Goddamn 7800GT/X

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Oh give me a break. You knew exactly what video cards he is referring to :roll:

Stop making problems for everyone.

-Kevin

No actually it isnt obvious. I'm not going to argue with you about this, reread the thread and see if he is saying 1600x1200 is low res for GTX, or simply low res.
He took the thread in another direction, then crafted a way to back out of it when it was clear his claim was ludicrous.

The guy is merely looking for any way to bash LCDs. Why else would someone say

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....?

Thats clearly directed at 1600x1200/1680x1050 limited monitors.
It has nothing to do with the GTX.

I could care less what you are using to define 1600 X 1200. The fact is, that it is NOT a low resolution. If you must called it anything, called it medium, or high for ANY video card. It isn't the card that makes the resolution low or high... Seriously, think about it? What would a card have to do with changing the defination of resolution? It would not! Again, 1600 X 1200 is not a low resolution. I posted this above in 3 detailed points... It was refuted acurrately no matter how many of you argue against it. 1600 X 1200 is NOT a low resolution... Am I getting through?

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Oh give me a break. You knew exactly what video cards he is referring to :roll:

Stop making problems for everyone.

-Kevin

No actually it isnt obvious. I'm not going to argue with you about this, reread the thread and see if he is saying 1600x1200 is low res for GTX, or simply low res.
He took the thread in another direction, then crafted a way to back out of it when it was clear his claim was ludicrous.

The guy is merely looking for any way to bash LCDs. Why else would someone say

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....?

Thats clearly directed at 1600x1200/1680x1050 limited monitors.
It has nothing to do with the GTX.

I could care less what you are using to define 1600 X 1200. The fact is, that it is NOT a low resolution. If you must called it anything, called it medium, or high for ANY video card. It isn't the card that makes the resolution low or high... Seriously, think about it? What would a card have to do with changing the defination of resolution? It would not! Again, 1600 X 1200 is not a low resolution. I posted this above in 3 detailed points... It was refuted acurrately no matter how many of you argue against it. 1600 X 1200 is NOT a low resolution... Am I getting through?

QFT

 

[CP5670]

I would say 1600x1200 is a medium resolution if you have a 7800 GTX. It's about the limit for some newer games to remain smooth (with no AA), but most slightly older games will run great at 2048x1536.

And it's not just an issue of CPU limitations; from what I've seen the 7800 cards are simply stronger with high resolutions than antialiasing in most games. In many games the GTX takes an equal or even greater hit (percentage-wise) than the X850XTPE going from no AA to 4x AA, so it's not really CPU limited, but it blows everything else away at 2048x1536, so a monitor supporting that resolution will allow you to get the most out of this card. I would probably have gotten one for this reason if there was an AGP version, as the 6800 line takes an enormous hit going from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536.

 

[Gamingphreek]

With Multi-GPU solutions and/or the 7800GTX (possibly the R520), 16x12 is most definitely a low resolution. Normal res for those cards is 20x15, and high res we are talking Apple Cinema display.

As for the thread... like i said earlier. The thread title is about the 7800GTX and it having no tangible performance. Ben stated that 16x12 or lower on a 7800GT/X is basically a waste of money. EVERY SINGLE review will agree on that statement. I would think you guys would have the common sense to read the title of the thread before claiming his statement a blanket statement.

-Kevin

 

[compgeek89]

My monitor is 1600x1280 :|

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
My monitor is 1600x1280 :|

Lemme make this clear before all hell breaks lose. By no means am i insulting you or your hardware. I only have a monitor capable of 12x10 myself. I am merely stating the facts, with no offense intended.

-Kevin

 

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
With Multi-GPU solutions and/or the 7800GTX (possibly the R520), 16x12 is most definitely a low resolution. Normal res for those cards is 20x15, and high res we are talking Apple Cinema display.

As for the thread... like i said earlier. The thread title is about the 7800GTX and it having no tangible performance. Ben stated that 16x12 or lower on a 7800GT/X is basically a waste of money. EVERY SINGLE review will agree on that statement. I would think you guys would have the common sense to read the title of the thread before claiming his statement a blanket statement.

