X-bit Labs' review of the GeForce 7900 GT

[CaiNaM]

and they offer better AA in dual gpu mode.

sadly, their implementation is cumbersome, requiring a special mastercard (tho the mastercard is the reason superaa is better), and at the current time crossfire motherboard lack some of the features of high-end sli boards.

 

[imported_Finny]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Finny
Well, I find all of this really funny. It seems that the entire "aggressive pricing" shtick that nVidia tried to pull with the 7900 series has really backfired, seeing as to how nicely ATi has brought down prices... I might actually be able to afford a high-end card someday if things keep going like this! :shocked:

At this point, the high-end is pretty much in ATi's court, IMO. Since the 7900GT would need an aftermarket cooler to stay stable after a volt mod anyway (Much like how the X1800XT would probably need one to eliminate the noise & heat issue even before OCing), it pretty much takes any "cheaper" statement outta the arguement altogether. It's time to give credit where it's due; ATi has pretty much won the battle here.

IMO, anyway.

i dont know its pretty even, the x1900 while the fastest, is well matched by nvidia's offering

7900GT is a good card, and even better if you have some know how.

while ati may of won the performance crown, Nvidia certainly aint doing bad. the GT is out selling its ATi counterparts by over 4 to 1.

like i said before, having a good product is nothing if your marketers arent much cop. and IMO nvidia > Ati at marketing. as a business they are the winners....they must be raking it in.

its much like AMD and intel, whos got the best desktop CPU's? well most around here would say AMD, since we're in the know. but Mr average family guy isnt, all he see's is intel Ads, so thats what he goes shopping for. (coupled with dirty lies by sales men like AMD over heat more, or AMD chips burn out quicker etc...complete crap, that people believe)

so performance wise, ATI is winning on the high end

but theyre not winning where it matters (ie low to mid range) and nvidia are definately getting more business from more people

In the sense of which company is winning, then, like you said, nVidia pretty much holds domination here. Anyone who wants to debate that would look like Rollo trying to defend the 5800Ultra in DX9.

However, my arguement beforehand wasn't directed at the winner as far as company well-being; it was concerning the overall level of the video cards themselves. Note that I didn't say power; I meant all things taken into account, inlcuding noise, heat, etc. For now, I'll ignore the dual-cards & the X1900/7900GTXs; this is purely between the X1800XT (Either version) vs. the 7900GT

1. Similar performance, with edge toward XT (Although the difference tends to be miniscule)
2. XT has more features (How many you'll actually be able to make use of is still questionable, though)
3. XT has more ram (Though single cards generally don't bond well with high resolutions or high AA to begin with)
4. GT is MUCH cooler (Temperature wise, although the XT is designed to withstand such temperatures, but I doubt it helps other internal components to have such a damn hot card)
5. Neither cooler is truly "quiet" (XT is the bigger offender, though)
6. GT can OC far more, but XT doesn't require volt-mod to change voltage, and both will require aftermarket coolers to have acceptable overclocks.

Taking all this into account, in this range of videocards, I would choose the X1800XT. I still stand by my preference of the 7900GTX in the highest of the single-cards, but in this situation, well... You get my point.

 

[Stoneburner]

Ati was beating nvida in sales according to official results just a little while ago, maybe a year and a half. The market takes a while to reflect technological changes probably because most of th emarket doesn't fukk with the high end. Remember back in the 9700/9800 days? It was only after those cards were replaced when ATI finally took more market share than nvidia. ANd it was when ati started screwin up they lost it all thanks to their FX type flop.


I dont think the market necessarily reflects anything besides what tecnology was more efficient 1.5 years prior or so.


ANyway, ati seems to have the performance crown this time around. all numbers show it.

 

[nib95]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
It depends. For OCing i would choose the 7900GT and if not i would buy the X1800XT. Its as simple as this.
Unless your bias toward one company.

