Tech-Hounds.com

Because gamers play games, not benchmarks




Looking Past the Present

Undoubtedly, gamers are the primary market for 3D graphics consumer cards. As with any other product, the faster the performance, the higher the price you must pay. Look at high end graphics cards such as ATI's Radeon X1900XTX and NVIDIA's GeForce 7900GTX - these cards are selling at about USD 450 to 600. If you're not satisfied with the performance of these cards, the very fortunate of you can use a pair of them for either a Crossfire or SLI setup. If so, be prepared to spend around USD 1.000 to 1450.

With that kind of serious money, gamers want the best. But that's true for any users, even those buying a motherboard with an integrated graphics card want to get their money's worth. That's why there are so many media (ourselves included) offering product reviews - we want to know if these products are worth the money we're paying for. Although performance and quality is king, there's usually another factor that most reviews can't capture - longevity. After all, if you just recently spent up to USD 1000 on new hardware, you don't want your new rig running to be too slow 3 / 6 months down the road. Now, some of you might be lucky enough to upgrade your graphics cards, processor and memory every 6 months, but not everyone is that lucky. Even with a buyback / trade in program, you typically have to fork the difference in price between your old card and the new one.

From experience, mainstream cards are typically good / fast enough for one year of games. High end cards usually fare better, offering some additional headroom so you can use it for about a year or at most a year and a half. In the graphics card business, that's the time it takes for the next generation to arrive (usually). In this case, choosing the right graphics card is even more important. However, the past six months is somewhat an anomaly in this regard. With ATI, the delay with R520 (Radeon X1800) have pushed the card's time to market very near its successor, the R580 (Radeon X1900). In fact, the Radeon X1800 may well be the only high end card to have a 3 months old life span. With NVIDIA, we basically saw small variations of the same design over the past year: the GeForce 7800GTX, 7800GTX 512 MB and 7900GTX. The most glaring differences between them are clock speeds and amount of memory.

We recently finished our review for both ATI's Radeon X1900XTX and NVIDIA's GeForce 7900GTX (which you can read here and here). Both cards are very fast, offering high enough frame rates for games available today. They're perform equally as well, with the Radeon X1900XTX having an edge for better image quality with anti aliasing and HDR plus AA support. On the other hand, the GeForce 7900GTX is faster when running without AA and AF and provide a much more effective transparency antialiasing. Although it's available with the GeForce 7800GTX, transparency antialiasing is only usable with the GeForce 7900GTX (at 4x). However, as we noted above, there's no way of knowing how these cards handle the new batch of games coming this year (or the year after). Other review websites and media usually rely on synthetic benchmarks for this purpose, however we don't really value the results from such benchmarks. For one, they are, by nature, synthetic benchmarks and not games - they 'simulate' what we may be seeing in games so they should never be used as the only metric in reviewing performance. Two, time and time again, vendors usually optimize their hardware and software to run benchmark well but these optimizations don't necessarily translate to real world performance.

Having finished the reviews of both cards, we find ourselves asking the question: how will these cards cope with newer games. NVIDIA seems more than happy to 'fix' everything with a driver update (Battlefield 2, Oblivion, Tomb Raider: Legend), much to the anguish of users. Users with ATI cards is somewhat better off - new games usually work right of the bat without any major (graphical) issues. New drivers may offer performance increases, but we believe there are no dubious optimizations at work here - ATI's developer team is still exploring the new architecture. So, we're more concerned with the GeForce 7900GTX than the Radeon X1900XTX in this regard.

The Problem

Let's make one thing absolutely clear - there's no way we can be 100% sure how the GeForce 7900GTX will behave in future games. What we can do here is make a calculated guess. Now let's look at the facts:
Let's translate this facts into the graphics pipeline.

More shader use means the graphics card must be fast enough at processing shaders. There are two approach this problem - run the card (core) faster or process more shaders per cycle. NVIDIA chose to use a higher core clock for the GeForce 7900, keeping pretty much the same shader pipeline found in the GeForce 7800 series. Benchmarking shaders (in isolation, without the influence of bandwidth or even depth buffer) is very hard to do - you have to rely on a purely synthetic test since shaders used in current games are still very short and not very complex. So, while we will briefly touch this issue, we won't focus on future shaders performance on the GeForce 7900.

Higher resolution is easy enough - most reviews provide benchmarks from 1024 x 768 and up to 1600 x 1200 (or higher). When using a higher resolution frame buffer, the card must draw more pixels and process depth information more efficiently (in the depth buffer). Higher resolution textures will not only take more space (even when compressed) but also take more bandwidth (or latency due to decompression before processing). This is one area is definitely quite easy to test. The card must have a high fillrate, more efficient depth buffer management and memory bandwidth. There is also antialiasing and anisotropic filtering to consider. Antialiasing is usually related to fillrate, while anisotropic filtering is pretty much related to memory bandwidth.

While effects are related to shaders, we will focus more on their bandwidth related aspects. Normal / parallax mapping puts more strain on bandwidth because these effects make use of normal maps (and an additional height map for parallax mapping). Dynamic lighting can be done in a variety of ways, but usually involve rendering the scene from the light's perspective and translating the information to determine which part is lit or inside the shadows. Naturally, this falls under fillrate, just like HDR.

Now, if we were using synthetic benchmarks, all we have to is run one with normal / parallax mapping, dynamic lighting done through shaders at various resolutions ranging from 1024 x 768 to 1600 x 1200. Then we examine the fillrate and bandwidth test to see whether the graphics card have enough of both. But of course, we won't do that. This time, we will examine efficiency, not just pure scores. By looking at efficiency, we can see just how the GeForce 7900GTX fare under certain conditions like high fillrate and bandwidth demand. Why? Simple really, the GeForce 7900 (in fact, the entire GeForce 6 and 7 series) seems to be very sensitive to memory bandwidth.

Performance

The benchmark results in this article are taken from our Radeon X1900XTX and GeForce 7900GTX reviews. Naturally, the test setup is the same on both articles, the only difference being the drivers used. An important note: we're using Catalyst 6.2 drivers with the Radeon X1900XTX since those were the drivers that were used in that review. FYI, the latest drivers are 6.4 and performance with these drivers are slightly higher. So keep that in mind when you're looking at the numbers. NVIDIA's Forceware 84.21 was used with the GeForce 7900GTX (and 7800GTX).

We'd like to thank both Tagan and Kingston for supplying with the additional power supply and 1 GB memory modules for this article.

Our test setup
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ socket 939
2 x 1024 MB Kingston KVR 3-3-3 PC3200 DDR-SDRAM
MSI K8N NForce 4 SLI motherboard
ASUS EN7800GTX TOP GeForce 7800GTX DDR3 256 MB graphics card
(running at standard and reference clocks - core 486 MHz / memory 675 MHz (1350 MHz effective) and core 430 MHz / memory 600 MHz (1200 MHz effective))
Gigabyte Radeon X1900XTX DDR3 512 MB graphics card
Leadtek WinFast PX7900GTX TDH 512 MB graphics card
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9 80 GB Serial ATA 8 MB buffer
ASUS E-616 DVD-ROM
Tagan TG530-U15 530 watts ATX/BTX power supply

Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 installed
ATI Catalyst 6.2 reference driver
NVIDIA Forceware 84.21 reference driver
NVIDIA NForce 4 6.70 reference driver
Creative SoundBlaster Live! 24 bit 5.12.1.512 driver.
DirectX 9.0c

Performance

Compared to the GeForce 7800GTX

Our first three benchmarks are quite old, but they serve their purpose well. Devoid of SM 2.0 and 3.0 shaders, these games still rely mostly on textures, so they're perfect for testing anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering performance. The table below is pretty self explanatory, but in case you're wondering, "Performance Lost" (in percent) here means the degree of performance lost (compared to default settings) when we enable both AA and AF. Keep in mind that there are fluctuations in the results, although it's very small (typically around 1-2 percent). For each resolution, we calculate an average performance lost for the minimum, average and maximum fps. If you just want a summary of these numbers, just look at the bottom of the table - you can see the weighted average performance lost from 1024 x 768 to 1600 x 1200.

Call of Duty


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024








Min 82 81 1.22% 81 79 2.47% 79 78 1.27%
Avg 224.65 178.91 20.36% 225.92 189.56 16.09% 201.11 190.75 5.15%
Max 503 312 37.97% 538 337 37.36% 404 339 16.09%
Average

19.85%

18.64%

7.50%
1280








Min 83 84 -1.20% 83 83 0.00% 80 79 1.25%
Avg 213.85 132.92 37.85% 217.51 146.22 32.77% 197.42 158.77 19.58%
Max 427 206 51.76% 459 231 49.67% 413 271 34.38%
Average

29.47%

27.48%

18.40%
1600








Min 82 68 17.07% 81 77 4.94% 80 79 1.25%
Avg 193.49 96.27 50.25% 201.95 107.77 46.64% 192.84 123.74 35.83%
Max 342 138 59.65% 358 156 56.42% 383 182 52.48%
Average

42.32%

36.00%

29.85%










Weighted Average

30.55%

27.37%

18.59%

That's just incredible - look at how much frame rates we're losing with the GeForce 7800GTX - 20 to 40 percent from 1024 x 768 to 1600 x 1200. The GeForce 7900GTX with its higher clocked core allowed us to reach frame rates much higher at higher resolutions. No doubt, you'll notice that the penalty is similar between the GeForce 7800GTX at 1024 x 768 and GeForce 7900GTX at 1280 x1024. So, we'll likely to see the same trend, it's on different resolutions. (1280 x 1024 as opposed to 1024 x 768). Overall, we can see the GeForce 7900GTX has pretty much half the penalty of the GeForce 7800GTX with AA and AF.

Homeworld 2


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024








Min 59 62 -5.08% 60 65 -8.33% 60 63 -5.00%
Avg 205.75 199.67 2.96% 206.41 205.47 0.45% 200.5 201.32 -0.41%
Max 407 412 -1.23% 409 414 -1.22% 389 394 -1.29%
Average

-1.12%

-3.03%

-2.23%
1280








Min 64 51 20.31% 64 58 9.38% 58 61 -5.17%
Avg 203.89 153.26 24.83% 204.84 171.07 16.48% 198.81 189.87 4.50%
Max 406 268 33.9% 409 302 26.16% 389 359 7.71%
Average

26.38%

17.34%

2.35%
1600








Min 63 35 44.44% 62 40 35.48% 61 47 22.95%
Avg 197.63 106.63 46.05% 200.29 121.35 39.41% 194.58 142.37 26.83%
Max 404 174 56.93% 404 199 50.74% 384 230 40.10%
Average

49.14%

41.88%

29.96%










Weighted Average

23.09%

18.73%

10.03%

Here we can see pretty much the same thing, only this time the GeForce 7900GTX has less than half the penalty of a GeForce 7800GTX. If you look at the details, you can see that there's virtually no penalty whatsoever on the GeForce 7900GTX except at 1600 x 1200. That's actually not surprising since this is an RTS game. Compared to the GeForce 7800GTX, the GeForce 7900GTX retain 20 percent more of its frame rate under default settings. We wonder though, if we were able to reach even higher resolutions such as 2048 x 1536, will we see the same trend as Call of Duty.

Richard Burns Rally


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024








Min 108 105 2.78% 107 102 4.67% 106 103 2.83%
Avg 153.5 149.69 2.48% 157.33 154.69 1.68% 152.13 150.9 0.81%
Max 229 221 3.49% 229 226 1.31% 228 219 3.95%
Average

2.92%

2.55%

2.53%
1280








Min 106 84 20.75% 108 95 12.04% 105 102 2.86%
Avg 153.81 124.29 19.19% 156.64 137.18 12.42% 152.44 148.41 2.65%
Max 223 218 2.24% 234 212 9.40% 223 216 3.14%
Average

14.06%

11.29%

2.88%
1600








Min 101 63 37.62% 108 71 34.26% 105 90 14.29%
Avg 153.43 92.77 39.54% 156.38 104.77 33.00% 151.47 129.68 14.38%
Max 219 155 29.22% 233 178 23.61% 219 207 5.48%
Average

35.46%

30.29%

11.38%










Weighted Average

17.48%

14.71%

5.60%

The results we're seeing in this game is just way out there - the GeForce 7900GTX is more than three times more efficient than the GeForce 7800GTX. Most of the difference can only be seen at 1600 x 1200, where the GeForce 7900GTX can make optimal use of its higher clocked core and memory. If we were to 'superimpose' the trend we're seeing with Call of Duty (and Homeworld 2), the penalty is similar between a GeForce 7800GTX running at 1280 x 960 and a GeForce 7900GTX running at 1600 x 1200. The relatively small difference (around 3-5 percent) is likely normal variations between runs.

