NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX 512: More Than Just More Memory
by Derek Wilson on November 14, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Introduction
This card should have gotten a different name. With hugely increased clock speeds, more memory, a beefy heatsink (the one used on the Quadro FX 4500), and a new board layout, the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 is one very powerful card. Oh yeah, and it's got more RAM too.
Earlier this month we started seeing ATI's new Radeon X1800 XT show up for sale. Today, ATI's high end part gets some revamped competition from NVIDIA's new offering. And even though we don't like the name, the 7800 GTX 512 is an excellent performer. Will the increased core and memory clock speed be enough for NVIDIA to topple ATI's high end monster? Will the additional memory make a tangible difference? The answers may not be as straight forward as they could be, but we were certainly excited to get our testing done and find out.
Before we get into the thick of it, it is important to note that ATI released drivers last week that greatly improve OpenGL performance with 4xAA. One of the suprises we will see from this new ATI creation is that the X1800 XT actually bests the current 7800 GTX in Doom 3 when 4xAA is enabled. This driver is a welcome development from ATI (whose OpenGL drivers have been somewhat lacking for quite some time), but with the new 7800 GTX 512 coming up to bat, it may be too little too late.
In any case, this is the second card in as many weeks that NVIDIA has brought out in response to new ATI parts. We found the 6800 GS to be quite a good fit for it's price point, and the 7800 GTX 512 is no slouch either. But with our price engine showing a $700 barrier to entry at the time of publication, we aren't quite as excited about price/performance ratio potential. Of course, the Radeon X1800 XT is still running between 600 and 700 at the moment, so the competition is still in the same ball park price wise.
Let's take a look at what we actually get for all that cash before we decide whether it's worth it or not.
This card should have gotten a different name. With hugely increased clock speeds, more memory, a beefy heatsink (the one used on the Quadro FX 4500), and a new board layout, the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 is one very powerful card. Oh yeah, and it's got more RAM too.
Earlier this month we started seeing ATI's new Radeon X1800 XT show up for sale. Today, ATI's high end part gets some revamped competition from NVIDIA's new offering. And even though we don't like the name, the 7800 GTX 512 is an excellent performer. Will the increased core and memory clock speed be enough for NVIDIA to topple ATI's high end monster? Will the additional memory make a tangible difference? The answers may not be as straight forward as they could be, but we were certainly excited to get our testing done and find out.
Before we get into the thick of it, it is important to note that ATI released drivers last week that greatly improve OpenGL performance with 4xAA. One of the suprises we will see from this new ATI creation is that the X1800 XT actually bests the current 7800 GTX in Doom 3 when 4xAA is enabled. This driver is a welcome development from ATI (whose OpenGL drivers have been somewhat lacking for quite some time), but with the new 7800 GTX 512 coming up to bat, it may be too little too late.
In any case, this is the second card in as many weeks that NVIDIA has brought out in response to new ATI parts. We found the 6800 GS to be quite a good fit for it's price point, and the 7800 GTX 512 is no slouch either. But with our price engine showing a $700 barrier to entry at the time of publication, we aren't quite as excited about price/performance ratio potential. Of course, the Radeon X1800 XT is still running between 600 and 700 at the moment, so the competition is still in the same ball park price wise.
Let's take a look at what we actually get for all that cash before we decide whether it's worth it or not.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
EXACTLY!!!! Which IS the point of these tests! They are intentionally isolating the GPU's because...that's what they're testing! LOL! Anand's been testing the latest and greatest for years now. This is NOT something new here.Brunnis - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Huh? Peak FPS? They're testing average FPS. Do you think they would be stupid enough to measure peak FPS. That would make very little sense...Cygni - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
No way. Different sound solutions have different overheads, different overheads have different effects on the cards.Sound off. Its the only way to get an acurate comparison between the cards.
yacoub - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Holy crap nearly 300watts of power just for the GPU! This could be the first card that really puts a gaming system into the realm of NEEDING a 500watt high-efficiency PSU.jkostans - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Read he article, it's system power. Meaning at the outlet. Actual power drawn from the PSU by the system components assuming ~75% efficiency would be around 210 which isn't all that much if you think about it. A 400w PSU is plenty for this system.bloc - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Getting silly.The mainstream people are still looking for the best value for $200. I hope ati doesn't overreact and start releasing a bunch of vid cards to gain the title back. Wait 4-6 months for the next iteration. The mainstream wants 60 fps @ 1024. Offer the best bang for the dollar and we'll rave about it.
Don't waste money on tons of iterations. Just lower the cost of current generation to compete. Anand will do a FPS vs $$ soon enough, cause that's the real measure of value.
For $700 buy an xbox 360 or take a Winter vacation.
xbdestroya - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Well, my 6800GT can't give me playable in 1280x1024 for CoD2, so that's what we've come to. I would have thought that a card like this wouldn't be needed until sometime next year, but already the level of hardware required by games has takena significant jump since Doom 3.Calin - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Some users prefer to run their 17" or 19" LCD at the native resolution (1280x1024). This means they want good performance at that resolution. As for those that have bigger screens, they want even better performance.Even so, there are lots of good games that run ok on old video cards (even budget old video cards). But if someone chooses a certain level of quality (antialising, resolution, HDR, ...) they want, is great to have a site that present different options (cards).
PrinceGaz - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Isn't the PS3 supposed to be using a 24-pipe nVidia core running at 550MHz as well? If so, that would almost certainly mean that this card is faster as I bet they are using very similar cores, but the 7800GTX512 has much faster memory than the PS3.And of course there's always SLI if you want even more performance...
DerekWilson - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
heh ... sli ... let's see, $1400 on two video cards or on 3 or 4 next gen consoles ... or on lots of other cool hardware/software/tvs/movies/games ... whateverits a fast beast, but its just too pricy :-)