I've never understood this loyalty to a brand. At some point you would've wasted money on an inferior ATI/AMD card in the past, same with NVIDIA.
It will be the same with future cards aswell.
This.
THE idiotic thing is justifying it with fairy tales.
Except we aren't talking about myths or fables, but actual occurences. People will make decisions over buying products, quite often based on previous experiences with a particular brand etc, and this will often colour their perception of a particular brand irrevocably, once bitten twice shy for example. So despite improvements over past examples of a particular brands products, customers can often end up avoiding a particular brand because of their history. Facts, however unappealing they might be, are not fairy tales.
FACT: both brands had enough shitty drivers so throwing around fairy tale that one has better drivers than the other is uneducated (fanboi) drivel.
So yeah, thats FACTS.
You knowingly buy inferior product and you have to justify it to yourself and the world. I simply dont care rofl
For instance peopel STILL gave 20-30% more money for ASUS brand when all GPUs were reference design/production and all you had to do is put your sticker on it. EXACTLY SAME GPU with different sticker.
So tell me, wheres your "facts" now.
Or, now ASUS tries to compete with STRIXX. Its still much more expensive than other superior products.
SO please, spare us the talk. You want to buy inferior, as i said, fine, but fairy tales dont fly. Your justifications WHY you buy inferior (or more expensive) are yours to deal with.
Actually most of the time nvidia gives better performance and people who want the very best performance go for Intel and nvidia. Intel destroys amd in cpu performance and most of the top nvidia gpus give better performance.
whether they are better value for money is a completely different story, as nvidia and Intel are almost always more expensive.
The number of people that go for top stuff is actually irrelevant. Again, if you want to educate yourself on the matter go to steam stats. It has hardware stats too.
Not everyone has 3000$ for gaming rig. far far from it.
What are you talking about? $3000? I got a i5 6600k, 16 gb ddr4, ssd, decent PSU and motherboard, and GTX 980 for a lot less, a lot less! No where near $3000. I got them for about $1700 or so when converted from £ to $. And my rig is no where near high end, more like mid range I would say.
ANyway I know a lot of people use low end hardware and I have seen the steam stats. How does that affect my personal decision? I am talking about me personally, of course, the decision for everyone will be different based on their needs, budget etc. I didn't say AMD cards are not needed. I said I prefer intel and nvidia.
I don't think the nvidia cards are an "Inferior" product as you said. You are purely looking at pure performance but did you factor in that those cards run really hot and they release a lot of heat? They are also quite big and no where near as efficient as their Nvidia counterparts. And to top it off, the AMD cards will not overclock no where near the nvidia cards as they are already prety much an overclocked version of their previous cards.
If you have a fire extinguisher for your PC, go for R3 390X. But also bear in mind that AMD do not perform the best at every game and also they are not nearly as efficient. And Nvidia tend to have better driver support and optimisation.
WTF runs really hot? From what age have you jumped from?
And thats before driver update. And that guy was constantly accused of being NVidia fanboi. Best when he says "i thought i never gonna say this"
And next time when you talk about YOUR personal decision dont say "people". You are 1 guy.
ATM AMD cards overall perform better and by quite a margin for the same price.
As i said, you buy inferior product, its fine, your justification WHY you bought it is yours and yours alone. I want most for my money *shrug*
If you bought 970 before 390 was out, then you did fine. If you bought it afterwards....nope
Same with 960 and 380, while 370 and 950 are more close together, still a nice edge for 370.
Actually most of the time nvidia gives better performance and people who want the very best performance go for Intel and nvidia. Intel destroys amd in cpu performance and most of the top nvidia gpus give better performance.
whether they are better value for money is a completely different story, as nvidia and Intel are almost always more expensive.
While Nvidia does give better top end performance than AMD substantially more often than not (due to their willingness to build larger dies), it's also out of the price range of most people. When's the last time that a sub-$500 Nvidia GPU was clearly faster than anything AMD offered? 2009, maybe? If you're looking to spend $200 on a GPU, it shouldn't matter who has the best $650 GPU. What matters is who has the best $200 GPU, and that is often AMD.
I am saying why some people like me prefer Nvidia. I am not interested in what the majority of people prefer or what they can afford. For me GTX 970 or 980 are both pretty decent and not overly expensive.
I also don't like how the new AMD card like R3 390 and R3 390x are burning hot. YOu need a freaking fire extinguisher for those cards. For some people efficiency and temperature and heat and fan noise are not very important and they care about pure raw power. For me GTX 970 and 980 are the clear winners. I mean GTX 980 smacks the new AMD cards and half the power usage.
