NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX Hits The Ground Running
by Derek Wilson on June 22, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Demo
For this game, we recorded our own timedemo using the freely availabe demo versino of the game. The demo was played back using EA's demo.cmd file, but we used FRAPS to determine the framerate as the timedemo feature incorrectly incorporates frames from the loading screen (which generally runs at >400 fps on the cards we tested).With the added graphical effects, Battlefield 2 is quite a bit more demanding of systems than its predecessor. In fact, BF2 actually has a huge memory footprint and could even take advantage of more than 1 GB of RAM! That said, frame rates varied quite a bit between the configurations, and once again a single 7800GTX beats the 6800U SLI setup - it's a tie at 1600x1200, but the 7800 holds a 42% lead at 2048x1536. ATI does very well here, surpassing the 6800U by a decent margin and coming within striking distance of the SLI setup at 2048x1536. As with other games, the 6800 series struggles with the high resolution, running less than half as fast compared to 1600x1200. The benefit of SLI over a single card ranges from over 100% on the 6800U to 59% for the 7800GTX. If you want AA/AF at 1600x1200 or higher resolutions, only the 6800U SLI or 7800GTX setups are even remotely able to handle the strain.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
127 Comments
View All Comments
swatX - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
THE SLI is meant to played on high res.. if you got money to brn on SLI then i am damn sure you got money to burn on a 19" monitor ;)CtK - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
can Dual Display be used in SLi mode??Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
In general 6600GT SLI performance seems a bit random, in some cases it's really good as with BF2 but in others not as good as a 6800GT.John
bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Anyone notice how a SLI'd 6600GT is just as quick as a 6800 Ultra in BF2?R3MF - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
give me some details on the 7800 and 7800GTwhat, when, and how much?
bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
#59I am more eager to see how the new midrange cards will perform than these parts but if I had a spare $600 I would jump all over this.
bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
#56LMAO!!!!
bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
#44And I thought paying $350 for a video cards was too much then or even before than there was the $200 high end and before that the $100 high end. I balked at all of those prices but I understood why they were prices as such and didn't bitch everytime the costs went up. The bar keeps being raised and the prices go with it. Inflation, more features and the fact that most of us here can afford $350 video cards pushes the cost of new PREMIUM cards higher by the year. It's only going to go up unless either people quit buying the high end cards or the manufatucrers find a magical process to reduce costs dramatically.
Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
You're quite right, there's always a premium for the best, I don't see any difference here, no-one is being forced to buy this graphics card. As usual, I'll wait until something offers me a better price/performance ratio over my current X850XT/6800 Ultra duo.John
Avalon - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Seems to be a problem with the last Knights of the Old Republic 2 graph. Both 7800GTX setups are "performing" less than all the other cards benched. Despite all the mistakes, it still seems like I was right in that this card is made for those who play at high resolutions. Anyone with an R420 of NV40 based card that plays at 16x12 or less should probably not bother upgrading, unless they feel the need to.