ATI or Nvidia, Which is better?
- 0
Member
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011
Division: Battlefield 3
BF3 Soldier: VIP3RMAN
BF4 Soldier: VIP3RMAN
Member
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011
Division: Battlefield 3
BF3 Soldier: VIP3RMAN
BF4 Soldier: VIP3RMAN
viperman wrote:i know for a fact that if you have amd cpu, amd sidechip and amd GPU you get the spider effect.
Luninariel wrote:Yeah I realize that, and I see that, I'd be using an Intel I7, and 16 gigs of ram, maybe an AMD processor will do it better, but I've always wanted to record my games, and do many things at once and benchmarks have systematically proven that Intel is better for multi processing and they are just "Better
Respected Member
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Feb 5, 2011
Division: Battlefield 4
BF3 Soldier: knightwolf654
BF4 Soldier: knightwolf654
Honored Member
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Mar 8, 2010
Location: Norway
Division: Battlefield 3
Steam Name: Foffkillz
BF3 Soldier: Foffkillz
(TKC)TheCrimsonStar wrote: Also, with my 955, BC2 would max out my CPU usage even when overclocked.
Foffkillz wrote:(TKC)TheCrimsonStar wrote: Also, with my 955, BC2 would max out my CPU usage even when overclocked.
I have the excact same CPU, and it doesent in my opinion "Max out". When running BC2 @ max, the CPU works at 63% (Lowest I have seen) to 'bout 80%.I wouldnt say maxed out, but It I know that Intel CPU outpreformes it quite hard.. Just throwing in my opinion..
Knightwolf654 wrote:OK here is my take on things,
when it comes down to were I'm going to invest my money in i don't just look at the product, i have to look at the company as a whole. Nvidia has been known for padding there drivers so it appears that there cards run faster when in reality there are forcing the card to render less information, providing a lower image quality. now i don't know if this is still true today but honestly i wouldn't doubt it. looking at two systems side by side (find a pc store a microcenter close to you and go look this is how i found the difference) i have always found since the start of ATI's HD area that they have always had the better image.
now for my personal reasons, after having 4 different nvidia cards from 3 different generations die pretty much at the two year mark that show me that nvidia has some serious quality control issues. realize that none of those had been overclocked, and i keep my rigs very clean. so none of that was my fault. my HD4870 has been buzzing along for 3-4 years now, overclocked the entire time, and i have never had a hiccup. now with my past experiences as well as Nvidia's past behavior i would continue with ATI.
Respected Member
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Feb 5, 2011
Division: Battlefield 4
BF3 Soldier: knightwolf654
BF4 Soldier: knightwolf654
Knightwolf654 wrote:we have for the most part made up our minds. you need to do the research or buy both and make your own opinion.
Honored Member
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Mar 8, 2010
Location: Norway
Division: Battlefield 3
Steam Name: Foffkillz
BF3 Soldier: Foffkillz
(TKC)-o]T3[o wrote:
But dude, I have the exact opposite experience. I have never had problems with nvidia, but the one time I went ATI the card actually burned up and died within 1 year. Luni of course said he liked your post, but how can you base anything on a personal experience like this when others will tell you the exact opposite? Nvidia would have to start sucking some serious butt before I would ever go back to ATI/AMD.
(TKC)TheCrimsonStar wrote:
1.) You have more RAM.
2.) You have a better motherboard.
3.) I meant in a full 32-slot server. lol. I was seeing anywhere from 65% (empty to ~5ppl on a server) to 98% (full 32-slot server).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests