The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore.
Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble.
Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience.
Once AMD is able to ramp up production and has time for cards to hit the market, they'll be in stock at $200. My best guess on that is a few weeks, but that's really just a guess.
I will be getting a custom 480 once they hit the market. The two tests I have seen from Powercolor and Sapphire show at least a 20% increase in performance over the reference version.
The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore.
Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble.
Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience.
Not to discredit your own experience, but in all fairness, every computer had a lot of little tiny problems up until recently. It wasn't just an AMD thing.
Shoot, it wasn't until about XP SP3 that you didn't have to reboot your computer on a daily basis just to clear everyday memory leaks, and reinstall the OS once a year because it would just creep to a halt.
I will be getting a custom 480 once they hit the market. The two tests I have seen from Powercolor and Sapphire show at least a 20% increase in performance over the reference version.
I will be getting a custom 480 once they hit the market. The two tests I have seen from Powercolor and Sapphire show at least a 20% increase in performance over the reference version.
Guys video is kind of annoying to watch. He over acts, bleeps out unneccesary swearing (half the time, other half he misses?) and just gives basic information. Wish he would just stop using cool sweary guy attitude and just talk normally.
I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.
Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable? It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.
Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia. Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?
Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore.
Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble.
Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience.
Not to discredit your own experience, but in all fairness, every computer had a lot of little tiny problems up until recently. It wasn't just an AMD thing.
Shoot, it wasn't until about XP SP3 that you didn't have to reboot your computer on a daily basis just to clear everyday memory leaks, and reinstall the OS once a year because it would just creep to a halt.
That is true. In AMD's defense, the only PC problems I ever had were on AMD machines, mainly because I only had AMD machines for the first 6 or 7 years of having pc's.
I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.
Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable? It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.
Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia. Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?
Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?
I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.
Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable? It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.
Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia. Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?
Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?
I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
If you genuinely are responsible for 100 builds, then you surely know that it's possible to use an AMD GPU with an Intel CPU (as I have in both my current desktop and my previous one) or an Nvidia GPU with an AMD CPU. Unless you're getting integrated graphics, the choice of a CPU is independent of the choice of a GPU.
It's kind of like asserting that Crucial memory with a Crucial SSD has tended to have problems more often than G.Skill memory with a Samsung SSD. It tells you nothing about the actual source of the problems (which may have been that the Crucial builds tended to be paired with dodgy power supplies and have nothing to do with the memory or SSD), and even if it's true, it could easily be that Crucial was more reliable on one component and less on the other. It's the sort of thing that a knowledgeable person trying to provide real data just wouldn't say, as it intentionally muddles the whole thing.
CPU hardware failures are also rare enough that even 100 builds means you're suffering from a pretty severe small sample size problem.
I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.
Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable? It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.
Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia. Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?
Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?
Because sometimes stupid people have experiences that are of their own making, and believe the fault lay with something other than themselves.
Now, I'm not trying to call you stupid. There are some pretty common traits though, that don't really stand up to truth, and really really sound like nVidia paid a few people to run around to random forums and spew some unfounded trash talk.
I have used both many times for many diff builds and Nvidia/Intel just have a lower fail rate and less problems overall in the longterm imo.
Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
Why do people compare Nvidia/Intel to AMD, as though Nvidia and Intel are interchangeable, and as though CPUs and GPUs are interchangeable? It's actually pretty rare for CPUs to have reliability problems, whether Intel, AMD, or for that matter, ARM.
Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia. Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?
Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
Why do people discredit others experiences by talking shit like it is only their own that matters?
I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
What a bunch of nonsense. So if you have a car accident, everyone has had a car accident, because, you know, "thats you experience" right?
And, something that you seem oblivious about, same manufacturers make MOBOs AND GPUs.
My family has bought bunch of AMD laptops back in 2008 (with a dedicated GPU) and i have few AMD builds from that time. All still work today without any issue. So AMD builds NEVER fail. My experience > than yours.
I bought an RX 480 8GB and glad that I did. I play at 1920x1080 and this card rocks. I intend to go 1440 at some point hence the 8GB card. Haven't had an AMD video card since it was ATI, I jumped ship because I didn't like the route Nvidia are taking.
Has not stopped me from more than doubling my money on the AMD stock I purchased in March that I recommended on here, and with there contracts with both Sony and Microsoft to supply the core for the PS4 Neo and Xbox Scorpio, their VR set with built in graphics processor ( in development ), and the fact the stock is still trading below cash value, AMD is set to run to $20 -$25 by end of year.
Comments
The first gaming PC I had back in 1999 had an AMD processor in it. I was strictly an AMD advocate until 2008. I just got tired of all the little problems. None were big problems, just tiny, but they all added up and caused me to jump ship to Intel and Nvidia. I personally never had any glaring problems anymore.
Recently, my wife bought a new laptop for work, and I decided to go AMD again for old time's sake. That laptop has been nothing but trouble.
Again, keeping it brief, but I'm not buying AMD again. Every time I have it end up regretting it somehow. I know others have had great success with AMD, but that has never been my experience.
-Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.-
https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-GTX480-Graphics-015-P3-1480-KR/dp/B004EHWMP6
More seriously, there are a bunch of Radeon RX 480s out of stock at $200, simply because supplies are so short at the moment.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601203818
Once AMD is able to ramp up production and has time for cards to hit the market, they'll be in stock at $200. My best guess on that is a few weeks, but that's really just a guess.
Shoot, it wasn't until about XP SP3 that you didn't have to reboot your computer on a daily basis just to clear everyday memory leaks, and reinstall the OS once a year because it would just creep to a halt.
Ever since AMD bought ATI they have been really missing the mark.
Video cards can have problems more commonly, but some are the fault of the board partner, not AMD or Nvidia. Do you really thing that having an Nvidia chip versus an AMD chip inside the card makes Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte systematically more or less likely to screw up a card?
Video driver problems happen more commonly, but for video driver issues that don't affect the desktop, few consumers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a bug in a video driver and a bug in a game.
It's a good smell test to find the people who just aren't being very reasonable.
But like I said, it has been my experience.
-Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.-
"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
I have close to 100 builds and provide tech support after the build, in my experience AMD/ATI builds fail at the hardware level faster and more often than my Nvidia/Intel builds. Run your mouth all you like, that is MY experience and only the ignorant would think they hav any right to call foul based on such an obvious personal experience.
It's kind of like asserting that Crucial memory with a Crucial SSD has tended to have problems more often than G.Skill memory with a Samsung SSD. It tells you nothing about the actual source of the problems (which may have been that the Crucial builds tended to be paired with dodgy power supplies and have nothing to do with the memory or SSD), and even if it's true, it could easily be that Crucial was more reliable on one component and less on the other. It's the sort of thing that a knowledgeable person trying to provide real data just wouldn't say, as it intentionally muddles the whole thing.
CPU hardware failures are also rare enough that even 100 builds means you're suffering from a pretty severe small sample size problem.
Now, I'm not trying to call you stupid. There are some pretty common traits though, that don't really stand up to truth, and really really sound like nVidia paid a few people to run around to random forums and spew some unfounded trash talk.
And, something that you seem oblivious about, same manufacturers make MOBOs AND GPUs.
My family has bought bunch of AMD laptops back in 2008 (with a dedicated GPU) and i have few AMD builds from that time. All still work today without any issue. So AMD builds NEVER fail. My experience > than yours.
http://techarx.com/gtx-900-series-dropped-legacy/