sleepdeprived82
Distinguished
- Dec 21, 2005
- 350
- 0
- 18,780
That's what we've been saying since page 2. It looks like it's going to be a 24-pipeline part and it's probably priced lower because it'll be close in performance to the X1900.... it won't COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE it like a 32-pipe part would.
hahaha, its hard I know, now that the way its meant to be played is with an ati setup... but really I would get one thats a nice price for that type of performace, hell 10-20% difference with out 4aa and 8af is worth it, if u save 100 bux or more, a great value card.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Hard to say until the benches arrive. I reckon the 7900 will beat the X1900 in half of the benchmarks - titles with more-traditional engines and fewer shader ops.
The X1900 XTX will likely take the crown in most of the newer, shader-heavy stuff that really counts. (except maybe stuff based on the Doom3, like Quake Wars, etc engine)
The big question is to see wether they got rid of the 7800's HDR/AA limitation. if that's still there it'll make the 7900 a harder sell.
The X1900 XTX will likely take the crown in most of the newer, shader-heavy stuff that really counts. (except maybe stuff based on the Doom3, like Quake Wars, etc engine)
The big question is to see wether they got rid of the 7800's HDR/AA limitation. if that's still there it'll make the 7900 a harder sell.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
9700 PRO is still going strong, BTW.
I've got NFS: Most Wanted networked at home, I was really worried about that one because it's so bloody hard on the hardware at high settings... but at medium detail the 9700 PRO does really well at 1024x768
Seriously, if there was a prize for best videocard of all time, the pro would take it IMHO. It's been around for, what, 4 years? Still playable in the newest titles. Man, what a great card.
Next to see if it can handle Star Wars: Empire at War for network play...
I've got NFS: Most Wanted networked at home, I was really worried about that one because it's so bloody hard on the hardware at high settings... but at medium detail the 9700 PRO does really well at 1024x768
Seriously, if there was a prize for best videocard of all time, the pro would take it IMHO. It's been around for, what, 4 years? Still playable in the newest titles. Man, what a great card.
Next to see if it can handle Star Wars: Empire at War for network play...
What, you're saying that if it's a 32-pipeline part it's not going to be as good as the X1900?
You're dreaming man.
Right now the 7800 GTX 512 gives the X1900 XTX some notable competition with 24 pipes at what, 550 mhz?
You add 100 Mhz to that, and another 8 pipelines, and the X1900 doesn't have a chance.
Even the more likely scenario of the 7900 having 24 pipes @ 650 mhz will give the X1900 XTX a real run for it's money.
a 24 pipe 650 mhz 7900gtx 512 wont beat a 16pipe 48 pixel shader 1900xtx.Dont forget that 7900gtx will drop for 750 bux vs a 600 dollar ati x1900xtx, let alone the 7900gtx will win in opengl but dx9 games like F.E.A.R will get canned... a oced 7800gtx is 25-30% slower than a 1900xtx so 100 mhz wont do it lol
oh here is a link with soft shadows enabled at 1600x1200 with 4aa and 8af the 7800gtx get 16fps avg while the x1900xtx gets 30fps... hell 2 gtx 512's in sli get 28fps lol so thats 48 pipes working together to get close to 1 x1900xtx
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/24/ati_radeon_x1900_heats_up_with_48_pixel_pipelines/page13.html
You seem to be very adament about bashing a product that isn't even released yet...I think that speaks for itself when you want to ask who's the fanboy.
Secondly, as Cleeve mentioned, a 24pp Geforce 7900GTX @ 655MHz would come mighty close to the Radeon x1900XTX, which is roughly 15% - 20% faster than the Geforce 7800GTX 512MB. A 100MHz clock speed from 550MHz to 655MHz would give a theoretical increase of roughly 15% - 18% in speed. So to say it wouldn't have a chance is a very futile statement, imo.
However, we all know that what is theoretical isn't always true. So it remains to be seen how the Geforce 7900GTX actually performs, but I'm banking on a competiveness closer than that between what the Geforce 7800GTX (256MB) card was to the Radeon x1800XT.
