@Emfanever I disagree. If you actually provided good feedback...

@Slim_Lyrics @dead79pe Just the vocal minority my friend.

@Master_Vexov @CoupeD @Deadman_est1982 Actually they are. The Ares II (HD 7990) more than competes with the GTX 690. The Titan has no direct comparison, but, for the price, you can get two 7970 ghz editions or GTX 680s, have money left over (in the case of the 7970s) and demolish the Titan by comparison. In most benchmarks the 7970 GHZ edition is equal or faster than the GTX 680. (With the latest drivers). However, the Titan does perform great and runs super cool and quiet, but is it worth $1000?

In regards to power consumption and noise, you are absolutely right. Here is some knowledge for you. There are two levels of performance. Graphics and Compute. Graphics is most of what we see in video games. However, physics and other complex equations can use, and are more efficient using, GPUs. Nvidia lead the charge with GPU compute (aka GPGPU). This was one of the primary reasons the GTX 470/480 ran so hot. This was improved with the GTX 570/580 due to tweaks with the architecture. During that time AMD/ATI was far behind in compute performance, but far cooler and more energy efficient in the process.

The cost of making a powerful graphics card with compute power is expensive and it runs hotter, while using more energy. So Nvidia decided to make an interesting move. They invented the GK104 (GTX 600) architecture for gamers. This architecture shaved the compute performance off of the GPU making it cheaper to manufacture (by comparison of inclusuion) and run much cooler.

AMD, on the other hand decided to increase their compute to surpass the 580. This leads to the power consumption and heat/noise you describe. This makes the AMD better at things such as physics (Tress FX, Havok, etc) and compute (Folding and complex interactions).

Nvidia didn't leave compute however. They made another architecture called GK110. This was initially only available in workstation and server class cards. Having two separate but related architectures is an interesting move and may be the way of the future for graphics vendors.

Advance a few months, Nvidia thought AMD was about to release the 8000 card Q1-Q2 2013 and they didn't want to be left in the dust. So they took the GK110 and made the Titan. This way they would have a top end competitor to the potential 8790. This didn't happen and Nvidia can sell the Titan for $1000.

TL;DR AMD is equal or faster in most benchmarks. Nvidia is cooler and quieter because it skipped compute performance on the 600 series while AMD kept it. AMD is the better buy right now performance wise.

@Master_Vexov @Deadman_est1982 Do you look at benchmarks?

@Renato1984 Physx is proprietary garbage. It actually uses a lot of CPU power. Also, many companies just use other physx engines, such as Havok, to perform physics that is equivalent to physx. Look at AMD with TressFX on Tomb Raider for the PC. However, unlike Nvidia, AMD leaves it open so even people with Nvidia can use it.

tl;dr Physx is marketing.

@RF7000 HEH? AMD 7970 Ghz edition out performs GTX 680 with recent drivers. 7950 boost outperforms GTX 670. AMD is cheaper than both respective Nvidia parts. GTX Titan is not cost effective at all. Maybe it has been a while since you last checked benchmarks? AMD drivers have matured nicely with the 7000 series and have seen excellent performance increase.

However, Nvidia typically makes better drivers, but it isn't drastic. Just Nvidia seems to be slightly more polished and slightly ahead in features and ingenuity.

@shingui5 @UltimateBastard @Bl4KD37H If someone else is using it, you can't stream from it with nvidia's service.

Problem with DL is that he says something is garbage, but he isn't able to articulate why, or he'll stick to one concrete reason and not address other parts of the equation.

You saw Travis trying to counter, but DL will just say I dunno..

I always feel like I gain something when I listen to Scarra.

Pretty entertaining.