PC & Video Games

AMD fighting the good fight for everyone!

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 12th, 2021 11:47 pm
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 17, 2006
5619 posts
3795 upvotes
BernardRyder wrote: It sounds like a good idea. Having used PC's for a good while now, I always liked ATI/AMD video graphics, especially the ATI days when they were still Canadian.
But the biggest drawback with their graphics solutions has plagued them since forever - the software support side, as It kinda sucks.
If game devs are relying on them to provide stable drivers and patches, this is where I see a weak spot. If that's not a factor here, then giddyup.
Hahaha, brings me back to even earlier days of the 3Dfx Voodoo graphics cards Face With Tears Of Joy

I miss the old and simple days of Tomb Raider and Resident Evil on PC Crying Face
Deal Addict
Dec 2, 2004
1409 posts
1558 upvotes
BYan wrote: Moot point though. The chip shortage is such that upgrading/building a new PC is basically more hassle than it's worth at this point. I feel for the folks who are working with GPUs from a few generations back who can't find reasonably priced upgrade parts.
This is where the large OEM's like DELL, HP, Lenovo, Acer etc ... get to sell gaming units. It's probably better to get a whole gaming system from them, then to build your own because of the chip shortage.

The DIY builder isn't fairing too well these days ... with shortages and COVID ... supposed to normalize by 1st quarter 2022, but we'll see ...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 12, 2007
2461 posts
2658 upvotes
Toronto
frugal69 wrote: This is where the large OEM's like DELL, HP, Lenovo, Acer etc ... get to sell gaming units.
Definitely. At this point, even if you're in the market for an upgrade, prices are such that you might as well just buy a new gaming pc and save the old one for a workstation or something. Although, if anyone's buying, I'd advise them to splurge if they can. Best decision I made was to go all out back when the 1080 was top of the line. It's kept me through this crazy shortage period. Had I gone for something a little lower to save a few bucks back then, I would be in deep do-do now if I wanted to upgrade.

Buy whatever's top of the line now. You save money when it turns out you don't need to upgrade for a good half decade.
Bored...
Member
User avatar
Jun 28, 2018
353 posts
420 upvotes
Aurora, Ontario
Sejad wrote: Hahaha, brings me back to even earlier days of the 3Dfx Voodoo graphics cards Face With Tears Of Joy

I miss the old and simple days of Tomb Raider and Resident Evil on PC Crying Face
I rememer buying my first "3d accelerator" card when I was like 16......a Voodoo 2 card, installing it in my PC and showing to my mother how much better the graphics looked.

Quake 2 at 300x400 resolution at like 22 fps with software rendering vs 600x800 with hardware texture filtering, etc. at like double the FPS. She looked at my screen and was like "looks the same". Face With Tears Of Joy

Ahh, those were the days.
Last edited by DarekP84312 on Jun 3rd, 2021 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6140 posts
6449 upvotes
GTA
Redmask wrote: Voodoo 2 SLI represent, we even had the 12MB cards. 12MB of video memory per card, no one will ever need more than this! Face With Tears Of Joy
I still have my SLI working in my old rig. I've also collected a Banshee, 3, 4 and a 5, in varying slot types. Oh and an official 3Dfx Hammerhead gamepad with a gameport connection, and an official Voodoo 5 mouse pad. I bought most of this stuff off eBay years ago before it became ridiculous to collect. I absolutely loved the look of those Voodoo graphics.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
12286 posts
2425 upvotes
Richmond Hill
Redmask wrote: I don't really agree. Over the past 5-6 years in the GPU market AMD has been known for its paper launches, poor driver quality and Nvidia still retains the performance crown by a long shot. Look at a Steam hardware survey sometime, it ain't pretty for AMD. Despite a huge push over the last few years they gained all of a single market share percentage on the GPU side, Nvidia dominates the market with 74% and consistently dumptrucks money into ongoing R&D, ensuring they are always a step ahead
How does Nvidia still hold the performance crown by a long shot? RDNA2 and Ampere are neck and neck in performance.
(ray tracing is a different story, and yes, Nvidia leads big there)

Image
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 17, 2006
5619 posts
3795 upvotes
DarekP84312 wrote: I rememer buying my first "3d accelerator" card when I was like 16......a Voodoo 2 card, installing it in my PC and showing to my mother how much better the graphics looked.

