Can we lock this thread already? There's no point in reigniting another pointless flamefest over a dead article.
This generation, Nvidia has had just as many driver problems as AMD, if not more, and using the whole "anything over 60 fps doesn't matter anyway" argument is quite outdated. Anyone that plays games such as CS:S will tell you that at 240 fps a game is far more responsive than at 60 fps, so framerates over 60 can be quite good. Try playing CS:S with adaptive v-sync and then again with out. The responsiveness should be apparent immediately.
For reference, I've had about 7 nvidia cards and 3 AMD cards. So far, 5 out of those 7 nvidia cards were met with massive headaches due to drivers, while the AMD cards were virtually trouble free. The ONLY two nvidia cards that I ever had where the drivers were virtually perfect were the 6800 GT and the 9800 GTX+ (Windows 7) drivers. Even this current generation of drivers are crap. The 306.97 produce a smoother experience at the cost of framerates while the 310.97 produce higher framerates at the cost of smoothness. It's a lose-lose situation with my 660 Ti. If you think Nvidia's drivers have always been rainbows and unicorns, you haven't been using them very long. Nvidia has released drivers with some VERY nasty bugs that would go so far as to kill a graphics card, so the driver argument is irrelevant.
On the flip side of that, the drivers for AMD's GCN architecture have been plagued by low performance at points along with black screen bugs and other anomalies, so they're not doing so hot either.
As far as "eye candy" goes, both cards produce a reference image, and forcing Ambient Occlusion in the Nvidia control panel creates a massive performance dip on most games where that feature can be enabled from the driver, so that's hardly something to celebrate about. Other than that, both AMD and Nvidia's "eye candy" is exactly the same.
And that's all there is to it. Please close this thread. Edited by Mad Pistol - 12/24/12 at 10:53pm