[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
GeForce 7950 GT is targeted to users that want a high-end video card but don’t want or don’t have the money to buy the most high-end one like GeForce 7900 GTX, GeForce 7950 GX2 or cards from the new GeForce 8800 family. Let’s take a look at the performance of the GeForce 7950 GT model from Zogis and compare it to other video cards available.
Figure 1: Zogis GeForce 7950 GT.
GeForce 7950 GT is positioned between GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7900 GTX, running at 550 MHz and accessing its memory at 1.4 GHz (700 MHz x 2). GeForce 7900 GT runs at 450 MHz and accesses its memory at 1.32 GHz (660 MHz x 2) while GeForce 7900 GTX runs at 650 MHz and accesses its memory at 1.6 GHz (800 MHz x 2). These three video cards have a 256-bit memory interface and 24 pixel shader units.
GeForce 7950 GX2 is a totally different animal, as it is two chips connected in parallel, each one running at 500 MHz and accessing its own 512 MB memory (for a total of 1 GB memory) at 1.2 GHz (600 MHz x 2).
For a full comparison between GeForce 7950 GT and other chips from NVIDIA, please read our tutorial NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table. On ATI Chips Comparison Table you can compare them to competitors from ATI.
We ran PowerStrip and this model from Zogis wasn’t overclocked, i.e., it was really running at the default clock settings defined by NVIDIA.
On Figures 2 and 3 you can see the reviewed card from Zogis. Since it follows the designed set by NVIDIA for the GeForce 7950 GT cards from other manufacturers should achieve the same performance as this model from Zogis.
Figure 2: Zogis GeForce 7950 GT.
Figure 3: Zogis GeForce 7950 GT, back view.
[nextpage title=”GeForce 7950 GT from Zogis”]
As you can see in Figure 4, the video card cooler does not touch the memory chips.
Figure 4: The video card cooler doesn’t touch the memory chips.
We removed the cooler to take a look, and as you can see in Figure 5 it is all made of copper.
Figure 5: Cooler used by GeForce 7950 GT.
In Figure 6 you have an overall look of the GeForce 7950 GT without its cooler.
Figure 6: GeForce 7950 GT without its cooler.
This video card uses eight GDDR3 512-Mbit 1.4 ns chips from Infineon (HYB18H512321AF-14) as you can see in Figure 7, making the 512 MB of memory this video card has. Since these chips can run up to 1.4 GHz (700 MHz x 2) and on this video card the memory is already accessed at 1.4 GHz, there is no room left for overclocking the memories inside their specs. Of course you can try pushing them above their specs.
Figure 7: Infineon GDDR3 512-Mbit 1.4 ns chip.
In Figure 8, you can see the GeForce 7950 GT chip (codenamed G71-GT2).
Figure 8: GeForce 7950 GT chip (G71-GT2).
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
- Graphics chip: GeForce 7950 GT running at 550 MHz.
- Memory: 512 MB GDDR3 memory (1.4 ns, 256-bit interface) from Infineon (HYB18H512321AF-14), running at 1.4 GHz (700 MHz DDR).
- Bus type: PCI Express x16.
- Connectors: Two DVI and one mini-DIN for S-Video output and Component Video output.
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: One.
- Games that come with this board: None.
- Programs that come with this board: None.
- More information: https://www.zogis.com
- Average price in the US*: USD 250.00
* Researched at Shopping.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only different device was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- Motherboard: ASUS P5B (Intel P965, 0904 BIOS)
- CPU: Core 2 Extreme X6800 (dual-core, 2.93 GHz)
- CPU Cooler: Gigabyte Neon 775-BL
- Memory: 2 GB PC-1066/PC2-8500 (Corsair TWIN2X2048-8500C5 kit), configured at 1,066 MHz with 5-5-5-15 timings.
