backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 85 comment(s) - last by Shankar.. on Jun 1 at 2:28 PM


NVIDIA's GeForce 7950GX2 adaptor

Preliminary GeForce 7950GX2 reference benchmarks (rescaled)
NVIDIA is prepping the launch of its Radeon X1900XTX killer

DailyTech earlier reported that consumers will have to wait a little while longer for the 7950GX2 QUAD SLI adaptor, but details of the card were not revealed.  Today we take a deeper look at the specifications of the NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 video card. 

NVIDIA's sales material claims the following specifications:

  • 500 MHz core clock
  • 600 MHz memory clock
  • 1GB GDDR3 memory
  • Dual dual-link DVI+HDTV-out
  • HDCP Support

GeForce 7900GTX 512MB cards typically run core clock speeds around 650MHz, meaning the 7900GX2 is significantly under clocked.  However, there are two cores present.

NVIDIA's GeForce 7950GX2 is a dual PCB adaptor that is directly derived from the GeForce 7900GX2, which was already derived from the GeForce 7900GTX ASIC.  GeForce 7950GX2 takes two GeForce 7900GTX boards, and joins them via 32 PCIe lanes.  16 additional lanes are routed to the motherboard out to the PCIe adaptor.  The GeForce 7900GX2 was designed specifically for OEM system builds and as a result nothing was compromised for performance.  However, GeForce 7950GX2 is designed to be the retail component, and as such a few things needed tweaking for retail sales.

For example, the cooler on the 7900GX2 has been drastically redesigned and reduced for the 7950GX2.  Gone is the large copper heatsink/fan combo in favor of a much smaller aluminum heatsink with a more powerful fan.  Furthermore, the majority of the mosfets and capacitors positioned at the rear of the card have been moved toward the DVI inputs instead, allowing engineers to cut down the size of the PCB substantially, down to nine inches.  It's also important to note that the SLI bridge is not present on the 7950GX2.

NVIDIA plans to target the Radeon X1900XTX with the 7950GX2 launch.  Both cards are approximately the same size and both consume two expansion slots in a standard chassis.  The marketing marterial bundled with the 7950GX2 claims that a full system using a Radeon X1900XTX requires just under 400W during peak operation, while a 7950GX2 system will only consume 358W and still provide greater performance. 

Like the GeForce 7900 and 7600, 7950GX2 has HDCP support built into the PureVideo portion of the 7950 ASIC.  However, once again, it’s up to the manufacturers to incorporate the CyptoROM for HDCP keys.  Without this additional chip, the GeForce 7950GX2 cannot do DVI-HDCP. 

The NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 graphics card will launch on June 6, and will retail for $599-649.  Even though the card is designed for QUAD SLI, there will be no four-GPU support at the time of launch with the 7950GX2 due to driver constraints.  ATI's Radeon X1900XTX retails for approximately $480 USD.

Update 05/27/2006: You can still view the original performance scaling image here. We originally reported that the 7950GX2 would require SLI to work, but this is only true of QUAD SLI performance.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So.......
By Bull Dog on 5/24/2006 7:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
Its not really targeted at the X1900XTX. It costs a fair chunk more. And calling the 7950GX2 a single graphics card is really pushing it. I mean it has 2 PCB's, 2 GPU chips, 2 of just about everything, isn't that really like SLI?

IMO its not a sigle graphics card and its not really two either. Its sort of a hybred. Oh and here's something really funny, essentially it's a couple of 7900GT's mashed together. And whadya know, with a retail price of $600, it costs like two of them mashed together too? How about just getting 2x7900GT's? They will OC better and, as a result, give better performance for the same money........




RE: So.......
By TheBaker on 5/24/2006 8:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and here's something really funny, essentially it's a couple of 7900GT's mashed together. And whadya know, with a retail price of $600, it costs like two of them mashed together too? How about just getting 2x7900GT's? They will OC better and, as a result, give better performance for the same money........


Check the article one more time: It's two 7900GTX PCB's mashed together, not two 7900GT's. Two GTX's cost $900-1000, not $600-650, and of course it can't be OC'd as well as a GT, because it is GTX's, which are already basically OC'ed GT's with proper voltage and more memory.


