why do people still buy nvidia graphics cards?

I mean seriously, AMD is basically everything at this point

>2 gigs VRAM

PFFFFT

People get whats best for the value. For example the 7000 series came out first so they where the best. Then nvidia released the 600 series which was cheaper than the overpriced 7000 series. AMD then dropped the prices which made the 7000 a more attractive buy. Nvidia then countered by lowering the GTX 660 price/releasing the 650ti boost (both those cards at the time dominated the sub $200 market) and then nvidia countered again with the 700 series which is a great value (760 SC is basically a 7970 for only $260, GTX 770 is faster than the 680/7970ghz and it cost $400.....ect).

I don't understand whats the point of this thread. Your asking a question that has an obvious answer.....

What crack is the TC on?

People get whats best for the value. For example the 7000 series came out first so they where the best. Then nvidia released the 600 series which was cheaper than the overpriced 7000 series. AMD then dropped the prices which made the 7000 a more attractive buy and then nvidia countered with the 700 series which is amazing for the value (760 SC is basically a 7970 for only $260, GTX 770 is faster than the 680/7970ghz and it cost $400.....ect).

I don't understand whats the point of this thread. Your asking a question that has an obvious answer.....

mastershake575

but that doesnt make sense, wait for AMD to released its HD 8000 series, dont compare new to old gen

[QUOTE="mastershake575"]

People get whats best for the value. For example the 7000 series came out first so they where the best. Then nvidia released the 600 series which was cheaper than the overpriced 7000 series. AMD then dropped the prices which made the 7000 a more attractive buy and then nvidia countered with the 700 series which is amazing for the value (760 SC is basically a 7970 for only $260, GTX 770 is faster than the 680/7970ghz and it cost $400.....ect).

I don't understand whats the point of this thread. Your asking a question that has an obvious answer.....

ClassicRockFTW

but that doesnt make sense, wait for AMD to released its HD 8000 series, dont compare new to old gen

So what are we to do? speculate and call numbers from thin air?

I think most of us will just write you off as a low IQ fool.

but that doesnt make sense, wait for AMD to released its HD 8000 series, dont compare new to old gen

ClassicRockFTW

Both the 600 and 700 series are Kepler architecture (there is no new technology). Not only that but there isn't going to be a hd8000 series...... (you REALLY have no idea what your talking about).

[QUOTE="ClassicRockFTW"]

 

but that doesnt make sense, wait for AMD to released its HD 8000 series, dont compare new to old gen

mastershake575

Both the 600 and 700 series are Kepler (there is no new technology)

so you're admitting that nvidia brought nothing new to the table and merely rebadged old graphics card to boost sales?

oh wow thats some profiteering right there

[QUOTE="mastershake575"]

[QUOTE="ClassicRockFTW"]

 

but that doesnt make sense, wait for AMD to released its HD 8000 series, dont compare new to old gen

ClassicRockFTW

Both the 600 and 700 series are Kepler (there is no new technology)

so you're admitting that nvidia brought nothing new to the table and merely rebadged old graphics card to boost sales?

oh wow thats some profiteering right there

Hmm..

GTX 770 replaced GTX 680, whilst being faster, and also being priced lower.

so you're admitting that nvidia brought nothing new to the table and merely rebadged old graphics card to boost sales?

ClassicRockFTW

Your telling me that the 700 series a shame since its a re-fresh and that I should wait for the 8000 series which is also a re-fresh (dur per durp).

GTX 770 replaced GTX 680, whilst being faster, and also being priced lower.

AMD655

I've used Nvidia cards almost exclusively other than the All-In-Wonder 9800 pro I bought in 2003. My main reason is that the cards I choose tend to be equivalent-enough in power for their price, and I get the benefits of Physx and CUDA.

Edit:  Also somewhat-related, is that my last 4 or 5 happen to have been EVGA branded cards, usually somewhat pre-overclocked when I get them.

We've been trolled.

Easy. People buy em either because they had good experiences with them previously, stability of their drivers, or maybe they like the logo.godzillavskong

OR PhysX, CUDA support.

Why do trolls still try their nonsense in an alert and vicious forum like this one?

i don't know why people buy over priced under performing stuff.  Seriously why buy a card with 2gigs of vram when you get the one with 3 gigs for the same price?  But I stop questioning peoples idiocy a while ago, just go with the flow.  Bob Marley- "Dont worry about a thing, every little thing going to be alright"

Easy. People buy em either because they had good experiences with them previously, stability of their drivers, or maybe they like the logo.godzillavskong

Yeah perhaps Nv has a better marketting team or something. Their name seems a bit bigger/apparent amongst the two gpu makers. All my friends and family uses nv.

I honestly wouldn't mind amd. They are very good bang for buck compare to nv, from low to mid, ofc. nvidia always finds a way to create the cream of the crop card like 780/titan which to that point is a bit over my willingness to pay.

@tc, yeah 2gb blah blah, there is 4gb renditions. Troll bait topic much lol?

i don't know why people buy over priced under performing stuff. Seriously why buy a card with 2gigs of vram when you get the one with 3 gigs for the same price? But I stop questioning peoples idiocy a while ago, just go with the flow. Bob Marley- "Dont worry about a thing, every little thing going to be alright"

blaznwiipspman1

It all depends on the drivers people like, benchmark comparisons, and price for performance/$ ratio.

Neither is the better card. When you're on a budget, either nvidia or AMD could be worth your cash.

 

I mean seriously, AMD is basically everything at this point

>2 gigs VRAM

PFFFFT

ClassicRockFTW

why do people still are fanboy wussies?

Stop making threads like this please.:|

lol, obvious troll thread is obvious.. Still, though. I do think that AMD cards are the way to go right now. With the new consoles having good GPU compute performance, more and more games are going to be using GPU compute. AMD cards murder nVidia cards in GPU compute performance...superclocked

 

I mean seriously, AMD is basically everything at this point

>2 gigs VRAM

PFFFFT

ClassicRockFTW

get that doge shit out of here kid

That is one fat doggie.

On topic, last card I had was a ATI/AMD. only vid card I've ever had hardware fail on me. So I got an Nvidia instead. simple enough.

[QUOTE="mastershake575"]

[QUOTE="ClassicRockFTW"]

 

but that doesnt make sense, wait for AMD to released its HD 8000 series, dont compare new to old gen

ClassicRockFTW

Both the 600 and 700 series are Kepler (there is no new technology)

so you're admitting that nvidia brought nothing new to the table and merely rebadged old graphics card to boost sales?

oh wow thats some profiteering right there

This and your opening post prove that you're just here for stoking-up some fires.  Get lost.  Vade retro, intricavi.

I know you're trolling.

Well, Nvidia is a decent brand. Never had problems with them hardware and software wise.

Nvidia's price/performance is currently better, so that could be why.

Don't feed the troll..abuabed

Which one?  We're surrounded, amigo :(

ATI never really out preforms Nvidia in the sub $200 range, so I stay with Nvidia.

roulettethedog

WRONG

I know you're trolling.

Well, Nvidia is a decent brand. Never had problems with them hardware and software wise.

Cyberdot

WRONG

I know you're trolling.

Well, Nvidia is a decent brand. Never had problems with them hardware and software wise.

Cyberdot

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

I know you're trolling.

Well, Nvidia is a decent brand. Never had problems with them hardware and software wise.

superclocked

this, and i cant stress enough how embarassing 2 gigs vram is

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

I know you're trolling.

Well, Nvidia is a decent brand. Never had problems with them hardware and software wise.

ClassicRockFTW

this, and i cant stress enough how embarassing 2 gigs vram is

indeed, very poor history of releasing bad chips.  Also the only reason they release chips with 2gigs vram is so they can milk their fanbase into buying the 4gig cards.  What is the point in buying a 4gig card with the memory bandwidth is so weak?  Would you take a 3gig vram card with 384bit mem bandwidth or a 4 gig card with 256 bit mem bandwidth (that is also $100 more expensive)?  Nvidia milks their fanbase, and their fans just pull down their pants and bend all they way over

What is this? circle jerk time?

7970 and 680 compete really well, 2GB or 3GB, it makes little difference.

Nvidia released the full fat Kepler known as Titan, they then gave us a slightly cut down version, the GTX 780.

There is a card for everyone.

I have had driver problems on both sides, the latest issue with Nvidia was when i was rocking my GTX 480 with 320.xx drivers, it causes artifacts in BF3, and a few other games, it also did it to numerous GTX 600 series GPU's.

Nvidia fixed this with the latest driver.

My 780's rip through everything, i cannot even stress them that much, (i do not own Crysis 3, as it pure sucks)

I had a 6990, it was so god damned loud, the GTX 480 was whisper quiet in comparison, the 6990 ended up getting smashed, but it was out of frustration.

Driver problems are more of a fanboy statement, and yes, certain people rarely have issues, so stop calling people liars, just because you are a damn fanboy.

Jesus the fanboyism in this thread is pathetic (can a mod lock this thread ?). Both companies have history releasing bad drivers so I don't know why some users go into every nvidia thread and scream "buh buh teh drivers !" :roll: The vram arguement is pretty pathetic also. All the sub $220 cards are mainly 2GB (regardless of brand) and the 780 has 3GB. The 4GB 760 windforce is basically the same exact price as the 7950 windforce..... ("Buh buh teh rip us off").

You could maybe argue the stock 670/680 not having more than 2GB but then again its going to be 2.5-3 years after the release of both cards till we see games actually requiring more Vram.... (by then you will need/want a 20nm card regardless and whose to say that 3gb will cut it but somehow 2gb wont ? ).

It all depends on the drivers people like, benchmark comparisons, and price for performance/$ ratio.

Neither is the better card. When you're on a budget, either nvidia or AMD could be worth your cash.

