ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX 512: More Than Just More Memory

 by Derek Wilson on November 14, 2005 9:00 AM EST
97 Comments | Add A Comment
97 Comments
Memory Size Scaling

We were very interested in how the additional RAM affected game performance, so we underclocked our 7800 GTX 512 to 430/1.2 (core/mem) in order to see what (if any) difference we would find between the original 7800 GTX and the new model from framebuffer size alone. We will look at 2048x1536 both with and without AA as this is the resolution where any difference was most pronounced.

As we can see from the tests, the added RAM had no real impact on performance in any game (and a slightly negative impact in D3 and Q4).

Looking at the numbers after we enable AA, there are only two games that see any slight benefit from the extra RAM alone: Black and White 2 and Day of Defeat: Source. Battlefield 2 sees a tiny boost, but this is only evident at this extreme resolution. Clearly the majority of the benefit the 7800 GTX 512 has is from core and memory clock speed.

We do want to mention that there could be slightly more benefit from the added RAM as we have still not been able to confirm that dropping the clock speeds of the 7800 GTX 512 part results in the same clock speeds all round as the 7800 GTX. If you recall from earlier articles, the 7800 GTX has multiple clocks which aren't always all adjusted when over/under clocking. It's possible that dropping the clock speed to 430 pushed some of the internal clocks lower than they are in the original 7800 GTX. This would have a minimal impact, but an impact nonetheless.

Quake 4 Performance Final Words
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    i still need to figure out what to get for my Computer so i can run CSS at native res (1680*1050)

    its hard having to always scale the games.

  • ElFenix - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    i would assume so, seeing as how it would be a very good use of the second slot. but two slot designs don't always do that.

  • Fluppeteer - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    At least one picture I've seen (Ars) shows vents in the second slot backplane. The
    air seems to blow in both directions. Which is better than nothing, but I might
    still have to make some kind of ducting to stop the fans at the front of my
    case blowing into the open end of the shroud. This is one reason I prefer water
    cooling, but I'm too wary of cooking the RAM if it's not fully cooled.

    (Saving up...)

  • Fluppeteer - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Good review, good to see some high(er) resolutions being benchmarked.
    Thanks for the efforts, people.

    Just wondering, have any of the cards other specs changed? Is it still
    one dual-link and one single link DVI (the latter run from the chip,
    the former from external SiI parts)? (Since the 512MB 6800Ultra was dual
    link and the Quadro FX4500 is dual dual link, I thought I'd check.) I'm
    still hoping someone will get around to testing the G70's DVI quality on
    the single link output for me, since the issue with the 6800.

    I don't suppose nVidia took the opportunity to stick some of SiI's
    HDCP-capable TMDS transmitters on it, did they? They're playing
    catch-up with the X1800, and it would be a good time for them to
    spend the extra few dollars on fixing it.

    I'd be quite interested in some audio measurements of the fan, too.

    Speaking of which, is the airflow actually useful with the Quadro
    fan? I've got a lot of air blowing from the front of my case to the
    back, and I've suspected that the overheating issues I've seen with
    my 6800 are because the card's fan is fighting the case airflow
    (for some reason nVidia's fans seem to blow the wrong way round).

    --
    Fluppeteer

  • Sunbird - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    So how bad does this spank my 5900XT? :P

  • bob661 - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    I had one of those. You might be able to dig up an early benchmark on the 6600GT that will show how it compares to the 5900XT.

  • bob661 - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    quote:
    benchmark on the 6600GT that will show how it compares to the 5900XT
    http://tinyurl.com/77v66">Here you go. :)

  • Griswold - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Ok, if this peanut represents the 5900XT, the GTX 512 would be the size of a melon. ;)

  • viciousvee - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    For the price this is really for people with a "I don't care what it cost" (big) budget! Get 2 GT's (7800 ones) and call it a day. N.E ways Good article but I would like to see more benches with WOW (World of warcraft, even though they don't support SLI setup) and with 2 setups rather than one, one with the AMD 3500+ and the 57!

  • Spoonbender - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    You mean, get two GT's (which would cost about the same as one of these, while offering far less performance? No thanks, if I were to spend $6-700, I'd go for the faster solution. Which means this card.

    As for the rest, well, why is it relevant? AT is a hardware site, reviewing hardware. They're not benchmarking games to find "the best WoW card", they're benchmarking to find the best card overall. As for the CPU's, what would it add to a review of a card like this? Again, the purpose isn't to tell you "how many fps would you gain if you upgraded your CPU to a FX57?". It's to test this card versus the competition.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now