Contrary to Intel > AMD, which is not limited to PCSX2 but almost every application and game, I somehow do not see the technical reason why Geforce cards generally work better in PCSX2 than Radeon ones. Their raw power is often pretty close to each other and it's a pretty even fight between the two companies in regular games.
What technical reason is behind the Geforce being seemingly better in PCSX2?
Intel i5 3450
Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X OC
8GB DDR3-1333 RAM
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256GB
Seagate 7200.14 1TB x2
Enermax Triathlor 450W PSU
Well lets see.
1. The current undetermined if a hardware or driver fault point sampling bug that affects Radeon 4 and 5k
2. The drivers are a bloated hell of a mess and don't even fully remove during uninstallation
3. Historically, nVIDIA have been far more -brute force efficiency- where as AMD were all about driver optimised efficiency. The brute force method is far better for pcsx2.
4. AMD's driver and developer liason's are abandoning ship, just yesterday another AMD employee left for a senior position at nVIDIA
5. nVIDIA's driver has alot of documented secret extra's that can be used more or less to improve most emulators.
ATI drivers also try to offload some load from the graphics card to the CPU, which works fine for PC games but is harmful for PCSX2, which is mostly CPU power bound instead of GPU bound.
I'll avoid ATI cards from now on...
thanks for this info.. planning upgrading from GT 440 to HD 7750 something.. so problematic XD
It is a bad news for me. Most laptops I found around come with an AMD GPU. Nvidia's are rare, and cost much higher at the same performance.
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 | nVidia GeForce GTX 750 | 4 GiB DDR3 @ 533 Mhz | MSI G41M-P28 | Cooler Master RS-390-PMSR-A3 | Xigmatek TYR SD962 | LG Flatron W1943SE | HP KB-0316 | MotoSpeed F60