The war between the two industry veterans is about to heat up again. This AMD vs Nvidia issue may have been a one-sided affair for some time, but is now in favor and ready for a challenge to the throne.
This GPU war has been going on since the 1990s, and although AMD has a very long history in technology, Nvidia is one that is prominent and is in a much better place financially, nearly double the price. However, AMD dedicates a portion of its resources to its CPU, which is nothing to sneeze at.
In the line of technology enhancement we all know that history does not play a vital role any more, at least when we talk with respect of gaining popularity at the present time or in future also. Recent history perhaps, but no one cares that AMD has its roots in the 1950s.
This race seems to be held between a most popular champion vs most popular challenger, hence Nvidia vs AMD. Now, let’s see which is the best option for you.
AMD vs Nvidia: Performance
If you are thinking of getting a new GPU, you probably take into consideration the potential performance of each card when deciding. To say that 60 fps seems like the minimum requirement in today’s gaming world, and having a good GPU is the key to achieving that performance at-least.
Building a new PC and pushing it to the best GPU is the best possible for in-game performance. It is important to know that the CPU and RAM requirements must be fulfilled in accordance with the GPU to avoid bottlenecks.
In the market, GPUs are available(classified) on the basis of three criteria. These are low-end or budget, mid-tier or mid-range and high-end graphic card. Now discussion arises that how each of these categories gives different things to different peoples along with the comparison between both that is Nvidia and AMD.
For the budget category we can opt out the RX 5500 XT of AMD and GTX 1660 of Nvidia. They are probably the best that AMD and Nvidia offer in the $200 price range. They are both good representations of their respective manufacturer’s key technologies (AMD’s RDNA and Nvidia’s Turing) and are actually very good in budget graphic cards.
While the RX 5500 XT GTX offers a better base clock rate at 1685MHz than the 1560MHz of the 1660. But in other way, Nvidia cleverly used this to its advantage and offered a better boost rate up to 1785MHz as compare to AMD’s game rate of up to 1737MHz. This indicates that the Nvidia’s base frequency is less but it’s a game changer in turbo boost frequency as compared to AMDs budget cards. While this may seem insignificant as most of the people may not really notice the difference, it is interesting to show how this competition has arrived at the minute details as well.
AMD continues to showcase its capabilities with 8GB GDDR6 RAM which is clearly superior to Nvidia’s 6GB GDDR5. It is also stronger with higher memory bandwidth and more L2 cache, but as you’ve already assumed, Nvidia consumes less power for the GTX 1660.
However, hardware is nothing without software and in this area it is Nvidia that reigns supreme. Despite the specifics already in favor of AMD, it is Nvidia that performs better and, interestingly enough. It clearly proofs that Nvidia has a better optimization and their great work on software. However, AMD consumes less power.
But gamers don’t want their GPU to consume less power, they want performance and that’s why Nvidia made the first issue here.
For this category, we’ll take a look at the AMD RX 5600 XT and the Nvidia RTX 2060 as they look like two good choices and fair representation of the middle of their brand.
The RX 5600 XT gave many a good reason to be excited for AMD’s return to the scene. Meanwhile, RTX 2060 feels that Nvidia may be a little careless about the quality of its production.
Their peculiarities are almost identical, with AMD claiming a higher Clock speed, but using it as a definite marker of superior performance is not very appropriate to see how they match evenly.
The reason AMD may seem like a winner here is that they are lowering competitive prices due to shrewd business strategy. While both of these cards perform equally, with some games playing better on one and the other, AMD has positioned itself as a cheaper alternative. This disparity between quality and price left Nvidia scratching their heads as to how to react.
What AMD has struggled with is driver issues. It is reported that the game crashed on the desktop simultaneously or was given a black screen in some instances. However, as those issues can be fixed without missing a sinister product, this is a bright point for AMD vs Nvidia.
Here’s where things get a bit tricky because it’s hard for AMD to ‘high-end’ any kind of call, so it’s a clear win for Nvidia. But, this is where the GPU wars are expected to fire again. With AMD preparing to launch its RDNA 2 graphics card before the end of 2020, Nvidia finally appears to be a challenge for its RTX 2080 Ti.
For transparency, let’s compare the best AMD with the RTX 2080 Ti. It’s not a fair fight, but it’s safe to say that Nvidia’s representatives easily outperform AMD’s RX5700XT or even Radon VII, whatever you consider a better rival.
As the world continues to evolve, so too does the field of technology, and as AMD announces the Best Offer competition, Nvidia also promises better GPUs. Although Nvidia easily takes a point here, it will be difficult to keep an eye out for this particular field of competition.
Total Score: AMD 1 – Nvidia 2
AMD vs Nvidia: Features
While features may seem less important than actual specs, they are a very important part that makes a good GPU. For the greater part, there are GPUs on both sides with similar hardware and value, but the devil’s description or, in this case, the devil’s features.