All right, we've seen that the GeForce 7900GTX is more efficient than the GeForce 7800GTX, at their own clocks. It's most likely that the higher clocked core and memory that's making the difference here. After all, a 220 / 200 MHz difference is nothing to scoffed about - that's actually close to half the core clock of the GeForce 7800GTX. You might be wondering why we're not seeing even lower penalty on the GeForce 7900GTX. The answer is in the memory clock - it's only about 1/3 faster (1200 : 1600 MHz). That's about 30 - 35 percent, which corresponds to the difference we're seeing. So, even though theoretically we should be able to get higher frame rates, there's not enough memory bandwidth to keep the core fed. This would explain the drastic change of penalty at certain resolutions.

F.E.A.R


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024








Min 47 35 25.53% 46 40 13.04% 42 41 2.38%
Avg 103.94 67.22 35.32% 111.48 73.74 33.85% 113.01 92.34 18.29%
Max 242 157 35.12% 271 177 34.69% 295 295 0.00%
Average

31.99%

27.19%

6.89%
1280








Min 44 27 38.64% 43 29 32.56% 40 36 10.00%
Avg 82.92 47.97 42.15% 89.33 53.19 40.45% 99.22 65.11 34.37%
Max 173 108 37.57% 192 124 35.42% 241 241 0.00%
Average

39.45%

36.14%

14.79%
1600








Min 34 19 44.12% 38 21 44.74% 41 26 36.59%
Avg 58.95 33.36 43.40% 65.78 37.39 43.16% 80.2 45.9 42.78%
Max 116 73 37.07% 130 82 36.92% 169 103 39.05%
Average

41.53%

41.61%

39.47%










Weighted Average

37.66%

34.98%

20.38%

We mentioned in our GeForce 7900GTX review that this card is fast enough if you want to play F.E.A.R at 1280 x 960 with AA and AF. You can look at the benchmark numbers, but by using efficiency as a metric it's easier to see why. We're losing only about half the frame rates compared to the GeForce 7800GTX. However, at 1600 x 1200, the penalty is pretty much the same. so its very likely even the shader processing power from the higher clocked GeForce 7900GTX is still not enough. This is different to what we're seeing at 'traditional' texture dependent games - a more gradual (less drastic) decline going from 1024 x 768 to 1280 x 960 like we saw with Call of Duty.

Quake 4


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024








Min 69 57 17.39% 70 64 8.57% 69 64 7.25%
Avg 124.51 87.5 29.73% 125.23 96.39 23.03% 124.51 108.01 13.26%
Max 168 135 19.64% 168 148 11.90% 168 156 7.14%
Average

22.25%

14.50%

9.21%
1280








Min 68 37 45.59% 69 42 39.13% 61 48 21.31%
Avg 116.96 59.25 49.34% 119.44 66.83 44.05% 117.22 79.55 32.13%
Max 171 102 40.35% 167 113 32.34% 164 129 21.34%
Average

45.09%

38.51%

24.93%
1600








Min 66 27 59.09% 68 30 55.88% 60 38 36.67%
Avg 97.05 43.5 55.18% 104.9 49.07 53.23% 112.97 59.29 47.52%
Max 154 81 47.40% 161 87 45.96% 156 101 35.26%
Average

53.89%

51.69%

39.81%










Weighted Average

40.41%

34.90%

24.65%

Although the overall penalty is still in the GeForce 7900GTX favor, we can all see it beginning to lose footing at 1280 x 1024. We do see that the trend is less drastic than with the GeForce 7800GTX. If we were to use an even higher resolution, such as 2048 x 1536, it's more likely the penalty will be close to 50 percent on the GeForce 7900GTX - just like what we're seeing on the GeForce 7800GTX at 1600 x 1200. Even with an SLI setup, we will likely not have any aster frame rates, so 1600 x 1200 is the end of the line for the GeForce 7900GTX.

Serious Sam II


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024








Min 45 45 0.00% 46 45 2.17% 42 43 -2.38%
Avg 59.55 54.63 8.27% 59.63 57.21 4.05% 56.76 56.07 1.22%
Max 84 68 19.05% 84 74 11.90% 79 79 0.00%
Average

9.11%

6.04%

-0.39%
1280








Min 45 37 17.78% 45 38 15.56% 42 40 4.76%
Avg 58.85 41.73 29.09% 59.48 46.62 21.61% 56.62 53.33 5.81%
Max 82 51 37.80% 84 57 32.14% 79 71 10.13%
Average

28.22%

23.10%

6.90%
1600








Min 45 26 42.22% 44 26 40.91% 43 32 25.58%
Avg 52.33 29.35 43.91% 56.43 32.9 41.69% 56.33 41.06 27.11%
Max 67 36 46.27% 74 41 44.59% 79 52 34.18%
Average

44.13%

42.40%

28.96%










Weighted Average

27.16%

23.85%

11.82%

The picture we're seeing here is pretty similar - you only bought one more resolution with the GeForce 7900GTX. But let's not detract from the fact that at 28.96 percent penalty hit is still very good and understandably so coming from a GeForce 7 architecture. What do we mean by this? It's very likely that NVIDIA made only little tweaks here and there on the GeForce 7900GTX to maximize performance and get so high a clock. In a word - the GeForce 7900GTX is pretty much a 'speed bump'. Like all speed bumps, since efficiency is pretty much the same (on the same clock), the GeForce 7900GTX will most likely behave pretty much like the GeForce 7800GTX. At some point with a game that's heavy enough (either in shaders or textures), you'll begin to see a drastic drop in performance.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default AA AF
Default AA AF
Default AA AF
1024








