Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7900GTX for $220?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 2, 2006 5:04:17 PM

Hey guys, has anyone seen these new 7900GTOs floating around for $250?

I saw one on tigerdirect.com, I ordered one for $232 shipped AR. Its gone up in price now, heres link: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Basically before shipping the card is $220. I've read that this card overclocks past 7900GTX speeds. Heres the link: http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=...

Now if this really was true and it was a 7900GTX for $232, do you guys think i should take this jump from my current x850xt? I'm having doubts because everyone makes it seem the 1900xts are so much better.

Heres my setup:

Allendale 6400 Core 2 duo
Gigabyte DS3 Mobo
x850xt
2gigs patriot 667 ram
2 250gb WD

should i take this jump or wait for the 8series card? or should i get the 1900xt? Lets say this was just a 7900gtx in disguise. Anyone have links to 7900gtx vs. 1900xt or 1900xtx benchmarks?

The game I'm really big on right now is company of heroes and G71series cards seem to run them better than ATI cards.

More about : 7900gtx 220

October 2, 2006 5:17:40 PM

Quote:
Hey guys, has anyone seen these new 7900GTOs floating around for $250?

I saw one on tigerdirect.com, I ordered one for $232 shipped AR. Its gone up in price now, heres link: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Basically before shipping the card is $220. I've read that this card overclocks past 7900GTX speeds. Heres the link: http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=...

Now if this really was true and it was a 7900GTX for $232, do you guys think i should take this jump from my current x850xt? I'm having doubts because everyone makes it seem the 1900xts are so much better.

I'd go for it. Its really a underclocked GTX, but can overclock to become one. The price is really nice, but a x1900xt is dead even with it after the overclock. It depends on what your looking for, and what games you play.

Heres my setup:

Allendale 6400 Core 2 duo
Gigabyte DS3 Mobo
x850xt
2gigs patriot 667 ram
2 250gb WD

should i take this jump or wait for the 8series card? or should i get the 1900xt? Lets say this was just a 7900gtx in disguise. Anyone have links to 7900gtx vs. 1900xt or 1900xtx benchmarks?

The game I'm really big on right now is company of heroes and G71series cards seem to run them better than ATI cards.
October 2, 2006 5:19:30 PM

Ok that quote was weird.

Basically the GTO is a underclocked GTX or overclocked GT. I would say its a better deal than the 7950GT they have now. Plus along with the dual slot cooler, and the same resemblance to a 7900GTX, it makes you wonder if it really is one. The GTO is very easy to overclock to GTX speeds, and takes blow for blow after the overclock with the x1900xt. So it really just depends what games you play.
Related resources
October 2, 2006 5:27:28 PM

I ordered it from zipzoomfly, and will be selling my x1900xtx.

Tired of the heat from that beast, difficult to keep the OC on my e6600, when the vid card is hitting mid 80s during long game sessions.

Great bang for your buck.
October 2, 2006 9:53:16 PM

I've seen some guys who jumped on this card right away say that once you overclock it, since it runs so cool, it goes head to head with a x1900xtx 512mb . Some say the 1900's image quality is better, and i definitely noticed it does AF better than the 7900GTX but still, there just aren't enough reviews comparing these two directly after considering the overclockability of the 71 series since they run so cool.

But for $232 bux shipped, this is only like $20 more than a x1800xt, and $40 cheaper than a 1900xt 256mb.

The most stressing game i've come across so far is definitely Company of heroes, the performance test the game comes with is crap. The actual game makes every system crap out and slow to a crawl. And it seems that 71 series cards outperform the x1900 cards in this game. So the real question is, as new release games come out, will the 71series cards show their worth?
a b U Graphics card
October 2, 2006 9:58:26 PM

Quote:
difficult to keep the OC on my e6600, when the vid card is hitting mid 80s during long game sessions.

Did you change the stock cooler? Otherwise that 80 degree air is going right out of the case so it should not effect the e6600 OC because of heat any more than a GF79xx. Power supply demand is another story.
a b U Graphics card
October 2, 2006 10:05:38 PM

Quote:
But for $232 bux shipped, this is only like $20 more than a x1800xt, and $40 cheaper than a 1900xt 256mb.

Actually $10 cheaper than the X1900XT 256MB.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

Shoot and $10 more to deal with Newegg instead TD, throws the price difference right out IMO.
October 2, 2006 10:29:21 PM

Quote:
I've seen some guys who jumped on this card right away say that once you overclock it, since it runs so cool, it goes head to head with a x1900xtx 512mb . Some say the 1900's image quality is better, and i definitely noticed it does AF better than the 7900GTX but still, there just aren't enough reviews comparing these two directly after considering the overclockability of the 71 series since they run so cool.

