Upgrading to nvidia 7900 GTX good idea?

R

ritch1

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
112
hi

I have a dell 2405 screen with a 7800 GTX. Im looking for a performance boost as new games like oblivion are slugish on the higher resolutions. I dont really want to go the sli route so do you think the 7900 GTX offers enough of a performance boost to justify getting it?

Thanks for any info on this
Ritch
 
The 7900GTX is merely better than a 7800GTX. The SLI route would be better and cheaper. But I guess the 512mb of ram wouldnt hurt.
 
SLI is not acceptable as i dont have a motherboard that supports it plus i cant spend nearly a grand on this stuff, i could probably sell my 7800 to someone i know for good price so in my own twisted way im trying to rationalise getting a 7900!

so i take it you think the better option would be to get another 7800 and go the SLI route? wouldnt going from 256 to 512 texture memory make a difference?

I shouldnt really bother if the performance isnt much different between the 7800 and 7900, its just the lag really bothers me in those newer games and this screen really demands some juice in the graphics department

cheers
Ritch
 
You would get more performance in Oblivion from going SLi with either a 7800 or a 7900, than a single card of either.
 
ill read through that properly later. does appear that oblivion is a very stressful game dont it, im finding it pretty difficult to make playable, mostly cause i am fussy, the mouse lag and slowdown i cant deal with, the only thing that really improved the performance was disabling vsync but the tearing proved too distracting

so these top end cards still are not the solution to all our problems then
 
ritch1 said:
ill read through that properly later. does appear that oblivion is a very stressful game dont it, im finding it pretty difficult to make playable, mostly cause i am fussy, the mouse lag and slowdown i cant deal with, the only thing that really improved the performance was disabling vsync but the tearing proved too distracting

so these top end cards still are not the solution to all our problems then
Click to expand...

www.tweakguides.com

Read the Oblivion guide and thank me for the link but thank that site for the guide. :D

Tip: One possible solution for the mouse lag is to drop the max frames rendered ahead down to 2 instead of 3. You need either Coolbits or Riva to change this.
 
Well getting another 7800 and a sli capable mobo would hardly be 1k, you talking more along the lines of 500ish. But it is YOUR pc, so do with it what you will. My step-up 7900gtx egs has just been sent out from evga so if you post you pc specs, maybe when my card comes in I could run a few benchmarks and determine wether if its worth the upgrade to you.
 
get like a 19" monitor and you can run it at like 1200 x 100 and you will be happy because you won't have as much "lag"
 
My specs:

Motherboard: - Intel Desktop D925XCV2

CPU: - Intel Pentium 4 3.60Ghz

Memory: - 1.50GB of Crucial PC2 4200 Ballistix

GPU: - XFX GeForce 7800 GTX

thanks for the above info guys, im leaning towards waiting til the end of the year for the DX10 cards to come out but if i can get a significant boost out of the above system i might try to upgrade sooner. I may also get a smaller monitor for games, Call of Duty 2 is also a bit choppy on higher resolutions with this set up, so it makes sense that i will struggle with the newer games running them on this monitor.

its a great screen, the games look fanastic, but for the looks your giving away a significant anount of game play. unless you can cater for a sytem that improves performance id say the 2405 is a bad idea if you want slick fast paced gameplay, plus the slight delay on the monitor doesnt help. anyway, getting off subject now.

cheers
 
Just to clarify the info here, the 7900GTX is way faster than the 7800GTX 256MB. The 7800GTX 512mb however is able to stay close to it in MOST but not all games. So if the upgrade is from a 256mb edition, I will say YES its a good idea.
Regards




PS Just look around for comparison reviews and you will see how much faster the 7900 is.
 
i have the 256MB version of the 7800, thats why im wondering if it might be worth getting the 7900 GTX for the 512MB upgrade as i also get a lot of stuttering, as if textures are trying to load.

ill check out the comparisons

cheers
 
Age old problem.....want it now or later.....7900GTX is better,faster and stronger than the 7800 sreies. My son has the 7900GTX and runs Oblivion nicely. BUT I think that game almost demands the 7900GTX in SLI to be run to the max.

I think 7800GTX in SLI is a nice option, but your board wont allow it.