Min 62.66 45.02 28.15% 70.58 50.74 28.11% 76.91 62.94 18.16%
Avg 100.05 78.1 21.94% 107.88 87.35 19.03% 115.02 103.14 10.33%
Max 178.93 155.45 13.12% 198.55 166.23 16.28% 198.8 192.49 3.17%
Average

21.07%

21.14%

10.56%
1280








Min 43.89 31.11 29.12% 49.42 35.15 28.87% 63.78 44.66 29.98%
Avg 73.34 54.79 25.29% 82.1 61.77 24.76% 102.66 77.86 24.16%
Max 146.1 136.75 6.40% 160.93 139.08 13.58% 186.06 153.15 17.69%
Average

20.27%

22.40%

23.94%
1600








Min 32.51 22.97 29.34% 36.6 25.92 29.18% 47.94 33.13 30.89%
Avg 54.79 39.99 27.01% 61.2 45.23 26.09% 79.68 57.61 27.70%
Max 136.75 105.53 22.83% 144.22 119.57 17.09% 150.75 135.42 10.17%
Average

26.40%

24.12%

22.92%










Weighted Average

22.58%

22.56%

19.14%

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is quite an anomaly - we're seeing the penalty hit stays pretty much the same across the results from three graphics cards. There are several things at play here. For one, this game is not pixel fillrate limited, but shader limited. So, we're still within the limits of these cards bandwidth window, even at 1600 x 1200 with AA AF. Two, architecturally the two are the same and now we can see just how similar. Kudos to the developers at Ubisoft. They managed to pretty much 'maintain' the penalty rate even with two cards that have a 220 / 200 MHz difference in clocks.

HDR

Serious Sam II


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default HDR
Default HDR
Default HDR
1024








Min 45 42 6.67% 46 44 4.35% 42 42 0.00%
Avg 59.55 50.39 15.39% 59.63 54.5 8.60% 56.76 57.53 -1.36%
Max 84 63 25.00% 84 71 15.48% 79 78 1.27%
Average

15.68%

9.48%

-0.03%
1280








Min 45 30 33.33% 45 33 26.67% 42 43 -2.38%
Avg 58.85 36.78 37.50% 59.48 41.11 30.88% 56.62 52.28 7.67%
Max 82 47 42.68% 84 53 36.90% 79 68 13.92%
Average

37.84%

31.49%

6.40%
1600








Min 45 21 53.33% 44 23 47.73% 43 30 30.23%
Avg 52.33 25.84 50.62% 56.43 28.91 48.76% 56.33 37.3 33.77%
Max 67 33 50.75% 74 37 50.00% 79 48 39.24%
Average

51.56%

48.83%

34.42%










Weighted Average

35.03%

29.93%

13.60%

Unlike AA and AF, HDR (with AF in this example) if much more fillrate than bandwidth. With a higher clock, the GeForce 7900GTX has more raw fillrate than the GeForce 7800GTX. But once again, you're still using the same old GeForce 7 architecture, only this time the limit is at a higher resolution. If you compare the penalty rate, you'll actually see the GeForce 7900GTX (1280 x 960 to 1600 x 1200) has a more steep drop than the GeForce 7800GTX (1024 x 768 to 1280 x 1024) So, if you really want to maintain the same level of frame rate, don't go above 1280 x 960 or 1280 x 1024. Looking at the numbers, we still wonder though - why with some games, on system limited situations the GeForce 7900GTX us SLOWER than the GeForce 7800GTX?

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory


 7800GTX

7800GTX TOP

7900GTX


Default HDR
Default HDR
Default HDR
1024








Min 62.66 46.21 26.25% 70.58 52.03 26.28% 76.91 65.13 15.32%
Avg 100.05 76.96 23.08% 107.88 85.96 20.32% 115.02 101.42 11.82%
Max 178.93 150.76 15.74% 198.55 152.83 23.03% 198.8 163.23 17.89%
Average

21.69%

23.21%

15.01%
1280








Min 43.89 31.53 28.16% 49.42 35.5 28.17% 63.78 45.94 27.97%
Avg 73.34 52.48 28.44% 82.1 59.06 28.06% 102.66 76.36 25.62%
Max 146.1 130.1 10.95% 160.93 134.28 16.56% 186.06 144.67 22.25%
Average

22.52%

24.26%

25.28%
1600








Min 32.51 23.84 26.67% 36.6 26.9 26.50% 47.94 34.94 27.12%
Avg 54.79 39.34 28.20% 61.2 44.34 27.55% 79.68 58.09 27.10%
Max 136.75 102.42 25.10% 144.22 114.65 20.50% 150.75 131.71 12.63%
Average

26.66%

24.85%

22.28%










Weighted Average

23.62%

24.11%

20.86%

We know Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory has pretty much the same penalty rate across most resolutions here with these three cards. This is apparently true with HDR also. If anything else, this is just more confirmation that the GeForce 7900GTX is just a 'speed bump'. There's virtually no difference between it and the GeForce 7800GTX in efficiency (give or take some minor adjustments). Of course, all NVIDIA have to do to justify the GeForce 7900GTX is to point at the scores, 8 - 10 fps on the minimum fps is significant since we're looking at 30-40 fps here. A 20 fps difference in average fps is nothing to scoff at either.

A Mere 'Speed Bump'?

From these games, we can see that there's more than enough evidence to support the claim that NVIDIA simply took the GeForce 7800 design, optimized it some more with minor adjustments for process tweaks and walla - you have the GeForce 7900GTX. Be that as tit may, there were some differences between the results, so please be patient with us. Aside from process tweaks, just in what areas NVIDIA 'played around' with?

F.E.A.R


 7800GTX


7900GTX



AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA) AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA)
1024







Min 17.78% 23.40% -4.44% 5.63% 0.00% 10.87% -4.55% 10.87%
Avg 34.59% 28.08% 16.59% -6.51% 21.88% 13.18% 10.31% -8.71%
Max 50.58% 19.03% 34.30% -31.55% 23.25% -51.19% 6.69% -74.44%
Average 34.32% 23.50% 15.48% -10.81% 15.04% -9.05% 4.15% -24.09%
1280







Min 40.00% 36.59% 8.89% -3.41% 11.63% 16.28% 0.00% 4.65%
Avg 39.51% 35.30% 15.65% -4.21% 31.26% 33.05% 6.07% 1.79%
Max 48.64% 34.36% 36.58% -14.28% 62.84% 65.99% -1.83% 3.15%
Average 42.72% 35.42% 20.37% -7.30% 35.24% 38.44% 1.41% 3.20%
1600







Min 44.12% 36.67% 11.76% -7.45% 40.91% 39.53% 2.27% -1.37%
Avg 40.47% 37.58% 12.45% -2.89% 43.02% 34.88% 15.54% -8.14%
Max 56.08% 54.49% 5.82% -1.59% 24.91% 37.20% 39.03% 12.29%
Average 46.89% 42.91% 10.01% -3.98% 36.28% 37.20% 18.95% 0.92%
Weighted Average 41.31% 33.94% 15.29% -7.36% 28.86% 22.20% 8.17% -6.66%

We think the changes in Forceware 84.21 is distorting the facts here, but you can definitely see the differences between the two cards at their respective clocks. Look at the 1024 x 768 results. Running without practically any filtering (bilinear is just so plain, ugly and old), the AA penalty on the GeForce 7900GTX is half that of a GeForce 7800GTX. Look at the average fps results, the maximum fps is distorting the average penalty hit here. However, AF only got something like 1/3 faster - 10 percent on the GeForce 7900GTX as opposed to 15 percent on the GeForce 7800GTX. Moving to 1280 x 960, we can still see a similar trend, although it's less pronounced but at 1600 x 1200, we're seeing the same penalty hit on both cards.

With nearly a 50 percent increase in clock, these AA penalty results is another piece of evidence that supports the 'speed bump' theory. Fillrate is the main factor for determining AA performance. So, why only about 30 percent faster with AF? Well, if you're quite the avid reader (you must be to be reading this far), that's not a surprise - it corresponds nicely with the increase in memory clock thus memory bandwidth. If NVIDIA had push the memory even higher, we may get the same penalty rate in AA and AF.

Quake 4


 7800GTX


7900GTX



AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty (bilinear) AF penalty (AA) AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA)
1024







Min 5.80% 13.64% 4.35% 7.84% -5.00% -6.67% 0.00% -1.67%
Avg 21.77% 28.74% 1.28% 6.98% 6.13% 8.40% 0.78% 2.27%
Max 4.68% 19.64% 1.75% 14.96% 0.61% 3.11% 2.42% 2.50%
Average 10.75% 20.67% 2.46% 9.93% 0.58% 1.61% 1.07% 1.03%
1280







Min 42.25% 47.14% 1.41% 4.89% 7.14% 20.00% -7.14% 12.86%
Avg 45.31% 45.68% 8.65% 0.37% 26.79% 31.70% 0.95% 4.92%
Max 34.12% 35.58% 4.12% 1.47% 14.71% 20.86% 4.12% 6.15%
Average 40.56% 42.80% 4.73% 2.24% 16.21% 24.19% -0.69% 7.98%
1600







Min 59.42% 54.24% 14.49% -5.18% 25.45% 34.48% -5.45% 9.03%
Avg 53.25% 51.22% 11.35% -2.02% 44.80% 46.12% 3.09% 1.32%
Max 47.47% 40.74% 14.56% -6.73% 34.78% 38.41% -1.86% 3.63%
Average 53.38% 48.73% 13.47% -4.64% 35.01% 39.67% -1.41% 4.66%
Weighted Average 34.90% 37.40% 6.89% 2.51% 17.27% 21.82% -0.34% 4.56%

These results are very interesting to explain. Remember, fillrate and bandwidth limits don't kick in as early on the GeForce 7900GTX. It's makes much more sense to compare 1024 x 768 on the GeForce 7800GTX and 1280 x 1024.on the GeForce 7900GTX. OK - why are we seeing a slightly higher AA penalty rate on the GeForce 7900GTX? That's just one of the 'quirks' we told you about, the GeForce 7900GTX seems to be slower than the GeForce 7800GTX.

What's interesting here is AA penalty with and without AF. Look at the 1280 x 1024 results on both cards. That's about 2 percent difference on the GeForce 7800GTX, but about 8 percent on the GeForce 7900GTX! This 'may' be normal variations between runs, but lets look a little deeper. Since the difference here is AF, let's look at AF penalty rate. Again, we're seeing the same numbers (2 vs 8 percent). We believe this is the drop point - where memory bandwidth is not keeping up with the core. To confirm this hypothesis, just look at the 1600 x 1200 results: AF penalty with AA is pretty much the same between the two cards (4 - 6 percent), so at this stage the two cards is bandwidth bound and unsurprisingly behaves the same way.

Serious Sam II


 7800GTX


7900GTX



AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA) AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA)
1024







Min 0.00% 0.00% 2.27% 0.00% -2.38% -2.38% 0.00% 0.00%
Avg 1.49% 5.51% 3.52% 4.02% 1.20% -0.47% 1.20% -1.67%
Max 1.23% 10.81% 8.64% 9.58% 1.28% -2.60% 1.28% -3.88%
Average 0.91% 5.44% 4.81% 4.53% 0.03% -1.82% 0.83% -1.85%
1280







Min 2.22% 21.43% 6.67% 19.21% 4.65% 4.76% 2.33% 0.11%
Avg 5.92% 15.28% 16.62% 9.36% 1.01% 2.31% 2.95% 1.30%
Max 13.75% 15.00% 25.00% 1.25% 0.00% 6.58% 1.30% 6.58%
Average 7.30% 17.23% 16.09% 9.94% 1.89% 4.55% 2.19% 2.66%
1600







Min 16.67% 18.75% 23.81% 2.08% 4.76% 23.81% 0.00% 19.05%
Avg 28.59% 18.54% 36.90% -10.05% 3.50% 18.74% 8.15% 15.24%
Max 30.26% 16.28% 43.42% -13.98% 7.89% 18.75% 15.79% 10.86%
Average 25.17% 17.86% 34.71% -7.32% 5.38% 20.43% 7.98% 15.05%
Weighted Average 11.13% 13.51% 18.54% 2.38% 2.43% 7.72% 3.67% 5.29%

Things really don't get interesting until we hit 1600 x 1200 - the point where bandwidth can't keep up with fillrate. At 1280 x 960, we can see that 'pure' AA penalty is actually very small on the GeForce 7800GTX - 7 percent. It's AF that's the bigger frame rate dropper here at 16 percent. So much so, that the AA penalty is effectively 'hidden' by AF penalty. The situation is similar, but not quite the same on the GeForce 7900GTX. We pretty much still have the bandwidth at 1280 x 960, so AF penalty is accumulative with AA penalty.

Next up, we have the results from a GeForce 7900GTX with 7800GTX clocks (430 / 1200). We were planning to add notes to the tables, but we think the results speak for themselves. Here they are.

F.E.A.R


 7800GTX


7900GTX 430/1200



AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA) AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA)
1024







Min 17.78% 23.40% -4.44% 5.63% -7.14% 22.22% -7.14% 29.37%
Avg 34.59% 28.08% 16.59% -6.51% 28.88% 31.83% 17.71% 2.95%
Max 50.58% 19.03% 34.30% -31.55% 68.16% 31.39% 60.11% -36.77%
Average 34.32% 23.50% 15.48% -10.81% 29.96% 28.48% 23.56% -1.48%
1280







Min 40.00% 36.59% 8.89% -3.41% 20.59% 32.50% -17.65% 11.91%
Avg 39.51% 35.30% 15.65% -4.21% 38.76% 33.85% 13.00% -4.91%
Max 48.64% 34.36% 36.58% -14.28% 35.43% 21.38% 9.14% -14.04%
Average 42.72% 35.42% 20.37% -7.30% 31.59% 29.24% 1.50% -2.35%
1600







Min 44.12% 36.67% 11.76% -7.45% 25.00% 40.63% -33.33% 15.63%
Avg 40.47% 37.58% 12.45% -2.89% 44.79% 37.67% 14.22% -7.12%
Max 56.08% 54.49% 5.82% -1.59% 36.44% 35.45% 6.78% -0.99%
Average 46.89% 42.91% 10.01% -3.98% 35.41% 37.92% -4.11% 2.50%
Weighted Average 41.31% 33.94% 15.29% -7.36% 32.32% 31.88% 6.98% -0.44%

Quake 4


 7800GTX


7900GTX 430/1200



AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty (bilinear) AF penalty (AA) AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA)
1024







Min 5.80% 13.64% 4.35% 7.84% 0.00% 6.78% 3.28% 6.78%
Avg 21.77% 28.74% 1.28% 6.98% 19.37% 26.48% 0.96% 7.11%
Max 4.68% 19.64% 1.75% 14.96% 3.75% 14.01% 1.88% 10.26%
Average 10.75% 20.67% 2.46% 9.93% 7.71% 15.76% 2.04% 8.05%
1280







Min 42.25% 47.14% 1.41% 4.89% 37.50% 40.00% 6.25% 2.50%
Avg 45.31% 45.68% 8.65% 0.37% 43.73% 44.49% 7.68% 0.76%
Max 34.12% 35.58% 4.12% 1.47% 33.94% 34.21% 7.88% 0.27%
Average 40.56% 42.80% 4.73% 2.24% 38.39% 39.57% 7.27% 1.18%
1600







Min 59.42% 54.24% 14.49% -5.18% 54.10% 55.93% 3.28% 1.83%
Avg 53.25% 51.22% 11.35% -2.02% 53.18% 51.06% 11.52% -2.12%
Max 47.47% 40.74% 14.56% -6.73% 47.80% 41.35% 16.35% -6.45%
Average 53.38% 48.73% 13.47% -4.64% 51.69% 49.45% 10.38% -2.24%
Weighted Average 34.90% 37.40% 6.89% 2.51% 32.60% 34.92% 6.56% 2.33%

Serious Sam II


 7800GTX


7900GTX 430/1200



AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA) AA penalty (Bilinear) AA penalty (AF) AF penalty AF penalty (AA)
1024







Min 0.00% 0.00% 2.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00%
Avg 1.49% 5.51% 3.52% 4.02% 0.88% 4.70% 5.02% 3.82%
Max 1.23% 10.81% 8.64% 9.58% 0.00% 9.46% 7.50% 9.46%
Average 0.91% 5.44% 4.81% 4.53% 0.29% 4.72% 4.95% 4.43%
1280







Min 2.22% 21.43% 6.67% 19.21% 0.00% 10.26% 9.30% 10.26%
Avg 5.92% 15.28% 16.62% 9.36% 4.52% 14.19% 16.45% 9.67%
Max 13.75% 15.00% 25.00% 1.25% 10.00% 15.25% 26.25% 5.25%
Average 7.30% 17.23% 16.09% 9.94% 4.84% 13.23% 17.33% 8.39%
1600







Min 16.67% 18.75% 23.81% 2.08% 20.45% 22.58% 29.55% 2.13%
Avg 28.59% 18.54% 36.90% -10.05% 26.97% 19.27% 37.10% -7.70%
Max 30.26% 16.28% 43.42% -13.98% 28.00% 16.28% 42.67% -11.72%
Average 25.17% 17.86% 34.71% -7.32% 25.14% 19.38% 36.44% -5.77%
Weighted Average 11.13% 13.51% 18.54% 2.38% 10.09% 12.44% 19.57% 2.35%

Outside of F.E.A.R, the down clocked GeForce 7900GTX is similar if not the same as the GeForce 7800GTX. Now, you could say 'i told ya so', but before that, let's take a look at those F.E.A.R results. There's at least a 5 to 10 percent difference at various resolutions between AA penalty on the GeForce 7800GTX and GeForce 7900GTX. That's pure AA and not AA with AF. What's interesting here is that AA penalty with AA and AF tends to be very similar with the GeForce 7900GTX unlike the GeForce 7800GTX. We really have no explanation for this. It may be the drivers handling F.E.A.R differently, but then again it may not. There's too little information to make any conclusion right now.

Compared to the Radeon X1900XTX

For comparison purposes, we decided to include the results from our Radeon X1900XTX review. Mind you, these are obtained with Catalyst 6.2. Some small improvements in performance can be found with newer drivers - these are just for reference only.