RE: So.......
By Egglick on 5/24/2006 10:55:36 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but if you check the article one more time, you'd see that the chips are clocked at 500mhz core and 1200mhz memory. Most 7900GTX's are clocked at 650/1600 or higher.

The 500/1200 speeds of the 7950GX2 is actually slower than alot of 7900GT's with factory overclocks, especially the memory. Bulldog was correct in saying that this card is more like two 7900GTs.


RE: So.......
By Bull Dog on 5/25/2006 12:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
Lol Egglick. ;)


RE: So.......
By TheBaker on 5/25/2006 1:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 500/1200 speeds of the 7950GX2 is actually slower than alot of 7900GT's with factory overclocks, especially the memory. Bulldog was correct in saying that this card is more like two 7900GTs.


That depends entirely upon the vGPU on the card. If it is 1.2 volts, like the GT, then I'll stand corrected. But the article states the GPU's sit on GTX PCB's which likely means the vGPU is 1.4 volts, and 500/1200 would be a massive underclock of the card, so why the complaints about OC'ing? Factory clocks mean nothing! What matters is voltage and heat dissipation. If they are underclocked G71's with GTX voltages they can be OC'ed back to GTX speeds. They have probably dropped the clock speeds to reduce heat.

So, let me see if I've got this straight: The card performs like two GTX's in SLI (nVidia claims SLI increases performance 50-70%, which is just slightly above this card's average) and can most likely be taken even higher, is priced like two GT's (which it clearly out-performs), and takes up two slots, instead of the probable four assigned to two GT's or GTX's with aftermarket cooling, and you're complaining about clock speeds? Look to the CPU market, where they've figured out that nobody really cares what the specs on a processor are as long as it performs. If the chart is accurate, this card (or cards, if you prefer) is a strong performer.



RE: So.......
By Sunrise089 on 5/25/2006 3:43:39 AM , Rating: 4
How do you assume it will outperform 2 7900GTs? It's clocked equal to my eVGA on the core and MUCH lower on the memory, and my card isn't even the highest clocked part. Above poster is right when he says this part is closer to 2x7900GTs than 2 GTXs. So what are your arguements? It might OC better due to higher voltage? Well if we're overclocking than that just brings it right back to the 7900GT's level, which also has to OC to perform as well as a 7900GTX. Its possible higher volt level (which I really doubt) is meaningless, since 7900GTs voltmod easily.

There is probably only one reason this clock is downclocked: reliability, cost, and/or yeild issues necessitated either moving to 7800GT cores or a VERY downclocked GTX core. If heat was the problem why did they put a SMALLER heatsink on the card (by the way, good luck overclocking to GTX levels with that heatsink)? nVidia rushed this product, and the delays and downgrading of specs easily tell the story of a part that they couldn't get to perform as promised.

In summary you claim it's a 7900GTX, but it:
1) Is downclocked to below GT levels
2) Uses a GT style cooler
3) Isn't called a GTX

It suppose it's still possible that nVida used GTX cores, but why would they? In the video card e-penis match it's just living in denial if you really think nVidia could have extracted extra reliable performance out of this card at this price point and not released it. More than likely 2 GT cores was all they could afford at $600 and marketing told them an $800 part wouldn't sell.


RE: So.......
By Spoelie on 5/25/2006 4:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
The cores they are using are the mobile cores. it's voltage is as low as possible to reduce heat output.

Remember that there are people who want to pop 2 of those in their puter and expect it NOT to burn down their house on bootup.


RE: So.......
By TheBaker on 5/25/2006 10:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cores they are using are the mobile cores. it's voltage is as low as possible to reduce heat output.


OK, now we're getting somewhere. I for one didn't realize they were the mobile cores. I haven't checked to verify that statement, but if it is as you say, then all my arguments are wrong. Everything I said was based on them being chips from the desktop cards.


