Pixel-pushing power
We'll take a brief stop up front to look at these cards' basic ability to draw pixels (and textured pixels) on the screen. Below are some of the theoretical peak numbers for the various cards we're testing today, plus a few other common cards in the same categories.

  Core clock
(MHz)
Pixels/
clock
Peak fill rate
(Mpixels/s)
Textures/
clock
Peak fill rate
(Mtexels/s)
Memory
clock (MHz)
Memory bus
width (bits)
Peak memory
bandwidth (GB/s)
Radeon X1600 XT5904236042360138012822.1
GeForce 6800 3258260012390070025622.4
GeForce 6600 GT5004200084000100012816.0
Radeon X80040012480012480070025622.4
GeForce 6800 GS42583400125100100025632.0
GeForce 6800 GT350165600165600100025632.0
Radeon X800 XL40016640016640098025631.4
GeForce 6800 Ultra425166800166800110025635.2
GeForce 7800 GT400166400208000100025632.0
Radeon X1800 XL500168000168000100025632.0
Radeon X850 XT520168320168320112025635.8
Radeon X850 XT PE540168640168640118025637.8
XFX GeForce 7800 GT450167200209000105025633.6
Radeon X1800 XT62516100001610000150025648.0
GeForce 7800 GTX4301668802410320120025638.4
GeForce 7800 GTX 51255016880024132001700 25654.4

I've already said that this puppy's numbers are sick, but that table should put things into perspective. Note that the 7800 GTX 512 has nearly twice the peak multitextured fill rate of the GeForce 6800 Ultra, last year's top NVIDIA card. Let's see how well the GTX 512 delivers on its paper potential in 3DMark's fill rate tests.

Despite having a lower theoretical pixel fill rate than the Radeon X1800 XT, the 7800 GTX 512 proves faster in 3DMark05's single-textured test. When it comes to multi-textured fill rate, the GTX 512 is in a class by itself, well above the Radeon X1800 XT and GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB. Let's see how that translates into performance in real games.
Copyright ©1999-2009 The Tech Report. All rights reserved.
About us | Privacy policy | Subscribe to our mailing list