Graphic Cards Questions & Answers
nVidia CUDA cores vs. AMD streaming processors
Follow Discussion
With the announcement of the AMD Radeon HD 6990, I start wondering which technology is better? The new VGA has 3072 streaming processors O_o So do CUDA cores serve the same purpose as the streaming processors? GTX 580 has 512 CUDA cores - does this mean 6990 is 6 times faster than GTX 580?
Highly rated gadgets
-
9.1
Apple iPhone XS
-
9.0
Sony WH-1000XM3
-
10.0
FujiFilm X-T3
-
9.0
Panasonic LUMIX LX100 II
-
9.0
FujiFilm XF10
-
9.1
Apple iPhone XS Max
-
10.0
Nikon Z 7
-
8.0
BlackBerry Motion
-
8.5
Xiaomi Mi A2
AMD has more streaming processors, but a LOT less software which can use them for calculations, so still nVidia is the better decision if you intend some serious usage(rendering, decrypting etc.)
For decrypting purposes the new Backtrack OS uses both ATI Stream and CUDA :) and i`m pretty sure that you can find rendering software that works with ATI as well
And what about games? Does these technologies matter, or just for rendering and decrypting?
For example games use PhysX and PhysX use CUDA :)
PhysX really takes the game graphics and effects to a whole new level. Its pretty much like Havok (which AMD/ATI uses, but better and more widely spread).
It's the first time I hear about Havok.....though once upon a time I had a high end ATI Radeon VGA.
As far as I know Havok is more used in movies...you will be surprised how many blockbusters had been created with this technology
Test Drive Unlimited 2 uses Havok. For the moment Cuda is better.
I don't know, whether you know, that Havok is on the market long time ago before Cuda
Cuda has more future than Stream processors.