The NVIDIA GeForce 7900 Series 217
An anonymous reader writes "HardOCP has posted their evaluation of the new GeForce 7900 technology. They fully cover widescreen gaming this time around too. 'NVIDIA has worked hard to try and produce a more powerful, albeit power-efficient GPU in the 7900 GTX and GT, and they've succeeded. They run cooler; are smaller, have less transistors, and they don't make you stuff cotton in your ears. The 7900 GTX and GT are just more efficient while being lightning fast.'"
and the heat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and the heat (Score:5, Informative)
Please read the article. The 7900 is an actual step forwards from the 7800. In this article, Nvidia delivers.
I'm interested to see what ATI is going to do. I'm not a fanboy of either manufacturer, but the 7800GT/GTX and the GS series have been laying into ATI hard, and they still havn't released a card that matches the 7800 series yet. I'd like to see something comparable, just so the prices are driven down a little on these higher-end cards.
Re:and the heat (Score:2)
Re:and the heat (Score:2)
The X1800 series competes with the 7800 series, with really only the 7800GTX 512 just about coming out tops.
The X1900 series came out before the 7900 (and made the 7800 series look quite silly, as some high end 7800GTX were similar price to it) and competes with it admirably - the 7900GTX should have left the X1900XTX to eat dust - but it looks like it hasn't.
Hopefully the 7900GTX prices are competitive, as I'd like to stick with Nvidia.
Re:and the heat (Score:2)
Re:and the heat (Score:2)
Re:and the heat (Score:3, Funny)
Re:and the heat (Score:4, Funny)
Re:and the heat (Score:2)
Re:and the heat (Score:3, Interesting)
You have a choice when you buy a computer, and you could buy one that was cool, but you obviously didn't, so stop whining about it.
Actually... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
And somewhere in all of that is a
On the Bandwagon (Score:2, Redundant)
More Sources, no karma whoring (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=271
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/326/ [guru3d.com]
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=213 [pcper.com]
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/9529 [techreport.com]
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/09/ati_and_nv
Re:More Sources, no karma whoring (Score:2)
Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I can't. I'm better off going to NVidia and trusting their product sheets. Why? Because I'm not looking to play Need for Speed Most Wanted or Quake Four or Half Life Two, I'm looking to do some actual graphics processing with an SLI setup. Yes, brace yourselves, I don't actually use these beasts for gaming.
If you read the reviews, it may look like these cards have no purpose other than to play the higher end games.
It is my responsibility to make a kind of "Google Earth on Steroids" for my employer. And this requires that five (yes, five) terabytes of mapping data be available for a multi-monitor (and by "multi" I mean many) display. What's my current choke point? Simply data bandwidth into the card.
Where does this review leave me? I now know intimately how high I can get my frame rate up in a first person shooter. Huzzah!
I know there are product sheets that tell me what kind of bandwidth I have but I'm more interested in what a non-interested third party has to say about it. Where are the real benchmarking tests? What about a simple program that loads up the card with as much data as possible as quickly as possible? I'm not even sure if the choking point is on the card or at the interface level with the motherboard (PCIe 16x).
Why can I not find objective reviews that aim to look at cold hard numbers?
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that 3D Mark from Futuremark has an option to just perform bandwidth and filling tests and then report back on how it went. Heck, FutureMark even has a database where thoudsands of gamers posted their scores along with their computer specifications, it could be an information goldmine to you.
But never the less,
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
SLI = good. Thinking normal Nvidia cards in SLI will handle heavy cad-style rendering = bad.
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Just the drivers.
You can set the memory/core timings on any GeForce card to match the Quadro offering and get the same bandwidth/fill rate/etc.
Certain features on the Quadro are disabled in GeForce mode (hardware line antialias, hardware overlay planes, extended lighting modes), and they are rarely used except in CAD environments. And that certainly doesn't apply here.
No, I think the parent DOES know what he/she is doing.
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
You got a respectable performance boost for graphics design compared to the regular BIOS.
I dunno if the newest generation of cards will still let you do that.
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it: you're in a minority. Stop crying about it.
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
You seem to be saying all DVI cards are the same, at least for 2D. Following your logic, I can just shop on price and get a $19 Riva TNT2 PRO DVI 16MB. I'm doubtful that would work.
