Originally Posted by Prophet4NO1
Well, my clan mates and I where just discussing the topic of AMD vs nVidia while gaming friday night. The TS conversation pretty much boiled down to the fact that the few guys we have using AMD gpu's are at the end of their ropes dealing with issues they have. One guy has a pair of 290x cards in xfire and has nothing but problems since day one, mirroring my own experiences with Xfire. His biggest complaint is how long it takes to get xfire support even in major titles. Where my SLI rigs are ready to go on launch most of the time. A recent problem that all of them have had is in Insurgency. All of our AMD gpu users get the same pink/purple and black checkerboard texture errors of various maps. In the same places at the same time every time. They have been changing drivers and working among themselves to figure out a fix. By the end of the night the consensus from all of them, regardless of benchmarks they all plan to go nvidia the next go round.
It's not just benchmarks that are driving AMD sales down. In the case of the GPU market it is the back end support after sale that most people I know have gotten sick of. That is why I stopped using them. That is why many people have stopped using them. Who cares if they get a few more FPS with an AMD card if the overall experience of ownership is worse? Neither side is perfect by any means. But for the most part nvidia does a better job with the ever important software support.
SLi vs CrossFire is literally the only example of such thing, and most people have only 1 GPU anyway.
But the problem is not AMD being "worse" here, it's the difference in philosophy. AMD's CrossFire is much more complex tech, with much broader feature set. Nvidia's SLi is simple and limited, that is why it is easier to support and use without problems.
It's like saying Apple is superior to Microsoft because you don't have BSODs on your Mac. That's just one little shade in a much broader spectrum.
Same goes with drivers. Nvidia's policy is much simpler - just re-write the driver for every new game that comes out. That's why Nv have new versions so much more often, and every game seems "optimized". AMD just use a driver that is more generic and doesn't need to be recompiled every month (since AMD can't afford to pay devs enough to do that), and therefore is not so specific in it's optimizations. From a purely programming standpoint, AMD is doing better on that front, even though to the end user it seems that AMD drivers are badly supported junk.
Also, given how much smaller AMD is than both Nvidia and Intel, and the fact that both Nv and Intel have just 1 competitor when AMD has 2 major ones, it's not a surprise to anyone that AMD's products are crude. Like it has always been, if you want "plug and play", you pay more, you buy Apple / Intel / Nvidia, you plug, and you play without having to think.
If you want better value, better tech, and more problems, you buy Windows (or don't buy Linux
), and AMD, and you tinker and do stuff on your own.
For most of us its more fun than games