- Hard Drive: Samsung HD080HJ (80 GB, SATA-300, 8 MB buffer, 7,200 rpm)
- Power Supply: Zalman ZM-600HP
- Video Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 1100MB
- Screen resolution: [email protected] Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows XP Professional installed using NTFS
- Service Pack 2
- Direct X 9.0c
- Intel inf driver version: 8.0.1.1002
- ATI video driver version: Catalyst 7.2
- NVIDIA video driver version: 93.71
- NVIDIA video driver version: 97.92 (GeForce 8800 GTS)
Used Software
- 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0
- 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10
- Battlefield 2142 1.01
- Far Cry 1.4 with HardwareOC Far Cry Benchmark 1.7
- F.E.A.R. 1.08
- Quake 4 1.3
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark03″]
3DMark03 simulates DirectX 8 and 9 games. Even though this program may be considered “old”, we ran it to see how the tested video cards perform on older games. Since we are comparing high-end cards, we ran this program in higher resolutions, as performance difference between high-end video cards is more expressive on such resolutions. We chose three resolutions, 1600×1200, 1920×1440 and 2048×1536. At each resolution we simulated two scenarios, first with no image quality enhancements enabled (this scenario we called “low”) and then with anti-aliasing set at 4x and anisotropic filtering set at 16x (this scenario we called “high”). The results you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer.
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 22565 | 56.84% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 15392 | 6.99% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 14387 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 12020 | 19.69% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 11744 | 22.51% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 11243 | 27.96% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 10278 | 39.98% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1920×1440 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 18351 | 62.59% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 12081 | 7.03% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 11287 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 9437 | 19.60% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 9245 | 22.09% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 8731 | 29.27% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 8018 | 40.77% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 2048×1536 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 16953 | 63.83% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 11327 | 9.46% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 10348 | |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 8386 | 23.40% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 7656 | 35.16% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 7272 | 42.30% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 7066 | 46.45% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1600×1200 – AAx4, AFx16 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 13181 | 66.78% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 8637 | 9.29% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 7903 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 6634 | 19.13% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 6422 | 23.06% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 6236 | 26.73% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 5553 | 42.32% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1920×1440 – AAx4, AFx16 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 10231 | 69.47% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 6535 | 8.25% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 6037 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 4765 | 26.69% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 4637 | 30.19% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 4467 | 35.15% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 3850 | 56.81% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 2048×1536 – AAx4, AFx16 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 9235 | 70.73% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 5494 | 1.57% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 5409 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 4187 | 29.19% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 4091 | 32.22% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 4030 | 34.22% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 3470 | 55.88% |
[nextpage title=”3DMark06″]
3DMark06 simulates DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) games and it also puts HDR (High Dynamic Range) into the equation to calculate its final score. So it simulates the most high-end games available today. Since we were comparing high-end cards, we ran this program in higher resolutions, as performance difference between high-end video cards is more expressive on such resolutions. We chose three resolutions, 1600×1200, 1920×1440 and 2048×1536. The results you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer.
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 7504 | 60.38% |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 7208 | 54.05% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 4679 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 4504 | 3.89% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 3937 | 18.85% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 3861 | 21.19% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 3311 | 41.32% |
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 1920×1440 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 6414 | 65.48% |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 6074 | 56.71% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 3876 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 3744 | 3.53% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 3187 | 21.62% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 3117 | 24.35% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 2657 | 45.88% |
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 2048×1536 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 6035 | 67.50% |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 5686 | 57.81% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 3603 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 3427 | 5.14% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 2949 | 22.18% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 2882 | 25.02% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 2450 | 47.06% |
[nextpage title=”Quake 4″]
Quake 4 uses the same game engine as Doom 3 and, since we are comparing high-end cards, we ran this program in higher resolutions, as performance difference between high-end video cards is more expressive on such resolutions. We chose two resolutions, 1600×1200 and 2048×1536, first with image quality set at “low” and then with image quality set at “high”. We upgraded this game to version 1.3 and run the id_demo001 net demo that comes with this version. Click here for more details on how to use Quake 4 to benchmark a system. The results you check below and are given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer.
