Nvidia vs AMD for Ark

[ded gaem]

this game runs better on a 550m than it does on a desktop HD7570. i appreciate these are both low end cards, but hardware wise the 7570 should smoke the 550m, and yet it doesnt in this game for some reason.

is this a general trend in ark performance, or do higher end AMD cards perform at the level you would expect compared to Nvidia cards?

[†TheReaper†]

In all honesty, until AMD removes their open source, NVidia will always have better. Nvidia copyrights their new developments (physx, amd can't replicate any of the physx in the game, so you lose out on a lot of interactive detail if you don't do nvidia). AMD open sources their development which nvidia then copies exactly. The individual hair development was implemented by amd, and nividia had it within weeks. So until that changes it's get NVidia for the best (not best company, not best practices, best gfx card and graphics), or get AMD and miss out a portion of the gfx completely. It's just not even a competition, even with AMD comparable cards, they aren't showing everything the game has to offer, due to NVidia physx (being the biggest). AMD will give you dumbed down, to non existent portions, and perform just as well.

[ded gaem]

引用自 †TheReaper†：

In all honesty, until AMD removes their open source, NVidia will always have better. Nvidia copyrights their new developments (physx, amd can't replicate any of the physx in the game, so you lose out on a lot of interactive detail if you don't do nvidia). AMD open sources their development which nvidia then copies exactly. The individual hair development was implemented by amd, and nividia had it within weeks. So until that changes it's get NVidia for the best (not best company, not best practices, best gfx card and graphics), or get AMD and miss out a portion of the gfx completely. It's just not even a competition, even with AMD comparable cards, they aren't showing everything the game has to offer, due to NVidia physx (being the biggest). AMD will give you dumbed down, to non existent portions, and perform just as well.

Flip side of things, the GTX 780 is now being outperformed by the HD 7790. Personally, I view closed source as inherently a con, so I'll take slightly less fancy gimmick ♥♥♥♥ in exchange for those two.

[necaradan666]

Here's a vid on a 1080ti, 1080p, all epic settings for 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT8LbmPqPac

[Lazarus {FATE}]

引用自 Anim：

引用自 =T$ECore= Sarsante：

Every game runs like a joke when you have a joke gpu

And the need to be nasty is......

... Veteran ARK playerbase requirement on these forums!

Since we're Necroing anyway.

[†TheReaper†]

It's just about whether you want to get everything the game has to offer, or decide to lose out on things amd just can't do. It's up to you as I stated, but Nvidia will continue to give the most, until amd changes.

For ark in specific, the volumetric fog and physx rock particles (with rock golem i believe, not rock chunks from mining) amd, just flat out can't do. So, it's like comparing an 18-wheeler deisiel carrying a house, to a truck carrying a trailer, even if they are the same speed, and cost the same, the diesel has more that it's bringing that the truck could never do.

[ded gaem]

引用自 †TheReaper†：

It's just about whether you want to get everything the game has to offer, or decide to lose out on things amd just can't do. It's up to you as I stated, but Nvidia will continue to give the most, until amd changes.

For ark in specific, the volumetric fog and physx rock particles (with rock golem i believe, not rock chunks from mining) amd, just flat out can't do. So, it's like comparing an 18-wheeler deisiel carrying a house, to a truck carrying a trailer, even if they are the same speed, and cost the same, the diesel has more that it's bringing that the truck could never do.

That's a ♥♥♥♥ analogy but you are right that the API support is what it is. That said, to me its up there with tresfx, a big nothing thats nowhere near important enough compared to something like RTX which imo is a genuine potential game changer in visuals.

[†TheReaper†]

It's not a ♥♥♥♥ anology, it's just factual. Yes rtx is nice, yes amd is lacking in that aspect, same with physx, but i'm not a fanboy of nvidia, so i'm not going to just boost them over amd because feels. That's a flat out simple way of explaining the difference between the two.

[Schrader]

There is literally no advantage to ever owning an AMD card over a Nvidia one

[†TheReaper†]

The only reason would be possibly cost (as they do cost less, more often then nvidia) but again, at the lack of content, if you could call it that. This is just an unbiased statement of fact them to make their own decision.
Informed Opinion:
"I personally think Nvidia is a piece of ♥♥♥♥, the company, period. There's a reason they've had to settle numerous lawsuits, they've flat out lied about specs of a card, and so many other issues to list, however, I am only using nvidia due to the fact they outshine amd with gfx, as soon as amd changes their practices, stops doing open source, and can keep up with nvidia's new developments, I will switch in a heartbeat and nvidia can go and ram it up their.....,"
Since everyone else was wanting to throw in their personal opinion, instead of giving valid information for someone to make up their own mind, figured i might as well to.

[ded gaem]

引用自 †TheReaper†：

It's not a ♥♥♥♥ anology, it's just factual. Yes rtx is nice, yes amd is lacking in that aspect, same with physx, but i'm not a fanboy of nvidia, so i'm not going to just boost them over amd because feels. That's a flat out simple way of explaining the difference between the two.

opengl begs to differ. The hardware itself is somewhat close, with amd sacrificing efficiency for something thats evidently more flexible and probably easier for them to maintain support for over time, hence older flagship nvidia cards getting utterly thrashed by entry level cards from amds lineup 2 years prior to the nvidia card in question. nvidia obviously have the edge in a lot of aspects on launch, their cards are usually more polished and run faster. this edge slowly gets pushed back over time by amd, usually, though amd simply doesnt have the money to compete with nvidias efficient designs they compensate by just giving you a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of compute that generalises well. you can see the difference here in how cards from either brand scale across resolutions. amds seem to scale near linearly with pixel count, whereas nvidia tank hard above whatever resolution theyre targeted at, which only gets more noticable with age. if you go nvidia, your card has a couple to a few years shelf life before they drop driver updates and you basically cant play new titles. my 290x on the other hand with all its updates still nets me a .1% low of about 58 fps on mordhau at 1080 high, thats a 7 year old card on a great looking modern game and it would run better if i didnt constantly idle at about 16-25gb ram usage. this is one thing you simply will not get with nvidia. if you are ok paying the premium and upgrading on more or less a fixed schedule then by all means go team green, but the two brands vary greatly in their strengths and weaknesses and just saying one is more powerful is retarded unless youre talking about specific chips compared at the peak of their performance.

