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.

Memory Size Scaling
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • bob661 - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    quote:

    All we're REALLY seeing in this review is a GPU isolation test.
    EXACTLY!!!! Which IS the point of these tests! They are intentionally isolating the GPU's because...that's what they're testing! LOL! Anand's been testing the latest and greatest for years now. This is NOT something new here.
  • Brunnis - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Huh? Peak FPS? They're testing average FPS. Do you think they would be stupid enough to measure peak FPS. That would make very little sense...
  • Cygni - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    No way. Different sound solutions have different overheads, different overheads have different effects on the cards.

    Sound off. Its the only way to get an acurate comparison between the cards.
  • yacoub - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Holy crap nearly 300watts of power just for the GPU! This could be the first card that really puts a gaming system into the realm of NEEDING a 500watt high-efficiency PSU.
  • jkostans - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Read he article, it's system power. Meaning at the outlet. Actual power drawn from the PSU by the system components assuming ~75% efficiency would be around 210 which isn't all that much if you think about it. A 400w PSU is plenty for this system.
  • bloc - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Getting silly.

    The mainstream people are still looking for the best value for $200. I hope ati doesn't overreact and start releasing a bunch of vid cards to gain the title back. Wait 4-6 months for the next iteration. The mainstream wants 60 fps @ 1024. Offer the best bang for the dollar and we'll rave about it.

    Don't waste money on tons of iterations. Just lower the cost of current generation to compete. Anand will do a FPS vs $$ soon enough, cause that's the real measure of value.

    For $700 buy an xbox 360 or take a Winter vacation.
  • xbdestroya - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Well, my 6800GT can't give me playable in 1280x1024 for CoD2, so that's what we've come to. I would have thought that a card like this wouldn't be needed until sometime next year, but already the level of hardware required by games has takena significant jump since Doom 3.
  • Calin - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Some users prefer to run their 17" or 19" LCD at the native resolution (1280x1024). This means they want good performance at that resolution. As for those that have bigger screens, they want even better performance.
    Even so, there are lots of good games that run ok on old video cards (even budget old video cards). But if someone chooses a certain level of quality (antialising, resolution, HDR, ...) they want, is great to have a site that present different options (cards).
  • PrinceGaz - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Isn't the PS3 supposed to be using a 24-pipe nVidia core running at 550MHz as well? If so, that would almost certainly mean that this card is faster as I bet they are using very similar cores, but the 7800GTX512 has much faster memory than the PS3.

    And of course there's always SLI if you want even more performance...
  • DerekWilson - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    heh ... sli ... let's see, $1400 on two video cards or on 3 or 4 next gen consoles ... or on lots of other cool hardware/software/tvs/movies/games ... whatever

    its a fast beast, but its just too pricy :-)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now