Quake 2 at 300x400 resolution at like 22 fps with software rendering vs 600x800 with hardware texture filtering, etc. at like double the FPS. She looked at my screen was was like "looks the same". Face With Tears Of Joy

Ahh, those were the days.
Your moms thoughts "Who are you trying to fool here kiddo. STOP WASTING YOUR CASH!"

Face With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of Joy
Last edited by TheSlav on Jun 3rd, 2021 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
9315 posts
6643 upvotes
Toronto
board123 wrote: How does Nvidia still hold the performance crown by a long shot? RDNA2 and Ampere are neck and neck in performance.
(ray tracing is a different story, and yes, Nvidia leads big there)
that graph is like the epitome of what I was saying on the previous page with AMD cards looking good on paper and comparable in benchmarks that are ultimately meaningless in real world applications and games where their wonky software side holds them back from actually performing comparably to NVIDIA cards in new releases
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
12286 posts
2425 upvotes
Richmond Hill
ReeGee wrote: that graph is like the epitome of what I was saying on the previous page with AMD cards looking good on paper and comparable in benchmarks that are ultimately meaningless in real world applications and games where their wonky software side holds them back from actually performing comparably to NVIDIA cards in new releases
In what way does real performance differ from these benchmarks?
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
9315 posts
6643 upvotes
Toronto
board123 wrote: In what way does real performance differ from these benchmarks?
driver issues resulting in worse than expected performance and stability compared to NVIDIA. Most developers work directly with NVIDIA to launch game ready drivers for every new game before release day on a regular basis while AMD users wait ages for driver updates to fix games they're struggling to run if they even fix it at all
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
12286 posts
2425 upvotes
Richmond Hill
ReeGee wrote: driver issues resulting in worse than expected performance and stability compared to NVIDIA. Most developers work directly with NVIDIA to launch game ready drivers for every new game before release day on a regular basis while AMD users wait ages for driver updates to fix games they're struggling to run if they even fix it at all
Any specific examples? From all recent accounts, AMD drivers have been pretty well received. They seemed to have improved a lot in this regard.

Also, I still don't see what you mean by lower than expected performance. If a reviewer uses driver X to run a benchmark and gets 100 FPS, and a customer uses the same driver to play the same game, in what way does it underperform the benchmark?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6140 posts
6449 upvotes
GTA
board123 wrote: Any specific examples? From all recent accounts, AMD drivers have been pretty well received. They seemed to have improved a lot in this regard.

Also, I still don't see what you mean by lower than expected performance. If a reviewer uses driver X to run a benchmark and gets 100 FPS, and a customer uses the same driver to play the same game, in what way does it underperform the benchmark?
Not to argue, and you don't need to accept it as fact, but most PC users know that historically ATI/AMD GPU drivers are poor out of the gate and often playing catch up, while Nvidia drivers are generally stable, and if not then updated on a pretty regular schedule. My GeForce Experience program just informed me yesterday of a second update in about a week. I'm guessing it was a bugfix to the previous driver itself, but to me that goes to show Nvidia is pretty on top of these things. AMD drivers do get better, but seem to need time to mature. Nvidia seems to dedicate more resources into R&D and support like drivers. They obviously have their faults though, but it doesn't change the facts.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
12286 posts
2425 upvotes
Richmond Hill
BernardRyder wrote: Not to argue, and you don't need to accept it as fact, but most PC users know that historically ATI/AMD GPU drivers are poor out of the gate and often playing catch up, while Nvidia drivers are generally stable, and if not then updated on a pretty regular schedule. My GeForce Experience program just informed me yesterday of a second update in about a week. I'm guessing it was a bugfix to the previous driver itself, but to me that goes to show Nvidia is pretty on top of these things. AMD drivers do get better, but seem to need time to mature. Nvidia seems to dedicate more resources into R&D and support like drivers. They obviously have their faults though, but it doesn't change the facts.
I agree with the general sentiment that Nvidia drivers are better. You don't need to convince me of that. I've used both and the Nvidia experience is slightly more polished.