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 123.46 | 23.62% |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 116.70 | 16.85% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 99.87 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 84.35 | 18.40% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 83.15 | 20.11% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 73.48 | 35.91% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 68.01 | 46.85% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 2048×1536 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 106.07 | 51.10% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 99.90 | 42.31% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 70.20 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 58.32 | 20.37% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 57.29 | 22.53% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 50.27 | 39.65% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 41.14 | 70.64% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1600×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 119.54 | 24.09% |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 113.26 | 17.58% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 96.33 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 81.33 | 18.44% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 80.17 | 20.16% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 70.91 | 35.85% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 63.37 | 52.01% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 2048×1536 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 102.71 | 51.49% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 96.08 | 41.71% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 67.80 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 56.44 | 20.13% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 55.44 | 22.29% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 48.51 | 39.76% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 39.57 | 71.34% |
[nextpage title=”F.E.A.R.”]
F.E.A.R. is a heavy game and we used its internal benchmarking module. We upgraded it to version 1.08 and since we are comparing high-end cards, we ran this program in higher resolutions, as performance difference between high-end video cards is more expressive on such resolutions. We chose three resolutions, 1600×1200, 1920×1440 and 2048×1536. We set “computer settings” to “maximum” and then ran each resolution in two scenarios, first with “graphics card” set at “low” and then with this item set at “maximum”. Let’s take a look at the results, given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer.
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1600×1200 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 284 | 69.05% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 237 | 41.07% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 191 | 13.69% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 168 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 140 | 20.00% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 135 | 24.44% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 109 | 54.13% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1920×1440 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 215 | 73.39% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 175 | 41.13% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 139 | 12.10% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 124 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 102 | 21.57% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 98 | 26.53% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 80 | 55.00% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 2048×1536 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 192 | 72.97% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 158 | 42.34% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 122 | 9.91% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 111 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 91 | 21.98% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 87 | 27.59% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 70 | 58.57% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1600×1200 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 65 | 54.76% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 45 | 7.14% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 42 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 37 | 13.51% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 36 | 16.67% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 34 | 23.53% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 30 | 40.00% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1920×1440 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 48 | 54.84% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 31 | 0.00% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 31 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 28 | 10.71% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 25 | 24.00% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 24 | 29.17% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 21 | 47.62% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 2048×1536 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 42 | 50.00% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 28 | |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 27 | 3.70% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 23 | 21.74% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 22 | 27.27% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 22 | 27.27% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 17 | 64.71% |
[nextpage title=”Far Cry”]
Far Cry is a heavy game based on the Shader 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c) programming model. We’ve updated the game to version 1.4. To measure the performance we run four times the demo created by German magazine PC Games Hardware (PCGH) and the results presented below are an arithmetic average of the collected data. We used the HardwareOC Far Cry Benchmark 1.7 utility to help us collecting data.
Since we are comparing high-end cards, we ran this game in higher resolutions, as performance difference between high-end video cards is more expressive on such resolutions. We chose three resolutions, 1600×1200, 1920×1440 and 2048×1536. At each resolution we simulated two scenarios, first with no image quality enhancements enabled and graphics details set to “maximum” (this scenario we called “low”) and then with anti-aliasing set at 8x, anisotropic filtering set at 16x and graphics details set to “ultra” (this scenario we called “high”). On all scenarios we set the rendering engine to Shader 3.0. The results, given in frames per second, you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer.
