Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 Benchmarks 51

Posted by Zonk
from the new-shinies dept.
An anonymous reader writes "On June 6, NVIDIA will launch what it calls 'the fastest single graphics card' on the planet, capable of running 40% faster than the current GeForce 7900GTX. Dailytech has benchmarks and specifications of the card already." From the Dailytech article: "GeForce 7950GX2 takes two GeForce 7900GTX boards, and joins them via 32 PCIe lanes. 16 additional lanes are routed to the motherboard out to the PCIe adaptor. The GeForce 7900GX2 was designed specifically for OEM system builds and as a result nothing was compromised for performance. However, GeForce 7950GX2 is designed to be the retail component, and as such a few things needed tweaking for retail sales."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 Benchmarks

Comments Filter:
  • by wesley96 (934306) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:44PM (#15416753) Homepage
    Man, you really have to wonder how infinitely close to 8000 that number will go, accompanied with all those wacky suffices. Sigh...
    • Well, that depends.

      Are they counting singly, by decimal? In that case 49. They clearly aren't using octal since we're up to 7950, but if we allow hex you've got 73. Then again, hex might seem to conflict with the letters, so let's stick with decimal.

      Assuming that we can have up to three letters after the name (more would be just silly, don't you think?), you'd get 26^3 more possibilities, so you have 17576 possibilities for each number. However, we have to allow for single and double letter combos,

    • Slight improvements or in this case putting two of the same gpu's in one pcb is still in the same generation. Their number scheme actually makes sense once your used to it at least. The naming scheme, GEFORCE ULTRA XTX ZERO or whatever the hell each individual pcb manufacturer decides to come up with is a different story.

  • by MachDelta (704883) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:45PM (#15416757)
    ...made out of two graphics cards?

    o_O
  • Cost (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jordanis (955796) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:52PM (#15416782)
    The thing that I find interesting is that they've basically got two 7900 GTXes, which are still retailing for nearly $500 [newegg.com] in a $600 package. High margins much?
    • Your point being...?
    • by Behrooz (302401) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @05:17PM (#15417449)
      7900GT: 500MHz core, 256MB @ ~600MHz memory. $280

      7950GX2: 500MHz core, 1024MB @ 600MHz memory $600

      7900GTX: 650MHz core, 512MB @ 800MHz memory $500

      It's not two 7900GTXs, it's a pair of 7900GTs with extra memory, coming out of the same quality of chip yield, not the one-in-however-many GPUs that can be stably clocked up to GTX levels.

      Plus, the lower clock means much lower cooling requirements and power consumption, with corresponding cost reduction.

      Not a bad idea, really.
      • I suppose not--it's the memory counts that threw me off. Still, given the cost differences I recall fairly recently between 256 and 512 cards, I have to figure 512 megs of the stuff costs more than $40. And even if that price difference was just a spot of gouging for the Latest and Greatest (which seems probable to me--the hardcore hobbyists with money are happy to shell out big), it still means that for this particular piece of latest and greatest, they're not taking the usual margin.

        I guess it's just a
  • by donglekey (124433) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:18PM (#15416884) Homepage
    'the fastest single graphics card' on the planet

    My god, this is so unprecedented.
    • They should really not be allowed to say that... I mean, there should be some kind of gentlemen's agreement between reviews of Video Cards to never say that.
      It should read "Fastest card out right now" or "Fastest card we have ever tested" would be accurate. But when you bring "the planet" into the equation this thing should be Above and Beyond fast(er) than every thing else out there. It is technically right... until next month.
  • Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlueStrat (756137) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:20PM (#15416887)
    I'm still happily using my Geforce2 MX/MX400 64MB!

    Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games, especially since it's like pulling teeth to get current higher-end GPUs supported under anything but MS operating systems?

    It seems to be much more economical to simply play games on a console, especially since it seems that many media/game/other content providers insist on the newer cards simply for the DRM enforcement.

    Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.

    Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!). :D

    Cheers!

    Strat
    • Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by colganc (581174) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:38PM (#15416953)
      A console cycle lasts about four years. When a console comes out they look to be $400 these days. For that much money you can buy two mid range computer graphic cards. One at 0 years and one at the 2 year mark. Since you already have a computer that cost is already sunk. Complaining about DRM on computers and computers games is quite silly as well. Consoles are locked down with quite a bit more DRM. The reason the industry insists on newer cards is because all the game players want their current games to run better, so they buy better hardware to run it on.
      • i've been very curious about the current level of built in graphics on the motherboard. turns out my PCI 5700 LE (yes, i said old school PCI card, not pci express) beats an onboard pci express nvidia 6150!!! and that 5700 LE is a crippled version of a regular 5700 even.
      • A console cycle lasts about four years. When a console comes out they look to be $400 these days. For that much money you can buy two mid range computer graphic cards. One at 0 years and one at the 2 year mark. Since you already have a computer that cost is already sunk. Complaining about DRM on computers and computers games is quite silly as well. Consoles are locked down with quite a bit more DRM. The reason the industry insists on newer cards is because all the game players want their current games to ru
        • Then buy a used graphic card from a friend or a low end graphic card (since that is what you got when you bought a PS2 in 2004) and it will cost a similar amount. Confidential or financial info has nothing to do with a comparison between playing games on a console or PC. Both platforms have DRM for games and you can't avoid that. The graphic card companies would not be in business making as much money as they do if people didn't want their games running faster or new games looking better. New graphic ca
        • Funny, I have zero DRM problems on my PC. We're probably not performing the same tasks I guess? The PC I use for gaming and media related tasks is Windows based, older 5000 series nVidia card. Plays all the new games my kids want to play. All I do is rip my DVD's and music, but no problems there ever. I honestly don't bother with that stuff on my *nix-based boxes.
      • The only console that had anywhere near 4 year cycle was the failed xbox one. They tried to rush out the next console since they were going nowhere with the original. Sony is releasing the ps3 earlier then their older longterm plans (I remember 3 years ago they were talking about a 2007 release) as a result but it's still being released at the 5-6 year mark.

        This is probably part of the reason for the delay this year and lack of readyness by Sony. They are not only having huge technical issues to work out
    • Re:Bah! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BarryLoper (928015)

      I'm happy driving my '94 Ford Probe!

      It doesn't mean they should stop making Ferraris and Aston Martins.

      • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)

        'm happy driving my '94 Ford Probe!

        It doesn't mean they should stop making Ferraris and Aston Martins.


        Rich people have to put their money somewhere. If they didn't, the economy would stagnate.

        Luxury items are a major avenue of wealth dispersal.
    • Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@co[ ]ll.edu ['rne' in gap]> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @04:24PM (#15417187) Homepage
      Pulling teeth?

      I've never had any problems getting any NVidia GPU to work flawlessly under Linux.

      Yeah, the closed-source aspect of NVidia's drivers may be annoying to some, but I don't mind closed-source drivers if they're high enough quality, and NVidia's drivers are one of the few examples of closed source software with high quality. (The associated closed-source games for Linux, specifically iD Software's products, comprise most of the other examples...)

      Face it - due to patent issues out of the chipset manufacturers' control (classic example being S3 Texture Compression - S3TC was the beginning of ATI's transition from fully documented open source drivers to binary-only drivers with the open-source versions lacking critical features for 3D gaming), no chipset manufacturer can release open source drivers that support their card's full feature set, unless their card's feature set is massively crippled. (See Intel GMA-series integrated graphics as an example.)
      • Pulling teeth?

        I've never had any problems getting any NVidia GPU to work flawlessly under Linux.

        Yeah, the closed-source aspect of NVidia's drivers may be annoying to some, but I don't mind closed-source drivers if they're high enough quality, and NVidia's drivers are one of the few examples of closed source software with high quality. (The associated closed-source games for Linux, specifically iD Software's products, comprise most of the other examples...)

        Face it - due to patent issues out of the chipset ma
      • by Arker (91948)
        It's utterly nonsensical to say that they can't release specs because of patents, unless you mean because they're violating someone elses and afraid to get caught. Patents are, by definition and law, public disclosures. The entire point to getting a patent is so that you don't *need* to keep it a secret anymore.

        Nvidia doesn't claim this, by the way. They claim that writing drivers is simply 'too complex' for the free software community to help with it. Which not only misses the point entirely, but is just l
        • "unless you mean because they're violating someone elses and afraid to get caught. Patents are, by definition and law, public disclosures."

          You forget that it's possible to LICENSE someone else's patents. That is, you are given permission to legally use their patents under certain conditions.