And your price predictions are quite futile, too. $700 is you just pulling BS from your arse. If the Geforce 7800GTX 512MB came with an MSRP of $650, then this being a die shrink of that core would put it at what I estimate will be a $499 - $599 MSRP. This if the rumors of a 24pp card @650MHz is true.
Cleeve managed to prove you wrong in just about every point you argued. So that saves me the trouble of having to do so, too.
What, you're saying that if it's a 32-pipeline part it's not going to be as good as the X1900?
You're dreaming man.
Right now the 7800 GTX 512 gives the X1900 XTX some notable competition with 24 pipes at what, 550 mhz?
You add 100 Mhz to that, and another 8 pipelines, and the X1900 doesn't have a chance.
Even the more likely scenario of the 7900 having 24 pipes @ 650 mhz will give the X1900 XTX a real run for it's money.
a 24 pipe 650 mhz 7900gtx 512 wont beat a 16pipe 48 pixel shader 1900xtx.Dont forget that 7900gtx will drop for 750 bux vs a 600 dollar ati x1900xtx, let alone the 7900gtx will win in opengl but dx9 games like F.E.A.R will get canned... a oced 7800gtx is 25-30% slower than a 1900xtx so 100 mhz wont do it lol
oh here is a link with soft shadows enabled at 1600x1200 with 4aa and 8af the 7800gtx get 16fps avg while the x1900xtx gets 30fps... hell 2 gtx 512's in sli get 28fps lol so thats 48 pipes working together to get close to 1 x1900xtx
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/24/ati_radeon_x1900_heats_up_with_48_pixel_pipelines/page13.html
You seem to be very adament about bashing a product that isn't even released yet...I think that speaks for itself when you want to ask who's the fanboy.
Secondly, as Cleeve mentioned, a 24pp Geforce 7900GTX @ 655MHz would come mighty close to the Radeon x1900XTX, which is roughly 15% - 20% faster than the Geforce 7800GTX 512MB. A 100MHz clock speed from 550MHz to 655MHz would give a theoretical increase of roughly 15% - 18% in speed. So to say it wouldn't have a chance is a very futile statement, imo.
However, we all know that what is theoretical isn't always true. So it remains to be seen how the Geforce 7900GTX actually performs, but I'm banking on a competiveness closer than that between what the Geforce 7800GTX (256MB) card was to the Radeon x1800XT.
And your price predictions are quite futile, too. $700 is you just pulling BS from your arse. If the Geforce 7800GTX 512MB came with an MSRP of $650, then this being a die shrink of that core would put it at what I estimate will be a $499 - $599 MSRP. This if the rumors of a 24pp card @650MHz is true.
Cleeve managed to prove you wrong in just about every point you argued. So that saves me the trouble of having to do so, too.
another fanboy is mad... get ur 7900gtx its just a oced 7800gtx 512... its not about mhz my friend, thats like saying intel is better than amd because it runs @ 3.8ghz but, the amd runs @ 2.6ghz has better architecture thats why it overruns the p4 and the new preslers even tho they can be overclocked to 4.2ghz on air but my opty 165 oced to 2.6ghz is still faster and if I ran it upto 2.8ghz it will cream it every step of the way.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
A 7900 GTX is just an OC'd 7800 GTX. Sure.
And an X1900 XTX is just an X1800 XT with more shaders.
An Athlon64 is just an AthlonXP with more registers and an on-die memory controller
etc, etc...
It doesn't matter what the tech is, so much as the final result. Performance.
Seriously dude, you would garner alot more respect around here if you were reasonable. There's nothing wrong with admitting you have an Ati preference if that's your thing, but don't try to pretend you're impartial. Nobody here is fooled, you obviously have a strong brand preference.
And looking at those benches above - even though they are super-high-res-with-AA-&-AF which favors the X1900 series - I'd either a) like to hear a valid argument from you that explains why you think 100 mhz + 8 pipes + more memory bandwidth wouldn't push a 7800 past an X1900, or b) something reasonable out of you, like "Yeah, looking at the numbers I guess a 32-pipe 7800 might beat an X1900".
A real man knows when to admit that he might have been wrong. There's no shame in it. The opposite actually, people respect someone who can admit a mistake. Nobody is right 100% of the time.
But there's alot of shame is being a stubborn ass when everybody knows it, including yourself.
A 7900 GTX is just an OC'd 7800 GTX. Sure.
And an X1900 XTX is just an X1800 XT with more shaders.
An Athlon64 is just an AthlonXP with more registers and an on-die memory controller
etc, etc...
It doesn't matter what the tech is, so much as the final result. Performance.
Seriously dude, you would garner alot more respect around here if you were reasonable. There's nothing wrong with admitting you have an Ati preference if that's your thing, but don't try to pretend you're impartial. Nobody here is unable to see your brand preference.
And looking at those benches above, I'd either a) like to hear a valid argument from you that explains why you think 100 mhz + 8 pipes + more memory bandwidth wouldn't push a 7800 past an X1900, or b) something reasonable out of you, like "Yeah, looking at the numbers I guess a 32-pipe 7800 could beat an X1900".
A real man knows when to admit that he might have been wrong. There's no shame in it.
But there's alot of shame is being a stubborn ass when everybody knows it, including yourself.
ur funny... i bet u cant even afford a 7900gtx u got an x1800xl instead of a x1800xt.... crawl back under your rock... better yet build a real gaming rig b4 u come back talking trash. what a noob, what first person shooters do u play, so I can get with u and kill u and ur weak system.
I can understand the buisiness side of producing gpu's and maintaining a steady profit.What I would like to see is game designers optimize there games a little better.I can't say they don't make great games but with all these hardware advancements they really don't have to work that hard at optimizing, they just count on everyone spending $500-$600 on a new graphics card every time a new game comes out.
Also I would like to see embedded D-ram ( eDRAM ) for pc gpu's.That way we can enjoy 2x or 4x AA without a performance drop.
Also I would like to see embedded D-ram ( eDRAM ) for pc gpu's.That way we can enjoy 2x or 4x AA without a performance drop.
Son_of_Blob
Distinguished
- Nov 18, 2004
- 30
- 0
- 18,530
As someone who happily runs an o'ced Athlon XP2500 and a 6800GT for all my games, I can't help but chuckle at the awesome suck-in market nVIdia and ATI have created amongst gamers. I'll save my dosh for a new rig and a wizz-bang 7900 or whatever until I really nead it. Right now BF2 runs fine 1280*960 with 4*AA and 16*AF for example. In the meantime, instead of buying a new rig every year or so, I had enough money saved to buy a pocket cruising yacht and go sailing.
Remember sunshine and being outdoors?
"Bullwinkle" is six grand's worth of fun (Australian dollars...about $USD4,500).
And the tan is thrown in free....;-)
http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/El_Sid/bullwinkle.jpg
Which is not to denigrate computer enthusiasts of course.....having any sort of interest or hobby is a great thing, I just happen to have more than one on a limited budget is all.
Remember sunshine and being outdoors?
"Bullwinkle" is six grand's worth of fun (Australian dollars...about $USD4,500).
And the tan is thrown in free....;-)
http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/El_Sid/bullwinkle.jpg
Which is not to denigrate computer enthusiasts of course.....having any sort of interest or hobby is a great thing, I just happen to have more than one on a limited budget is all.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
lol, well, so much for showing that you can be a man.
i think you tried to say something there, but all I heard was "blah blah I'm a baby whining fanboi Blah".
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you adressed the actual argument... the argument being the benchmarks showing that you're absolutely wrong about a 100 Mhz overclocked 7800 GTX 512 being 35% slower X1900 XTX. You remember that, don't you? The argument you had with me, that I won? It's the idiocy you tried to pass off only a few posts ago. Go look up and refresh your memory of how you got pwned if you can't remember.
Well, as long as we know where you're coming from, little man. If you actually want to dicuss hardware instead of convincing us your e-penis is big, I'll be glad to have an actual discussion with you. But really, I'm not interested in your e-penis. But I'm flattered you're so concerned about my own. Lol.
