NVIDIA Single Card, Multi-GPU: GeForce 7950 GX2
by Derek Wilson on June 5, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
At the lowest resolution with and without AA, both the highest end ATI card we tested (the X1900 XT) and the NVIDIA 7900 GTX lead the 7950 GX2 in performance. In most other (non CPU limited) cases, we will see the new NVIDIA flagship part come out on top, but this is one case where the added overhead of multi-GPU management gets in the way. Hopefully anyone who has one fo these cards will also own a display that does much higher resolutions than 1280x1024.
Again, at 1600x1200 without AA we see the 7950 GX2 running into a CPU limitation. When 4xAA gets enabled, we see the 7950 GX2 jump to the front of the class. In fact, enabling 4xAA only causes the 7950 GX2 to drop an average of 2.6 frames per second from the non-antialiased benchmark.
Running at our highest resolution, both with and without AA leaves the 7950 GX2 solidly in the performance lead under BF2. It isn't surprising that the closest competitor is the 7900 GT SLI setup, followed by the X1900 XT. At the maximum quality setting, the 7900 GTX falls a stunning 36% (or 19.1 average fps) behind the 7950 GX2. Not every game delivers results this impressive, but BF2 is certainly a good title to perform well under.
At the lowest resolution with and without AA, both the highest end ATI card we tested (the X1900 XT) and the NVIDIA 7900 GTX lead the 7950 GX2 in performance. In most other (non CPU limited) cases, we will see the new NVIDIA flagship part come out on top, but this is one case where the added overhead of multi-GPU management gets in the way. Hopefully anyone who has one fo these cards will also own a display that does much higher resolutions than 1280x1024.
Again, at 1600x1200 without AA we see the 7950 GX2 running into a CPU limitation. When 4xAA gets enabled, we see the 7950 GX2 jump to the front of the class. In fact, enabling 4xAA only causes the 7950 GX2 to drop an average of 2.6 frames per second from the non-antialiased benchmark.
Running at our highest resolution, both with and without AA leaves the 7950 GX2 solidly in the performance lead under BF2. It isn't surprising that the closest competitor is the 7900 GT SLI setup, followed by the X1900 XT. At the maximum quality setting, the 7900 GTX falls a stunning 36% (or 19.1 average fps) behind the 7950 GX2. Not every game delivers results this impressive, but BF2 is certainly a good title to perform well under.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
kilkennycat - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
Just to reinforce another poster's comments. Oblivion is now the yardstick for truly sweating a high-performance PC system. A comparison of a single GX2 vs dual 7900GT in SLI would be very interesting indeed, since Oblivion pushes up against the 256Meg graphics memory limit of the 7900GT (with or without SLI), and will exceed it if some of the 'oblivion.ini' parameters are tweaked for more realistic graphics in outdoor environments, especially in combo with some of the user-created texture-enhancements mods.Crassus - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
That was actually my first thought and the reason I read the article ... "How will it run Oblivion?". I hope you'll find the time to add some graphs for Oblivion. Thanks.TiberiusKane - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
Nice article. Some insanely rich gamers may want to compare the absolute high-end, so they may have wanted to see 1900XT in Crossfire. It'd help with the comparison of value.George Powell - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
Didn't the ATI Rage Fury Maxx post date the Obsidian X24 card?Also on another point its a pity that there are no Oblivion benchmarks for this card.
Spoelie - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
Didn't the voodoo5 post date that one as well? ^^Myrandex - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
For some reason page 1 and 2 worked for me, but when I tried 3 or higher no page would load and I received a "Cannot find server" error message.JarredWalton - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
We had some server issues which are resolved now. The graphs were initially broken on a few charts (all values were 0.0) and so the article was taken down until the problem could be corrected.ncage - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
This is a very cool but what would be a better idea if nvidia would use the socket concept where you can change out the VPU just like you can a cpu. So you could buy a card with only one VPU and then add another one later if you needed it....BlvdKing - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
Isn't that what PCI-Express is? Think of a graphics card like a slot 1 or slot A CPU back in the old days. A graphics card is a GPU with it's own cache on the same PCB. If we were to plug a GPU into the motherboard, then it would have to use system memory (slow) or use memory soldiered onto the motherboard (not updatable). The socket idea for GPUs doesn't make sense.DerekWilson - Monday, June 5, 2006 - link
actually this isn't exactly what PCIe is ...but it is exactly what HTX will be with AMD's Torrenza and coherent HT links from the GPU to the processor. The CPU and the GPU will be able to work much more closely together with this technology.