But for $232 bux shipped, this is only like $20 more than a x1800xt, and $40 cheaper than a 1900xt 256mb.

The most stressing game i've come across so far is definitely Company of heroes, the performance test the game comes with is crap. The actual game makes every system crap out and slow to a crawl. And it seems that 71 series cards outperform the x1900 cards in this game. So the real question is, as new release games come out, will the 71series cards show their worth?


i have Company of Heroes and on a machine running a X2 4200 with 2GB of memory and a x1800xt with a monitor at 1680x1050 with everything on high or ultra high and it never comes to a crawl, Ever, its pretty smooth for me, not sure what "crawl" your referring to
October 3, 2006 12:03:33 PM

Quote:
I've seen some guys who jumped on this card right away say that once you overclock it, since it runs so cool, it goes head to head with a x1900xtx 512mb . Some say the 1900's image quality is better, and i definitely noticed it does AF better than the 7900GTX but still, there just aren't enough reviews comparing these two directly after considering the overclockability of the 71 series since they run so cool.

But for $232 bux shipped, this is only like $20 more than a x1800xt, and $40 cheaper than a 1900xt 256mb.

The most stressing game i've come across so far is definitely Company of heroes, the performance test the game comes with is crap. The actual game makes every system crap out and slow to a crawl. And it seems that 71 series cards outperform the x1900 cards in this game. So the real question is, as new release games come out, will the 71series cards show their worth?


i have Company of Heroes and on a machine running a X2 4200 with 2GB of memory and a x1800xt with a monitor at 1680x1050 with everything on high or ultra high and it never comes to a crawl, Ever, its pretty smooth for me, not sure what "crawl" your referring to

for me anything under 20fps is a crawl and i got that alot with an overclocked x850xt pe @ 1280x1024 (core 570, mem 580). My system is actually really lopsided right now, i have a conroe running at 3.5ghz and 2 gigz of ram but a low end vid card in the x850. This was mainly to wait for Dx10. But i think 7900GTO @ $232 is too good a deal to pass up.

Most people don't take into account how cool it runs, i think overclocked, and in the future as new drivers come out, it will meet and beat any x1900 card in pushing raw frame rates. I'm not arguing about image quality though, but honestly i couldnt care less about AA and AF. TBH i never was able to tell the difference at 16x AF and 6x AA (i've seen all screen shots). I don't care what card is out now, i doubt any will be worth using AA with once Crysis comes out and makes every card look like its running in molasses.

Futher more, I've seen alot of reviews backing ATI's HDR rendering, because its darker and looks "more realistic". I'm not so sure i agree with those assumptions. ATI's HDR just seems darker than NVidias.

High Dynamic Range lighting means a wide range of color to make stuff stand out. THus, it should look both brighter when it should and darker where it should, there should be a strong contrast on screen in half lit or half shaded areas. I think Nvidias is just as good, if not better. I will say the 1900xt does the best AF I've ever seen but i still wouldn't turn it on because again, maxed out settings + maxed out framerates > any AA and AF for me on 1280x1024 which is barely stretching the textuers to produce jaggies. If i had a 1600+ vertical line screen then I'd worry about AA and AF.
October 3, 2006 7:05:29 PM

Quote:
for me anything under 20fps is a crawl and i got that alot with an overclocked x850xt pe @ 1280x1024 (core 570, mem 580). My system is actually really lopsided right now, i have a conroe running at 3.5ghz and 2 gigz of ram but a low end vid card in the x850. This was mainly to wait for Dx10. But i think 7900GTO @ $232 is too good a deal to pass up.


i've never encountered 20fps in CoH, as far as overclocking your vid card i'd rather just get a x1900xt 256mb that beats a GTX or GTO or GT and not overclock it and then void the warranty, especially with all the problems people were having with their 7900GTs and having to RMA them
October 3, 2006 8:46:32 PM

Quote:
i've never encountered 20fps in CoH, as far as overclocking your vid card i'd rather just get a x1900xt 256mb that beats a GTX or GTO or GT and not overclock it and then void the warranty, especially with all the problems people were having with their 7900GTs and having to RMA them



I wouldn't quite say that the 1900xt 256mb beats the GTX. The extra memory can help in a few current games, and will probably help more in the future. If you buy the eVGA 7900GTO (the one on newegg, tiger, and zipzoomfly), overclocking or even replacing the heatsink will not void the warranty. As a side note, I've read somewhere that the reason the 7900gt's had issues was because they were factory undervolted to 1.2v instead of 1.4 like the GTX. I'm not sure if I can provide a link, or if this is true. It is a thought though. The 7900GTO has the same voltage as the 7900GTX.

