To preface I am an AMD user. I like AMD for similar reasons @DeusQain likes AMD, which surprised me. If I seem Biased towards AMD or ATi in comparison to Nvidia, please note that I have had very little use in the team green area. Now that that is settled:
In recent times we have seen a lot of news about AMD. Their CPU developer leaving (again) or how the Fury and FuryX will have better performance as drivers get released. Even about how the ATi graphics group is being brought back (I was stupidly excited). I'm even surprised that free-sync is bloody everywhere now compared to NV's G-sync. But I have to wonder, which do you guys think will come out on top?
I like the idea of both being equal headers in business but there are obvious exchanges between the two that everyone thinks about. More Vram on AMD side but faster cards on Nvidia side (more or less the speed thing is pretty equal now). CUDA Vs GBC, core to dollar performance, common specs and such. But at the moment AMD has to break their company up to manage themselves better and partition their business.
With AMD breaking into multiple areas that will give them better use of time in multiple areas for concept and design. Manufacturing can be left to the outsources like XFX, Sapphire and whatnot. Nvidia doesn't have to do this. Nvidia is getting into cloud gaming, an area AMD should have gone into as well. Furthermore AMD focused too heavily on APU's and no one really cared. In some laptops they are OK, but the development of mobile FX, Athlon, and future Phenom chips should have been focused on first on top of the focus of mobile R6, 7, and 9 chips. The R4's, 5's, and 3's if they're still around need to be dropped completely as any focus left on them is still wasted. Zen needs to be focused on more than ever if they want to pull the CPU area together and that's probably what's been dragging them down so much.
If we look at their GPU side they're set. The 380's are outperforming the 970's on a cheaper margin with more Vram in some cases, the Fury series is getting better and better with more development being put towards them, and the linux side of the GPU drivers will finally be getting a humongeous kick in the next month with the official release of a 4.x.x kernel! I say finally because NVidia has had the GPU area in linux on domination for years. I don't even mind that. My Winfast PX7900GT/O kicks ass in linux.
WHat I have to wonder now is this: Will AMD fall behind because they have had a disillusioned focus on the wrong areas for the last few years? Will AMD end up on the higher end after the Linux drivers are completed? Will NVidia get ahead with they're new features in software for their cards? What do you guys think will happen?
Cloud Gaming like this? AMD will pull ahead in performance, but Nvidia has its market share. As DeusQain said, we need more chip designers. The problem is for smaller companies to get in the market. Out there are companies like Matrox but they are perfectly happy with what they are.
They aren't called the ATI graphics group. they are called the "Radeon Technologies Group" AMD are slowly trying to phase out this division in hopes (In what i see i believe they are trying to sell them at this point.) they are the reason AMD has been alive for as long as they have these past 5 years. well it's not even arguable at this point. AMD purchasing ATI kept them alive. cause we can clearly see not many people wanted their APUs cause of poor sales..
AMD doesn't have the R&D to do this. as much as this may have been a good idea. but then again the cloud-gaming hasn't really kicked off either. Nvidia is the only people focusing on this.
I can't say much about performance in Linux. I myself am still learning. but THIS is NOT the case in Windows AT ALL. but if the 380 is outperforming the 970 in Linux something is DEFINITELY wrong on Nvidia's end.. which is i would expect cause they don't care for Linux.
AMD has been behind for a while. at least from the CPU sector they have been there for a while. see the thing is with the old FX series like the 8350. the overall problem with those processors is strictly because of the shared cache between the core modules. if each core would of had it's own lane of cache. that 8350 would of been an absolute monster. more than what it may have been (around 2011) if you even consider it a monster anyways.
Of course the reason for AMD falling behind is strictly due to them focusing on APUs which really was a dumb move on their part really. clearly people didn't want them, and also focusing and the Vishera/Bulldozer Architecture for so long. AMD even admitted themselves it was a failure. and depending who you talk to it was. however this is objective.
Personally, i felt they should of skipped excavator entirely. there was no need to focus on ANYTHING that had to do with Bulldozer/Vishera (which Kaveri and Carrizo are based off of). but they did it cause you know. they HAD to put out SOMETHING..
