bit-tech.net

GeForce 7900 GTX Roundup

Comments 1 to 25 of 36

Reply
Petor 16th March 2006, 11:46 Quote
nice article :) pity my moniter only likes 1024x786, gets fuzzy abouve that, so for now im happy with my 6600gt OC :)
Ab$olut 16th March 2006, 11:54 Quote
very good artical better than others ive read and just look at the dod:source results can't wait till I get my hands on one of these babies. :D
Dr. Strangelove 16th March 2006, 13:23 Quote
I read this rather quickly, so I might have missed it. But did you do all of these benchmarks in SLI/Crossfire or none of them?
BioSniper 16th March 2006, 13:29 Quote
Well, looks like Nvidia are still failing to pull back their crown, considering the ATI is cheaper and about the same performance (1-5fps doesnt make too much of a difference) I know which I'd rather have (plus X1900 XTX sounds cooler) ;)
sadffffff 16th March 2006, 13:30 Quote
im sorry, but you really dont provide me with much of a comparison here... i actually laughed when i started seeing "PAAA" and "QAAA" "16xHQPQXAA" i dont know what these mean and i dont know which one is better over another. try running your cards at the same resolution and settings so i can know which one is better than the other

its unrealistic to try to show me what settings i can run a game at, because then i would have to have your exact system. which most people dont. so i would like to know what card is faster than another card.

off to anandtech again..

edit: although i must say, i love the indepth architectural explanations! and archi differences. dont see that at other sites
Hamish 16th March 2006, 13:52 Quote
try reading the comments underneath the pretty pictures...
fps-wise they seem to be very similar but the ATi cards are able to run at higher image quality settings for the most part (except in opengl games)
Tim S 16th March 2006, 14:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove
I read this rather quickly, so I might have missed it. But did you do all of these benchmarks in SLI/Crossfire or none of them?
We had some issues with dual cards and we're waiting for a replacement motherboard. We'll do some SLI/CrossFire evaluation in another article when we've fixed the issue. :)
Tim S 16th March 2006, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadffffff
im sorry, but you really dont provide me with much of a comparison here... i actually laughed when i started seeing "PAAA" and "QAAA" "16xHQPQXAA" i dont know what these mean and i dont know which one is better over another. try running your cards at the same resolution and settings so i can know which one is better than the other

its unrealistic to try to show me what settings i can run a game at, because then i would have to have your exact system. which most people dont. so i would like to know what card is faster than another card.

off to anandtech again..
If you read the test setup page and also the text underneath the results, you'll get a grasp of what to expect from each particular card. There is an explanation for PAAA/QAAA/TSS AA/TMS AA etc on the test setup page.

In short, Adaptive AA = ATI's transparent antialiasing algorithm and Transparency AA = NVIDIA's transparenty antialiasing algorithm. If you want comparisons of what is what, check the differences here.

As we've discussed on the test setup and quality pages, it's impossible to have a 'pissing match' with graphics cards these days, because that doesn't tell you what the best graphics card is. It just tells you what the fastest is. Fastest doesn't equal best if image quality is a concern. :?

If you enjoy reading anand's reviews, I can't stop you... I personally find them a little boring, but that's just a personal opinion. My favourite apples-to-apples read is probably The Tech Report. :)
Da Dego 16th March 2006, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadffffff
im sorry, but you really dont provide me with much of a comparison here... i actually laughed when i started seeing "PAAA" and "QAAA" "16xHQPQXAA" i dont know what these mean and i dont know which one is better over another. try running your cards at the same resolution and settings so i can know which one is better than the other

its unrealistic to try to show me what settings i can run a game at, because then i would have to have your exact system. which most people dont. so i would like to know what card is faster than another card.

off to anandtech again..

edit: although i must say, i love the indepth architectural explanations! and archi differences. dont see that at other sites

sadfffff, I'm a bit disheartened to hear you say that. You've been a member of these boards for some time. Though I understand that you have never 'liked' the apples to oranges comparisons that Tim does, I would think you would take the time to actually read the page labeled 'Test' that displays all the info you just talked about. About the only thing we could do further would be to link to the individual articles where Tim has explained in great detail about each of these features (some in groups of image quality articles, others in individual graphics card reviews with the relevant hardware).

I don't mean to sound like a grump, but we have covered multiple times why we don't just run everything at the same resolution and give you a fraps score...the 'best playable' gives you all of that information and more. If you're running at 1280x1024, for example, you know that the card can comfortably handle 1600x1200 with all details and still achieve an average frame rate of 45...that tells you it will comfortably exceed your current needs.

The idea of just throwing out a table of fraps scores at the same settings across the board is an overly simplistic way of looking at the cards, as both ATI and NVidia have their strengths and weaknesses in what can or cannot be enabled at what resolution based on architectural intricacies. If you prefer that approach, it looks like anandtech will continue to get the second part of your review reading. I do hope you at least enjoy the fact that we attempt to provide a much more technologically considerate method of testing, even if (for whatever reason) you cannot extrapolate what you need from it.

EDIT: Also, you often need very little of the 'exact system' to play at these settings. Most games are much more GPU than CPU limited these days. But even if that were true, it would then make ANY information useless, as we could say you get this speed at this resolution, but it's meaningless because you don't have our exact system...your mileage would vary and no review would be worth anything, no matter how it was done.
Tim S 16th March 2006, 15:27 Quote
We do have something a little 'different' in the pipeline - look out for the next review which will change things a little. It's not quite apples to apples, but it's limiting some more factors and hopefully simplifying things a little more. I do appreciate your feedback, but most of the information we've referred to in this article has been covered before. :)
Marquee 16th March 2006, 15:57 Quote
I still dont know why people are going crazy over the 7900GTX. I cant even sell my 7800GTX no more. I understand the 7900s are better but I was hoping twice as good as a 7800GTX. In the past we have seen that top of the line cards normaly are twice as better then the card before them. Well I guessing we are going to have to wait till the quad SLi is benched so we can see exactly how powerful the 7900GTX can be.
Neoki 16th March 2006, 16:10 Quote
Wait until the g80's to come then we shall shine
perplekks45 16th March 2006, 18:05 Quote
Yea and then you'll say like "wait for G90..." :|

Naw, I'm kinda disappointed by the performance as the gap between G70 and G71 ain't as big as I hoped for. It's an outstanding card don't get me wrong but for me as nVidia fan boy it 'hurts' to admit that ATI got the better cards out at the moment.

And I just got reminded how much I love Germany... Sparkle the only one available... What about BFG, XFX, eVGA? Not even a delivery date? Sure... what if I actually had the money? I'd be pwned by non-availability as always. :)

And Biggels I do like the way you test. :D
EK-MDi 16th March 2006, 18:18 Quote
It's a shame that long-awaited 7900s still can't do HDR and Anti-Aliasing at the same time :(. Now I have to wait more for the perfect SLi setup. Oh well. Even though I could just opt for the Crossfire side of things, let's just put it as: I hate the damn thing and I think it's a stupid idea.
Tim S 16th March 2006, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by EK-MDi
It's a shame that long-awaited 7900s still can't do HDR and Anti-Aliasing at the same time :(.
As I said, I don't think that's the biggest issue - there are other ways to get HDR+AA to work and I'm sure NVIDIA is encouraging developers to work towards doing that. Filtering quality isn't as good as it could be, though. :(
ozstrike 16th March 2006, 18:46 Quote
Good review, it's a bit annoying that the image quality isn't as good as it could be, but do you actually notice when you're moving?
I need a new card, as an x800xt just isn't coping anymore. I'm still trying to decide.
Tim S 16th March 2006, 18:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozstriker
Good review, it's a bit annoying that the image quality isn't as good as it could be, but do you actually notice when you're moving?
I need a new card, as an x800xt just isn't coping anymore. I'm still trying to decide.
If you notice it, you'll always notice it... it's one of those things. It's only really noticeable with pebble/small stone type textures. :)
ozstrike 16th March 2006, 18:58 Quote
The thing is, noise is quite a big factor with me, too as my PC is in my bedroom.
Also, the Nvidia Linux drivers are important, though I could work with ATI.
If you have any free time, and you don't mind (I know you've been very busy) is there any chance of some more examples of the image quality? :)
Tim S 16th March 2006, 19:00 Quote
I'll try and get some more examples... it's quite hard with games like BF2, but I'll grab some FEAR shots if I get chance later. I'm benchmarking mid-range cards all day today. :)