I think the adv
The ATI Radeon 7000VE Dual Display... (Score:2)
It's the lowest-end ATI kit you can get nowadays except for the Rage line, and that's only embedded in server chipsets.
So look up the card for your job (Score:5, Informative)
Now if you feel like saving money by getting the gamer card instead of the pro one, I don't have a problem with that, however don't get angry that everyone else taks about it and reviews it as though it were a gamer card since, in fact, it is. If you want a card taht's treated like a pro card, look at a Quadro.
Re:So look up the card for your job (Score:3, Insightful)
The bold could have even more fun by soldering/breaking the SMD-resistors on the PCB. Ditto for ATI cards.
I don't know if this applies to the lastest gen of graphics card, but it is/was a cheap and easy way to get the pro driver/bios optimizations without the extra on-card features.
Re:So look up the card for your job (Score:2)
So, it seems to me that flashing the BIOS of a GeForce with that from a Quadro would just give you the worst of both worlds - a card with the pro features of a gaming card, but the gaming power of a pro card...
Re:So look up the card for your job (Score:5, Funny)
Lousy auto industry.
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
You are a professional. You are feeding your card texture and vertex data via a high-bandwidth storage system. Most consumers, on the other hand, are waiting on their 50MB/s hard disks as the choke point.
I have read one or two reviews that have tested the raw transfer rates of these PCIe 16x video cards, and most of them have topped out at the 900-1000 MB/s range (load). In other
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
In the future when this basic train of thought is running around in your head, save us all some time and keep it there.
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
Either of those are perfectly suitable for what I'm trying to do. However, the end goal isn't to have this be a one shot set-up. It's to eventually have this created over and over and over again (like profiting companies like to do). If I can assemble the system using 2x$600 cards per system and produce acceptable results, that saves me quite a bit of cash compared to spending $1800-$2000 on one card
Re:Hurray, Another "Review" (Score:2)
At nearly $1100 a pop, they're not that great a choice for someone looking for a cheap COTS solution.
Price point (Score:2, Interesting)
If any of you bleeding-edge gamers want to sell off your "old" 7800GTX for $250 or so, drop me a line
Re:Price point (Score:2)
Re:Price point (Score:2)
You should see nethack on this thing.. (Score:5, Funny)
@
Now on this new video card it looks like this:
@
best 500 bucks I have ever spent
Re:You should see nethack on this thing.. (Score:2)
Radeon X1800 GTO Review (Score:4, Informative)
Linux Drivers (Score:2)
HDCP? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:HDCP? (Score:2, Informative)
after nvidia and ati have been advertising "HDCP compliant" hardware which may not be the case because the standards for HDCP suddenly changed overnight
Quake 4 FPS (Score:2, Interesting)
Who cares, really (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, with each generation of video card, full of hype and claims of high performance, wait 6 months and a video game is usually released where it cripples the card. I have an x700 video card and, while not the x800, it was still in a generation of video cards that can play the newest games at the highest resolutions with the best quality settings. Playing F.E.A.R I can barely get 30 fps out of the card with minimum to medium quality settings, that on a video card not more then a year old.
Video cards are one of those products that are sold for way too much money when it is first released. I mean, nVidia and ATI may think it is necessary to jack up the cost to cover R&D investment, but how much R&D is really going on? With the 7900, nVidia just looked to shrink some of the components and optimize existing architecture, something they have been doing consistently with the Geforce lineup. Are they spending billions in R&D, or just millions? Do they need to sell new cards for $700, or perhaps can we start seeing a price war that will drive down costs of new products to reasonable prices.
In any case, so what, nVidia has a new lineup of video cards. Add that to the list of literally hundreds of available video cards on the market, with 16 versions of every model and generation by 16 different companies, the video card market has become muddy and overly complicated and I just don't care when something new enters the market now because it won't run the games well that I want to play 6 months from now, and I don't have $700 burning a hole in my pocket every 6 months to buy the next latest and greatest.
Re:Who cares, really (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point the Video cards will hit a price point that you find worth your money.
