NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti Reviewed

[IVIYTH0S]

 

Both companies have features the other does not; that's why I found the post funny.

What does AMD have that NVIDIA doesn't? I'm asking honestly because I don't know of an AMD tech that doesn't run on NVIDIA cards.

 

Doesn't that just go to show that AMD is more open/liberal than Nvidia and just doesn't have as much proprietary technology?? PhysX used to be open to all before Nvidia acquired it

[ClayMeow]

 

 

Both companies have features the other does not; that's why I found the post funny.

What does AMD have that NVIDIA doesn't? I'm asking honestly because I don't know of an AMD tech that doesn't run on NVIDIA cards.

 

Doesn't that just go to show that AMD is more open/liberal than Nvidia and just doesn't have as much proprietary technology?? PhysX used to be open to all before Nvidia acquired it

 

Do we really have to argue this point every year? NVIDIA offered AMD PhysX support and they turned it down.

 

Regardless, that still doesn't answer my question.

[IVIYTH0S]

 

Doesn't that just go to show that AMD is more open/liberal than Nvidia and just doesn't have as much proprietary technology?? PhysX used to be open to all before Nvidia acquired it

Do we really have to argue this point every year? NVIDIA offered AMD PhysX support and they turned it down.

 

Regardless, that still doesn't answer my question.

 

I'm just trolling ya, honestly they usually have their own versions of what Nvidia has

CUDA-->OpenCL (which I know works on both, but doesn't AMD do it better??)

Nvidia GPU Video Transcoding ---> AMD GPU Video Transcoding

Nvidia PhysX ---> AMD Havok (Is this still around? lol)

ShadowPlay ---> Insert great free/paid video capture software here

Edited November 15, 2013 by IVIYTH0S

[ClayMeow]

 

 

Doesn't that just go to show that AMD is more open/liberal than Nvidia and just doesn't have as much proprietary technology?? PhysX used to be open to all before Nvidia acquired it

Do we really have to argue this point every year? NVIDIA offered AMD PhysX support and they turned it down.

 

Regardless, that still doesn't answer my question.

 

I'm just trolling ya, honestly they usually have their own versions of what Nvidia has

CUDA-->OpenCL (which I know works on both, but doesn't AMD do it better??)

Nvidia GPU Video Transcoding ---> AMD GPU Video Transcoding

Nvidia PhysX ---> AMD Havok (Is this still around? lol)

ShadowPlay ---> Insert great free/paid video capture software here

 

Don't underestimate ShadowPlay. It's actually pretty sweet and I had no impact on performance when I tried it. Once Twitch-streaming is added (supposedly before the end of the year), IMO anyone who does a lot of broadcasting or video reviews would want this.

 

In any case, NVIDIA also has APEX Turbulence, TXAA, and HBAO+...all of which I don't believe AMD can do. The latter two aren't that big of a deal, but Turbulence is like PhysX in that it really increases immersion. If the other recently announced tech like Flex winds up being NVIDIA exclusives, there will be even more reasons to recommend NVIDIA for gamers that want the best experience.

[Waco]

What does AMD have that NVIDIA doesn't? I'm asking honestly because I don't know of an AMD tech that doesn't run on NVIDIA cards.

Crossfire, MLAA, PowerTune, Mantle, TrueAudio, etc.

 

You can play marketing buzzwords all day long with either company.

[Guest_Jim_*]

AMD has Eyefinity and TressFX, to add to Waco's list. Also, as much as you love to say that nVidia offered AMD PhysX, as though this were some great symbol of cooperation, you seem to neglect that nVidia later stripped away the ability to use PhysX if an AMD GPU is used to render and has even disabled features if there is even an AMD GPU present (not counting APUs). Fine, AMD turned down PhysX in lieu of OpenCL, but nVidia than took away the consumers' ability to purchase an nVida card and run PhysX with an AMD card driving the display. Only through some third-party tools could the system be tricked to allow PhysX to run, and when I was still running such a hybrid system, it ran quite well.

Further, don't forget about the fact that nVidia has been caught having having AMD cards blacklisted from running certain graphical options, not because the cards cannot run them, but because they are AMD cards.

[ccokeman]

AMD has Eyefinity and TressFX, to add to Waco's list. Also, as much as you love to say that nVidia offered AMD PhysX, as though this were some great symbol of cooperation, you seem to neglect that nVidia later stripped away the ability to use PhysX if an AMD GPU is used to render and has even disabled features if there is even an AMD GPU present (not counting APUs). Fine, AMD turned down PhysX in lieu of OpenCL, but nVidia than took away the consumers' ability to purchase an nVida card and run PhysX with an AMD card driving the display. Only through some third-party tools could the system be tricked to allow PhysX to run, and when I was still running such a hybrid system, it ran quite well.

Further, don't forget about the fact that nVidia has been caught having having AMD cards blacklisted from running certain graphical options, not because the cards cannot run them, but because they are AMD cards.

