Why get the 7800GT for $400

[Creig]

Well, for one, the X850XT PE can be found for MUCH less than $400 after rebates. In fact, there's a current Hot Deals thread that shows how you can get it for $275 after rebate.

But if the X850XT PE and 7800GT were the same price, you'd be nuts not to go for the 7800GT. Newer architecture, more pipelines, single slot, new features, etc... The X850XT PE is still a powerful card by today's standards, but time moves on.

We've all known that the X850XT PE was the overall fastest single card available until the 7800GTX was released. And it has been the card of choice of many, many gamers. Others either liked Nvidia, hated ATI, wanted SM3.0 or wanted SLI. The great thing was that you couldn't really go wrong with either one (X850XT PE or 6800U).

Now, if ATI would get the R520 out the door, then we could start the NEXT round of competition. As it stands now, Nvidia is sitting comfortably on top of the video card hill.

 

[CKTurbo128]

Try benching the X850XT PE, 6800 Ultra and the 7800 GTX at resolutions higher than 1600x1200 (i.e. 2048x1536) and you'll see where the 7800 GTX really shines.

1600x1200 & 2048x1536 Benchmarks:

Battlefield 2 1600x1200x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Firingsquad)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 63.7 FPS
X850 XT PE - 33.8 FPS
6800 Ultra - 34.7 FPS

Battlefield 2 2048x1536x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Firingsquad)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 38.6 FPS
X850 XT PE - 9.3 FPS
6800 Ultra - 13.4 FPS

Far Cry, Training Demo 1600x1200x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Firingsquad)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 65.7 FPS
X850 XT PE - 54.4 FPS
6800 Ultra - 51.2 FPS

Far Cry, Training Demo 2048x1536x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Firingsquad)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 45.6 FPS
X850 XT PE - 28.7 FPS
6800 Ultra - 25.2 FPS

Far Cry, tr3-pier 1600x1200 (4xAA, 8xAF)
(Source: Tech Report
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 46.7 FPS
X850 XT PE - 49.1 FPS
6800 Ultra - 36.1 FPS

Far Cry, tr3-pier 2048x1536x32 (4xAA, 8xAF)
(Source: Tech Report
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 29.3 FPS
X850 XT PE - 24.7 FPS
6800 Ultra - 20.4 FPS

Far Cry, tr1-volcano 1600x1200x32 (4xAA, 8xAF)
(Source: Tech Report
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 74.7 FPS
X850 XT PE - 71.9 FPS
6800 Ultra - 58.4 FPS

Far Cry, tr1-volcano 2048x1536x32 (4xAA, 8xAF)
(Source: Tech Report
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 44.2 FPS
X850 XT PE - 30.8 FPS
6800 Ultra - 30.6 FPS

Half-Life 2, trboat 1600x1200x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Tech Report)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 73.6 FPS
X850 XT PE - 65.0 FPS
6800 Ultra - 58.7 FPS

Half-Life 2, trboat 2048x1536x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Tech Report)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 72.8 FPS
X850 XT PE - 34.6 FPS
6800 Ultra - 23.0 FPS

Half-Life 2, trtown 1600x1200x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Tech Report)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 103.7 FPS
X850 XT PE - 93.3 FPS
6800 Ultra - 75.8 FPS

Half-Life 2, trtown 2048x1536x32 (4xAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Tech Report)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 101.5 FPS
X850 XT PE - 52.4 FPS
6800 Ultra - 31.8 FPS

Tech Report - "Half-Life 2 is largely CPU limited at lower resolutions on all of the cards, and things only really begin to slow down on the non-SLI rigs at 1600x1200. At 2048x1536, there's a major performance drop for the GeForce 6800 and Radeon X850 XT PE, as well as for the 6800 Ultra SLI rig. The 7800 GTX barely bats an eyelash, providing a most dramatic example of how these GPUs' different peak resolution design points affect performance."

