Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 Benchmarks 51

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This discussion has been archived.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 MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:45PM (#15416757)
    ...made out of two graphics cards?

  • 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?
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:06PM (#15416835) Homepage Journal
    I note from the article that:

    It's also important to note that the SLI bridge is not present on the 7950GX2.

    And further down:

    Even though the card is designed for QUAD SLI, there will be no four-GPU support at the time of launch with the 7950GX2 due to driver constraints.

    Thats one hell of a software driver which can fabricate missing hardware!
  • 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


  • 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.
  • Re:Bah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BarryLoper ( 928015 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @04:01PM (#15417058)

    I'm happy driving my '94 Ford Probe!

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

  • nobody (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @04:22PM (#15417164) Homepage Journal
    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 order to live, more or less, and that seems to have evolved around manufacturing, sales, throw the old away, lather rinse repeat.

    Unfortunately, I don't know a way around this system until we come up with the universal anything-goes replicator that can take any input and output anything you want.
  • Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <{atd7} {at} {cornell.edu}> 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.)
  • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fweeky ( 41046 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @05:36PM (#15417535) Homepage
    "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 brackets?
    "nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC"

    Sorry? Do you mean the usual CD/DVD based protections that are generally easily bypassed and often patched out completely by official updates, or are Microsoft trying to solder a trusted computing chip onto your motherboard again?

Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant