NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX Hits The Ground Running
by Derek Wilson on June 22, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test, Card, and High Resolution
Before we get down to the performance tests, let's look at our test system.ASUS nForce 4 A8N-SLI Deluxe Motherboard
AMD FX-55
1GB DDR3200 2:2:2:8
120GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
OCZ PowerStream 600W PSU
The card this time around is a single slot solution. With the process shrink to 110nm an insignificant increase in clock speed, NVIDIA has produced a chip that runs at lower power and temperature than NV40. At the same time, the increase in parallelism has served to boost performance.
Layout of the card is relatively similar to the 6800 Ultra, but there are a few differences. We've still got 2 DVI slots (both single link), but the solder point for the silicon image TMDS chip for dual-link DVI is either missing or moved. We will certainly be interested in seeing a workstation version of this part.
Here's a quick recap and summary of the G70 and GeForce 7800 GTX:
302M transistors
Over 300mm^2
110 nm TSMC fabrication process
Single Slot HSF
430MHz Core clock
600MHz GDDR3 256MB/256-bit
8 vertex shader units
24 pixel shader units
16 ROP units
2 DVI and one HDTV / VIVO connection
PCI- Express (demand for an AGP part will be determined and addressed if necessary)
~100W Power
350W Power Supply Recommended (500W for SLI)
So what is all the fuss about? Here's a look at the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX card:
Why high res?
It is important to remember that we tested at resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher because lower resolutions are CPU limited without AA and AF enabled. In many cases the GeForce 7800 GTX don't show much difference in performance with and without antialiasing at lower resolutions. This kind of data doesn't give us much useful information about the card. We have truly reached another plateau in graphics performance with this part: pushing the card to the max is all but necessary in order to understand its performance characteristics.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
127 Comments
View All Comments
multiblitz - Sunday, June 26, 2005 - link
It would be great of you could do a comparison between the 6800 and the 7800 in video /DVD-playback-quality similar to the comparison betwenn the X800 and the 6800 you did last year.at80eighty - Saturday, June 25, 2005 - link
OMG! I've never seen so many bitching whiners come outta the woodworks like this!!You A-holes oughta remember that this site has been kept free
F
R
E
E
The editors owe YOU nothing. At all.
AT team - accidents happen. Keep up the great work!
/#121 : well said. Amazing how these turds dont realise that the knife cuts both ways...
mrdeez - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#124You can stfu too...j/k..point taken .
I guess the real issue for me is that this card is a beast but ill never have it in my sli rig......i want all settings maxed at playable resolutions thats just me.........and i will not go back to crt...lol crt thats was lame dude
Momental - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#122 The problem with your solution regarding "all of us just getting two 6880U's" works perfectly for those with an SLI-capable board, yes? Some of us, like myself, anticpated the next generation of GPU's like the 7800 series and opted to simply upgrade to one of those when the dust settled and prices slid back a bit.Additionally, telling someone to "STFU" isn't necessary. We can't hold a conversation if we're all silent. Knowhuddamean, jellybean? Hand gestures don't work well over the internet, but here's one for you..........
SDA - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
LCD gamers shouldn't be bothering with new graphics cards, they should get new monitors.kidding, I have nothing against LCDs. The real advantage of showing the card run at 2048x1536 is that it lets you see how well the card scales to more stressful scenarios. A card that suddenly gets swamped at higher resolutions will probably not fare well in future games that need more memory bandwidth.
On a side note, you can get a CRT that will run 2048x1536 @ a reasonable refresh for about $200 shipped (any Sony G520 variant, such as the Dell P1130). The only things that would actually be small in games are the 2D objects that have set pixel sizes, everything else looks beautiful.
mrdeez - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#121lol ty for your insight....anyway like i said this card is not for lcd gamers as most have a 12x10 or 16x12.....so what purpose does this card have??answer me this batman and you have the group that should buy this card -otherwise, the rest of us should just get 2 6800u....this card is geared more for workstation graphics not gaming.....unless you game on a hi def crt and even then max res would be 1920 by 1080i..or something like that.....
SDA - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#116, if people in the comments thread are allowed to give their opinions, why shouldn't #114 give his too? Surely even an illiterate like you should realize that arguing that everyone is entitled to his or her own argument means that the person you're arguing with is too.#119, some people have different requirements than others. Some just want no visible blur, others want the best contrast ratio and color reproduction they can get.
bob661 - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
#188Oh yeah. The monitor goes up to 16x12.
bob661 - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
#118I play BF2 on a Viewsonic VP201b (20.1") at work and it's very good. No streaking or ghosting. Video card is a 6800GT. I play at 1280x960.
Icehawk - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Well, I for one think 1280x1024 is pretty valid as that is what a 19" LCD can do. I'd just want to see a maxed out 12x10 chart to see how it does - I know a 6800 can't do it for every game with full AA and AF. Otherwise I agree - a 12x10 with no options isn't going to show much with current games.See, I'm considering swapping my two 21" CRTs for two 19" LCDs - and they won't do more than 12x10. I'd love to do two 20-21" LCDs but the cost is too high and fast panels aren't to be found. 19" is the sweet spot right now IMO - perhaps I'm wrong?
Thanks AT for a nice article - accidents happen.