New Performance King??

[shinigamiX]

Looks like the G71 isn't all it's cranked up to be. Sure it's a great card, but when more shader-intensive games come out the XTX's effenciency will show just how good it is. Note this post is edited, the original was based on a review of a 'superclocked' verion of the 7900GTX and before the THG and AT reviews were done.

 

[Vokofpolisiekar]

It looks good this far for the 7900GTX - but lets wait and see more shader intensive game comparisons plus reviews from the likes of TOMS/ANANDTECH.

 

[unreal111]

anandtech said there is no clear winner, it all depends on what kind of games you play and prices.

 

[shinigamiX]

Yes, Anandtech's review does seem a bit more relevant. Now all we have to do is wait for Tom!
What baffles me is the 7600GT. It's trounced at every corner by the 7800GT, and doesn't ecessarily outperform the 6800 either. Like AT said, unless the price freefalls people will most likely stick with 7800GT or 6800 IMO.

 

[Lan]

THG has posted their review, and their answer was much the same. It largely depends on the game you play, that there wasn't a clear winner.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

the G71 has taken back the performance crown and wiped the floor with the R580.

Far from it. The GF7900GTX didn't wipe the floor with anything. It's a nice boost, but one similar to the X1900XT over the X1800XT, not dommination when the GF7800 was launched.

Still, with a release this late, does it actually make sense to buy this card, with the G80 just a few months around the corner?

Sure it save them dollars for every one they sell versus the GF7800 series, that's always a good thing.

 

[cleeve]

What baffles me is the 7600GT. It's trounced at every corner by the 7800GT, and doesn't ecessarily outperform the 6800 either. Like AT said, unless the price freefalls people will most likely stick with 7800GT or 6800 IMO.

The 7600 GT was never meant to go up against the 7800 GT... it's made to replace the 6600 GT, which it absolutely destroys. It even kills the 6800 GS.

The 7900 GT was made to replace the 7800 GT, and it does that very nicely.

As far as the 7900 GTX... I don't think it can be given the crown that easily. It's like when the X1800 XT came to challence the 7800 GTX... it could beat it most of the time, but it wasn't a clear winner.

The 7900 GTX is a very nice & fast card, but I'd still seriously consider an X1900 for all of those wonderful shaders it has.

It will be VERY interesting to me to see which performs better in Oblivion (which should be here in 2 weeks or less), a very shader heavy title that's probably indicative of future game engines...

 

[sojrner]

I agree with almost everyone here and w/ tom, it will depend on what games do, and one engine to really look at is the Unreal 3 engine. With the sheer number of games that are based on v2.5 it seems only natural that many will go with v3.0

Oblivion is also a good sign for sure, as it is built also for the xbox 360. THAT is an indicator all by itself as devs shoot for that box. Of course the 360 is using the ati design so that may be an indicator right there on where games are going?

Either way, I love this time... and I am sure that both cards will perform well for the immediate future.

 

[Acert93]

What I am seeing in the different reviews is that in older games, where framerates already exceed 60fps (usually well over 100fps) the 7900GTX is ahead (but not always with AA).

Turn the tables to high resolutions with AA on modern games (like FEAR) and it is the opposite.

A lot of this has to do with the "art of the review". I remember post-E3 2005 Nvidia had passed out some PowerPoint slides to the press, and specifically in them they were talking about how "True HD resolutions with AA are here!". Their point, seemingly in defense of RSX, was that AA had a minor impact on performance. To prove this, they talked about how 1600x1200 had a similar demend as 1080p and then proceeded to list a dozen games with, and without, AA and its performance impact. Of course the PROBLEM with this little excersize--which demonstrated a negligable impact on performance!--was that the 3 newest games at the time (Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry)--all had 40%+ drop in performance!

In a nutshell the excersize was meant to skew the important facts, namely that in games that were *CPU bound* and older game designs (where each setting was well over 100fps) were hardly impacted by AA.

I think the same critical eye needs to be put forth on the X1900XTX and 7900GTX.

I have not read enough reviews to come to any conclusion, but I have a hard time calling the 7900GTX the performance king when I see numbers like this in a MODERN game:

51fps vs. 42fps @ 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF
61fps vs. 38fps with Softshadows @ 1600x1200 16xAF

Similar results in BF2 and CoD2. So far it seems the 7900GTX is winning some benchmarks (Q4 for example, and a number of older games) but it seems, in general (not always of course) that when framerate becomes push-and-shove and you NEED to squeeze out performance in modern games to make 60fps the X1900XTX is the one pulling ahead.

