Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Unhealthy Partnerships Plague the Graphics Industry

Filed under
Hardware

If I were to buy a graphics card today, I would have little choice but to go with either ATI or NVIDIA. To break down my buying decision, I would probably consider the card's features, the novel (and pointless in certain cases) concept of future proofing, price and performance in games that I want to play. Everything sounds so clear-cut, doesn't it? I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but picking a graphics card is not an easy task these days. I can probably list a few reasons as to why my thinking runs that way, but chances are you are already aware of them. Therefore, I am going to focus this column on special relationships between the game developers and the graphics card makers.

The thing with today's graphics cards from both manufacturers is that they will perform quite well in latest games; so going with either brand isn't a tough choice anymore. For many of you, either NVIDIA or ATI will do just fine, but those of us who want to play games like Doom III or Half-Life 2, the companies have just made our lives more complicated than they already are.

For arguments sake, say you are building a computer. You know you will play Doom III extensively and maybe even think about Half-Life 2 in the future. In order to make up your mind, you will probably visit a few online publications to get a feel for performance differences between ATI and NVIDIA cards in the aforementioned titles. The problem is that when you look at the various performance numbers, the performance crown can go either way. And quite logically, a faster ATI card will outperform a slower NVIDIA card and vice versa, but things completely take turn for the worse when it comes to performance between Doom III and Half-Life 2. Shockingly, performance numbers between the two cards may be completely upside down. In certain scenarios, a mid-end NVIDIA card will beat ATI's high-end card in Doom III. The same thing happens in Half-Life 2; the only difference is that the winner is ATI and NVIDIA takes the backseat.

As long as the competition is healthy and consumers are benefiting from it, I think all this is perfectly fine. When you and I are feeling hassled by these wacky performance results, for which the card manufacturers and game developers share blame, then all of this gets quite irritating. After all, performance testing is supposed to help us make up our minds, not confuse us with upside down results in certain titles.

Now, lets say your goal is to play Half-Life 2 and Doom III. Which card should you go for?

Continued

More in Tux Machines

Android/ChromeOS/Google Leftovers

Games: SC-Controller 0.4.2, Campo Santo, Last Epoch and More

Android Leftovers

Ryzen 7 2700X CPUFreq Scaling Governor Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

With this week's Ryzen 5 2600X + Ryzen 7 2700X benchmarks some thought the CPUFreq scaling driver or rather its governors may have been limiting the performance of these Zen+ CPUs, so I ran some additional benchmarks this weekend. Those launch-day Ryzen 5 2600X / Ryzen 7 2700X Ubuntu Linux benchmarks were using the "performance" governor, but some have alleged that the performance governor may now actually hurt AMD systems... Ondemand, of course, is the default CPUFreq governor on Ubuntu and most other Linux distributions. Some also have said the "schedutil" governor that makes use of the kernel's scheduler utilization data may do better on AMD. So I ran some extra benchmarks while changing between CPUFreq's ondemand (default), performance (normally the best for performance, and what was used in our CPU tests), schedutil (the newest option), and powersave (if you really just care about conserving power). Read more