As you know, quite recently Canadian ATI Technologies announced the release of new products, so far from the Hi-End family (X1950) and foremen from the Middle-End (X1900XT 256MB), but other solutions for cheaper sectors will soon follow.
However, we already know about the X1300 XT and X1650 PRO, although, in fact, these are renamed X1600 PRO and X1600 XT, respectively, shifted to other price niches, but this is all below the $199 level. And in this price segment, which in Russia, for example, is the most popular, whole wars are planned. And so far, as we can see, the Californian NVIDIA went on the attack without waiting for a competitor.
Today we present the GeForce 7900 GS, which is the direct successor of the GeForce 7900 GT, and is, in fact, made from it. The core is simply cut down by pipelines and blocks. And the price has been reduced accordingly.
Here I want to express indignation from the point of view of the consumer. How long can you torture the user with your indexes and suffixes? Few people already understand: is the 7900GS faster than the 7800GTX or not? Or 7800 GTX versus 7900 GT. Moreover, there are two types of 7800 GTX with different memory sizes and different speeds. All names have numbers with two zeros. Is it really that hard to find just intermediate numbers? 7850, 7920, 7870 etc. Of course, there will be against marketing. The video card came out last, a novelty, and, according to performance, it should be given a number like 7880. And there are already 7900 and 7950. And therefore, everyone is climbing out of their skin, increasing the numbers with each sneeze, supplying products with ridiculous suffixes.
So, 7900 GS is the same 7900 GT with its 450 MHz core and 660 (1320) MHz memory. However, the 7900 GT has 24 pixel units, 8 vertex pipelines, 24 texture units and 16 ROPS in action. And the 7900 GS has only 20 pixel blocks (1 quad is cut off), 7 vertex pipelines, respectively, 20 texture units and the same 16 ROPs.
That is, the G71 turned out to be very cheap and prolific. It has already turned into 7950GX2, 7900 GTX, 7900GT and now 7900GS. I suspect that full-fledged chips went under the knife, which could have 24/8/24/16 of the above blocks. However, you cannot put a full-fledged chip in the $199 segment, as you will break the entire market. All cards come out for their price fork, and they can move from niche to niche only after moral obsolescence and the cessation of production. Therefore, simply shifting the full-fledged 7900 GT from the level of 299 to the level of 199 dollars will not work - hundreds of partners and customers who have already purchased old price and failed to sell. Therefore, the dreams of members of the forum to get a 7900 GTX for $200 or an X1900 XTX for that price will remain dreams. Maybe in two years, when these cards will become a thing of the past, and stocks will be drained, such a price will appear. But who will need them then, when for the same price it will be possible to buy a new representative of the Middle class with support for all new functions. And we know that sometimes new "middle peasants" can easily beat the old "aristocrats" in speed.
It's obvious that GeForce 7900 GS = GeForce 7900 GT in terms of board, layout, etc. Yes, and that's right. The PCB of the 7900 GT turned out to be extremely cheap among 256-bit boards. And therefore even profitable at such a price. After all, earlier only new products with a 128-bit bus got into this segment. For example, GeForce 7600 GT. Now it is going down to the level of $149.
The card has a TV-out jack, which is unique in its connector, and to output images to TV both via S-Video and RCA, special adapters are required, supplied with the cards. You can read more about TV-out.
Connection to analog monitors with d-Sub (VGA) is made through special DVI-to-d-Sub adapters. Maximum resolutions and frequencies:
- 240Hz Max Refresh Rate
- 2048 x 1536 x 32bit x85Hz Max over analog interface
- 2560 x 1600 @ 60Hz Max via digital interface
As for the cooler, the product has the same reference cooler as we saw in the 7900 GT. Made of copper alloy, it is a closed radiator with an off-center fan.
The device allows, while maintaining almost silent operation, to cool the accelerator core very efficiently:
Memory microcircuits do not have heatsinks, but their heating is low, besides, the memory operating frequency is lower than its nominal value.
I'll tell those who love overclocking and unlocking that since the 7800 GT, unlocking pipelines has become impossible, cutting is done at the hardware level, and therefore we should forget about the possibility of getting 24/8 pipelines on such video cards.
Considering that this is a sample, we are not talking about bundling and packaging.
Installation and drivers
Test bench configuration:
- Athlon 64 (939Socket) based computer
- processor AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (2400MHz) (L2=1024K);
- MSI K8N Diamond Plus motherboard on NVIDIA chipset nForce4 SLI X16;
- RAM 2 GB DDR SDRAM 400MHz (CAS (tCL)=2.5; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=3; Row Precharge (tRP)=3; tRAS=6);
- hard drive WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA.
- operating system Windows XP SP2; DirectX 9.0c
- monitor Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb (21").
- ATI drivers version CATALYST 6.8; NVIDIA version 91.47.
- ATI RADEON X1800 GTO 256MB, 500/500 (1000) MHz;
- ATI RADEON X1900 GT 256MB, 525/600 (1200) MHz;
vsync is disabled.
Test Results: Performance Comparison
As a tool we used:
- Splinter Cell Chaos Theory v.1.04 (Ubisoft) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, test settings - maximum, shaders 3.0 (for NVIDIA cards)/shaders 2.0 (for ATI cards); HDR OFF!
- Half-Life2 (Valve/Sierra) — DirectX 9.0, demo (ixbt01 Tested at maximum quality, option -dxlevel 90, presets for map types removed from dxsupport.cfg file.
- FarCry 1.33 (Crytek/UbiSoft), DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, demo from the Research level (launching the game with the -DEVMODE option), testing settings are all Very High.
- DOOM III (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, testing settings - High Quality (ANIS8x). There is an example of launch automation with an increase in speed and a decrease in the number of jerks (precaching).
- 3DMark05 1.20 (FutureMark) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, test settings - trilinear,
- 3DMark06 1.02 (FutureMark) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, test settings - trilinear,
- The Chronicles Of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay 1.10 (Starbreeze/Vivendi) - OpenGL, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum quality textures, Shader 2.0.
I express my gratitude Rinat Dosaev (AKA 4uckall) and Alexei Ostrovsky (AKA Ducci) for writing a demo for this game, and also many thanks to Alexey Berillo AKA Somebody Else for help
- F.E.A.R. v.1.02 (Multiplayer) (Monolith/Sierra) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, test settings - maximum, Soft shadows off.
- Call Of Duty 2 DEMO (Ubisoft) - DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, testing settings - maximum, shaders 2.0, testing with Benchemall, demo and launch script, instructions in readme
Graphics card performance summary charts
I would like to note that we conducted two tests: a single card and in SLI mode (two accelerators). Results for GeForce 7900 GS
FarCry Research
F.E.A.R.
DOOM III High mode
Chronicles of Riddick demo 44
Synthetic tests that heavily load shader units
3DMark05: MARKS
I didn't comment on the results of each test, because in almost all tests the 7900 GS is a clear leader in the fight against its current competitor X1800GTO. And even the (so far) much more expensive X1900 GT has often been the loser. Therefore, the GeForce 7900 GS turned out to be the leader among accelerators within $200.
True, there are disadvantages, but about them in the conclusions.
Results for GeForce 7900 GS SLI
Game tests that heavily load vertex shaders, mixed pixel shaders 1.1 and 2.0, active multitexturing.
FarCry Research
Game tests that heavily load vertex shaders, pixel shaders 2.0, active multitexturing.
F.E.A.R.
Game tests that heavily load the pixel pipeline with texturing, active work of the stencil buffer, shader blocks
But, nevertheless, the performance analysis showed that this tandem at a price of about $400 (of course, at the promised prices, but in reality it will be more expensive at first) performs well even against the 7900 GTX, which is obviously more expensive. And the X1900 XTX is behind, which is also more expensive. Therefore, the 7900 GS SLI is good, but we must not forget that you need a motherboard with SLI support, and a decent power supply.
NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS 256MB PCI-E. So, the testing showed that this product is a clear leader among 200-dollar video cards. Of course, you need to keep an eye on the price, and if it is too high, then you need to draw the appropriate conclusions, for this, current and constantly changing prices are given at the bottom of the article. But even if the card costs $220-240 to begin with, it's still good, because sometimes it outperforms even the more expensive X1900 GT. Of course, there is no VIVO (but partners are free to install Philip 7115 for these purposes), and there is no HDR + AA (this is an obvious minus). But still, the last minus is more striking for Hi-End, and not for mid-range cards (hardly anyone will turn on HDR + AA on such cards).
As for the card itself, the accelerator worked perfectly, there were no complaints, the quality in 2D is excellent! Overclocking has not been studied, but I think that when the turn comes to mass-produced cards, we will study this moment there.
And now for the cons. The fact is that there have been complaints on the forums from users of GeForce 7900 GT video cards, who complain about suddenly inexplicable brakes (friezes), and there is no overheating. Yes, and there is instability in the work as a whole. There are disputes as to why. Many complain about the users themselves, that they overclock the cards, and then complain. However, there are complaints and users who do not know how to overclock, and they do not care. Taking into account that the 7900GS directly inherits everything except for the cores from the 7900GT, then this “virus” doesn't seem to get here. I hope that NVIDIA and its partners are already taking action in this regard.
I hope that ATI will soon be able to adequately respond to the challenge of NVIDIA and introduce in the $200 segment New Product, is clearly better than X1800GTO. Nevertheless, competition is always needed, it is important for everyone. And it's only better for the consumer.