Again I am not saying that Nvidia is always better. It's targeted to diffferent demographics. My response was to that guy who claims that because we are buying NVIDIA we are blind fanboys who settle for an "inferior" product. There are many pros to picking the Nvidia cards and often the only downside is price.
Out of curiosity, did you ever have a GeForce 400 or 500 series card?
Also, if GPU temperature is the issue, there are plenty of Radeon R9 390 and 390X cards that don't run terribly hot. You can stick a good cooler on a 275 W card and keep it suitably cool. They aren't so great if power consumption or heating up the room are your main concerns, though.
I've never understood this loyalty to a brand. At some point you would've wasted money on an inferior ATI/AMD card in the past, same with NVIDIA.
It will be the same with future cards aswell.
This.
THE idiotic thing is justifying it with fairy tales.
Except we aren't talking about myths or fables, but actual occurences. People will make decisions over buying products, quite often based on previous experiences with a particular brand etc, and this will often colour their perception of a particular brand irrevocably, once bitten twice shy for example. So despite improvements over past examples of a particular brands products, customers can often end up avoiding a particular brand because of their history. Facts, however unappealing they might be, are not fairy tales.
FACT: both brands had enough shitty drivers so throwing around fairy tale that one has better drivers than the other is uneducated (fanboi) drivel.
So yeah, thats FACTS.
You knowingly buy inferior product and you have to justify it to yourself and the world. I simply dont care rofl
For instance peopel STILL gave 20-30% more money for ASUS brand when all GPUs were reference design/production and all you had to do is put your sticker on it. EXACTLY SAME GPU with different sticker.
So tell me, wheres your "facts" now.
Or, now ASUS tries to compete with STRIXX. Its still much more expensive than other superior products.
SO please, spare us the talk. You want to buy inferior, as i said, fine, but fairy tales dont fly. Your justifications WHY you buy inferior (or more expensive) are yours to deal with.
Actually most of the time nvidia gives better performance and people who want the very best performance go for Intel and nvidia. Intel destroys amd in cpu performance and most of the top nvidia gpus give better performance.
whether they are better value for money is a completely different story, as nvidia and Intel are almost always more expensive.
While Nvidia does give better top end performance than AMD substantially more often than not (due to their willingness to build larger dies), it's also out of the price range of most people. When's the last time that a sub-$500 Nvidia GPU was clearly faster than anything AMD offered? 2009, maybe? If you're looking to spend $200 on a GPU, it shouldn't matter who has the best $650 GPU. What matters is who has the best $200 GPU, and that is often AMD.
Eh, they're willing to build larger dies because they have the power efficiency. Particularly pre Fury X, if AMD had built a 600mm2 die it would of melted through the floor.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I've never understood this loyalty to a brand. At some point you would've wasted money on an inferior ATI/AMD card in the past, same with NVIDIA.
It will be the same with future cards aswell.
This.
THE idiotic thing is justifying it with fairy tales.
Except we aren't talking about myths or fables, but actual occurences. People will make decisions over buying products, quite often based on previous experiences with a particular brand etc, and this will often colour their perception of a particular brand irrevocably, once bitten twice shy for example. So despite improvements over past examples of a particular brands products, customers can often end up avoiding a particular brand because of their history. Facts, however unappealing they might be, are not fairy tales.
FACT: both brands had enough shitty drivers so throwing around fairy tale that one has better drivers than the other is uneducated (fanboi) drivel.
So yeah, thats FACTS.
You knowingly buy inferior product and you have to justify it to yourself and the world. I simply dont care rofl
For instance peopel STILL gave 20-30% more money for ASUS brand when all GPUs were reference design/production and all you had to do is put your sticker on it. EXACTLY SAME GPU with different sticker.
So tell me, wheres your "facts" now.
Or, now ASUS tries to compete with STRIXX. Its still much more expensive than other superior products.
SO please, spare us the talk. You want to buy inferior, as i said, fine, but fairy tales dont fly. Your justifications WHY you buy inferior (or more expensive) are yours to deal with.
Actually most of the time nvidia gives better performance and people who want the very best performance go for Intel and nvidia. Intel destroys amd in cpu performance and most of the top nvidia gpus give better performance.
whether they are better value for money is a completely different story, as nvidia and Intel are almost always more expensive.
While Nvidia does give better top end performance than AMD substantially more often than not (due to their willingness to build larger dies), it's also out of the price range of most people. When's the last time that a sub-$500 Nvidia GPU was clearly faster than anything AMD offered? 2009, maybe? If you're looking to spend $200 on a GPU, it shouldn't matter who has the best $650 GPU. What matters is who has the best $200 GPU, and that is often AMD.
I am saying why some people like me prefer Nvidia. I am not interested in what the majority of people prefer or what they can afford. For me GTX 970 or 980 are both pretty decent and not overly expensive.
I also don't like how the new AMD card like R3 390 and R3 390x are burning hot. YOu need a freaking fire extinguisher for those cards. For some people efficiency and temperature and heat and fan noise are not very important and they care about pure raw power. For me GTX 970 and 980 are the clear winners. I mean GTX 980 smacks the new AMD cards and half the power usage.
Again I am not saying that Nvidia is always better. It's targeted to diffferent demographics. My response was to that guy who claims that because we are buying NVIDIA we are blind fanboys who settle for an "inferior" product. There are many pros to picking the Nvidia cards and often the only downside is price.
but with the new windows 10 driver the fury x smashes the 980ti.
I've always used nvidia cards and always liked the quality of the card itself but for the past year the drivers have been absolute trash, If you don't believe me here is the feedback page of their latest driver, nothing but complaints.
Despite this being a beta version of the driver, the performance is nothing short of being magnificent. The results aren’t necessarily unexpected, as we’ve been able to see such gains from the tweaking and reworking of the back-end and lower level API’s of drivers in the past, but to have been able to perform better and consistently better in this manner is just wonderful.
Initially, like you, we thought Crimson, or AMD’s Radeon Software was just a nice UI overhaul and a renaming to help divert peoples attention to the poorly optimized CCC of the past. But it’s so much more then that. Certainly the slides call it as being a revolutionary upgrade, one that brings a new era of Radeon, but they just might also writing those lines based on truth. While it isn’t a truly mind-blowing amount of performance, it’s a consistent performance increase at 1440P and 1080P in nearly any game. Even Planetside 2, a not so well optimized game, for any GPU, see’s an appreciable gain. Some games even see a far more substantial increase with Fiji, such as Battlefront, Battlefield 4 and Fallout 4. This is similar to the slow and steady increase in performance of the 7970 and the 290X that has allowed them to remain significant even in the wake of more modern releases. They can compete by the very efficiency, or conversely the initial inefficiency, of the drivers.
Stability? Sure, that’s something that can only be truly evaluated over time and with enough samples. But currently there were no issues and I hope that trend continues.
This is hopefully only the beginning of a new course and commitment from AMD for their software and drivers. There have been many issues in the past, and perhaps those issues will largely remain there, in the past, with other historical events that should likely remain there. The performance improvements are fantastic, so let’s hope that both sides can bring even more improvements with such driver releases.
While Nvidia does give better top end performance than AMD substantially more often than not (due to their willingness to build larger dies), it's also out of the price range of most people. When's the last time that a sub-$500 Nvidia GPU was clearly faster than anything AMD offered? 2009, maybe? If you're looking to spend $200 on a GPU, it shouldn't matter who has the best $650 GPU. What matters is who has the best $200 GPU, and that is often AMD.
Eh, they're willing to build larger dies because they have the power efficiency. Particularly pre Fury X, if AMD had built a 600mm2 die it would of melted through the floor.
Nonsense. Let's consider the last nine or so generations.
2007: Radeon HD 3870 and GeForce 9800 GTX had similar energy efficiency, but the G92 die was much bigger than the tiny RV670, so the GeForce 9800 GTX was faster, at the expense of using more power.
2008: Radeon HD 4870 and GeForce GTX 280 had similar energy efficiency, but the GT200 die was much bigger than RV770, so the GeForce GTX 280 was faster, at the expense of using more power.
2009: Radeon HD 5870 had massively better energy efficiency than GeForce GTX 285, while the GeForce 400 series was horribly delayed, so AMD had the top end all to itself for about seven months in spite of having a much smaller die, as Nvidia was a process node behind.
2010: Radeon HD 5870 had about 40% better energy efficiency than the GeForce GTX 480, but the GF100 die was about 70% bigger than Cypress, so the GeForce GTX 480 was a slightly faster card, at the expense of burning about 60% more power.
2011: Radeon HD 6970 had substantially better energy efficiency than the GeForce GTX 580, but the GF110 die was much larger than Cayman, so the GeForce GTX 580 was a slightly faster card, at the expense of burning much more power.