That said, my original response was to
Nvidia still retains the performance crown by a long shot.
...to which there is zero supporting data anywhere (aside from ray tracing benchmarks). This was true a year ago, but not right now.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
10054 posts
3605 upvotes
Nvidia guy here, and as I am updating drivers to my good ol' 1060Ti I was just watching this video on the newly released RTX 3080 Ti. I have no plans to upgrade my PC for a while, that is for sure.

STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3676 posts
5576 upvotes
CFRTim wrote: Nvidia guy here, and as I am updating drivers to my good ol' 1060Ti I was just watching this video on the newly released RTX 3080 Ti. I have no plans to upgrade my PC for a while, that is for sure.

That's typical nVidia price gouging because they can as market leader...

I haven't PC gamed in forever, but from the review and comparisons to the AMD 6800XT/6900XT, the speed is quite comparable to the nVidia offerings. Both trading blows at the top based on the games shown. Also their 1% and 0.1% lows are generally higher than nVidia. So even if the averages are higher in some games for nVidia, AMD could be performing smoother. But it doesn't appear to me that nVidia is just dominating anywhere. It definitely looks like a game by game basis.

*EDIT, below are just general thoughts. Not specifically directed to you CFRTim*

It sucks that there's the argument that people want AMD to be more competitive (they look pretty competitive to me) so nVidia will lower their prices. Like they just want AMD to come out with a chart topper, so that nVidia's prices drop, so they can just buy nVidia anyway... What's the incentive for AMD to invest that much to do that then, if they're only being used as a means to lower prices for people to buy the competitors cards cheaper? It doesn't help AMD at all. nVidia appears to have such massive mindshare, that even if AMD did come out with a class leader, people would still just buy the nVidia cards regardless.

I think their current approach is the right one. Invest enough to make a card competitive. Make everything as open source and available as possible, and slowly eat away at all the proprietary stuff nVidia does to control the industry. nVidia's gsync used to be huge, but AMD's cheaper, open source freesync ate away at it. They basically do the same thing now, but one is open source, cheaper to implement, and doesn't require proprietary hardware.

I think eventually they'll do the same with DLSS. It's open source, available on so many things and will likely improve over the years to where there's no real difference. Taking away another nVidia proprietary selling point.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6140 posts
6449 upvotes
GTA
I'm loath to say I'm not an Nvidia guy, but always seem to buy their stuff. I am an Nvidia Shield TV guy though, love that box.
Nvidia has and still supports open source. When 3Dfx tried to force Glide on everyone, the competition including Nvidia supported OpenGL. That's still around today as Vulkan, which is an option over having to choose Microsoft DirectX. Personally I choose Vulkan when there's a choice, I think it looks and runs better.
I don't quite get the competitive argument. I don't think everyone just buys Nvidia, and AMD doing well doesn't mean it's because people just want Nvidia prices to drop. AMD has competed well against Intel for decades, and historically Intel always costs more despite this. Nvidia is pretty much the Intel version for GPU's, their prices will always be higher for their mid to high end stuff. Also on the flipside, if Nvidia didn't invest in Gsync, would there necessarily be a Freesync option? R&D costs money. Nvidia puts the cash and time in, they do deserve some of that reward (for a while at least). If not the entire market would stagnate and/or be overpriced.
I can agree though, over time DLSS might get the open-source benefit. In the meantime let Nvidia pull some cash in to create the next innovation. That in turn is what helps it charge what they want. Vicious circle.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
10054 posts
3605 upvotes
I'm just glad I was able to score the Series X at launch, probably the best "technological" investment from a gaming perspective. My newly turned teenage son on the other hand, is all about PC gaming, so I will eventually have to make a new PC build. I'm just hoping prices come back down to earth before I get into it Face With Rolling Eyes
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim

Top