ATI vs. Nvidia & Why

[Barfo]

http://verdetrol.com/

(tilt your screen back) or view the page source

header("X-LOL-Kepler: So Late");

lol

 

[blackened23]

Before the 8800GTX I really didn't have a brand preference. Since then I am strongly leaning toward green because of several reasons

• better image quality:
  shimmer-free AF, hybrid AA-modes, PhysX, SSAA@all APIs, AA compatibility flags, downsampling, FXAA, ambient occlusion via the driver

• 
  
  I don't agree with this analysis at all! Having used both they both have their pluses and minuses, HOWEVER COMMA SPACE I do not think either one poses an advantage of the other - AMD offers a ton of AA modes, so does NV. AMD has modes that NV doesn't have. Vice Versa. But there are many things to like about AMD's CCC, which i'll talk about -- one thing I really like about CCC is that the driver offers the option for AMD's version of FXAA (MLAA) in the driver. So basically what happens if you run any application that does not have native AA you can simply select MLAA and it will apply MLAA to the game much like FXAA injector does. I'll explain this a bit more below, but on to your key points:
  
  Shimmer-free AF - Interesting, this is really a stretch
  FXAA -Let me start off by stating the obvious - FXAA and MLAA are forms of AA that look pretty freaking good without the huge performance hit of traditional MSAA. MLAA is AMD's version, while FXAA is NV's version.
  
  Unfortunately, nvidia does not offer a driver based means of injecting FXAA into a game. The functionality is in the driver but you have to use an external application to enable it (such as SMAA or FXAA injector) - meanwhile, with AMD CCC you can simply select "MLAA" which is AMD's version of FXAA - and it applies to any game that supports MSAA or even games with no native AA at all. See the difference? Nvidia forces you to use an external application to enable this feature. AMD doesn't. Lets say you want to play bf3 with FXAA and you use something like SMAA injector. You play multiplayer, BAM, punkbuster thinks you are cheating because you modified the .exe file. I'd rather have this enabled by the driver, and not an external application.
  
  success of override application settings There are pluses and minuses of both sides. With AMD, override settings work a greater deal of the time (and I can show you an analysis at TH that proved this). AMD makes the settings easier and more accessible - WITHOUT requiring external applications. I would say they're about even - NV has the edge with driver based AO but again -- override settings don't work a LOT of the time.
  
  
  
  SSAA Sorry, but I don't agree on this either. The only way to enable SSAA with nvidia cards it by using the external application nvidia inspector. Thats IT. With AMD CCC it has native support for SSAA which you can enable for any game that supports MSAA, and it does work in dx9/dx10/dx11. You say that nv control panel supports SSAA, and its true that the driver supports SSAA. But nvidia apparently saw fit that the average user cannot enable it without specialized knowledge.
  
  AO within the driver is an advantage, true, but it suffers the same problem that a _lot_ of override settings in nvidia control panel suffer - they don't work in many games. Further, override settings are outright disabled for many games, which can plainly view in nvidia inspector. While nvidia does offer customization to a great degree, it is disappointing that override settings do not work a great deal of the time -- and its even more disappointing that the nvidia CP does not offer a way to "inject" FXAA into a game. With CCC, MLAA is really nice because it basically does the same thing that FXAA injector does - FXAA and MLAA are roughly the same thing, so AMD gives you easier access to this tool with great compatibility. Further, you _don't_ need an external application to enable it!
  
  Here's a scenario: You want AA in mass effect 2 - the game does not support AA natively (IIRC). With nvidia, you'll have to use override settings to enable MSAA which will incur a bigger performance penalty than FXAA or MSAA. Remember, FXAA/MLAA = small performance hit, MSAA = big performance hit - i'm sure you're aware of this. Meanwhile , with CCC you simply click the MLAA checkbox. MLAA costs you 4-5 fps and thats it. Obviously ME2 isn't a demanding game but this is just an example to demonstrate that NV has the functionality within the driver _but_ they require external applications to enable it! Why?!

 

[boxleitnerb]

Why am I not surprised...

