Both camps have their issues. But I won't ever forget Nvidia's G84/G86 had overheats that basically fried them and Nvidia chose to deny it ever happening. (http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/lawsuit-claims-nvidia-hid-serious-flaw-in-graphics-chips-439
I've also had a mobile ATI Radeon fry its graphics memory when I pushed it too hard.
AMD/ATI Crossfire has more microstutter than Nvidia SLI
NVIDIA Quadros have crap customer support unless you buy them in prebuilts from Dell/HP/Lenovo , the only resellers are Leadtek / PNY
AMD's Firepros are more finnicky with respect to NVIDIA CUDA oriented apps because of lack of CUDA and developer support . However they have 24/7 phone support and all GPUs are made by AMD themselves. Historically Radeon to Firepro Softmods (basically changing Radeon driver to Firepro driver) boosted AMD to massive value advantage over NVIDIA
--> see http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=313065
NVIDIA stuff tends to be quieter because they tune for quieter instead of cooler on reference coolers.
NVIDIA SLI requires a SLI motherboard
Current gen AMD stuff has frame latency issues but it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be unless you slow everything down. Every generation they seem to hit price-performance better, with stuff in the mid range coming out first... unlike NVIDIA which usually releases ultra-high end first (see GTX 680 then a huge gap til GTX 660 Ti and then another large gap before GTX 660). In the professional sector, NVIDIA has not released a new professional Kepler GPU except for Tesla K20 and Quadro K5000 ($1600+).History as best I can remember: (Click to show)
Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB made NVIDIA hurry FX 5900
NVIDIA released 6800, Ati follows with X800
NVVIDIA released 7800 ; NVIDIA released 7600GT, a sub $200 card ... yay things become somewhat affordable.
---- AMD buys ATI in 2006 ----
NVIDIA dominates with 8800 (first DX10 cards) ; 8600 series has overheat issues ... ATI X1000 series has "bug" that lead to delay
NVIDIA dominates with 9800 ; CUDA starts here
ATI HD 4850 wins on value vs GTX 200 series
* GTX 260 price drops in response to HD 4000 series performance/ value
---- ATI ramp up around 2008 ---
NVIDIA makes Fermi GTX 480 ; ATI counters with HD5970 (higher power draw though) ... ATI midrange cards (HD 58xx) fly off the shelves too fast for them to be in stock * While NVIDIA won’t publicly admit defeat, AMD clearly won this round. - http://www.anandtech.com/show/2857
* GTX 460 is a price/performance winner though.
NVIDIA makes Fermi update GTX 500 series , AMD makes HD 6000 series ... R.I.P. ATI branding
AMD release HD 7000 series with GCN 28nm, NVIDIA lags behind with Kepler GXT 600 series midrange but GTX 680/GTX 670 is faster @ stock
also see http://www.techradar.com/us/news/computing-components/graphics-cards/amd-vs-nvidia-who-makes-the-best-graphics-cards-699480
like Nvidia's calamitous GeForce FX series, the 2900 arrived late, ran hot, underperformed and couldn't match its opposition, the GeForce 8800 Ultra.
But unlike the GeForce FX, it lead to a fundamental strategic rethink. AMD decided that in future ATI would no longer chase ultimate performance with its top GPU. Instead it would aim for maximum bang for buck and introduce dual-GPU boards to cater for enthusiasts demanding ultra-high performance.
The culmination of this rethink was the Radeon HD 4870. Launched in mid 2008, it was half the price of Nvidia's competing GeForce GTX 280 but delivered at least 80 per cent of the performance. It was a winning combination.
Basically NVIDIA wins drivers-wise but hardware-wise / value-wise these days, nope.
P.S. AMD only existed in the GPU sector since HD 6000 series... so I'd say AMD is better than NVIDIA in terms of value (bang for buck) at every price point unless you require CUDA. Basically everything from HD 4000 series onward has relative performance value vs NVIDIA.Edited by AlphaC - 2/26/13 at 7:44pm