Call of Duty


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024





Min 73 72 1.37% 79 78 1.27%
Avg 185.71 180.95 2.57% 201.11 190.75 5.15%
Max 396 377 4.80% 404 339 16.09%
Average

2.91%

7.50%
1280





Min 73 74 -1.37% 80 79 1.25%
Avg 181.95 166.46 8.51% 197.42 158.77 19.58%
Max 368 289 21.47% 413 271 34.38%
Average

9.54%

18.40%
1600





Min 73 73 0.00% 80 79 1.25%
Avg 177.3 152.22 14.15% 192.84 123.74 35.83%
Max 336 286 14.88% 383 182 52.48%
Average

9.68%

29.85%
Weighted Average

7.37%

18.59%

The Radeon X1900XTX (with old drivers) has pretty much 1/2 to 1/3 the penalty of the GeForce 7900GTX. You can definitely see why we gripe about AA penalty on the GeForce 6 / 7 series. Since it's very efficient, it's very likely we won't lose that much performance with even higher resolutions such as 2048 x 1536 or more. It's also very likely to be less sensitive to the use of higher resolution textures as well. There will be a drop off point where there's just not enough bandwidth, but most likely we ran into fillrate limits first.

Homeworld 2


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024





Min 46 51 -10.87% 60 63 -5.00%
Avg 158.67 158.72 -0.03% 200.5 201.32 -0.41%
Max 378 383 -1.32% 389 394 -1.29%
Average

-4.07%

-2.23%
1280





Min 49 50 -2.04% 58 61 -5.17%
Avg 155.74 155.69 0.03% 198.81 189.87 4.50%
Max 372 378 -1.61% 389 359 7.71%
Average

-1.21%

2.35%
1600





Min 49 49 0.00% 61 47 22.95%
Avg 152.53 146.8 3.76% 194.58 142.37 26.83%
Max 372 374 -0.54% 384 230 40.10%
Average

1.07%

29.96%
Weighted Average

-1.40%

10.03%

The 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 960 results on the Radeon X1900XTX are actually negative points - we're system limited here even with AA and AF. Hell, even at 1600 x 1200. That's true too for the GeForce 7900GTX, but again the memory bandwidth limit rear its head at 1600 x 1200. In retrospect, that's not really telling the whole story. Unlike Call of Duty where we see Radeon X1900XTX's nominal frame rates are higher than GeForce 7900GTX's, we're still seeing higher frame rates from the GeForce 7900GTX except at 1600 x 1200. Remember, we're focusing on efficiency here per say and its very likely if we can go any further the penalty will be even higher on the GeForce 7900GTX. Much more so than with the Radeon X1900XTX.

Richard Burns Rally


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024





Min 108 108 0.00% 106 103 2.83%
Avg 159.79 159.65 0.09% 152.13 150.9 0.81%
Max 231 234 -1.30% 228 219 3.95%
Average

-0.40%

2.53%
1280





Min 108 109 -0.93% 105 102 2.86%
Avg 159.46 151.81 4.79% 152.44 148.41 2.65%
Max 230 222 3.48% 223 216 3.14%
Average

2.45%

2.88%
1600





Min 107 88 17.76% 105 90 14.29%
Avg 159.27 129.14 18.92% 151.47 129.68 14.38%
Max 230 219 4.78% 219 207 5.48%
Average

13.82%

11.38%
Weighted Average

5.29%

5.60%

In this game, the two cards are pretty equal, the difference is very likely coming from the 1024 x 768 test results. This is an example where the GeForce 7900GTX brute 24 pixel pipelines comes into play. Or is it? If you look at the numbers, you'll find that the Radeon X1900XTX test results at default settings are higher.

For most people, 1600 x 1200 is the highest resolution they can use, though not many want to use it all the time. Yes, the GeForce 7900GTX makes it possible to play at that resolution. But it's still a very 'NVIDIA' approach and still very sensitive to memory bandwidth. From this efficiency test results, we can see that even with old games, 1600 x 1200 is the drop off point where there's not enough bandwidth to maintain the optimal fillrate of the card. What about newer games?

F.E.A.R


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024





Min 45 37 17.78% 42 41 2.38%
Avg 118.84 89.58 24.62% 113.01 92.34 18.29%
Max 367 281 23.43% 295 295 0.00%
Average

21.94%

6.89%
1280





Min 38 29 23.68% 40 36 10.00%
Avg 91.95 68.92 25.05% 99.22 65.11 34.37%
Max 294 186 36.73% 241 241 0.00%
Average

28.49%

14.79%
1600





Min 33 23 30.30% 41 26 36.59%
Avg 70.1 51.37 26.73% 80.2 45.9 42.78%
Max 201 134 33.33% 169 103 39.05%
Average

30.12%

39.47%
Weighted Average

26.85%

20.38%

Don't be so quick to judge these results. With the newer drivers, the GeForce 7900GTX is more efficient than Radeon X1900XTX. Or is it? Look at the trend in penalty rate. We went from about 7 percent at 1024 x 768 to 40 percent at 1600 x 1200. The Radeon X1900XTX maintains a closer, gradual decline from 22 to 30 percent. While two cards are still not enough for 1600 x 1200, it's obvious who is more efficient here. After all, efficiency is not just minimizing AA and AF penalty but also maintaining that penalty rate across different resolutions.

Quake 4


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024





Min 62 54 12.90% 69 64 7.25%
Avg 113.17 95.7 15.44% 124.51 108.01 13.26%
Max 155 148 4.52% 168 156 7.14%
Average

10.95%

9.21%
1280





Min 62 37 40.32% 61 48 21.31%
Avg 106.71 74.7 30.00% 117.22 79.55 32.13%
Max 151 139 7.95% 164 129 21.34%
Average

26.09%

24.93%
1600





Min 54 28 48.15% 60 38 36.67%
Avg 94.28 58.2 38.27% 112.97 59.29 47.52%
Max 153 116 24.18% 156 101 35.26%
Average

36.87%

39.81%
Weighted Average

24.64%

24.65%

This seems to indicate that ATI is finally doing something right in regards to their OpenGL drivers. The Radeon X1900XTX is pretty much an equal to the GeForce 7900GTX, efficiency wise. Since the nominal results are still not the same, there's still some improvements to be made by the Catalyst crew. However, mind you that these are benchmark results with older (Catalyst 6.2) drivers, newer drivers may have some performance improvements - that's why we're saying they're pretty equal here.

