Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / 7900 GTX xD

Author
Message
Represent
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Dec 2003
Location:
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 02:23 Edited at: 10th Mar 2006 02:23
I just looked into the newest GFX card from Nvidia. They recently released the 7800GTX which blows gaming away with sick speeds and with x2 SLI its unstoppable. (around 13,000 in 3dmark 06 and i have an x850xt OC and im getting 2200). I saw the new 7900GTX which can run with x4 SLI. That is crazy. So that would mean you would score a good 30,000 with a quad-sli 7900.

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/sli.asp

x4 7900GTX and an FX-60 processor. That is like... psycho

Anyone here have a 7800 let alone a 7900?

dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 03:36
i have dual 7800 and sorry to tell you but 13k is quite impossible even if you oc`d it with nitrogen and had a supercompuer as a cpu i doubt it would, havent ran it in a while so i forget my score tho.

Halowed are the ori.
JoelJ
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Sep 2003
Location: UTAH
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 03:59
the 7900GTX is a smaller GPU and puts off less heat, which is good for those who hate fans and noise


This just in: White lab coats cause cancer in mice. Details comming soon.
dre
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: West Side
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 04:23 Edited at: 10th Mar 2006 04:25
13k is prolly not gonna happen. And 30k shouldn't be reached with this architecture. Also, the price/performance ration of SLI is very very weak, putting together 2 cards usually just gives about 1.3x the performance of 1 card, and usually a more advanced card will be better than both of them, and cost a lot less (think x1900xtx vs x1900xt's in crossfire).

Athlon 64 X2 4400+, nForce 4 Ultra chipset, 1 gig ddr400 d-channel, GeForce 7800 GTX OC,2 WD 74 gig Raptors in RAID
Lukas W
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Sep 2003
Location: Sweden
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 13:45
how long now until movie quality rendered games

Nicholas Thompson
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: Bognor Regis, UK
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 14:14
I have a 4400+ X2 Athlon 64 and 1 7800GTX. I'm gonna wait for the prices to drop and then get a second. I haven't bothered doing 3D Marks in years since they are a pointless test. nVidia and ATI are famous for optimising their drivers to do certain things well. I bought a nVidia over the equivalent ATI as the nVidia's produce a nicer image imho due to them being faster internally when it comes to AA and AF. At the end of the day - it doesn't really matter, as long as I get a decent framerate in my games.

I'm gonna try out xp64 soon just to see if its any faster.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 18:21
Quote: "I haven't bothered doing 3D Marks in years since they are a pointless test. nVidia and ATI are famous for optimising their drivers to do certain things well."


3D Benchmarks are not pointless really, because they are running what you might actually call a set of game elements. So if you want a card to be tested for games, then the 3D mark is a good idea. Who would really want a card that was great for windows, and rubbish for games anyway.

Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 19:56
With each company 'optimising' for these programs though, that does make them fairly worthless unless they let developers in on those little optimising tricks.

I'm not too bothered with my systems graphics speed right now.
Have an 1800XT and 7800GTX right now, both of which play everything I have completely maxed out graphics; still with a good room to spare on rendering speeds. That's even with the horrible PC Rendering pipelines that takes up more processor power and ram than needed cause it's running under a Windows environment. (that said Doom3 on Linux is just retarded on how much slower it is to the PC version.. not that it's a particularly well developed game as it still uses techniques from the yesteryear of programming that doesn't make proper use of the new fangled crap that our computers have.)

So to me it is begining to become overkill. Suppose the good thing is the low-end users are begining to get reasonable hardware rather than something that can just about run Quake3 at a reasonable framerate.

Now that graphics are basically at that stage where they can't really improve except for subtle things.. (oh look Quake 5 the guy can now make his face wrinkle when he winces after being hurt which you can only see when you're next to a mirror!) hopefully developers will start becoming more creative in thier games.

Not gonna hold my breath though.

JerBil
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th May 2004
Location: Somewhere along the Z axis...
Posted: 10th Mar 2006 20:39
@Nick:
Yeah, try 3DMark 05, and 06 is just out. These are great to find out
just what your system can handle...

-JerBil

Ad Astra Per Asper
Represent
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Dec 2003
Location:
Posted: 11th Mar 2006 05:50
Quote: "i have dual 7800 and sorry to tell you but 13k is quite impossible even if you oc`d it with nitrogen and had a supercompuer as a cpu i doubt it would, havent ran it in a while so i forget my score tho."


look at the 3dmark website. they have the top official rankings. A dual 7800GTX water cooled and OCd at insane speeds (i think 850mhz lmao) score ~13,000. check it out if you dont believe me.

and true, you dont get double the performance so 30,000 is outta reach. i would say ~18,000 with 4 GPUs OCd.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 17:29:35
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 17:29:35