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 144.75 | 13.70% |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 143.59 | 12.79% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 127.31 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 112.27 | 13.40% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 108.81 | 17.00% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 107.90 | 17.99% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 91.98 | 38.41% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1920×1440 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 138.05 | 39.07% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 120.16 | 21.04% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 99.27 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 86.91 | 14.22% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 82.73 | 19.99% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 80.62 | 23.13% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 69.26 | 43.33% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 2048×1536 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 132.31 | 47.93% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 108.58 | 21.40% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 89.44 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 74.99 | 19.27% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 74.45 | 20.13% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 72.60 | 23.20% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 62.17 | 43.86% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1600×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 133.22 | 37.94% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 96.58 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 81.60 | 18.36% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 78.61 | 22.86% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 75.58 | 27.79% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 67.41 | 43.27% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 62.85 | 53.67% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1920×1440 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 109.73 | 51.29% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 72.53 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 60.91 | 19.08% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 58.93 | 23.08% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 57.07 | 27.09% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 50.04 | 44.94% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 38.58 | 88.00% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 2048×1536 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 100.70 | 53.83% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 65.46 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 54.82 | 19.41% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 52.86 | 23.84% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 49.77 | 31.53% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 44.99 | 45.50% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 29.25 | 123.79% |
[nextpage title=”Battlefield 2142″]
Battlefield 2142 is the latest member of the Battlefield franchise. We updated this game to version 1.01. We created our own demo based on Sidi Power Plant map (click here to download the demo we created for this test), which provided a very consistent number of frames per second. We ran it and measured performance with FRAPS. Click here to read in details how we benchmarked using Battlefield 2142.
Since we are comparing high-end cards, we ran this game in higher resolutions, as performance difference between high-end video cards is more expressive on such resolutions. We chose three resolutions, 1600×1200, 1920×1440 and 2048×1536. First we ran our demo with image quality set at “low” (with texture manually set at its minimum level) and then with image quality set at “high” (with anti-aliasing manually set at 4x). Below you can see the results, given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer.
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 400.27 | 71.07% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 317.54 | 35.71% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 233.98 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 195.97 | 19.40% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 191.74 | 22.03% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 184.70 | 26.68% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 166.70 | 40.36% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1920×1440 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 300.40 | 71.43% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 238.76 | 36.26% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 175.23 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 146.36 | 19.73% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 142.60 | 22.88% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 140.91 | 24.36% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 123.03 | 42.43% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 2048×1536 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 271.20 | 72.32% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 214.35 | 36.20% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 157.38 | |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 132.57 | 18.71% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 131.24 | 19.92% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 121.72 | 29.30% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 108.96 | 44.44% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1600×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 104.83 | 68.97% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 81.33 | 31.09% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 62.04 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 52.00 | 19.31% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 50.53 | 22.78% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 48.17 | 28.79% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 42.01 | 47.68% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1920×1440 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 77.80 | 69.43% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 52.51 | 14.35% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 45.92 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 40.76 | 12.66% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 36.88 | 24.51% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 35.05 | 31.01% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 29.85 | 53.84% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 2048×1536 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 7950 GX2 (XFX) | 69.94 | 71.46% |
| GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB (MSI) | 46.16 | 13.16% |
| GeForce 7950 GT (Zogis) | 40.79 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro (PowerColor) | 35.83 | 13.84% |
| GeForce 7900 GT (XFX) | 33.15 | 23.05% |
| GeForce 7800 GTX (XFX) | 31.42 | 29.82% |
| GeForce 7800 GT (NVIDIA) | 26.54 | 53.69% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
As we mentioned before, GeForce 7950 GT is positioned between GeForce 7900 GT and GeForce 7900 GTX, bringing a terrific performance for its price range.
GeForce 7950 GT is, on average, 20% faster than GeForce 7900 GT. Compared to Radeon X1950 Pro, GeForce 7950 GT was between 27% and 35% faster on 3DMark03, between 47% and 71% faster on Quake 4, between 13% and 31% faster on Far Cry and between 13% and 29% faster on Battlefield 2142. On 3DMark06 both cards achieved a similar performance and on F.E.A.R. the card from ATI was between 10% and 14% faster when no image quality enhancements were enabled, but when we increased image quality GeForce 7950 GT was between 11% and 27% faster.
In our opinion GeForce 7950 GT is the best video card on the USD 250 range. Of course if this is too much for you, you can pick a GeForce 7900 GT or a Radeon X1950 Pro – this one only if you don’t play Quake 4 or Doom 3, as these games run a lot faster on NVIDIA products.
If you have USD 50 more to spend we highly recommend the new GeForce 8800 GTS with 320 MB, as it brings a very high performance for a price not that high – compared to the usual price range of very high-end video cards, of course.
Leave a Reply