Nvidia fires back regarding AMD's FreeSync technology demo

[GhostRyder]

Intel and nVidia all the way! hahaha

Seriously I don't have anything against AMD. I never have used AMD for CPU needs, other than a few machines brought to me for repair. I once used AMD graphics and was reluctant to switch to nVidia. I only switched because of a computational project I was contributing to. Heck during that time I was still wondering why I would want a $200 dollar graphics card.

Moving forward and graduating from Integrated graphics AMD was my first experience. I didn't have a bad experience, like I said I was prompted to switch because of the computational project. Since I'm loyal in nature, I will tend to stick with Intel and nVidia. Present day, I see no reason why AMD or nVidia should not be considered as equals in the world of gaming. I know I'm not an enthusiast riding the edge of top notch gear, but do we really have to be so petty as to throw rocks at the other side?

Well and why would you, if you are happy then why make a change? If you are happy with your cards, CPU, or whatever then don't change and no one should be able to force you to otherwise.

I find your comment the perfect comment when talking about the problems these days clifford. Well said sir!

 

[Jad Chaar]

Intel and nVidia all the way! hahaha

Seriously I don't have anything against AMD. I never have used AMD for CPU needs, other than a few machines brought to me for repair. I once used AMD graphics and was reluctant to switch to nVidia. I only switched because of a computational project I was contributing to. Heck during that time I was still wondering why I would want a $200 dollar graphics card.

Moving forward and graduating from Integrated graphics AMD was my first experience. I didn't have a bad experience, like I said I was prompted to switch because of the computational project. Since I'm loyal in nature, I will tend to stick with Intel and nVidia. Present day, I see no reason why AMD or nVidia should not be considered as equals in the world of gaming. I know I'm not an enthusiast riding the edge of top notch gear, but do we really have to be so petty as to throw rocks at the other side?

Yeah, like I said, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Like say I Was building a Steam Machine. I would go with AMD graphics (at least once the Linux drivers and Steam OS mature) because AMD is dominant in the OpenGL and OpenCL sector. But if I were going to build a reliable Windows PC, I would go with nVidia due to their more consistent drivers.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Yeah, like I said, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Like say I Was building a Steam Machine. I would go with AMD graphics (at least once the Linux drivers and Steam OS mature) because AMD is dominant in the OpenGL and OpenCL sector. But if I were going to build a reliable Windows PC, I would go with nVidia due to their more consistent drivers.

Can honestly say the AMD drivers atm seem to be pretty solid. Usually notice more when there are problems but it has been good lately.

 

[Burty117]

Yeah, like I said, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Like say I Was building a Steam Machine. I would go with AMD graphics (at least once the Linux drivers and Steam OS mature) because AMD is dominant in the OpenGL and OpenCL sector. But if I were going to build a reliable Windows PC, I would go with nVidia due to their more consistent drivers.

I do wonder if this will remain true though, nvidia seem to be working with valve quite a lot for steamOS, I wonder if it'll result in both cards being very similar in performance anyway? Hell from what I've read nvidia has had software engineers working with valve for a while and several employee interviews I was able to dig up on the net, either in-directly and in one case, directly say when steamOS was tested playing source games (in this interview left 4 dead and half-life 2 were specifically mentioned) not only did simply running steamOS help the fps by 10-15fps but he mentioned "nvidia's cards did have a more dramatic effect when running on steamOS than competing products".

Just saying, if your planning on building a steamOS machine, nvidia probably shouldn't be ruled out so easily, valve know more than 50% of steam users use nvidia cards and they have to cater to there major demographic which means at first, drivers and software support will probably be a bit bias towards nvidia, I have never used Linux much and the times I did, it was using intel graphics so I have no idea what nvidia / AMD drivers are like on the platform.

One last thing, you mentioned you'd wait until AMD drivers mature, just to poke a little fun at AMD here, I'm still waiting for AMD drivers to mature for windows!

All joking aside though, I wonder if Mantle will make it's way onto SteamOS? Since it's an API that effectively replaces OpenGL/DirectX, I wonder if they'd need to speak to valve about porting it over? Or maybe it'll be unnecessary since the OS is already well optimised for gaming and it'll be all about the drivers and game developers programming there games for OpenGL effectively? Soo many questions, I really wish I could have a sit down talk with Gabe xD

 

[GhostRyder]

Yeah, like I said, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Like say I Was building a Steam Machine. I would go with AMD graphics (at least once the Linux drivers and Steam OS mature) because AMD is dominant in the OpenGL and OpenCL sector. But if I were going to build a reliable Windows PC, I would go with nVidia due to their more consistent drivers.

I think you have that backwards, because as of recent Steam OS just added AMD graphics support so would'nt Nvidia be the better option for a steam machine. I mean on the windows market, I feel like my laptop has just had issues and features have just stopped working as well for instance the turbo mode on my MSI stopped working 5 Geforce Drivers ago which really annoys me (Well unless theres an alternate reason, but putting the older version seemed to fix it but I can't stand not having the latest version because of game profiles and such).