 

Thats a two way street!  It's great to have proprietary feature sets but then you get to the point of  choosing the games you play by the GPU you use or want to buy. I just want all games to play correctly with either companies cards. Is it possible for AMD  and NVIDIA  to have similar technologies that operate correctly in games to give us the best possible experience?  Sure it is but it most likely will not happen. Both publicly are proponents of open source solutions so why do we not get the best from both is one question?

   

[ClayMeow]

 

What does AMD have that NVIDIA doesn't? I'm asking honestly because I don't know of an AMD tech that doesn't run on NVIDIA cards.

Crossfire, MLAA, PowerTune, Mantle, TrueAudio, etc.

 

You can play marketing buzzwords all day long with either company.

 

Listing CrossFire is just silly...alright, well then I guess I should add SLI to the list of NVIDIA features

 

FXAA is better than MLAA and supported by both cards, but I didn't state that the tech actually had to be good, so I'll give you that one.

 

NVIDIA has its own PowerTune-like function, which according to Frank's testing works a hell of a lot better.

 

Mantle is just a low level API. I guess we'll find out when BF4 patches in Mantle-support, but from what I've heard, it's really for low to mid-end machines, whereast anyone with a high-end gaming machine is going to want to stick with DX11.

 

TrueAudio is certainly one, so thank you...forgot about that because personally I don't care much about audio.

 

 

AMD has Eyefinity and TressFX, to add to Waco's list. Also, as much as you love to say that nVidia offered AMD PhysX, as though this were some great symbol of cooperation, you seem to neglect that nVidia later stripped away the ability to use PhysX if an AMD GPU is used to render and has even disabled features if there is even an AMD GPU present (not counting APUs). Fine, AMD turned down PhysX in lieu of OpenCL, but nVidia than took away the consumers' ability to purchase an nVida card and run PhysX with an AMD card driving the display. Only through some third-party tools could the system be tricked to allow PhysX to run, and when I was still running such a hybrid system, it ran quite well.

Further, don't forget about the fact that nVidia has been caught having having AMD cards blacklisted from running certain graphical options, not because the cards cannot run them, but because they are AMD cards.

EyeFinity vs. NVIDIA Surround.

TressFX is not AMD-exclusive.

 

Yes, NVIDIA stripped the ability away, but that was well after AMD rejected it, not before. If AMD said no, why should NVIDIA waste resources supporting them? If NVIDIA allowed AMD users to utilize PhysX officially, consumers would expect reliability and stability, which means they'd have to test out such things. Now that it requires third-party workarounds, it's out of their hands.

[Waco]

Thats a two way street!  It's great to have proprietary feature sets but then you get to the point of  choosing the games you play by the GPU you use or want to buy. I just want all games to play correctly with either companies cards. Is it possible for AMD  and NVIDIA  to have similar technologies that operate correctly in games to give us the best possible experience?  Sure it is but it most likely will not happen. Both publicly are proponents of open source solutions so why do we not get the best from both is one question?

Both are in it for the money. Both do things I dislike greatly. Mantle/TrueAudio are AMD's newest transgressions in my book.

 

 

Andrew - my point was that both companies have plenty of "exclusive" features. Rarely do exclusive features help the consumer in the long-run.

[Guest_Jim_*]

EyeFinity vs. NVIDIA Surround.

TressFX is not AMD-exclusive.

 

Yes, NVIDIA stripped the ability away, but that was well after AMD rejected it, not before. If AMD said no, why should NVIDIA waste resources supporting them? If NVIDIA allowed AMD users to utilize PhysX officially, consumers would expect reliability and stability, which means they'd have to test out such things. Now that it requires third-party workarounds, it's out of their hands.

 

TressFX is an AMD technology, like how PhysX is an nVidia technology. If TressFX is not an 'AMD-exclusive' it is because they have decided to not lock it down and away from other hardware.

 

It really sounds like you're talking out both sides of your mouth with PhysX there. AMD is bad because they choose to go with OpenCL and not support PhysX, but nVidia is just fine ending support of PhysX in hybrid systems, and even working to prevent third-party support. The only thing preventing a hybrid system from running PhysX are the nVidia drivers saying it shouldn't because the way the third-party hacks work (or at least use to work) is by creating a virtual monitor for the PhysX GPU to drive, making it believe it is running the primary monitor. That would get around nVidia's software-block. Now though I'm not sure because I saw a statement in an nVidia PDF concerning recent drivers that even the detection of an AMD GPU, regardless of if it is driving a display or not, will disable certain features. There is a significant difference between not supporting something and working to stifle something.

 

Considering I was running a hybrid system for quite some time with no stability issues, the stability argument is useless on me. In fact it was not until I replaced my AMD card with an nVidia one that I started having any stability issues. Also, it would make them money to allow it as they could sell cards to AMD users who want PhysX, so it is not like they would not be able to recover the resources they invested. Perhaps they'd have to have more budget-priced cards with a strong computing focus, but then they could also push CUDA hard alongside PhysX, and again grow interest in AMD users buying nVidia cards.

