geforce beats both of these crap companies
you should make a thread about itTanzklaue wrote:
did you guys know that even if someone changed his name, the ignore function still tracks them? fascinating.
this proves that peppy once knew how to do webdesign.
>ImplyingTanzklaue wrote:
did you guys know that even if someone changed his name, the ignore function still tracks them? fascinating.
this proves that peppy once knew how to do webdesign.
>Bothing with such a thing on a site like osu!IppE wrote:
>not removing the footer with custom stylesCorin wrote:
The footer of the osu! website says otherwise about pebbles and webdesign
>implying that he changed his name just to avoid thatTanzklaue wrote:
did you guys know that even if someone changed his name, the ignore function still tracks them? fascinating.
i didnt change it i unchanged it for personal reasons i dont want to get intoTrash Boat wrote:
>implying that he changed his name just to avoid thatTanzklaue wrote:
did you guys know that even if someone changed his name, the ignore function still tracks them? fascinating.
Off-TopicAsk GD~~
For the not-so-logical discussions.
BBQ??????? XDB1rd wrote:
I would be sad If I bought a reference 290. non-reference are so much better.
Tanzklaue wrote:
Actually I heard nvidia cards are more power efficient and run cooler.Tanzklaue wrote:
nowadays, it's 99% preferation. i personally swear on nvidia, other prefer radeon. nvidia is faster, but also more expensive and more consuming on your electrics bill. AMD is cheaper, slower, but many games get optimized for AMD cards first.
i also only now realized that waxman confused Ati and AMD. well, replace AMD with Ati in my statement and it should work out still.
in case of processors, again, if nothing changed, intel is far superior and most intel processors beat AMD ones easily when in the same price range.
then again i am no computerexpert and there is more that goes into performance than raw power, synergy is important too.
Urgh.... Here we go again heh...Kanye West wrote:
My friend has an R9 290 and the thing sounds like a leaf blower on max setting.
that would be a new development, last time i checked nvidia cards consumed electricity like anime consumes souls.
In Australia the 290 is $150 cheaper than the 780 and performs the same. The 290X is the same spice and performs better. soo...Corin wrote:
Nvidia is better for your wallet and better in performance anyways so.
Best buy would be Nvidia.
The 290 also doubles as a room heater and if you wire it up to the house with watercooling you no longer need a boiler, not to mention my housemates one is noisey as fuck with stock cooler (I think his is a saphire).IppE wrote:
Maybe electricity prices are sillyhigh in britbongland and he was talking about power efficiency?
But yes, Corin is quite silly.
>FanboyingB1rd wrote:
The 290 offers a better performance for price ratio, while the 780 is quiter and cooler. So you should just admit that both sides have their pros and cons, instead of hating on the other side like a fanboy.
Corin wrote:
The 290 also doubles as a room heater and if you wire it up to the house with watercooling you no longer need a boiler
Corin wrote:
>Intel
>Graphics cards
You sure there mate?
Also AMD is always behind with technology it seems, only reason AMD is good on battlefield is because "M-MUH MANTLE AMD SHILLING AND BENCHMARKS" and purposfully limited Nvidia cards. And then Nvidia released new drivers that bypassed it and suddenly a GTX680 surpasses the latest AMD card on it.
Well done bellends.
Nvidia is better for your wallet and better in performance anyways so.
Best buy would be Nvidia.
Alright. Lets the argument battle begin shall we?Corin wrote:
The 290 also doubles as a room heater and if you wire it up to the house with watercooling you no longer need a boiler, not to mention my housemates one is noisey as fuck with stock cooler (I think his is a saphire).IppE wrote:
Maybe electricity prices are sillyhigh in britbongland and he was talking about power efficiency?
But yes, Corin is quite silly.
Down here it's like a £50 difference between the 780 and the 290 but I'd rather pay an extra £50, have better drivers and not have a wind tunnel in my room.
It's 30c here, it's hot enough in the UK.
Also I think IppE is right, power consumption is lower but I don't pay the electric bill so I don't care too much.
Im a tad bit of a Nvidia Fanboy, But Ive had issues with both sides. Its not Always the driver at fault. Sometimes its your Own System Configuration.
Or something else on your system that is out of date.
Ive had Nvidia Drivers give me hell.
And the same goes for AMD on a friends system.
Best just buy the card....
Thats in your Budget
That Performs how YOU want in the games YOU play...
and has the features YOU care about
Nvidia - 3D - Geforce Experience - Shadowplay - Shield
AMD - Eyefinity - Mantle - Raptor (GFE)
Etc...
And if you have a problem, Just report in here =D - Simmons33 on tomshardware uk ( link at the source).
To most people its just as obvious Intel CPU's are superior to AMD CPU's just as nVidia GPU's are superior to AMD GPU's.
However, the superiority of nVidia GPU's are AMD GPU's aren't nearly as substantial as Intel's CPU's over AMD. The real problem with AMD GPU's are with OEM's, software quality and product cycle alignment with nVidia.
Unlike AMD CPU's, AMD GPU's are exceptionally well engineered, just as well as nVidia's, albeit entirely different approaches. This makes AMD GPU's superior for datamining (Bitcoin, etc) where a competing nVidia GPU would need to be TESLA-based, and even then not as effective at mass execution. But the downside is AMD's less powerful but more plentiful cores are no competition to nVidia's more powerful but less plentiful core's in raw texel throughput, making them better for gaming.
Which is interesting when you consider AMD GPU's are in all the game consoles. The answer to that: they're cheaper. Just like their CPU's. Console OEM's would never hit their price target using Intel CPU's and nVidia GPU's. That approach is why the original XBOX wasn't as successful as the XBOX 360. It was just too expensive compared to the PS2 and Gamecube, and even at that price Microsoft lost tons of money on it, somewhere in the order of $100/ea at launch
If you want opinions!IppE wrote:
but muh opinions