Re:Who cares, really (Score:2)
Re:Who cares, really (Score:2)
Undersupplying on Purpose? (Score:2)
Re:Undersupplying on Purpose? (Score:2)
Re:Undersupplying on Purpose? (Score:3, Interesting)
The long answer is that it's not a linear ratio of price to sales, and there are way more factors that go into pricing than you've probably ever thought of. First of all, you want to get the most money for your product, but eveyone has a different idea of what they're willing to pay. Some would pay $1000. Some would pay $500. Some would pay $25. Obviously the best thing would be to just ask them how much they're willing to pay and then charge them that, but in practice it
Re:Who cares, really (Score:2)
I agree with everything you said, but if there's one thing that's almost assured, it's that a price war is going on and the prices are only increasing, not decreasing. The video card market seems to have a nice thing going for manufacturers - the better the card the better it looks so you can impress your friends so all ATI/Nvidia has to do is create a see-sa
Re:Who cares, really (Score:2)
Re:Who cares, really (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod parent down, please (Score:2)
Silent Movies (Score:2)
Re:Silent Movies (Score:3, Informative)
7800 GT price is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
An Open Question to Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:An Open Question to Slashdot? (Score:2)
Depends whether you want a PCI-Express or AGP card. If you're going AGP, you probably want to check this out [firingsquad.com].
Re:An Open Question to Slashdot? (Score:2)
Fastest XFX XXX series cards here (Score:2)
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&nam
This is the only review of these cards, and they are clocked higher than any others available.
Does anyone have GPGPU benchmarks for these? (Score:2, Interesting)
I need a simple site like this: (Score:2)
As of Jan 2006 here are your choices:
budget:
card 1 ($45)
card 2 ($50)
mid-level:
card 3 ($100)
card 4
gamer:
card 5 ($130)
crazy gamer:
card 6 ($450)
---
I couldn't find one. The usual review sites have too much info for me to digest (latest GPU specs, how many million polygons
Re:I need a simple site like this: (Score:3, Informative)
As of March 2006 here are your choices (using the newest technology available in each category, and cards are ranged in order of typical performance in their category):
Budget (ie: you really shouldn't spend this little):
GeForce 6200 256MB ($49)
Radeon x300 256MB ($55)
Upper budget (cards that will actually play new games):
Radeon x1300 Pro 256MB ($95)
GeForce 6600 256MB ($85)
Lower-midrange gamer:
GeForce 6600 GT 128MB ($120)
Radeon x1600 Pro 256MB ($125)
Not this again (Score:3, Funny)
Fewwwweeeeeerrrrrrrrr.........
You are spoiled (Score:2)
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:4, Interesting)
Click the game I wanted to see...
Wait...
Get the developer logos...
Wait...
Get the instructions...
Wait...
Select character...
Wait...
Watc^H^H^H^H Skip intro movie...
Wait...
After 45 seconds of waiting for the game to load, I forgot why I was even playing.
I mean, UT2004 didn't take that long to get me into a game on a 600MHz laptop.
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever played Battlefield 2?
NON-skippable EA splash logo.
...and then there's like 3 skippable movies.
NON-skippable DICE logo
I don't like spam in emails, I don't like obnoxious ads on web pages. What makes them think I want to sit there and endure a company's spam when I just want to hop in for a quick game.
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:2)
*I am* one of those guys who wanted it for the multimedia stuff. I steam movies/TV shows to my TV as well as music to my surround sound system.
So far these have been very good for me. (Except for the sound getting out of sync when streaming HD XviD versions of Lost...which have to go through Transcoder 360 first...)
But, it DOES do more than just play games.
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:XBOX 360 (Score:2)
Less vs Fewer (Score:2, Insightful)
Except on slashhdot, where the two words are interchangeable.
Re:Less vs Fewer (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Less vs Fewer (Score:2)
"Apple is working to improve the rest of the Mac OS code to allow for less busy loops from their side."
Does this mean that there will be fewer busy loops, or the loops that do exist will be less busy?
We can parse it as
less (busy loops)
or
(less busy) loops
If we could trust them to use "fewer" it would be obvious which they meant.
Re:Less vs Fewer (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm a language teach
Re:They run cooler, are smaller, have .... (Score:2)
if you could count them (people at a meeting) you used "fewer"; if you couldn't count it (sugar) you used "less."
Frankly, I think it'd be good to have fewer grammatical rules, and about this one, I could't care less
Re:They run cooler, are smaller, have .... (Score:2)
The language geeks are out in force today. (Why is it that computer geeks are "ge
Countable v. Uncountable (Score:4, Informative)
Some examples:
Countable:
A cow
"I have three cows"
You can see individual cows; you can't divide a single cow into other cows.