For OC'ing the 7900 GT has nothing on the X1800XT. Or do you think the X1800XT is incapable of OC'ing? It uses software voltage control where with a 7900 GT you're stuck using a conductive pen and a pencil just to raise its voltages. You don't have to go far to look for real world examples, just look at The Chase's signature:

X1800XT 729/873 - 1.475 V

yes but even at those speeds it does not match an X1900 XTX/XT or a 7900 GTX, the 7900 GT voltmodded to say 700/1800 on the other hand does.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: thilan29
This argument is flawed because you can buy the same aftermarket cooler and overclock the X1800XT (without the hardmods required by the 7900GT) and it'll beat the oveclocked 7900GT for even cheaper.

so you really think you x1800xt will beat a similarly volt moded 7900gt eh?

i'll bite and play this game...name some benchmark scores that YOUR system can achieve...

Where did I say I have an X1800XT??? I was going by the review originally posted in this thread. If a stock clocked X1800XT beats a 7900GT, then an overclocked X1800XT should at least match the overclocked 7900GT.

 

[coldpower27]

So let's see...

7900 GTX 650MHZ/1600MHZ 512MB 1.4V conusmes 84W
7900 GT 450MHZ/1320MHZ 256MB 1.2V consumes 48W

X1800 XT 625MHZ/1500MHZ 512MB 1.275V? consumes 103W
X1900 XT 625MHZ/1450MHZ 512MB 1.4V? consumes 108W
X1900 XTX 650MHZ/1550MHZ 512MB 1.4V? consumes 120W

I think even overclocking both the 7900 GT and X1800 XT to their maxes I don't think the 7900 GT will breach more then 2/3 of the X1800 XT energy usage.

If your going by Xbit's figures to say the least.

It's too bad the 300US X1800 XT 512MB can't be found where I live Toronto, Canada, ironically which is very close to ATI headquarters.

I can get a 399 CAN eVGA 7900 GT CO SC 550MHZ/1560MHZ, with their Lifetime Warranty.

You can get an stock OEM X1900 XT for 579CAN, or a stock Retail 529CAN X1800 XT

With a 120 CAN disparity between an OCed 7900 GT vs stock X1800 XT, it's unfortunate to say the least.. ATI is not an option for the high end unless your going directly to an X1900.

 

[nib95]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: thilan29
This argument is flawed because you can buy the same aftermarket cooler and overclock the X1800XT (without the hardmods required by the 7900GT) and it'll beat the oveclocked 7900GT for even cheaper.

so you really think you x1800xt will beat a similarly volt moded 7900gt eh?

i'll bite and play this game...name some benchmark scores that YOUR system can achieve...

Where did I say I have an X1800XT??? I was going by the review originally posted in this thread. If a stock clocked X1800XT beats a 7900GT, then an overclocked X1800XT should at least match the overclocked 7900GT.

Overclocked how much?
Voltmodded overclocked and regular overclocked.
You must make a distinction with the 7900 GT, because a voltmodded OC'd 7900 GT is essentially a 7900 GTX or more. Whereas a overclocked and overvolted X1800 XT is still not a 7900 GTX nor X1900 XTX performance wise.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shamrock
default clocks is 430Mhz/1320Mhz for 7900GT...just with coolbits, I get a recommended clock of 542/839 (1678), on STOCK cooling. I know it can go farther, but I havent tried, it's still a new card with only 64c AT LOAD!

Oh yeah, did I mention this card is cherry picked from an eVGA engineer? When it's properly broken in (I usually go a month) I will see what it can do.

this is what i don't get... at 542 your GT is putting out almost as much heat as my x1800xt @ 700mhz (71c @ load)

so all you guys raving about GT overclocks don't think raising the voltage and the clockspeeds doesn't increase the heat or the power consumption?

Uh .... I'm pretty sure the 542 is without the volt-mod. Nice try though.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shamrock
default clocks is 430Mhz/1320Mhz for 7900GT...just with coolbits, I get a recommended clock of 542/839 (1678), on STOCK cooling. I know it can go farther, but I havent tried, it's still a new card with only 64c AT LOAD!

Oh yeah, did I mention this card is cherry picked from an eVGA engineer? When it's properly broken in (I usually go a month) I will see what it can do.

this is what i don't get... at 542 your GT is putting out almost as much heat as my x1800xt @ 700mhz (71c @ load)

so all you guys raving about GT overclocks don't think raising the voltage and the clockspeeds doesn't increase the heat or the power consumption?