Clear sticking point to talk. It may be unnecessary to say, but ray tracing is not a requirement for GPU performance, but that being said, it is clear that ray tracing provides a better and more realistic view.
So, what is Kiran anyway?
Without being too technical, ray tracing is a rendering technique that allows lighting to be tracked more accurately by accounting for how objects and lighting are represented.
The main reason we’re talking about ray tracing is that the AMD architecture still doesn’t support it, and that’s a big issue.
Nvidia has followed the ray tracing technique since 2000 and introduced it to the world in 2018. This particular move specifically highlighted their dominance in the GPU market and AMD has yet to recover. The good news for the Red Team is that they will not be producing graphics chips for Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X.
Since the next generation of gaming consoles have not allowed its name to be associated with something that is not top-line, AMD is very much about its intention to start ray tracing for next-generation GPUs. It has been honest and honest.
While ray detection is all well and good in the AMD side, the point here clearly goes to market innovator Nvidia.
Variable rate shading
VRS is a technology first introduced to the market by Nvidia and found to be the best use in VR. What it calculates is which frame in your field of vision is being fully shaded or rendered at all. This significantly reduces the power load of the GPU and allows additional energy to be spent on other, more useful things.
The most focus is on the player who sees the most.
AMD still has not incorporated this technology into its GPU, but it is rumored that it is coming to their RDNA 2 line as they filed all types of patents for VRS in early 2019.
There has been talk of correcting eye tracking technology and using it to further improve VRS and it seems seriously sci-fi.
Since this cool piece of technology is still an Nvidia exclusive, they earn a point here.
Deep learning super sampling
Designed as another way to increase the efficiency of the GPU, DLSS is an incredible piece of technology, although slightly ahead of its time. The reason for this claim is to fully enjoy the benefits of DLSS in this process.
The biggest issue here is that game developers have to enable DLSS support when creating a game and for the player to see improvements, it has to be sent to Nvidia which then lets the AI run through the game, analyzing the images , And automatically upscale it to a higher resolution.
On paper, the idea sounds really good, but still keeps the execution at a novelty level. Although AMD has not responded to this, it is not yet necessary for them to do so and as Nvidia has clearly stated here that AMD is not, it would not be appropriate to give them a point.
G-Sync vs Free Sync
These are the adaptive synchronization technologies of Nvidia and AMD designed to eliminate screen tearing during gameplay. Screen tearing occurs when the output of the GPU mismatches the display’s refresh rate.
Communication between the GPU and the monitor works in a way where the monitor refreshes at 60Hz and requires 60 frames (120Hz, 144Hz, and so on) from the GPU. The problem usually occurs when the GPU is unable to produce the required frame and this causes screen tearing.
Adaptive sync technology for GPUs allows to effectively change the rate at which the fresher is monitored based on the number of frames. Therefore, if the game drops to 40 fps, the GPU will limit the monitor to refresh at 40Hz only. This does not make the game run smoothly in any way, it just prevents screen tearing.
In the not so distant past, the solution for this was not software-based, specifically VSQN, but it is phased out in favor of new technologies.
G-Sync is Nvidia’s screen-tearing solution and has drawn some criticism. Because they first came to market with adaptive sync technology, they sought to use it to their advantage with few hardware requirements. To use this technology, the monitor would have to be G-Sync compatible and although it was not specifically stated, it added them in price anywhere from $ 100 to $ 300.
To run G-Sync, the monitor needs a proprietary Nvidia G-Sync Scalar module, which means that they will all have the same on-screen menus and options. This is where AMD’s FreeSync has looked to shine. They allow manufacturers to choose which scalar they want to use so that Freeskin can be run.
FreeSync uses the adaptive sync standard built into the DisplayPort 1.2a specification that enables manufacturers to find cheaper alternatives to scalars. Cheaper, as the name suggests, not free.
A major advantage of G-Sync over FreeSync is that it handles GPU outpoding display adapters. This will actually lock the frame rate upper limit of the monitor’s GPU, while FreeSync will allow the GPU to produce additional frames in the event that in-game VSync is turned off. This may cause screen tearing but may reduce input lag.
Where it comes to a strong division in AMD vs Nvidia, FreeSync vs G-Sync problem community, is the fact that not all Nvidia cards will work with FreeSync monitors and likewise, not all AMD cards work with G-Sync monitors will not do. This problem is being eliminated, but the fact still remains that you need to check whether the monitor you are getting will work properly with your GPU and vice versa.
Whereas both sides have their own pros and cons in adaptive sync technology. The fact is that FreeSync is more readily available which ultimately earns AMD here.
Total Score: AMD 2 – Nvidia 4
AMD vs Nvidia: Drivers and Software
Good hardware requires good software, it should just do it. Drivers are programs that control interfaces with a fixed device (such as a GPU) CPU. This enables the software to use the hardware part that it controls to the best of its ability and without knowing and controlling each aspect of the operation of that particular part.
Needless to say, this is a very important part of the hardware-software dynamic and is a very interesting topic for both AMD and Nididia.
