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
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Basically the same differences when choosing a CPU. Intel has "Hyper-Threading" and "XMP". AMD has those two, but they are called by different names; however they work very much the same.
It is really a matter of taste and what fits your budget. Especially for general use and gaming.
Now if u were to need something a little more specific, like for 3D Rendering or CAD; then that might be a different story.
Back when it was ATI Radeon, I used to have many driver issues with their, but I bet their drivers were much more improved now. On the pro side, I like how radeon cards has a much better price-performance ratio.
And yeah, It's just really depends on the use and budget. Both are really good GPU companies.
I never had a real issue with PhysX dropping my FPS. Now on some older games (like Mafia2) PhysX was an issue because it was using a much older PhysX DLL and even when u updated the PhysX software on your system, the game would still use the DLLs that are included in the game folder, but for situations like that, there is an easy work-around. But for me, even back when I played games like Mafia2 or Alice Madness Returns, I never had FPS drops (not noticeable) even when I used a single GTX 570.
But overall I don't see anything wrong with it. If it drops your FPS too much, u can change the level of PhysX in most games (Low, Med, High for example, or even Disable it, which games like Metro 2033 and Last Light have) and the result will be a change in the amount of overall effect and/or particle counts that is used, based on the setting.
Price/Performance wise, AMD tends to offer better value on the lower end parts, mid range cards tends to be stacked up in favor NVIDIA. With high end parts, price is typically not a deciding factor and performance the two offer comparable products.
Purely from the technical specifications I like AMD cards slightly better.
Purely from the price I like AMD cards lots better. Both brands are guilty of crazy overpricing of their top products. Nvidia is nearly 2 times as bad as AMD at least right now with thier "Titan" card coming out at over $1000 and meanwhile AMD's top card which has mostly better specs coming out at $500-$600.
AMD's top $500-$600 card (R9 290X 4GB) is only about 3 times as good as one of their $100-$130 (HD 7790 1 or 2 GB) cards though which is why I lable it as crazy overpriced since obviously 3 cards are much harder to make than 1 so you should in fact get a good discounted price below $350 for the 1 card being much easier to make than the 3.
In terms of $/GFLOPS of performance I think the top cards should be the very cheapest and right now it is far from it with mid level cards beating out all the top products in $/GFLOPS.
From what I've read Nvidia cards are pricier but higher quality (e.g. run cooler, better performance and drivers (but I think this is improving)) while AMD are the value option. AMD does tend to be more generous with ammount of VRAM though. I think Nvidia's SLI is better AMD's Crossfire. As for multiple displays - I don't know much about that, AMD certainly used to be better with its Eyefinity but I think Nvidia has caught up though less VRAM isn't so good for NVIDIA.
As for the "extras" PhysX is nice but not essential. AMD's Mantle seems like a good idea but may well not be so promising as it could be more work for devs (I think I read that BF4 is in part a victim of that). Nvidia's G-sync on the other hand look very promising and not just a gimmick as it is hardware based (requiring a monitor pre- or customer fitted with the G-sync module) and doesn't require anything done with the game.
Another area to consider is Linux compatability, especially with the arrival of SteamOS. So far Nvidia has been better with Linux but AMD is catching up.
One area that most users can ignore is GPU computational programs - though of course there are those for whom it'll be more important. On the raw computational side AMD is better than Nvidia (though the Titan is better on that front) so if you mine Bitcoins AMD may be the way to go though I have no experience in that area. An area I do have a little bit of experience in is computational science simulation (especially chemisty) - I think these programs generally work better with Nvidia. However things may have changed there and I don't know that much about that.
Personally I tend to prefer Nvidia though I am certainly not a fanboy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x9B_4qBAkk