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay 1600x1200x32 (4XAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Tech Report)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 45.1 FPS
X850 XT PE - 30.4 FPS
6800 Ultra - 38.5 FPS

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay 2048x1536x32 (4XAA, 16xAF)
(Source: Tech Report)
------------------------------------------------
7800 GTX - 29.4 FPS
X850 XT PE - 20.7 FPS
6800 Ultra - 18.0 FPS

And no, I'm not an nVIDIA fanboy (or an ATi one either), as I only go for the card that offers better performance during each generation. The X850 XT PE is a nice and fast card, but saying that a X850 XT PE is on par in terms of speed with a 7800 GTX is like saying a GeForce 4 Ti4600 offers similar performance to the 9700 Pro, which clearly wasn't the case back in 2002.

 

[Waylay00]

QFT

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: CKTurbo128
Try benching the X850XT PE, 6800 Ultra and the 7800 GTX at resolutions higher than 1600x1200 (i.e. 2048x1536) and you'll see where the 7800 GTX really shines.

Honestly though, how many people actually PLAY at 2048x1536? Heck, how many even have a monitor that can display that resolution? I'd be willing to bet that the VAST majority of gaming currently takes place at around 1600x1200 or less.

 

[BFG10K]

Using a middling resolution resolution like 1600x1200 to evaluate GPUs has been invalid for quite some time now.

Honestly though, how many people actually PLAY at 2048x1536?

If a monitor can't go above 1600x1200 chances are any current tier 1 or tier 2 card is wasted on it. Or to put it another way if you can't do high resolutions you're wasting your time with these cards.

 

[xTYBALTx]

I actually bought the Ti4600 right before the 9700 came out, three (is that right? three?) years ago. Pretty slick eh?

I'm certainly convinced that the X850XTPE shouldn't be compared to the 7800GT, assuming the GT falls in line where we expect it to - looks like the MSRP will be $450 though, not $400. Some retailer accidentally posted it for sale a few days ago and a screenie ended up on HardOCP.

Hard Ball - one of the main reasons I used Tom's for many references in this thread is because his site is one of the few to compare all video cards to each other. Not many other sites will show you X800XL vs. 6800Ultra, for instance. He really needs to add the 7800GTX to his video card database though! Maybe he's waiting for the expected 7800GT, 7800NU to be released.

 

[xTYBALTx]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Using a middling resolution resolution like 1600x1200 to evaluate GPUs has been invalid for quite some time now.

Honestly though, how many people actually PLAY at 2048x1536?

If a monitor can't go above 1600x1200 chances are any current tier 1 or tier 2 card is wasted on it. Or to put it another way if you can't do high resolutions you're wasting your time with these cards.

I disagree completely. A 6800GT, even at 1280x1024, was certainly dropping below 60fps and occasionally dipping into the 30's on HL2 with all settings maxed out. Now, with BF2, the 6800GT is certainly getting pushed hard at low resolutions, and at middling resolutions such as 1600x1200, you should be having some noticeable slowdown right?

Additionally, it gets damn hard to get head shots when you use high resolutions! Even before I had my LCD, I didn't like to go over 1600x1200, and even preferred 1280x1024 for some games. And that was with a huge (21") high quality CRT.

Teh proof!

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I wouldn't put $400+ into a SM2 card@this point. Wait for ATI's next gen or just go nV.

No, DP, I think the OP should buy a X850....

 

[kmmatney]

I remember the X850XTPE costing something like $700 at NewEgg at one point in time, and being very hard to get. I don't think they came down in price much until the 7800GTX came out.

 

[BFG10K]

A 6800GT, even at 1280x1024, was certainly dropping below 60fps and occasionally dipping into the 30's on HL2 with all settings maxed out.

According to these results you shouldn't have any problems at that resolution. Maybe it's time to upgrade your CPU/platform?

Now, with BF2, the 6800GT is certainly getting pushed hard at low resolutions, and at middling resolutions such as 1600x1200, you should be having some noticeable slowdown right?

Sure but new games are the exception, not the rule. Most games older than 18 months or so run fine at 1920x1440 with 4xAA on a 6800U or 1856x1392 with 6xAA on a X800 XL.

A tier 1 card like a 7800 won't have any problems at all at 2048x1536 with 4xAA or even 8xAA in said games. In fact a 7800 SLI setup is usually CPU bound even in newer games at such settings.

