NVIDIA's Tiny 90nm G71 and G73: GeForce 7900 and 7600 Debut
by Derek Wilson on March 9, 2006 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Even though we didn't test as many games as we usually do, there is quite a bit of data to digest. On the high end, the 7900 GTX generally performs around the X1900 XT and X1900 XTX. This isn't a blow out victory for either NVIDIA or ATI as far as performance goes, and it looks like we have some very good competition here.
In general, SLI edges out CrossFire in most cases. Under F.E.A.R., Quake 4 and BF2 at high resolutions, SLI shows a larger performance increase than CrossFire. Splinter Cell does do a good job of showing the potential of Crossfire, but as of now we don't see as many games scaling as well with CrossFire as they do with SLI.
While the 7900 GT generally spent its time at the bottom of our high end tests, remember that it performs slightly better than a stock 7800 GTX. This puts it squarely at or better than the X1800 XL and X1800 XT. We didn't include these cards as ATI seems to be backing away from the X1800 lineup with the exception of the X1800 GTO that we were unable to obtain for this launch. As the X1800 GTO looks like a cut down X1800 XL, we can certainly expect the 7900 GT to outperform it as well.
The 7600 GT does quite a good job of splitting the performance difference between the 6800 GS and the 7800 GT. NVIDIA is hoping that we will concentrate on how well the 7600 GT does in comparison to the X1600 XT, but unless the price of the 7600 GT falls to about $150 really fast the comparison isn't really fair. The 6800 GS already performs better than the X1600 and can be found for about $170. It's clear the 7600 GT needs to be positioned against a faster offering from ATI such as their upcoming X1800 GTO. With the X1800 GTO poised to come in at between $250 and $300, we would expect it to compete more with the 7900 GT which will come in somewhere between $300 and $350. The next step up in ATI's lineup after the X1600 XT will be the X1800 GTO, so we need to take that into consideration when looking at the 7600 GT (even though it should be less expensive than the ATI part).
The bottom line here is that it all comes down to price. With the close competition at the high end, we still really don't recommend the X1900 XTX which generally comes in between $580 and $650. In order for the 7900 GTX to really look good compared to the X1900 XT, we will have to push below the $500 mark. NVIDIA has positioned the 7900 GTX as a $500 part, but we can already find X1900 XT cards for about $475; with the tight competition, we would really like to see NVIDIA take advantage of their cost saving die sizes and bring prices down.
The NVIDIA solutions use less power, generate less heat, and are cheaper to produce, but what matters in the end is the performance the end user gets for the price he or she pays. Yes, the 7900 GTX performs on par with the X1900 XT and XTX. With ATI's additional features, will NVIDIA's street prices be low enough to entice gamers? We'll have to wait and see.
Even though we didn't test as many games as we usually do, there is quite a bit of data to digest. On the high end, the 7900 GTX generally performs around the X1900 XT and X1900 XTX. This isn't a blow out victory for either NVIDIA or ATI as far as performance goes, and it looks like we have some very good competition here.
In general, SLI edges out CrossFire in most cases. Under F.E.A.R., Quake 4 and BF2 at high resolutions, SLI shows a larger performance increase than CrossFire. Splinter Cell does do a good job of showing the potential of Crossfire, but as of now we don't see as many games scaling as well with CrossFire as they do with SLI.
While the 7900 GT generally spent its time at the bottom of our high end tests, remember that it performs slightly better than a stock 7800 GTX. This puts it squarely at or better than the X1800 XL and X1800 XT. We didn't include these cards as ATI seems to be backing away from the X1800 lineup with the exception of the X1800 GTO that we were unable to obtain for this launch. As the X1800 GTO looks like a cut down X1800 XL, we can certainly expect the 7900 GT to outperform it as well.
The 7600 GT does quite a good job of splitting the performance difference between the 6800 GS and the 7800 GT. NVIDIA is hoping that we will concentrate on how well the 7600 GT does in comparison to the X1600 XT, but unless the price of the 7600 GT falls to about $150 really fast the comparison isn't really fair. The 6800 GS already performs better than the X1600 and can be found for about $170. It's clear the 7600 GT needs to be positioned against a faster offering from ATI such as their upcoming X1800 GTO. With the X1800 GTO poised to come in at between $250 and $300, we would expect it to compete more with the 7900 GT which will come in somewhere between $300 and $350. The next step up in ATI's lineup after the X1600 XT will be the X1800 GTO, so we need to take that into consideration when looking at the 7600 GT (even though it should be less expensive than the ATI part).
The bottom line here is that it all comes down to price. With the close competition at the high end, we still really don't recommend the X1900 XTX which generally comes in between $580 and $650. In order for the 7900 GTX to really look good compared to the X1900 XT, we will have to push below the $500 mark. NVIDIA has positioned the 7900 GTX as a $500 part, but we can already find X1900 XT cards for about $475; with the tight competition, we would really like to see NVIDIA take advantage of their cost saving die sizes and bring prices down.
