial amount of money knowing I can use full specs, does anyone know how long an Nvidia card lasts before it's pretty much out dated??

Its nothing to do with lastability its just they're so far behind Nvidia.

In what sense are they behind? I've only ever used AMD so it's hard for me to compare, only thing I've got is a bunch of numbers but no visual evidance to compare them both...

Would you say Nvidia is the best bet even for an extra £300+??

 

[citysince88]

My mate has one and says (690) it's a beast, I was thinking about getting this though I believe the 560 is still excellent so if it's a question of money maybe look at that.

 

[blue mash up]

Ive just got an AMD workstation card at work and it's fookin garbage get Nvidia i'm gonna ask for a Dempsey style transfer back to Nvidia ASAP.

 

[a.woollam]

I have nVidia GTX 560 Ti and I love it.

Runs fine on 1920 x 1080

Stopped using AMD/ATi a long time ago

 

[Armaan]

Had both, Nvidia pisses all over AMD mate.

 

[BezzMCFC]

had both, played games on both ect.. Nvidia is the dogs bollocks

 

[Challenger1978]

In what sense are they behind? I've only ever used AMD so it's hard for me to compare, only thing I've got is a bunch of numbers but no visual evidance to compare them both...

Would you say Nvidia is the best bet even for an extra £300+??

Personally I think your best value for money option would be to get the 560 and then replaced that in a couple of years time with a similar card once it starts to lag. Unless you're planing on running multiple monitors or crazy high resolution which you only really need for massive screens or plugging in to a big flat screen tele.

At the moment I'm still running a Gainward GTX 260 GLH i payed £140 for about 2 years ago. I play at a 1152 * 864 resolution but can crank it up to 1600 * 900 and still get near max setting in Skyrim with the 2K HD texture mods installed (looks sexy as hell). Only reason I play at the lower resolution is because it suits my eyes playing on a 21 inch wide screen monitor, as i get eye strain at higher resolutions as the writing becomes to small.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

In what sense are they behind? I've only ever used AMD so it's hard for me to compare, only thing I've got is a bunch of numbers but no visual evidance to compare them both...

Would you say Nvidia is the best bet even for an extra £300+??

Personally I think your best value for money option would be to get the 560 and then replaced that in a couple of years time with a similar card once it starts to lag. Unless you're planing on running multiple monitors or crazy high resolution which you only really need for massive screens or plugging in to a big flat screen tele.

At the moment I'm still running a Gainward GTX 260 GLH i payed £140 for about 2 years ago. I play at a 1152 * 864 resolution but can crank it up to 1600 * 900 and still get near max setting in Skyrim with the 2K HD texture mods installed (looks sexy as hell). Only reason I play at the lower resolution is because it suits my eyes playing on a 21 inch wide screen monitor, as i get eye strain at higher resolutions as the writing becomes to small.

Well I run my PC on my 40" Samsung Smart TV as it free's up a lot of space and I find monitors my eye's after a while... I tend to run all my latest PC games on 1920 * 1080 old games or games that are hard to see on 1920 * 1080 (due to small text) I tend to have about 1680 * 1050

I do tend to go for the most outragous settings and if they're mods lying around to boost the textures I will most likely go for them, I had the GTA 4 real look mod and it looked awesome, it was a good job I fitted an Arctic Accelero Xtreme PLUS II cooling fan that balkanno suggested as my card would of probably over heated by now.