GeForce 7950 GX2 review @ X-bit Labs

[Gamer X]

Link

Summary

Still, compared with the GeForce 7900 GX2, which can hardly be used (and is not even available) outside the ready quad SLI systems, the new GeForce 7950 GX2 is a huge step forward. The new Nvidia graphics accelerator is quite compact in size to fit into a standard PC case, boasts unique performance for a single graphics card and supports FSAA modes that have always been the privilege of expensive SLI and CrossFire systems. Moreover, it has quite a bit of potential to be used within a quad SLI platform later on and thus to ensure an even higher level of performance.

The solution is not free from a few drawbacks, but it is typical of any new technology. So we hope that Nvidia will eventually eliminate the compatibility issues and the user will get the best high-end graphics accelerator. Moreover, the launch of GeForce 7950 GX2 may stimulate ATI to release something of the kind, and the end-user will definitely benefit from the competition in this market segment.

Highs:

* Unprecedented performance in most applications;
* Excellent speed in OpenGL applications;
* Well-balanced architecture (48 pixel processors, 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs);
* Reserves for the future: the applications have 512MB of memory at their disposal;
* Transparent textures anti-aliasing;
* Hardware H.264 and other HD formats decoding;
* Low level of noise;
* Good overclocking potential;
* Dual-link DVI support.

Lows:

* Depends on Nvidia SLI support in the games and drivers;
* Doesn?t support FSAA and HDR (FP16) at the same time;
* Limited compatibility with contemporary mainboards;
* Inconvenient multi-monitor support implementation;
* High power consumption.

 

[nitromullet]

Interesting GX2 review. However, the thing that blows me away more than anything are some of the high level AA numbers pulled by the CrossFire setup. In some cases it has better FPS at 14xAA then the SLI setups at 8xAA...

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Interesting GX2 review. However, the thing that blows me away more than anything are some of the high level AA numbers pulled by the CrossFire setup. In some cases it has better FPS at 14xAA then the SLI setups at 8xAA...

I was shocked by that too.. pretty cool indeed.

 

[Drayvn]

Everyone is ranting that the SLI is much better than the Xfire. But for a very slight drop in quality in AA you get about twice the performance as the SLI cant handle 16xAA at 1600x1200 at all while the Xfire can get double the SLI numbers at the same resolution with only 14xAA!

 

[josh6079]

I don't see how in the world they say it has good overclocking potential. There's not a good cooler out there that can fit both its GPU's. Not only that, but you can get a 7900GT for $240 on newegg, 2x$240=$480 if you want SLI, and overclock both tremendously--beating a 7950 and saving $120. If you don't have a nf4 mb, spend the $120 you had left over for a decent nf4 mb. Its just not worth the money because Nvidia has done such a great job at bringing so many options to the table. Nvidia beats Nvidia.

They also say that it has high power consumption? I thought it had less than a X1900 Xfire when in quad?

Some of the "Highs" they mention are just stupid as every video card has had them for a while. "Dual-Link DVI support."......."Transparent textures anti-aliasing"......."Excellent speed in OpenGL applications" and "Unprecedented performance in most applications" is pretty much the same Pro statement.

Also, why does the fact that it depends on Nvidia SLI support in the games and drivers a con? I thought that the fact that you don't have to have an SLI board and that SLI is distiguished through the driver and between the cards alone was appealing.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Drayvn
Everyone is ranting that the SLI is much better than the Xfire. But for a very slight drop in quality in AA you get about twice the performance as the SLI cant handle 16xAA at 1600x1200 at all while the Xfire can get double the SLI numbers at the same resolution with only 14xAA!

Like I said, sometimes the 14xAA Crossfire numbers are even higher then SLI's 8xAA... The FPS of the 8x and 14x AA with Crossfire are simply staggering IMO compared to the numbers put out by even the 7900GTX SLI rig. I'm really surprised that X-bit pretty much glossed over those high level AA numbers.

Originally posted by: josh6079
I don't see how in the world they say it has good overclocking potential. There's not a good cooler out there that can fit both its GPU's. Not only that, but you can get a 7900GT for $240 on newegg, 2x$240=$480 if you want SLI, and overclock both tremendously--beating a 7950 and saving $120. If you don't have a nf4 mb, spend the $120 you had left over for a decent nf4 mb. Its just not worth the money because Nvidia has done such a great job at bringing so many options to the table. Nvidia beats Nvidia.

-snip-

Josh, I see where you are coming from, but I think I would opt for a GX2 over SLI'ed GT's, and I own an SLI board already. I think the additional memory is valuable when you're talking about high end parts and the possible potential to upgrade to a quad-SLI rig is an added bonus.

Another thing to consider... Looking at the price and amount of complaints about the GT's I get the feeling that the GT's are basically getitng the "bottom-of-the-barrel" cores, whereas the GTX's and the new flagship GX2's will be getting the choice cores. No facts that back that up of course, but I personally would be reluctant to pick up a GT at this point (I've already returned 2), and I certainly wouldn't recommend one to a friend. I know that the quality and response to the issues with the GTs have both already been discussed ad nausem, but I don't think that anyone can deny that there is an issue.

 

[josh6079]

True, I know you've had hard times with cards recently nitro.

I just can't seem to see where a month ago, people were swearing their 7900's were great and all they needed, were flaming about ST's benchmarks between it and the X1900XT, and voltmodders were showing how its performance can boot a GTX. Yet now, when a card that performs just as well as "stock" 7900's, everyone thinks that its better? I know people are going to want to get it and that's fine. I couldn't care less if someone in another state/country wants something no matter what. I just can't see its worth of $600, especially with R600/G80 around the corner.

 

[nyker96]

I love xbit review, thorough to a T.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: josh6079
True, I know you've had hard times with cards recently nitro.

I just can't seem to see where a month ago, people were swearing their 7900's were great and all they needed, were flaming about ST's benchmarks between it and the X1900XT, and voltmodders were showing how its performance can boot a GTX. Yet now, when a card that performs just as well as "stock" 7900's, everyone thinks that its better? I know people are going to want to get it and that's fine. I couldn't care less if someone in another state/country wants something no matter what. I just can't see its worth of $600, especially with R600/G80 around the corner.

The only thing I disagree with is that the R600 and G80 will be just around the corner. I think at the very earliest we see a Nov release and I would not be surprised by an early '07 release for these cards.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Isnt Nvidias 16xAA really 14xAA? I think they just called it 16x. Same thing with 8xs. It should really be named 6x. It has to do with adding multi or super sampling AA. For example, 6xAA is 4xAA + 2 MS AA. Something like that. So there shouldn't be 'slightly lower quality' argument. Its a misnomer...IIRC.

 

[n7]

Holy detailed review batman!

As usual, very nice job by XbitLabs...

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: gersson
Isnt Nvidias 16xAA really 14xAA? I think they just called it 16x. Same thing with 8xs. It should really be named 6x. It has to do with adding multi or super sampling AA. For example, 6xAA is 4xAA + 2 MS AA. Something like that. So there shouldn't be 'slightly lower quality' argument. Its a misnomer...IIRC.

Actually NVs way is more "traditional". 16xSLi AA is 4xSS plus 4xMS. (SSAA is applied to full screen).

Simply NVIDIA's 16x SLI AA has 16 geometry sample points and 4 texture sample points

ATi's method is like Valve doing HDR using pixel shaders compared to your normal FP16 HDR. Their 14xAA is a combination of 12xAA plus 2xSSAA.

Simply ATi's 14xAA has ATI's 12 geometry points and 2 texture points.
Super AA requires the compositing engine hence the need for master cards.

Link