Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123

Thread: AMD gets beaten by NVidia, any plans?

  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vighy View Post
    So you are just telling to each others that "in your point of view you are right", but nobody tries to fix some stable point of view, onto which everybody can agree.

    You are not discussing: you are speaking to the walls.
    QFT.

    If you care for FOSS, get an ATi card* or Intel IGP.
    If you want the best driver (especially feature-wise) available right now, get a nVidia-card.
    There's no definite answer to this, everybodys got to decide this on their own.

    * and don't be stupid and buy a card not yet supported by the FOSS-drivers and then complain about the quality of the proprietary driver.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    209

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman
    What's wrong with them? I can even play Fallout 3 using medium details on my Radeon X1600XT. On GF6800 Far Cry just looked horrible and I can say: try gaming on it. Compositions are faster using OS drivers than using nvidia binary blob and GF7600 (I had this card only one day, so I didn't tested it good enough).
    Please read again what jonnycat26 post before. I don't thinks that's what he means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium
    well.. bevor i has a amd... i has nvidia .. and i don't can they linux works better on nvidia.

    only wine--- NOT LINUX works better on nvidia!
    Please use proper English, cause you make many readers confused with your post.

    IMHO, the post above this one is more reasonable for me..
    Last edited by t.s.; 02-08-2009 at 05:09 AM.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    in 2009... a 4870 makes more fps per watt than a gtx280!!!

    in 2009 a rv740 in 40nm will makes much more fps per "watt" than a gtx295!!!!

    LMAO, uhhuh, meanwhile your consuming 68.4 watts websurfing and desktop stuff while the GTX 280 is consuming 43.7 watts doing the same task. Also depending on the game there are many instances where your 4870 has a lower fps per "watt" then your 4870.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...er,2122-6.html

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    fps-per-watt is about as useful a measurement as bogomips.

    The only meaningful measurement is the power needed to run 2D and 3D at the monitor's refresh rate.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ant P. View Post
    fps-per-watt is about as useful a measurement as bogomips.

    The only meaningful measurement is the power needed to run 2D and 3D at the monitor's refresh rate.
    Not completely true, what if the card has a hard time reaching vsync max framerate at the monitors native res or simply where vsync is not desired?

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    LMAO, uhhuh, meanwhile your consuming 68.4 watts websurfing and desktop stuff while the GTX 280 is consuming 43.7 watts doing the same task.
    Well, for me these are both ridiculous high numbers. Has AMD or Nvidia actually a working solution on Linux where you can use such a high end card in combination with an IGP where the total graphics power consumption is less than 10 watt during normal desktop usage just doing a framebuffer refresh?

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.s. View Post
    Please read again what jonnycat26 post before. I don't thinks that's what he means.
    Alright, it's not so important.



    I'm happy with the newest catalyst driver - if I don't 'touch' it it works. When AMD will really improve video playback and stability their drivers should be as good as Nvidia. I hope this happen in few months.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    51

    Default

    For the love of zeus, who gives a crap about cuda! It's running in software for your games.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moronix View Post
    For the love of zeus, who gives a crap about cuda! It's running in software for your games.
    Quite a few people care about GPGPU, personally for me it's more a concern then gaming in linux.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Just to make it more painful
    http://xbmc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=45525

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •