Is it true that Nvidia graphics cards are significantly better optimized than AMD graphics cards in Minecraft? I mean the performance / FPS, but I think that goes without saying.
Rather look for price / performance and the associated opportunities.
What does Bulb GTX bring you, which is "optimized", but you get Lemon XXL for the same money, but which offers 30% more power?
How do you want to compare that. Sure, Nvidia is generally faster because there's no alternative to Nvidia at the moment in the high-end area. Doesn't mean that AMD cards can't offer good performance at certain price points.
Unfortunately, I personally do not believe AMD gpu's at all - personal experience and that of my friends and family are extremely negative, which is why I no longer have an option for now.
Of course it is right to look at P / L. I just wanted to know whether Nvidia or AMD is ahead of the game at MC. I have read many times that Nvidia can do better with OpenGL and Java. I thank you anyway.
How do these negative experiences express themselves? LG.
The problem is - just like 20 years ago when there were more chip manufacturers for graphics cards than just AMD and nVidia - how much you "get for how much money".
So you actually have to find two cards that you want to compare directly.
Then look for a test in which MC is also used for the benchmark.
Only then, and only then, can the pure performance of the Grakas be compared.
If, for example, Your system at home slows down the graphics cards by the CPU → the result looks different accordingly.
For several years I have only been using cards with chips from ATi / AMD. One reason is the support under Linux and of course what I get for the money.
That the cards from ATi / AMD also deliver super frost guards → also clear. Efficiency looks different. NVidia is ahead.
I have already looked at a few benchmarks, but I will continue to look around. I thank! - LG
Minecraft in itself (based on "Java") was never really process-optimized.
Older than Radeon RX 5500 vs. Geforce GTX 750Ti (Maxwell), I would therefore continue to maintain my claim that Minecraft should still run better on a GTX 750Ti than on a Radeon HD 7850 to 7870.
18 years ago he had an ATI graphics card that was very loud and broke quickly, so he NEVER swore again.
Always the same idiots…
I installed various RX cards with friends and was always something stupid or buggy. 2nd screen was not recognized, driver installation crashes, bluescreen at benchmarks this and that. Many little problems.
Everyone with experience has been telling you for years that the drivers at AMD are simply not stable. And only this year there was finally a discussion about it and AMD admitted the whole thing, so discussion is unnecessary.
"Everyone with experience has been telling you for years that the drivers at AMD are simply not stable."
That's exactly what EVERYONE says. The counter-conclusion is of course also permitted here. If someone likes AMD GPUs they have no idea
"I love my AMD graphics card, which keeps crashing," says the experienced AMD user. You can already like AMD cards and still have experience.
But they keep falling and always causing problems for everyone. That's just the facts. You pay 300 euro for a graphics card that only creates problems.
Well, count yourself 50% happy if you have no problems.
https://www.techspot.com/news/84005-gamers-ditching-radeon-graphics-cards-over-driver-issues.html
It's not that there's no data collection.
"Nearly half of all AMD users who took part in the poll responded 'Yes', they are having or have had serious issues with their Radeon GPU. The poll suggests that 48% of all AMD users have suffered major issues, while we see less than half that figure for NVidia users at 22%. "
So, topic finished.
The thing is that AMD's OpenGL drivers are simply bad under Windows, but they are good under Linux, I got a RX 570 under Linux with shaders 30-50% more FPS than under Windows
Well, it's not that bad, but generally I also had the feeling that the AMD drivers weren't quite stable yet.
Most of the time it ran smoothly, but in some games problems such as false colors or artifacts appeared that did not appear with an nvidea card. Strangely enough, the desktop resolution sometimes reset.
Nvidea already had such problems, but it was often the case with the AMD cards. The problems were solved relatively quickly on both sides with a driver update.
My last experience with the Saphire cards was an HD7970
Overall, I was satisfied with the card, but now I switched to a GTX1070 and I'm also satisfied.
It's worse than ever these days. Unfortunately one has to say.
