NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX 512: More Than Just More Memory
by Derek Wilson on November 14, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
This week we have another successful hard launch from NVIDIA with parts available on the day of the announcement. We would once again like to commend NVIDIA on the excellent job they have done in setting the standard for handling product launches. The benefits to reviewers, vendors, merchants, and consumers alike are huge. We can talk about a product without having to worry if what we are playing with will ever exist or not, and consumers can avoid the confusion that vaporware and paper launches add to the market.
Not only was this another excellent example of how to launch a product, but NVIDIA has also recaptured the high end in performance with this latest product. In just about every benchmark the only solution (not including its winning SLI configuration) that could beat the 7800 GTX 512 was the 7800 GTX SLI setup. ATI parts do become much more competitive when looking at 4xAA tests, but in the end the 7800 GTX 512 still comes out on top.
While NVIDIA have suggested that the appropriate retail price for this part is $650, we are only seeing it listed for a whopping $700 in our price engine at the moment. We have said before that NVIDIA generally does a good job of meeting or beating their MSRP, but this time seems like it could go the other way. But there is always a price to pay for having the best of the best.
We would like to once again mention that the naming of this part could have been better. The focus should clearly have been on some aspect other than the increased framebuffer size and more on the increased clock speeds. But this is minor nitpick in the grand scheme of things. What is significant is the 7800 GTX 512's ability to outperform every other card out there in almost every test we ran. It seems that just as ATI comes out with a competitive part NVIDIA is right back out the gate with something to put themselves back on top.
At $700 we are a little wary of recommending this part to anyone but the professional gamers and incredibly wealthy. The extra performance just isn't necessary in most cases. But if you've got the money to burn, the added power can definitely make a difference in ultra high resolutions with all the settings cranked to the max. Hopefully the introduction of this part will further serve to push down prices on the rest of the cards out there this holiday season.
This week we have another successful hard launch from NVIDIA with parts available on the day of the announcement. We would once again like to commend NVIDIA on the excellent job they have done in setting the standard for handling product launches. The benefits to reviewers, vendors, merchants, and consumers alike are huge. We can talk about a product without having to worry if what we are playing with will ever exist or not, and consumers can avoid the confusion that vaporware and paper launches add to the market.
Not only was this another excellent example of how to launch a product, but NVIDIA has also recaptured the high end in performance with this latest product. In just about every benchmark the only solution (not including its winning SLI configuration) that could beat the 7800 GTX 512 was the 7800 GTX SLI setup. ATI parts do become much more competitive when looking at 4xAA tests, but in the end the 7800 GTX 512 still comes out on top.
While NVIDIA have suggested that the appropriate retail price for this part is $650, we are only seeing it listed for a whopping $700 in our price engine at the moment. We have said before that NVIDIA generally does a good job of meeting or beating their MSRP, but this time seems like it could go the other way. But there is always a price to pay for having the best of the best.
We would like to once again mention that the naming of this part could have been better. The focus should clearly have been on some aspect other than the increased framebuffer size and more on the increased clock speeds. But this is minor nitpick in the grand scheme of things. What is significant is the 7800 GTX 512's ability to outperform every other card out there in almost every test we ran. It seems that just as ATI comes out with a competitive part NVIDIA is right back out the gate with something to put themselves back on top.
At $700 we are a little wary of recommending this part to anyone but the professional gamers and incredibly wealthy. The extra performance just isn't necessary in most cases. But if you've got the money to burn, the added power can definitely make a difference in ultra high resolutions with all the settings cranked to the max. Hopefully the introduction of this part will further serve to push down prices on the rest of the cards out there this holiday season.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Actually, we were hoping to bring you CoD2 benchmarks for this review, but it didn't pan out. We do not equip our video testbeds with sound cards, so that we can more accurately compare cards; the problem with this is that we could not get CoD2 to run without sound, and we ran out of time unable to find a solution. It's still something we'd like to benchmark in the future if we get the chance though.ElFenix - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
then benchmark it with sound and disclose that fact...yacoub - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Ditch DoD:Source for CoD2.Ditch DOOM3 for Quake4.
Rename FEAR.EXE to anything else .exe (PHEAR.EXE, TEST.EXE, whatever) when benchmarking ATI cards if you're running any of the latest ATI driver sets since they have yet to fix a faulty "IF" code from the FEAR demo that is hindering performance in the full version game. (The fix did not make the latest driver release earlier this week.) It has shown to improve performance by as much as 15fps.
xbdestroya - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
I don't know about that FEAR 'fix' though. I mean how many card owners/PC users will actually know to do that? I think it's more legit to leave the bug in the testing - it is a legitimate bug afterall - and wait for the new Catalyst release where it will be 'fixed' and show the increased performance. Or if that's too strong against ATI, publish an article with benchmarks in FEAR highlighting that bug. But for standard comparisson benchmarks, I think it's best if they're done in as much of an 'out-of-the-box,' load it and play situation as possible.tfranzese - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
I disagree with the 'out-of-box' notion. A product can't ship as a turd, but this is an enthusiast site. Enthusiasts should have the knowledge to use the proper drivers (not always the latest, which is why I say proper).xbdestroya - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Well but has this site even published anythign on that fix? Not to my knowledge. I only know abotu it because I'm on the B3D forums where it originated. I imagine that whoever knows it here knows about it from the AT forums. But the fact is that if you're going to include the 'fix' in benchmarks, you might as well have an article preceding it announcing that this fix even exists, don't you think? Not everyone's a forum-goer; I know there was a time once not-too-long ago were I just went to tech sites and rad the articles, not the forums.First the article describing this fix to the masses - *then* the banchmarks incorporating it. Don't you think that makes sense?
xbdestroya - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
I wish these posts could be edited after the fact, but alas they can not. Anyway sorry for the bad spelling above.Basically though, if we're talking about 'enthusiast' sites, the sites should be publishing 'enthusiast' news like the fear.exe fix, right? Then after that article I could agree with it's inclusion in benchmarks, because a precedent has been established.
ElFenix - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
or they could just write a blurb in the article, when they do the fear benches, that you can rename fear to anything else and fix the problem. and then bench it both ways.xbdestroya - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Seriously though, it deserves it's own article. If it doesn't deserve that, it doesn't deserve benches mixed in with a 'general' comparison. The vast majority of people don't even read the associated text with benchmarks anyway, so it would probably go unnoticed by quite a few if it just had a short explanation on the FEAR page of a banchmark round-up.yacoub - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME. Start doing REAL tests. Okay fine, this is your last PEAK FPS test, right? Right?
From now on show us average fps, sound on, etc. What we'll ACTUALLY GET using the card to PLAY the game, not dick-measure it.