It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I always choose AMD because it has the best performance/price ratio, also because I don't support any shady or anticonsumer tactics (gamelocks, obfuscated code, performance crippling even for their own older cards)
I currently prefer (and continue to purchase and upgrade) nVidia.

Many years ago, I had purchased an ATI "All in Wonder Pro" card and was left with a bad impression since one of the games I played often had bad issues with screen artifacts. My experience wasn't too great with the ATI technology, the company of course, now owned by AMD. I definitely purchase AMD CPUs, however, because the graphics card is really what tends to be the bottleneck and you get more bang for your buck with the AMD processors.

As an alternative video card solution to ATI, I went with the 3dfx Voodoo cards which were great for their time and ever since nVidia had purchased their assets, I had started and continued to buy nVidia ever since.

I'm kind of dating myself now, but I remember when the Hercules graphics card was the bomb; although monochrome, it had the best resolution out of the CGA/EGA cards at the time. I remember playing Ford's "Test Drive" with a Hercules card and it looked better than the decent EGA versions.

It wasn't until VGA came out with the VESA standards where graphics really started becoming more appreciable --I'm really glad that someone saw there was opportunity to just make an industry out of graphics technology, it just seemed like the natural progression.

Play a game like "The Witcher 3" nowadays and then go back to play some emulated Atari nostalgia, you get tired of it really quick. However, playing video games on your TV back in the 70's (yeah, the good old pong, jai alai and skeet shoot light gun) was the hottest thing since sliced bread.
For now I'm sticking to Nvidia. My last experience with AMD was absolutely terrible. The drivers would regularly cause bluescreens unless cursor trails were activated or whatever they are called in English. It was a known issue on my model and AMD never bothered to fix it. Then there's of course PhysX. Nvidia may not be perfect but they seem to be the lesser evil as far as I'm concerned.
If you can cool your computer well, you can safely go for AMD. They always have the best performance/price ratio.

If you dont want to deal with heat (which can burn your card), and if you want to play new games like witcher 3 or Assasins Creed, go for Nvidia.

If you are not interested in cutting edge games, go for intel.

If thats not clear, check cards performanses in that webpage.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
When I was last building my gaming rig four years ago, I was led to believe that AMD was a cheaper, noisier, hotter and generally rougher alternative to the sleek nVidia cards. I don't know about Intel... I thought they made only on-board graphics chips.
Well, at the moment it looks like the most people here on GOG prefer NVDIA.
Both Nvidia and AMD make good gaming graphics cards (even though atm. nvidia has better perf./ watt as well as fastest single gpu graphics card). Mid- to High end cards of both are very capable running even latest games. I take what ever card has the best price to performance ratio that meets my demands.

Intel should not even be mentioned if gaming performance is important; they only make gpus integrated on their cpu's that can run some old/ undemanding games.
Post edited August 09, 2015 by yberkurko
avatar
yberkurko: Intel should not even be mentioned if gaming performance is important; they only make gpus integrated on their cpu's that can run some old/ undemanding games.
An on-board GPU is a very useful thing to have, though. It can take over the graphics processing for basic PC usage in the event of a primary graphics card failure.
If anyone wants the sweet crypto monies to flow, AMD is the way to go, except the GTX 750 Ti.

EDIT: unintentionally created jingle.
Post edited August 09, 2015 by Shadowstalker16
avatar
yberkurko: Intel should not even be mentioned if gaming performance is important; they only make gpus integrated on their cpu's that can run some old/ undemanding games.
avatar
Charon121: An on-board GPU is a very useful thing to have, though. It can take over the graphics processing for basic PC usage in the event of a primary graphics card failure.
Depends on person... i have few spare pcie graphics cards... I would not miss integrated gpu if intel finally would decide to make consumer class cpu without it (perhaps upgrading to skylake-e when it comes; from consumer core i7 3770k); then they would not have that lame excuse that because of integrated gpu heat spreader can't be soldered on die.
Post edited August 09, 2015 by yberkurko
avatar
Shadowstalker16: If anyone wants the sweet crypto monies to flow, AMD is the way to go, except the GTX 750 Ti.

EDIT: unintentionally created jingle.
You're a poet and didn't know it? Do you make a rhyme every time?
I like how people's opinions go back to the 90's for their impressions of AMD/NVIDIA like it's valid. We went from the Commodore 64 to smartphones and they think nothing has changed since then. Wouldn't you like to have a modern opinion? "Intel/AMD overheats" - What cooling solutions have you used in these configurations? And are you aware of technology advancements in GPUs, iGPUs, and APUs since then? :P
I have an AMD GPU (R9 270X 2GB) and CPU (FX 8350 8 core 4Ghz) right now, and I quite like them. Before I had a desktop, I used a cheap Wal-Mart HP laptop that had an integrated Intel GPU, and it performed pretty well (unsure what it actually was though).

I have attempted to use a Nvidia card once, turns out if the logo is yellow, and the inputs are off color, it might be a fake :P . After that I went and got my current GPU, and a new PSU to help it out. I might get a Nvidia card sometime but I am liking the new R9 390's (Apparently I wont even have to get a new PSU to keep up with those)
I've used AMD and nvidia GPUs since the late 90s, both on laptops and desktops, and for me it's a wash really when it comes to performance.

The tech voodoo on the internets is all about what some guys friend said about the drivers on this or that GPU from this or that provider, but back in reality things are really simple:

- Both AMD and nvidia make good drivers for Windows.
- Neither AMD nor nvidia actually make their own finished GPUs, that's what hardware manufacturers do (e.g. Asus, Sapphire etc.)
- Some hardware manufacturers are better than others (Asus for example is infinitely better than EVGA)
- There is no perceivable difference in performance between the top-of-the-line GPUs from either major manufacturer of GPUs.
- People rarely know what they're talking about and just repeat the same bullshit about card X that they heard from some lobotomized monkey (such as Linustechtips, good grief that man is stupid)
- Mobile GPUs are all terrible. Also they are de facto made to work with the hardware by the manufacturer of said laptop and as we all know, laptop manufacturers are not all created equal)

Intel GPUs are irrelevant. They'll run most things ok-ish, most of the time. Just as they were designed to do.

In the end, I prefer AMD GPUs, simply because I don't feel like paying more for the same thing. If nvidia wasn't pricing itself out of the realms of reason, then I'd buy their stuff, but a fool and his money are soon parted, fortunately for nvidia since they're quite popular (for no real reason)

As for CPUs, meh. Either one is fine. I don't care, I've used both Intel and AMD and both have been excellent.

Mind you, I always buy the top-of-the-line products, I've used budget Intel and budget AMD CPUs and GPUs on occasion, and well, no thanks. They're both equally tragic on the low to mid-end.
Post edited August 10, 2015 by Atlantico
NVIDIA. They make great gaming card with great driver, including for FreeBSD (and Solaris, although I don't care about Solaris).
While they are sometimes a bit more expensive, they are quite worth it, since they consume a lot less power, and can stay relevant for longer: my GTX 460 can still handle current AAA like GTA 5 or TW3 (with nearly everything on minimum, although I could probably push it higher on gta 5 if the game would just let me)
Main drawback of NVIDIA cards is in parallel computing, they have a LOT less processors than AMD cards of the same price.