Radeon vs Nvidia

[Radicool]

I wanted to ask you guys what you think of the two. For me:

Personally I will never go for a Radeon. I remember buying a radeon for a desktop and installed it.
I decided to update the drivers and after I uninstalled it, the new driver I downloaded refused to
install and gave me errors. So I tried to reuse my radeon disk that came with the card. It said a more
recent driver is available, and would not let me install the driver off the CD. lol.

My brother has a radeon too for his lappy and the driver I downloaded for it states it doesn't match
the actual card. I'm 100% certain it is the right one. From my experience radeon simply does not work.
I cannot comment on the performance however.

I have a nvidia in my laptop and I've never had a problem. Updates come out frequently with a detailed
changelog. I noticed the performance of my card has improved from when I initally purchased it.

How have you guys found Radeon and Nvidia?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Currently AMD is having compatibility issues with Windows 8 resulting in degraded performance on Windows 8 systems with an AMD manufactured card over the same system running Windows 7. The opposite is generally the case for Nvidia where there is a small performance in many game titles run on Windows 8 using an Nvidia card over on Windows 7 with the same card.

Personally I like Nvidia. They might be more expensive and possibly slower but they mostly have a quality to them that AMD lacks.

 

[Nuclear]

I've always had Nvidia cards. When the next cards, GTX 7xx and Radeon HD 8xxx come out, I'm going to base my decisions on the raw benchmarks and actually buy the better one, and throw the fanboyism out of the window.

 

[Radicool]

Well, for me, its not about being a fanboy of a particular type. I have had plenty of radeon cards, and every one I've had have been very faulty, won't update, etc. Thats why I'm with Nvidia. Because the better one is Nvidia in my eyes

 

[EloTheMan]

All my (game performing) graphic cards has been Nvidia, I am satisfied with how they have worked and how smooth the updates go, but I wish my current one could give out a bit more power. Price is probably the downside.

My next graphic card will be decided on what feature I want, If I can afford it I will probably go for more pixels on the display with an AMD or I will go Stereoscopic 3D with Nvidia to boost my experience. If I don't have the financial room for those then I will go for the best performance/price ratio for an FHD-display and enjoy more details in the game instead.

 

[RED BARON]

I am pretty simplistic - I go for a pure Amd + Radeon setup on stationery and nvedia + intel on laptops.

 

[Zakamutt]

I'm not a fanboy of either, and I'll simply examine benchmarks and price points for my decisions. However, my worst experience with a graphic card has been my 1215n eeepc ultraportable laptop, which has a dual-gpu setup with the nvidia card being the powerhouse. In the rare case that the drivers work, it's fairly good. Usually, however, it doesn't work well at all for various reasons - Warcraft 3 runs at about the same fps as starcraft 2...

 

[Dr Super Good]

Warcraft 3 runs at about the same fps as starcraft 2...

Which is either a good or a bad thing... My SC2 also runs at the same frame rate as WC3 but that is because my display is limited to 60 frames per second.

 

[Zakamutt]

When it's 15-30fps, it's bad.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

I buy AMD because you get a card for 300 that almost performs as good as a 500 Nvidia one, and with some games the AMD one gets a better framerate than the Nvidia and vice versa. In the end it doesn't come down to pure power or chip architecture but to the drivers that are provided from the manufacturer and the optimization within the game itself. That said some games like Batman Arkham City with PsyX and other stuff mostly tend to run better on Nvidia cards while games like Metro 2033 run better on AMD or else it's mostly a bit of a tie.

 

[TheNisse]

I've always been a nVidia fanboy; mainly because of the old catalyst drivers from ATI were c**p and nVidia were the first with a commercial dual gfxcard technology.

Nowadays I wouldn't really say there's that much of a difference between them, they both have models in every segment.
But nVidia have the technological lead as I see it and they're better at supporting gamedevelopers (resulting in better fps with their cards in supported games)

 

[TheKurt009]

my Radeon card with 256mb( forgot the name) can't run minecraft
although my Nvidia fx 5500 128mb can run it with 10 mods at normal render.

just saying, i've had problems with that card before even though it's new
than my secondhand Nvidia

 

[HappyTauren]

I've always been an AMD/Radeon (ati, eh) guy, always due to circumstances.

 

[Furiion52]

I'd go with Radeon because they've got the same quality as Nvidia cards for doubly less expensive. True, Nvidia top-end cards are better than AMD top-end but they're also waaay expensive. Low-end and mid-range gaming cards, they are, performance-wise, equal. Price-wise not so.

 

[Nuclear]

I think my next card would probably be Radio HD 8990 if I have enough money when it comes out.

 

[HappyTauren]

I'd go with Radeon because they've got the same quality as Nvidia cards for doubly less expensive. True, Nvidia top-end cards are better than AMD top-end but they're also waaay expensive. Low-end and mid-range gaming cards, they are, performance-wise, equal. Price-wise not so.

This is like guitar brands: pretty much everything is of alike quality before around the 500$ mark. Differences are often more present in the higher end, and it's obvious why this is so, and that is because on the lower models things have to do more with economy, and on the upper models, things have to do more with knowledge and perfection.