Serious Sam II


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF Performance Lost Default AA AF Performance Lost
1024





Min 41 33 19.51% 42 43 -2.38%
Avg 56.5 49.04 13.21% 56.76 56.07 1.22%
Max 78 65 16.67% 79 79 0.00%
Average

16.46%

-0.39%
1280





Min 38 33 13.16% 42 40 4.76%
Avg 54.89 43.09 21.50% 56.62 53.33 5.81%
Max 76 55 27.63% 79 71 10.13%
Average

20.76%

6.90%
1600





Min 36 28 22.22% 43 32 25.58%
Avg 52.12 34.2 34.37% 56.33 41.06 27.11%
Max 69 43 37.68% 79 52 34.18%
Average

31.42%

28.96%
Weighted Average

22.88%

11.82%

This is probably the one game where the two cards is just as bad as the other but on different aspects. We're still seeing the same steep drop at 1600 x 1200 with the GeForce 7900GTX. We expected this since we saw this fact on most games in our benchmark suite, so no surprises here. But the Radeon X1900XTX just lost way too much frame rate in this game - 16 to 30 percent. If this is the deal breaker, the GeForce 7900GTX is the obvious choice.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default AA AF
Default AA AF
1024





Min 75.26 58.43 22.36% 76.91 62.94 18.16%
Avg 109.61 99.72 9.02% 115.02 103.14 10.33%
Max 185.53 161 13.22% 198.8 192.49 3.17%
Average

14.87%

10.56%
1280





Min 50.96 41.71 18.15% 63.78 44.66 29.98%
Avg 95.81 77.58 19.03% 102.66 77.86 24.16%
Max 161.2 147.15 8.72% 186.06 153.15 17.69%
Average

15.30%

23.94%
1600





Min 43.84 32.95 24.84% 47.94 33.13 30.89%
Avg 75.93 59.5 21.64% 79.68 57.61 27.70%
Max 144.34 141.57 1.92% 150.75 135.42 10.17%
Average

16.13%

22.92%
Weighted Average

15.43%

19.14%

Shaders, shaders, shaders. If that is the way of the future, then it is obvious which card is the obvious choice for now and the future. You, know if we were to do a graph, the GeForce 7900GTX penalty graph would probably be like those Nero CD Speed with Zone-CLV drives while the Radeon X1900XTX is more P-CAV. The end results may be pretty similar - look at the nominal frame rates - but those who want smooth and sustainable frame rate will likely not be entirely happy with the GeForce 7900GTX.

HDR

Serious Sam II


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default HDR
Default HDR
1024





Min 41 37 9.76% 42 42 0.00%
Avg 56.5 48.11 14.86% 56.76 57.53 -1.36%
Max 78 64 17.95% 79 78 1.27%
Average

14.19%

-0.03%
1280





Min 38 33 13.16% 42 43 -2.38%
Avg 54.89 43.6 20.56% 56.62 52.28 7.67%
Max 76 57 25.00% 79 68 13.92%
Average

19.57%

6.40%
1600





Min 36 29 19.44% 43 30 30.23%
Avg 52.12 36.73 29.52% 56.33 37.3 33.77%
Max 69 46 33.33% 79 48 39.24%
Average

27.43%

34.42%
Weighted Average

20.40%

13.60%

This game behaves similarly whether you chose to use HDR or AA. Interesting to note, HDR penalty is higher than AA with the GeForce 7900GTX and lower with the Radeon X1900XTX. However, for those who want to use HDR, the deal breaker here is not efficiency and frame rate alone. It's HDR with AA - and the frame rates are not that different on the Radeon X1900XTX. (see them here).

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory


 X1900XTX

7900GTX


Default HDR
Default HDR
1024





Min 75.26 61 18.95% 76.91 65.13 15.32%
Avg 109.61 99.59 9.14% 115.02 101.42 11.82%
Max 185.53 154.95 16.48% 198.8 163.23 17.89%
Average

14.86%

15.01%
1280





Min 50.96 40.62 20.29% 63.78 45.94 27.97%
Avg 95.81 77.84 18.76% 102.66 76.36 25.62%
Max 161.2 147.89 8.26% 186.06 144.67 22.25%
Average

15.77%

25.28%
1600





Min 43.84 34.47 21.37% 47.94 34.94 27.12%
Avg 75.93 59.95 21.05% 79.68 58.09 27.10%
Max 144.34 134.69 6.69% 150.75 131.71 12.63%
Average

16.37%

22.28%
Weighted Average

15.66%

20.86%

We wish Ubisoft will make an update to allow this game to run with HDR and AA enabled. Come on guys, if those guys at Crytek can do it, why can't you? Or maybe you're saving that for Double Agent? Back to the topic - well, need we say more. It's obvious who has the raw fillrate and can maintain the penalty rate for HDR.

This has been an interesting exercise. The more reviews we do, the more we can understand what these cards can and can't do. We also find how little we can learn if we only look at average frame rate numbers. The GeForce 7900GTX is by far the fastest card in the GeForce 7 series, with all the peculiarities of the architecture and design. It's not bad, but we honestly expected something more - after all it's been nearly 1 year since the introduction of the original GeForce 7800GTX and now we only have a 'speed bump'

Conclusion:

Let's go back to the purpose of this article Will the GeForce 7900GTX be enough for future games with 4x AA and 16x AF? Yes, but most likely you will have to use a lower resolution or scale back on some graphical effects. Even on texture dependent games where the GeForce 7 series traditionally excel, you will hit that drop off point where there is just not enough bandwidth to keep up with the fillrate requirements. It is 1600 x 1200 for old games, but don't expect more than 1280 x 1024 for newer games. For shader heavy games, particularly those with HDR effects, it will likely be limited to 1024 x 768. Of course, you could rely on NVIDIA to spruce up performance with newer drivers every time a new, shader heavy game comes out. Battlefield 2, F.E.A.R and Oblivion comes to mind.

There are three things you can gripe about this argument and here's our answer: Go to top
Disclaimer and Privacy policy.