Uh .... I'm pretty sure the 542 is without the volt-mod. Nice try though.

nice try? at what? maybe you should read before replying?

vmod is not the issue here. he stated w/ his oc his GT is 64c at load. that's getting close to mine (71c load @ 700/1600).

if you add vmod to that, it will just increase the thermal output that much more.

 

[RobertR1]

Back when they started working on the review the x1800xt was probably at a higher price range thus they went with the x1800xl but since it took them this long, they should've done their due diligance and updated their conclusion to reflect the current day scenario.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shamrock
default clocks is 430Mhz/1320Mhz for 7900GT...just with coolbits, I get a recommended clock of 542/839 (1678), on STOCK cooling. I know it can go farther, but I havent tried, it's still a new card with only 64c AT LOAD!

Oh yeah, did I mention this card is cherry picked from an eVGA engineer? When it's properly broken in (I usually go a month) I will see what it can do.

this is what i don't get... at 542 your GT is putting out almost as much heat as my x1800xt @ 700mhz (71c @ load)

so all you guys raving about GT overclocks don't think raising the voltage and the clockspeeds doesn't increase the heat or the power consumption?

Uh .... I'm pretty sure the 542 is without the volt-mod. Nice try though.

nice try? at what? maybe you should read before replying?

vmod is not the issue here. he stated w/ his oc his GT is 64c at load. that's getting close to mine (71c load @ 700/1600).

if you add vmod to that, it will just increase the thermal output that much more.

For stellar clocks both cards require aftermarket cooling.

The 7900GT gains more from clockspeed then the X1800XT.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

nice try? at what? maybe you should read before replying?

vmod is not the issue here. he stated w/ his oc his GT is 64c at load. that's getting close to mine (71c load @ 700/1600).

if you add vmod to that, it will just increase the thermal output that much more.

then there comes my system, 685/885 @ only 61c load. sorry invalid arguement now

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

nice try? at what? maybe you should read before replying?

vmod is not the issue here. he stated w/ his oc his GT is 64c at load. that's getting close to mine (71c load @ 700/1600).

if you add vmod to that, it will just increase the thermal output that much more.

then there comes my system, 685/885 @ only 61c load. sorry invalid arguement now

Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

bingo! generalizing ftl

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

bingo! generalizing ftl

so I'm wrong? All chips overclock the same? When oc'd both can go pretty damn high. The XT maybe louder but the heatsink is still much bigger than the pathetic 7900gt cooler.

 

[zephyrprime]

Anyone know if they tested with the 256MB x1800xt or the 512MB version?

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

bingo! generalizing ftl

so I'm wrong? All chips overclock the same? When oc'd both can go pretty damn high. The XT maybe louder but the heatsink is still much bigger than the pathetic 7900gt cooler.

reread what i quoted in bold....can you cite sources where the x1800xt goes "pretty damn high" and what performance it equates to? this is me asking inquisitively. as for heatsinks, theres a reason why the 7900gt is smaller...it draws much less power and can be actually cooled passively (at stock speeds)...

 

[nib95]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

bingo! generalizing ftl

so I'm wrong? All chips overclock the same? When oc'd both can go pretty damn high. The XT maybe louder but the heatsink is still much bigger than the pathetic 7900gt cooler.

reread what i quoted in bold....can you cite sources where the x1800xt goes "pretty damn high" and what performance it equates to? this is me asking inquisitively. as for heatsinks, theres a reason why the 7900gt is smaller...it draws much less power and can be actually cooled passively (at stock speeds)...

Lol, your sig made me chuckle.
Joker, whats your response mate?

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: the Chase
It's about time X-bit Labs reviewed the 7900GT. If you trust X-bit's reviews I think we can put to rest the "should I get a 7900GT or a X1800XT" threads for good.

512mb is the only reason I would consider an X1800XT. If there were a 7900Gt with 512mb then there would be no question whatsoever

 

[nib95]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: the Chase
It's about time X-bit Labs reviewed the 7900GT. If you trust X-bit's reviews I think we can put to rest the "should I get a 7900GT or a X1800XT" threads for good.

512mb is the only reason I would consider an X1800XT. If there were a 7900Gt with 512mb then there would be no question whatsoever

There is

The Gainward version has 512mb AND a far superior cooler akin to the 7800 GTX/GT.
I would buy one had I not already bought two XFX ones!

EDIT: Here's a link.

It's the 'goes like hell version' and 'Golden sample' versions.
But is pricey at over £300 and one just under £300.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_7900_Series_358.html

 

[nib95]

Just a heads up circuit city has an OC'd 7900 GT (500/1500) for only $270!!!

http://tinyurl.com/zs42u

Woot!

 

[coldpower27]

There conclusion is worded in such a way that they determined the 7900 GT to be the winner of the 299US based on it's performance, power consumption and single slot cooling solution.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I wouldnt mind a benchmark comparing the X1800XT 256, X1800XT512 and 7900GT.

Im interested at how the X1800Xt 256 will perform.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

bingo! generalizing ftl

so I'm wrong? All chips overclock the same? When oc'd both can go pretty damn high. The XT maybe louder but the heatsink is still much bigger than the pathetic 7900gt cooler.

reread what i quoted in bold....can you cite sources where the x1800xt goes "pretty damn high" and what performance it equates to? this is me asking inquisitively. as for heatsinks, theres a reason why the 7900gt is smaller...it draws much less power and can be actually cooled passively (at stock speeds)...

I did. I said your mileage may vary and that chips are different to a certain extent.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODg1LDEx

Pretty damn hot imo

The cooling has a decent effect on the overclock. The 7900gt cooler is one of the worst for such a high end card. The 7900gt can oc the 7900gtx levels yet the 7900gtx cooler is a behemoth and the 7900gt tiny. Almost no card can be cooled entirely passively and the 7900gt is no exception. The cooling depends on the airflow through the case and around the card for a silent solution to work. The 7900gt's cooler doesn't cover the ram, it is about as loud as the X18/X19's cooler not talking about tone.

And again are you on stock cooling?

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Actually it was quite valid. Are you on stock cooling? especially with that high of a memory clock? Oh btw he was comparing to to one person. Each chip is different. Someone could say an X1800XT might only go up to 65C or something. YMMV

bingo! generalizing ftl

so I'm wrong? All chips overclock the same? When oc'd both can go pretty damn high. The XT maybe louder but the heatsink is still much bigger than the pathetic 7900gt cooler.

reread what i quoted in bold....can you cite sources where the x1800xt goes "pretty damn high" and what performance it equates to? this is me asking inquisitively. as for heatsinks, theres a reason why the 7900gt is smaller...it draws much less power and can be actually cooled passively (at stock speeds)...

I did. I said your mileage may vary and that chips are different to a certain extent.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODg1LDEx

Pretty damn hot imo

The cooling has a decent effect on the overclock. The 7900gt cooler is one of the worst for such a high end card. The 7900gt can oc the 7900gtx levels yet the 7900gtx cooler is a behemoth and the 7900gt tiny. Almost no card can be cooled entirely passively and the 7900gt is no exception. The cooling depends on the airflow through the case and around the card for a silent solution to work. The 7900gt's cooler doesn't cover the ram, it is about as loud as the X18/X19's cooler not talking about tone.

And again are you on stock cooling?

um you cited an article with a 7800gtx??? and the x1800xt wasn't overclocked =/

i agree cooling does have an effect on overclock. i am also guessing you are not familiar with the different types of hsf's for the 7900gt. yes i said types as in many. the typical hsf is a small aluminum based ones you usually see in the articles, which doesn't cover the vmem. the ones deemed "OC" versions utilize a larger footprint with a copper base, that also cools the vmems. if you ever see a 7900gt pcba layout, you can actually see the silkscreen for both footprints.

as i said, just wait, you will see new 7900gts that will be passively cooled, as well as aftermarket hsfs touting this (see AC Accelero X1 passive)...