this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
19 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

234 readers
9 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
19
Which GPU or GPU brand would you buy for gaming these days? (programming.dev)
submitted 8 months ago by onlinepersona@programming.dev to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] edinbruh@feddit.it 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

On Windows, Nvidia without thinking twice. On Linux, depends, on rDNA 4 and the next release of Nvidia drivers, but probably still Nvidia.

Unfortunately, despite how much I would rather buy from someone else, AMD's products are just inferior, especially software.

Examples of AMD being worse:

  • AMD's implementation of opengl is a joke, the open source implementation used on Linux is several times faster and made for free by volunteers, without internal knowledge
  • AMD will never run physx, which is every day less relevant, but if AMD from the past had proposed an alternative we would have a standardized physics extension in DirectX by now, like with dlss
  • AMD's ray accelerators are "incomplete" compared to Nvidia RT cores, which is why ray tracing is better on Nvidia, and which is why with rDNA 4 they are changing how they work
  • GCN was terrible and very different from Nvidia's architecture, it was hard to optimize for both. rDNA is more similar, but now AMD has a plethora of old junk to maintain compatible with rDNA
  • Nvidia has been constantly investing in new software technologies (nowadays it's mainly AI), AMD didn't and now it's always playing catch up

AMD also has its wins, for example:

  • They often make their stuff open source, mainly because it's convenient for its underdog position
  • Has a pretty good software stack on Linux (much better than on windows) partly because it's not entirely done by them
  • Nvidia has been a bad faith actor for many years on the Linux space, even if it's in its redemption arc
  • Modern GPU seems to be catching up in compute performance
  • AMD is less greedy with VRAM, mainly because they are less at risk of competing with their own enterprise lineup
  • Current Nvidia's prices are stupid

I would still prefer Nvidia right now, but maybe it's gonna change with the next releases.

P.s. I have used a GTX 1060, an RX 480, and a Vega 56

[โ€“] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 5 points 8 months ago

but if AMD from the past had proposed an alternative we would have a standardized physics extension in DirectX by now, like with dlss

Why the fuck put this on AMD when it was Nvidia who did their usual proprietary bullshit? "AMD is worse than Nvidia because they didn't provide us with a better alternative!" ???