[ClayMeow]

 

EyeFinity vs. NVIDIA Surround.

TressFX is not AMD-exclusive.

 

Yes, NVIDIA stripped the ability away, but that was well after AMD rejected it, not before. If AMD said no, why should NVIDIA waste resources supporting them? If NVIDIA allowed AMD users to utilize PhysX officially, consumers would expect reliability and stability, which means they'd have to test out such things. Now that it requires third-party workarounds, it's out of their hands.

 

TressFX is an AMD technology, like how PhysX is an nVidia technology. If TressFX is not an 'AMD-exclusive' it is because they have decided to not lock it down and away from other hardware.

This conversation started when I stated that NVIDIA cards offer features that AMD cards do not support, which PhysX is one of those. I then asked what features were exclusive to AMD cards, which TressFX is NOT. The end.

 

EyeFinity vs. NVIDIA Surround.

TressFX is not AMD-exclusive.

 

Yes, NVIDIA stripped the ability away, but that was well after AMD rejected it, not before. If AMD said no, why should NVIDIA waste resources supporting them? If NVIDIA allowed AMD users to utilize PhysX officially, consumers would expect reliability and stability, which means they'd have to test out such things. Now that it requires third-party workarounds, it's out of their hands.

 

It really sounds like you're talking out both sides of your mouth with PhysX there. AMD is bad because they choose to go with OpenCL and not support PhysX, but nVidia is just fine ending support of PhysX in hybrid systems, and even working to prevent third-party support. The only thing preventing a hybrid system from running PhysX are the nVidia drivers saying it shouldn't because the way the third-party hacks work (or at least use to work) is by creating a virtual monitor for the PhysX GPU to drive, making it believe it is running the primary monitor. That would get around nVidia's software-block. Now though I'm not sure because I saw a statement in an nVidia PDF concerning recent drivers that even the detection of an AMD GPU, regardless of if it is driving a display or not, will disable certain features. There is a significant difference between not supporting something and working to stifle something.

 

Considering I was running a hybrid system for quite some time with no stability issues, the stability argument is useless on me. In fact it was not until I replaced my AMD card with an nVidia one that I started having any stability issues. Also, it would make them money to allow it as they could sell cards to AMD users who want PhysX, so it is not like they would not be able to recover the resources they invested. Perhaps they'd have to have more budget-priced cards with a strong computing focus, but then they could also push CUDA hard alongside PhysX, and again grow interest in AMD users buying nVidia cards.

 

You're bringing up two different issues here, so I'll break it up:

 

1. NVIDIA offered AMD PhysX support. That's a fact. The reason why AMD rejected it is irrelevant. Whether they felt OpenCL was the better physics platform or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that NVIDIA pushed PhysX hard and many developers, engines, and games support it. I never said AMD was bad for going another route, I simply stated that PhysX is something NVIDIA offers that AMD doesn't.

 

2. Now as for supporting hybrid builds, you don't seem to understand what officially supporting something would entail. I'm sure most people on this site have come to realize there's a difference between official support and something working. Official support means things have actually been tested and if problems occur, you can issue a support/bug ticket and there's an expectation the issue will be addressed. While it's all well and good that an AMD+NVIDIA-PhysX setup works, if it was officially supported by NVIDIA, they would have to ensure it worked with all sorts of configurations.

 

For example, let's make believe official support existed and NVIDIA releases new drivers. Let's take a recent game like BAO. What if after the new drivers, PhysX worked for everyone except for those that were using a 290X + any NVIDIA card. Now what? With official support from NVIDIA and not AMD, NVIDIA would be responsible for fixing that in the eyes of the consumers. In other words, NVIDIA engineers should have test systems with every AMD card that comes out just to ensure official support. Yeah, that seems logical.

 

This is not a knock on AMD. I'm not saying AMD is bad because they chose to go a different route. What I'm saying is those calling NVIDIA the bad guys because PhysX is exclusive is in the wrong. And if you HAVE to put blame on someone, put it on AMD, not NVIDIA.

[ClayMeow]

 

Thats a two way street!  It's great to have proprietary feature sets but then you get to the point of  choosing the games you play by the GPU you use or want to buy. I just want all games to play correctly with either companies cards. Is it possible for AMD  and NVIDIA  to have similar technologies that operate correctly in games to give us the best possible experience?  Sure it is but it most likely will not happen. Both publicly are proponents of open source solutions so why do we not get the best from both is one question?

Both are in it for the money. Both do things I dislike greatly. Mantle/TrueAudio are AMD's newest transgressions in my book.

 

 

Andrew - my point was that both companies have plenty of "exclusive" features. Rarely do exclusive features help the consumer in the long-run.

 

I never said exclusive features help the consumer. I merely stated them as a reason for the price difference. Exclusive features suck for anything.