Regardless, I believe that if you pick the 7900GTO or the x1900xt 256MB, you'll be happy.
October 3, 2006 8:54:03 PM

Quote:
i've never encountered 20fps in CoH, as far as overclocking your vid card i'd rather just get a x1900xt 256mb that beats a GTX or GTO or GT and not overclock it and then void the warranty, especially with all the problems people were having with their 7900GTs and having to RMA them



I wouldn't quite say that the 1900xt 256mb beats the GTX. The extra memory can help in a few current games, and will probably help more in the future. If you buy the eVGA 7900GTO (the one on newegg, tiger, and zipzoomfly), overclocking or even replacing the heatsink will not void the warranty. As a side note, I've read somewhere that the reason the 7900gt's had issues was because they were factory undervolted to 1.2v instead of 1.4 like the GTX. I'm not sure if I can provide a link, or if this is true. It is a thought though. The 7900GTO has the same voltage as the 7900GTX.

Regardless, I believe that if you pick the 7900GTO or the x1900xt 256MB, you'll be happy.

The x1900xt only beats the GTX in few games. Its still a good card, but with this GTO on the market now, and newegg selling it for a nice 245, it makes the 7950 and 7900 go down the drain in my opinion. If you looking into getting a decent card from the nvidia line, the GTO sounds like the best deal. For ati, of course the x1900xt. :lol: 
October 4, 2006 12:37:40 AM

Quote:
for me anything under 20fps is a crawl and i got that alot with an overclocked x850xt pe @ 1280x1024 (core 570, mem 580). My system is actually really lopsided right now, i have a conroe running at 3.5ghz and 2 gigz of ram but a low end vid card in the x850. This was mainly to wait for Dx10. But i think 7900GTO @ $232 is too good a deal to pass up.


i've never encountered 20fps in CoH, as far as overclocking your vid card i'd rather just get a x1900xt 256mb that beats a GTX or GTO or GT and not overclock it and then void the warranty, especially with all the problems people were having with their 7900GTs and having to RMA them

1.) you have a x1800xt so that doesnt apply to my me :*(

2.) evga supports life time warranty that covers everything that could go wrong in an overclock, I also know what I am doing.

3.) x1900xt 256mb does not beat a GTX, neither does a 1900xtx. Oblivion is an ATI optimized game, there are a lot of games, including fear where an overclocked or even stock GTX will beat or meet 1900s including the 1950xtx.

4.) 512mb matters, it didn't use to, but now even at 1280x1024, oblivion and fear will use over 256mb of memory, in which case the data has to be unloaded to your harddisk and performance spikes downward randomly, which would kill you in multiplayer games.

5.) I read of some people recently getting these GTOs and overclocking them to over 820mhz core and 2200mhz mem. (no kidding i was suprised too). On the other hand I've read even with water cooling, 1900xtx's are still insanely hot.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you overclock both cards (especially with stock cooling), the 7900GTO 512mb will perform equally to the 1900xtx 512mb. Benchmarks say that the 1900xt 256 at lower resolutions is as good as the 512mb version, but I know those benchmarks with their average fps and controlled environments are wrong, i know that for a fact because I've seen fast 256mb cards slow down simply because there's not enough buffer.

I've seen people show me a measured usage of the texture memory on their card at 1280x1024 and it does occasionaly spike above 256, and when it does, any 256 card no matter how fast it is, will stutter for a split second.

Does this matter in Oblivion? No. But if you play a multiplayer fps like FEAR multiplayer (like me) you notice when it happens, and you die, which sucks. 512mb = stability in future games. And anyone willing to bet crysis will consistently use over 256mb of texture memory?

Theres a reason that Nvidia is beefing up the G8series cards with extra texture memory, and its because games like Crysis will consistently ask for a lot of memory in my opinion.

I'm not a fanboy in either camp, but i think its easy to see that 7900GTO is the best card below 300 right now. I think its in the same exact league as the 1900xt 512 and more future proof than the 1900xt 256 even though they perform the same on a lot of current games.