BF2 is another one that is really bad though, so I'll try my best to get something for that game.
Mosey 16th March 2006, 19:24 Quote
im glad i stuck with my X1900 XT than wait to get 7900 series.

Fantabbytastic.
zoom314 16th March 2006, 20:49 Quote
Nice story, Me I'm still looking at buying a pair of eVGA 7900GTX pcie cards w/512Mb for My dual cpu dual 16x pci-e motherboard(32x[16x each card] video on the H8DCE) each as their ram is already overclocked and It going at 1760MHz(1.76GHz) from what I've seen online(mainly pricewatch.com). :D
zr_ox 16th March 2006, 21:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigz
I'm benchmarking mid-range cards all day today. :)

Life is tuff sometimes Bigz...huh?
Jodiuh 17th March 2006, 01:44 Quote
Along with x-bit and tech report, I continue to enjoy your articles guys. Thanks for not giving me another speed race. And THANKS for talking about IQ.

Now show me a way to quiet this freakin' noise box!! :(
otm3x 17th March 2006, 02:41 Quote
Very intersting article ! .. Well done on the findings on the texture Filtering quality .

Nice to metion that Widescreens gives you a totally different gaming experience :D I suggest that anyone have the money and
looking for a LCD... to get a widescreen LCD..

Honesty , I enjoy the " best-playable comparsions " . IT's more real-life.
You would never know the BFG 7900 GTX only makes differences in some
of the games.. ;)
sadffffff 17th March 2006, 03:07 Quote
bigZ, dego:

i think i has a lot to do with how connected i am with current graphics cards. I wont be upgrading for some time yet, and i dont run all these fancy filtering and AA modes so I dont know first hand what they do for me. it was fine when we were just comparing 8xAA to 16xAA, that was easy. 16x is higher than 8x... but when you have one company that calls their transparency AA one thing and the other company calls it something else, then its confusing and hard to tell which one is going to look better, if they arent infact the same thing. i see that at the bottom of the test setup page, and it defines them, but doesnt let me know which is better over another. for that i would have to go back to when ati and nvidia introduced those modes and read your articles from then. and i think thats sorta where you loose me. maybe you should have some sorta wiki thing where you can click on those modes and get a nice definition about them. i think that would clear a lot up a be a cool feature for bit (dont think ive seen that anywhere else, maybe i should take this to the feedback forum!)

But im still interested in knowing whos on top. From anand's article i know that ATI won some and Nvidia won some, i'll call it a tie. I will agree, BigZ, that anand's articles are kinda dry. I'd go as far as to say they are boring, but they do some things I like very much. 1) they run really high resolution on a CRT monitor (2048x1536).. and 2) i can just shoot through the article really fast without actually reading it much. this is NOT to say they are superior. Im sure you dont want people skipping through your article and not reading it! :p

After reading through your article, I didnt know what was what performance wise. I got some great insight as to the changes form 7800 to 7900. and yes they are interesting! But i dont come out with what i wanted deep down. --that is when i looked at the article before i clicked the link i thought, "who is on top now?". I came out with a much better knowledge of what settings i can run the games i dont play at.

so, all in all, i think its probably a good thing youre not satisfying me. or else you'd be just like the other guys, boring. But then again i can always read your site for interesting info, and then go off to find my 'video card tug of war' numbers so to speak elsewhere.

edit: also bigZ, i'll have a looksie at tech report, dont think ive been there other than the odd search result that led me there.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums