安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
so newer AMD gpus will be much more high end I think
now, I have at least one card for each brand, and although my first card was AMD and I will always prefer AMD, NVIDIA does seem to be better....but it comes down to price too, I actually got NVIDIA cards for cheaper than AMD equivalents while consuming less power and creating less heat
yeah, this recent little problem might sway people towards AMD now, I have AMD cards and notice great performance, likewise for the NVIDIA, but if heat is not a problem, then go for AMD as they have improved quite a bit from before and seem to be gaining the upper hand in the high end arena with its R9 295X2 beating NVIDIA according to some sites.
R9 295x2 and TitanZ are quite irrelevant products; mainly made for those who are willing to pay anything for highest performance. R9 295x2 sure has way better performance but it has insane power draw and getting two r9 290x for crossfire is cheaper.
It's equivalent to R9 280. But R9 280 has 3 Gb VRAM with 384-bit memory interface against 2 Gb and 128-bit of GTX 960 making it better choice for modern games if you have decent 600W PSU.
R9 285 is actually worse card then R9 280 and R9 280X is more powerful then GTX 960.
The r9 280/280x are better, the 960 competes with the 285, take a look at Dying Light the 960 min fps blows aka shows poorly but that's what you get for castrating the 960 too much a standard practice of NVidia.
Ya it makes you wonder what they'll do with the 950ti give it 64bit.
Nvidia should rename the 960 to 950ti then make a real 960ti and be done with it.
Ps, I've got the r9 280x and plays all good enough for me at 1080p.
Supposedly nVidia and AMD have some seriously good offerings coming up, with AMD having a sub $350 card with 8GB VRAM and nVidia having one or two to compete with it.
RIght now the GTX970 has a VRAM issue where some games are really only able to use 3.4GB of VRAM and nVidia knows about this and has admitted they will not fix it, so it causes stuttering in games like far cry 3 & 4, batman arkham series, texture modded skyrim, and so on. Basically any game that tries to ask for the full 4GB the card is advertised as having will only get 7/8ths of that and start an annoying stuttering in game. The 980 does not have this problem but is over $200 more than the 970.
As for AMD cards... They work okay but still suffer from issues they have had for over 10 years, anywhere from poor game and driver support (though the game support is pretty much nVidias doing by partnering with game devs to muscle out AMD support), to working better as a room heater, and they still cannot do physx processing.
When it comes down to it, both companies make good products and hit or miss products, but nVidia has been on the top for a while now with much better driver and game support for the vast majority of games out there.
You cannot always tell performance from raw spec's. Nvidia's goal lately has been to improve efficiency (sucking more power and physically hotter does not necessarily mean better).
I just got a baby Maxwell (GTX 750 Ti). Basically it does some things about the same and some things twice as fast as my GTX 550 Ti did using nearly half the power (60w vs 116w). So my whole PC only uses ~150w max instead of 200+w and idles at 50w vs. 75w.
I was considering building a computer (which I have not done before). But I use a 32" 1080p HDTV, so this one will hold me for now.
Reason AMD cards can't do PhysX is that it is Nvidia proprietary, not because their cards could not be made to do same things. There was some talk about someone being able to make amd cards run PhysX few years back and not long ago dew of witcher 3 told that it's up to Nvidia if new "physx" fur will be available to AMD card owners too and that they have tested it with both systems. Seems the article was updated later and Nvidia is saying fur was not done with physx but "they are handled by DX11 via DirectCompute."
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-witcher-3-developer-its-up-to-nvidia-to-let-amd-users-enjoy-physx-hair-and-fur-effects/
Not sure if it is Nvidia trying to manage the damage or the dew doesn't really know what technology they use for things.
For me currently I see the R9 290x and 290 being one hell of a deal at $280 and $300 dollars,Ive seen em as low as $225.Why dont you get a Last-gen high-end card like a Gtx 780 ti? Even a Gtx 680 can still rip through todays games with no problems whatsoever! My card for example-Gtx 660Ti 1336 cuda cores is basicly a Gtx 670 I can play ANY game in my steam library at max settings with this card-I bought it at MicroCenter for $120 dollars.