Why get the 7800GT for $400

[cbns]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Don't trust tom's hardware.

ROFL

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Resolution > AA.

To my eyes AA > Resolution

Even at 1920x1440, the jaggies/shimmering is very noticeable w/o AA.

 

[CP5670]

I prefer resolution over AA. The jagged edges are still noticeable but stuff at long distances looks much clearer, which is worth the tradeoff. I don't use AA at all in newer games, although have it on 2X or 4X in some old ones.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

Agreed it can run 1920x1440 in modern games with 0AA. You also said:

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

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. You can run 16x12 and crank up aa and af, it wouldnt be a waste. Running lower resolutions say 10x7 or 12x10 would be a waste, as you can get an x800 or 6800gt for those resolutions.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: Rollo

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.

Well I'm thinking BFG is a gamer who upgrades, to make his favorite older game look better. That's fine, I'm not going to tell him how he should use his hardware, but if I bought a 7800gtx, I would be running modern games at 16x12 with some aa turned on. Games look worse without AA or AF even at higher resolutions.

My 6800gt is capable of running 16x12 with 0xaa, but to me it looks worse than 12x10 with 4xAA. To me 4xaa looks much better than increasing resolution and playing 0xaa.

 

[BFG10K]

We need to see the whole story, which is provided only by benchmarks which graph the entire test's FPS

So I'll ask you for the third time: if you're so sensitive to a 41 FPS minimum how is it you can stand gaming on an inferior LCD? The ghosting and scaling issues must make you vomit or poke your eyes out with a hot stick.

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.

Exactly and the results I posted show basically zero performance difference between 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 on a 7800 SLI setup. This is a CPU limitation.

Who gives a crap about 1920x1440 when few people use it?

Back to this one again, huh?

"There's no difference in the cards except in high resolutions but those don't count because I don't use them. Therefore there's no difference in the cards".

Sorry, but you are living in the past. 1600x1200 was high resolution five years ago during the Radeon/GTS days; now it's a middling resolution if even that.

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.

:roll:

 

[BFG10K]

BFG likes to throw out the "1600 X1200 is a middling resolution" in every thread to troll for disagreement.

The fact that someone who owns an 7800 SLI setup disagrees with me is simply comical. It makes me really wonder just what kind of a "power gamer" this person really is.

Of course this question is easily answered by said individual finishing three games in six months and only just recently figuring out how to run Doom III at custom resolutions.

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)

Wow, so 1600x1200 is the "best I can hope for" but then we find out that's exactly what you're running on a $1200 setup?

That's about the best you can hope for on any game given you seem to have difficulty grasping simple concepts such as resolutions above 1600x1200 and AF above 8x.

Now that I think about it though, you actually run at 1024x768 with 0xAF and 0xAA to get "OMG soft shadows and HDR are viable!"

 

[hans030390]

because the 7800 series is better than the x850 series (see more pipelines, higher clocks, newer, SHADER MODEL 3)

Now, if you dont have PCI-e i can understand getting an x850. Otherwise, no. I can't. In fact it's kinda stupid.

 

[BFG10K]

You can run 16x12 and crank up aa and af, it wouldnt be a waste

For a tier 1 card like the 7800 1600x1200 is a worthless resolution unless you run 8x AA/16xAA but nobody does that. For tier 2 cards 1600x1200 is probably bordeline acceptable but review sites should've been going higher last generation, especially for older titles.

Games look worse without AA or AF even at higher resolutions.

I run everything at 16xAF so I'm not sure where you got the idea for 0xAF. It's Rollo who enjoys gaming at 1998 resolutions and settings on his "OMG 7800 SLI is viable!" setup.

As for resolution, it always takes precedence over AA.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: 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>

Fixed..
here check it out.
link
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

 

[Gamingphreek]

I really should argue this OP... but you are so negligent i dont think it is worth my time.

-Kevin

-Edit: Besides, BFG has hit EVERYTHING on the nose so far (Couldn't have said any of it better myself)!

 

[Pocatello]

After rebates? Unless you're really diehard ATi fan...I would get the 7800GT.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You can run 16x12 and crank up aa and af, it wouldnt be a waste

For a tier 1 card like the 7800 1600x1200 is a worthless resolution unless you run 8x AA/16xAA but nobody does that. For tier 2 cards 1600x1200 is probably bordeline acceptable but review sites should've been going higher last generation, especially for older titles.