-Kevin

:roll: The person who started the thread was asking "Is it just me or is it a buggy card, or maybe it's too early for the card to be stable?" because of people posting issues with the card.

He never mentioned anything about tangible performance.
For fvcks sake, why dont you and ben start your own thread about resolutions and crts.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Buck, chill out... i dont know why you are getting so worked up over this:

Yes he said that. I think however, the Ben was replying more based on your post:

Im not seeing a huge difference in games from my x800xl.....

However, i am seeing a difference in 20-30 fps in DOD:S. Is it worth the extra money? Maybe not....

and the thread title. In which case he is 100% true. 16x12 is considered a low resolution for the GT(X). End of story. Any misconceptions now have been cleared up.

There is nothing left to discuss.

-Kevin

 

What the hell are you talking about? Ben responded to:
"You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's."

In case you missed it, DOD:S doesnt go above that resolution. The game JUST came out, and for whatever reason they made it that way. Just because the resolutions in these games go higher (new games), doesnt mean that the vast majority of gamers are playing in that resolution.
Go into a DOD:S server and ask what kind of resolutions people are running at. I assure you that most (over 50%) arent running 1600x1000 or 1680x1050.
Hes running a 9800pro and hasnt even played any of the games we have been discussing. He even goes on to say that half life2 and BF2 are garbage (bf2 isnt the best but its far from bad or even mediocre).

Ive had enough arguing with you and beavis. Its time to go out. Goodnight.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Go into a DOD:S server and ask what kind of resolutions people are running at. I assure you that most (over 50%) arent running 1600x1000 or 1680x1050.

MOST people do not run Multi-GPU setups or 7800's in their systems.

Additionally, AFAIK if you use console commands you can raise the resolution to anything you want (provided you have a monitor that supports it).

-Kevin

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
With Multi-GPU solutions and/or the 7800GTX (possibly the R520), 16x12 is most definitely a low resolution. Normal res for those cards is 20x15, and high res we are talking Apple Cinema display.

As for the thread... like i said earlier. The thread title is about the 7800GTX and it having no tangible performance. Ben stated that 16x12 or lower on a 7800GT/X is basically a waste of money. EVERY SINGLE review will agree on that statement. I would think you guys would have the common sense to read the title of the thread before claiming his statement a blanket statement.

-Kevin

No, it isn't a low resolution. What you are trying to say is that the 7800 GTX can run 1600 X 1200 like most cards can run 1024 X 768. Just because the card performs well at 1600 X 1200 and 2028 X 1536 does not make them low resolutions. Next time you play a game, look at all your resolution options. Most of them start at 800 X 600, and THAT is low resolution. You cannot redefine high/low resolution based on a cards performance. That is like saying the Corvette is a slow car, because it only goes 192 Mph while some Ferrari is topping out at 214 Mph... That still does not change the fact that 192 Mph is hella fast. This is what we have going on here... You are stating that the 7800 GTX determines what is considered high and low resolution. But the problem with your scale is that one single 7800 GTX can handle, what? 2048 X 1536 as a max resolution PERIOD! One notch below that is LOW? OMG, what is 1280 X 960? Really Low? Then 1024 X 768 Super Duper Ridiclous Low? Then 800 X 600 Ludicrously low? And, oh my gosh, what can we use to define the lowest possible resolution for Windows desktop? 640 X 480 = Extremely ridiculously, ludicrously low?

Low and High are used to determine the two extreme's of performance. If the lowest possible resolution for, say, Windows Desktop is 640 X 480, then that is defined as the lowest. The next bump is 800 X 600, then is lower... Then we can have 1024 X 768 be low... Then 1280 X 960 can be medium... Then 1600 X 1200 can be medium high, and then 2048 X 1536 can be our high and then Post 2048 X 1536 can "very" high...

I guess you guys can call it what you want, but you are dead wrong to refer to 1600 X 1200 as a low resolution. I am pretty sure most people here understand that.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The thread may be titled "God Damn 7800GTX" but you stated that 1600x1200 is a "low resolution".. your futile attempts to tie that into the thread title are blatantly a way you are trying to weasle your way out of your statement on 1600x1200.