I am interested to see some detailed benchmarks on the Dynamic Branching and Flow Control (SM3.0 stuff) in the 7900GTX. If it is on par with the 7800GTX 512MB OCed ton 655MHz, then we are still looking at the X1900XTX beating the 7900GTX by 300%+ in such scenarios.

Hard for me to crown it "King of Performance" when it gets trashed in SM3.0 and struggles to win in Shader heavy modern games at higher resolutions with AA. Not that it does not win many, but on the whole a lot of the benchmarks I am seeing are showing the X1900XTX walking away in newer games.

And with shader heavy games coming (that may begin to leverage the shader array advantage in the X1900 series) and more SM3.0 games coming (especially since both consoles are SM3.0 compliant) this issue could become further exesperated.

Hopefully after reading more than a couple reviews I can give more thoughts, but I think this thread title is a little hasty.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

It will be BERY interesting to me to see which performs better in Oblivion (which should be here in 2 weeks or less), a very shader heavy title that's probably indicative of future game engines...

Don't taunt me like that you BERY Ba$$-Turd! :tongue:

The main advantage to me about the GF7900 is price, and power/heat.

Performance the same, and those lower is a very good thing for nV. I'd be interested in seeing what they did to conserve so many transistors! 8O

Well they didn't add the 8 ROPs as rumoured, but still, they probably could've and still com in under the GF7800GTX count.

 

[shinigamiX]

I admit many of my points were erronous. I just read AT and THG's reviews. Looks like G71 screams but not the loudest. But like I said, isn't the new Generation just around the corner???

 

[pwnage]

i would tend to think that the g80 shaders are going to be better, when they come out.

but who the hell knows ATI most likely has something in the works to get the crown back so im not going to cream my pants over this release.

 

[illicitsc]

can the 7900 do hdr and AA at the same time?

 

[Propain666]

The tests from TOM are really strange.


Some for ATI, some for NVIDIA.


Whats strange is a x1900xtx single beating a x1900xtx Crossfire. I just dont get that.



Also the big winner from all of this is NVIDIA. They just made a card that can out perform the X1900XTX in some games and it doesnt cost $700+!!

SLI is also the better solution because you dont have to deal with the dongle and the throughput limitations of it.

 

[sojrner]

some games just do not perform well on one or both of the dual card setups. (xfire or sli) Can either be the result of card drivers or game support.

edit: xfire is less mature than sli, but ati is getting better w/ new mobo chipset not needing the master card. The dongle is sorta like Nv's crossbar latch, just outside the case.

 

[pauldh]

As much as it hurts me(I own a X1800XT) to say this, the G71 has taken back the performance crown and wiped the floor with the R580.

Like Grape said, this is far from the case. They trade blows. Look at more reviews and games such as Fear, COD2, SPCT, BF2 and see if you change your mind.

The clear winner is us, if/when these pricing wars materialize. I'm liking the thought of the X1900XTX and 7900GTX going undrer $500. And even more intersting to me is the $300 battle between 7900GT and X1800XT 256MB.

 

[Vokofpolisiekar]

I couldn't agree more - as long as both companies offer similar performance and functionality, we are the winners. It will then boil down in the end to the best price and personal preference.

 

[shinigamiX]

I did. Read my second post... perhaps I should edit that first one...

 

[EXtreme-Gamer]

Think and search very good before you say something Because the X1900XTX
has more shader units (double of the ones in the 7900GTX = 48)and in games that use a lot of shding processing X1900XTX is a king like in fear 7900GTX 41
fps and X1900xtx 61 fps .The 7900GTX performs better in older games and
X1900XTX kicks b*tt if you ask me in high shaded games and in the other games just loses by 1-6 fps .X1900xtx also supports AVIVO too and something that the 7900GTX cant do is running HDR and Antialising the same
time so after some time when a lot of high shsde load games come out the X1900XTX will really FLY and 7900GTX will stay behind in performance so 7900 GTX doesnt kicks b*tt is even less powered than X1900XTX

 

[shinigamiX]

I think I should edit that first post. Read all my other posts, dammit!

 

[pauldh]

I think I should edit that first post. Read all my other posts, dammit!

LOL, :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I think I should edit that first post. Read all my other posts, dammit!

OK so I'm reading the screencaptures of your first post in my replies, and I can't stress enough..... :tongue:

Yeah, I hate when that happens.