Why the fuck do you need this monster cards , i play games perfectly with my 4 year old alienware laptop.
it's my first rig that never had issues except some hot tea spill on it but still working lol, keyboard died ...
I think it's good. New stuff comes out and older stuff gets cheaper until it's no longer made. It gives people like me on a budget the ability to build a great computer
Why the fuck do you need this monster cards , i play games perfectly with my 4 year old alienware laptop.
it's my first rig that never had issues except some hot tea spill on it but still working lol, keyboard died ...
I think it's good. New stuff comes out and older stuff gets cheaper until it's no longer made. It gives people like me on a budget the ability to build a great computer
Thats the problem.
1) its actually "old" stuff, nothing really new about it from what ive seen so far except its "bigger"
2) its not made to make other stuff cheaper, its made for bragging rights mostly, when has a launch of premium car made other cars cheaper, for example ;P
And all you'll need to power it is a small pebble bed thorium reactor.
I'd be very surprised if AMD goes over 300 W for a single GPU card, and somewhat surprised if they go that high, even. I'm expecting substantial gains in energy efficiency, though we still don't know how well it will be able to compete with Maxwell.
Why the fuck do you need this monster cards , i play games perfectly with my 4 year old alienware laptop.
it's my first rig that never had issues except some hot tea spill on it but still working lol, keyboard died ...
I think it's good. New stuff comes out and older stuff gets cheaper until it's no longer made. It gives people like me on a budget the ability to build a great computer
Thats the problem.
1) its actually "old" stuff, nothing really new about it from what ive seen so far except its "bigger"
2) its not made to make other stuff cheaper, its made for bragging rights mostly, when has a launch of premium car made other cars cheaper, for example ;P
Should Nvidia have also skipped the GeForce GTX 960, 970, and 980 on the basis that they were "old" stuff (the GeForce GTX 750 and 750 Ti were the first Maxwell cards) made bigger? Of course not. You want several GPUs of a given architecture to hit various price and performance targets.
The next generation AMD card, in contrast, is not "old" stuff. It's going to be a new architecture, probably on a new process node (new to discrete GPUs, that is), and possibly with an entirely different type of memory that has never before appeared in a commercial product. Of course, AMD needs some new stuff to catch up to Nvidia's Maxwell.
Why the fuck do you need this monster cards , i play games perfectly with my 4 year old alienware laptop.
it's my first rig that never had issues except some hot tea spill on it but still working lol, keyboard died ...
I think it's good. New stuff comes out and older stuff gets cheaper until it's no longer made. It gives people like me on a budget the ability to build a great computer
Thats the problem.
1) its actually "old" stuff, nothing really new about it from what ive seen so far except its "bigger"
2) its not made to make other stuff cheaper, its made for bragging rights mostly, when has a launch of premium car made other cars cheaper, for example ;P
Should Nvidia have also skipped the GeForce GTX 960, 970, and 980 on the basis that they were "old" stuff (the GeForce GTX 750 and 750 Ti were the first Maxwell cards) made bigger? Of course not. You want several GPUs of a given architecture to hit various price and performance targets.
The next generation AMD card, in contrast, is not "old" stuff. It's going to be a new architecture, probably on a new process node (new to discrete GPUs, that is), and possibly with an entirely different type of memory that has never before appeared in a commercial product. Of course, AMD needs some new stuff to catch up to Nvidia's Maxwell.
Look at what i responded.
6,7 and 8 ARE what is beeing mentioned in the post, this card wont affect anything but few people who actually buy it.
I don't care how powerful amd says their cards are, In the real world games always take an issue with amd cards which leads to a loss in performance.
How many times have you seen in patch notes: ("We are trying to fix bugs and performance with amd cards")
I've actually only seen a developer say something like that once, and it was because the developer screwed up and accidentally put in a line that disabled anti-aliasing on AMD cards entirely. They took that line out with the next patch.
Now, developers do run into video driver bugs a lot--both with AMD and Nvidia--but usually don't make a public fuss about them. Video drivers are incredibly complicated pieces of software, and they have a lot of bugs. Any modern video driver that was bugless would be far and away the most impressive job of software debugging in history--and I mean of any software ever, not just video drivers.