A person that must be suffering from a serious lack of logical skills was complaining that the move from a x800xl to a 7800GT offered him very little benefit. 1600x1200 is the lowest resolution some reviewers are using now for parts of the G70 caliber as anything lower is a complete waste of time as it is too low of a resolution to show the card in a setting outside of it being CPU bound. Now, what part of your logical analysis is having trouble with this reality?

Pathetic you cant admit you are simply wrong.

Point out where I am. Post the links, show the benches. Your ignorance on this matter has been quite clearly demonstrated.

The guy is merely looking for any way to bash LCDs.

Who was it that pointed out the fact that there is a LCD that offers higher resolution then any consumer CRT ever made? I don't recall if being you- I might as well tell you it was me as you have demonstrated with astonishing ability your incapability of comprehending context.

What would a card have to do with changing the defination of resolution? It would not!

How are old are you, 14 or 15? Do you realize that a Voodoo2 was only capable of rendering 3D @800x600 resolution or you could run them in SLI for the capability of running 1024x768? For very young children I suppose they may have an excuse for saying something as utterly ignorant as a video card not changing how we define resolution, but if you are any older then a young teen then you have no excuse.

Video cards and display hardware have defined what is low res and what is high res on an evolving basis since we moved from punch cards. That is reality. My apologies that some here are far too ignorant to realize that basic principle.

 

Blah blah blah blah, your a troll ben, im not gonna even read what you wasted your time to write. You lack first hand knowledge so i could give a rats arse what you think about a review.

I just noticed that phreaks video card is worse than bens, lol. Im glad you guys are having fun playing quake 3 at the highest res. Come back when you know first hand what you are talking about.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

I can appreciate how someone might be a tad p1ssed off just having blow $500 to find out that the best one can do is scrape by at 30 fps in COD 2.

This is taking planned obsolescence to a whole new level.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The thread may be titled "God Damn 7800GTX" but you stated that 1600x1200 is a "low resolution".. your futile attempts to tie that into the thread title are blatantly a way you are trying to weasle your way out of your statement on 1600x1200.

A person that must be suffering from a serious lack of logical skills was complaining that the move from a x800xl to a 7800GT offered him very little benefit. 1600x1200 is the lowest resolution some reviewers are using now for parts of the G70 caliber as anything lower is a complete waste of time as it is too low of a resolution to show the card in a setting outside of it being CPU bound. Now, what part of your logical analysis is having trouble with this reality?

Pathetic you cant admit you are simply wrong.

Point out where I am. Post the links, show the benches. Your ignorance on this matter has been quite clearly demonstrated.

The guy is merely looking for any way to bash LCDs.

Who was it that pointed out the fact that there is a LCD that offers higher resolution then any consumer CRT ever made? I don't recall if being you- I might as well tell you it was me as you have demonstrated with astonishing ability your incapability of comprehending context.

What would a card have to do with changing the defination of resolution? It would not!

How are old are you, 14 or 15? Do you realize that a Voodoo2 was only capable of rendering 3D @800x600 resolution or you could run them in SLI for the capability of running 1024x768? For very young children I suppose they may have an excuse for saying something as utterly ignorant as a video card not changing how we define resolution, but if you are any older then a young teen then you have no excuse.

Video cards and display hardware have defined what is low res and what is high res on an evolving basis since we moved from punch cards. That is reality. My apologies that some here are far too ignorant to realize that basic principle.

So you resort to a person insult? I am so hurt Ben... Ouch. Better try harder next time, because your post didn't have any substance to it, and thus, there is nothing to comment on. It is rather useless to argue with anyone who spends more time trying to cover up their statements by changing definitions than by simply just being honest. If you were correctable, teachable, you might be worth someone's time. But essentially, you are an egohead and I have no reason to believe you will ever change. It will be interesting to see you argue with God when you go to the grave, then we can see just how "intelligent and right you are"...

