Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4770 benchmarks

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 10:56:41 AM

http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/421074-12...

According to those horrible graphs, it's about 5% slower than a 4850 over 12 games.

More about : 4770 benchmarks

a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 11:36:41 AM

:p  lolz better stay away from that...
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 11:38:33 AM

I mean those charts :p  and not the card :D 
Related resources
April 21, 2009 9:04:20 PM

Well, assuming the blue line is the HD 4850's FPS on the particular game and the red line is the HD 4770's FPS on the same game, at the same settings.... that's awesome.

Average is that it's 94.5% as fast as the HD 4850, and if it comes out at $99, that'd mean the HD 4850 should cost (to retain an equal P/P ratio) $105. So... big win for consumers 'cause that won't happen (yet). And it SHOULD have lower power consumption/noise, so, bonus there, too.

I'm stoked.
April 21, 2009 9:17:50 PM

Dekasav said:
Well, assuming the blue line is the HD 4850's FPS on the particular game and the red line is the HD 4770's FPS on the same game, at the same settings.... that's awesome.

Average is that it's 94.5% as fast as the HD 4850, and if it comes out at $99, that'd mean the HD 4850 should cost (to retain an equal P/P ratio) $105. So... big win for consumers 'cause that won't happen (yet). And it SHOULD have lower power consumption/noise, so, bonus there, too.

I'm stoked.

Overclock it to reach the exact speed of the 4850 :D 
April 21, 2009 9:19:32 PM

The only significant place the HD 4770 loses to the HD 4850 is in memory bandwidth, actually. And I believe the lowest grade GDDR5 is rated at 900Mhz, so there should be some potential, there.

But the HD 4850 can OC too, so I prefer to stay stock when doing comparisons, unless we find that the HD 4770 does, in fact, have a lot of headroom.
April 21, 2009 9:30:28 PM

Dekasav said:
The only significant place the HD 4770 loses to the HD 4850 is in memory bandwidth, actually. And I believe the lowest grade GDDR5 is rated at 900Mhz, so there should be some potential, there.

But the HD 4850 can OC too, so I prefer to stay stock when doing comparisons, unless we find that the HD 4770 does, in fact, have a lot of headroom.

I hope so :) 
April 21, 2009 9:59:50 PM

If those are true then the prices of everything above above it in performance would have to come down?
a c 107 U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 10:09:00 PM

It's gonna put the hurt on the 9800GT thats for sure.
April 21, 2009 10:09:08 PM

Dekasav said:

Average is that it's 94.5% as fast as the HD 4850, and if it comes out at $99, that'd mean the HD 4850 should cost (to retain an equal P/P ratio) $105.

I'm stoked.


You can pick up a Sapphire HD 4850 with dual slot cooler on newegg for 105 after rebate. Notice that it's not the stock ATI cooler.
a c 176 U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 10:30:54 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong jenny, but its supposed to replace the 4830, not the 4850.

I'm starting to wonder if there is a need for the 4850 as well. The 4770 can sit at $99 and have nearly the performance of the 4850/9800GTX. (this should put it well above the 9800GT.) The 512MB 4870 can now sit at $130? The 1GB can sit at $180, while the new 4890 can be whatever above $200. They no longer have a different card every $20 apart, and all their cards above $100 use GDDR5. I don't see what Jenny sees, this is a good thing.
April 21, 2009 11:20:58 PM

I don't think there was ever a need for this card, however, it IS an advancement of technology (as it's done on a 40nm process), and that is plenty to bring it out. It doesn't bring any higher performance, just (likely) more performance per watt, more performance per dollar (well... a little, maybe), and something for ATI to work on their 40nm process with.

So really, it's just a card they made to test the 40nm process, increase yields on what may have sold very well (HD 4830's and 50's), and maybe make a buck in the process.

So... the positioning of the card seems good to me, especially since it'll likely use less power than the HD 4850, and its price seems to be pretty well in line.
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 11:23:10 PM

I'm not saying it's not a good thing. This card clearly wins vs everything in its price bracket and the only thing stopping it from being faster than a 4850 is the 800mhz memory, and that should overclock by a large amount.

I was talking about the graphs, which are pretty hopelessly done.
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2009 11:25:29 PM

The need for the card is simple enough. It removes the 8800gt/9800gt from the picture. You would never buy one of those now, yet people still bought the 9800gt over the 4830.

I assume Nvidia will have to drop prices on those by a pretty large margin, and also drop the gtx250 to around the $100 mark.
April 21, 2009 11:25:49 PM

4745454b said:
Correct me if I'm wrong jenny, but its supposed to replace the 4830, not the 4850.

I'm starting to wonder if there is a need for the 4850 as well. The 4770 can sit at $99 and have nearly the performance of the 4850/9800GTX. (this should put it well above the 9800GT.) The 512MB 4870 can now sit at $130? The 1GB can sit at $180, while the new 4890 can be whatever above $200. They no longer have a different card every $20 apart, and all their cards above $100 use GDDR5. I don't see what Jenny sees, this is a good thing.

Someone else thinking like me :D 
April 21, 2009 11:25:54 PM

I agree, the graphs are terrible. I really wish we had info, too (resolution, settings, etc.)
!