Uncountable:
Water is uncountable*
You don't say "I have waters" (unless you are being strangely poetic)
instead, you say "I have some water."
If you divide up some water, each piece is still just "water".
How does this affect language?
"I have many cows, and I have much water."
"I have few cows. I have little water."
"I have fewer cows than Michael. I have less water than Michael"
Hope that helps.
*Water itself is uncountable, but you can count the quantities it is in.
"I much water" vs. "I have many litres of water"
Re:Countable v. Uncountable (Score:3, Funny)
Or if you're a programmer, think of it as floats and integers. Perfect!
(Yes, it would appear English is strongly typed, unless you explicitly cast using a metaphor...)
Re:Countable v. Uncountable (Score:2, Funny)
Deploy the splitinfinitivefaust! (Score:2)
(sorry, not directed at any particular member of the conjugatenmacht)
Re:Countable v. Uncountable (Score:2)
Re:Countable v. Uncountable (Score:2)
One moose. Many moose. Fewer moose.
No one ever said English isn't bizarre.
Re:They run cooler, are smaller, have .... (Score:2)
I think what you meant to say was:
Taco says he's fine with grammer mistakes and spelling. Errors, are double-plus good flavor, so they are encouraged, IMO.
Re:They run cooler, are smaller, have .... (Score:2)
It encourages reading comprehension (Score:2)
Re:So how does the 7600GT compare to the 6800GT? (Score:2)
The 7600 GT should be somewhat faster with no features turned on, both due to the faster core clock and the improvements in G71. With AA enabled, the performance should be closer, because the 7600 GT will be limited by its memory bandwidth.
You can't ignore the fact that the 7600 GT comes with support for transparency MSAA and SSAA, very nice in today's games that create multi-layered terrain effects using detail textures with transparency.
Re:But which card to get? (Score:5, Informative)
Ultra and GT - better than the standard card
LE, GS - low end/discount version (GS is sometimes better, depending on age of the original card) of the original card.
x extension (gtx, fx) was for a while PCI-X, but they've since dropped it.
you may also see TC, which stands for Turbo Cache. You'll find that on low end cards.
You will sometimes see GS cards that are more expensive than GT cards, but I've never seen a GS card that is better than a GT card, so I suspect that's a volume issue (pricewatch has some 7800GTs that are cheaper than GS's). It may be onboard memory, but I doubt it. The GTs are usually the same card as the GS, however (so you may be able to unlock the features nVidia shuts off).
Re:But which card to get? (Score:2)
Completely Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Take the GeForce 6 series, for example:
Within the first six months of release, Nvidia had laid-out a very simple set of cards (in performance order):
6800 Ultra
6800 GT
6800
6600 GT
6600
6200
6200 TC
Now, they had this great arrangement of performance levels, where all the cards within a lower numbered range were slower than the cards in the next higher numbered range. but like any company they had to deal with inefficiencies in their production processes, and try to keep their brands fresh. Thus, many cards were added to fit small but profitible niche or OEM markets.
So, by the end of 2005, you had a whole mess of cards. Some of them were added to compete with ATI, others were added to deal with yields (and had disabled pipes), while still others were introduced to replace a product that was "old" with something easier to make.
The mapping, in true performance, of all GeForce 6 chips, end of 2005:
6800 Ultra
6800 GT
6800 GS (Added as a reduced-cost replacement to 6800 GT)
6800 GTO (Added in response to ATI's x800 GTO)
6800
6600 GT
6800 XT
6800 LE
6600 DDR2
6600
6500
6600 LE
6200
6200 TC
See how confusing that became? It's just a natural progression, and ATI does the same thing. The 7 series is already beginning to see the effects of the naming scheme madness. Once Nvidia transitions fully over to the 7 series, expect the same product fragmentation to occur.
Oh, and I must correct you on this:
x extension (gtx, fx) was for a while PCI-X, but they've since dropped it.
Do you mean PCIe?
Incorrect. The FX series (GeForce 5) was entirely AGP. Board makers later released versions of the FX series with PCI-e bridge chips so they could dump their stock as "PCIe" cards.
The 7800 GTX is the only card EVER MADE by Nvidia to wear the "GTX" monkier. The 7800 GTX is PCIe, but so is the 7800 GT...see the problem with your assertion?
Re:But which card to get? (Score:2, Informative)