Games look worse without AA or AF even at higher resolutions.

I run everything at 16xAF so I'm not sure where you got the idea for 0xAF. It's Rollo who enjoys gaming at 1998 resolutions and settings on his "OMG 7800 SLI is viable!" setup.

As for resolution, it always takes precedence over AA.

Hmm if that is true, then what is the point of AA? Unless you are playing a very old game, you wouldnt use AA at all, in your scenario. I don't think anything is set in stone here, its all a matter of personal preference. Some like higher res, some like aa.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: g33k
Well I'm thinking BFG is a gamer who upgrades, to make his favorite older game look better.

Actually BFG downgrades, he got rid of his 6800U for a X800XL.

That's fine, I'm not going to tell him how he should use his hardware, but if I bought a 7800gtx, I would be running modern games at 16x12 with some aa turned on. Games look worse without AA or AF even at higher resolutions.

Agreed with you there. I've been running everything at 19X14 4X8X since getting the 7800SLI, was 16X12 4X8X with the 6800GT SLI. (unless I'm running HDR or soft shadows that don't permit it)

My 6800gt is capable of running 16x12 with 0xaa, but to me it looks worse than 12x10 with 4xAA. To me 4xaa looks much better than increasing resolution and playing 0xaa.

Depends on the game. For example, I might go for the higher res in a game I needed to do a lot of sniping in the distance, or a game like Doom3 where it's usually pretty dark.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I find it funny that you start off by saying that the ATi card performs at or near 7800GT levels, but then go on to show how it 'beats' a 6800 series card. Of course then you say it places its performance BETWEEN 6800ultra and 7800gtx (which would mean its LESS) then ask WHY we'd pay the same price for the nvidia card? Um... because we want the BEST card for our 400, not the second best (after rebates, of course).

 

[Hacp]

Btw, the mSRP will be 450, but who expects to buy it for 450 when you can get the 7800GTX with 4 more pipes and BF2 for 500 dolalrs shippped?
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=322727&ps=ho5

Obvioulsy, its gonna be 400 or less. Probably 400 at forst. then down to 375 range.

 

[Lucien1964]

Call me cheap but I ordered a refurbished X800XT PE and sold my 9800 pro. Total cost of upgrade is 144 bones. At that price I could care less about features. I am a happy man!!!

 

[xTYBALTx]

BrokenArrow, I don't mean to be condescending, but please read the thread before posting. Of course, you probably won't read this either.

GamingPhreek, I appreciate your sagely comments. How enlightening!

CookieMonster, thanks for the links supporting my point - they clearly state that 1600x1200 is the "highest playable" resolution with AA/AF. That's a 7800GTX. With an FX-55.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Okay. Let's all go to 20X16 with 8X AA 4X AF. Tell me how ATI's offerings perform in BF2. No old games like UT2K4.

 

[xTYBALTx]

I'd be interested to know. Who has benchmarks for that?

 

[BFG10K]

Hmm if that is true, then what is the point of AA?

AA still makes a big difference even at high resolutions. I run most games 18 months or older at 1856x1392 with 6xAA.

Actually BFG downgrades, he got rid of his 6800U for a X800XL.

The card is faster than a 6800U in certain situations.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The card is faster than a 6800U in certain situations.

Here we go.....

 

[BFG10K]

It's not my problem Rollo has difficulty comprehending simple concepts and hence the need to repeat myself.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The card is faster than a 6800U in certain situations.

Here we go.....

You'll never see me reply directly to BFG10K, so if it's going anywhere, it will be BFG/others doing.

I do find it amusing to see his replies to my posts, he has an "interesting" perspective. :beer:

 

[nwo]

OK guys, I decided to go with the 350 buck BFG 7800GT from dell, but before I do, and before the offer expires, tomorrow, I want to see some benchmarks on the 7800GT, I googled it, but the only benchmark that I was able to find was 3dmark2003 which says absolutely nothing about the overall performance of today's high end cards.

So, are there any benchmarks on the 7800GT?