Just now, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

AMD GPUs are banned in my workplace for client/workstation  use because over 100's of machines they tend to have more driver issues and bluescreens then nvidia GPUs and that costs us money. 

However by "more driver issues" we are talking 6 or 8 machines having glitches in a 6 month period out of a 100 for maybe 2 or 3 Nvidia machines. However in an enterprise situation where you can lose thousands of dollars an hour with a system down that makes a big difference.

Does that make them bad for gaming ? Not at all   The chances of individual users having an issue with just one or at the most two systems at home is small and generally even if you do get an issue it is just a Saturday afternoons to get it sorted. For personal use go with whatever is the best bang per buck.

As for servers, it would be truly wonderful if our software ran on server class top end AMD processors and GPUs as Xeon Gold's and A100 tesla are worth tens of thousands more than the AMD equivalent but unfortunately our stats software is Intel/nvidia only and getting it recoded for AMD would cost more than we would save.

.

 

 

There is a YouTube channel with a PC tech that works on a ton of PCs and really knows his stuff. He quoted a survey done a few months ago with troubles reported by AMD owners and NvDivida Owners. The Percentages were like 40% AMD versus around 14% of Nvidia Owners.  That is a huge difference. 

28 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

There is a YouTube channel with a PC tech that works on a ton of PCs and really knows his stuff. He quoted a survey done a few months ago with troubles reported by AMD owners and NvDivida Owners. The Percentages were like 40% AMD versus around 14% of Nvidia Owners.  That is a huge difference. 

So a bit over double the issues with AMD ? That sort of fits our experience as well and for Enterprise that is a lot of money saved by going Nvidia.

Still, for an individual gamer you are not that likely to hit issues with either platform and if you are saving money and getting higher performance it may be well worth the risk. There is no generic right or wrong choice, it is up to the individual to decide really.

Bob,

I never complained to anyone about it but I was in similar shoes and stopped using the sim for months.

One day recently I upgraded the whole PC and now the sim runs excellent. In my case it was the motherboard causing low performance and CTD. No one could ever figure out the MOBO was faulty but I do know now why and how.

 

Enjoy simming.

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

So a bit over double the issues with AMD ? That sort of fits our experience as well and for Enterprise that is a lot of money saved by going Nvidia.

Still, for an individual gamer you are not that likely to hit issues with either platform and if you are saving money and getting higher performance it may be well worth the risk. There is no generic right or wrong choice, it is up to the individual to decide really.

Over the last twenty five years, my observations of the forums have led me to the conclusion that you are more susceptible to have a problem with an AMD (and before ATI) than a Nvidia card. Same with the proc, AMD vs Intel.  I underline this is mainly my personal observations, I do not know of any systematic data on this. But you have to make a choice. That has led me to pay a premium price to go Intel and Nvidia.  

I owned one AMD machine ever and it was a nightmare. The CPU was fine..

The 6990 and the drivers at the time still haunts my nightmares.. I'm not sure if I bought a GPU or a hairdryer and the whole dual bios switch was just weird. 

I understand this was ages ago but it left a lasting mark.. Never AMD again.