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
Regs - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Yikes @ the graphs lol.I just came close to pushing the button to order one of these but then I said...what games can't play on a 6800GT at 16x12 res? There is none. Far Cry was the only game that comes close to doing it.
Bravo to Nvidia, his and boo @ lagging game developers.
bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
#19Are you new to this market or do you have a short memory? Don't you remember that the initial 6800 Ultra's cost around $700-800? I sure as hell do. Why is everyone complaining about pricing? These are premium video cards and you will pay a premium price to buy them.
Barneyk - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Yeah, not a single comment on any of the benchmarks, what is up with that?There were alot of wierd scenarios there, why is there NO performance increase in SLI some of the time?
And why is 6800Ultra SLI faster then 7800GTX SLI??
Alot of wierd stuff, and not a singel comment or analysis about it, I always read most new tests here on AT first becasue its usually the best, but this review was a double boogey to say the least...
Dukemaster - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
@21: The score of the X850XT PE in Wolfenstein still looks messed up to me...shabby - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Ya some of the scores dont make much sense, 7800 sli loosing to a single 7800?yacoub - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Hey, looks great! $350 and you've got a buyer here!Lifted - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Guys, they simply reversed the 6800 Ultra SLI and 7800 GTX SLI in all of the 1600 x 1200 - 4x AA graphs.Now everthing is kosher again.
Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
To 18 - I have to admit, I didn't bother looking closely at them, seeing the X850XT supposedly beating all the other cards by such a margin at those resolutions showed they were completely screwed up! I didn't notice the performance increase as you go up the resolution, maybe it's something I missed on my own X850XT? ;) I wish...that would be a neat feature, your performance increases as your resolution increases.I agree it needs pulled down and checked, not to be harsh on AT but this isn't the first time the bar graphs have been wrong - I would rather wait for a review that has been properly finished and checked rather than read a rushed one, as it stands it's no use to me because I have no idea if any of the performance figures are genuine.
John
RyDogg1 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Wow, who exactly is paying for these video cards to warrant the pricing?Lonyo - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
To #14, the X850XT performance INCREASED by 33% from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536 according to the grahics, so to me that just screams BULLSH!T.I think the review needs taking down, editing, and then being put up again.
Or fixed VERY quickly.
AT IMO has let people down a bit this time round, not the usual standard.