As for performance in Linux. this is all subjective. right now AMD is on the verge of going under. they need to put Linux on hold for a bit and focus on making sure Zen is a holy grail. cause if Zen fails that will be it. AMD has been thriving on the same graphics cards for about 2 years now (to an extent anyways). mind you Nvidia did the same thing with the 600 series to the 700 series. they were basically the same shit just alittle changes here and there. but I'm trying to focus on AMD with this point. and the Fury wasn't a failure. but it didn't live up to the hype. and not to strike a bit of fear. but look at the Fury cards right about now. the Fury (Non-X) has been out for about what 3 months now. only Sapphire and ASUS have a model out. where is Gigabyte, MSI, Powercolors fury cards? things are looking a bit finicky right now. AMD Roy has gone missing (if you look on twitter he's not on twitter anymore) and Jim Keller the legendary architect who made AMD processors amazing has left. AMD's future is a question mark at this point. but at this very moment. Zen will either be the rise of the "New" AMD or the nail in the coffin for AMD as a CPU company.
As for Nvidia. they are already ahead (to a degree with features) of course they are proprietary but most of their features work a bit better than AMD's. for examp[e G-Sync is proprietary but it works better than AMD's FreeSync. simply because Nvidia's monitors have a RAM buffer for the monitor. AMD's functionality is strictly the firmware of the DisplayPort 1.2A standard. which at this moment is good. but not good enough..
As I said. AMD's future is a question mark. but there is a very very good chance they could go under. also as for AMD ever being king? As much as i would like them to be. they are a far from it.
before i get backlash this is my personal opinion on the matter.
I tend to prefer AMD/ATi gpu's, but i do take in account NVidia gpu's and their developer drivers.
FreeSync has won the time Intel implemented it. This is not really important part at all.
AMD/ATi gpu's last for long while, they get better with time and age well, thus people who had those cards for a while they are very happy with them - when they compare it to same generation card from NV.
NV has most of the market, (though not everywhere). NV has been a good company working with developers, ensuring that their optimizations work and NV is there to fix/make everything work.
AMD doesn't have to break up, at all. It would be nice if they could separate few of their dept and let them take a fall (declare bankruptcy) taking all the debt with them. But that won't happen unless they want to soil AMD name and loose their patents. Yes it could be brought by Apple, MS or Samsung but it won't be.
AMD is not doing as badly as people make them to be, stock market is low because there isn't enough people willing to play a game - their stock became hi-profit one as people are playing bingo with it each time they release new hardware. Few big players buy 100k shares at its lowest, rising all hype on stock and sell them when stock starts to drop making humongous profits, its a yearly amd feast as i call it 100% on time all the time.
AMD tried to multiply their resourcefulness, array of different products to stay in market like Samsung and many other companies did before them but failed at their base of making CPU's. But failed, most of pc hardware companies failed here, and amd is no different; and it has left amd with little resources -> some gains and big losses.
AMD has been for a very long time in cloud gaming... and even have distributed gpu's for exactly that. APU's are great thing for laptops or tablets. Tablets with AMD's are far better than with intel atoms... atoms are still only 32bit, so on intel atom tablets you can't have more than 3GB of memory(actually 2.4GB)
I think he's referring to Baytrail Atoms on netbooks, tablets and a few phones. not the desktop components. the ones on mobile devices. those ARE 32-Bit. but Cherry Trail Atom CPUs out on mobile devices now are 64-Bit so his is point is not valid anymore.
Its to the point where you have choose whats best for you. As the others have said, I too am biased towards AMD. I'm still the proud owner of an HD7870 and I will most likely still be rocking it possibly even a year from now. I can't say the same about the 650 Tis or the 460s I have lying around though. Nvidia is better on launch at launch only for the most part. That's how I look at it, and just because of that I'd buy a Fury X had I the money.
@anon5205053 With closed source drivers, yes... but on FOSS there's no competition. AMD is the clear winner.
Doesn't surprise me. Nvidia launched the 970 which for half the price outperforms it in a ton of cases. I bet its drivers. Nvidia really screwed 780 Ti owners with the launch of the 900 series :)