Gaming-Planet

Nonsense! I go with what ever performs the best for the money I want to spend. MX440 64MB... 6600GT 128MB... X1950PRO 256MB... 8800GTS 320MB... HD 4890 1GB(died thats why the not so big step with next card)... HD 6870 1GB... GTX 680 2GB(sale for same price as GTX 670). Also driver issues are universal. Wanna know the card I had the least issues with?... 8800GTS 320MB the one I had the most issues with is the HD 4890. Fanboy'ish nature doesn't belong in a discussion on hardware... You go with your wallet and performance.Grey_Eyed_Elf

damn straight.  However, i hve had more than a few geforce cards die on me, which is why I try to stay away.  Unless they offer better bang for buck than AMD.  This hasn't happened in a long time, ever since the geforce 460 days.

[QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"]Nonsense! I go with what ever performs the best for the money I want to spend. MX440 64MB... 6600GT 128MB... X1950PRO 256MB... 8800GTS 320MB... HD 4890 1GB(died thats why the not so big step with next card)... HD 6870 1GB... GTX 680 2GB(sale for same price as GTX 670). Also driver issues are universal. Wanna know the card I had the least issues with?... 8800GTS 320MB the one I had the most issues with is the HD 4890. Fanboy'ish nature doesn't belong in a discussion on hardware... You go with your wallet and performance.blaznwiipspman1

damn straight.  However, i hve had more than a few geforce cards die on me, which is why I try to stay away.  Unless they offer better bang for buck than AMD.  This hasn't happened in a long time, ever since the geforce 460 days.

2010......

k..

Jesus the fanboyism in this thread is pathetic (can a mod lock this thread ?). mastershake575

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"]Nonsense! I go with what ever performs the best for the money I want to spend. MX440 64MB... 6600GT 128MB... X1950PRO 256MB... 8800GTS 320MB... HD 4890 1GB(died thats why the not so big step with next card)... HD 6870 1GB... GTX 680 2GB(sale for same price as GTX 670). Also driver issues are universal. Wanna know the card I had the least issues with?... 8800GTS 320MB the one I had the most issues with is the HD 4890. Fanboy'ish nature doesn't belong in a discussion on hardware... You go with your wallet and performance.AMD655

damn straight.  However, i hve had more than a few geforce cards die on me, which is why I try to stay away.  Unless they offer better bang for buck than AMD.  This hasn't happened in a long time, ever since the geforce 460 days.

2010......

k..

aside from the geforce 460 and possibly the 650ti, name one geforce card that offered better bang for buck than an equivalent radeon card....come on dont make me wait.  You can go back to 2008 if you like, hell go back to the beginning.

[QUOTE="mastershake575"]

Jesus the fanboyism in this thread is pathetic (can a mod lock this thread ?). Allicrombie

lol corrupted mods 4 the win

[QUOTE="AMD655"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

damn straight.  However, i hve had more than a few geforce cards die on me, which is why I try to stay away.  Unless they offer better bang for buck than AMD.  This hasn't happened in a long time, ever since the geforce 460 days.

blaznwiipspman1

2010......

k..

aside from the geforce 460 and possibly the 650ti, name one geforce card that offered better bang for buck than an equivalent radeon card....come on dont make me wait.  You can go back to 2008 if you like, hell go back to the beginning.

The GeForce GTX 480 offered significant price/performance, it still does even now..

It was slightly faster than the Radeon 6970.

The only GPU that comes close to it is the 7850 2GB, and even that is still slightly behind it.

A card does not have to be the latest to outpower more expensive, lesser endowed cards.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="AMD655"]

 

2010......

 

 

k..

AMD655

aside from the geforce 460 and possibly the 650ti, name one geforce card that offered better bang for buck than an equivalent radeon card....come on dont make me wait.  You can go back to 2008 if you like, hell go back to the beginning.

The GeForce GTX 480 offered significant price/performance, it still does even now..

It was slightly faster than the Radeon 6970.

The only GPU that comes close to it is the 7850 2GB, and even that is still slightly behind it.

A card does not have to be the latest to outpower more expensive, lesser endowed cards.

the 480 was and is a power hog, it was released during the time of the radeon 5000 series in which AMD was clobbering nvidia with the 5870/5850, and it cost $500 at launch if I recall correctly.  

I wouldn't call it a good price/performance card either since the 6970 was on par to it, cost less and used less power.  480 is a terrible example.  

Also, the only reason the geforce 400 series was even competitive was because AMD absolutely demolished them the 2 gens before that with the 4000/5000 series, and people were ditching them in droves.  

It was also the reason I purchased a geforce 460, and since then the last geforce card I purchased.  Well come on give me a good example of nvidias bang for buck video cards, im still waiting.

I also find it pathetic that nvidia has the balls to charge $1000 for a GPU that is onl 25% faster than a rivals card, the 7970 ghz.  In intels case, their 3960k is maybe 200% faster than the AMD 8350, so yeah I can understand them pricing their cpu so high, but nvidia doing that?  LOL they aren't fools but the people buying those cards even big ones.

This is the usual reaction from a fanboy, and a person with no experience of the card being spoken of.

The GTX 480 was nothing more than a cut down 580, and very slight cut down at that, does it make you mad that the 480 in my 2500k rig hangs with 7870XT and 7950's?

That is significant bang for your buck.

The cooler cost 45 pounds all together, never exceeds 75c.

Now, for a person with lower than a 600w PSU, sure the 480 is a bad choice, you are just dissmissing the point, and clearly show a large bias.