You realize that I came to appreciate these things over the course of the last 5-6 years, right? It's not like all this is only applicable today. It took time to form my current preferences. Btw read the first post - this shouldn't be a discussion, it should be about one's personal reasons without others picking them apart.

I don't even know why I bother to answer you when you think FXAA/MLAA are "freaking good". Then you just have a much lower standard than me. That's ok. Btw FXAA is now in the Nvidia driver, but you probably know that. Anyway, I don't care for them. In conjunction with downsampling they can give adequate results but nothing I would stand up and clap for.

AF:
As I said - don't only look at today. Before HD7000 this was a clear difference. Maybe you didn't see it, but that's your problem.

Override:
You and your override. I specifically asked you time and again to provide proof in form of screenshots that AMDs override is working in the games we discussed and doesn't cause trouble. As you have never provided any, I won't discuss this with you further.

SSAA:
Nvidia has had OGSSAA since G80, 3 full years before AMD got SGSSAA. Then Nvidia hat SGSSAA in DX10/11 for 1-2 years and AMD did not. Remember my post and its context.

AO:
Sigh. There are AO compatibility bits. AO works in the titles where these bits exist. I like my Skyrim AO. Nough' said.

MLAA is crap as it blurrs too much. How can one see that as an alternative to FXAA/SMAA? If you are to lazy to work with the injector, that's your problem. I want quality. And again: FXAA IS in the NV driver. It's not in the control panel, though.
But tell you what: That has advantages. Timothy Lottes explained that some features of FXAA HAVE to be injected in order to work. "Normal" FXAA works fine via the driver, but I guess with FXAA 4.0 there will be some features that require injection. Is MLAA even actively developed?

Please don't answer this post. I know you don't like Nvidia and it seems you try to find fault for them at every turn. I just cannot take you seriously anymore, sorry mate.

 

[blackened23]

Oh please, You can complain about me finding fault with NV, whatever, I could easily say the same about yourself finding baseless issues with AMD. This is just how I feel after years of using both sets of hardware.......Fact of the matter is that AMD has some advantages, and nvidia has some advantages in their respective control panel applets. On screenshots: Taking a screenshot of MLAA takes a picture of the framebuffer. The MLAA is applied post framebuffer so MLAA does not appear in screenshots - google this - I haven't found a way around it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidia-geforce-amd-radeon,2868-8.html

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1559669

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/11/01/amd_morphological_aa_performance_iq_review/10

Fact of the matter is that nvidia requires obscure external applications to enable FXAA / SSAA (dx11) NV should have this option in their driver, period, and they don't. Until you can give a valid reason why this ISNT in their driver -- oddly enough, along with SSAA -- I can't take you seriously. I've brought up several times that its not quite an advantage if it requires an external application and specialized knowledge. Does the "average" user know about this stuff? Considering the average user just plays the games without browsing forums such as these, no they don't. Anyway, this is a tangent to the thread and I apologize but I brought it up because you've said these points before and I don't agree with them. You have your reasons for liking NV and thats totally cool, but when you continually bring something up as an "advantage" be prepared to back that position (instead of backing down with I can't take you seriously anymore). FXAA isn't an advantage in my mind when you can't enable it without obscure knowledge. Especially when you have to *modify* your game .exe to use FXAA? Thanks but no thanks.

Finally - I can't deny that nvidia has a great user experience. I love their control panel applet - it is very easy to use and understand, and has tooltips for all options for new users. However, *why* would they not give users free access to the *best* options available in this generation of hardware? FXAA/MLAA are game changers and nvidia should NOT require an external application -- especially one that screws with your game .exe's -- to enable it. This is inconsistent with providing the customer with a good user experience. Even for experienced users, I don't feel comfortable modifying my game .exe files. Anyway, i'll stop here and you're right I did not consider your post in the context of time - and nvidia does have the advantage with driver AO. I'm just puzzled by the other stuff mentioned above, it would be fairly simple for nvidia to fix.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Baseless issues? This depends on your point of view.
Fact is - as I have told you twice now - this is how I arrived at my preference over the last 5 years. Things are a bit different today, but that doesn't mean that those experiences don't continue to have an influence on my purchasing decisions.

I am an enthusiast, I don't mind using an external tool to gain additional features and comfort, quite the contrary. I have everything I need in one tool. Information, OC, settings. I love the profile import/export feature of NVInspector. Personally, I find both - CCC and NV CP - clumsy and I would never use them. The thread asks about MY reasons. If you think differently fine - don't press your views onto me. It is an advantage to ME, as I have specialized knowledge. I am not the average user and this thread is about personal opinions, not generalized "average users".

I also told you why I consider FXAA superior to MLAA. It is being improved constantly, it uses subpixel information and it doesn't blur that much, especially text. I don't have a problem injecting FXAA/SMAA as you can always use the latest version and experiment with it. I don't play online and I'm excited about what FXAA 4.0 will bring to the table. Also you can adjust sharpness and a ton of other things with the injector which is used for many popular Skyrim mods for example.
And please don't talk to me about .exe modifying...that was common with AMD for years while Nvidia had compatibility bits to force AA for ages. Right back at ya.

And finally, I'm still waiting on the screenshots/videos I asked you for to back your claims in the other thread. Nothing ever came of that, I wonder why...

If you have to tell me something personally, write me a PN. This is what you should have done in the first place:

Just preferences and reasons are requested. I am not looking to start a flame war. Everyone's input is valid here. Focus on your reasons and not the reasons others have.

 

[Grooveriding]

LOL.

FXAA, MLAA, SMAA, blah blah AA are all garbage. If you are seeing value in any of those as a legitimate feature you obviously do not care about IQ at all as you claimed.

They all blur and trash IQ and are just a cheap way to get 'AA' without any performance hit. Arguing about one implementation vs another is laughable. Turn on FXAA in BF3 and enjoy the whole image being blurred to hell.

Trying to say any one mode is better or more refined than the other is laughable, they all suck.

You enjoy SSAA in DX10/11 for years ? Considering not even 580 Tri-Sli can handle SSAA in any modern DX10/11 game, I'd love to see the hardware from the future you were enjoying it on.

I think ones reasons would be better received if they came across as tangible benefits experienced, rather than a recitation of marketing bullet points.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Don't be so quick to dismiss these modes. There are many games where no traditional AA is possible at all. I would never use FXAA by itself if I can use MSAA or SGSSAA. But if there is no other way, it is better than nothing. FXAA+downsampling gives an adequate result. Not perfect of course, but adequate.
Also FXAA/SMAA don't blur as much as MLAA - and they can be enhanced with sharpening filters. Don't get me wrong: I know full well that these are all compromises, but nowadays that is often what you have to settle for.

Considering SSAA, I still have a 1280x1024 screen. So yes, I could enjoy this. And not all DX10/11 games are automatically very demanding. Don't judge to eagerly - different people, different circumstances.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

MLAA and FXAA have value when there are no other ways of enhancing AA, and also may be used in conjunction with other methods.

Having transparency AA and super-sampled AA for DirectX 10 and 11 was very welcomed by nVidia and now AMD --- for the same reasons why transparency AA and super-sampled AA were welcomed for DirectX 9.

For me, it really is more about out-of-the-box features like hybrid modes, quality of the filtering, stereo 3d, multi-monitor, ambient occlusion, GPU physics, full scene super-sampled, transparency AA, flexibility over-all -- to have flexible tools to enhance the game I am playing. In this context, have been enjoying nVidia since the 8800GT.

Performance is important but gaming experience potential is more important and will always use this raw performance for image quality or gaming experience potential for me.

Gaming is a myriad of subjective views and many differ but the views I kinda ignore are robust, vocal, cheap shot, blanket views.

 

[blackened23]

I have differing opinions on many things with you SirPauly, but you hit the nail on the head here. I think "Fast" AA is important as the above 2 posters mentioned - I simply do not see how you can shrug it off Grooveriding. Consider that this is sometimes the best way to enable AA in a game that does not support MSAA natively (hello Mass Effect, Borderlands, Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, I could go on...) - also consider that many games incur a *huge* performance hit for MSAA / SSAA, while FXAA / MLAA / SMAA do not incur much of a performance penalty at all. If I was teetering on the brink of 60 fps in a particular game without AA I would gladly use FXAA / MLAA, because that is the best option to maintain performance.

While SSAA is nice, I think we're at least another year away from SSAA being mainstream except in older games. Unless you have dual GPU - and most users do not. SSAA upsamples all images so there's no way around it - SSAA easily halves your performance because of how it renders the image (on any hardware).

 

[moriz]

Fxaa is actually sharper in bf3 than traditional AA. The former smooths edges and sharpens then slightly, the latter simply blur the whole screen. I've seen it in action. FXAA is also supported on both brands.

The hd5000 series has some shimmering with AF on some textures because of an optimization, but AMD eventually added the option to turn it off. All subsequent cards still have the option, but is turned off by default.

 

[boxleitnerb]

No, the shimmering was due to a hardware bug in the TMUs. The samples got weighted wrongly. It was fixed in HD7000.

 

[Zelek11]

I'm sticking to Nvidia. I've noticed ATI's 2D performance can be rather lacking, especially if you have a game running the background.

For instance, if I have World of Warcraft minimized, and I'm browsing firefox, scrolling through pages can be very jittery (even if I limit background FPS in WoW). Also having a high resolution image displayed in Firefox, even if Firefox is minimized would also cause noticeable slow down.

None of my Nvidia cards had these issues. My 8800gt always felt great 2D performance wise, as does my GTX580. My AMD 6850 was annoying to use.

Has anyone else noticed differences in 2D performance (in Windows 7) between Nvidia and AMD? I'm putting together my first build in years and 2D stability is more important to me than getting the most frames per second in games.

 

[Grooveriding]

Fxaa is actually sharper in bf3 than traditional AA. The former smooths edges and sharpens then slightly, the latter simply blur the whole screen. I've seen it in action. FXAA is also supported on both brands.

This is plain wrong. The way FXAA/MLAA work is inherently going to blur the entire image on your screen. It's the worse thing to ever come to 3D gaming and is a POS.

There is nothing sharp about FXAA http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32514347&postcount=54 it's utter trash.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I'd go with AMD for now. Cards like the HD 6870 deliver crazy bang-for-buck. The GTX 560 Ti is pretty good at $210.

Now, given the same price/performance between two cards from both, I'd go for whichever one can OC the most on stock voltage. And if they're similar on that, too, then I'd go AMD because I find their GPU dept. a bit less shady than NVIDIA's.

 

[Remobz]

ATI seems to be knocking the hell out of Nvidia right now with new releases all over the place.

I would go for AMD right now. They are the current king of the hill.

 

[SirPauly]

This is plain wrong. The way FXAA/MLAA work is ineherently going to blur the entire image on your screen. It's the worse thing to ever come to 3D gaming and is a POS.

There is nothign sharp about FXAA http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32514347&postcount=54 it's utter trash.

Imho,

If you have a multi-sampling option, well, it doesn't offer the same quality while moving and multi-sampling has a crisp image obviously. But, what if there is no multi-sampling option at all? No way of helping cleaning up aliasing at all? In this context, there is an obvious benefit to many, but there may be trade-offs and limitations that some may not like.

Worse thing in gaming is not having tools to help enhance titles. IF one doesn't like them, no one is forcing anyone to use them.

 

[Grooveriding]

Imho,

If you have a multi-sampling option, well, it doesn't offer the same quality while moving and multi-sampling has a crisp image obviously. But, what if there is no multi-sampling option at all? No way of helping cleaning up aliasing at all? In this context, there is an obvious benefit to many, but there may be trade-offs and limitations that some may not like.

Worse thing in gaming is not having tools to help enhance titles. IF one doesn't like them, no one is forcing anyone to use them.

FXAA and MLAA just encourage lazy developers not to implement true AA for games that use deferred shading. There is nothing positive about it, it's a negative if you care about IQ.