You can also see more complete comparative characteristics of video cards of this and other classes in our 3DGiTogs.
The power supply for the test stand was provided by the company HIPER
Motherboard for the test bench provided by the company 
The thinner 90nm process technology allowed Nvidia not only to seriously improve the performance of its flagship product, but also significantly increase the performance of its "little brother", in fact making it even slightly more powerful than the now legendary GeForce 7800 GTX, which appeared "at the right time" and in the "required quantities". Today we'll see if a $299 accelerator can beat a ten-month-old champion.
Introduction
Being out of competition with the release of the GeForce 7800-series, which offered significantly higher performance than the Radeon X850, Nvidia could afford to dictate product prices upper class, which enabled it to price the flagship at $599 and a step down card at $449, about $50 more than previous price records for performance-oriented products.Such high prices were caused not only by the lack of worthy rivals on the market, but also by the relatively high cost of manufacturing a large G70 chip, the heart of all GeForce 7800-based graphics cards, using the 110nm process technology. However, with the release of the Radeon X1800, the company had to moderate its appetites, and the release of the Radeon X1900 made it necessary to reconsider its pricing policy once again. However, Nvidia did not rest on its laurels and managed in a fairly short time - about six months after the commercial GeForce release 7800 - to successfully master a thinner 90nm process technology using low-k dielectrics not adapted to the village.
Thiner manufacturing process made it possible to significantly increase the frequency potential of the GeForce 7900 GTX GPU compared to its predecessors, as well as reduce the chip area, while the optimized design of the GPU allowed to reduce the number of transistors compared to the GeForce 7800. All these achievements mean that along with increased performance, Nvidia was able to sell their high-end products for much less money, while at the same time receiving a high percentage of profits, provided that the percentage of release of good new products is at the level of previous products.
It is noteworthy that although the GeForce 7900 GTX only slightly increased its performance against the GeForce 7800 GTX 512, it has become $150 cheaper. However, what's even more impressive is that the GeForce 7900 GT - a card with a MSRP of $299 - boasts specs that are even higher than those offered by the GeForce 7800 GTX - a product that was selling for $599 10 months ago!
When releasing a product with the GT suffix, Nvidia this time decided not to turn off the execution units, and therefore, the GeForce 7900 GT differs from the more expensive GTX exclusively in clock speed. Thus, the GeForce 7900 GT is equipped with 24 pixel processors, 24 texture units, 8 vertex processors, and 16 ROPs. The developer company recommends a frequency of 450 MHz for the chip and 1320 for the memory, which, again, is higher than similar ones for the flagship less than a year ago.
Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT: PCB design
Unlike the GeForce 7900 GTX, the GeForce 7900 GT uses a unique PCB design built almost from scratch:
Compared to the GeForce 7800 GT, the new product has become noticeably shorter. The reduction in PCB length was achieved by moving the GPU, memory and related elements closer to the DVI-I connectors, and now the previously empty area of the board is densely populated. The video memory layout has been redesigned to use GDDR3 chips in the new 136-pin FBGA packages, while 144-pin chips were previously used. Note that in this case, there is no chip responsible for video capture, although there is still room for its installation on the board. Perhaps it will be installed on serial cards.
Also, the power supply scheme has undergone a significant simplification. She now uses fewer power cells, as the G71's appetites have become more modest compared to the needs of the G70; however, the number of electrolytic capacitors remained almost the same. The cooling fan connection is still two-pin, while the older GeForce 7800 and 7900 families use a more intelligent four-pin connection. Thus, one should not expect miracles from the fan speed control circuit, however, most likely, the noise level will still be low, given the low level
heat dissipation G71 operating at low frequencies.
This GPU instance was released in the third week of 2006, which is earlier than the one installed on our GeForce 7900 GTX samples. Perhaps the early batches of the G71 did not have good enough frequency potential; In any case, for the production of the GeForce 7900 GT, chips will be used that have not passed the frequency control for installation on the GeForce 7900 GTX. As we already mentioned, the GeForce 7900 GT has the same number of active pixel and vertex processors as the GeForce 7900 GTX: 24 and 8, respectively. According to the specifications, the pixel processors and rasterizers of the GeForce 7900 GT operate at 450 MHz, while the frequency of the vertex processors is 470 MHz. The chip does not have a protective frame, but due to the fact that the GeForce 7900 GT uses a much smaller and more massive cooling system than the GeForce 7900 GTX, its absence is uncritical and does not seem to us any important problem.
The board uses Samsung K4J55323QG series memory with the suffix BC14. These microcircuits have an organization of 8Mx32, a capacity of 256 Mbit, a supply voltage of 1.8 Volts and are capable of operating at a frequency of 700 (1400) MHz. The total amount of video memory is 256 MB, the clock frequency is 660 (1320) MHz, which is slightly lower than the nominal 700 (1400) MHz. Compared to the GeForce 7800 GT, the peak memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7900 GT is significantly higher at 42.2 GB/s. vs. 32 GB/sec.
Given the similar technical parameters of the GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7800 GTX, we should expect these solutions to have approximately the same level of performance in games.
Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT: cooling system
The card has a very simple and compact cooling system, which is more typical for mid-range and entry-level solutions:
As we expected, the GeForce 7900 GT showed approximately the same level of performance as the GeForce 7800 GTX, and this turned out to be true both for a single card and for an SLI tandem. No wonder - architecturally, the G70 and G71 GPUs are identical, and the difference in clock speeds between the old Nvidia solution and the new one is not so large as to seriously affect performance. Even at a resolution of 1600x1200, the advantage of the novelty was less than 5%.
Curiously, a single GeForce 7900 GT is noticeably inferior to a single Radeon x1800 XT, but when it comes to multi-GPU operation, two such cards are in no way inferior to two Radeon x1800 XT, providing over 110 fps at the highest resolution.
Playtests: Chronicles of Riddick
The advantage of the GeForce 7900 GT over the GeForce 7800 GTX is small when using FSAA 4x, but noticeable when more resource-intensive anti-aliasing modes are activated. This is explained, most likely, by the higher memory frequency of the novelty. In the SLI AA 8x mode, this difference makes it possible to achieve better performance than the Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire, a solution with higher technical parameters, but much less economical. However, the maximum resolution for all multi-GPU systems, which provides an acceptable level of performance, still remains 1280x1024.
Playtests: Call of Duty 2
Except for the resolution of 1024x768, the GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7800 GTX behave approximately the same and are quite inferior to the Radeon X1800 XT with its high clock frequencies and a ring memory controller. None of these cards is able to provide a completely comfortable game with full-screen anti-aliasing enabled at sufficiently high resolutions; only at 1024x768 you will be able to get 60-70 fps.
Alas, the SLI bundles of GeForce 7800 GTX and GeForce 7900 GT remove this barrier only up to 1280x1024 resolution, while Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire is able to maintain average performance at 60 fps and 1600x1200, as well as when Super AA 8x is used at 1024x768 resolution.
Playtests: Doom III
Under normal conditions, which include the use of FSAA 4x, the results of GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7800 GTX are almost identical. At best, the difference is 1-2 frames per second with an average performance of 50-80 fps.
However, in the SLI AA 8x mode, the GeForce 7900 GT SLI tandem shows noticeably better results, especially at high resolutions: sometimes, the advantage of the new product over its predecessor reaches 20% or more, allowing it to successfully compete with the Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire, despite higher frequencies and twice the latter has more video memory. At the same time, one should also take into account the focus of the Doom III engine, running under OpenGL and widely using stencil shadows, on the Nvidia GeForce 7 architecture.
In the SLI AA 16x mode, the gap between the old and new models, on the contrary, narrows as the resolution increases, since the load on the memory increases extremely and 60 (120) MHz frequency increases no longer play a special role. Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire leads by a huge gap, but only due to the use of less resource-intensive full-screen anti-aliasing technique, which only emulates supersampling. In addition, the price of such a bundle is much higher.
Game Tests: Far Cry
In enough large-scale stage Pier, there is virtually no performance difference between GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7800 GTX even when comparing SLI bundles working with extreme full-screen anti-aliasing modes. Most likely, the memory load is not high enough, and the limiting factor is the performance of the pixel processors, which are almost the same for both cards, since the clock frequencies of their graphics processors differ by only 20 MHz. Radeon x1800 XT doesn't leave GeForce 7900 GT any chances, but this $299 solution from Nvidia is not meant to compete with such a monster, and its younger version, Radeon x1800 XL, the new product is able to compete quite successfully.
Looking at the results obtained at the Research level, we see almost the same as in the previous case, but the victory of the Radeon x1800 XT does not look so convincing in this case, at least when testing single cards.
Concerning GeForce performance 7900 GT SLI and the possibility of using SLI AA, this is quite real, but in 16x mode you will have to limit yourself to 1024x768, while in 8x mode, with some stretch, but all resolutions are available.
HDR support for ATI cards implemented in Far Cry, has not yet been optimized, so the Radeon X1800 XT is significantly inferior to the GeForce 7900 GT. The best result is shown by the GeForce 7800 GTX 512, which is ahead of the GeForce 7900 GT SLI and GeForce 7800 GTX SLI.
This is true for both test records that we use in the testing process. It should be noted the low efficiency of SLI compared to CrossFire - in last case scalability is much better. This only appears when using HDR: in normal mode, using Nvidia's multi-GPU technology gives excellent results.
Game Tests: F.E.A.R.
The single GeForce 7900 GT is not far behind the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 at high resolutions, despite the impressive difference in clock speeds and video memory size. Quite an unusual picture, since F.E.A.R., in addition to saturation with pixel shaders, is famous for its large amount of textures. As before, none of the single cards could provide 60 frames per second at resolutions above 1024x768 with FSAA 4x enabled and 16x anisotropic filtering enabled.
Quite expected results were obtained when testing the novelty in SLI mode: in this case, it became a leader both when using FSAA 4x (at resolutions over 1024x768) and the more resource-intensive SLI AA 8x. The performance difference between the two Nvidia tandems turned out to be quite predictable and averaged no more than 3-5 fps. It makes no sense to talk about performance in SLI AA 16x mode: besides the fact that the GeForce 7900 GT SLI and Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire tandems are initially in unequal conditions, the performance itself is too low for any comfortable gaming in both cases.
Playtests: Half-Life 2
The usual picture is observed in Half-Life 2: the performance of the GeForce 7900 GT almost does not differ from that of the GeForce 7800 GTX, and both cards successfully compete with the Radeon X1800 XL, but not with the more powerful Radeon X1800 XT.
Slightly better performance new video adapter in SLI mode, and the advantage over GeForce 7800 GTX SLI is 5%-10%. There is no qualitative leap, and in the SLI AA 8x mode, the maximum resolution available to the player remains 1280x1024, while the Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire easily provides over 80 fps even at 1600x1200.
Playtests: Half-Life 2: Lost Coast
Again, nothing extraordinary: the GeForce 7900 GT demonstrates performance on par with the GeForce 7800 GTX in all modes, while being a much more economical solution. Radeon x1800 XT, which consumes much more, shows about the same results, except for the FSAA 14x/16x mode, where the Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire bundle wins only due to the less resource-intensive implementation of Super AA 14x anti-aliasing.
Playtests: Project: Snowblind
CrossFire and SLI technologies still do not work in this game and their inclusion leads to a significant drop in performance.
As in most other tests, a certain performance increase relative to the GeForce 7800 GTX is observed only when using SLI AA, and the higher the resolution, the smaller this increase. At the same time, the performance is high enough to play with SLI AA 8x enabled at 1280x1024 without any problems - the speed does not drop below 60 fps.
The SLI AA 16x mode is also available to the player, although the average performance of the GeForce 7900 GT SLI and GeForce 7800 GTX SLI is much lower here. However, the minimum performance of 40 fps at 1280x1024 is not a bad result, given the excellent quality of anti-aliasing provided in this mode.
Playtests: Quake 4
A phenomenal gain in speed is observed at a resolution of 1600x1200 when using the SLI AA 8x mode - it almost reaches 50%! The result is not a testing error, because after repeated rechecking, the results remained the same. We find it difficult to say what caused such unusual behavior tandem GeForce 7900 GT SLI in Quake 4; it is possible that this is somehow related to software optimizations of SLI technology.
In the SLI AA 16x mode, the increase is more moderate: it is about 20%-22% in all resolutions and does not look as shocking as in the previous case.
Playtests: Serious Sam 2
The GeForce 7900 GT is outperformed by the Radeon X1800 XT, despite the presence of 24 TMUs and the fact that this shooter uses shaders with a large number of texture fetches - from 4 to 7-8 per shader, in no way "saves" the new product. This is due to the fact that at maximum graphics quality settings, Serious Sam 2 requires a graphics card with 512 MB of video memory on board, otherwise, performance drops significantly.
By unknown reason, GeForce 7900 GT demonstrates the smallest margin of safety among all test participants even at the minimum resolution. In other words, its performance can drop to 1-5 fps, while almost the same technical specifications GeForce 7800 GTX provides 12-26 fps, depending on the resolution. Perhaps the problem lies in Nvidia drivers, since retesting did not change the picture. Also, no image artifacts were recorded.
Of the single cards taking part in the tests, only the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 and Radeon X1800 XT provide acceptable performance in the case of using FSAA 4x, and only at a resolution of 1024x768. At the same time, the latter is slightly inferior to the SLI-bundle of two GeForce 7900 GT.
In modes that use extreme anti-aliasing modes, the performance of the tested multi-GPU solutions is too low to speak of the possibility of a comfortable game.
Playtests: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
This game has not been tested in FSAA modes, since in this case HDR support is disabled even on ATI cards, and the graphics quality drops noticeably. Also, when using HDR, it is impossible to turn on the Bloom effect and vice versa. In the current version Catalyst drivers there is no CrossFire support for TES IV. To enable it, you need to rename the Oblivion.exe file to AFR-FriendlyD3D.exe, otherwise there will be no performance gain. Since the game does not contain built-in testing tools, we had to use the FRAPS utility. To get a more complete picture of the performance, we tested each card twice - in the open area and in the dungeon of the Imperial City prison.
At low resolutions, the Radeon x1800 XL is slightly ahead of the GeForce 7900 GT, but starting at 1280x1024, its performance drops sharply. Most likely, the main reason is the relatively slow memory operating at 500 (1000) MHz.
If we talk about playability, then the new Nvidia solution at maximum graphics quality settings in a single form completely allows using a resolution of 1024x768, and when combined with a similar card in tandem SLI, it makes all standard resolutions available, up to 1600x1200. True, this is true only for indoor scenes and dungeons. Let's see how the novelty behaves in an open area.
Alas, the open spaces of TES: Oblivion make much more significant demands on the performance of the graphics subsystem, and in this case, even the GeForce 7900 GT SLI tandem barely provides an average speed of 52 frames per second at 1024x768, not to mention single cards, which is performance at the level of 35-40 fps. Considering that Oblivion technically belongs to the category of first-person shooters, this is clearly not enough for a completely comfortable game.
Playtests: Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
The results of the GeForce 7900 GT, GeForce 7800 GTX and Radeon x1800 XL are practically the same in all resolutions, and in the higher class the fight is between the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 and Radeon x1800 XT. A single GeForce 7900 GT is too tough for only 1600x1200 resolution, in other cases its performance is high enough to play without any problems.
As for the GeForce 7900 GT SLI, it manages to compete on equal terms with the Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire only at 1024x768, but this is an excellent result for a solution with such a low price. Besides, at higher resolutions it also provides an excellent performance headroom, although not as large as the two-processor solution from ATI Technologies.
The FSAA 8x + AF 16x mode shows a natural picture - Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire is in the lead. Probably, the GeForce 7900 GT SLI should be compared with the Radeon X1800 XL CrossFire, but currently we have only one copy of the corresponding card.
Playtests: Pacific Fighters
The results of Nvidia's novelty are excellent both in the case of a single card and in the case of an SLI tandem. The GeForce 7900 GT leads in all resolutions and anti-aliasing modes, with the only exception: at 1600x1200 with SLI AA 16x enabled, a pair of new cards operating in SLI mode is about 4%-5% behind Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire. The phenomenon is natural, since the engine of this flight simulator is optimized taking into account the architectural features of GeForce 6/7.
Playtests: X3: Reunion
X3: Reunion is a very demanding game, and a future GeForce 7900 GT owner who wants to improve image quality by activating FSAA will only have one resolution available, 1024x768. The same can be said about GeForce 7800 GTX and Radeon X1800 XL.
When using two GeForce 7900 GT cards in tandem, the range of playable resolutions is extended to the maximum in the case of FSAA 4x, and it is even possible to play at 1024x768 using SLI AA 8x. Not bad for a tandem, each of whose components has an official price of only $299.
We would like to draw our readers' attention to the fact that the Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire system practically does not provide a performance boost compared to a single Radeon x1800 XT: the CrossFire technology in X3: Reunion is probably not working correctly yet.
Playtests: Age of Empires 3
This game works correctly when using Super AA and SLI AA anti-aliasing, but the results obtained in these modes are not consistent, so we do not publish them in order not to mislead readers with data whose correctness is questionable.
Thanks to the presence of 24 pixel processors and 24 TMUs, the GeForce 7900 GT easily leaves behind the Radeon X1800 XT, and at 1600x1200 the advantage of the new Nvidia card reaches 50%. At the same time, the performance of a single GeForce 7900 GT is quite good even taking into account the fact that full-screen anti-aliasing is enabled. In our opinion, the average performance of 53 frames at 1280x1024 is more than enough for a full-fledged real-time strategy game, which includes Age of Empires 3.
Note that in the case of the GeForce 7900 GT SLI, there is a significant increase in performance compared to a single card, which was not the case with two GeForce 7900 GTX. At the moment we have no reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. As for the effectiveness of ATI CrossFire technology in this game, it is still practically zero.
Playtests: Warhammer 40.000: Dawn of War
As in many other games, the results of the GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7800 GTX are practically the same, just as the technical characteristics of these two cards are almost the same. And as before, Dawn of War actively uses the features of GeForce 7 in the form of 24 texture units and support for UltraShadow II, which results in a successful rivalry with a higher-class opponent in the face of the Radeon X1800 XT.
In the case of SLI and CrossFire tandems, the new product demonstrates higher performance than GeForce 7800 GTX SLI, which allows it to lead almost everywhere, except for 1600x1200 resolution in SLI AA 16x mode. But in this case, the loss of Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire is just over 1 frame per second. performance in this mode, unfortunately, is too low for the game, and the data obtained are only of theoretical interest, however, in the less resource-intensive SLI AA 8x mode, a pair of GeForce 7900 GT makes resolutions up to 1280x1024 available to the player.
Semi-synthetic tests: Aquamark3
Interesting data cannot be obtained in Aquamark3, not least because of the outdated test package itself. In this case, we see what has already been observed more than once - almost complete coincidence of the results of GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7900 GTX; slightly deeper differences are observed in the SLI AA 8x and SLI AA 16x modes. It is also obvious that in these modes the GeForce 7900 GT SLI is not able to compete with the Radeon x1800 XT: in the first case, due to the less efficient memory subsystem (lower frequency + less efficient controller), and in the second, due to the extreme resource intensity of the mode anti-aliasing 16x.
Synthetic benchmarks: Futuremark 3DMark05 build 120
It was not possible to outrun the Radeon x1800 XT GeForce 7900 GT, which is quite natural, but the Radeon x1800 XL was confidently left behind. In the case of multi-GPU tandems, the GeForce 7900 GT SLI, of course, lost to the Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire, but the gap was less than 1000 points, which is very good, considering the difference in clock frequencies, video memory size, price and power consumption of these two solutions.
The GeForce 7800 GTX and the new GeForce 7900 GT outperform the Radeon X1800 XT by about 10% in the first test, regardless of the resolution. The corresponding multi-GPU systems, however, are noticeably inferior to the Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire only at 1600x1200, where the speed of working with memory comes to the fore.
For the same reason, GeForce 7900 GT SLI and GeForce 7800 GTX SLI lose to Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire in SLI AA/Super AA modes, however, in this case, it should be noted that the gap reaches significant values only when SLI AA 16x/Super AA is used. 14x. We remind you that in this mode ATI cards have a significant advantage over their rivals, since the anti-aliasing methods used in the Super AA 14x mode are much less resource intensive than those used by Nvidia in the SLI AA 16x mode.
Unlike the first test, the second test of the 3DMark05 package does not require such a high scene fill rate, so the Radeon X1800 XT outperforms the GeForce 7900 GT noticeably more in it. But the new product continues to compete quite successfully with the Radeon x1800 XL.
In extreme anti-aliasing modes, the GeForce 7900 GT SLI also outperforms the Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire more than in the previous case. In particular, when using FSAA 8x, the lag can reach 15%-25%.
Approximately the same is observed in the third test, but since the high scene fill rate plays an important role in it, the advantage of the Radeon x1800 XT over the GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7800 GTX is not as great as in the second test.
In general, the results of individual tests correlate well with the result shown by the GeForce 7900 GT in the overall standings, despite the fact that in the first case we used the full-screen anti-aliasing mode. The GeForce 7900 GT couldn't get ahead of the Radeon X1800 XT, but it didn't face such a task; at the same time, it coped quite successfully with the Radeon X1800 XL.
Synthetic benchmarks: Futuremark 3DMark06 build 120
Only 100 points separate GeForce 7900 GT from Radeon X1800 XT. Taking into account the requirements set by 3DMark06 for the video subsystem, as well as the price and power consumption of the Radeon X1800 XT, this can be called quite a good achievement by Nvidia. In the case of multi-GPU systems, the gap between GeForce 7900 GT SLI and Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire is slightly larger and amounts to 186 points. However, this chart contains only generalized results, which say nothing about the performance of this or that card in the SM2.0 and SM3.0/HDR tests. To obtain more accurate data, the results of these tests should be considered separately.
The GeForce 7900 GT is only 31 points behind the Radeon X1800 XT, compensating for the lack of clock frequencies by the presence of 24 texture modules. The GeForce 7900 GT SLI bundle performs equally well, lagging behind the Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire by only 60 points. Such a good result is due to the fact that the Radeon x1800 XT has nowhere to show its talent in working with complex shaders of version 3.0.
In the SM3.0/HDR tests, the single GeForce 7900 GT outperforms the Radeon X1800 XT more strongly, but not by much - the difference is 62 points. Perhaps such a small gap is due to the relatively low scene filling rate of the Radeon x1800 XT, as well as its lack of support for the Fetch4 function. The latter allows you to speed up the process of applying dynamic shadows using the Cascaded Shadow Maps method used in 3DMark06.
Unlike single cards, the Radeon x1800 XT CrossFire in the SM3.0/HDR tests is already quite noticeably ahead of the GeForce 7900 GT SLI, by more than 200 points.
As GPU The GeForce 7900 is unable to use FSAA and HDR at the same time, we only publish SM2.0 test results obtained in FSAA 4x + AF 16x mode. When using more resource-intensive smoothing modes, the performance is too low, which negatively affects the measurement accuracy. Also, the 1600x1200 resolution was excluded from the list of resolutions, since 3DMark06 requires 512 MB of video memory to work in it with anti-aliasing enabled.
With FSAA and anisotropic filtering enabled, the GeForce 7900 GT manages to compete on equal terms with the Radeon x1800 XT only at 1024x768, because at 1280x1024 the new product lacks the performance of the memory subsystem. The generally good results of the GeForce 7900 GT in the first SM2.0 test can be explained by the high scene fill rate ensured by the presence of 24 TMUs.
The above is confirmed by the results of the second test. It is much less demanding on the fillrate parameter than the first one, as a result, the clock speeds of the Radeon X1800 XT and its ability to work quickly with pixel shaders come to the fore. If in the first test its advantage over the GeForce 7900 GT was, at best, a little over 10%, here it reaches about 35% at 1280x1024.
In this case, the results obtained in the overall standings are not confirmed - in both tests, the SM2.0 GeForce 7900 GT is inferior to the Radeon X1800 XT, but we should not forget that the results of individual tests were obtained in the mode with full-screen anti-aliasing enabled, which imposes increased performance requirements memory subsystems.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that Nvidia's new graphics card, aimed at the $299 price segment, turned out to be very successful. The GeForce 7900 GT video adapter inherited all the positive features of the GeForce 7800 GTX, while at the same time becoming much simpler, cheaper and more economical thanks to the use of the new G71 graphics processor.In real conditions, the novelty proved to be excellent, outperforming in the vast majority Radeon tests X1800 XL, and in some cases even competing on equal terms with the much more powerful Radeon X1800 XT. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the presence of 24 TMUs, and, as a result, a higher scene fill rate - a parameter that is in demand in games with a large number of texture fetches. Combined with the power consumption level of about 48 watts, which is noticeably less than those of the GeForce 7800 GT and Radeon X1800 XL, and excellent overclocking potential, this gives us every reason to call the Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT the best card in the $299 price range.
Thus, if Nvidia partners manage to arrange large-scale shipments of the GeForce 7900 GT at a price of $299, many users may prefer such accelerators. graphics cards based on the Radeon x1800 GTO, XL, and in some cases the Radeon x1800 XT.
GeForce 7900 GT: advantages and disadvantages
Advantages:
High performance in most applications
High performance in OpenGL
Balanced architecture (24 pixel processors per 24 TMUs)
Anti-aliasing support for transparent textures
Good overclocking potential
Low power consumption and heat dissipation
compactness
Dual-link DVI support
Low price ($299)
Disadvantages:
Increased noise level
Inefficient cooling system
Lack of simultaneous support for FSAA and HDR
The field of computer technology, in which overclockers are interested in such concepts as frequency, timings, overclocking, performance improvement, etc. (this is not a concept, but an abbreviation for the word "other"), does not allow you to relax at all. New items are constantly appearing: either in the field of cooling, then new processors or video cards, then suddenly another news about lower prices for the entire line of graphics chips, forcing them to take a starting position at the entrance to stores. So today, while one part of the overclockers continues to discuss the proportions of Adrian Curry's nose, and the other is discussing the coming of the monster of power consumption and 3D performance of the GeForce 8800 GTX, we present you another comparison of new and rather original video cards.
One of 2000 video cards was provided for testing the site GeForce series 7900 GTO, designed for European countries, including Russia and the CIS. Such video cards are currently produced by only one NVIDIA partner - MSI. However, as was the case with the Sapphire Radeon X800 GTO² earlier, it is possible that other brands will join the release some time later. Since the GeForce 7900 GTX is no longer supplied to NVIDIA's partners, this card is replaced by the GeForce 7900 GTO, while the top-end in the 7xxx line remains the GeForce 7950 GX2. The recommended price of the novelty is 329 US dollars, but due to the limited edition, it is unlikely that you will be able to purchase this video card for less than 350 US dollars. What kind of "beast" is this, we have to find out today.
The second interesting novelty of today's review is the video card GeForce 7900 GT. This is a product already well known to us, but the sample considered today is not so simple as it might seem from its name. A new brand on the video card market - ECS (Elitegroup) - presents the GeForce 7900 GT with an original cooling system, twice the amount of video memory and increased frequencies. Few? And if we add here the recommended price of $250, which is 49 less than the recommended price of a regular GeForce 7900 GT with a noisy cooler, only 256 Mb of video memory and no overclocking guarantee, then what is it like now?
Let's take a closer look at what's new. Believe me, they are worth it.
1. Specifications of NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT/GTO and ATI Radeon X1900 XT
I propose to compare the technical characteristics of today's rivals:
| Name of technical characteristics | GeForce 7900 GT | GeForce 7900 GTO | Radeon X1900XT |
| GPU | G71 (TSMC) | R580 | |
| Technical process, microns | 0.09 (low-k) | 0.09 | |
| GPU core area, sq. mm | 196 | 352 | |
| Number of transistors, mln. | 278 | 384 | |
| GPU frequencies, MHz | 470/450/450 | 650 (500 in 2D) | 625 (500 in 2D) |
| Video memory frequency, MHz | 1320 | 1450 (1188 in 2D) | |
| Memory size, Mb | 256 / 512 | 512 | 256 / 512 |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | ||
| Bit width of the memory exchange bus, Bit | 256 | ||
| Interface | PCI Express x16 | ||
| Number of pixel processors, pcs. | 24 | 48 | |
| Number of texture units (TMU), pcs. | 24 | 16 | |
| Number of rasterization blocks (ROPs), pcs. | 16 | 16 | |
| Number of vertex processors, pcs. | 8 | 8 | |
| Pixel Shaders / Vertex Shaders version support | 3.0 / 3.0 | ||
| Video memory bandwidth, Gb/s | ~42.2 | ~45.0 | |
| Peak power consumption in 3D mode, W | ~ 110 | ||
| Power supply requirements, W | ~450 | ~ 500 | |
| Reference design video card dimensions, mm. (L x H x T) | 195x100x15 | 205x100x30 | 205x100x32 |
| exits | 2 x DVI (Dual-Link), TV-Out, HDTV-Out, VIVO support | ||
| Recommended | retail* price at the time of publication of the article, US dollars | 299 | ** | 329 | n/a | 279 | ** |
** - for the version with 256 Mb of video memory.
2. Review MSI GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb (NX7900GTO-T2D512E)
The video card manufactured by MSI comes in the already familiar sky blue package:
The box differs little from the MSI GeForce 7900 GS 256 Mb (NX7900GS-T2D256E) reviewed the other day, but I would like to note that it does not indicate anywhere that the video card belongs to the GTO-series. It says "GeForce 7900 Series" and that's it.
The video card package looks like this:
- S-Video cable;
- two 15 pin DVI / D-Sub adapters;
- cable for connecting additional power to the video card;
- CD with video card drivers and utilities.
Externally, the video card is exact copy GeForce 7900 GTX with a reference cooling system that covers the entire front side of the board:
The cooling system is based on a copper base with four copper, but nickel-plated heat pipes coming out of it:
The heat pipes distribute the heat flow over the thin fins of the aluminum heatsink and cool it with a 92mm fan located in the very center of the heatsink. The fan is very quiet, and while the RPM should vary depending on the temperature of the GPU, it ran at a constant ~1100 RPM during our tests. Apparently, the video card did not warm up to the level of increased fan speed.
The cooling system is attached to the video card with 10 screws, four of which fix the heatsink along the perimeter of the graphics chip, and the remaining six - along the perimeter of the video card's memory chips. A thermal interface is used at the point of contact between the copper base and the GPU gray color and a very thick consistency, and impregnated thermal pads are used on the memory chips.
Without a cooling system, the GeForce 7900 GTO looks like this:
It is possible to detect that this video card belongs to the GTO line only by a small sticker on reverse side motherboards, otherwise no differences from the GeForce 7900 GTX were noticed.
The video card is equipped with a PCI-Express x16 interface and has two digital outputs (Dual-Link with support for high resolutions) and a TV-out:
The output panel of the board is combined with a grill designed to eject part of the heated air from the case system block.
The graphics processor of the G71 video card revision A2 was released in Taiwan a long time ago, on the 13th week of this year:
In 3D mode, the chip operates at the same frequency of 650 MHz for all three of its blocks. When switching to 2D mode, the frequency of the graphics processor is reduced to 275 MHz. You could already see the characteristics of the chip above.
The video card is equipped with 8 GDDR3 memory chips manufactured by Samsung with a nominal access time of 1.1 ns:
Despite the fact that exactly the same chips are used as in the GeForce 7900 GTX (with a theoretical frequency of 1800 MHz), the memory operates at 1320 MHz, that is, at exactly the same frequency as in the GeForce 7900 GT. The difference in the frequency of the video memory is the only difference between the GeForce 7900 GTO and the GTX version of the video card.
The overclocking of the MSI GeForce 7900 GTO sample provided for testing turned out to be very good, taking into account the fact that video cards of the upper price ranges, as a rule, run worse than their cheaper counterparts. We managed to overclock the graphics processor from the nominal frequency of 650 MHz to 710 MHz, and the video memory from 1320 MHz to 1620 MHz:
However, for GDDR3 memory with a nominal access time of 1.1 ns, this is a rather modest overclocking result.
The temperature regime of the considered video card was checked in a closed case of the system unit at a room temperature of 24 degrees Celsius. For verification, we used the Firefly Forest test run eight times from the 3DMark 2006 synthetic graphics benchmark using 16x anisotropic filtering (without activating full-screen anti-aliasing). As a result, the following were obtained temperature indicators overclocked MSI GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb:
Only 66 degrees Celsius for such a high-frequency and uncut core! An excellent result, considering that the fan of the standard cooling system rotated at a speed of only ~1000 RPM. Will Zalman VF900-Cu be able to show such an impressive result at also quiet ~1650 RPM? Answer below:
The GPU temperature has risen, but only by 1 degree Celsius, which first of all speaks of the very high efficiency of the standard GeForce 7900 GTO cooler. But the ambient temperature of the board dropped by 3 degrees. Still, the air flow from the Zalman VF900-Cu fan affects the temperature of the board more favorably than when working with a standard aluminum "shell" that contacts the memory chips through thermal pads.
You can download the BIOS of MSI GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb (NX7900GTO-T2D512E) from our file archive (40.5 Kb, WinRAR archive).
And now let's move on to the next participant in today's tests.
3. ECS GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb (N7900GT-512MX)
Elitegroup (ECS) announced the start of its expansion into the graphics card market in January this year. The first samples released under the label of this company appeared by the summer at Computex 2006, and today we will introduce you to the review of the first ECS video card for the site, which was the GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb (N7900GT-512MX).
The video card is unusual, at least in its four components. The first is the box, the dimensions of which can surprise even an experienced overclocker.
She is simply huge! To my disappointment, inside such a large box, in addition to the video card, there were a minimum of components:
- instructions for installing a video card and drivers;
- CD with video card drivers;
- S-Video cable;
- adapter-splitter for HDTV and VIVO;
- one 15 pin DVI / D-Sub adapter;
- cable for connecting additional power to the video card.
And that's all. The rest of the space was partially filled with cardboard inserts, or simply empty. Let's look at the video card:
At the first glance at the ECS GeForce 7900 GT, you immediately notice a non-standard video card cooling system and this is the second difference from the reference GeForce 7900 GT.
The cooling system was released by APACK, completely unknown on the Russian market. Meanwhile, a cursory acquaintance with the products of this company allows us to understand that APACK produces at least interesting cooling systems for both central processors and video cards. The ZeroTherm GX700M used on the ECS GeForce 7900 GT is the junior model and is a cooler with aluminum fins strung on one copper heat pipe:
In the center of the cooler is a small turbine with straight blades, the rotation speed of which according to technical specifications is 1500 RPM, and the noise level does not exceed 14.7 dBA. Indeed, during operation, the turbine is not audible. At all.
As a thermal interface, thermal paste of a sufficiently thick consistency is used. I note that there are two more pairs of holes in the cooler mounting bracket, which will allow you to install this cooling system on other video cards (the list of compatibility and incompatibility is given on the page at the link I indicated above). On the reverse side, the cooler is pressed with a pair of screws through a kind of backplate with foam padding. It remains to add that the weight of the cooling system used in this ECS video card is only 89.5 grams.
The PCB design of the ECS GeForce 7900 GT has not changed:
Eight memory chips of the video card are located on the front side, but the amount of memory is doubled compared to conventional GeForce 7900 GT. The presence of 512 Mb GDDR3 memory of the video card is the third difference from the overwhelming majority of video cards of the GeForce 7900 GT line.
The video card is equipped with a PCI-Express x16 interface and has two digital outputs, as well as a TV-out:
GPU revision A2 released on the 21st week of the current year:
Three blocks of the chip operate at frequencies of 550/530/530 MHz (Geometric/Shader/ROP). Let me remind you that according to the specifications of the GeForce 7900 GT, the frequency of the graphics processor is 450 MHz (470/450/450 MHz), that is, the GPU of this Elitegroup video card is overclocked by the manufacturer by 80 MHz. Not bad.
Changes in frequency also affected the memory of the video card. Instead of the 1320 MHz required by the specifications, the memory is overclocked to 1450 MHz. This is the fourth feature of the new video card. And I note that at the same time, ECS does not make any prefixes such as "Ultimate", "Extreme", etc. for its product, and recommends selling it at a price of 250 US dollars.
Let's get back to video memory. Eight chips manufactured by Infineon have a nominal access time of 1.4 ns:
The effectiveness of the original ECS GeForce 7900 GT cooler was tested using the same method and under the same conditions as for the MSI GeForce 7900 GTO. The results are as follows:
To determine how efficient the ZeroTherm GX700M cooler is, Zalman VF900-Cu (at ~1650 RPM) will help:
Even after an external examination of the new video card, I had no doubt that the Zalman VF900-Cu LED would be more efficient, but the fact that its advantage resulted in 18 degrees Celsius surprised me a little. Previously, we compared the efficiency of cooling the GeForce 7900 GT with a standard cooler with Zalman VF900-Cu LED, and then the difference between them did not exceed 12 degrees Celsius, now it is 18 degrees. The 7900 GT is quite noisy.
Of course, it’s interesting how much a video card already overclocked by the manufacturer will overclock, and will it overclock at all? I hasten to please you, the overclocking potential of the video card has not been fully exhausted and I managed to increase its frequencies a little more, stopping at 570/1584 MHz (with a geometric block delta equal to 0):
Re-checking the temperature regime of the video card after overclocking showed that using the original cooling system, the GPU temperature increased by 3 degrees Celsius, which is completely insignificant, in my opinion.
At the end of this section of the article, it remains to supplement the review of the considered video card with a link to its BIOS (41.0 Kb, WinRAR archive).
4. Test bench configuration and testing methodology
So, today we reviewed two video cards: GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb and 7900 GT 512 Mb. Considering that the memory capacity of the latest video card is 512 Mb, we can make some interesting comparisons.
First of all, it would not be out of place to evaluate what kind of performance increase and in what games does the additional 256 Mb of video memory bring to the GeForce 7900 GT? To do this, let's compare the ECS GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb (at frequencies lowered to the level of the reference 7900 GT) with the Chaintech GeForce 7900 GT 256 Mb video card. Unfortunately, these video cards are equipped with GDDR3 memory from different manufacturers(Infineon and Samsung, respectively), so do not forget about the possible impact of video memory timings on performance. The nominal memory access time for both video cards is the same and equals 1.4 ns.
Secondly, it's interesting how the new GeForce 7900 GTO is faster than the GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb. The memory works on the same frequency, while the frequency of the 7900 GTO GPU is 200 MHz higher. Of course, we will not forget about overclocking of both video cards here either.
And finally, thirdly, let's check how strong ATI's competitor is: the video card Radeon X1900 XT with 256 Mb of video memory at its retail price given in the first section of the article is just between the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT 256 Mb and the expected price for GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb. Such a video card manufactured by Sapphire was offered to us for testing by the ATI representative office in Russia, for which special thanks to them.
The video card is an exact copy of the Radeon X1900 XT 512 Mb, but with half the amount of video memory. Unfortunately, the overclocking potential of the provided sample turned out to be low, since we managed to overclock the video card from the nominal frequencies of 625/1440 MHz to 662/1512 MHz.
Thus, four video cards will take part in today's tests: two GeForce 7900 GT with 256 and 512 Mb memory, GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb and Radeon X1900 XT 256 Mb. Testing of all video cards was carried out both in the nominal mode of their operation and during overclocking.
Testing of video cards was carried out in a closed case of the system unit of the following configuration:
- Motherboard: ASUSTek P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP (Intel P965), LGA 775, BIOS 0804;
- Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1866 MHz, 266 x 4 MHz FSB, L2 2 x 1024 Kb, SL9SA Malay, (Allendale, B2);
- CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Big Typhoon + Noctua NF-S12 120mm fan (~800 RPM, ~7 dBA);
- Thermal interface: Zalman CSL850;
- RAM: 2 x 1024 Mb DDR2 PC6400 Corsair CM2X1024-6400C4 (SPD: 800 MHz, 4-4-4-12);
- Disk subsystem: SATA-II 320 Gb, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (3320620AS), 7200 RPM, 16 Mb, NCQ;
- Case: ATX ASUS ASCOT 6AR2-B Black&Silver + 120 mm Coolink SwiF 120 mm case fan (~1200 RPM, ~24 dBA) + 120 mm Sharkoon Luminous Blue LED case fans (~1000 RPM) , ~21 dBA);
- Power supply: MGE Magnum 500 (500 W) + 80 mm GlacialTech SilentBlade fan (~1700 RPM, 19 dBA).
- Monitor: LCD DELL 1800/1FP UltraSharp (1280x1024, DVI, 60 Hz).
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 processor was overclocked to 3450 MHz with an increase in voltage up to 1.4875 V. The RAM ran at 986 MHz with 4-4-4-12 timings.
All tests were performed in the operating room. Windows system XP Professional Edition SP2. Motherboard chipset drivers - Intel Chipset Dirvers version 8.1.1.1001. DirectX 9.0c libraries (release date - August 2006) were used, as well as ForeWare 91.47 and Catalyst 6.10 video card drivers.
Graphics card performance was tested at two resolutions: 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1024 with the following graphics quality settings:
- "High Qual" – driver settings to "High Quality", anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing disabled;
- "High Qual+AF16x+AA4x" – driver settings to "High Quality", anisotropic filtering of the x16 level is used, and full-screen anti-aliasing of the x4 degree.
Anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing were activated directly in the game settings. If changing these settings in the games themselves was not available, then it was performed from the control panels of the ForceWare and Catalyst drivers. The latter used high quality anisotropic filtering. All anisotropic and trilinear filtering optimizations in the drivers were disabled. Catalyst A.I. deactivated.
To test the performance of the video card, the following set of synthetic benchmarks and games was used:
- 3DMark 2005 - build 1.2.0, resolution 1024 x 768, default settings;
- 3DMark 2006 - build 1.0.2, resolution 1280 x 1024, default settings;
- Serious Sam 2 (Direct3D) – game version 2.070, standard demo "GREENDALE", maximum graphics settings (they were described in more detail earlier);
- Quake 4 (OpenGL) – game version 1.3.0 build 2393, our new demo "d5" (160 MB, rar) at "The NEXUS" level, graphics detail in the game - "Ultra Quality", demo triple run to minimize dependence of results on speed hard drive and caching, the configuration file is located on the personal page;
- Call Of Duty 2 (Direct3D) – game version 1.3, texture settings set to "Extra" level, "Fortress Stalingrad" level, configuration file and demo "d1" (614.8 Kb) you can download from my personal page;
- F.E.A.R. – First Encounter Assault Recon (Direct3D) – game version 1.04, built-in benchmark, all graphics settings during testing set to "Maximum", Soft Shadows = On;
- The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Direct3D) – game version 1.1.425, maximum quality, bloom effects, distant rendering, "Aleswell – Forest" level, configuration file;
- Tomb Raider: Legend (Direct3D) – game version 1.2, maximum quality, Next generation content = On, level "Bolivia";
- Prey (OpenGL) – game version 1.1, maximum quality, "HWzone" demo from Prey Bench (Boost graphics option enabled), demo run twice.
It remains to add that if the game does not have a built-in FPS counter and the possibility of fixing its average value, then the measurement was made using the FRAPS utility. In the case when during the testing in the results obtained there was a minimum FPS indicator, then it was indicated on the diagrams.
5. Results of video card performance tests and their analysis
As usual, let's start studying the test results with synthetic benchmarks from Futuremark.
3D Mark 2005
The first thing I would like to immediately draw your attention to is the leadership of Radeon X1900 XT 256 Mb. This video card did not lose in any of the tests, outperforming even the well-overclocked GeForce 7900 GTO. The advantage of Radeon over GeForce 7900 GT is very significant. At the same time, it should be remembered that video cards based on ATI chips in 3DMark 2005/2006 synthetic benchmarks have always looked more profitable than their competitors, and today's test was no exception.
Comparing the results of two GeForce 7900 GT with 256 and 512 Mb of memory, I would like to note that in light graphics quality modes, where the load on the video card is not so significant, the advantage of a video card with 512 Mb of video memory is insignificant. However, when the load increases or the resolution increases, where more memory becomes in demand, the ECS video card starts to outperform Chaintech.
The two hundred megahertz frequency advantage of the GeForce 7900 GTO over the GeForce 7900 GT makes it possible to maintain a ~25% lead, which in itself is very, very good. Overclocking both GeForce 7900 GT allows you to get closer to not overclocked GeForce 7900 GTO in the light mode of graphics quality and outperform in the hard one, so the owners of the 7900 GT don't have to be especially upset about the lag of their video cards from the GTO version.
3D Mark 2006
The picture is somewhat different in 3DMark 2006. GeForce 7900 GTO is out of competition here. It is followed by the Radeon X1900 XT and then a couple of 7900 GT. The difference between the latter becomes noticeable only after significantly different overclocking of video cards.
Serious Sam 2
In Serious Sam 2, the new GeForce 7900 GTO leaves no chance for its rivals, both in the nominal mode and during overclocking. Radeon x1900 XT is second again, and after overclocking all video cards in modes using anisotropic filtering and full-screen antialiasing, it becomes the last one at all, while yielding to the GeForce 7900 GT quite a bit.
The difference in performance between the 256 and 512 MB versions of the GeForce 7900 GT and in Serious Sam 2 is very insignificant to overpay for additional memory.
Quake 4
In my opinion, based on the results of Quake 4, we can observe the effectiveness of not only non-disabled optimizations in drivers, but also (indirectly) the quality of anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing. Please note that at a resolution of 1024x768 and the "High Quality" mode, video cards based on an NVIDIA chip seem to be limited by performance. CPU. If not, why does the GeForce 7900 GTO, whose graphics processor runs at a frequency that exceeds the GPU 7900 GT by 200 MHz, show the same FPS as the GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb? On the other hand, if the performance of video cards in this mode of Quake 4 is still limited by the speed of the CPU, then why does the Radeon X1900 XT not hit the same 122 FPS and demonstrate an average of 133 FPS?
Besides, as soon as we turn on various methods for improving graphics quality or increase the resolution, the Radeon x1900 XT 256 Mb immediately loses ground, losing to all other participants in today's testing. Running out of video memory? But one of today's GeForce 7900 GT has the same 256 Mb and it is still faster... No, fellow overclockers, there is obviously something tricky in the drivers or the game engine with optimizations for a particular video card and graphics mode, which is clearly seen according to test results.
call of duty 2
In Call Of Duty 2 video cards based on NVIDIA chips suffer a crushing defeat from ATI Radeon X1900 XT 256 Mb. And even a significant overclocking of the graphics chip and memory of video cards of the GeForce 7900 series does not allow you to get closer to the Radeon. As for the difference in performance between the GeForce 7900 GT with 256 and 512 Mb of memory, it simply doesn't exist in this game, although 512 Mb of video memory is quite in demand by it.
F.E.A.R.
And again, a pair of GeForce 7900 GT with different video memory sizes shows almost the same performance. The maximum separation of the 512-MB version of the video card from 256 Mb is 5 frames per second with an average of 68. You won't notice for sure.
In turn, the Radeon x1900 XT 256 Mb looks very worthy not only against the backdrop of the GeForce 7900 GT, but also the more expensive GeForce 7900 GTO. The latter in most graphics modes often leads only after overclocking, and when tested in high-quality graphics modes, it is inferior.
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Quite interesting are the results of testing video cards in Oblivion. Both resolutions and the "Hiqh Quality" mode have two clear leaders: GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb and Radeon X1900 XT 256 Mb. Moreover, in this mode, the difference between the video cards is insignificant. Further, when anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing are activated, the video card based on the ATI chip starts losing ground sharply. Without overclocking it is not so noticeable yet, since the Radeon x1900 XT 256 Mb is still faster than a pair of GeForce 7900 GT, although it is significantly behind the GTO versions. But when overclocking video cards due to the higher overclocking potential of the GeForce 7900 GT, both of these video cards are ahead. This fact is especially evident in the resolution of 1024 x 768.
Returning to the comparison of the results of 256 and 512 MB 7900 GT cards, I would like to note that in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, the presence of additional 256 MB of video memory does not lead to an increase in either the average or the minimum frame rate.
Tomb Raider: Legend
Testing of video cards in the game about the next adventures of Lara Croft as a whole can be considered as a summary diagram for today's testing. Let me explain: GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb is the fastest video card in today's tests, which is quite logical in view of its high cost among the video cards considered in this article. Next comes the Radeon x1900 XT 256 Mb, which often loses to both GeForce 7900 GT during overclocking, but in the nominal mode, the last two have a chance to approach the Radeon only in heavy graphics modes. And, finally, there are no performance differences between the 256 and 512 MB versions of the GeForce 7900 GT.
Prey
The results of testing video cards in Prey are also interesting, and here's why. Previously, we could see how the Radeon x1900 XT 256 Mb outperformed both GeForce 7900 GTs in light modes, but the latter approached it in heavy modes. Here it happened the other way around. The video card from ATI, due to the "sharpening" of the Prey engine for NVIDIA chips, is inferior in "High Quality" and is compared with the GeForce 7900 GT 256 Mb with activated anisotropic filtering and full-screen antialiasing.
GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb leads by a significant margin from other video cards except... GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb! Prey turned out to be the only game where in heavy graphics quality modes the GeForce 7900 GT with 512 Mb of memory is faster than the 256 Mb version of the video card. Remarkably, when overclocking, this difference becomes especially noticeable.
Perhaps the overall picture of the performance of the video cards reviewed today is clear. You can sum up.
Conclusion
Let's go through the tasks set in the article. The first thing we had to find out was how much, in what games and graphic modes, the additional 256 Mb of video memory for the GeForce 7900 GT is expedient. By comparing two video cards with 256 and 512 Mb memory, it becomes clear that there is no urgent need for a large amount of video memory for the GeForce 7900 GT. There is a marginal difference in favor of a 512MB graphics card in 3DMark 2005, Serious Sam 2, Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. In the Prey game, the gap is the most noticeable and mainly when overclocking video cards, but so far this is the only case. On average, the difference in retail price between 256 and 512 Mb video cards reaches 50 US dollars and, in my opinion, this is not the best investment for performance. I note that despite the demand modern games large amounts of video memory, jerks, "freezes" and any other uncomfortable sensations in games on the 256 MB version of the GeForce 7900 GT versus 512 MB I didn't notice.
The second is the performance difference between the GeForce 7900 GT and the new GeForce 7900 GTO. Due to the significantly higher frequency graphics core(+200 MHz or +44.4% to GPU 7900 GT frequency) the new product is noticeably faster in most games. And in some cases, the gap reaches! Of course, the determining factor of success in the GeForce 7900 GTO market will be its cost, as well as how popular these video cards will become. The first news about the circulation of only 2000 copies is not encouraging, but let me remind you once again that it was exactly the same with the Radeon X800 GTO². For the owners of GeForce 7900 GT, there are few reasons to be upset, because their video cards during overclocking are almost equal in performance to the non-overclocked GeForce 7900 GTO, and we have already estimated the difference in memory size a little higher.
The third moment of today's material is the confrontation between Radeon X1900 XT 256 Mb and GeForce 7900 GT, which resulted in the defeat of the last video card. Only in high-quality graphics modes in Quake 4 and, vice versa, in the light "High Quality" mode in Prey, the GeForce 7900 GT was able to outperform its opponent. In all other games and synthetic benchmarks, the Radeon X1900 XT is faster, sometimes outpacing even the more expensive GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb. Taking into account the fact that Radeon X1900 XT 256 Mb is already being sold with might and main, and at a cost comparable to the price of GeForce 7900 GT 256 Mb (see the characteristics table), we must admit that video cards based on NVIDIA chips in this price range have a formidable rival. A fly in the ointment is the weak overclocking potential of the Radeon X1900 XT inherited from ATI's top solutions, as well as high heat dissipation and consumption compared to competitors.
In conclusion, one cannot fail to say a few words about the products of MSI and ECS (Elitegroup) reviewed today.
MSI GeForce 7900 GTO 512 Mb(NX7900GTO-T2D512E) is at least original and interesting graphic solution with a quiet and very efficient system cooling and quite standard for MSI package. The product is currently unique, since other NVIDIA partners do not release the GeForce 7900 GTO (and it is not known if they will release it at all). The performance of this video card is at a high level, occupying a niche between the GeForce 7900 GT and the discontinued GeForce 7900 GTX. The overclocking potential of the sample provided for testing is quite decent, which will help the few owners of this video card to increase performance a little more.
ECS GeForce 7900 GT 512 Mb(N7900GT-512MX) is also interesting, but not only because it is one of the first video cards from this company. First of all, I would like to draw your attention to the recommended cost of a video card of $250 and what you can get for this money not only silent system cooling (albeit not very efficient), but also an additional 256 Mb of memory in reserve. Let's recall here the factory overclocking of the graphics chip and memory (bringing a performance boost) and we can say with confidence that the ECS video card looks very attractive against the background of competitors' products.
The question of the best DirectX 9 graphics card has been on the agenda for two years now. During this time, we have seen quite a few attempts to improve the performance of video cards. In 2004, the market first encountered the graphics capabilities of Shader Model 3.0. However, only the GeForce 6600 GT at the end of the same year was able to give SM 3.0 to the mainstream gamer.
Traditionally, trying to fill everything price segments, nVidia announced a couple of new cards: GeForce 7900 GS and GeForce 7950 GT. Since the 7950 GT entered the market on September 14th, we only had time to test the GeForce 7900 GS.
When new cards enter the market, they replace old models in the same price categories. This happened with the GeForce 7900 GS. The GeForce 7800 GT retired, and it was replaced by a better card with a more pleasant price and, as our tests show, with the best ratio price quality. The cards will be sold at prices ranging from $200 to $250, i.e. ATI Radeon The X1800 GTO has a completely new competitor.
As previous tests in our lab have shown, nVidia GeForce The 7800 GT outperforms the Radeon X1800 GTO. The price difference between the cards was $80, but that's a thing of the past: the new GeForce 7900 GS card is both cheaper and faster than its predecessor. Below, in our tests, you will see that it can even overtake the GeForce 7800 GT, so the new product turned out to be very interesting.
Quiet please!
Even better, Nvidia listened to the complaints of its customers and developed a better cooling system for the GeForce 7900 GS. And if the heatsink does not differ from that of the GeForce 7900 GT, the fan has changed. Nvidia has implemented an automatic fan speed control system on both new cards, and gamers will no longer hear the fan whine when it spins at high speeds. In fact, the fan only accelerated to this extent after a long run in the 3DMark05 cycle, when the card was running at its heaviest mode.
The performance boost is due to the faster and updated core compared to the GeForce 7800 GT. The GeForce 7900 GS has the same number of compute units as the GeForce 7800 GT: 7 vertex shaders, 20 pixel shaders, 16 raster operations units (ROPs). The differences lie in the process technology: if the GeForce 7800 GT uses the G70 processor, manufactured using 110 nm technology, the GeForce 7900 GS is based on the 90 nm G71.
This difference, together with the optimizations inherent in the new processor, allows higher clock speeds to be achieved. According to nVidia's specifications, the GeForce 7900 GS vertex shaders run at 470 MHz, while the rest of the core runs at 450 MHz. The memory runs at 660 MHz (1.32 GHz DDR). That is, we get a frequency increase of 30 MHz for vertex shaders, 50 MHz for the core, and 60 MHz for the memory (120 MHz DDR).
The second card that was announced in parallel is the GeForce 7950 GT. From the naming scheme, you might think that it has two processors. But before us is an updated GeForce version 7900 GT. It uses the same core components as the 7900 GT, but it is 100 MHz faster so that the vertex shader units run at 570 MHz, the rest of the core at 550 MHz, and the memory at 700 MHz (1.4 GHz DDR). And although the tests of the GeForce 7950 GT will be covered in a separate article, it's nice to see another card on the market. All these improvements increase productivity and save the end user.
| nVidia GeForce Specifications | |||||
| 7950 GX2 | 7900 GTX | 7950 GT | 7900 GT | 7900GS | |
| Process technology | 90 nm | 90 nm | 90 nm | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| Core | G71 | G71 | G71 | G71 | G71 |
| Number of processors | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 278 million | 278 million | 278 million | 278 million | 278 million | |
| 500 | 700 | 570 | 470 | 470 | |
| Core frequency (MHz) | 500 | 650 | 550 | 450 | 450 |
| Memory frequency (MHz) | 600 | 800 | 700 | 660 | 660 |
| 1200 | 1600 | 1400 | 1320 | 1320 | |
| 16 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | |
| 48 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 20 | |
| 32 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | |
| Memory bus width (bits) | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 |
| 512 | 512 | 256 | 256 | 256 | |
| 38,4 | 51,2 | 44,8 | 42,24 | 42,24 | |
| 2000 | 1400 | 1140 | 940 | 822.5 | |
| 16 | 10,4 | 8,8 | 7,2 | 7,2 | |
| 24 | 15,6 | 13,2 | 10,8 | 9 | |
| RAMDAC (MHz) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
| Bus technology | PCI Express | PCI Express | PCI Express | PCI Express | PCI Express |
| 7800 GTX 512 | 7800 GTX | 7800 GT | 7800GS AGP | 7600 GT | |
| Process technology | 110 nm | 110 nm | 110 nm | 110 nm | 90 nm |
| Core | G70 | G70 | G70 | G70 | G73 |
| Number of processors | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Number of transistors on the processor | 302 million | 302 million | 302 million | 302 million | 178 million |
| Vertex shader block frequency (MHz) | 550 | 470 | 440 | 375 | 560 |
| Core frequency (MHz) | 550 | 430 | 400 | 375 | 560 |
| Memory frequency (MHz) | 850 | 600 | 500 | 600 | 700 |
| Effective DDR memory frequency (MHz) | 1700 | 1200 | 1000 | 1200 | 1400 |
| Number of vertex shaders | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Number of pixel shaders | 24 | 24 | 20 | 16 | 12 |
| Number of Raster Operation Units (ROPs) | 16 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 8 |
| Memory bus width (bits) | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 128 |
| Video memory per processor (MB) | 512 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 |
| Memory bandwidth (GB/s) per processor | 54,4 | 38,4 | 32 | 38,4 | 22,4 |
| Number of vertices per second (million) | 1100 | 940 | 770 | 562,5 | 700 |
| Pixel Bandwidth (ROP x Frequency) G/s | 8,8 | 6,88 | 6,4 | 3 | 4,48 |
| Texture bandwidth (number of pixel pipelines per frequency) bln/s | 13,2 | 10,32 | 8 | 6 | 6,72 |
| RAMDAC (MHz) | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
| Bus technology | PCI Express | PCI Express | PCI Express | AGP 8X | PCI Express |
For our tests, we took a PNY Verto GeForce 7900GS video card. Since 1985, the American company PNY has been producing video cards for the professional and consumer segments, as well as memory.
PNY gives a lifetime warranty on the Verto line of graphics cards. But there is a limitation: the warranty is reduced to one year if the consumer does not register with PNY. After that, the replacement warranty is extended to three years. If the card is transferred to another person, the guarantee is lost.
The card comes with a manual, CD with drivers and Direct X 9, as well as screensavers and nVidia desktop wallpapers.
The package includes a power cable, an S-Video extension cable, two adapters from DVI-A to D-Sub, as well as a VIVI cable with "tulips", S-Video and component (Y, Pb, Pr) video outputs.
Test configuration
| System hardware | |
| CPU | AMD Athlon 64 FX-60, 2.6GHz, 1.0GHz HTT, 1MB L2 Cache |
| Platform | nVidia: Asus AN832-SLI Premium, nVidia nForce4 SLI, BIOS version 1205 ATi: Asus A8R32-MVP Premium, ATi Xpress 3200 CrossFire, BIOS version 0404 |
| Memory | Corsair CMX1024-4400Pro, 2x 1024MB @ DDR400 (CL3.0-4-4-8) |
| HDD | Western Digital Raptor, WD1500ADFD, 150 GB, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATA150 |
| Network | Embedded nForce4 Gigabit Ethernet Controller Embedded Marvell Gigabit Ethernet Controller |
| Video cards | |
| ATi | ATi Radeon X1900 XTX 512MB GDDR3, 650MHz core, 775MHz memory (1.55GHz DDR) ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB GDDR3, 625MHz core, 725MHz memory (1.45GHz DDR) |
| nVidia | PNY GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB GDDR3, 675MHz core, 820MHz memory (1.64GHz DDR) XFX GeForce 7900 GT 256MB GDDR3, 675MHz core, 815MHz memory (1.63GHz DDR) PNY GeForce 7900 GTX 256MB GDDR3, 430MHz core, 600MHz memory (1.20GHz DDR) PNY GeForce 7900 GS 256 MB GDDR3, 450 MHz core, 660 MHz memory (1.32 GHz DDR) PNY GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB GDDR3, 430MHz core, 600MHz memory (1.20GHz DDR) EVGA GeForce 7800GT 256MB GDDR3, 445MHz core, 535MHz memory (1.07GHz DDR) |
| Power Supply | PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1000W |
| System software and drivers | |
| OS | Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.10.2600, Service Pack 2 |
| DirectX Version | 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) |
| Graphics driver | ATi Catalyst 6.6 WHQL, nVidia ForceWare 91.47 WHQL |
Test results
During the first run of 3DMark, we ran tests at all resolutions, but with FSAA and anisotropic filtering turned off. In the second run, we enabled the 4xAA and 8xAF image enhancement options.
We don't know the reason why the GeForce 7900 GS couldn't beat the GeForce 7800 GT in 3DMark05. Perhaps the reason lies in the optimization of the drivers of the old card compared to the newcomer. And only at high resolutions with the picture quality enhancement options enabled, the card was able to overtake the GeForce 7800 GT.
Doom 3
Doom 3 is usually dominated by nVidia cards, since their design is well suited for this game. Doubled Z-buffer for stencil shadows makes itself felt. Here, again, at minimum settings, the GeForce 7800 GT outperforms the GeForce 7900 GS by reference frequencies. If we increase the resolution and image quality, the GeForce7900 GS starts to show itself in all its glory.
Black&White 2
If Doom 3 is dominated by nVidia graphics cards, then Black & White 2 uses a large number of pixel shaders to draw hair, water and foliage, so ATi cards come out on top here. Dependence on the power of shader units in Black & White 2 allowed the GeForce 7900 GS to show its worth. It outpaced the GeForce 7800 GT by two frames.
F.E.A.R.
In F.E.A.R. nVidia cards usually lead the way. Here you can see the same power advantage of the GeForce 7900 GS, as the card outperforms the GeForce 7800 GT by 1-5 frames, depending on the settings.
Oblivion
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion allows you to load video cards very heavily. The only setting we didn't max out was the HDR lighting and soft shadows. We disabled HDR since nVidia cards can't output HDR lighting along with anti-aliasing (ATi cards also don't have a special driver with a chuck patch), and we disabled soft shadows as they result in an artifact: the head casts a shadow on the face. In this case, all women become "bearded".
The outer scene has a very large radius of view, day gives way to night, and the leaves sway in the wind. A serious scene for the load of the video card. Pure high performance is needed here, so the GeForce 7950 GX2 performs better than the rest. None of the cards gave acceptable frame rates at resolutions above 1024x768 (we mean 30 fps and above). Here we see the requirements of future games with a large number of moving objects and functions.
In "heavy" games like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, if you turn the settings up to high level, then the power of the new core can outperform even the GeForce 7800 GTX at stock frequencies. Of course, the game will have to lower the quality settings. As you can see, at high settings, the power of modern video cards is still insufficient.
We decided to test how much the card can be overclocked beyond the specs. The first illustration shows the stock clock speeds.
The second screenshot shows the frequencies after overclocking. We were able to squeeze out another 38 MHz in memory and 61 MHz in the core. As a percentage, this will be an increase of 5.75% for memory and 13.5% for the core.
After overclocking, we ran 3DMark05 and with default settings got 8198 points, an increase of about 12%. The results turned out to be better than those of the GeForce 7800 GTX.
It's always good to see when new graphics cards come out for the popular mid-range. Having bought new model at a price of $200-250, you won't spend too much on your budget and still be able to play new games. A nice addition is the automatic fan speed control.
Some models of GeForce 7900 GS cards are sold at overclocked speeds, but PNY has decided to stick to nVidia's specifications. Basically, factory overclocked cards are not the best option as we have heard several scary stories about 7900 GT cards. Therefore, cautious users need not worry: the PNY card runs at nVidia's reference frequencies, so there shouldn't be any problems with the new GeForce 7900 GS.
All in all, the new cards will be a welcome addition to the market for those gamers who want high gaming performance and not too expensive. Not too long ago, ATi provided the best performance in the $275-300 range, and now Nvidia has done the same in the $200-250 range. If, in addition to high performance and overclocking, you also like to save money, then the GeForce 7900 GS will be a very good option.
