7900 GTX Vs 7950 GX2 (which is better?)

[blacktalon25]

Alright, I thought that the 7950 was suppossed to outperform the 7900 GTX. According to an article put out by tomshardware it said that this wasnt the case except when running at about 1600X1200. Well to check up on this I went to the VGA benchmarks and compared the two on Oblivion for the 1600x1200 and all the 1280xXXXX. In every case the 7900 beats out the 7950.

Now im no expert and please let me know if im misinterpreting something, but why do i see this trend here? Do i invest in the 500 dollar 7950 or not?

thanks all

 

[MeDavid16]

I'll give this one a tackle

The 7950gx2 is actually 2 7900GT's slapped together, so virtually, you're running a 7900GT at SLI. At all resolutions, a 7900GTX will be faster than a 7900GT.

Now take two 7900GT's together, and pit it against a 7900GTX. At low resolutions, the 7900GTX is still faster, clocked faster, etc. At higher resolutions, the added pipeliness begin to kick in and you will see the 7950GX2 beat the 7900GTX.

So what does that mean? It means if you have a monitor, 21" or greater, I would personally recommend the 7950Gx2. I have a Samsung 24" , with a XFX 7950Gx2... it is AWESOME.

However, even at 21", a 7900GTX is still a monster to beat and is still in fact, fast...

I purposely referred to monitor size as opposed to resolution size, because I think that's how you should think about which card to pick, based on your monitor size.

 

[locky28]

how big is your monitor talon? if it's a 19" lcd running at native reso then as david ses a 7900gtx will be awesome, as will a 7950gx2 however it would not get used to its full potential and you will be paying for that overhead.

 

[chuckshissle]

Depends on what resolution and how many display are you running.

 

[blacktalon25]

Ok, the monitor I have is a 19" MulitsynchFE992(CRT).

Eventually I will hopefully have two monitors running, for gameplay mostly, but also for working.

The resolution im always running at is 800x600, buts thats just because i dont have that great of a card right now. I would like to have it as high as i can.

 

[blacktalon25]

Also, that other monitor I want to use as a double display is just a tiny old monitor, which i think is like 12" of viewable space

 

[purdueguy]

According to Anandtech,"Each GPU on the 7950 GX2 is essentially a higher clocked 7900 GT". Here

Also, the 7950GT is essentially a higher clocked 7900GT or underclocked 7900GTX. Here

Blacktalon25: I did take a look at this Tom's Hardware Guide 7950GX2 Benchmark Article, that I'm assuming you are referencing. Grant it, from this article the GTX sometimes beats the 7950GX2 but at low resolutions. And even at low resolutions, the GTX wins only several times.

Your title states 7900GTX vs 7950GX2 but then in your comments you just mention the 7950. There is a 7950GT. Are you now talking about this.

Anyway, if you look here, you will notice that the 7950GX2 beats the 7900GTX in every benchmark.

I personally feel that the driver was bad in the Tom's Hardware review. I've looked at a bunch of other reviews and I never saw the 7950GX2 perform so poorly.

Edit: I took a look at an older review of the 7950GX2 at Anandtech and the 7900GTX did beat the 7950GX2 albeit low resolutions and no AA on which is pointless anymore in my opinion. So I guess Tom's Hardware is more accurate than I first perceived. Though, once again, these two cards are not meant for 12x7 or 12x10 without AA anyway.

And from what I've read, NVidia even stated that the 7950GX2 was for extremely high resolution to begin with and it's not a card to be used for 1280x1024. If one is looking to get this card then I would assume that they want to play at 16x12 or higher. Otherwise, it's a waste of money.

Bottom line, the 7950GX2 is the more powerful card. Period.

 

[blacktalon25]

Cool, that does help.

Why would anyone not to run at the highest possible resolution, if they have the card to support it? Is it just the other limitations like CPU, memory, etc that would keep them from running it that high?

 

[choirbass]

thats just it... if you have hardware that is capable of performing well at a said resolution, (eg, 1600x1200 4xAA), and it gets consistantly smooth framerates, there wouldnt be a reason not to run at that high of a setting (or higher even, given the same performance levels)

if, for example though... by going to a high resolution, the text is too difficult to read, it might be necessary to drop down to a lower resolution, just as a personal preference, so you can actually read things in game... if only for that reason... ...beyond that though, i cant see a practical reason for running at a lower graphical setting, if your system doesnt drop in performance... (other than personal preference for whatever reason)