ATI vs. nVidia the official poll

[ViperStriker]

:eek:

AMD Athlon X2 220 Processor running right now. Even Minecraft lags.

 

[PsychoRealm]

Just thinking... SLI solution with two GTX680 cards = ~$1k in upgrades. What is the point?
A single GTX680 is more than powerful for nowadays games, imho...

 

[Ninja_DC]

an i7-3960X paired with a GTX 680 just sound jizztastically amazing.

fix'd

 

[Faron]

I've got a GTX 560. Don't care too much about upgrading or anything. Personally I would choose nVidia over ATI/AMD but meh.

 

[Roman]

Dual GTX 460's in SLI with a GT520 for extra monitors.

Offloading PhysX rendering to the GT520 caused a severe hit to performance, so I let the 2nd 460 do the PhysX work. Much better performance, believe me.

 

[Sharkey]

Just thinking... SLI solution with two GTX680 cards = ~$1k in upgrades. What is the point?
A single GTX680 is more than powerful for nowadays games, imho...

People with 3 2560x1920 monitors. Or people with 3 1920x1080 monitors with 3D, need twice the frames for the same fps. Or even people with just three monitors.

 

[PsychoRealm]

People with 3 2560x1920 monitors. Or people with 3 1920x1080 monitors with 3D, need twice the frames for the same fps. Or even people with just three monitors.

I know that. I guess what I meant is why OP would need this type of machinery?

 

[Sharkey]

I know that. I guess what I meant is why OP would need this type of machinery?

I don't think OP intends to do so, I think he just wanted to know what we thought about the card and sli :P

 

[P Lash]

I don't see the point of buying an i7. Its just a waste of money.
There's very little performance difference between an i5 2500k (the best processor in the market, IMO) and an i7, to the point where you can set up identical systems with one having an i5 2500k and the other having an expensive i7 playing the same game and you won't notice any difference.

 

[PsychoRealm]

I don't see the point of buying an i7. Its just a waste of money.
There's very little performance difference between an i5 2500k (the best processor in the market, IMO) and an i7, to the point where you can set up identical systems with one having an i5 2500k and the other having an expensive i7 playing the same game and you won't notice any difference.

If you want to compare i5-2500k, don't compare it to regular i7 line (950, 960 and so on). It's like comparing Volkswagen Passat 2006 and Volkswagen Jetta 2007. Compare i5-2500k to i7-2600K.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287

 

[P Lash]

If you want to compare i5-2500k, don't compare it to regular i7 line (950, 960 and so on). It's like comparing Volkswagen Passat 2006 and Volkswagen Jetta 2007. Compare i5-2500k to i7-2600K.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287

With respect, that's not the point.
The point is that buying ultra-expensive processors is a bit pointless as you can buy an amazing processor for slightly less and get no visible performance difference. The whole hype created around the high-end processors is a marketing and advertising tactic, nothing less.
Frankly speaking, Intel no longer cares about pushing PC performance on its own sake. It just does enough to keep ahead of the competition. Utterly cynical, but you would do the same in Intel's shoes. The stagnating influence of consoles renders ultra high end CPU's somewhat futile for PC gaming.

 

[JarlyX]

When it comes down to games today, an i7 vs an i5 from the same product line (2XXX-K) isn't going to make a big enough difference to be worth the money.

 

[Ninja_DC]

When it comes down to games today, an i7 vs an i5 from the same product line (2XXX-K) isn't going to make a big enough difference to be worth the money.

You'll only want to buy an i7-2600k or 2700k over an i5-2500k if you would need the hyper-threading for rendering videos or other heavy-duty applications which makes use of HT, you could also get a i7-3820 for the same price with a few MB's extra L3 cache which can still be easily overclocked to 4.5Ghz

 

[JarlyX]

You'll only want to buy an i7-2600k or 2700k over an i5-2500k if you would need the hyper-threading for rendering videos or other heavy-duty applications which makes use of HT, you could also get a i7-3820 for the same price with a few MB's extra L3 cache which can still be easily overclocked to 4.5Ghz

Yeah, it doesn't matter if you're not going to do anything CPU-heavy.

 

[joemaster725]

My current rig contains an ati 6950 with 2GB of Gddr5 Vram, flashed to the 6970 shader count. i love ati, and my framerate when playing tf2 on max everything (even though it isnt a labour intensive game) never falls below 80 fps, and stays around 130 fps. i also attribute it to that i overclock my six core amd cpu from 3.3 to 3.7, and enable turbo up to 4.1, and have notice that it has actually helped when playing skyrim, and gives me a better framerate for it.

 

[Ninja_DC]

My current rig contains an ati 6950 with 2GB of Gddr5 Vram, flashed to the 6970 shader count. i love ati, and my framerate when playing tf2 on max everything (even though it isnt a labour intensive game) never falls below 80 fps, and stays around 130 fps. i also attribute it to that i overclock my six core amd cpu from 3.3 to 3.7, and enable turbo up to 4.1, and have notice that it has actually helped when playing skyrim, and gives me a better framerate for it.

I've got a 6850, Everything on max and it never dips below 120fps ???

 

[Zeiss]

As far as I can tell, nVidia is easier to depict in ability, for me at least.

 

[Freebackrubs]

I running 2 ATI 5770s but in a few weeks Ill be build a new rig with a 680. 2 later on in the summer. I hate ATI drivers with a passion...

 

[iRepLebs]

Nvidia is the rich boy for graphics cards. They're cards are overpriced but the performance is good. ATI on the other hand has great performance and you pay less. I'm running an HD 4890 OC. got it for $70 lol.

 

[lpN]

http://www.techspot.com/review/525-gainward-geforce-gtx-680/

and down goes AMD