If youre ok now.....wait until the years end for the next great things.....Vista and the DX 10 cards.....and the conversation will start again.
 
depends on how much you like oblivion, if you like it alot and have money to burn then sure, upgrade, but if your ok with playing it at a lower rez or don't have the money to burn, then go ahead and wait for the next gen cards. Vid card generation seems to be 6 months or less now.
 
boomheadshot45 said:
get like a 19" monitor and you can run it at like 1200 x 100 and you will be happy because you won't have as much "lag"
Click to expand...

That's actually a good idea. As cool as a 24" screen is, that takes a massive bite out of performance. Find a nice 19-20" LCD or even a CRT (if you have the room) then run at any res you want.

 
i think ill have to wait it out, the game plays, just not a nice as i would like it to, so i cant really justify spending that amount for a slight performance gain, as you say, the 7900 in SLI is the only way to get it running really well and by the sounds of it that might not even be enough.

thanks for the input
 
Oblivion is a piece of crap coding wise but a very good game content wise. Is not the first time...Morrowind had crappy code as well. A 7900 GTX will be a very good improvement over your current one. Take a look at this example:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746&p=4
One 7900GTX is able to perform better (even if its slightly) than TWO 7800GTX 256MB. To me thats quite outstanding dont you think?
 
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you're locked to a single card for now, and Oblivion is what you're looking to improve...x1900XT for a hair over $400 shipped (see Newegg's special in the Hot Deals section here) is the way to go.
 
Croak said:
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you're locked to a single card for now, and Oblivion is what you're looking to improve...x1900XT for a hair over $400 shipped (see Newegg's special in the Hot Deals section here) is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Best post in this thread. Except its a hair over $400 for the XTX. The XT is about $385 shipped.

The X1900's are easily the best cards for Oblivion. Sell that 7800 GTX, and step up to a real card for Oblivion. You'll get much better frames, and better IQ to boot. Depending on what res you use, the XTX is twice as fast as your current card. In some parts of the game, the XTX's minimum framerate is better than the GTX's maximum framerate.

That AT article is a joke, dont pay any attention to it. For a real article on Oblivion, check out http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_performance/page3.asp.
 
Is it a joke because it doesnt show what you would like to be reality? Its funny how you say a "real card". And I though Nvidia fan boys were bad,,,, BTW, you real card doest about 2 fps better that my UNREAL card at best :rolleyes:
This time both ATI and Nvidia have evenly matched cards so you cant go wrong either way.
 
It is hard to go seriously wrong either way.

But with the low prices and discounts on the x1900's right now compared to the price of a 7900GTX, and the IQ advantages the x1900's have over the 7900's in Oblivion, it's also hard to justify spending a $100 more for lower framerate and lower IQ with the 7900GTX.

Then again, the 7900GTX runs cooler, sucks less juice, runs quieter and matches or slightly beats the x1900's in other games, stock for stock.

But if Oblivion is your thing, one card is your limit, resolutions are higher than 12x10 and $400 is within your budget, the x1900 is the best choice, as long as you don't have some pathalogical aversion to ATI products. It might be a different story if the ATI cards were still at the $550+ price point, and it's a different story if you already have a SLI board and are thinking of dual cards in the future.

Just to point something out here, I'm a HUGE Nvidia fan, have been since the Riva 128. I've always been lukewarm on ATI products at best, even during the dark GF 5800 days. But the x1900's made a believer out of me, at least for this generation of cards, and at the current pricing.

Oh, and that 2 FPS lead the x1900XT or XTX has over the 7900GTX? Look at the whole story...like minimum FPS, not max or average...the lead is wider than it looks simply comparing max FPS
 
shaolin95 said:
Is it a joke because it doesnt show what you would like to be reality?
Click to expand...

Its a joke for several reasons. Two that stand out are, that they only used one low (for these cards) resolution. And they did not use any AA. Who buys 7900GTX's in SLI, and runs at 1280x1024 with no AA? SLI and CF do not really shine till you hit 1600x1200 or higher. In fact, AT has benches only 1600x1200 before in a SLI review, because they themselves said just that. The OP said at "high resolutions", I dont consider 1280x1024 high. He has a 2405, that is at 1920x1200.

shaolin95 said:
IIts funny how you say a "real card". And I though Nvidia fan boys were bad,,,,
Click to expand...