I think this is comparable in value to when Nvidia dumped their 6800s and everyone who could get one got one. Just look at how fast the GTOs are selling out. You can't find them stock anywhere, and its a limited edition card.

To me, there is no debate between 1900xt 256 and the 7900GTO. The debate is between the GTO and the xt 512. The difference is about $70 for me, I'd be paying for better image quality and AF. But I think after talking my self through, $70 is not worth the jump.
a b U Graphics card
October 4, 2006 1:33:13 AM

Quote:
3.) x1900xt 256mb does not beat a GTX, neither does a 1900xtx. Oblivion is an ATI optimized game, there are a lot of games, including fear where an overclocked or even stock GTX will beat or meet 1900s including the 1950xtx.

Fear:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7950...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0806/itogi...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0806/itogi...


The X1900XT 512MB and 7900GTX trade blows at default driver settings. Oblivion is not the only game the Radeons will take, they just happen to dominate that one aprt from the GX2. And Equal out the texture quality and the X1900 would easily win (FS review) Same for the XTX, but I'd still say the XTX gets the slight nod overall even at default driver settings. Digit-lifes charts back that up:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index.html


Check out this FS review: the 256MB X1900XT more than holds it's own with the 7900GTX at high res with aa/af: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7950...


Quote:
but i think its easy to see that 7900GTO is the best card below 300 right now.

Anyway, the GTO sounds great, and looks to be what NV needed. But I'll still reserve my final judgement as to whether it beats a X1900XT 256MB until after some major review sites test retail versions against each other. I am still yet to read a single decent review of the GTO. For now, I still like the X1900XT for $235. fsaa+HDR and better texture quality at default driver settings add even more to it's value IMO. The X1900XT is a great card for anyone with it's stock performance and ability to OC. The 7900GTO looks to have enthusiast written all over it though; fun and powerful card if early samples are any indication.

Do you have some links to 7900GTO reviews?
October 4, 2006 2:08:35 AM

Quote:
3.) x1900xt 256mb does not beat a GTX, neither does a 1900xtx. Oblivion is an ATI optimized game, there are a lot of games, including fear where an overclocked or even stock GTX will beat or meet 1900s including the 1950xtx.

Fear:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7950...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0806/itogi...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0806/itogi...


The X1900XT 512MB and 7900GTX trade blows at default driver settings. Oblivion is not the only game the Radeons will take, they just happen to dominate that one aprt from the GX2. And Equal out the texture quality and the X1900 would easily win (FS review) Same for the XTX, but I'd still say the XTX gets the slight nod overall even at default driver settings. Digit-lifes charts back that up:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index.html


Check out this FS review: the 256MB X1900XT more than holds it's own with the 7900GTX at high res with aa/af: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7950...


Quote:
but i think its easy to see that 7900GTO is the best card below 300 right now.

Anyway, the GTO sounds great, and looks to be what NV needed. But I'll still reserve my final judgement as to whether it beats a X1900XT 256MB until after some major review sites test retail versions against each other. I am still yet to read a single decent review of the GTO. For now, I still like the X1900XT for $235. fsaa+HDR and better texture quality at default driver settings add even more to it's value IMO. The X1900XT is a great card for anyone with it's stock performance and ability to OC. The 7900GTO looks to have enthusiast written all over it though; fun and powerful card if early samples are any indication.

Do you have some links to 7900GTO reviews?

Hey Pauldh, yeah definitely point well proven, but I think i didn't clear one thing up. Its definitely true, and those benchmarks show that the 1900 cards are outperforming at those settings.

BUT here's a review: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30856

This is one of the few reviews that took AA&AF off in a 1900xtx vs. 7900GTX battle, although the GTX is overclocked.

But look at how drastically the 1900xtx stock can catch up to a 7900GTX overclocked once AA & AF are on, especially in FEAR. GTX has 20fps advantage (20%) at one point and loses it all once AA&AF is turned on!

So one of the reasons that all these reviews are a little skewed is that the 1900xt cards are insane at AA & AF, they lose very few frame rates where the 71 series lose a lot. But with that turned off, the playing field is evened.

A french website did a review of a stock GTO measuring up against stock versions of the GTX, 1900xt and 1900xtx here:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/639-3/comparatif-gpu-dx...

The GTO holds its own against the other cards at stock speeds just by look at the charts, i'm sure you can see that.

