Test Setup/Performance Tests
We ran a number of performance tests with these cards to give us a good idea of how well they perform relative to each other. This lets us see first-hand the actual difference between a reference factory clocked and factory overclocked card. This means that we should see the ASUS numbers slightly lower than XFX's or EVGA's. We tested three games at 1600x1200 resolution with and without AA enabled. The games that we used (Battlefield 2, Quake 4, and Halflife 2: Lost Coast) were chosen because they represent a wide range of game engines. This is the test system that we used:
NVIDIA nForce 4 motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6 GHz Processor
1 GB OCZ 2:2:2:6 DDR400 RAM
Seagate 7200.7 120 GB Hard Drive
OCZ 600 W PowerStream Power Supply
Essentially, what we see in these tests is that the difference in performance between a 7800 GT clocked at reference speeds and factory overclocked to 470MHz/1.1GHz or 450MHz/1.05GHz isn't enough to affect gameplay in a significant way. It's true that you can get a few fps higher in a game with an overclock like this, but it hardly ever makes it worth paying extra money for a card that's factory overclocked, especially when you can easily clock it yourself as high as or even higher than any other card out there. Interestingly though, in the case of these three 7800 GT's, the lowest clocked card (ASUS EN7800 GT) is also the highest priced, and the highest clocked card (EVGA e-GeForce 7800 GT) is the lowest price of the three.
We ran a number of performance tests with these cards to give us a good idea of how well they perform relative to each other. This lets us see first-hand the actual difference between a reference factory clocked and factory overclocked card. This means that we should see the ASUS numbers slightly lower than XFX's or EVGA's. We tested three games at 1600x1200 resolution with and without AA enabled. The games that we used (Battlefield 2, Quake 4, and Halflife 2: Lost Coast) were chosen because they represent a wide range of game engines. This is the test system that we used:
NVIDIA nForce 4 motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6 GHz Processor
1 GB OCZ 2:2:2:6 DDR400 RAM
Seagate 7200.7 120 GB Hard Drive
OCZ 600 W PowerStream Power Supply
Essentially, what we see in these tests is that the difference in performance between a 7800 GT clocked at reference speeds and factory overclocked to 470MHz/1.1GHz or 450MHz/1.05GHz isn't enough to affect gameplay in a significant way. It's true that you can get a few fps higher in a game with an overclock like this, but it hardly ever makes it worth paying extra money for a card that's factory overclocked, especially when you can easily clock it yourself as high as or even higher than any other card out there. Interestingly though, in the case of these three 7800 GT's, the lowest clocked card (ASUS EN7800 GT) is also the highest priced, and the highest clocked card (EVGA e-GeForce 7800 GT) is the lowest price of the three.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
MadAd - Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - link
Still no word on the comparitive fan noise?semiconductorslave - Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - link
If you look in the GTX 512 Mb review here:http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607...">7800 GTX 512MB
you see in Battlefield2 1600 x 1200 with 4xaa the stock 7800GTX is getting 42.9 fps compared to this article where the EVGA gets 43.6 fps! Also the GT was running on a FX-55 2.6GHz and the GTX was on a FX-57 (2.8GHz)
I own this card and think its a great value, to be able to come so close to and even sometimes outperform the GTX at $450. I can't wait to add card #2.
I didn't see what drivers were used in this review, but the other review used nForce4 6.82. Also this review showed 1 Gb of ram, other review doesn't mention ammount of ram used. Am I the only one who looks between diferent benchmarks to compare, would be great to see more comparisons (graphics cards) on same test bed, like the other posts mentioned. That way you can really show what value the cards are.
jiulemoigt - Friday, December 9, 2005 - link
there was only 2000 asus led version cards made most went to review sites. I was looking back when they came out I even called and got the model number and a second internal number found out only 2000 were made kinda like a paper launch... and all the sites say this is a sweet looking card, yet 90% of the people reading the reviews will end up with a boarding green pcp... so I bought a bfg and used nonconditive uv paint to paint it bright green. But review sites should point out that people will not get a cool looking slow card from asus with crappy warrenty compared to bfg, xfx, evga.yacoub - Friday, December 9, 2005 - link
Up to what level of temperature (Celcius) is safe for a GPU to maintain without impacting its expected lifespan and performance (ie, lockup/failure)?fbrdphreak - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
Discussion thread on this article:http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...
Slaimus - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
If anyone is shocked by the power usage numbers, remember that the system is using a notoriously inefficient PowerStream. The DC power draw is probably close to 200W, which is how power supplies are rated.segagenesis - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
Is that too good to be true... the EVGA is barely over $300 on newegg? I hope I'm not, because I think I just found my new video card.Visual - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
you are dreaming, yes. i see two eVGA models on newegg, N515 for $309 (actually 289 after MIR) and N518 for $379. Well guess what, the cheaper variant uses a cheaper aluminium cooler, which doesnt give you much hope for further overclocking :/ None of those two variants are the "CO" edition from this roundup, the CO's clocks are said to be 470/1100, the two models on newegg are clocked 445/1070.this is what i was talking about in my above post... the roundup doesn't really show you the differences between the various cards :/ and i bet other people will make the same mistake as you and confuse one card with another.
still, for the $289 price that card is a bargain. i just want to be sure you realise it's not the same one reviewed here.
segagenesis - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
Thanks, yet its still not bad at all for a 7800GT even if its stock. I was under the assumption still that 7800GT cards were still $400 or so.Spacecomber - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
Is there any difference in the fan noise generated by these three models?