It's foolish to pick some middling resolution like 1600x1200 and proclaim equality and even more foolish to then turn around and say it's okay because most people don't game over 1600x1200; what most people do is irrelevant in the context of testing GPUs.

Additionally, it gets damn hard to get head shots when you use high resolutions!

Uh, 3D images are exactly the same size regardless of resolution used unless you have an LCD with scaling problems. Also head shots become easier at high resolutions because objects at long range are clearer and more defined (again, unless you have a POS LCD).

 

[xTYBALTx]

I don't intend this to be some kind of competition, but I just have to point this out. BFG 7800GTXOC hits 43 FPS in HL2 at 1600x1200! X850XTPE hits 25 FPS!

That's with an FX-55 and Raptor, just in case you're wondering.

Edit: Hopefully this will fully convince you that middling resolutions are worthy benchmarks!

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Using a middling resolution resolution like 1600x1200 to evaluate GPUs has been invalid for quite some time now.

Honestly though, how many people actually PLAY at 2048x1536?

If a monitor can't go above 1600x1200 chances are any current tier 1 or tier 2 card is wasted on it. Or to put it another way if you can't do high resolutions you're wasting your time with these cards.

Your calling 16x12 a middling resolution? You must either have a 7800gtx SLI setup or you play some older games, because even a single 7800gtx cannot get an average of 60fps at 16x12 with 4xaa/8xaf with modern games.

If you can't go above 16x12 with a tier 1 or tier 2, you can always crank up aa/af. Its not a waste of time.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't intend this to be some kind of competition, but I just have to point this out. BFG 7800GTXOC hits 43 FPS in HL2 at 1600x1200! X850XTPE hits 25 FPS!

What's wrong with a minimum of 41 FPS? IF you don't like it turn off the 4xAA.

In any case I can't believe you're that sensitive to a low framrate because if you were you would have never picked up a subpar display like an LCD for gaming.

Your calling 16x12 a middling resolution?

Absolutely.

You must either have a 7800gtx SLI setup or you play some older games, because even a single 7800gtx cannot get an average of 60fps at 16x12 with 4xaa/8xaf with modern games.

I've already explained everything in a subsequent post.

 

[xTYBALTx]

Oh come on. This is getting rediculous. Did you even look at the links I posted?

The 7800GTX barely breaks 60FPS in BF2 at 1600x1200. That is when it's paired to an FX-55.

 

[imported_g33k]

His opinion is valid in the context of the game he is playing. If you play quake3 or some other old game then 16x12 becomes a "middling resolution." For the majority of gamers who buy new hardware to play modern games, I don't think 16x12 is a middling resolution.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: g33k
His opinion is valid in the context of the game he is playing. If you play quake3 or some other old game then 16x12 becomes a "middling resolution." For the majority of gamers who buy new hardware to play modern games, I don't think 16x12 is a middling resolution.

I play BF2 at 16x12 on this rig...

Resolution > AA.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: xTYBALTx
Oh come on. This is getting rediculous. Did you even look at the links I posted?

The 7800GTX barely breaks 60FPS in BF2 at 1600x1200. That is when it's paired to an FX-55.

Um... You really are asking for it.
Link

And take a look at this

playable settings from hardocp
Now these people would fuss mroe about playable settings than you would.

What are you trying to say?

 

[BFG10K]

The 7800GTX barely breaks 60FPS in BF2 at 1600x1200. That is when it's paired to an FX-55.

(1) I thought you were talking about HL2? When did BF2 become a topic of discussion?
(2) It's not 1600x1200, it's 1600x1200 with 4xAA.
(3) 78.7 FPS @ 1920x1440 in BF2

So if you're going to shift the goal post at least be clear as to where you're shifting it to.

For the majority of gamers who buy new hardware to play modern games, I don't think 16x12 is a middling resolution.

A single 7800 is powerful to run most games at 1920x1440, even the newest ones.

 

[xTYBALTx]

You are linking to benchmarks which show simply the average FPS. If we are talking playable settings, then average FPS is not a sufficient marker. We need to see the whole story, which is provided only by benchmarks which graph the entire test's FPS. The links I posted did just this.

