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.
127 Comments
View All Comments
vanish - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
From what i'm seeing the 6800U SLI beats the 7800GTX[SLI] in most normal resolutions. I don't know, but usually when a new generation comes out it should at least beat the previous generation. Sure, it works wonders on huge resolutions, but very few people actually have monitors that can display these types of resolutions. Most people don't have monitors above 1200x1000 resolution, much less 1600x1200.Live - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
What’s up with the BF2 graphs? The 6800u SLI scores more at 1600x1200 4xAA (76,3) then it does at the same resolution without AA (68,3). That doesn’t make sense does it?Sorry for the extremely poor spelling…
Dukemaster - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Over 2,5 than a 6800 ultra in Battlefield 2 and Splinter Cell, how the hell is that possbile??vortmax - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Good job Nvidia with the launch. Now lets see if ATI can match the performance and availability.ryanv12 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
From what I see, the 7800GTX is really of benefit to you if you have a monitor that is higher than a 1600x1200 resolution. Fairly impressive though, I must say. I also wasn't expecting double the performance of the 6800's since it only has 50% more pipes. I can't wait to see the 32 piped cards!Live - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Looks good. to bad i ahve to wiat a few month until ATI releases the competition.bpt8056 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
First post!! Congrats to nVidia for pulling off an official launch with retail availability.