Heyyou27
Splendid
- Jan 4, 2006
- 5,164
- 0
- 25,780
You're an idiot for taking those benchmarks seriously. If you had F.E.A.R. you would know that in the instruction manual it states that Soft shadows and anti aliasing can not be used at the same time.
Stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes the X1900 is better than the 7800 GTX, but not on the levels you're talking about.
Stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes the X1900 is better than the 7800 GTX, but not on the levels you're talking about.
I to have other hobbies,playing the styles of Paganini, Joe Satriani and Bach on guitar for many years. Oh and I have a picture of a boat too.
"Silja Serenade" $USD50,000,000,000 worth of fun....
http://wallpapers.duble.com/2/Ships/Cruise%20Ships/4.jpg
HAHAH, dammit, i was just gonna post that sucker up. Well, it's gonna be close one, shit. check out the specs.
Quick specifications for GeForce 7900 GTX:
PCIe native
655MHz core frequency
256-bit memory interface
52GB/sec. memory bandwidth
15B pixels/sec. fill rate
1450M vertices/sec.
24 pixels per cycle
Built in twin dual-link DVI support for twin 2560x1600 resolution displays
"24 pixels per cycle"=24 pipes...doesn't seem like an ATI killer to me.
wow, they took that page off, looks like someone put info up prematurely...
well, before they took this page down, it said that the gtx would be priced at $599(US). Just watch. It's gonna be a little bit better than ATI's big card(most likely). Everybody should hope so. That way it pushes ATI to put out a better card in a short amount of time. It's a shoving match. Stop beating each other up over dumb figures and let the companies do the fighting. They're both great cards. One game doesn't define a card. FEAR gets boring anyways. So who cares.
HAHAH, dammit, i was just gonna post that sucker up. Well, it's gonna be close one, shit. check out the specs.
Quick specifications for GeForce 7900 GTX:
PCIe native
655MHz core frequency
256-bit memory interface
52GB/sec. memory bandwidth
15B pixels/sec. fill rate
1450M vertices/sec.
24 pixels per cycle
Built in twin dual-link DVI support for twin 2560x1600 resolution displays
"24 pixels per cycle"=24 pipes...doesn't seem like an ATI killer to me.
wow, they took that page off, looks like someone put info up prematurely...
Yea, I just noticed that. It's making me curious. Perhaps nVidia requested Anand to take it down, but then why are the details on the Geforce 7900GT and the Geforce 7600GT still posted up?
Definately making me curious, but I can wait. American Idol is on again tomorrow night, so that will burn much of my time. 😛
- Jan 16, 2006
- 1,148
- 0
- 19,310
Dresden said:Dresden said:gersson said:[wow, they took that page off, looks like someone put info up prematurely...
quote]
IMMMMM ..... what did i miss any way found some more info.....
BFG 7900 GTX 512 to launch on the 9th of March
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29821
or
http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060216A7037.html
Nvidia is so aggressive that it plans to bundle H.264 decoding software. You usually need to pay some money for the decoder. darkvision found out that Cyberlink, for example, charges €12.99 for its H.264 player meant for ATI cards. Nvidia will give you its decoding software for free.
PS keep the peace. we all know NVIDIA is the best
(stir stir)
hey yo SIRKILLALOT, you forgot the / in your [/quote]. Ah, so back to this dumb link. It's a damn pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. you believe it's there, but you can't find the end of the rainbow! i probably got that wrong, but no matter. here is the link again, it appeared on the site at 4:30am pacific time. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=915 ...lets see what happens. Don't trip, it's not intel from theINQ, ahahahha.
lol, well, so much for showing that you can be a man.
i think you tried to say something there, but all I heard was "blah blah I'm a baby whining fanboi Blah".
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you adressed the actual argument... the argument being the benchmarks showing that you're absolutely wrong about a 100 Mhz overclocked 7800 GTX 512 being 35% slower X1900 XTX. You remember that, don't you? The argument you had with me, that I won? It's the idiocy you tried to pass off only a few posts ago. Go look up and refresh your memory of how you got pwned if you can't remember.
Well, as long as we know where you're coming from, little man. If you actually want to dicuss hardware instead of convincing us your e-penis is big, I'll be glad to have an actual discussion with you. But really, I'm not interested in your e-penis. But I'm flattered you're so concerned about my own. Lol.
more info for ya
The documents from NVIDIA also indicate that GeForce 7900 GTX will be "twice as fast as previous generation chipsets" in floating-point performance, but it would be difficult to really consider the 7900 series a next generation component over GeForce 7800. No confirmed board pictures were available at the time of this article but the GeForce 7900 GTX is set to be a dual-slot design. According to the documents, NVIDIA is making sure that the launch of the GeForce 7900 GTX will be a hard launch, indicating that users can expect products to be available for purchase immediately on the day of the announcement.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=915
Yep, pushing those extra pixels out wiht no anti-iso. When you turn the shaders on, though, the pipes are waiting for the shader calculations to finish and aren't pushing pixels out. This is just the sort of problem that ATI ran into with Doom 3 and Quake 4. Inherent bottleneck with specular lighting calculations prevent the pixels from being rendered, so they had to implement an approximation technique to alleviate the problem.
this shows that you dont need more than 16 pipe lines
Comming in @ 600dollars can you afford it or will you wait and get a 7800gtx 512 when its 350?
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
This shows nothing.
It reminds me of Bill Gates' famous quote: "Nobody needs more than 640 kilobites of memory in their PC".
You've changed your argument to some kind of pipeline efficiency discussion, frankly I've never been arguing efficiency with you, or architecture.
All I argued was that a 7800 GTX 512 overclocked 100 mhz is NOT 35% slower than an X1900 XTX, which you said it was.
In all of the benches except FEAR, the difference between a STOCK GTX 512 was less than 15%. Two were even below 5%. Overclocking it 100 mhz would obviously push it over that.
Theoretically, adding 8 pipelines (and attached shaders - that's how the 7800 architecture works, 1 shader per pipe) would obviously allow a 7800 to blow away an X1900.
You have completely abandoned your argument since those benches were posted, pretending it never happened while talking trash and avoiding it entirely.
If you continue to ignore your own statements and arguments in your next post, I'll assume you have surrendered your ridiculous argument and are fully aware that a 7800, with 100 more mhz and 8 pipelines, as well as higher memory speeds, would easily best an X1900 XTX.
This shows nothing.
It reminds me of Bill Gates' famous quote: "Nobody needs more than 640 kilobites of memory in their PC".
You've changed your argument to some kind of pipeline efficiency discussion, frankly I've never been arguing efficiency with you, or architecture.
All I argued was that a 7800 GTX 512 overclocked 100 mhz is NOT 35% slower than an X1900 XTX, which you said it was.
In all of the benches except FEAR, the difference between a STOCK GTX 512 was less than 15%. Two were even below 5%. Overclocking it 100 mhz would obviously push it over that.
Theoretically, adding 8 pipelines (and attached shaders - that's how the 7800 architecture works, 1 shader per pipe) would obviously allow a 7800 to blow away an X1900.
You have completely abandoned your argument since those benches were posted, pretending it never happened while talking trash and avoiding it entirely.
If you continue to ignore your own statements and arguments in your next post, I'll assume you have surrendered your ridiculous argument and are fully aware that a 7800, with 100 more mhz and 8 pipelines, as well as higher memory speeds, would easily best an X1900 XTX.
well hopefully you will be able to get one 600 might be to much for you. but nvidia has a good product the 7800gt is the best midrage card witch u did not get, instead u got a x1800xl witch sucks lol. Im tired of wasting my time with a fool and a nvidia fanboy.
even a 7800gtx 512 with watercooling running @ 670core and 1.9ghz memory still can't keep up with a x1900xtx. I bet the only forums you are in in tomshardware.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question PC/Display gives no signal after changing settings in BIOS
- Started by Hardstuckwithmypc
- Replies: 1
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram