7950GT

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: robkas
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
The only reason I can see going 7950GT right now over the X1900XT is EVGA's step-up program with the hope that G80 will be out in less than 3 months.
better warranty? quieter? cooler? most people either originally have an SLI board over an Xfire board so it gives them the option to go SLI when the holiday seasons come and get another one for a present? less driver problems?

i have nothing against ATi cards, but there are ALOT more reasons to get one over the x1900xt besides eVGAs step plan.

heh.. well, since others turned this into yet another ati/nv comparison, but some other reasons to go with the 7950 over say, a 1900xt 256mb is that the 7950 is slower, costs more, and doesn't offer some of the superior IQ options that ati does (concurrent AA/HDR and HQAF).

Don't forget NVIDIA's superior AA, better drivers, better multi GPU support, etc. We can play this game all night.



I hav'nt used ATI drivers since my x850xt days so can't comment but nV was way better then.. 1/4 the ram use..no .net and simple OC and interface. -?

superior AA cancelled by AA/HDR and HQAF IMO - wash

MultiGPU support - he's only buying 1 - N/A

Speed - X1900XT

Cost - X1900XT

Power consumption and corresponding noise levels (lower) - 7950GT

What criteria one values is up to them but I pick a x1900xt at this point in time...seems to have more going for it.

 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Don't forget NVIDIA's superior AA, better drivers, better multi GPU support, etc. We can play this game all night.

not really... nv fanboys could put on their blinders and argue all day i suppose, but the facts are the card i quoted is less expensive & is faster across a varietly of games - sometimes substantially - especially in the game the OP was concerned about. it's not my opinion; reviews bear this out.

also, fp16 HDR (the type oblivion uses) and AA is not concurrently supported by g7x - another fact.

while some would argue IQ is subjective, ati's HQAF is clearly superior and easily seen; nv's (aguable) AA advantage OTOH is very subtle, and not apparent in all circumstances (tho i've always given a slight nod to nv's AA mode this gen), and requires some close scrutiny to determine the acutal differences, if any.

better drivers? matter of opinion/preference. i use both, and one is no more stable than the other. i do like the profiles in forceware, and ati's is a little more bloated with CCC, but there are options to disable/not install CCC. I personally don't have an issue with CCC... at any rate this is completely subjective and a matter of opinion.

better multiGPU support? again largely subjective, but i'd agree and give the nod here to nvidia (tho crossfire is still a good setup, i just think SLI is the more elegant solution) as they have a bit broader game support, however that is changing (improving for crossfire with the latest catalyst release), and ati offers an AA mode with crossfire nvidia can't touch. there are advantages both ways regarding dual card setups, but we're talking less than 1-2% of the entire desktop graphics market, so one should apply the proper relevance.

i also found my 7900 rather noisy, and not much quieter than my XT. if power consumption is a great concern, i'd have to agree the 7950 is more efficient in that area.

Originally posted by: Zebo
I hav'nt used ATI drivers since my x850xt days so can't comment but nV was way better then.. 1/4 the ram use..no .net and simple OC and interface. -?

about 25mb is what my task manager shows; hardly a concern with 2gb memory. i usually have a lot more background apps taking more memory - firewall/av/spyware, etc. takes about 50mb, and there there are the OS tasks which ALWAYS run. hell, firefox is taking up 120mb memory right now, lol (and i usually leave it up even when gaming).

CCC is certainly slower (mine takes about 10 sec to load), but it's not really a big deal, and frankly i don't have to use it very often, and again, if it really bothers someone for whatever reason, they don't have to install it.

 

sisq0kidd

Lifer
Apr 27, 2004
17,043
1
81
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Don't forget NVIDIA's superior AA, better drivers, better multi GPU support, etc. We can play this game all night.

not really... nv fanboys could put on their blinders and argue all day i suppose, but the facts are the card i quoted is less expensive & is faster across a varietly of games - sometimes substantially - especially in the game the OP was concerned about. it's not my opinion; reviews bear this out.

also, fp16 HDR (the type oblivion uses) and AA is not concurrently supported by g7x - another fact.

while some would argue IQ is subjective, ati's HQAF is clearly superior and easily seen; nv's (aguable) AA advantage OTOH is very subtle, and not apparent in all circumstances (tho i've always given a slight not to nv's AA mode this gen), and requires some close scrutiny to determine the acutal differences, if any.

better drivers? matter of opinion/preference. i use both, and one is no more stable than the other. i do like the profiles in forceware, and ati's is a little more bloated with CCC, but there are options to disable/not install CCC. I personally don't have an issue with CCC... at any rate this is completely subjective and a matter of opinion.

better multiGPU support? again largely subjective, but i'd agree and give the nod here to nvidia (tho crossfire is still a good setup, i just think SLI is the more elegant solution) as they have a bit broader game support, however that is changing (improving for crossfire with the latest catalyst release), and ati offers an AA mode with crossfire nvidia can't touch. there are advantages both ways regarding dual card setups, but we're talking less than 1-2% of the entire desktop graphics market, so one should apply the proper relevance.

i also found my 7900 rather noisy, and not much quieter than my XT. if power consumption is a great concern, i'd have to agree the 7950 is more efficient in that area.

Don't bother stretching it, just stick to your guns or else you're going to start sounding like the people you argue against.

Bottom line is, the x1900xt offers better value, better image quality at better framerates.

The only reason why I would pick Nvidia over ATI at this price range is for dual monitor support.
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Don't bother stretching it, just stick to your guns or else you're going to start sounding like the people you argue against.

Bottom line is, the x1900xt offers better value, better image quality at better framerates.

The only reason why I would pick Nvidia over ATI at this price range is for dual monitor support.

you know.. that's one area i do like nv better - nview over hydravision (tho that's mostly moot as most of my dual mon requirements are handled via ultramon).
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
not really... nv fanboys could put on their blinders and argue all day i suppose, but the facts are the card i quoted is less expensive & is faster across a varietly of games - sometimes substantially - especially in the game the OP was concerned about. it's not my opinion; reviews bear this out.
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/geforce-7950gt/index.x?pg=11
Looks like the XT lost a bunch here.

also, fp16 HDR (the type oblivion uses) and AA is not concurrently supported by g7x - another fact.
Limited support and not always playable as many have stated.

while some would argue IQ is subjective, ati's HQAF is clearly superior and easily seen; nv's (aguable) AA advantage OTOH is very subtle, and not apparent in all circumstances (tho i've always given a slight nod to nv's AA mode this gen), and requires some close scrutiny to determine the acutal differences, if any.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_image_quality_showdown_august06/
"NVIDIA?s anisotropic filtering looks better"

better drivers? matter of opinion/preference. i use both, and one is no more stable than the other. i do like the profiles in forceware, and ati's is a little more bloated with CCC, but there are options to disable/not install CCC. I personally don't have an issue with CCC... at any rate this is completely subjective and a matter of opinion.
I see so IQ is not subjective and this is? Good luck with that, not showing any bias in that opinion no sir...
Many have complained about stability, bloat and games not working until a patch is issued. Not to mention lesser dual screen support and LCD support.

better multiGPU support? again largely subjective
Except EVERY review site says it sucks. Even Rage3D an ATI fan site.
http://www.rage3d.com/articles/mgpuworldtour%5Fp8/index.php?p=7
"NVIDIA?s SLI is clearly more stable and mature than ATI?s Crossfire, there is no debating that fact. I never experienced any game crashes or rendering errors with SLI, and the one game I was expecting to have some problems with (Pacific Fighters) was apparently recently fixed and now works and scales fine. With Crossfire not only did most games not scale, but I actually had to disable Crossfire just to get them to launch. Elegant degradation is not in ATI?s vocabulary, apparently.

Not only is stability on NVIDIA?s side, so is ease of use and practicality. There is no master/slave stuff and there is no giant pain in the ass dongle with thumb screws that break off and are way too small and cables that are way too stiff to bend nicely like the monstrosity you get with hardware Crossfire. NVIDIA?s SLI bridge-board is elegant, easy to use, and doesn?t get in your way. Granted you can?t defend yourself against hordes of evil undead zombies with it like you can ATI?s dongle, but really, who wants zombie goo all over their computer anyway."


i also found my 7900 rather noisy, and not much quieter than my XT. if power consumption is a great concern, i'd have to agree the 7950 is more efficient in that area.
Well since we ARE talking about the 7950, no high end card can touch the XFX model as far as less noise. You are just changing things to try and support your limited view point.

I backed up my statments with links to prove my point. Your opinions however need a lot of work.

 

josh6079

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2006
3,261
0
0
Wreckage, that firing squad link didn't use the HQAF setting that ATI has.
Control panel for all cards left at default settings
When ATI's angle independent AF is enabled, the AF difference is distinguishable.

The 7950GT looks like a good card IMO. Depending on the features people want, either the X1900XT 256 or the 7900GT will probably fit most of the bill with a great price. The 7950GT is generally more expensive from what I've seen, and why spend more when there is something that performs better for less? Of course, when specific preferences like drivers, SLI/CF, power consumptions, etc. come into play I guess the slight cost difference is negotiated.
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Passive cooling! Very nice feature, hope this trend of quieter gpu's is here to stay. :thumbsup:
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
Originally posted by: josh6079
Wreckage, that firing squad link didn't use the HQAF setting that ATI has.
Control panel for all cards left at default settings
When ATI's angle independent AF is enabled, the AF difference is distinguishable.

The 7950GT looks like a good card IMO. Depending on the features people want, either the X1900XT 256 or the 7900GT will probably fit most of the bill with a great price. The 7950GT is generally more expensive from what I've seen, and why spend more when there is something that performs better for less? Of course, when specific preferences like drivers, SLI/CF, power consumptions, etc. come into play I guess the slight cost difference is negotiated.

QFT.

But 7950GT having passive is amazing. This is something ATi can only dream of in the high end.
Can you imagine X1900XT passive.. 100C+ :D
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/geforce-7950gt/index.x?pg=11
Looks like the XT lost a bunch here.

both Firingsquad and Anandtech sing a differnt tune:

"How does the board compare against its new competitor, the Radeon X1900 XT 256MB? Overall we?d have to give the performance advantage to the ATI card; the X1900 XT 256MB not only performed better in the benchmarks ATI cards traditionally do well in (Call of Duty 2, Battlefield 2, Oblivion), the X1900 XT 256MB also outperformed the stock GeForce 7950 GT in titles we normally see GeForce cards come out ahead, such as Quake 4. The X1900 XT 256MB also put up a strong showing in F.E.A.R., outrunning the GeForce 7950 GT by 15% at 1600x1200."

"First, the X1900 XT 256MB is cheaper than the 7950 GT. Both flavors out perform the 7950 GT in multiple games. Where the 7950 GT does lead the X1900 XT 256MB in a couple cases, it never leads the 512MB version. "


even the article you quote states, "The Radeon X1900 XT 256MB matches or outperforms the GeForce 7950 GT most of the time because its GPU is faster, even though it has less onboard memory"

while i can't really comment on their credibility (i've read an article from their site here and there, but not many) one way or the other, i certainly have found AT and FS to be very objective sources.

and oh, yea.. the XT is still alot cheaper, so even if you want to say that AT and FS are paid off by ATi, even taking techreport's word for it (the 256mb XT is overall slightly faster), the XT offers alot more performance for the $.

but again, i've always found AT and FS to be credible, so....

Limited support and not always playable as many have stated.

your excuses would be amusing if they did not reek of such desperation. regardless, it does not change the fact as i stated it, and as this is a game the OP is obviously interested in, it's quite relevant.


they are not running HQAF, are they?

nice try tho.

I see so IQ is not subjective and this is? Good luck with that, not showing any bias in that opinion no sir...

? what are you talking about? i stated driver quality is a preference/opinion. reading comprehension 101. take it.

Many have complained about stability, bloat and games not working until a patch is issued. Not to mention lesser dual screen support and LCD support.

many have complained about issues with nv drivers, as well - or are you not going to mention that which doesn't support what you say? there will always be a few vocal people on both sides that have problems/issues, or an obscure game that has a bug, but by and large both are very stable.

the "not to mention" items i already mentioned....

yet another weak rebuttal.

Except EVERY review site says it sucks. Even Rage3D an ATI fan site.
http://www.rage3d.com/articles/mgpuworldtour%5Fp8/index.php?p=7
"NVIDIA?s SLI is clearly more stable and mature than ATI?s Crossfire, there is no debating that fact. I never experienced any game crashes or rendering errors with SLI, and the one game I was expecting to have some problems with (Pacific Fighters) was apparently recently fixed and now works and scales fine. With Crossfire not only did most games not scale, but I actually had to disable Crossfire just to get them to launch. Elegant degradation is not in ATI?s vocabulary, apparently.

Not only is stability on NVIDIA?s side, so is ease of use and practicality. There is no master/slave stuff and there is no giant pain in the ass dongle with thumb screws that break off and are way too small and cables that are way too stiff to bend nicely like the monstrosity you get with hardware Crossfire. NVIDIA?s SLI bridge-board is elegant, easy to use, and doesn?t get in your way. Granted you can?t defend yourself against hordes of evil undead zombies with it like you can ATI?s dongle, but really, who wants zombie goo all over their computer anyway."

beating that horse again, eh?

we've covered that before, aside from being an old article (crossfire support increased alot with the latest catalyst, and will continue to do so.

i also stated SLI had wider compatibility and is more elegant, so aside from your weak attempt to slam ati, what's your point? i gave sli it's dues. unlike you, i don't have to make poor attempts at trashing one product to make another look better. i'm more than happy to give credit where credit is due.

Well since we ARE talking about the 7950, no high end card can touch the XFX model as far as less noise. You are just changing things to try and support your limited view point.

not at all. 99.999% of them are noisy. the XFX AFIK is the only card with passive cooling (they actually have 2 models), and i think that's great - even better if they hold up over time (we all know the issues with overclocked 7900's from multiple manufacturer's).

I backed up my statments with links to prove my point. Your opinions however need a lot of work.

not really.. other than the overexaggerated (and old) article slamming the dongle (which i don't like either, but in reality once it's in it makes little to no difference one way or the other), you offered nothing, other than maybe pointing out some things i already mentioned in favor of nvidia

basically all you've shown is that you ignore anything which doesn't support your less than objective opinon while trying to unduly slam the competition.

unlike you however, i don't have an agenda so i have no problem pointing out or acknowleding good and bad points of both products.

edit: i take that back; the passive cooling was a good point that missed earlier....
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Don't forget NVIDIA's superior AA, better drivers, better multi GPU support, etc. We can play this game all night.

Those are all very vague statements. You mean superior AA as in 8xSSAA vs 6xMSAA? Ok, NV gets the edge in AA IQ, but is it playable, and in which games at what settings? 4xAA looks the same on both cards. Better drivers - does that mean no bloated CCC or the stability of the actual driver? Dont confuse one with the other. And last time I checked x1950 CF beat out 7900gtx SLI in just about every game, so I dont see where you get that SLI is better.
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Don't forget NVIDIA's superior AA, better drivers, better multi GPU support, etc. We can play this game all night.

Those are all very vague statements. You mean superior AA as in 8xSSAA vs 6xMSAA? Ok, NV gets the edge in AA IQ, but is it playable, and in which games at what settings? 4xAA looks the same on both cards. Better drivers - does that mean no bloated CCC or the stability of the actual driver? Dont confuse one with the other. And last time I checked x1950 CF beat out 7900gtx SLI in just about every game, so I dont see where you get that SLI is better.

there are instances where ATI should get the AA nod, and their 6xaa is certainly more useable than nv's 8xSSAA across a greater variety of games, but it seems there are more situations where nv's 4xaa shows an advantage (albeit subtle) over ATI's 4xaa.

regaring AF, i don't see how one could argue ATI's HQAF doesn't offer a much more visible IQ improvement over nv's texture filtering.

SLI is certainly a more 'elegant' solution. i really don't like the dongle, although ATI does offer far superior AA modes in dual card mode due the the dongle/composting engine.

compatibility would also favor SLI a bit, although ATI finally started addressing this with cat 6.8.

speaking strictly performance, crossfire again appears to have an advantage, as Quad SLI is certainly not as 'mature', with various issues preventing it from reaching it's (theorhetical) potential.
 

josh6079

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2006
3,261
0
0
...anyways...

It seems that Nvidia wanted to release this to "hit ATI while they're down". It's ironic that they didn't price it very well to "hit" the performance ATI's X1900 can bring for less.

Basically it looks like Nvidia wanted to phase out one card (the 7900GT) with two cards (the 7900GS and 7950GT). If you look at that picture it shows the switch pretty clearly. I guess they wanted to have all of their midrange cards carry 512MB's? I don't know if this tatic is a strategic method or a technique that is attemtping to simply flood the market, but I think it's pretty clear that this is getting ridiculous.
 

point5pnoi

Junior Member
Sep 14, 2006
6
0
0
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: robkas
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
The only reason I can see going 7950GT right now over the X1900XT is EVGA's step-up program with the hope that G80 will be out in less than 3 months.
better warranty? quieter? cooler? most people either originally have an SLI board over an Xfire board so it gives them the option to go SLI when the holiday seasons come and get another one for a present? less driver problems?

i have nothing against ATi cards, but there are ALOT more reasons to get one over the x1900xt besides eVGAs step plan.

heh.. well, since others turned this into yet another ati/nv comparison, but some other reasons to go with the 7950 over say, a 1900xt 256mb is that the 7950 is slower, costs more, and doesn't offer some of the superior IQ options that ati does (concurrent AA/HDR and HQAF).

why someone who puts importance into Oblivion would purchase and nv product this gen is beyond me. the the 256mb XT also beats the 7950 in games which used to favor nvidia:

"How does the board compare against its new competitor, the Radeon X1900 XT 256MB? Overall we?d have to give the performance advantage to the ATI card; the X1900 XT 256MB not only performed better in the benchmarks ATI cards traditionally do well in (Call of Duty 2, Battlefield 2, Oblivion), the X1900 XT 256MB also outperformed the stock GeForce 7950 GT in titles we normally see GeForce cards come out ahead, such as Quake 4. The X1900 XT 256MB also put up a strong showing in F.E.A.R., outrunning the GeForce 7950 GT by 15% at 1600x1200."

while i do agree SLI is certainly an advantage for Nvidia (both in ease of use and the fact many already have SLI capable mainboards), it's likely a single g8 gpu will outperform this gen SLI and be more cost effective (and hopefully g80 will also offer the superior IQ modes which ATI offers today).

and the evga stepup program sucks :p

How does it suck? I'm building a computer right now, and since this one belongs in the Smithsonian, I can't wait for the next gen cards. I'd go with the 1900xtx otherwise, especially since the price has dropped a lot with the MIR's, but I'm thinking of picking up an eVGA 7950GT now and then 'step-up' to the new gen card (I'll pray that it comes out before my 90 days is up). When is the g8 scheduled to come? I'd think (and hope) they'd want to release before Christmas and if so, the step-up would work out.

edit: Nevermind... Deth's post threw me off. I definately can't wait for April, so it looks like a 1900xtx for me :D.
 

akshayt

Banned
Feb 13, 2004
2,227
0
0
If the 7950GT is not atleast 10% better than a 7900GTX, I would anyday take a 1900XT even if they were priced the same.
 

tvdang7

Platinum Member
Jun 4, 2005
2,242
5
81
Originally posted by: akshayt
If the 7950GT is not atleast 10% better than a 7900GTX, I would anyday take a 1900XT even if they were priced the same.

more like 10% slower than the 7900 gtx.
 

Dainas

Senior member
Aug 5, 2005
299
0
0
Wow, people sure are inclined to speak as if the G80 is going to be out next week, or within the next few months............... If the the G80 is to outperform 24 pipe G7 SLI, I wouldnt hold your breath, rather your walet as one top of the line G80 will prob outprice 2 7950GTs.
 

R3MF

Senior member
Oct 19, 2004
656
0
0
ATI have got better price performance.

nVidia have got better performance/watt and workable linux drivers.

i'm buying an XFX passive 7950GT.

depends what you want.
 

40sTheme

Golden Member
Sep 24, 2006
1,607
0
0
Also, guys, all the reviews i've read says it almost matches the XT's performance, but think about it...
Single-slot cooling. I can't run dual slot cooling. It all depends on what you want and need, don't argue over what's better.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
How about the 7900GTO for $50 less than the 7950GT? OC that RAM and you have a GTX.