I'd hardly call something that reduces IQ a feature.

 

[SirPauly]

That's a fair point but man, there were a lot of titles with no AA option without FXAA or MLAA though being offered. So what do you do?

 

[boxleitnerb]

Image quality is not only about sharpness. You trade aliasing for sharpness - for some that is (under these circumstances) acceptable. Developers are lazy or budget constrained either way. You cannot put it all on them. In BF3 4xMSAA costs alot of performance while the anti-aliasing effect is very low. I guess this will happen alot with future engines.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

http://verdetrol.com/

(tilt your screen back) or view the page source

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr" lang="en">
<?php
header("[B]X-LOL-Kepler: So Late"[/B]);
?>
<head>
<title>Verdetrol: Natural Performance Enhancement</title>
<meta name="ketwords" content="Verdetrol, Radeon, AMD, graphics, natural performance enhancement, ATI">
[B]<!-- Rainbow Dash is best pony -->[/B]
<script type="text/javascript">

Some LULZ were had.

 

[essjayar]

ATI vs Nvidia? When things settle in each generation they pretty much even out, but at the start one tends to pull ahead. Pretty much like consoles.

The future is different though, I'd see AMD bringing the cpu/gpu into one as they're doing already and shift focus from PC cards. Nvidia I see as a more focussed GPU company so I'm guessing they'll keep on innovating. As long as their partners such as die fabricators can keep up... They also of course have their mobile tech to fall back on and deals they cut with ... well, whoever. They've had apple in the past, and used to make motherboard chipsets.

Another area both might benefit from is the next and future generation of consoles, but really.. how much further can graphic technology go? Pretty much like cinema you'll start getting stupidly HD screens and 3D just to shift units.

Intel may be the dark horse but it'll be another couple of generations.

Personally I started with the 3DFX voodoo 1 (those were the pioneers guys, complete with a monitor pass through and ONLY displaying the 3D game with the system running the 2D desktop!). Since then the usual GeForces and now a 560ti.

Old thread this I know but I just stumbled on it

 

[zaydq]

I've owned quite a few cards. My first was an Ati(cant even remember what model) then i moved to a 6600Gt, then to an X800XL then to an X850XT then to an 8800GTS and then an 8800GTX and now i'm sitting on an HD7850. I like them both, it just depends what i can afford and who has the best offerings in that price range. Personally i've always had it good with both. My X850XT was received due to a faulty X800XL. They rma'd it and shipped me an X850XT(ATI brand might i add). It was fabulous customer service.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Inb4flamewar

 

[Siberian]

I have found that NVIDIA is better for games. AMD is more for a low end computer.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Primary Upgrade Path-
Nv-MX200
Nv-Ti4600
ATI-9800pro
ATI-X800
Nv-7900GT
AMD-HD4850
AMD-HD5770
NV-GTX460 (Current)

Alternate & Duplicate Cards:
Nv-7900GT
Nv-7950GT
Nv-8400
Nv-8800GTS 320mb
AMD-HD5770

Despite having owned and operated a very healthy mix of cards from both Nvidia and AMD/ATI I cannot pretend that I am totally above the fray. I always want to root for the underdog, and in the graphics card industry AMD/ATI is the underdog. I simply LIKE AMD/ATI more because they occupy the position of scrappy underdog. This does not mean that I am blind to or willing to make excuses for AMD's faults (Poor dev relations, following NV's software innovations instead of leading) nor am I not impressed when Nvidia pushes the boundaries.

However, I tend to buy whoever is giving me the most of what I need for the money that I want to spend. I want gaming performance and I usually buy around the $200 dollar price point. All the extras (Physx/CUDA/Bitcoin/Folding), multi-card support, power consumption and such are all very secondary and rarely influence my decision one way or another (except in extreme cases: borrowed a friend's GTX480, gave it back two days later because I simply could not stand the fan noise).

I have never had major issues with either vendor's drivers, but have had minor issues with both. Would not rate one or the other superior given my usage patterns.