Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: cronic
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If there is 1 card that was a joke from this generation it is certainly 7800GTX. Not only can you get 7800GT OC for $280-300 that matches 7800GTX performance but costs $150 more, but 7800GTX gets stomped by X1800XT where it matters the most -- shader intensive games.
Proof:
FEAR - 1280x960 4AA/16AF
7800GTX 256 = 39
X1800XT = 54 (+38%)
Call of Duty 2 - 1024x768 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 46.3
X1800XT = 55.6 (+20%)
Battlefield 2 - 2048x1536 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 37.6
X1800XT = 48.2 (+28%)
Far Cry - 1600x1200 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 48.2
X1800XT = 65.2 (+35%)
Splinter Cell: CT - 1600x1200 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 41.5
X1800XT = 47.4 (+14%)
Now to make matters worse, the 7800GTX which is now losing to X1800XT in some OpenGL games.
Quake 4 - 2048x1536 - 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 37
X1800XT = 47.1 (+27%)
IL2 - 2048x1536 - 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 41.6
X1800XT = 45.9 (+10%)
Doom 3 - 1600x1200 4AA/16AF
7800GTX = 51.9
X1800XT = 53.7 (+3%)
So unless you are a HUGE fan of Chronicles of Riddick, pacific Fighters and AOE3, it certainly doesn't look good for 7800GTX 256mb card as more games start to become more shader intensive. Unless of course you've been smoking some cronic![]()
Funny how you don't compare it to the current performance king tthe 7800 GTX 512. I guess we know why, because that wouldn't be a fair comparrison now would it. By the way were those numbers with your x1800xt? I didn't think so. Why do so few a people actually own the 1800 series? Hmmm.....
Maybe you didnt see these benches?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005.html
Anyone claiming the 256gtx is equal to the x1800xt must be looking at the 0x0x benches, because once you add AA and AF the performance lead of the $1000 512gtx king of the hill becomes a joke.
The performance lead of the GTX512 over the X1800XT at 0x 0x is actually stellar in most games in that review you linked to. Crank up AA and AF, and all it does is equal the playing field with the advantage still to the GTX in "most" games benched there. So, you calling a card that can whup an X1800XT with or without AA AF a joke is actually the real joke. Also would like to note that for some reason, xbit and a ton of other review sites only bench up to 16x12, which is great, but would like to see the ultra high res benches as well. That 30" Dell LCD is going to be sweet and high res benches would apply. Unless they limit the native res on that LCD to something incredibly stupid.
If a card that costs 2x as much if you can find one, wins by 1-10% when AA is enabled and still loses in FEAR (a NV-sponsored game!) is not a joke, then... :roll:
Higher res tests like 2000x1500 would be nice, but only SLI and Crossfire would be able to pull playable fps at those settings.
Shader intensive... Those games are no way shader intensive. Plus, those benchs dont prove X1800XT has a more "efficent' shader performance. You are just showing how "efficent" AA is on the X1800 XT.
IF you look at benchs with 0x0x that really shows which card has better shader performance, and clearly the 7 series does. This has been long known stuff, that NV had the edge with shader performance. This is a common misconception, and its really the X1800s low hit on the AA thats letting it win most of the time NOT its "efficent" shaders.
That low hit on the performance (when AA is applied) is also due to the bottleneck by its limtied pixel shaders. However, the R580 isnt bottlenecked by pixel shaders anymore. This can result in a much bigger hit than that of the R520 when AA is applied.
True, but do you think a r580 will have a bigger or a smaller AA performance hit than the 512gtx? I'm thinking percentage-wise, the ring bus controller should still enable it to have a smaller hit.