2012: Radeon HD 7970 was available for about four months before the GeForce GTX 680, so AMD had the high end all to itself for that time. Once the GTX 680 launched, Tahiti was a larger die than GK104, but Tahiti largely used the extra die space for compute stuff rather than graphics, so the cards gave comparable performance, with the 7970 using a little more power.
2013: GeForce GTX Titan was available for much of the year before the Radeon R9 290X launched, and its GK110 die was massively larger than the older Tahiti die, allowing much more performance. Titan also burned more power than a 7970, though it did have somewhat better energy efficiency. When the 290X launched, its Hawaii die was still much smaller than GK110, but performance was comparable.
2014: AMD's Radeon R9 290X was still its top end all year, while Nvidia launched the GeForce GTX 980, a substantially faster card with a smaller die and better energy efficiency. This meant Nvidia had the top end all to itself because it was a generation ahead.
2015: The GeForce Titan X is slightly faster than the Radeon R9 Fury X while using a little less power because the Titan X has significantly better energy efficiency. The GM200 and Fiji die sizes are pretty close, and Nvidia's advantage is really due to making an entirely new architecture in 2014, while AMD was still selling derivatives of their GCN architecture from 2012.
By my count, if you go back 9 years to AMD's acquisition of ATI, AMD has had the clearly fastest card for about 11 months (7 for Radeon HD 5870, 4 for Radeon HD 7970), it's been very close for somewhat over a year (1 year for Radeon R9 290X versus GeForce GTX 780 Ti, and several months for GeForce GTX Titan X versus Radeon R9 Fury X). Nvidia has had the fastest top end card for the other slightly less than 7 years.
Meanwhile, Nvidia has had a large energy efficiency advantage for a little over a year (GeForce GTX 980 launch through present), AMD has had a large energy efficiency advantage for about 2 1/2 years (Radeon HD 5870 launch through GeForce GTX 680 launch), and it's been basically tied the rest of the time. So on average, AMD has actually had better energy efficiency than Nvidia; saying Nvidia is typically better there is purely recency bias.
Finally, if you look at die sizes, AMD has had a larger die size for a little over a year (8 months for GeForce GTX 680 launch through GeForce GTX Titan launch and 7 months for GeForce GTX 980 launch through GeForce GTX Titan X launch), they've been about tied for several months (Radeon R9 Fury X launch through present), and Nvidia has had a much larger die the other 7+ years.
The only times AMD has ever had a larger die than Nvidia was because with Kepler, Nvidia moved to a strategy of having its upper midrange chip of an architecture launch several months before its top end chip, and if Nvidia's upper midrange chip of one generation beat the top end of the previous generation, that had to serve as Nvidia's top end for a while, during which AMD had the larger die. AMD would always try to launch its top end chip first, and Nvidia did the same before Kepler.
AMD cards tend to get faster over time. For instance if you take the HD3870 verse the 8800GT today, 2 cards that competed in the same price group. The HD3870 would be faster because it had the more forward architecture that most GPUs have adopted today. That's not including the ridiculous overclock you can do on them since they run so cold.
To say AMD has the smaller die strategy today I think would be incorrect. Since Kepler, its been the AMD cards that have used more power and generated more heat outside the top range. But if you look at nVidia's current architecture, its very similar to AMDs. Probably an admission they had the right strategy.
With the similarities in the products, I think its hard to say one does it better than the other. It all comes down to drivers and features which are also fairly similar. So the choice really doesn't matter. What this does mean is that the artificial limitations on AMD hardware is slowly eroding. A sign that developers are prefering AMD methods since the consoles now use AMD hardware.
AMD cards tend to get faster over time. For instance if you take the HD3870 verse the 8800GT today, 2 cards that competed in the same price group. The HD3870 would be faster because it had the more forward architecture that most GPUs have adopted today. That's not including the ridiculous overclock you can do on them since they run so cold.
To say AMD has the smaller die strategy today I think would be incorrect. Since Kepler, its been the AMD cards that have used more power and generated more heat outside the top range. But if you look at nVidia's current architecture, its very similar to AMDs. Probably an admission they had the right strategy.
With the similarities in the products, I think its hard to say one does it better than the other. It all comes down to drivers and features which are also fairly similar. So the choice really doesn't matter. What this does mean is that the artificial limitations on AMD hardware is slowly eroding. A sign that developers are prefering AMD methods since the consoles now use AMD hardware.