As for fixing performance, AMD's VLIW architectures (Radeon HD 2000 through 6000 series) could be finicky, but AMD's GCN architecture (Radeon HD 7000 series and later) is far more predictable on performance than anything Nvidia has come up with lately. The way AMD's GCN architecture works is pretty straightforward and AMD will explain it to you if you care to read. But the superscalar stuff in Kepler and Fermi, where a single warp scheduler would try to schedule multiple instructions on different shader banks in a single clock cycle, does random, unpredictable stuff. Nvidia is far too secretive about their architecture to explain what it's doing. Now, predictable isn't always the same as fast, but getting the expected performance out of AMD is a lot easier than Nvidia.
I don't care how powerful amd says their cards are, In the real world games always take an issue with amd cards which leads to a loss in performance.
How many times have you seen in patch notes: ("We are trying to fix bugs and performance with amd cards")
Do these games by any chance have "NVIdia - how its ment to be played" logo at start.
You dont have to care. At the same time you may be gettign inferior product for more money.
This kind of blind fanboism i cant understand.
I haven't used AMD cards for a few years, but I distinctly remember PCSS being totally broken in Far Cry 4, not being fixed for a couple patches, and then they removed the "Nvidia" graphics pre-set mode altogether.
I do run an AMD processor though, no complaints with it.
All propaganda and speculations and bad for PC market but seenms you guys don't care what happen to AMD sadly:(.
I don't buy in these payed articles promoting Nvidia.
I buy again AMD because for year i have 2x MSI 290x and very pleased with it payed a lot less then the over priced cards from the green camp.
AMD 390X is the card to buy this year not the crap Nvidia dumb on market most are way to over priced and peformance wise only for few fps more paying a few hundred dollars more little better score in benchmarks lol.
But you guys want AMD dead and Nvidia rule fine but dont come here whine about it, innovation will stop AMD dies and prices go up and PC market even more on the decline going down hill and all thanks to you Nvidia buyers.
BAH:(
So, the buyers in choosing the best product for their money, kill the market and innovation, which in turn lead to a drop in competition?
Did you learn your "economics" in a communist country?
All propaganda and speculations and bad for PC market but seenms you guys don't care what happen to AMD sadly:(.
I don't buy in these payed articles promoting Nvidia.
I buy again AMD because for year i have 2x MSI 290x and very pleased with it payed a lot less then the over priced cards from the green camp.
AMD 390X is the card to buy this year not the crap Nvidia dumb on market most are way to over priced and peformance wise only for few fps more paying a few hundred dollars more little better score in benchmarks lol.
But you guys want AMD dead and Nvidia rule fine but dont come here whine about it, innovation will stop AMD dies and prices go up and PC market even more on the decline going down hill and all thanks to you Nvidia buyers.
BAH:(
So, the buyers in choosing the best product for their money, kill the market and innovation, which in turn lead to a drop in competition?
Did you learn your "economics" in a communist country?
You got it backwards, its actually buyers buying inferior products for their money based on missconceptions.
There's no way in hell this titan would be priced at 1000$. The least it will compete with the 295X2 at the 1500$ mark. And I don't think it will be winning in there in raw compute power. I doubt that 12 gigs of RAM is coming cheap.
Plus green team needs bunch of idiots to support their company once Dx 12 and Vulkan start making the highlight of games offerings. There's basically no driver overhead with the new APIs.
This might shake up Intel as well. Given that more than one thread will be feeding the GPU, you won't be needing ultra fast cores that much. Average cores will do just fine.
Interesting things are happening in the PC industry.
Originally posted by Frammshamm Originally posted by ClassicstarAll propaganda and speculations and bad for PC market but seenms you guys don't care what happen to AMD sadly:(.I don't buy in these payed articles promoting Nvidia.I buy again AMD because for year i have 2x MSI 290x and very pleased with it payed a lot less then the over priced cards from the green camp.AMD 390X is the card to buy this year not the crap Nvidia dumb on market most are way to over priced and peformance wise only for few fps more paying a few hundred dollars more little better score in benchmarks lol.But you guys want AMD dead and Nvidia rule fine but dont come here whine about it, innovation will stop AMD dies and prices go up and PC market even more on the decline going down hill and all thanks to you Nvidia buyers. BAH:(
So, the buyers in choosing the best product for their money, kill the market and innovation, which in turn lead to a drop in competition?
Did you learn your "economics" in a communist country?
Buyers are choosing what they "perceive" to be the best product on the market.
The difference between perception and reality is called marketing. nVidia is very good at it.
Every time I see a post where someone says "AMD drivers suck" I think - nVidia didn't even need to spend a dime on that one. That quote was actually true, at one point in the not-so-distant past (mostly when it was ATI, it wasn't long after AMD bought them that they significantly improved the drivers). But it still rings out today, because legions of fans keep repeating it, and Buyers are willing to pony up the extra money for nVidia products because they perceive that problem still exists.
Another good myth is "nVidia just performs better" - even though benchmarks may say otherwise. Or "nVidia has fewer problems with more games". Or "nVidia run cooler/quieter/lower power" (which is true right now for certain cards, but certainly has not always been the case).
Now, those aren't the only reason people buy nVidia, and there are places where nVidia genuinely has a better product and I wholeheartedly recommend them when that's the case. My current build right now happens to have an nVidia, before I get accused of being an AMD employee once again. But way too often do I see people recommending an overpriced nVidia product over an better performing or lower cost AMD product --- and almost never is the case reversed (at least with GPUs).
Originally posted by Torval What I would really love to see out of AMD in response is a series of competitive cards to the 900 series - low power and great performance. I'm curious if the HBM memory will deliver this.
HBM by itself won't. HBM offers more memory bandwidth at less power consumption. But the Radeon R9 290X already has a lot more memory bandwidth than a GeForce GTX 980. Lack of memory bandwidth isn't AMD's problem at the moment. And the difference in power consumption could be in the low tens of watts, but that's not really a problem for a desktop gaming rig.
The sort of efficiency improvements that AMD talked about in Carrizo, on the other hand, might produce a GPU architecture competitive with--or better than--Nvidia's Maxwell. Or it might not. The only way to find out is to wait and see.
This card is perfectly marketed to someone like me. I can easily afford it, my 3-4 year old gaming laptop which 3 1/2 years ago was the top of the line is struggling now with its dual 580Ms and older CPU. Nvidia has been doing a poor job supporting older mobile cards and certain MMOs even if their driver notes say otherwise. After my disappointing experience with the laptop, I'll never buy a laptop this high end for gaming ever again. Its a desktop moving forward.
Maybe I'll bet a Falcon Northwest Fragbox when the Titan X is released so I can easily move it around my house for the upcoming Virtual Reality that will take advantage of it. I'm also waiting for the Acer 1440P Gsync IPL Monitor (the first of its kind)...though I'm debating if these MMOs and games like the upcoming Witcher 3 are ready for 4K or if I should stick with 1440P for now...decisions decisions.
Excited about the Titan X and I don't care if it is shortly followed by a 980ti or equivalent. I'm tired of either SLI or dual chips on a single card. They are almost always more problematic at some point versus a single GPU card.
People amaze me. Strictly speaking, price/perf nvidia is *slightly* more expensive than AMD. roughly 5-10% for the most part. While that is by definition overcharging, people are acting like they're just bending people over tables and such.
The other part that annoys me is value/performance and price/performance are two different things. Some of us like the idea of lower power parts, quieter cards, some of the other things that you can do with nvidia cards like Shadow Play, etc. All of this MORE than makes up the slight price difference in my personal opinion. Does that mean they're for everybody? Of course not, competition is a good thing for the consumer.
All the people acting like NVIDIA is a horrible company are being absolutely ridiculous. Compared to companies that ARE actually bad, NVIDIA is positively awesome.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
There's no way in hell this titan would be priced at 1000$. The least it will compete with the 295X2 at the 1500$ mark. And I don't think it will be winning in there in raw compute power. I doubt that 12 gigs of RAM is coming cheap.
Plus green team needs bunch of idiots to support their company once Dx 12 and Vulkan start making the highlight of games offerings. There's basically no driver overhead with the new APIs.
This might shake up Intel as well. Given that more than one thread will be feeding the GPU, you won't be needing ultra fast cores that much. Average cores will do just fine.
Interesting things are happening in the PC industry.
It would be pretty amazing if my Phenom II x6 lasted 10 years of decent gaming on 1080P. Sadly I think ima going to bite the bullet and do a full system upgrade when Zen hits.