I said a "real card for Oblivion". Not that the 7900GTX is not a real card overall. The simple fact is, the XTX dominates the GTX in Oblivion. To the point its embarrassing. Not only is it faster, but you get HDR+AA as well. Dont like my opinion? Oh well, its just my opinion.

shaolin95 said:
BTW, you real card doest about 2 fps better that my UNREAL card at best :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hardly. In the most demanding part of the game, Foliage with 4xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 the XTX's minimum frames are the same as the GTX's maximum frames. Saying the XTX is only 2fps faster than the GTX in Oblivion is simply far from the truth.

shaolin95 said:
This time both ATI and Nvidia have evenly matched cards so you cant go wrong either way.
Click to expand...

I agreet that they are pretty evenly matched overall in terms of performance. However, the OP stated for Oblivion in higher resolutions is his main point of interest. The X1900's are easily the better cards for that game, especially at higher resolutions. They are much cheaper, faster, and have better IQ in Oblivion. Which makes it a very easy choice to me. So no, the 7900GTX upgrade at this point, would not be a good idea. Its $100 more, slower, and not as good IQ.

edit, hmm, should have read the whole thread before replying. Croak said pretty much the same thing.
 
I think benchmarkers should post minimum framrate achieved rather than maximum framrates. That wa you get a better idea how a card handles a game.

Oblivion is a great example because X1900XT/XTX net far higher minimum frames that the 7900GTX. IMHO that means the ATI card would be the better choice for Oblivion even though if memory serves me right the 7900GTX achieved a slightly higher maximum framerate.

I prefer ATI products, but I am being as unbiased as I can be at the moment because the minimum framerates in games need to be considered because it is a better indication of card performance than maximum framerates.

Which is why I congradulate [H]ardOCP for including minimum framrates in game benchmarks.
 
so it looks like its between the 7900 GTX and X1900XTX. i never had an ATX card before but im more of a fan of the actual cards that can perform for me rather than the companies. the only thing that puts me off the XTX is the huge cooler that comes with it, the model im looking at is the Sapphire ATI Radeon X1900 XTX.

Also, i love oblivion but i want decent performance in other games such as fear, call of duty 2 plus titles like half life episode 1 which is out soon. in this scenario is the 7900 GTX a better all round performer would you say?
 
You want my recommendation....dont listen to any of us here as the amount of fan blindness here is stunning. Go and reserach yourself as there are countless review, comparisons between both cards and then check what drivers they used, resolution etc and finally which games you like more and which card performs better and then based on that, make a decision.
I can give you a hint, you cant go wrong either way...IQ advantage goes BOTH ways even though ATI fans like to claim that old advantage from Radeon 64 days. Speed, you will be able to see for yourself that is a tough one to call as there are no clear winners. For Oblivion, yes the ATI is doing better but thats just a freaking piece of crap coded game as you can tell by how close the 1800 gets to a 7900. I will understand for some games the 48 shaders of the 1900 giving it an advantage just as Nvidia's 24 pipelines do in other games, but there is NO WAY OR REASON, for a 1800 to be even close to a 7900gtx and it only happens in oblivion.
Regards
 
fallguy said:
Its a joke for several reasons. Two that stand out are, that they only used one low (for these cards) resolution. And they did not use any AA. Who buys 7900GTX's in SLI, and runs at 1280x1024 with no AA? SLI and CF do not really shine till you hit 1600x1200 or higher. In fact, AT has benches only 1600x1200 before in a SLI review, because they themselves said just that. The OP said at "high resolutions", I dont consider 1280x1024 high. He has a 2405, that is at 1920x1200.



I said a "real card for Oblivion". Not that the 7900GTX is not a real card overall. The simple fact is, the XTX dominates the GTX in Oblivion. To the point its embarrassing. Not only is it faster, but you get HDR+AA as well. Dont like my opinion? Oh well, its just my opinion.



Hardly. In the most demanding part of the game, Foliage with 4xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 the XTX's minimum frames are the same as the GTX's maximum frames. Saying the XTX is only 2fps faster than the GTX in Oblivion is simply far from the truth.



I agreet that they are pretty evenly matched overall in terms of performance. However, the OP stated for Oblivion in higher resolutions is his main point of interest. The X1900's are easily the better cards for that game, especially at higher resolutions. They are much cheaper, faster, and have better IQ in Oblivion. Which makes it a very easy choice to me. So no, the 7900GTX upgrade at this point, would not be a good idea. Its $100 more, slower, and not as good IQ.

edit, hmm, should have read the whole thread before replying. Croak said pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...

Other then the price for the x1900xt, xtx and IQ features, the 7900 gtx is a tie or win pretty much in all games performance wise with the latest drivers. The 7900 gtx stock clock beats overclocked x1900xtx's too. Oblivion is about the only game the x1900 has a lead in, and only in outdoor areas, but it does seem nV has issues with fillrates in this game just like it did have it with FEAR, FEAR's problems seem to be fixed now as the performance gap is pretty much negligible with newer drivers. The performance of nV's cards in outdoor scenes vs the x1900 cards are not due to shaders, its due to fillrates, cpu bottleneck.

typo
 
ritch1 said:
so it looks like its between the 7900 GTX and X1900XTX. i never had an ATX card before but im more of a fan of the actual cards that can perform for me rather than the companies. the only thing that puts me off the XTX is the huge cooler that comes with it, the model im looking at is the Sapphire ATI Radeon X1900 XTX.

Also, i love oblivion but i want decent performance in other games such as fear, call of duty 2 plus titles like half life episode 1 which is out soon. in this scenario is the 7900 GTX a better all round performer would you say?
Click to expand...

Well I've read about 10 posts in here that scream ummm wait that term is censored. Razor my friend.. the 7900GTX is slower in the majority of games and the image quality is lower.. so it's slower with less eye candy.. hmm..

The games you posted above ritch1, being Call of Duty2 and F.E.A.R perform better on the x1900XT or XTX then they do the 7900GTX.
 
ElMoIsEviL said:
Well I've read about 10 posts in here that scream ummm wait that term is censored. Razor my friend.. the 7900GTX is slower in the majority of games and the image quality is lower.. so it's slower with less eye candy.. hmm..

The games you posted above ritch1, being Call of Duty2 and F.E.A.R perform better on the x1900XT or XTX then they do the 7900GTX.
Click to expand...


actaully it really doesn't ;) the 84 drivers for nV COD2 and FEAR, the 7900 might be behind by 2 to 3 fps if not mistaken.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_blizzard_radeon_x1900_xtx/images/fear1600.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_blizzard_radeon_x1900_xtx/images/cod21280.gif

Ok was off but still 5 fps. Not much of a difference

Hand full of the other games are just toss ups some dx games nV winds, and then you have Oblivion and BF2 which are + for ATi, and all Ogl games are nV's, Performance is the same on both cards or a bit higher on the 7900's over all, ATi's x1900 is a better buy right now I would agree because of the price and IQ features, but I don't think it has any age proofing, it might have a bit more then the 7900's but not much I wouldn't even think 6 months more.

My advice to the OP is don't buy a card right now, stick with the 7800, and wait for dx 10 cards.
 
So you're admitting it's slower. Doesn't matter by how much. It's slower. Another thing worth noting is that firingsquad used the High Quality AF setting for ATi while using the HQAF from nVIDIA... they're not even in the same league.

Also worth noting... the XTX is more then $100 cheaper then a 7900GTX... the XT is even cheaper.

Then there's features... the x1900 series trump the 7x00 series in features.

But of course more features means larger die space which means more voltage which in turn means more heat. But more heat for more features is a fair tradeoff.

So...

x1900 series
Pro's:
Faster
More features (AVIVO, AVIVO encoder/transcoder)
High Quality AF
HDR+AA
48 Shader Processors (96 total ALU's dedicated to shader processing).
Cheaper
Crossfire

Con's:
Louder stock cooler
ummmmm slightly lower OpenGL performance.


7900series
Pro's:
Faster in OpenGL games
Faster in older titles that are raw-fillrate bound
SLI

Con's:
Slower in newer games
Based on technology that is a year old
Lower Image Quality (significantly)
More expensive
No HDR+AA


Of course if you're a fan of either company you're prolly going to buy your favorite companies product. But if you're like me and you preffer to weigh everything in before making such an important financial decision... then it comes down to what I posted above.
 
ElMoIsEviL said:
So you're admitting it's slower. Doesn't matter by how much. It's slower. Another thing worth noting is that firingsquad used the High Quality AF setting for ATi while using the HQAF from nVIDIA... they're not even in the same league.
Click to expand...

Look at the benchmarks again, and leave the overclocked x1900xtx out ;). Speed wise, both of this cards are equal or the edge goes to nV. Price wise ATi wins.

Fillrate bound older games? Do you know of any older games that are fillrate bound? When a game is fillrate bound or bandwidth bound it swings in favor of ATi's card, since thier memory control is programmable they can make very quick adaptations when such issues arise. nV can't, thus it took quite a bit longer to get FEAR's performance up to spec.

x1900 series
Pro's:
Faster (subjective depending on which games the player likes to play)
More features (AVIVO, AVIVO encoder/transcoder) (subjective again, depending on if encoding is being used
High Quality AF (agreed)
HDR+AA (agreed)
48 Shader Processors (96 total ALU's dedicated to shader processing) (shaders in these games aren't bottlenecking either card so this is a moot point)
Cheaper (agreed)
Crossfire

Con's:
Louder stock cooler (subjective depending on the player)
ummmmm slightly lower OpenGL performance. (much lower Ogl performance)


7900series
Pro's:
Faster in OpenGL games (agreeded)
Faster in older titles that are raw-fillrate bound (false)
SLI

Con's:
Slower in newer games (not entirely, depending on what is the bottleneck)
Based on technology that is a year old (doesn't matter how old a tech is if its works it works)
Lower Image Quality (significantly) Subjective, some people can see it some people can't
More expensive (agreed)
No HDR+AA (part of image qaulity)
 
Personally I'd go for a x1900XTX. I've been reading alot about them and about the 7900GTX vs X1900XTS debate. The simplest way I chose was this.

If you want to overclock, go for the 7900GTX

If you want to run it at stock clock, Go for the X1900XTX

When it comes down to it each card wins, depending on what game your playing. I think the X1900XTX is more a little more futureproof as it seems to be running faster on the latest games, which are taking full advantage of its features. This isn't to knock the 7900GTX, Its also a very good card, You won't go wrong with either.
 
oblivion is very hard to run.. looking at the review made my jaw drop! i just cannot belive it..i think the 7900gtx should be dropped to 250$ and the x1900xtx should be around 250$ also.. and ati and nvidia need to work on some new video cards.. because these cards are choking up far to easy.. and nvidia must be really ashamed for getting beat with a 16 pipe card lol.. i understand it has 48 shaders but still! if you want some performance i say the x1900xt is all you man.. and proubly an acceler cooler and just over volt and overclock..

ive got a x1800xl and it seems to run oblivion very well, im happy with how it performs.. its not worth dropping a 1grand on 2 video cards that still couldnt run it 1600/1200 i understand sli is needed and would be nice to have.... i run oblivion with my card at 625/1300.. this is 1 out of thousands of computer games..a 50$ game.. its fun yea! i could
play it for hours and hours.. im just fine with my settings 1024 runs good with all candy on

and for the guy above me, the x1900 is great for overclocking.. they can easily do 750mhz core.. also buying the x1900xtx is pointless just save like 40$ and get a xt..
 
burned-ati said:
oblivion is very hard to run.. looking at the review made my jaw drop! i just cannot belive it..i think the 7900gtx should be dropped to 250$ and the x1900xtx should be around 250$ also.. and ati and nvidia need to work on some new video cards.. because these cards are choking up far to easy.. and nvidia must be really ashamed for getting beat with a 16 pipe card lol.. i understand it has 48 shaders but still! if you want some performance i say the x1900xt is all you man.. and proubly an acceler cooler and just over volt and overclock..

ive got a x1800xl and it seems to run oblivion very well, im happy with how it performs.. its not worth dropping a 1grand on 2 video cards that still couldnt run it 1600/1200 i understand sli is needed and would be nice to have.... i run oblivion with my card at 625/1300.. this is 1 out of thousands of computer games..a 50$ game.. its fun yea! i could
play it for hours and hours.. im just fine with my settings 1024 runs good with all candy on

and for the guy above me, the x1900 is great for overclocking.. they can easily do 750mhz core.. also buying the x1900xtx is pointless just save like 40$ and get a xt..
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top