Mostly agree with you except the developer's choice. Now ... I'm sure AMD made a deal that neither of the vendors could refuse. Also if I remember correctly nVidia didn't even want to get into console manufacturing because that would tax their factories immensely. Something that sadly we're seeing over at AMD now, with delayed launches and slow distribution.
I remember purchasing my 290X on launch day in my country. And the Fury X is still *not* available.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
AMD cards tend to get faster over time. For instance if you take the HD3870 verse the 8800GT today, 2 cards that competed in the same price group. The HD3870 would be faster because it had the more forward architecture that most GPUs have adopted today. That's not including the ridiculous overclock you can do on them since they run so cold.
To say AMD has the smaller die strategy today I think would be incorrect. Since Kepler, its been the AMD cards that have used more power and generated more heat outside the top range. But if you look at nVidia's current architecture, its very similar to AMDs. Probably an admission they had the right strategy.
With the similarities in the products, I think its hard to say one does it better than the other. It all comes down to drivers and features which are also fairly similar. So the choice really doesn't matter. What this does mean is that the artificial limitations on AMD hardware is slowly eroding. A sign that developers are prefering AMD methods since the consoles now use AMD hardware.
Mostly agree with you except the developer's choice. Now ... I'm sure AMD made a deal that neither of the vendors could refuse. Also if I remember correctly nVidia didn't even want to get into console manufacturing because that would tax their factories immensely. Something that sadly we're seeing over at AMD now, with delayed launches and slow distribution.
I remember purchasing my 290X on launch day in my country. And the Fury X is still *not* available.
if your home city is correct, youre wrong about fury and fury x. In my country (a bit east from you) it was available couple of days after launch....and still is.
Comments
And thats before driver update. And that guy was constantly accused of being NVidia fanboi. Best when he says "i thought i never gonna say this"
And next time when you talk about YOUR personal decision dont say "people". You are 1 guy.
ATM AMD cards overall perform better and by quite a margin for the same price.
As i said, you buy inferior product, its fine, your justification WHY you bought it is yours and yours alone. I want most for my money *shrug*
If you bought 970 before 390 was out, then you did fine. If you bought it afterwards....nope
Same with 960 and 380, while 370 and 950 are more close together, still a nice edge for 370.
Also, if GPU temperature is the issue, there are plenty of Radeon R9 390 and 390X cards that don't run terribly hot. You can stick a good cooler on a 275 W card and keep it suitably cool. They aren't so great if power consumption or heating up the room are your main concerns, though.
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-software-performance-analysis-is-this-the-crimson-tide/
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/897682/geforce-drivers/official-359-00-game-ready-whql-display-driver-feedback-thread-11-19-15-/
My next card will 100% be amd.
Conclusion
Despite this being a beta version of the driver, the performance is nothing short of being magnificent. The results aren’t necessarily unexpected, as we’ve been able to see such gains from the tweaking and reworking of the back-end and lower level API’s of drivers in the past, but to have been able to perform better and consistently better in this manner is just wonderful.
Initially, like you, we thought Crimson, or AMD’s Radeon Software was just a nice UI overhaul and a renaming to help divert peoples attention to the poorly optimized CCC of the past. But it’s so much more then that. Certainly the slides call it as being a revolutionary upgrade, one that brings a new era of Radeon, but they just might also writing those lines based on truth. While it isn’t a truly mind-blowing amount of performance, it’s a consistent performance increase at 1440P and 1080P in nearly any game. Even Planetside 2, a not so well optimized game, for any GPU, see’s an appreciable gain. Some games even see a far more substantial increase with Fiji, such as Battlefront, Battlefield 4 and Fallout 4. This is similar to the slow and steady increase in performance of the 7970 and the 290X that has allowed them to remain significant even in the wake of more modern releases. They can compete by the very efficiency, or conversely the initial inefficiency, of the drivers.
Stability? Sure, that’s something that can only be truly evaluated over time and with enough samples. But currently there were no issues and I hope that trend continues.
This is hopefully only the beginning of a new course and commitment from AMD for their software and drivers. There have been many issues in the past, and perhaps those issues will largely remain there, in the past, with other historical events that should likely remain there. The performance improvements are fantastic, so let’s hope that both sides can bring even more improvements with such driver releases.
2007: Radeon HD 3870 and GeForce 9800 GTX had similar energy efficiency, but the G92 die was much bigger than the tiny RV670, so the GeForce 9800 GTX was faster, at the expense of using more power.