I used HL2 because it is a popular game, a modern game, and a game with excellent graphics which demands a lot of a PC. The only reason BF2 entered the discussion is because you said, and I quote "In fact a 7800 SLI setup is usually CPU bound even in newer games at such settings." - and it don't get much newer than BF2.

And yes, it was 4xAA. And it should be 8xAF. Because that's what people use. Who gives a crap about 1920x1440 when few people use it? This whole discussion was about two topics:

1. Why choose 7800GT over X850XTPE?
-This has been answered quite sufficiently, and it seems clear that the 7800GT, assuming it meets expectations, is the better choice.

2. Why has the 6800Ultra been dominant as a top end card when the X8xx series, even the lowly X800XL bests it in many popular games?
-We have also come up with some interesting answers for this, including SLI, the "Phantom Edition" aspect of XTPE cards, etc. etc.
-Now, if we are talking about why many people made one choice over another, it makes sense to take into account their preferences. According to the AT poll which you probably didn't even bother to look at despite me linking it for you, only 4 people out of 100 play at resolutions above 1600x1200. Over 70% of them use some amount of AF, and over 65% use some form of AA.

So take your bad attitude, your flawed logic, your grasping at straws, and get out of here. I don't feel like babying you any more.

 

[NetZeroZeus]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: xTYBALTx
Oh come on. This is getting rediculous. Did you even look at the links I posted?

The 7800GTX barely breaks 60FPS in BF2 at 1600x1200. That is when it's paired to an FX-55.

Um... You really are asking for it.
Link

And take a look at this

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg0LDE5">Playable settings</a>
Now these people would fuss mroe about playable settings than you would.

What are you trying to say?

Dude, your second link leads to microsoft.com

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
I remember the X850XTPE costing something like $700 at NewEgg at one point in time, and being very hard to get. I don't think they came down in price much until the 7800GTX came out.

Sorry, but thats wayyy wrong. They dropped in price well before that.

 

[R3MF]

ATI Man to the rescue!

i dunno about these Yank prices, but i'll buy a 7800GT when it is available at performance/mainstream prices which i consider to be £250 Great Britian Pounds.

i paid £125 for my mainstream 6600GT which i consider a fair price, and always considered a temporary card until something with a little more grunt arrived. i was turned off by the PCI-E 6800GT because it was bridged, had a borked Pure Video engine, and cost more than its AGP counterpart.

these problems will all be fixed in the 7800GT, and as icing on the cake it has exactly double the fillrate/bandwidth/memory as my current card, so i can justify paying double the price.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: g33k

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Using a middling resolution resolution like 1600x1200 to evaluate GPUs has been invalid for quite some time now.

Honestly though, how many people actually PLAY at 2048x1536?

If a monitor can't go above 1600x1200 chances are any current tier 1 or tier 2 card is wasted on it. Or to put it another way if you can't do high resolutions you're wasting your time with these cards.

Your calling 16x12 a middling resolution? You must either have a 7800gtx SLI setup or you play some older games, because even a single 7800gtx cannot get an average of 60fps at 16x12 with 4xaa/8xaf with modern games.

If you can't go above 16x12 with a tier 1 or tier 2, you can always crank up aa/af. Its not a waste of time.

Don't bother g33k. BFG likes to throw out the "1600 X1200 is a middling resolution" in every thread to troll for disagreement.

If you look at his rig, you'll see it's about the best he can hope for, and that on old games. (or old settings) He has a X800XL/19" monitor these days, you can bet he's not running 16X12 4X8X High Quality on any new games.

Best just let his comments pass.

 

[apoppin]

Why get the 7800GT for $400?

You wish - Geforce 7800 GT to cost $449

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: xTYBALTx
I didn't know this was such a touchy subject!

So you think it was because of SM3 that nV was so much more popular these past 7 months?

Why would you even ask this question? SLi created a market where people were buying nVidia in values of 2. Hell, I'm sure the top 3 sellers were the 6600gt, 6800gt, & 6800ultra for nVidia.