PDA

View Full Version : 7900 GTO... It's here!


Pages : [1] 2

stevemedes
10-06-06, 02:28 PM
$262 w/ 2-day FedEx shipping.

Teaser Pic (excuse the crappy cameraphone):
https://home.comcast.net/~riptide007/THEGTO.jpeg


Well I'm off to reinstall windows! Will post impressions later. Prepare for benchmarks with the average persons CPU, not 3.5ghz C2D's lol. Im sure someone will appreciate that =)

:captnkill::captnkill::captnkill::captnkill:

jAkUp
10-06-06, 02:33 PM
Nice! :) its a great card.

Becoming
10-06-06, 02:35 PM
My order didn't get processed until wednesday, so I won't have mine to fiddle with over the weekend. :(

stevemedes
10-06-06, 04:41 PM
3dmark2005 Results:

CPU@2.4ghz (240x10)
GPU@stock (650,660)
Other specs in sig.
91.47 drivers
Drivers left completely at default

https://home.comcast.net/~riptide007/GTOstockCPU2.4.JPG

ruff97
10-06-06, 05:01 PM
let see some oc on this let go let go

stevemedes
10-06-06, 05:53 PM
let see some oc on this let go let go

Just tried running a loop of 05 @ 650/800 but there were artifacts everywhere.
Oh well, I'd say I get plenty of performance at stock speeds for the price.
:captnkill:
This is by far the nicest GPU I've ever owned in my life. The heatsink is so beautiful it's amazing. Makes me want to get a Thermalright heatsink for my CPU to match.

stevemedes
10-06-06, 06:32 PM
Just notice FiringSquid has a review of my card.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_7900_gto/

stevemedes
10-06-06, 07:01 PM
This thing idles at 40C :captnkill:

stevemedes
10-08-06, 01:03 AM
Heres 3dmark 2006
cpu@2.4
gpu@stock

https://home.comcast.net/~riptide007/06stockgpu.JPG

Lfctony
10-08-06, 01:49 AM
Nice scores mate, enjoy your card. :)

mr_oh_so_ice
10-08-06, 06:38 AM
I just got this card a few days (eVGA), and was able to hit 800MHz with just the coolbits tweak. The temp of the card did rise a bit, up in the 60s or so, but note that I did not stress it much. I just ran a bit of Windows, benched Quake 3 (500+) and played a bit of FEAR (no issues). So far I am impressed with this card, it replaces my X1900GT, and its amazing, for now though I have reverted back to stock settings, as I want to dink around with settings as I just hooked up my second LCD, but my core at default is 660?. Haven't had a Nvidia board since my GeForce 2 MX...its good to be back.

stevemedes
10-08-06, 09:08 AM
I just got this card a few days (eVGA), and was able to hit 800MHz with just the coolbits tweak. The temp of the card did rise a bit, up in the 60s or so, but note that I did not stress it much. I just ran a bit of Windows, benched Quake 3 (500+) and played a bit of FEAR (no issues). So far I am impressed with this card, it replaces my X1900GT, and its amazing, for now though I have reverted back to stock settings, as I want to dink around with settings as I just hooked up my second LCD, but my core at default is 660?. Haven't had a Nvidia board since my GeForce 2 MX...its good to be back.


Grrr. your so lucky. It's a definite no-go at 800 on the memory for me. Max I can hit right now is about 700-725. Instead of flashing the GTX bios onto my card im thinking about editing the GTO bios to have GTX timings and i'll see if that makes a difference. Still can't complain about the performance im getting for the money. Highly recommend this card. The heatsink is one of the quietest and most effective stock heatsinks ever. Not to mention it's sexy
:captnkill:

HeavyH20
10-08-06, 09:39 AM
I tried the GTX timings, but it seemed to make little difference. I have two cards to test, and both would gain only 10 to 15 MHz with the GTX timings. The item I really suspect is the effective voltage to the memory. I have seen a few results, but they seem to vary from 1.81 to 1.89V. So, if you are low or high of the target 1.85, you may see different results.

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3097/gtxmeasurevoltagecw8.jpg

If you are editing the BIOS, the other item to consider is the delta which is currently set at 50. Of course, each card has a different potential peak core clock. The stock BIOS has the delta enabled which makes the ROP/Shader cores "jump" 27 MHz at a time as you increase the root clock (using coolbitsor thelike) on GTX based cards. So, as you hit the limits, jumping even 1 Mhz will push the ROP/Shader up too far. That is why some contend that no delta is better. But, the gains of getting your ROP/Shader up a tad are mitigated by the vertex core being lower and not pumping enough primitives against ROP/Shader cores.

I have tested a delta versus a no delta BIOS, and the core clock on the cards I have tested (7800GTX, 7800 GTX 512, 7900 GTX, 7900 GTX SC, 7900 GTO) never went any higher with or without the delta in place. So, using one of the GTO cards I am testing as an example, a 725 core clock was the highest functional clock whether the delta existed or not.

So, some numbers:

3DMark06 with delta - 6415, without - 6331
3DMark05 with delta - 11436, without - 11221

715/716 is a border. At 715, your ROP/Shader is at 702. At 716, it bumps to 729. A 27 MHz bump. So, the 650 (648 to be specific) stock clock is chosen for a reason. Following that, 675 is the next step.The border to this ROP/Shader is only 662. Next up, 702 which kicks in when you set the clock to 689. That's why the 7900 GTX SC was clocked at 690.