2008: Radeon HD 4870 and GeForce GTX 280 had similar energy efficiency, but the GT200 die was much bigger than RV770, so the GeForce GTX 280 was faster, at the expense of using more power.
2009: Radeon HD 5870 had massively better energy efficiency than GeForce GTX 285, while the GeForce 400 series was horribly delayed, so AMD had the top end all to itself for about seven months in spite of having a much smaller die, as Nvidia was a process node behind.
2010: Radeon HD 5870 had about 40% better energy efficiency than the GeForce GTX 480, but the GF100 die was about 70% bigger than Cypress, so the GeForce GTX 480 was a slightly faster card, at the expense of burning about 60% more power.
2011: Radeon HD 6970 had substantially better energy efficiency than the GeForce GTX 580, but the GF110 die was much larger than Cayman, so the GeForce GTX 580 was a slightly faster card, at the expense of burning much more power.
2012: Radeon HD 7970 was available for about four months before the GeForce GTX 680, so AMD had the high end all to itself for that time. Once the GTX 680 launched, Tahiti was a larger die than GK104, but Tahiti largely used the extra die space for compute stuff rather than graphics, so the cards gave comparable performance, with the 7970 using a little more power.
2013: GeForce GTX Titan was available for much of the year before the Radeon R9 290X launched, and its GK110 die was massively larger than the older Tahiti die, allowing much more performance. Titan also burned more power than a 7970, though it did have somewhat better energy efficiency. When the 290X launched, its Hawaii die was still much smaller than GK110, but performance was comparable.
2014: AMD's Radeon R9 290X was still its top end all year, while Nvidia launched the GeForce GTX 980, a substantially faster card with a smaller die and better energy efficiency. This meant Nvidia had the top end all to itself because it was a generation ahead.
2015: The GeForce Titan X is slightly faster than the Radeon R9 Fury X while using a little less power because the Titan X has significantly better energy efficiency. The GM200 and Fiji die sizes are pretty close, and Nvidia's advantage is really due to making an entirely new architecture in 2014, while AMD was still selling derivatives of their GCN architecture from 2012.
By my count, if you go back 9 years to AMD's acquisition of ATI, AMD has had the clearly fastest card for about 11 months (7 for Radeon HD 5870, 4 for Radeon HD 7970), it's been very close for somewhat over a year (1 year for Radeon R9 290X versus GeForce GTX 780 Ti, and several months for GeForce GTX Titan X versus Radeon R9 Fury X). Nvidia has had the fastest top end card for the other slightly less than 7 years.
Meanwhile, Nvidia has had a large energy efficiency advantage for a little over a year (GeForce GTX 980 launch through present), AMD has had a large energy efficiency advantage for about 2 1/2 years (Radeon HD 5870 launch through GeForce GTX 680 launch), and it's been basically tied the rest of the time. So on average, AMD has actually had better energy efficiency than Nvidia; saying Nvidia is typically better there is purely recency bias.
Finally, if you look at die sizes, AMD has had a larger die size for a little over a year (8 months for GeForce GTX 680 launch through GeForce GTX Titan launch and 7 months for GeForce GTX 980 launch through GeForce GTX Titan X launch), they've been about tied for several months (Radeon R9 Fury X launch through present), and Nvidia has had a much larger die the other 7+ years.
The only times AMD has ever had a larger die than Nvidia was because with Kepler, Nvidia moved to a strategy of having its upper midrange chip of an architecture launch several months before its top end chip, and if Nvidia's upper midrange chip of one generation beat the top end of the previous generation, that had to serve as Nvidia's top end for a while, during which AMD had the larger die. AMD would always try to launch its top end chip first, and Nvidia did the same before Kepler.
To say AMD has the smaller die strategy today I think would be incorrect. Since Kepler, its been the AMD cards that have used more power and generated more heat outside the top range. But if you look at nVidia's current architecture, its very similar to AMDs. Probably an admission they had the right strategy.
With the similarities in the products, I think its hard to say one does it better than the other. It all comes down to drivers and features which are also fairly similar. So the choice really doesn't matter. What this does mean is that the artificial limitations on AMD hardware is slowly eroding. A sign that developers are prefering AMD methods since the consoles now use AMD hardware.
I remember purchasing my 290X on launch day in my country. And the Fury X is still *not* available.
Along with this
http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_6?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=r9+fury+x&sprefix=fury+x,aps,413