Now, important thing to note here, I translated the page from french and it seems the FEAR test without AA is still enabled with 16x AF. And AF in general is enabled through all tests. I honestly believe 1900series cards can do AF and AA with minimal loses to framerates whereas the 71series cannot.

ATI is just a light year ahead in AA & AF at this point, i think the point i want to make, is that since i don't care about AA&AF (seems like i'm one of few who are like that) I think that for an enthusiast like me, the 7900GTO is a dream come true. Its just a flat out powerhouse card ready to be clocked to insane speeds.
October 4, 2006 2:08:36 AM

About time Nvidia has a good card in the price/performance sector. With the memory clocked at reference 7900GTX, it should be able to outperform the X1900XT 256MB in a good number of titles. Also seeing as it comes with the same 1.1ns DDR3, it should be even easier. Hopefully ATI drops the price of the X1950XTX or the X1900XT 512MB. :p 
a b U Graphics card
October 4, 2006 2:52:27 AM

Yes, NV always does well without fsaa/af as we see the 7900GT do well/ even win against X1800XT at those settings.

But honestly, while I fully respect your desire/right to game without fsaa & AF, I think those eye candy tests by far are what matter most to the average high end card buyer. I really don't put weight into the noaa/af charts unless the cards tested are not playable with aa/af. Personally, I can't imaging not using AA and AF on any of these higher end cards. I even like to run AA + HDR in Oblivion as to me the jaggies jump out at me. Anyway, perfect gaming would be 6xadaa + 16x HQAF in every game if my card could handle such a thing.

I have seen the french review, but not the inq's testing. Anyway, I could see myself having alot of fun with the 7900GTO. I'd still rather be gaming on the X1900XT though.
October 4, 2006 10:19:19 PM

Yeah dude, i can't wait to see what this card can do. I'm all about price performance and budget, and i honestly don't want to upgrade to play crysis when it comes out, because dx10 cards will be too expensive then. I doubt any current gen card could play crysis with AA/AF at my screens native which is an average 1280x1024. Thus, I'm going with the GTO, betting on a lot of texture memory needed to play Crysis.

my Current setup is completely new, except GPU which I'm now upgrading (before i wanted to wait for dx10 cards but GTO too good to pass up). Anyways here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 6400 @ OC 3.5ghz (500mhz x 7 multiplier)
Motherboard: Gigabyte DS3
Ram: Patriot DDR2 2G @OC - DDR1000mhz effective (500mhz x 2 multiplier): 1:1 w/ CPU
Videocard: 7900GTO(GTX) can't wait to OC this.... (upgraded from old x850xt)
Harddrives: 2*250gb Seagate 7200 RPM SATA 3's in Raid 0 configuration
PSU: 500w Thermaltake Dual 12v rails
Case: Centurion 5
Monitor: 19" LCD, native: 1280x1024, brightness: 250cm, response time: 6ms, refresh rate: 75hz

Everything put together on the new rig = just over $1,000. Yeah so like i said, I'm all about value lol, and all about keeping it budget. For me, x1900xt 512 is really what i would want if i had no budget. But keeping this rig under 1000 is a big deal for me. It makes me feel like an accomplished bargain basement buyer :) 

Just want to top 7000 on 3d mark 06 with this rig and I'll consider it an awesome buy :D 
October 4, 2006 11:09:42 PM

Quote:
Just want to top 7000 on 3d mark 06 with this rig and I'll consider it an awesome buy


good luck
October 5, 2006 10:04:49 AM

Quote:
Ok that quote was weird.

Basically the GTO is a underclocked GTX or overclocked GT.


The GTO is running at the 7900GT's reference speeds. It should, however, overclock to GTX speeds, as they both have the same cooler.
October 30, 2007 6:53:38 PM

I just got a 7900 GTX, and it runs Crysis smoothly on Medium settings... at 800x600. I turned off AA and raised the texture detail and things still felt really solid - no "snags" or lockups. I increased the resolution to 1024x768, and while it looked a lot better, the smoothness suffered. At 1600x1200 it was a very nice looking slideshow.
October 30, 2007 7:12:43 PM

closetphilosopher said:
I just got a 7900 GTX, and it runs Crysis smoothly on Medium settings... at 800x600. I turned off AA and raised the texture detail and things still felt really solid - no "snags" or lockups. I increased the resolution to 1024x768, and while it looked a lot better, the smoothness suffered. At 1600x1200 it was a very nice looking slideshow.
This thread is a year old.
October 30, 2007 7:21:55 PM

WTF! cant the noob read this is from 2006...
!