No, they don't seem so unstable to me now. I can still remember the PC of a friend of mine who had installed an AMD card. I don't know which one but it was around 2003 that had significantly more problems than today's cards, so a lot has happened at AMD.
The cards at that time were also quite inefficient and liked to get hot, which is no longer the case with current cards.
I'm currently sitting on my AMD RX 580. I fluctuate between an RX 5700XT and an RTX 2070 / s or 2080 / s. And no, of course not just for Minecraft, that would be overkill. Ehr still for recording / streaming. This also results in video editing / image processing. What should I go to?
I'm currently sitting on my AMD RX 580. I fluctuate between an RX 5700XT and an RTX 2070 / s or 2080 / s. And no, of course not just for Minecraft, that would be overkill. Ehr still for recording / streaming. This also results in video editing / image processing. What should I go to?
Individual cases, that wasn't the case for everyone back then (just like today) - read the article I linked.
The efficiency is still not good compared to the competition.
I read the article, but it still feels like the drivers are much more stable today than they used to be.
I would say that in the past even more people had serious errors with the AMD cards. The only reason why they held up at that time was the low price and because AMD made the main profit from the processor division.
The efficiency is far better than before and the reason why AMD cards use more today than Nvidea is different than before. In the past, the cores were simply inefficient, today the theoretical computing power of the AMD cores is stronger than that of the comparable Nvidea cores.
For example, the RX5700 has better computing power than the RTX2060 Super, with a TDP of 180W to 160W. The RX5700 is therefore often used for GPU-supported calculations. The RTX2080, for example, has a similar somewhat better computing power than the RX5700 but 215W TDP. However, the AMD card has the problem that it can't play some of its strengths in-game, so the GPU is not completely designed for gaming.
Nvidea does it a little differently, the GTX and RTX cards are pure gaming cards, they are made and optimized exactly for it, so for the workspace area or for GPU computing, Nvidea offers the Tesla and Quadro GPUs, which are optimized for it.
You forgot to hit the table with your hand ;-)
You forgot the arguments - that's worse.
I thought you wanted to stop arguing. I also don't know what arguments these AMD people want to bring. It is a fact that the cards keep crashing.
https://www.techspot.com/news/84005-gamers-ditching-radeon-graphics-cards-over-driver-issues.html
It says that 50% of all Amd users have problems. That was found out in a trustworthy YouTube survey. So if you still have doubts I can't help you. Another survey found that 64% of those surveyed had problems.
This will be a good thing for AMD if in the future 64% of people no longer buy an AMD card but switch to Nvidia
So a survey with almost 50,000 people is not representative and all data that does not speak pro-AMD are of course fake and highly manipulated. You are right - my mistake.
With your 4 main arguments one would have to first look at whether the specs. The basic system (CPU, RAM and drives) would in itself be capable of optimally exploiting the potential of a significantly more powerful graphics card.
The Radeon RX 5700XT and Geforce RTX 2070 were roughly on a comparable performance level, but the RTX 2070 calculates and renders noticeably more efficiently.
In general driver work, AMD has recently Also caught up with Open CL, but Cuda would remain an Nvidia - exclusive feature.
For your video applications (streaming, editing, recording and editing) you would be more flexible with a Geforce RTX when choosing the optimal tools for the respective tasks.
First of all thank you for your detailed description. I currently have a Ryzen 5 2600x on a B450 motherboard, but I want to upgrade to a Ryzen 9 3900x / 3950x. Ram I have 16GB Ballistix Sport LT with 3000Mhz CL16. I would like to expand this to 32 GB. Just have to see if my MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC with such a powerful processor would fit. Otherwise I would just upgrade to an X570 from ASUS or MSI.
If you really want to invest 4 digits in your system to build a (semi) professional workstation for extensive video editing in the near future, or not too far in the future, then a thread ripper platform (TR4 or TRX40) could be a goal in the medium term become.
For Threadripper 3000 you need the TRX40 platform.
