Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5850 and PSU

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 10, 2009 2:24:06 PM

I have a 650 watt "Win Power" PSU. Which doesn't seem like one that is certified. Currently i am running a GTS 250 on it and i have no problmes at all. In the future i am planning on upgrading the graphics card to an ATI 5850. I'm wondering would it be pushing the psu if i put the 5850 on? I have a 95 watt processor. The 5850 requirements specifies that it needs a 500 watt psu minimum. Would someone tell me whether i definately need to upgrade my power supply or would i be able to keep it. Just to say that i don't want to upgrade my power supply so that in the future i can add an even more power psu, i want to try and stick with the one i have. but if in the future i do upgrade graphics card and if i have to upgrade psu i will do so. My motherboard does not support SLI so i can't really get 2 GTS 250. Would it be worth anythng in the future?

More about : 5850 psu

October 10, 2009 2:28:58 PM

ARRRGHH. I have had a look at the specifications of the ATI 5850 and it says that it's maximum board power is 151 watts. For the GTS 250 it is 150 watts. My PSU is running the GTS 250 fine, but would the 5850 actually need a beter quality psu eventhough it is not using that much power. I can't tell how many rails my psu has, would the 5850 require more amps/rails than the GTS 250. I have had a look at my PSU and there is no information worth noting.
October 10, 2009 3:39:28 PM

The 5850 uses only slightly more power than your current card. You should be fine with that ps.
Related resources
October 10, 2009 3:48:18 PM

but the performance gain is incredible. Is it almost the same as 2 ati 4850s put together? Or is it actually better? Where i have seen it it costs less than the 4850x2. Wow so i can stick with my psu. This ati 5850 must really have an amazing new architecutre, almost revolutionary from the dx 10 graphics cards, but i'm just soo facinated how they've done it in such a short time, i thought the ati 4890 was already very new.
October 10, 2009 5:55:25 PM

Nashsafc said:
The ati 5850 can not be as good as one gtx 285? According to these results http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/Beany2004/perfre... it is. This just sounds too good to be true especially how the gtx285 is overpriced.

The 5850 and the gtx 285 go back and forth on some games, but the 5850 wins most. The 5850 is the much better deal since it is cheaper and it supports dx11.
October 10, 2009 6:01:46 PM

that sounds too good to be true. I thought the 5850 was about as good as a gtx 275. it's almost like ATI has come across alien technology and used it for it's own benefit, such as getting the performance of almost a gtx 285 for much less power consumption. i can't believe it only uses 1 more watt than a GTS 250 and it's performance is more than double. ATI cards must be very efficient and in architectural terms superior to NVIDIA cards. Maybe NVIDIA has better drivers. I can't imagine what the 5870 is like. That consumes 188 watts i'm guessing. And is that on it's own actually meant to be just about as good as a gtx 295?!?!
October 10, 2009 6:04:45 PM

looking on ebuyer.com, it's amazing too see how much more expensive the gtx 285 is to the 5850. It would be stupid not to go for a 5850 which is £30+ cheaper.
Just about 4 hours ago on ebuyer.com there was 1 ati 5850 it's gone now lol it must be really popular.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 10, 2009 7:03:35 PM

go to www.novatech.co.uk they have 5850s in stock, its where i got mine from.

You wont be dissapointed, its an absolute monster!! 3dmark06: 20763 points :D 
October 10, 2009 9:13:33 PM

i only really want this card because i have Crysis lol. That explains it all. I'm not getting it because it is overkill but because i would like to see what crysis looks like on high settings. I'm not one of those people who has to have the best lol, as soon as one card comes out upgrade the gtx285 to an ati 5870 i don't see the point in people doing that lol. Unless they see computer hardware as collectables. I play on a 19inch monitor with a 1280 x 1024 resolution i thought this would be game friendly, i'm sitting right in front of the screen so i don't need a great big massive thing.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 11:09:27 AM

Oh right. Well if you wanna see crysis on high, go to youtube

A 5800 series card would be overkill for your 19" monitor, Get a 4870 or maybe a GTX260.

Or wait until the 5700 series cards come out so that you can play DX11 games.
October 11, 2009 12:56:24 PM

not really. With my GTS 250 on medium settings i get about 30 to 40 fps on 1280 x 1024. But for games like Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and COD4 i get over 100 FPS average with 4 aa and 8 fsaa. Also notice that i want to try to be able to have aa and fsaa on crysis, with putting it on high settings, maybe not on ultra high though. But the thing is you see, the 5850 only uses one more watt than my current card, and i don't mind getting 70 or 80 FPS on Crysis, it means that in grapihcally intense moments it will come down and i can have the highest possible minium FPS which would be nice. I have noticed that FPS in games, does make a lot of difference especially when playing on the internet, having no lag i feel massive difference which usually brings me up to third or 2 place in the team at the end of the match if i'm playing against average players. i bught my GTS 250 for £100 yesi konw i aught to have got a ATI 4870 for that. But for me to have an upgrade, the next card has to be worth it. The ati 5850 which i have seen on the interent for £200 is very appealing especially seeing hw i can use the same psu i already have and it comes close to the GTX 285. This will hopefully be my future upgrade. It's always good to try and get an average FPS above 60 so that as i said it guarantees smooth gameplay. Turok and G.R.A.W i would also like to see some more FPS on.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 1:19:01 PM

well nashsafc you've seemed to have made up your mind already. I don't have Crysis so i cant tell you how well a 5850 performs on that game.

