As it stands, 1900 > 7900GTX?

[EuR Fr3nCh T3rRoR]

Since Unreal 2K7 is going to be very very shader heavy, then wouldn't the X1900XTX be a better option for ya? It would be cheaper and less hassle, to me SLI in a sense is a hassle, not as much anymore though. If you mainly want to play Unreal 2007, didn't Epic do a presentation where it was running at 1280x1024 high details on ONE 7800GTX? I believe so...So maybe just keep your SLI 7800GT's and make due with that. See how Oblivion runs on it, if you are not satisfied then grab a new GPU. I think more then anything 512MB of VRAM will help on Unreal2k7 and Oblivion, if you want to run high settings atleast and the pixel shaders, since they will be shader heavy games. 7900GT is also 256MB, I would stick with what you got mate. For now atleast...

I think one 7900GTX or X1900XTX is a better option, just my opinion. I am getting rid of my 2 7800GTX's in my second rig for a X1900XTX. Second card barely gives you 30% performance improvement, one SLI rig is enough for me.

 

[EuR Fr3nCh T3rRoR]

Here is the performance difference from the 7800GT to the 7900GT

7800GT 400/1000: 32 FPS
eVGA 7800GT 450/1100: 35 FPS
7900GT 450/1320: 42 FPS
eVGA CO SuperClock 7900GT 550/1580: 51 FPS

^ Was taken from another thread on these forums.

So if you do grab a couple 7900GT's, make sure there the CO Superclock ones by EVGA...hehe

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: EuR Fr3nCh T3rRoR
Since Unreal 2K7 is going to be very very shader heavy, then wouldn't the X1900XTX be a better option for ya? It would be cheaper and less hassle, to me SLI in a sense is a hassle, not as much anymore though. If you mainly want to play Unreal 2007, didn't Epic do a presentation where it was running at 1280x1024 high details on ONE 7800GTX? I believe so...So maybe just keep your SLI 7800GT's and make due with that. See how Oblivion runs on it, if you are not satisfied then grab a new GPU. I think more then anything 512MB of VRAM will help on Unreal2k7 and Oblivion, if you want to run high settings atleast and the pixel shaders, since they will be shader heavy games. 7900GT is also 256MB, I would stick with what you got mate. For now atleast...

I think one 7900GTX or X1900XTX is a better option, just my opinion. I am getting rid of my 2 7800GTX's in my second rig for a X1900XTX. Second card barely gives you 30% performance improvement, one SLI rig is enough for me.

I'm fairly happy with the SLI setup I have but as is always the case, one wants more than one has. I am going to give one of my 7800GT's to my sister & the other to my dad (who happily runs his machine on a 5200 256MB, lol).

The 7900GT's will replace my 7800GT's and serve at least until a DX10 Card comes out (G80 or R600, makes no difference to me). I bought the X1800XT Crossfire setup because it was cheap & the PC in the garage needed a boost.

Also the reviews are generally seeing 50%+ gains using 7900GT SLI so it would comfortable be faster than both my 7800GT SLI & a single X1900XTX.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: EuR Fr3nCh T3rRoR
Here is the performance difference from the 7800GT to the 7900GT

7800GT 400/1000: 32 FPS
eVGA 7800GT 450/1100: 35 FPS
7900GT 450/1320: 42 FPS
eVGA CO SuperClock 7900GT 550/1580: 51 FPS

^ Was taken from another thread on these forums.

So if you do grab a couple 7900GT's, make sure there the CO Superclock ones by EVGA...hehe

Remember though, thats not real world performance. That little "MunkyMark06" benchmark that I used for those numbers is VERY CLOSE to F.E.A.R., 1280x960, 4x/8x, but sometimes it's far off, sometimes it's very close. So take those numbers with a grain of salt; they're theoretical, nothing more.

 

[EuR Fr3nCh T3rRoR]

O.K. I was just throwing out my opinion, I am going to be a proud owner of a X1900XTX real soon and also keep my two 512 7800GTX's. So god knows im not biast between the companies, I am just not impressed with the gains I get when I add a second GPU to my systems. Some games don't work well with SLI and that can be a bother, and no dual monitors while SLI is enabled also bugs me a little.

I get both your sides too.

P.S. Take my opinion with a grain of salt...Just another blokes opinion. lol

 

[Pete]

I've been reminded (and chastised ) that the X1-series is doing FP16 HDR + AA with both Far Cry (albeit with a non-public patch, likely due to no $ incentive) and Serious Sam 2. Oh, and 3DM06. So, it can do it, and there's enough proof out there. Yeah, some titles use lower-precision/-range buffers, but while performance is always an issue, it may not have been the primary issue in those cases (AoE3, maybe; SC:CT, probably not).

Apparently the way Oblivion does HDR even the X1-series can't MSAA it (tho it supports MSAA on more "HDR" buffer formats). Dunno why, exactly, but given that they dropped their more ambitious shadowing method for performance reasons, I'm imagining the same applies here. That, and the whole time is money thing.

X1900XT/X looks pretty even with 7900GTX in terms of AA+AF framerates. Price, heat, power draw (!), and noise (!) are the deciding issues, IMO (! being my standouts). I guess XF/SLI is worth considering, too (but if it is, then my other four concerns are made irrelevant). The 7900 can be quite a bit faster without AA. In the past, this typically meant the 7900 would show higher framerates in future titles b/c it started out with more power: you'd sacrifice niceties like AA or resolution just to maintain playable fps. I'm not sure if that's the case now, as the X1900 seems to have shader power to spare. If future games tilt toward more and heavier shaders while maintaining the same texture access load, it's possible the X1900 will take longer to fade, performance-wise. This is probably just curiosity for its own sake, as the common sense recommendation (proved time and again) is to buy for the games you play now, not for the games you might be playing later.