All this brings us to the decision to use a delta or not. If you hit any of these borders and your card fails to clock any higher, then your ROP/Shader core is weaker than your vertex. In those cases, a no delta BIOS may help. So, for example, you can clock to 715 but not 716, then you are likely limited by the delta - go with a no delta BIOS. If you are hitting 725 but not 726, then your vertex core is likely the limiting factor - keep the delta BIOS.

stevemedes
10-08-06, 12:02 PM
I tried the GTX timings, but it seemed to make little difference. I have two cards to test, and both would gain only 10 to 15 MHz with the GTX timings. The item I really suspect is the effective voltage to the memory. I have seen a few results, but they seem to vary from 1.81 to 1.89V. So, if you are low or high of the target 1.85, you may see different results.

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3097/gtxmeasurevoltagecw8.jpg

If you are editing the BIOS, the other item to consider is the delta which is currently set at 50. Of course, each card has a different potential peak core clock. The stock BIOS has the delta enabled which makes the ROP/Shader cores "jump" 27 MHz at a time as you increase the root clock (using coolbitsor thelike) on GTX based cards. So, as you hit the limits, jumping even 1 Mhz will push the ROP/Shader up too far. That is why some contend that no delta is better. But, the gains of getting your ROP/Shader up a tad are mitigated by the vertex core being lower and not pumping enough primitives against ROP/Shader cores.

I have tested a delta versus a no delta BIOS, and the core clock on the cards I have tested (7800GTX, 7800 GTX 512, 7900 GTX, 7900 GTX SC, 7900 GTO) never went any higher with or without the delta in place. So, using one of the GTO cards I am testing as an example, a 725 core clock was the highest functional clock whether the delta existed or not.

So, some numbers:

3DMark06 with delta - 6415, without - 6331
3DMark05 with delta - 11436, without - 11221

715/716 is a border. At 715, your ROP/Shader is at 702. At 716, it bumps to 729. A 27 MHz bump. So, the 650 (648 to be specific) stock clock is chosen for a reason. Following that, 675 is the next step.The border to this ROP/Shader is only 662. Next up, 702 which kicks in when you set the clock to 689. That's why the 7900 GTX SC was clocked at 690.

All this brings us to the decision to use a delta or not. If you hit any of these borders and your card fails to clock any higher, then your ROP/Shader core is weaker than your vertex. In those cases, a no delta BIOS may help. So, for example, you can clock to 715 but not 716, then you are likely limited by the delta - go with a no delta BIOS. If you are hitting 725 but not 726, then your vertex core is likely the limiting factor - keep the delta BIOS.

Wow! Thanks for the detailed info Heavy!
Vdimm can't be adjusted in BIOS on these cards can it?
What clocks are those 3dmark scores at?

HeavyH20
10-08-06, 12:25 PM
Well, the GTO cards were tested in my kids' PC. It is a AMD X2 4200+ at 2.5 GHz. The video card was tested at 700/800 with default driver settings.

stevemedes
10-08-06, 01:27 PM
NV driver panel o/cing detects 672/718 as optimal frequencies. Heres a 3dm05 run with CPU@2.4 GPU@(672/718)



https://home.comcast.net/~riptide007/10k05.JPG

Redeemed
10-08-06, 01:48 PM
These results are so awesome. A single card that scores over 10k in 3DMark05 for only $250! :D :D :D

I'm DEFINITELY picking two up come next Friday. :)

mr_oh_so_ice
10-08-06, 05:02 PM
These results are so awesome. A single card that scores over 10k in 3DMark05 for only $250! :D :D :D

I'm DEFINITELY picking two up come next Friday. :)

One heck of a card and nothing really touches it when you talk performance and price.

K-1
10-08-06, 06:01 PM
holy... i can't believe how cheap the card is, damn!

Track
10-08-06, 07:09 PM
holy... i can't believe how cheap the card is, damn!

Yeh, its only a little bit weaker then the 7900 GTX, but can overclock to the same freaquency.

I wonder what ATI card, this card is supposed counter. Perhaps the X1900XT 256mb in price/performance? So its weaker then the X1900XT 256mb but has more texture room, interesting. Leave it to nVidia to counter ATI so well, that its a headache for us to know wich to buy from.

This of course means that the 7950 GT is obsolete.. just one of the cards i dont get why nVidia created.

shoman24v
10-08-06, 08:04 PM
I just ordered mine to replace my 7800GTX OC. Better be worth it!

Edit.. canceled it..

stevemedes
10-08-06, 10:38 PM
Yeh, its only a little bit weaker then the 7900 GTX, but can overclock to the same freaquency.

I wonder what ATI card, this card is supposed counter. Perhaps the X1900XT 256mb in price/performance? So its weaker then the X1900XT 256mb but has more texture room, interesting. Leave it to nVidia to counter ATI so well, that its a headache for us to know wich to buy from.

This of course means that the 7950 GT is obsolete.. just one of the cards i dont get why nVidia created.

Don't think for a second that every GTO will o/c to GTX speeds. I can't reach 1600mhz memory and I have to say I'm a little disappointed about it. Otherwise I can't complain at all! 512mb, sick stock cooler, way less power consumption than comparable ATI cards, and eVga's step-up and lifetime warranty =)

stevemedes
10-08-06, 10:39 PM
One heck of a card and nothing really touches it when you talk performance and price.

Except for the X1900XT 256mb.
But here is the problem with that card:

only 256mb ram
loud stock cooler
gpu runs way hot
high power consumption
crappy ati drivers
sli > crossfire

tornadog
10-08-06, 11:40 PM
I just ordered mine to replace my 7800GTX OC. Better be worth it!

Edit.. canceled it..


Man, I did the exact same thing, after reading the reviews at FS. IMO its a great card but not really that big of a jump from my 7800 GT OC...

shoman24v
10-09-06, 08:43 AM
Well I think the X1900XT 256M is faster....