I figured by the looks of things more steam machines had Nvidia Graphics so it was going to focus on Nvidia being the primary for those machines even though there are AMD graphics steam machines. Though im thinking of making an APU steam machine with possibly hybrid graphics once I see a release of them in the market and how well they perform (if at all).

 

[Jad Chaar]

I think you have that backwards, because as of recent Steam OS just added AMD graphics support so would'nt Nvidia be the better option for a steam machine. I mean on the windows market, I feel like my laptop has just had issues and features have just stopped working as well for instance the turbo mode on my MSI stopped working 5 Geforce Drivers ago which really annoys me (Well unless theres an alternate reason, but putting the older version seemed to fix it but I can't stand not having the latest version because of game profiles and such).

I figured by the looks of things more steam machines had Nvidia Graphics so it was going to focus on Nvidia being the primary for those machines even though there are AMD graphics steam machines. Though im thinking of making an APU steam machine with possibly hybrid graphics once I see a release of them in the market and how well they perform (if at all).

Yeah but I remember reading about how nVidia did not perform well on Linux do to driver issues I think? I will try to find the article and post it. But I think AMD is still the better choice. nVidia must have been more enthusiastic about the OS than AMD, that may be why support was added later for AMD.

 

[Jad Chaar]

I do wonder if this will remain true though, nvidia seem to be working with valve quite a lot for steamOS, I wonder if it'll result in both cards being very similar in performance anyway? Hell from what I've read nvidia has had software engineers working with valve for a while and several employee interviews I was able to dig up on the net, either in-directly and in one case, directly say when steamOS was tested playing source games (in this interview left 4 dead and half-life 2 were specifically mentioned) not only did simply running steamOS help the fps by 10-15fps but he mentioned "nvidia's cards did have a more dramatic effect when running on steamOS than competing products".

Just saying, if your planning on building a steamOS machine, nvidia probably shouldn't be ruled out so easily, valve know more than 50% of steam users use nvidia cards and they have to cater to there major demographic which means at first, drivers and software support will probably be a bit bias towards nvidia, I have never used Linux much and the times I did, it was using intel graphics so I have no idea what nvidia / AMD drivers are like on the platform.

One last thing, you mentioned you'd wait until AMD drivers mature, just to poke a little fun at AMD here, I'm still waiting for AMD drivers to mature for windows!

All joking aside though, I wonder if Mantle will make it's way onto SteamOS? Since it's an API that effectively replaces OpenGL/DirectX, I wonder if they'd need to speak to valve about porting it over? Or maybe it'll be unnecessary since the OS is already well optimised for gaming and it'll be all about the drivers and game developers programming there games for OpenGL effectively? Soo many questions, I really wish I could have a sit down talk with Gabe xD

Yeah their hardware survey will help a lot when targeting users. I agree with your points.

 

[dividebyzero]

Yeah but I remember reading about how nVidia did not perform well on Linux do to driver issues I think? I will try to find the article and post it. But I think AMD is still the better choice.

Well, that must be a very recent development. Phoronix test most of the new graphics cards that arrive (this from last month for example). Generally Linux drivers suffer from a reduced feature set - but that is the same for both Nvidia and AMD.
As for the OpenGL/OpenCL debate, that largely depends on a case-by-case basis. Many OpenCL benchmark suites rely heavily upon Luxmark since both Nvidia and AMD run the bench- not so with all applications. Then there are scenarios where Nvidia has options of CUDA or OpenCL paths, and the former being a more mature environment performs better...but of course, if you're comparing OCL vs OCL then the difference isn't as pronounced
From Blender's Q&A:

What renders faster, NVidia or AMD, CUDA or OpenCL?
Currently NVidia with CUDA is rendering faster. There is no fundamental reason why this should be so—we don't use any CUDA-specific features—but the compiler appears to be more mature, and can better support big kernels. OpenCL support is still being worked on and has not been optimized as much, because we haven't had the full kernel working yet.

And a reasonable selection of OpenGL/CL real-world render benchmarks using pro drivers, which show the merits of the relative architectures unencumbered by quick release cycle of consumer code.

 

[Jad Chaar]

And a reasonable selection of OpenGL/CL real-world render benchmarks using pro drivers, which show the merits of the relative architectures unencumbered by quick release cycle of consumer code.

I can believe this. CUDA is on version 5.5 (6.0 is coming soon) and OpenCL is only on 2.0 (1.1 and 1.2 are more widely deployed currently if I am not mistaken), so the fact that one is more mature than the other doesnt surprise me. It will come down to refinement. Also, when looking at benchmarks, we have to keep in mind what version is being used. CUDA 6.0 and OpenCL 2.0 could, and most likely will perform considerably better than older, legacy versions. It seems to me like a battle of refinement like I said above, in which it comes down to which company better polishes their compiler and products in general.