Shadowless
Deez Nuts
I may never buy another AMD card again. I forgot how nice it was to never have issues running games...
R9 380 or GTX 960
- Thread starter Shadowless
- Start date
Omega53
Go Chargers!
Shhh... if you say that to the AMD fanboys, they will just claim you are a fanboy and AMD never has driver issues
Shadowless
Deez Nuts
The 6870 was the first ATI card I've ever used in one of my systems. I had more driver issues with the 6870s than my Geforce FX 5950 Ultra, and 8800GTS combined.
A buddy of mine at one of my client's purchased a GTX 970 a day after me to replace his R9 280x, because we were both commiserating over the issues we were having with GTA V.
LordHawkwind
Active member
Sorry but I just have to laugh at all these "driver issues". Most are game related not driver related. Unfortunately game devs are lazy coders and games get rushed out that aren't ready and then they blame the drivers! Remember Batman and that was a gameworks title and they had to pull it because it was absolute shite. No driver can fix that crap.
Neither side is perfect when it comes to drivers and if you look at the unresolved issues from both sides they are quite long. Enjoy your 970 but don't slag off AMD to make you feel you made the right purchase. Having buyers remorse are we?
Shadowless
Deez Nuts
It took nvidia 3 months to fix the stuttering that used to appear after 30 minutes of playing GTAV though
I couldn't even play GTAV with my 6870 on low. Game would crash, take forever to load, freeze after missions leaving you in a loop, would just not redraw sections of the environment.
Also, the stuttering is still there
but it's very infrequent, and when it happens it resolved itself in a couple seconds and than doesn't reappear. There's also a chance that is from an issue with my PC; I saw some very odd events in the events log for other items, so I may have to reformat.Sorry but I just have to laugh at all these "driver issues". Most are game related not driver related. Unfortunately game devs are lazy coders and games get rushed out that aren't ready and then they blame the drivers! Remember Batman and that was a gameworks title and they had to pull it because it was absolute shite. No driver can fix that crap.
Neither side is perfect when it comes to drivers and if you look at the unresolved issues from both sides they are quite long. Enjoy your 970 but don't slag off AMD to make you feel you made the right purchase. Having buyers remorse are we?
Buyer's remorse?? What the hell are you talking about?? If I had buyer's remorse I'd return the damn thing.
SoCalMX70
New member
As far as single cards go, AMD and nvidia are on even ground with their drivers. Nvidia has a slight edge with SLI, but that isn't saying much considering how piss poor the coding in games has been for that recently.
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
GanjaStar
New member
I wouldn't agree with that.
AMD drivers have a bigger CPU overhead in dx11 titles, so when a game is CPU limited, with AMD you will see lower min FPS in titles.
u4 engine titles also have significantly lower FPS on AMD cards as well.
There have been u4 powered games where a gtx970 is faster than any AMD offering.
And a big driver advantage going on for years now, is the vast amount of AA options and a more robust driver level vsync options on the NV side.
There has to be a trade off somewhere if you get an 8gb and a more powerful GPU like the 390, competing with a 970, which has inferior specs, but drivers allow it to compete.
demo
space cadet
Yeh, AMD CPU overhead is pretty significant in DX11 but should be fine for DX12 iirc, even slightly better than Nv's results.
Also, I know not everyone cares but Nv does offer a better feature set. I like to be able to run things like gimpworks in Witcher 3, TXAA, PhysX, etc. I find the AA and HBAO options better too, but I must admit I haven't used FuryX or Crimson drivers so may be out of the loop. AMD is generally better if you're chasing maximum value, though.
Also, I know not everyone cares but Nv does offer a better feature set. I like to be able to run things like gimpworks in Witcher 3, TXAA, PhysX, etc. I find the AA and HBAO options better too, but I must admit I haven't used FuryX or Crimson drivers so may be out of the loop. AMD is generally better if you're chasing maximum value, though.
Sasquach
Hidden in plain sight
sounds like AMD drivers ebbs and flows between nice and stable, and ****ing ridiculously crap crap.
Doesn't sound like much has changed over the years as this happened all the time for as long as I remember. Only good major significant card releases (Like the Radeon R100 series, Radeon R300 series, the R700 series and I guess the cards before Fiji) had good drivers while refreshes and sucky major release had the problematic ones (which occurred more often than not)
Doesn't sound like much has changed over the years as this happened all the time for as long as I remember. Only good major significant card releases (Like the Radeon R100 series, Radeon R300 series, the R700 series and I guess the cards before Fiji) had good drivers while refreshes and sucky major release had the problematic ones (which occurred more often than not)
SoCalMX70
New member
Show me a benchmark where the 970 beats ALL AMD offerings. I am not saying I do/don't believe you... I just want to see proof of that.
For the rest, I guess I should have been more specific. I was speaking in terms of stability. The DX11 driver overhead is quite well known and I get that Nvidia has the edge over AMD there.