[tametheark]

引用自 DEAChaos：

Its hard to properly compare different architectures with different pricing. Amd has the best bang for your bucks. But nvidia has the top performance. For the price of one 1080ti you can buy 3 Furycards in crossfire which will outperform the 1080ti greatly. But a good sli 1080ti setup is king in absolute performance.

This guy doesn't play ARK, you can only use 1 GPU for ARK. Nvidia gpu with intel cpu and hyperthread m.2 you will be able to load ark in 4k easily

[tametheark]

This is ARK with Nvidia GPU and Intel CPU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CE6ynUqDVs I'd like to see how AMD lines up. By the way I'm only using 1080 ti in the video.

[†TheReaper†]

You are nit picking comparisons, to better suit your argument, If you want I can then take nvidia's greatest against AMD's worst and do the exact same thing, however the generalization just flat out is true. Nvidia's best, vs AMD's best, AMD won't deliver what nvidia can visually. In most modern games, you lose out on a ton of interactive graphic features (physical parts of the game you can interact with, fog moving as you do, water actually rippling based on physical steps, better light refraction, allowing for realistic lighting) all of which AMD, just flat out, all cards, can't do. Due to proprietary software, NVidia developed and AMD can't keep up with. Due to all these extra features, many of AMD's same gen cards, can keep up with nvidia and even surpass, due to it requiring a lot less processing power, vram, etc, due to it also not displaying nearly as much as NVidia, if you don't like the generalization of the two, I'm sorry but it's just a factual statement. I'm a bigger fan of amd, than nvidia, however I personally am not going to throw money away to get 1/5 to even 1/10 of the game's visuals taken completely away because I prefer AMD.

[†TheReaper†]

引用自 tametheark：

引用自 DEAChaos：

Its hard to properly compare different architectures with different pricing. Amd has the best bang for your bucks. But nvidia has the top performance. For the price of one 1080ti you can buy 3 Furycards in crossfire which will outperform the 1080ti greatly. But a good sli 1080ti setup is king in absolute performance.

This guy doesn't play ARK, you can only use 1 GPU for ARK. Nvidia gpu with intel cpu and hyperthread m.2 you will be able to load ark in 4k easily

Not true, you can SLI two 1080s, which are better honestly than a ti (ti has notoriously been the overpriced cousin of sli-ing, don't remember what the 1080's go for now, but on sale they were 350 each, and 1.5 times better in vram and speed while sli'ed, ,to the ti version. Same with the 970ti, vs 2 970s. If you don't have the space in your system, spend the extra money and get the ti, but if you do, spend a little less and get more than a ti can give. (Was doing 1080p 5760x1080 Ark Survival) then switched to 4k, and have yet to get ark to accept the damn resolution but have been trying 12,288x2160, but ark won't accept a 5 digit resolution, which has been annoying to all hell, that resolution a ti can't do, but 2 1080s can. So i'm stuck with just 4k, on one monitor. (The reason for the prior 3screen ark at 1080, was due to the monitors, now with 3 50" 4k screens, I've been trying to get ark to accept 5 digit resolution, like many many other games already do, but it's just not saving in the config. Going nvidia surround and fullscreening ark, also causes letterboxing due to ark's resolution limits).

[ded gaem]

引用自 †TheReaper†：

You are nit picking comparisons, to better suit your argument, If you want I can then take nvidia's greatest against AMD's worst and do the exact same thing, however the generalization just flat out is true. Nvidia's best, vs AMD's best, AMD won't deliver what nvidia can visually. In most modern games, you lose out on a ton of interactive graphic features (physical parts of the game you can interact with, fog moving as you do, water actually rippling based on physical steps, better light refraction, allowing for realistic lighting) all of which AMD, just flat out, all cards, can't do. Due to proprietary software, NVidia developed and AMD can't keep up with. Due to all these extra features, many of AMD's same gen cards, can keep up with nvidia and even surpass, due to it requiring a lot less processing power, vram, etc, due to it also not displaying nearly as much as NVidia, if you don't like the generalization of the two, I'm sorry but it's just a factual statement. I'm a bigger fan of amd, than nvidia, however I personally am not going to throw money away to get 1/5 to even 1/10 of the game's visuals taken completely away because I prefer AMD.

kid youre giving me arguments i was making 8 years ago, clearly with a particular point you are trying to push rather than a concern for the reality of what each product entails and lacking knowledge on the details of the products in question. nvidia are more powerful on launch, with extra features to boot. cool, if thats what you want go for it. likewise however, amd offer you an entirely different set of pros, at the cost of losing to nvidia on a lot of those features and taking a hit on out of the box performance. the fact of the matter is however that these two companies do not produce the same product, you are not when buying amd buying an inferior nvidia card, you are buying a wholly different architecture from a company with a completely different vision for their product support, and it will show. you cant make objective statements without full qualification of the question to which they are an answer.