As mentioned earlier, AMM Sorta shot itself in the foot when their RX 5000 series was launched over some driver issues that were creating black screens and crashes. Unfortunately, the problem persists despite new drivers coming in and fixing the problem.
Nvidia has not included itself in Vaibhav as their issues can often be mild and therefore difficult to identify accurately.
AMD certainly makes significant progress to improve its driver capabilities with its annual Radeon Adrenalin update. The 2020 version claims a 12% improvement over the 2019 version alone. Another good thing for AMD is that they made a conscious effort to simplify things and only use a piece of software to update drivers and more often after a schedule or once per month is released Followed it.
The biggest blockers for AMD are persistent issues that go a long way to heal properly.
Nvidia has largely followed suit with its driver update schedule, but the major difference is that they use two different applications to control their hardware. Their Nvidia control panel allows you to configure stuff like 3D settings or display resolution, while the GeForce Experience handles game optimization, driver updates, and additional features. The biggest downside of GeForce is that you have to log in to adjust the settings to your liking and solve the captcha prompt.
Finally, while AMD has this downfall, the efficient simplicity at which their software operates, they get a point in this category.
Total Score: AMD 3 – Nvidia 4
AMD vs Nvidia: power consumption and efficiency
When AMD introduced Navi and announced its gamble in TSMC’s 7nm FinFET process, they felt it would bridge the amazing 50% per watt performance efficiency gap. However, they were so far behind that did not help either. It is interesting that Navi cannot even abolish old Nvidia GPUs that were built on the last-gen 12 nm node of TSMC.
Where the future seems bright is the big-high wife, arriving in late 2020, which will be more than about 50%. Although it almost sounds great, many are curious as to how and when they will pull it off. But where the point is that even among those predictions, Big Navi will compete with Nvidia’s Turing architecture when it should challenge Nvidia’s Ampere.
The issue is not all black and white though. In the peak performance range, Nvidia’s RTX 2080 Ti certainly uses a lot of power, while AMD doesn’t really even have a competition card that can be compared. If we simplify things, we can say that the RX5700XT isn’t power-draining like the RTX2080 Ti, but it would completely defy the core of the logic where the latter is a better GPU.
In the mid-range, AMD has a reason why their RX 5700 and RX 5600 XT outperform the RTX 2060 using less power. Performance-wise, they are both on par with the RTX 2060 Super, but have gained efficiency.
Small differences can also be seen in the budget category. While Nvidia’s GTX 1660 Ti and GTX 1660 Super not only outperform AMD’s RX 5500 XT by up to 20%, but also consume less power. Even the GTX 1660 has the RX 5500 XT’s number in both efficiency and performance according to slimmer margins.
Nvidia edges AMD in budget and high-class classifications, while AMD is only slightly better in the mid-range. AMD really needed to explain that Nvidia was able to be more efficient despite using the previous generation of lithography.
Overall, this is one of the areas where Nvidia clearly dominated in the years before Navi’s release. They were better then but with a better margin. While this is an easy point for Nvidia, it is interesting to be sure how AMD will oppose them with the Navy.
Total Score: AMD 3 – Nvidia 5
AMD vs Nvidia: Dollar Value
While top-level performance is what most gamers are seeing out of their GPU, we still have to be conscious of the price tag. There are three basic categories for both price and performance, as discussed earlier. They have already been nominated and clarified, so we will control it.
Nvidia has a clear advantage in the extreme price range as it has no competitor AMD GPU. Now that is out of the way, proceed for a more granular comparison.
AMD’s most expensive GPU is the RX 5700 XT at $ 400 and its price match from Nvidia is the RTX 2060 Super and it’s not the battle that Nvidia can win, performance-wise. In addition, their RTX 2070s are super hard-hitting RX 5700 XTs, while costing a lot more (5% 25% better performance on more money). In terms of net dollar value, this is a point for AMD.
The mid-range is another interesting category. Although the RTX 2060 supports ray tracing, the RX 5600 XT is still cheaper and performs better overall. Not to mention a comparison between the RX5600XT and the GTX 1660 Ti where AMD drains the Nvidia completely out of the water. Point AMD.
If you are on a tight budget, there is more uncertainty in that category. The GTX 1650 Super is probably the best bang for your buck, which is less than the RX 5500 XT 4GB. But, if you’re willing to spend a bit more, AMD is probably a better option with the RX 5500 XT 8GB which doesn’t make the GTX 1660 GDDR5 better, but it costs 10% less. This is a tie in the budget category.
And the winner is…
The current better producer is Nvidia, with a total score of 6 to 5. This AMD vs Nvidia issue is not all black and white and does not mean that you should get a blind card. The general advice for making any kind of investment in the PC part is to properly assess your needs and research what is best in your budget.
If you are always suffering from the need to be the best or you do not always need 120+ fps, then AMD is a safe bet. However, Nvidia provides a better graphics and is worth the extra cost.