Nintendo Switch review: Hands on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
Thinking of getting a new system soon, and i'm tempted to get one incorporating an nvidia 7800 card, but cant really afford upgrading to a higher res/larger monitor. Obviously the higher the res the more it can show off, but are the 7800's bells and whistles only really worth it at these higher resolutions? Or will it still be distinctly and justifiably impressive at 1280x1024?
They have here
Interesting link - thanks Rayuk. But I am also curious about the other plus points of the 7800 - things that admittedly I don't know much about like shader model 3 and HDR and all that. I cant afford more than a 1280x1024 19" screen and your link testified that at that res there isn't a great framerate advantage over say a 6800, but I'm wondering will it simply look better (as a result of shader 3 etc)?
Havnt read through it,but it may help you out
Is it a choice 7800 and 1280x1024 monitor or cheaper graphics and better monitor??
Oops, I just saw that 6800 and lower cards also support shader 3 and HDR - see I'm pretty ignorant in this field. But my question still stands: framerates aside, could graphics using a 7800 look/potentially be better than on a 6800 at 1280x1024? (Perhaps due to some other tech developments in the 7800 of which I am typically unaware)
As games get more demanding the 7800GT will have the extra 'horse-power' to deliver better frame rates and will be able to render at higher quality settings than a 6800GT. So, in effect you will future proof your PC just a bit longer by going for the 7800.
I have a 6800GT and run games at 1280x1024 on a 19" CRT with all the setting on high and get excellent frame rates and really love the card. However, if I was in the market to buy a new card now, I'd get a 7800GT (I'd also have to change to a PCI-E mother board !)
In the 7800s' favour is that it requires less power and (supposedly, I've not seen/heard one in action yet) creates less noise.
Personally I feel it'd be a waste of a massively powerful graphics card to limit it to 1280 rather than push it to 1600 - but on the other hand, when you do upgrade your monitor again in the future you'll know you can cope with the higher resolutions.
Running a 6800 next to a 7800 at 1024x768 will probably yield similar framerates at identical quality. At 1280x1024 you would see the 7800 start to pull ahead in most comparisons, but at 1600x1200 you would see a massive difference in performance - because basically current graphics cards, at lower resolutions spend a lot of time just sitting around waiting for data from the CPU. So it's not until you go to higher resolutions that more powerful cards can start to stretch their legs (on a side note it's a false economy to buy an average CPU and match it with a fast GPU, a PC is all about balancing components).
In games just released, such as F.E.A.R, you would be able to run a 7800 at 1280x1024 and, I would guess, with all options at Max. On my 6800Ultra I have to turn some settings down a bit at that res to get a smooth framerate. However if you had a 7800 you could probably push the resolution to 1600x1200 and STILL run at Max quality.
From a technical standpoint SM3 is a standard, so both the 6800 and 7800 support it exactly the same - but the 7800 has far more 'grunt' to process the longer shaders that SM3 allows. From a user point of view all that means is that you'll be able to push certain performance/quality options higher in games if you have a 7800
Also, as said in a previous post the 7800 uses less power, so does indeed run quieter than 6800's, and I'd add that it also runs cooler.
Thanks all for your commnents. I'll think about this with all kinds of powerful thought regimes, and se what comes out! ;)
There are four articles here if you fancy a read click here
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.