With GPU is better for gamers AMD Radeon or NVIDIA Geforce

[Pawelk198604]

I bought laptop with AMD Raedon but is show that i have Intel HD 4400 i wonder does is swith to Radeon when i try to launch KSP, Sims 4, MassEffect or Total War Rome 2

[gmpd2000]

I'm no expert, but Nvidia seems to work better for me.

Also, doesn't this belong to the Space Lounge?

[ZedNova]

It should automatically switch to the Radeon GPU when you start up a game, if not you can change which applications will use it in the settings.

The Intel card is used for everything else to save battery power.

[Redjoker]

Since you are asking one question in your title and another in your post.

Nvidia and AMD's GPU are competitive with each other with each having its own drawbacks and advantages and to be able to tell which one would be better for you we would need more information.

On the subject of your laptop, unless you bought a fairly expensive laptop it is unlikely to have a discrete GPU, so would you posting the model of the laptop and/or a link to a store page that sells it.

[linkxsc]

Well ive been using both all throughout my gaming career (since 03 when i built my first machine. It was ati then) and 90% of the time... it really doesnt matter. Nvidia does pull ahead when it comes to games that were optimized for it, but theres always cost as a factor. Either way if you spend 350-500 on a card you should be all set for a couple years either way. I find that nowadays, having a good speed processor and high speed ram has a bit more of an effect.

(And when i say high speed i dont mean lol 4-8 processors. I mean a good quad core with 3.5-4ghz. Really for gaming due to how few games actually support multiple cores. If you could get a dual core at 4.5-5ghz, youd prolly be better off than some lol 8 core thing. But high speed processors like that can be expensive.)

Clean your heat sinks every few months though. I have had a raging overheated nvidia card once because the heat sinks are often too tightly spaced, and will cake up with dust over a few months.

Edit, sry i got cut off there. Got a call and when answering hit post

Edited February 1, 2015 by linkxsc

[Leszek]

The Intel HD 4400 is the on CPU video card. It is low end. Laptops with a discrete GPU's often are set to use the CPU video card most of the time and switch to the more powerful card when playing games. On my laptop (MSI Gaming laptop) the power light changes from white to red when using the Nvidia. For some games it didn't change automatically, as my laptop has an Nvidia card I go and change it so that it opens automatically for those games. Since you have a Radeon, you could do something similar with catalyst control center. The icon for that is either in the right click menu on an empty desktop, or in the bottom right by the time.

It is a good idea to see if you can find what the indication is on your particular laptop regarding what GPU it is using. Before I knew my power light changed colours I would think the game was lagging when in fact I was on the CPU video.

[Pawelk198604]

Since you are asking one question in your title and another in your post.

Nvidia and AMD's GPU are competitive with each other with each having its own drawbacks and advantages and to be able to tell which one would be better for you we would need more information.

On the subject of your laptop, unless you bought a fairly expensive laptop it is unlikely to have a discrete GPU, so would you posting the model of the laptop and/or a link to a store page that sells it.

It's Lenovo B50-70.

[Redjoker]

After some research on laptops with an intergrated and discrete GPUs, if you go to device manager it should show you display devices. There a 3 possibilities here.

1.Only the intel shows up, this means either yours does not have a radeon R5 M230 or you have a driver problem.

2.Both an intel and amd show up, then you laptop can switch between gpus and will likely use the amd if on ac power.

3.Only the amd shows up, then your laptop does have an R5 M230 and it is always on.

[K^2]

NVidia tends to be better supported. They release more driver patches to fix issues in AAA games, and a lot of devs optimize for nVidia.

[Elthy]

They release more driver patches to fix issues in AAA games, and a lot of devs optimize for nVidia.

Thats the reason why AMD is slower in the first benches of new games. After a month or two its most times equal, then both brand have their better games...

[longbyte1]

NVidia tends to be better supported. They release more driver patches to fix issues in AAA games, and a lot of devs optimize for nVidia.

But only if you buy the new higher end cards (GTX 600+). Otherwise, NVIDIA is likely to not give you any extra "stuff" like GeForce Experience or game optimizations. My card is 6 years old and it still runs games just fine, but CUDA kernels don't support my card (important when using Blender).

[K^2]

That's because you, effectively, need a DX11 compliant card to use CUDA efficiently. There were drivers to make it work with older cards, but there really isn't a point now. All CUDA software targets CUDA 3.0+, and yeah, that's 600+.

There were also some bad generations and bad years for nVidia, when ATI stuff was way ahead. But if the question is which card OP should buy, odds are, he'll be marginally happier with a modern nVidia card.

[Camacha]

But if the question is which card OP should buy, odds are, he'll be marginally happier with a modern nVidia card.

Both brands provide pretty much the exact same experience. None is better, none is worse. There are some specific technologies that can be interested in either case, but for most people gamers are not very relevant, and it can vary a bit between cards and generations, but flat out saying one is better than the other is folly.

NVidia tends to be better supported. They release more driver patches to fix issues in AAA games, and a lot of devs optimize for nVidia.

That really is not the case any more. Both AMD and Nvidia have agreements with game developers. It pretty much depends on the game you want to play whether this is true of not.

[Newt]

That really is not the case any more. Both AMD and Nvidia have agreements with game developers. It pretty much depends on the game you want to play whether this is true of not.

I am pretty sure that Blender still only supports Nvidia.

But that is not a game.

[Camacha]

I am pretty sure that Blender still only supports Nvidia.

Blender runs fine on an AMD card, though I suspect you might be talking about the renderer. Cycles runs fine when combined with an AMD card too, though CPU rendering is required.