Originally posted by Hrimnir People amaze me. Strictly speaking, price/perf nvidia is *slightly* more expensive than AMD. roughly 5-10% for the most part. While that is by definition overcharging, people are acting like they're just bending people over tables and such.The other part that annoys me is value/performance and price/performance are two different things. Some of us like the idea of lower power parts, quieter cards, some of the other things that you can do with nvidia cards like Shadow Play, etc. All of this MORE than makes up the slight price difference in my personal opinion. Does that mean they're for everybody? Of course not, competition is a good thing for the consumer.All the people acting like NVIDIA is a horrible company are being absolutely ridiculous. Compared to companies that ARE actually bad, NVIDIA is positively awesome.
It happens more in the mid-lower tiers, most people expect the top tier cards to heft a large premium, but there have been several instances in the recent past where an nVidia card was going for around $250, and the "near-equivalent" AMD card was <$200.
And that, you are right, is not indicitive of an evil company, it's a smart company who knows the value of their product.
The problem that myself, and I suspect some people, have isn't so much directly with nVidia, it's with the Team Green folks, who go on and on about how that $250 card is superior to the <$200 card, ~just because~ it's got an nVidia sticker on it, and for really no other reason apart from the fact that they see an opportunity to talk about bad AMD drivers (or some other long-dead complaint) yet again.
Originally posted by Hrimnir People amaze me. Strictly speaking, price/perf nvidia is *slightly* more expensive than AMD. roughly 5-10% for the most part. While that is by definition overcharging, people are acting like they're just bending people over tables and such.
The other part that annoys me is value/performance and price/performance are two different things. Some of us like the idea of lower power parts, quieter cards, some of the other things that you can do with nvidia cards like Shadow Play, etc. All of this MORE than makes up the slight price difference in my personal opinion. Does that mean they're for everybody? Of course not, competition is a good thing for the consumer.
All the people acting like NVIDIA is a horrible company are being absolutely ridiculous. Compared to companies that ARE actually bad, NVIDIA is positively awesome.
It happens more in the mid-lower tiers, most people expect the top tier cards to heft a large premium, but there have been several instances in the recent past where an nVidia card was going for around $250, and the "near-equivalent" AMD card was <$200.
And that, you are right, is not indicitive of an evil company, it's a smart company who knows the value of their product.
The problem that myself, and I suspect some people, have isn't so much directly with nVidia, it's with the Team Green folks, who go on and on about how that $250 card is superior to the <$200 card, ~just because~ it's got an nVidia sticker on it, and for really no other reason apart from the fact that they see an opportunity to talk about bad AMD drivers (or some other long-dead complaint) yet again.
AMD usually has a competitive product at basically every budget point, except for sometimes not having something to compete with Nvidia's top end. Nvidia is a lot more hit and miss in that regard; they're often competitive at some price points and not others. So part of why overpriced Nvidia cards get recommended more than overpriced AMD cards is simple opportunity.
But sometimes, it is stupid fanboys. I saw a ridiculous number of recommendations for the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, for example, which was a completely stupid card. At the time, you could get a sensible deal on a GeForce GTX 670 or a GeForce GTX 660, so it's not like there wasn't anything deserving of a recommendation from Nvidia fanboys. But instead, a lot of them focused on the GTX 660 Ti.
Yeah, i mean every time ive bought a card and i did a comparison, which was typically every 1.5-2 years, i always checked AMD and at most it was a 15% price premium, that was in the worst case scenario, performance for performance.
What i mean by that is AMD may have had a card at 180 bucks, that was 87% as fast as an nvidia card that was 225.
So, while they're roughly equivalent if you take that 225 and multiply it by .87 you end with with the nvidia card being ~195 vs 180 when you account for performance variations, etc.
Either way, getting pissed at a company over what marketing people say is really getting angry over nothing, marketers will say anything they can to make sales. I don't trust marketers as far as i can throw my car, which being as i cant throw my car....
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
One thing I've learned over the years - every major MMO studio has Nvidia cards in dev machines that games are developed on.
All korean MMO devs use nvidia cards 100%.
All major Western MMO studios are 100% nvidia (yes QA tests on AMD cards as well - but devs workstations are all nvidia). I am yet to hear of a single exception to this - not sure why.
Just something I found quite interesting.
I'm very strongly skeptical that all development machines at all MMO studios are 100% Nvidia GPUs. I could believe a considerable majority, but not 100%. For starters, anything that needs to run on a console needs to run well on AMD, and performance on Nvidia doesn't even matter because it's never going to run there.
But even if it were the case, how many of those developers are writing shader code that actually runs on a GPU? Enough to make it developers plural at a given studio? Other than in the sense of "zero developers"? That's the part that cares what GPU you're using; it doesn't matter what GPU a developer is using to write C++ code that isn't even aware that there is a GPU in the system. And the overwhelming majority of code in nearly every game ever made doesn't touch a GPU.
And when it comes to optimizing the DirectX or OpenGL portion of the code--the only part that cares in the slightest what GPU you're using--I'd find it absolutely shocking if the big studios don't extensively try a variety of GPUs from all vendors--including Intel. And Imagination, Qualcomm, and ARM if they have ambitions about pushing it to mobile devices.
One thing I've learned over the years - every major MMO studio has Nvidia cards in dev machines that games are developed on.
All korean MMO devs use nvidia cards 100%.
All major Western MMO studios are 100% nvidia (yes QA tests on AMD cards as well - but devs workstations are all nvidia). I am yet to hear of a single exception to this - not sure why.
Just something I found quite interesting.
Its because Nvidia currently has roughly 2/3 of the discrete graphics card market. What i mean is actual bought cards, not integrated gpus. So as a developer you primarily produce for the largest target audience which is by far nvidia. Obviously AMD is sufficient enough that you don't ignore it, but if you're gonna have incompatibilities its better that they be with AMD than NVidia.
Edit: Also quiz is right, its def not 100%, especially if you include console only developers. If we were talking strictly the PC market id guess the number was in the high 80's % or low 90s.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.
Comments
I think it's good. New stuff comes out and older stuff gets cheaper until it's no longer made. It gives people like me on a budget the ability to build a great computer
Thats the problem.
1) its actually "old" stuff, nothing really new about it from what ive seen so far except its "bigger"
2) its not made to make other stuff cheaper, its made for bragging rights mostly, when has a launch of premium car made other cars cheaper, for example ;P
I don't care how powerful amd says their cards are, In the real world games always take an issue with amd cards which leads to a loss in performance.
How many times have you seen in patch notes: ("We are trying to fix bugs and performance with amd cards")
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
I'd be very surprised if AMD goes over 300 W for a single GPU card, and somewhat surprised if they go that high, even. I'm expecting substantial gains in energy efficiency, though we still don't know how well it will be able to compete with Maxwell.
Should Nvidia have also skipped the GeForce GTX 960, 970, and 980 on the basis that they were "old" stuff (the GeForce GTX 750 and 750 Ti were the first Maxwell cards) made bigger? Of course not. You want several GPUs of a given architecture to hit various price and performance targets.
The next generation AMD card, in contrast, is not "old" stuff. It's going to be a new architecture, probably on a new process node (new to discrete GPUs, that is), and possibly with an entirely different type of memory that has never before appeared in a commercial product. Of course, AMD needs some new stuff to catch up to Nvidia's Maxwell.
Do these games by any chance have "NVIdia - how its ment to be played" logo at start.
You dont have to care. At the same time you may be gettign inferior product for more money.
This kind of blind fanboism i cant understand.
Look at what i responded.
6,7 and 8 ARE what is beeing mentioned in the post, this card wont affect anything but few people who actually buy it.
I've actually only seen a developer say something like that once, and it was because the developer screwed up and accidentally put in a line that disabled anti-aliasing on AMD cards entirely. They took that line out with the next patch.
Now, developers do run into video driver bugs a lot--both with AMD and Nvidia--but usually don't make a public fuss about them. Video drivers are incredibly complicated pieces of software, and they have a lot of bugs. Any modern video driver that was bugless would be far and away the most impressive job of software debugging in history--and I mean of any software ever, not just video drivers.
As for fixing performance, AMD's VLIW architectures (Radeon HD 2000 through 6000 series) could be finicky, but AMD's GCN architecture (Radeon HD 7000 series and later) is far more predictable on performance than anything Nvidia has come up with lately. The way AMD's GCN architecture works is pretty straightforward and AMD will explain it to you if you care to read. But the superscalar stuff in Kepler and Fermi, where a single warp scheduler would try to schedule multiple instructions on different shader banks in a single clock cycle, does random, unpredictable stuff. Nvidia is far too secretive about their architecture to explain what it's doing. Now, predictable isn't always the same as fast, but getting the expected performance out of AMD is a lot easier than Nvidia.
I was waiting for this to turn into the typical "AMD drivers suck - Go Yay nVidia!" discussion
I haven't used AMD cards for a few years, but I distinctly remember PCSS being totally broken in Far Cry 4, not being fixed for a couple patches, and then they removed the "Nvidia" graphics pre-set mode altogether.
I do run an AMD processor though, no complaints with it.
So, the buyers in choosing the best product for their money, kill the market and innovation, which in turn lead to a drop in competition?
Did you learn your "economics" in a communist country?
You got it backwards, its actually buyers buying inferior products for their money based on missconceptions.
There's no way in hell this titan would be priced at 1000$. The least it will compete with the 295X2 at the 1500$ mark. And I don't think it will be winning in there in raw compute power. I doubt that 12 gigs of RAM is coming cheap.
Plus green team needs bunch of idiots to support their company once Dx 12 and Vulkan start making the highlight of games offerings. There's basically no driver overhead with the new APIs.
This might shake up Intel as well. Given that more than one thread will be feeding the GPU, you won't be needing ultra fast cores that much. Average cores will do just fine.
Interesting things are happening in the PC industry.
Did you learn your "economics" in a communist country?
Buyers are choosing what they "perceive" to be the best product on the market.
The difference between perception and reality is called marketing. nVidia is very good at it.
Every time I see a post where someone says "AMD drivers suck" I think - nVidia didn't even need to spend a dime on that one. That quote was actually true, at one point in the not-so-distant past (mostly when it was ATI, it wasn't long after AMD bought them that they significantly improved the drivers). But it still rings out today, because legions of fans keep repeating it, and Buyers are willing to pony up the extra money for nVidia products because they perceive that problem still exists.
Another good myth is "nVidia just performs better" - even though benchmarks may say otherwise. Or "nVidia has fewer problems with more games". Or "nVidia run cooler/quieter/lower power" (which is true right now for certain cards, but certainly has not always been the case).
Now, those aren't the only reason people buy nVidia, and there are places where nVidia genuinely has a better product and I wholeheartedly recommend them when that's the case. My current build right now happens to have an nVidia, before I get accused of being an AMD employee once again. But way too often do I see people recommending an overpriced nVidia product over an better performing or lower cost AMD product --- and almost never is the case reversed (at least with GPUs).
HBM by itself won't. HBM offers more memory bandwidth at less power consumption. But the Radeon R9 290X already has a lot more memory bandwidth than a GeForce GTX 980. Lack of memory bandwidth isn't AMD's problem at the moment. And the difference in power consumption could be in the low tens of watts, but that's not really a problem for a desktop gaming rig.
The sort of efficiency improvements that AMD talked about in Carrizo, on the other hand, might produce a GPU architecture competitive with--or better than--Nvidia's Maxwell. Or it might not. The only way to find out is to wait and see.
This card is perfectly marketed to someone like me. I can easily afford it, my 3-4 year old gaming laptop which 3 1/2 years ago was the top of the line is struggling now with its dual 580Ms and older CPU. Nvidia has been doing a poor job supporting older mobile cards and certain MMOs even if their driver notes say otherwise. After my disappointing experience with the laptop, I'll never buy a laptop this high end for gaming ever again. Its a desktop moving forward.
Maybe I'll bet a Falcon Northwest Fragbox when the Titan X is released so I can easily move it around my house for the upcoming Virtual Reality that will take advantage of it. I'm also waiting for the Acer 1440P Gsync IPL Monitor (the first of its kind)...though I'm debating if these MMOs and games like the upcoming Witcher 3 are ready for 4K or if I should stick with 1440P for now...decisions decisions.
Excited about the Titan X and I don't care if it is shortly followed by a 980ti or equivalent. I'm tired of either SLI or dual chips on a single card. They are almost always more problematic at some point versus a single GPU card.
There Is Always Hope!
People amaze me. Strictly speaking, price/perf nvidia is *slightly* more expensive than AMD. roughly 5-10% for the most part. While that is by definition overcharging, people are acting like they're just bending people over tables and such.
The other part that annoys me is value/performance and price/performance are two different things. Some of us like the idea of lower power parts, quieter cards, some of the other things that you can do with nvidia cards like Shadow Play, etc. All of this MORE than makes up the slight price difference in my personal opinion. Does that mean they're for everybody? Of course not, competition is a good thing for the consumer.
All the people acting like NVIDIA is a horrible company are being absolutely ridiculous. Compared to companies that ARE actually bad, NVIDIA is positively awesome.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
It would be pretty amazing if my Phenom II x6 lasted 10 years of decent gaming on 1080P. Sadly I think ima going to bite the bullet and do a full system upgrade when Zen hits.
It happens more in the mid-lower tiers, most people expect the top tier cards to heft a large premium, but there have been several instances in the recent past where an nVidia card was going for around $250, and the "near-equivalent" AMD card was <$200.
And that, you are right, is not indicitive of an evil company, it's a smart company who knows the value of their product.
The problem that myself, and I suspect some people, have isn't so much directly with nVidia, it's with the Team Green folks, who go on and on about how that $250 card is superior to the <$200 card, ~just because~ it's got an nVidia sticker on it, and for really no other reason apart from the fact that they see an opportunity to talk about bad AMD drivers (or some other long-dead complaint) yet again.
AMD usually has a competitive product at basically every budget point, except for sometimes not having something to compete with Nvidia's top end. Nvidia is a lot more hit and miss in that regard; they're often competitive at some price points and not others. So part of why overpriced Nvidia cards get recommended more than overpriced AMD cards is simple opportunity.
But sometimes, it is stupid fanboys. I saw a ridiculous number of recommendations for the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, for example, which was a completely stupid card. At the time, you could get a sensible deal on a GeForce GTX 670 or a GeForce GTX 660, so it's not like there wasn't anything deserving of a recommendation from Nvidia fanboys. But instead, a lot of them focused on the GTX 660 Ti.
Yeah, i mean every time ive bought a card and i did a comparison, which was typically every 1.5-2 years, i always checked AMD and at most it was a 15% price premium, that was in the worst case scenario, performance for performance.
What i mean by that is AMD may have had a card at 180 bucks, that was 87% as fast as an nvidia card that was 225.
So, while they're roughly equivalent if you take that 225 and multiply it by .87 you end with with the nvidia card being ~195 vs 180 when you account for performance variations, etc.
Either way, getting pissed at a company over what marketing people say is really getting angry over nothing, marketers will say anything they can to make sales. I don't trust marketers as far as i can throw my car, which being as i cant throw my car....
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm very strongly skeptical that all development machines at all MMO studios are 100% Nvidia GPUs. I could believe a considerable majority, but not 100%. For starters, anything that needs to run on a console needs to run well on AMD, and performance on Nvidia doesn't even matter because it's never going to run there.
But even if it were the case, how many of those developers are writing shader code that actually runs on a GPU? Enough to make it developers plural at a given studio? Other than in the sense of "zero developers"? That's the part that cares what GPU you're using; it doesn't matter what GPU a developer is using to write C++ code that isn't even aware that there is a GPU in the system. And the overwhelming majority of code in nearly every game ever made doesn't touch a GPU.
And when it comes to optimizing the DirectX or OpenGL portion of the code--the only part that cares in the slightest what GPU you're using--I'd find it absolutely shocking if the big studios don't extensively try a variety of GPUs from all vendors--including Intel. And Imagination, Qualcomm, and ARM if they have ambitions about pushing it to mobile devices.
Its because Nvidia currently has roughly 2/3 of the discrete graphics card market. What i mean is actual bought cards, not integrated gpus. So as a developer you primarily produce for the largest target audience which is by far nvidia. Obviously AMD is sufficient enough that you don't ignore it, but if you're gonna have incompatibilities its better that they be with AMD than NVidia.
Edit: Also quiz is right, its def not 100%, especially if you include console only developers. If we were talking strictly the PC market id guess the number was in the high 80's % or low 90s.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Contrary to the OP, Nvidias cards aren't top of the line powerwise atm. Look at any benchmark for current gen GPUs.
That said, I'd never buy anything but Nvidia because their driver support is unparalleled. Unless things changed in the last year or two, AMD cards usually last about 2 years before your driver updates come every 8-16 months. Meanwhile a 6 year old nvidia card still gets driver updates every month and plays new games without compatibility issues.