GeForce 7800GTX

Does this card still hold up pretty well with today's games and is it still a decent investment or should i look at a newer model? I'm considering buying a used Dell core 2 duo 2.16ghz, 2gb RAM, 120gb 7200rpm HD with this 7800gtx graphics card. I need it to hold up for a couple years.

 

yes it does, its still outperforms the 7900GS and the new 8600M GTs.

I have had it for about a year and a half now, I play all games at 1920x1200 with High/Max settings.

It will easily last at least another 2-3 years

 

A 7800gtx, right now... depends on how big of a deal you get it for. If you want somethin with more performance now get a 79xx. If you want more performance down the road, then get an 87 or wait for the 88's. The 86's are a joke for what you get. Only things they can play on high res are 3+year old games.

 

Its powerful, runs a bit hot, but it is indeed powerful.

 

The 8600gt with 256mb of gdr3 scores the same as a 7900gs. In real world tests it achieves similar frame rates as well. The problem is most laptops are sold with ddr2 cards. The ddr2 versions can’t even match the gddr3 cards over clocked. The 8700 besides a higher clock speed has the same number of shaders as the 8600gt, though it also includes some other improvements the gt lacks. The 8600gs with half as many shaders as the gt does perform far worse than expected. I have an 8600gt with gdd3 and play supreme commander, cc3 and fear with most setting maxed (all in fear). I think for a middle class card to perform on par with a high end card from a previous generation is respectable.

 

this is only true at LOW resolution

at 1900x1200, the 8600gt is crushed by the 7800gtx

and no one plays 3dmark06, people play games

the core imo, is more important than ddr 2 or 3. both ddr 2 or 3 8600gt has the same core and it doesn't matter how fast it can retrieve information if the core is not fast enough to process it. furthermore, an OCed ddr2 8600gt easily reaches stock ddr3 speeds (and in some cases lag only a a few (3-400) points behind OCed ddr3 )

on par at low resolution

and it is EXPECTED that a newer generation mainstream card perform at the same level as last gen's high end card (desktop 7600 = 6800 in power)


oh and 8700 is just OCed 8600gt, don't expect it to even beat a 7950gtx go

 

Uhhh.... the 8xxx series are optimized for 3DMark 06, if an 8xxx gets the same 3DMark score as a 7xxx expect the 7xxx to obliterate it at GPU intensive applications (I.E. Fear with 8xAA and 16x AF), this has held true for the Desktop GPU's and the 8600's and 8400's so far and since the 8700M = 8600GT and the Go 7950GTX = 7950GT (Core speeds, number of shaders etc.) do a little google and see how disappointing the 8xxx is so far - even the Desktop GPU's are disappointing, the mobiles are even worse...

The 7800GTX is a potent card and should satisfy your needs unless you're a graphics junkie like me

 

I don't think anyone can say that the desktop 88 series is a disappointment, on any terms except maybe price or expected DX10 performance. The 88gts is probably the best deal you can get right about now on a desktop.

 

true. it has to do with memory bandwidth limitations. the core is fast, but as you increase resolution, the 256 bit bus will help the 78-79xx series parts.

luckily, most people with 8600m gt's are playing in 1440x900 or less. sucks for you if you were stupid enough to put one in a 1920x1200 monitor and expect to play native res games.

agreed. that is because 3dmark06 is a benchmark and not a game. no qualms here.

then your opinion is wrong. well, not fundamentally wrong, just a minor oversight. the core IS really important. that is true. like you say, if the core isn't fast enough, the ability to retrieve info is useless.

however, you have it backwards. the 8600m core is FAST. its begging for more memory bandwidth, and its sitting idle waiting for it. so if you lose almost half your bandwidth to lower clocked memory, you lose performance. that means ddr2.

if you clock the ddr2 memory to ddr3 speeds, you see equal performance. this is no surprise to anyone. ddr2 is not fundamentally bad; its just being clocked lower.

and i thought you didn't like 3dmark?

if that is what is EXPECTED of it, why do i have to hear you complain? do you expect MORE THAN WHAT IS EXPECTED? again, 8600m gt beats a go 7800, matches a 7900 gs.

no arguments there, except i don't like the 8700m gt as much as the 8600m gt, because those cards are both targeted towards the same individuals, whereas the 8600m gt is in a different class of notebook. the 8700m gt would be good in a 15" notebook, but for 17" you should stick with 7900 gtx or above for now.

 

there is no point comparing a 3dmark score of an 8600 to a 7800.

this seems obvious to me, but apparently does not click with you.

3dmark is always taken with a grain of salt, and at most is used to compare one gpu to another from the same series. thats at MOST.

from what i can tell, the 8800 series pretty much rocks the socks of the 7800/7900 series in everything except dollars out of your pocket. thats always true though.

the mobile 8400's aren't faring so well against the 7400's. you pretty much have to blame drivers for that. still- its odd.

but im standing up for the 8600m gt, which is leagues beyond the 7600 go part.

 

What you're saying about 3DMark... thats what I said... 3DMark scores don't predict real life performance... If you wan't to compare the 7950GTX and the 8700MGT look at the Desktop 7950GT aand 8600GTS, exact same cores and clocks. The 8600GT is scoring well on 3DMark, but pales in comparison to the 7950GT in games.

The 8600 should be on par/better than the 7950GTX, rule of thumb for the past 6 generations of ATi and nVidia is that the next gen mid range card performs at the level of the best previous gen card.

The desktop 8800 series does rock the socks off the 79xx series but not enough

 

in desktops, an 8800gtx is 25% faster on average than a 7950 gx2.

the gx2 HAS TWO GRAPHICS PROCESSORS on a chip. its a single card SLI of sorts.

there is no 8800gx2 to speak of yet. you will have to wait for a mobile 8800m first. i don't understand how that is not a total and complete socks rocking.

 

the 7 / x1k series has been around forever. the found it beneficial to do like a half step up remake of the 7800 series, which became the 7900 series. that never happened with the 6 series. the 6800 ultra was the highest chip. they didn't stay long enough to make a 6900 gtx, and definitely not a 6950 gtx.

but if they DID make a 6950gtx, i would NOT have expected a 7600 to beat it.

 

I have yet to see someone oc the ddr2 cards to an equivalent level. If you could post a link that would be helpful. The ddr3 scored a 3630 ( another said 3927 stock, but I’m not certain of the validity) at 1280x1024 the highest I’ve seen an over clocked ddr2 score is 3590 with the IFL-90. Crap, while I was writing this I realized someone got a 3676 for the 1720. However, he said that was the absolute limit. In any case, the over clocked card barley surpasses the g1s stock only if the 3927 figure is not true. No one has been able to clock the memory beyond 500mhz 200 slower than the g1s. Obviously, at least their ddr2 can’t be clocked as fast.