The NVIDIA solutions use less power, generate less heat, and are cheaper to produce, but what matters in the end is the performance the end user gets for the price he or she pays. Yes, the 7900 GTX performs on par with the X1900 XT and XTX. With ATI's additional features, will NVIDIA's street prices be low enough to entice gamers? We'll have to wait and see.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
DigitalFreak - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I saw that as well. Any comments, Derek?DerekWilson - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I did not see any texture shimmering during testing, but I will make sure to look very closely druing our follow up testing.Thanks,
Derek Wilson
jmke - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
just dropped by to say that you did a great job here, plenty of info, good benchmarks, nice "load/idle" tests. not many people here know how stresfull benchmarking against the clock can be. keep up the good work. Looking forward to the follow-up!Spinne - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I think it's safe to say that atleast for now, there is no clear winner with a slight advantage to ATI. From the bechmarks, it seems that the 7900GTX performs on par with the X1900XT with the X1900XTX a few fps higher (not a huge diff IMO). The future will therefore be decided by the drivers and the games. The drivers are still pretty young and I bet we'll see performance improvements in the future as both sets of drivers mature. The article says, ATI has the more comprehensive graphics solution (sorta like the R420 vs/s the NV40 situation in reverse?), so if code developers decide to take advantage of the greater functionality offered by ATI (most coders will probably aim for the lowest common denominator to increase sales, while a few may have 'ATI only' type features) then that may tilt the balance in ATI's favor. What's more important is the longevity of the R580 & G71 families. With VISTA set to appear towards the end of the year, how long can ATI and NVIDIA push these DX9 parts? I'm sure both companies will have a new family ready for VISTA, though the new family may just be a more refined version of the R580 and G71 architectures (much as the R420 was based off the R300 family). In terms of raw power, I think we're already VISTA games ready.The real question is, what does DX10 bring to the table from the perspective of the end user? There were certain features unique to DX9 that a DX8 part just could not render. Are there things that a DX10 card will be able to do that a DX9 card just can't do? As I understand it, the main difference between DX9 and 10 is that DX10 will unify Pixel Shaders and Vertex shaders, but I don't see how this will let a DX10 card render something that a DX9 card can't. Can anyone clarify?
Lastly, one great benefit of Crossfire and SLI will be that I can buy a high end X1900XT for gaming right now and then add a low end card or a HD accelerator card (like the MPEG accelerator cards a few yyears ago) when it is clear if HDCP support will be necessary to play HD content and when I can afford to add a HDCP compliant monitor.
yacoub - Friday, March 10, 2006 - link
And price, bro, and price. Two cards at the same performance level from two different companies = great time for a price war. Especially when one has the die shrink advantage as an incentive to drop the price to squeeze out the other's profits.
bob661 - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I only buy based on games I play anyways but it's good to see them close in performance.DerekWilson - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
The major difference that DX9 parts will "just not be able to do" is vertex generation and "geometry shading" in hardware. Currently a vertex shader program can only manipulate existing data, while in the future it will be possible to adaptively create or destroy vertecies.Programmatically, the transition from DX9 to DX10 will be one of the largest we have seen in a while. Or so we have been told. Some form of the DX10 SDK (not sure if it was a beta or not) was recently released, so I may look into that for more details if people are interested.
feraltoad - Friday, March 10, 2006 - link
I too would be very interested to learn more about DX10. I have looked online but I haven't really seen anything beyond the unification u mentioned.Also Unreal 2007 does look ungodly, and I didn't even think to wonder if it was DX9 or 10 like the other poster. Will it be comparable to games that will run on 8.1 hardware sans DX9 effects? That engine will make them big bux when they license it out. Sidenote-I read they were running demos of it with a quad SLI setup to showcase the game. I wonder what it will need to run it at full tilt?
BTW Derek I think you do a very good job at AT, I always find your articles full of good common sense advice. When U did a review on the 3000+ budget gaming platform I jumped on the A64 bandwagon (I had to get an AsrockDual tho, instead of an NF4 cuz I wanted to keep my AGP 6600gt, and that's sad now considering the 7900 gt performance/price in sli compared to a 7900gtx.) and I've been really happy with my 3000+ at 2250 it runs noticeably better than my XP2400M oc'd 2.2) I'm just one example of someone you & AT have made more satisfied with their PC experience. So don't let disparaging comments get you down. You thorough committment to accuracy of your work shows how you accept criticism with grace and correct mistakes swiftly. I think the only thing "slipping" around here are peoples' manners.
Spinne - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
Yes, please do! So if you can actually generate vertices, the impact would be that you'd be able to do stuff like the character's hair flying apart in a light breeze without having to create the hair as a high poly model, right? What about the Unreal3 engine? Is it a DX9 or DX10 engine?Rock Hydra - Thursday, March 9, 2006 - link
I didn't read all of that, but I'm glad it's close becasue the consumer becomes the real winner.