          For whatever reason, those conditions have apparently required closed source drivers. I don't know about NVidia's excuse, but this was ATI's reasoning for no longer providing full specifications of their chipsets.
    • It seems to be much more economical to simply play games on a console

      You must not have seen the estimated cost of the PS3.
    • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fweeky (41046)

      "Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games"

      Well, clearly you're not part of the target market if your entire PC (just one?) cost less than $600, so the answer is doubtless "you shouldn't".

      "Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU"

      Sure, which is why there are plenty of cheaper cards. Isn't the market clever, covering a wide range of income and interest bra

      • "Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games"

        Well, clearly you're not part of the target market if your entire PC (just one?) cost less than $600, so the answer is doubtless "you shouldn't".


        Actually, that's my high-end box. My others are network servers and such, old P2s and P3s and the like. I agree, I shouldn't. :)

        "Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash int
    • Sorry, but some if this is entirely absurd.

      1) There is nothing stopping you from using a modern graphics card on a non-MS operating system. The GeForce 7-series cards work perfectly well under BSD, Solaris or Linux - using 2D-only Free drivers or proprietary 3D drivers. Infact, chances are you could swap your current card over with zero reconfiguration (depending on the card. A new nvidia-glx release might be required).

      2) DRM enforcement... What? Have you considered basing your posts on reality? Whether a g
    • If your current video card meets your needs fine, then I totally agree with you; do not upgrade.

      But I personally love new games with impressive, high-powered graphics, and I am willing to pay to get a good framerate. Furthermore, the vertex and fragment shaders (which aren't available on the geforce2) are very fun to play around with from a development perspective.

      I currently have a geforce 6800 ultra which I bought at least 1 year after the card came out. I'd never buy one of these things brand new (I ma
    • Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.

      Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!). :D


      Then you're not a PC gamer. If you're in to guitars, then saving for a guitar is money better spent for you. On the other hand, for th
      • Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.

        Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!). :D

        Then you're not a PC gamer. If you're in to guitars, then saving for a guitar is money better spent for you. On the other hand, for th
  • There have been a lot of leaks lately too; I think its a game that ATI and NVIDIA play well- Allow someone to leak "Official" documents for a few hours to stir up hype and then create a scene by forcing them to take it down and act like they never knew the info was missing. That causes eveybody to wonder whats the big secret. There's no secret because on one website their is a guy taking the card apart but I cant remember where I saw this but I did see this I'll keep looking and when I find I'll post the li
  • I think its great that NVIDIA has created that 'fastest consumer card on the market', but really, who the heck needs a card like that? I am using a connect3d ATI card, and it hasn't slipped up once, even with the video editing and gaming that I do. Even with the most demanding games, nobody needs a card this fast.
    • nobody (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zogger (617870)
      nobody except nvidia and the employees and stock holders. Nvidia could just go "oh well, we hit the top of the line,what we have is plenty good enough for human eyeballs now and for the far away future, guess we'll close up shop and go home now". That means they would have to all go out and look for jobs-with companies doing the same exact thing, coming out with new products they can sell so they can stay working.

      It's the nature of the beast, we live in a society where you need to "keep making money" in ord
    • What about the people who run 2560x1600 resolution on their 30" monitors? I am sure they would want a card like this. I have a 24" monitor that runs at 1920x1200 and if I want to run games with the highest settings and anti-aliasing and AF, I would "need" one too. Nobody "needs" a Ferrari but there are certainly people who will buy one and max it out, just like people will buy this card and find a way to crank up the graphics high enough to get the frames per second to drop all the way down to the minimu
  • Let them ship quad-slot zillion transistors sli whatchamacallit kilowatt-sucking video cards. They drive down the price of decent cards that can play todays games at mediam quality for less than 200$.

    I can play oblivion on medium quality with my 6600gt, 768mb, athlon64 3400 rig.
  • ... they make a video card that can run with my 350w PSU that only has one PCIe x16 port. Also, I'd prefer if it doesn't sound like a 747 or DC-10 starting up.
    • Their's tons of budget pci-x 16 slots that use smaller coolers and use tons less power.
    • Actually, my 7900GT is pretty darn quiet.

      I dunno about power consumption (My box is 420w... 2gb of DDR-400 ram, Athlon64 3500+, 2 160gb SATA-2 HDD, 2 16xDVD burners. I'd say that I could throw in quite a bit more before I got up to 420w, but I can't say for sure.

      If your box can handle it, though-- the 7900GT is a great card. This 7950GX2 is basically just 2 7900GT's in one board, from what I understand.

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...