 

[Shagga]

I'll bite. My 7800GTX has been fine, no problems whatsoever. Too darn expensive though. I'm using the 78.01's and everything is stable.

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? Maybe you should read the posts before posting .

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution and it has 16ms response time
2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?
3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide". Not to mention that alot of gamers on these forums choose the same.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.


*edit*
I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

Dont mind him.

I know CRTs suck. Which is why I dont have to go around trying to prove it to everyone.

:heart: 2005FPW

That is because you have never owned a good CRT. Proud owner of an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450

1920 x 1440 / max. 75 Hz .. 640 x 640 / max. 180 Hz

Still would like the Dell and retire the CRT (it is > 7 years old).

[/QEmmm the IIyama VMPro 450. Best monitor I ever owned. Just given it to my brother and it just d@mn near broke my heart.

 

[imported_Amuro]

Originally posted by: ddogg
no complaints here!! but if u cant game at 16x12 or higher getting a GTX is a waste of money.

Not true at all. Try FEAR.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You lack first hand knowledge so i could give a rats arse what you think about a review.

Read the benches. If you can't read, have someone do it for you. I have never once said take my word for it- I can back up what I say. Continue to run off at the mouth and pat yourself on the back and deny reality if you are so inclined- I showed you the benches. BTW- I have two Dell LCDs in the house(one Sony too). Fact is that if the display is a LCD, CRT or Plasma it is a waste pairing it with a G70 board if it is limited to such a low resolution. If you want to argue my position or the numbers on this try it. Stop running off at the mouth and show something to back up what you are saying.

So you resort to a person insult?

How exactly? Are you saying you are not a young teen? If not- you explain how it is our definition of high resolution has not changed a staggering amount based on the displays we are using and the hardware we have to drive them. The only explenation for such a stance is youth which would explain how you may not be familiar or plain ignorance.

Have to make sure I provide a link of course. With a TNT1 1024x768 was a high resolution- what is considered high res has been evolving since we moved to displays. You can whine about it if you would like, lots of people like to when reality stares them in the face.

It is rather useless to argue with anyone who spends more time trying to cover up their statements

Covering up what? I have changed nothing in my posts. Point out anything I am trying to cover up. Point out anything you want to see me back up- I will provide you links.

If you were correctable, teachable, you might be worth someone's time.

You teach me? I have to say that is extremely amusing- to say that your posts lack insight or knowledge of even the most basic elements of that which you try and discuss would be an insult to so many on these forums.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
With Multi-GPU solutions and/or the 7800GTX (possibly the R520), 16x12 is most definitely a low resolution. Normal res for those cards is 20x15, and high res we are talking Apple Cinema display.

As for the thread... like i said earlier. The thread title is about the 7800GTX and it having no tangible performance. Ben stated that 16x12 or lower on a 7800GT/X is basically a waste of money. EVERY SINGLE review will agree on that statement. I would think you guys would have the common sense to read the title of the thread before claiming his statement a blanket statement.

-Kevin

You disappoint me as what you and Ben are saying is clearly untrue and wrong...if you look at the AT benchmarks for 16x12 4xAA (which by your own words is basically a waste of money with a GTX :roll: ) here http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496&p=3 you can see that the GTX is just over 20 fps faster than the king of the previous generation (x800xt), with that difference being from being below what many would consider playable up to what almost all consider playable...you still say that was a waste of money? In fact i'd say with FEAR the situation would be MUCH worse, and 16x12 4xAA would bring even the mighty GTX to its knees...and what do you think next generation games will do? Get faster fps on a 7800GTX than current gen ones? :roll:

EDIT: maybe look at the Doom3 benchies too while you're at it...http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496&p=4 looks like a pretty tangible benefit to a 7800GTX compared to an x800xt/6800U at 16x12 4xAA there doesn't it?

 

[CP5670]

it's interesting to note that 2048x1536 without AA is a lot faster than 1600x1200 4xAA though, unlike all the other cards. I wouldn't say 1600x1200 is a total waste but you wouldn't be using the card at what it's really good at, high resolutions rather than antialiasing. FEAR is the one exception to this but that game runs terribly on pretty much everything (short of maybe two GTXs) to varying degrees.

