GPU Failure Rate

>>55898824
Because Nvidia GPU don't naturally fail. They are murdered by the driver in a contained process.

Well what was the testing about? Gaming? Stress? Dropping it off a rooftop? Not choking on a cock?
This chart is worthless if we don't know the conditions

>>55898915
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Failure-Rates-by-Generation-563/

>>55898925

>we only use Asus cards

Oh, right. These fucks have been botching amd cards for years now.

>>55898824
>>55898925

That graphic is not about AMD cards failing more over Nvidias, but Asus sucking ass with AMD based cards prior to 2013. OP is a shill or can't into reading.

>>55898824
haha oh WOW

>>55898824
>Radeon HD 4xxx 15.4% failure rate

Weird. I had my Sapphire 4850 for literally 8 years. I replaced it just this year, and not because it was unstable, but because I wanted a better video card for vidya.

>>55899036
>>55899097

Oh really? Then check out their latest article:

"in 2015 NVIDIA GeForce cards only had an overall failure rate of 1.64% (down from 2.34% last year) versus AMD Radeon cards which had an overall failure rate of 10.2% (which is actually much better than the 17.9% we saw last year)"

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2015-749/

Top kek. AMD cards failing almost 10x as much as Nvidia.

>>55899329
>>55899310
>>55899288
Once again, THEY ONLY USE ASUS.

I could understand people bringing this up if they had a good range of vendors they chose from, but this is pathetic.

>>55899347
They don't only use asus, you might want to actually read the article.