NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX Hits The Ground Running
by Derek Wilson on June 22, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Half Life 2 Performance
Half-Life 2 is arguably one of the best looking games currently available. We mentioned earlier that it stresses pixel processing power more than memory bandwidth on the graphics card, and we see that here. While enabling AA/AF does cause a performance loss at these high resolutions, it isn't truly severe until we reach 2048x1536. Assuming a more common resolution of 1600x1200 - not everyone has a monitor with support for higher resolutions - the single 7800GTX is actually faster than 6800U SLI. In fact, the only time we see the 6800 SLI setup win out is when we run 4xAA/8xAF at 2048x1536, and then it's only by 3%. Also worth noting is that while SLI helps out the 6800 series quite a bit (provided you have a fast CPU and are running a high resolution), the 7800GTX is clearly running into CPU limitations. Our FX-55 can't push any of the cards past the 142 FPS mark regardless of resolution.ATI has done well in HL2 since its release, and that trend continues. The SLI configurations (other than the 6600GT) all surpass the performance of the X850XTPE, but it does come out ahead of the 6800U in a single card match - it's as much as 42% faster when we look at the 1600x1200 AA/AF scores. The 7800GTX, of course, manages to beat it quite easily. The 540 MHz core clock of the XTPE is quite impressive in the pixel shader heavy HL2, but with the additional pipelines and improved MADD functionality, the 7800GTX chews up HL2 rocks and spits out Combine gravel.
One thing that isn't immediately clear is why the 6800U cards have difficulties supporting the 2048x1536 resolution in some games. Performance drops by almost half when switching from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536, so either there's a driver problem or the 6800U simply doesn't do well with the demands of HL2 at such resolutions. There are 63% more pixels at 2048x1536 compared to 1600x1200, so it's rather shocking to see a performance decrease larger than this amount. We would venture to guess that it's a matter of priorities: the number of people that actually run 2048x1536 resolution in games is very small in comparison to the total number of gamers, and with most cards only providing a 60Hz refresh rate at that resolution, many don't worry too much about gaming performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
127 Comments
View All Comments
VIAN - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
"NVIDIA sees texture bandwidth as outweighing color and z bandwidth in the not too distant future." That was a quote from the article after saying that Nvidia was focusing less on Memory Bandwidth.Do these two statements not match or is there something I'm not aware of.
obeseotron - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
These benchmarks are pretty clearly rushed out and wrong, or at least improperly attributed to the wrong hardware. SLI 6800 show up faster than SLI 7800's in many benchmarks, in some cases much more than doubling single 6800 scores. I understand NDAs suck with the limited amount of time to produce a review, but I'd rather it have not been posted until the afternoon than ignore the benchmarks section.IronChefMoto - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
#28 -- Mlittl3 can't pronounce Penske or terran properly, and he's giving out grammar advice? Sad. ;)SDA - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
QUESTIONOkay, allcaps=obnoxious. But I do have a question. How was system power consumption measured? That is, was the draw of the computer at the wall measured, or was the draw on the PSU measured? In other words, did you measure how much power the PSU drew from the wall or how much power the components drew from the PSU?
Aikouka - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Wow, I'm simply amazed. I said to someone as soon as I saw this "Wow, now I feel bad that I just bought a 6800GT ... but at least they won't be available for 1 or 2 months." Then I look and see that retailers already have them! I was shocked to say the least.RyDogg1 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
But my question was "who," was buying them. I'm a hardware goon as much as the next guy, but everyone knows that in 6-12 months, the next gen is out and price is lower on these. I mean the benches are presenting comparisons with cards that according to the article are close to a year old. Obviously some sucker lays down the cash because the "premium," price is way too high for a common consumer.Maybe this one of the factors that will lead to the Xbox360/PS3 becoming the new gaming standard as opposed to the Video Card market pushing the envelope.
geekfool - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
What no Crossfire benchies? I guess they didn't wany Nvidia to loose on their big launch day.Lonyo - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
The initial 6800U's cost lots because of price gouging.They were in very limited supply, so people hiked up the prices.
The MSRP of these cards is $600, and they are available.
MSRP of the 6800U's was $500, the sellers then inflated prices.
Lifted - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
#24: In the Wolfenstein graph they obviously reversed the 7800 GTX SLI with the Radeon.They only reveresed a couple of labels here and there, chill out. It's still VERY OBVIOUS which card is which just by looking at the performance!
WAKE UP SLEEPY HEADS.
mlittl3 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Derek,I know this article must have been rushed out but it needs EXTREME proofreading. As many have said in the other comments above, the results need to be carefully gone over to get the right numbers in the right place.
There is no way that the ATI card can go from just under 75 fps at 1600x1200 to over 100 fps at 2048x1535 in Enemy Territory.
Also, the Final Words heading is part of the paragraph text instead of a bold heading above it.
There are other grammatical errors too but those aren't as important as the erroneous data. Plus, a little analysis of each of the benchmark results for each game would be nice but not necessary.
Please go over each graph and make sure the numbers are right.