RE: So.......
By Bull Dog on 5/25/2006 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
Spoelie doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. There is NO reason as to why nVIDIA should use moble versions of the G71. It would be stupid (cost wise) and unecessary. You've seen the dinky little cooler on the 7900GT's right? Well the 7950GX2 is going to be running at similar speeds and (logically) similar voltages to a 7900GT. nVIDIA would like nothing more than to have people think that the 7950GX2 is two 7900GTX's in SLI, but the fact is, they're not. They are little more that the equivilient of some slightly factory OCed 7900GTs. Why can't some of you people wrap your heads around that? The 7900GT, 7900GTX, 7900GX2 and the 7950GX2 all have 24 pixel pipelines, so the only thing that matters is clock speed. And there isn't anything magical about that, a 7900GT running at 500/600 would perform virtually identically, to a 7900GTX downclocked to 500/600. Performance may vary slightly (1-2% due to memory timing being different, but thats it. So putting two G71 chips onto a special set of PCBs isn't going to somehow magically make then perform better at lower clocks.


RE: So.......
By Spoelie on 5/26/2006 4:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes I do know. Look around. You'll find plenty of articles that mention this thing uses the 7900 Go chip. The Go as in mobile. And yes it does indeed retain its 24 pipelines, why would the top mobile chip have less?

The reason is very obvious. The initial batch of their quad sli setup ran too hot and sucked that much power that only specialized, non retail psu's and cooling could sustain it. So what better way to reduce power and heat then use the chips that were designed to run in constrained spaces on limited power?

It would be stupid not to use them. So look up some info before you post.


RE: So.......
By Bull Dog on 5/26/2006 8:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you say somthing as a fact you gotta back it up with LINKS PLEASE!


RE: So.......
By nangryo on 5/26/2006 4:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK, now we're getting somewhere. I for one didn't realize they were the mobile cores. I haven't checked to verify that statement, but if it is as you say, then all my arguments are wrong. Everything I said was based on them being chips from the desktop cards.


That's why people should read first before making argument. It could be embarassing u know.


RE: So.......
By Bull Dog on 5/25/2006 10:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
Oh so when people pop two 7900GT's (or 2x 7900GTX/X1900XTX) in their computer it burns the house down?


RE: So.......
By TheBaker on 5/25/2006 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Two single cards in SLI have proper cooling, which the GX2's don't have the space for.


RE: So.......
By TheBaker on 5/25/2006 10:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is probably only one reason this clock is downclocked: reliability, cost, and/or yeild issues necessitated either moving to 7800GT cores or a VERY downclocked GTX core. If heat was the problem why did they put a SMALLER heatsink on the card (by the way, good luck overclocking to GTX levels with that heatsink)?


Actually, the reason for the downclock is heat dissipation. They used a smaller HSF because the one from the 7900GX2 wouldn't even fit into a standard ATX case. They had to make the card smaller, which means a smaller heatsink, which means lower dissipation, which necessitates a lower clock and voltage.

I agree, on stock cooling it will be virtually impossible to overclock this thing. That also applies to stock voltage. But no hard-core overclocker (meaning someone who will blow $600+ on a piece of hardware just to void the warranty) uses stock voltage or cooling.


RE: So.......
By PrinceGaz on 5/25/2006 4:14:34 PM , Rating: 3
Stock clocks for-

7900GT - 450/1320 (256MB)
7900GTX - 650/1600 (512MB)

7950GX2 - 500/1200 (512MB) SLI

What you are getting with the 7950GX2 is closest to a pair of 512MB 7900GT cards, with the core slightly overclocked (like many 7900GT have already) and slower memory to compensate for there being double the normal amount per card. Really it's no better than a pair of 7900GTs, and arguably worse because it uses slower memory; it's nowhere near as good as a pair of 7900GTXs and even comparing it with them is silly.

- Gaz.


RE: So.......
By maevinj on 5/25/2006 5:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
actually the 7950gx2 has 1gig of memory

NVIDIA's sales material claims the following specifications:

500 MHz core clock
600 MHz memory clock
1GB GDDR3 memory
Dual dual-link DVI+HDTV-out
HDCP Support


RE: So.......
By PrinceGaz on 5/25/2006 6:25:44 PM , Rating: 3