9800 Pro
X800
X1800xt
2900 Pro
4870(? can't remember what model number was exactly)
6950
280x
390
Fury X
I can't remember a single game breaking bug in ANY of these video cards that I have owned. Yes, I understand there have been some (probably in games I didnt play), but Nvidia has their fair share of problems as well. For every bit of proof of AMD issues, you can find an Nvidia equivalent somewhere. People don't do their own research though, they just keep regurgitating what they see/hear. Neither company is perfect. Even worse, many game developers seem to be further getting lazy and releasing games that are just plain **** coded...
bittermann
Well-known member
I owned a lot of AMD cards in my time and haven't seen the driver issues some of you say you've had with them? Are we talking xfire or single cards? I've also owned many a NV cards and can only think of one instance that was driver related. I only use single cards so maybe that's the difference, or maybe the types of games?
SoCalMX70
New member
You CAN run gimpworks in Witcher 3 on AMD cards... perfectly fine I might add. NO ONE needs 64x tessellation...
Here, this might enlighten some: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...nt_gameplay_performance_review/8#.VoGekPkrJQI
And a quote:
---
"Well, three months later there is no denying that HairWorks performance has improved. However, even with the improvements the feature is still very demanding. Only the fastest single-GPU video cards from AMD or NVIDIA even have a hope to run it alongside "Ultra" settings at 1440p.
Performance is equally as slow on NVIDIA and AMD hardware right now. This is the important part, it doesn't matter if you are running the Radeon R9 300 series, the Fury series, or Maxwell series, HairWorks is going to tank your performance no matter what. The way we see it now, HairWorks is an equal opportunity framerate destroyer."
---
As far as AA, not sure what inequalities are there between AMD and Nvidia as of the latest drives, so I have some reading to do. From what I remember, AMD has legit SuperSampling as of Crimson.
Physx... Also not something I know too much about. What big games are using PhysX right now? What is the performance hit on Nvidia hardware? I read some commentary a few days ago about how Nvidia promised that you could run a dedicated card for physX, but then basically went back on that. Any truth? I am most certainly curious as to how PhysX is doing these days and how its implementations are performing.
As a whole, I'd like to say I am still on the fence about GameWorks. I've seen so much back and forth with very little reasonable and legitimate proof that it is hurting or helping the industry. Things seem a bit complicated these days...
Last edited:
Shadowless
Deez Nuts
The scaling/resolution issues I had with 2 different monitors both in xfire and single card. And my cards weren't OC'd; I even clocked down the MSI card which was OC'd from the factory to stock speeds to match my Sapphire.
demo
space cadet
They were just a couple random examples that didn't require explanation. I'm not racing out to buy hardware just for Gameworks or PhysX but its certainly a nice addition in the odd game here and there and it's nice to have them just work. I didn't have to mess around with Witcher 3, it worked fine at release at full quality.
There's a few features I use that AMD either doesn't support, or the feature has buggy support, or the feature is supported and works as intended but simply lacks the same level of functionality.
A few are:
bittermann
Well-known member
Scaling/resolution issues with a single card? Were you doing tri-monitor gaming or something?
They were just a couple random examples that didn't require explanation. I'm not racing out to buy hardware just for Gameworks or PhysX but its certainly a nice addition in the odd game here and there and it's nice to have them just work. I didn't have to mess around with Witcher 3, it worked fine at release at full quality.
There's a few features I use that AMD either doesn't support, or the feature has buggy support, or the feature is supported and works as intended but simply lacks the same level of functionality.
A few are:
You really played with .... nvidia ... to discover all those things
... I just jumped in nvidia bandwagon with a gtx 970 and your post came handy..Maybe you can open a sticky thread will all the info you posted..I found them intersting.
SoCalMX70
New member
Ok, so nvidia has superior AA options still, got that. Also, HBAO, which I thought for some reason was a universal setting/option regardless of vendor. Nice to learn something new.
Not sure I agree with Gsync offering a better range of displays. Freesync has 35-144 displays out there, and overall there are more Freesync models to choose from. Gsync is a bit more refined, but it will never be a standard and comes with a nice price jump. The trade off of price vs "slightly" more refined is really up to the buyer than, and obviously what vid card they are running.
Still don't buy the Gameworks argument, especially when saying "it just works". Seems to me it consistently cripples performance on BOTH brands, which is rather sad. Has there been a single big Gameworks game in 2015 that hasn't been surrounded with controversy in regards to performance? I mean, I know we all love fabulous hair and all (yes I understand hairworks is only one piece of gameworks
)...As far as the rest, well I guess I'm just more of an average user. I don't care for 1/2 sync, 3d, or scaling my display to something like 8k rez. I've played around with VSR with 2k and 4k scaling and found no issues, so I'd have to look into that a bit more.
When cards perform around the same levels, I'd always pick an AMD card these days because of the VESA AdaptiveSync support. There's absolutely no way, I'd consider buying a monitor with a proprietary and GPU-vendor locked sync technology. Hopefully NVidia will start supporting the Displayport VESA AdaptiveSync standard soon.