But yes, there are some (primarily production) user cases where CUDA is a neat thing to have, that is why I crossed out the term people in my earlier post. Though I must add there is a distinct shift towards OpenCL going - quite a few programs that used to be CUDA exclusive now are also OpenCL enabled.

[K^2]

Both brands provide pretty much the exact same experience. None is better, none is worse. There are some specific technologies that can be interested in either case, but for most people gamers are not very relevant, and it can vary a bit between cards and generations, but flat out saying one is better than the other is folly.

That really is not the case any more. Both AMD and Nvidia have agreements with game developers. It pretty much depends on the game you want to play whether this is true of not.

Are you familiar with the game development/update process? For starters, nVidia hardware is more common among developers. CUDA is not the last factor in that. While games don't use CUDA, a lot of the tools used in making games do. So any nVidia-related bugs tend to be caught really early on. Then it goes on to QA. nVidia there is also more prevalent. Partly because it's easier to have the same hardware across the entire studio, and partly because it reflects market share. Finally, after the game goes out to users, nVidia generates more bug reports, simply because there are more nVidia cards out there. So any problems with nVidia hardware get fixed faster.

Saying that nVidia vs AMD experience is identical simply because hardware is very similar is very naive. Yes, nVidia and AMD both have contracts with devs. There are devs out there that target AMD first. Majority of the devs, however, don't specifically target either, and still end up with better nVidia support.

The actual difference is marginal. Most gamers will never be aware of the quality change switching from one to another. But there is most certainly a difference, and it's silly not to go with hardware that gives you even that much better chances of having smooth experience.

[steve_v]

Pretty much echoes my experiences, I've owned both (never again AMD, but only because the Linux driver is awfull) and It does appear that NVIDIA gets feature support and bugfixes a fraction quicker than AMD. While the price/performance ratio is a case of back and forth, and generally pretty darn close between the two, NVIDIA does seem to get the polish first.

Shame there's only two real players in the GPU / CPU market now.

Edited February 2, 2015 by steve_v

[Camacha]

Most gamers will never be aware of the quality change switching from one to another. But there is most certainly a difference [...]

It sounds like a great story, but I have never seen much definitive evidence to back it up. Looking at market share the numbers they vary a bit from source to source, but neither party seems to be convincingly on top.

It truly depends on the game what card is better for you, or more precisely, better for that specific application. Some games run better on one card, other games run better on others. This can be due to a number of factors - basic architecture, certain technologies used, sponsoring et cetera. Whatever the case, benchmarks show us this variance and it tends to be different every time.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much echoes my experiences, I've owned both (never again AMD, but only because the Linux driver is awfull) and It does appear that NVIDIA gets feature support and bugfixes a fraction quicker than AMD.

Though the sample group is awfully small, I cannot say I share this experience. I have switched brands almost every time I bought a new card the past ~15 years (a little under 2 years per card on average) and neither brand seems to have distinguished itself in any notable fashion. I based the decision on the merits of the cards every time, and continuous switching was the result.

[SargeRho]

To me it seems like AMD's cards are better in terms of performance per unit of money spent, but you can get a higher performance with nVidia.

[78stonewobble]

Well perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't really seen any comprehensive "survey" of either brands: driver support, error rates, performance, cost, consumer satisfaction and so on.

Without that I'd say for the casual user either is probably equally good.

If you then have specific needs... in a certain game or games or applications, then you need to look up benchmarks in those areas.

[Camacha]

To me it seems like AMD's cards are better in terms of performance per unit of money spent, but you can get a higher performance with nVidia.

At the moment that is true. Though the top dog most performance on a singe GPU core tends to switch with almost every generation release too.

If you then have specific needs... in a certain game or games or applications, then you need to look up benchmarks in those areas.

That is pretty much the only sensible advice. If you have specific needs, look at benchmarks and make your pick. If not, pick the most performance for money and be happy. Or pick the other option and be equally happy, because you will probably never know the difference.

[K^2]

It sounds like a great story, but I have never seen much definitive evidence to back it up. Looking at market share the numbers they vary a bit from source to source, but neither party seems to be convincingly on top.

Steam hardware survey is by far the most comprehensive report, dwarfing statistical significance of just about any other analysis. And for what it's worth, hardware surveys and crash reports I've seen from our titles are consistent with these figures. I don't know if you are operating on outdated, biased, or simply statistically insignificant data, but nVidia does currently have greater market share among gamers, and game developers most certainly do end up catering to nVidia more.

[Linear]

If you're playing a wide range of games then go with nVidia - if you only play a few work out which one works better.

Personally, i've used both types and the AMD cards always let me down somehow.

[Camacha]

Steam hardware survey is by far the most comprehensive report, dwarfing statistical significance of

just about any other analysis. [...] I don't know if you are operating on outdated, biased, or simply statistically

insignificant data

I have looked at the different numbers available for market share, not just a survey on Steam. Steam numbers do not signify market share, as there is some obvious overlap and as a result the total percentage goes well past 100%.

If Steam numbers are any guide and your statements are true, we would see significant game development for Intel graphics. I am pretty sure neither of us wants to argue that is the case.

And for what it's worth, hardware surveys and crash reports I've seen from our titles are consistent with these

figures.

For what it's worth, they are not consistent with what I have seen There does seem to be a general bias, but upon enquiry real reasons never materialize - outside of the mentioned specific user cases.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Camacha

[Kryten]

There's enough overlap that it depends on budget and what performance you're trying to get; you need to compare cards, not manufacturers. This is a pretty good guide for that.