That is because you have never owned a good CRT. Proud owner of an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450

1920 x 1440 / max. 75 Hz .. 640 x 640 / max. 180 Hz

Still would like the Dell and retire the CRT (it is > 7 years old).

[/QEmmm the IIyama VMPro 450. Best monitor I ever owned. Just given it to my brother and it just d@mn near broke my heart.

The final generation CRTs with the superbright/dynamic mode especially make everything else pale in comparison. There is really quite a remarkable difference between those monitors and others in games. After using one for four months even other good CRTs look mediocre to me.

 

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Blah Blah Blah Blah

Translation = I'm a troll and im full of crap.

 

Originally posted by: dug777

You disappoint me as what you and Ben are saying is clearly untrue and wrong...if you look at the AT benchmarks for 16x12 4xAA (which by your own words is basically a waste of money with a GTX :roll: ) here http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496&p=3 you can see that the GTX is just over 20 fps faster than the king of the previous generation (x800xt), with that difference being from being below what many would consider playable up to what almost all consider playable...you still say that was a waste of money? In fact i'd say with FEAR the situation would be MUCH worse, and 16x12 4xAA would bring even the mighty GTX to its knees...and what do you think next generation games will do? Get faster fps on a 7800GTX than current gen ones? :roll:

EDIT: maybe look at the Doom3 benchies too while you're at it...http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496&p=4 looks like a pretty tangible benefit to a 7800GTX compared to an x800xt/6800U at 16x12 4xAA there doesn't it?
[/quote]

Its pointless to argue with them, they dont even play newer games. Ben is a troll who doesnt even play games anymore (says half life 2, battlefield2, doom3 is garbage). Look at the video cards that him and phreak have, they cannot play newer games at what he would even call a "medium" resolution much less a "low" resolution. Im done arguing with toolbags who think they know all about things just because "Joey down the hall" has an lcd and "my neighbor showed me half life2". I refuse to even read bens verbal diarrhea, i suggest anyone with sense do the same.

 

[BenSkywalker]

with that difference being from being below what many would consider playable up to what almost all consider playable...you still say that was a waste of money?

8.9FPS difference in average framerate between the X800XT(which isn't the X850XTPE ) running 16x12x4. Look at the 20x15 numbers and the percentage gap opens up considerably(along with absolute numbers).

EDIT: maybe look at the Doom3 benchies too while you're at it...http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496&p=4 looks like a pretty tangible benefit to a 7800GTX compared to an x800xt/6800U at 16x12 4xAA there doesn't it?

5.8 and 6.9FPS when comparing the last gen parts to the GT. I understand what you are getting at, but also do recall that the display we are talking about can't quite push that resolution either.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Its pointless to argue with them, they dont even play newer games.

You are a liar. I certainly don't tell you what you do and do not do as only someone suffering from serious mental retardation would claim to know otherwise when they are utterly ignorant to the facts.

Im done arguing with toolbags who think they know all about things just because "Joey down the hall" has an lcd and "my neighbor showed me half life2".

I link numbers. You can't. Point. Set. Match.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Its pointless to argue with them, they dont even play newer games.

You are a liar. I certainly don't tell you what you do and do not do as only someone suffering from serious mental retardation would claim to know otherwise when they are utterly ignorant to the facts.

Im done arguing with toolbags who think they know all about things just because "Joey down the hall" has an lcd and "my neighbor showed me half life2".

I link numbers. You can't. Point. Set. Match.

I was thinking, you are pretty much nVidia's version of Ackmed. You seem to use the word "ignorant" a lot. I also love how your post had no substance, yet again. But you flame me in attempt to get a "rise" out of me. It doesn't work, since I am removed from it.

I have to believe that you are less of a jerk in real life, becuase I do not know of anyone who put up with an attitude and superiority complex such as yours. Additionally, your wife must only be with you for your money, because I certainly could see you giving her the same disrespect as you give all of us. Again, I see no reason you will ever change. But, instead of insulting me, could you please just provide some substance? Something back on topic?

Thanks.