NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT: Rounding Out The High End
by Derek Wilson & Josh Venning on August 11, 2005 12:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
Battlefield 2 is a graphically demanding game, and framerate really counts here due to the "twitch-shooter" gameplay element. That being said, the 7800 GT will run the game relatively well. However, if you like playing at 2048x1536 (and you have the monitor for it) with AA enabled, you might want to go with the 7800 GTX instead.
At 20x15 with AA enabled, the 7800 GT gets 36.1 fps, as opposed to 42.5 fps on the 7800 GTX. While this is only about an 18% gain, it will still mean a big difference in gameplay. 1600x1200 with both AA enabled and disabled saw about a 20% increase from the GT to the GTX and 20x15 without AA gained a 25% increase, going from 57.7 fps to 72.1 fps.
Taking a quick look at SLI performance, it's difficult to justify getting 7800 GTX SLI over 7800 GT SLI. The performance difference is only 7% at best with 4xAA enabled. Of course, if you're already spending $800, what's another $150 for 7% more performance?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
MemberSince97 - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
I hear these OC pretty well, how about some comparisons.adonn78 - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
First off, no gamer plays videogames at resolutions above 1600x1200! Most of us stick to 1024x768 so that we can get high framerates and enable akk thge features and play the game on the highest settings. In addition you did not show how the GT and GTX stacked up against the previous generation suchs as the 6800 ultra, GT and the 5950 ultra. And Where is the AGP version? My computer is 2 years old and I am upgrading my graphics card soon. I guess I'll wait to see if ATI makes AGP cards for their next generation. And where the heck is the R520? ATI is really lagging this time around. Hopefully we will get some AGP love. AGP still got a good 2 years of life left in it.Locut0s - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
Speak for yourself but as an owner of a 21" CRT, and I know I'm not the only one, I can see using resolutions above 1600x1200 quiet easily.JNo - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
"no gamer plays videogames at resolutions above 1600x1200!"Er, I have a Dell 2405 monitor running at 1920x1200 and I always run it native where possible (even with my 6600GT, many modern games are *playable* including CS Source, Far Cry) so this statement is complete balls. Obviously I would like a faster card to run games as smooth as possible so the tested resolutions are extremely pertinent to me.
DrZoidberg - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
The high resolutions are needed cause at 1024x768 there will hardly be any difference between 6800GT, 7800GT, x850xt, 7800GTX cause all these cards handle this resolution easily and they will give similar fps cause they will all be CPU limited.vijay333 - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
I believe the higher resolutions are used because at the lower ones there really isn't much differentiation between the various cards. The article title is "Rounding Out The High End" so hopefully there'll be another comparing the performance against mid-range cards (high-end from previous generation). AGP is missing, but is there really that much difference between the AGP and PCIe versions of the same card?vijay333 - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
Cool. very recently bought an eVGA 6800GT. given their step-up program, plan on paying the difference and getting the 7800 GT in 2-3 months when the price is bound to be lower.John - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
Josh/Derek, please add 6800 Ultra benchmarks to this review for a comparison.GoatMonkey - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
They at least have ATI 850 benchmarks on there. You can approximate where the 6800 series cards are going to be from that. It would be nice to see them on there also though if possible.Lonyo - Thursday, August 11, 2005 - link
They have, just not for BF2.