Make sure your CPU can keep up, my E8400@4.4ghz bottlenecks my 5850 at 1280x1024, but at 1920x1080 everything is fine and dandy :D 

Hope you like your new card!
October 11, 2009 4:03:00 PM

i have a phenom ii 720 at 3ghz. That's a three core. So you are very happy with your card then? To me 3dmark points mean nothing lol. I suppose there is a generalisation that cards that get high 3dmark points get high FPS in games as well. But i think i'll stay with the GTS 250 for sometime, i havn't got the money to spend on the 5850 yet. For most games i play also i'm getting good FPS with graphics on highest settings and some decent but not extreme aa and fsaa. It's only Crysis that i need to upgrade my card for eventually and Turok could see a bit more FPS too.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 4:33:12 PM

Your phenom should be fine, but i would overclock it to atleast 3.4ghz if you can.

Yeah im very happy with my 5850 I can now max out company of hereos tales of valor 1920x1080 8xAA all ultra and get 49.3FPS avg, but i think my Core 2 duo is holding it back slightly. 3Dmark is good for comparing components and seeing how your current system fairs against others.

I would hold out until early 2010, the 5850 should of gone down in price by then.
October 11, 2009 4:49:32 PM

why would i need to overclock it. I have by 200 mhz lol. But i thought that with overclocking the performance increase is marginal. Oh and your talking about a 1920x1080 resolution. I play with a 19inch monitor which is fine and has a 1280 x 1024 resolution. I am happy with a 19 inch screen because i am sitting right infront of it, i don't need something oversized. It is game happy as well. I aught to be fine with this processor for years at 3ghz if games stay 2 and 3 core optimised? Don't you rekon. Seeing how cpu speed havn't really changed from single core times one could still get 3ghz cpus.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 6:43:26 PM

Its just me, i like to get the maximum out of my hardware, im sure your phenom will be just fine.

I think that games coming out in 2010 will mainly be optimized to run on quads.

You might get a CPU bottleneck if you get a 5850 and game at 1280x1024. Basically you'll get huge framerates and your CPU wont be able to keep up, but its doesnt really matter that much because your framerates will be above 60. Maybe with the odd exception of crysis, which wants a very powerful CPU aswell.

If i can steal Crysis off my brother tomorrow i'll do some tests for you at 1280x1024.
Im pretty sure a 5850 will be able to max crysis at 1280x1024, not sure about AA though.
October 11, 2009 7:19:33 PM

i want to be realistic. eyy, your saying that my cpu isn't powerful enough to game with Crysis. According to the results here, dual cores do well at crysis - the Intel ones. Crysis is not quad core optimised. The e8600 beats quad cores at 3ghz. I have overclocked mine to 3.2ghz my phenom ii 720 shouldn't that be enough to play any game on the market regarding cpu performance (and keeping the gpu asside), and getting enthusiastic levels of FPS? I thought games anyway rely mainly on the GPU, once you have a relatively good CPU such as mine i bought for £100 (it's not cheap rubbish) games rely totally on the gpu. My ram is also 4gb so that doesn't have to be taken into concideration. But when you say bottlenecked by cpu do you mean on games i might get 300 FPS lol, such as on Far Cry (1) but if i got an i7 975 i would get 480FPS? The pii 720 does relatively well with quad cores, concerning Crysis, there won't really be any difference between a phenom ii 920 and a phenom ii 720. They are both clocked the same but the 920 is a quad core. i thought that playing crysis with an i7 920 and playing it with a phenom ii 720 with the same graphics card, the performance difference is very insignificant? When you say my cpu won't be able to keep up what do you mean by that, there will be stutter, or that my processor is only capable of getting 380 FPS in some games lol rather than 480 FPS with a game? Or that in Crysis i could be getting 72 FPS average as opposed to 60 with a more powerful processor.
October 11, 2009 7:26:23 PM

i have a micro atx case and a micro atx board. But the micro atx case is very well designed out, it is a tower case, and has just enough width to take any graphics card i want, and has plenty of length. it's just smaller so it cuts out the stuff i don't need. Unfortunately i can't do SLI/ CFX. I can't stick water cooling in either. But i can stick a fairly large Zalman cnps9500nt cooler in it, by pushing the hdd slightly further back and screwing just the two screws on it. I have myself quite a nice light and mobile gaming rig. I wonder what to do with my GTS 250 though, it would have been nice to buy another, but i don't know if i were to sell it, it would sell for that much.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 8:00:02 PM

Yeah you pretty much got the idea with the CPU bottleneck, i wouldnt worry about it to much.
I've just downloaded the crysis demo so i'll test it out for you(and for me, im curious) =] i'll have my E8400@ 4ghz and my 5850 @ stock (725/1000)

I hope that micro case has good cooling, these 5850's are toasty and i have a full tower case (Coolermaster HAF932)

I'll post back with the results tomorrow
October 11, 2009 8:07:15 PM

yeah it's suprising. Despite it being cheap, and made out of steel. it has lots of air vents on the side. It has an air vent on the bottom of the case right next to the graphics card. it has an air vent where i have put a fan at the front where it pulls up air underneat where there is space between the desk and the case. My GTS 250 idles at about 40 degrees celcius with it's cooler, does that sound like the 5850 can be chucked in? The only place the case doesn't have an air vent is at the top of the case, but i don't think that's needed since there are basicly air vents everywhere. The one at the front is located just between the plastic cover and the case, and the metal case has space for 3 80 - 90mm fans.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/160917/show_product_revie...
October 11, 2009 8:09:41 PM

The only downfall is that i have to put the hdd in the floppy drive bay, but i don't use that for anything, since i can push it all the way in, so that the wires don't touch with the cpu cooler. It fits anyway. But my cpu idles at 30 degrees according to the "core temperature" i don't know if that is true or not. On stock it idles at 26 degrees (celcius)
October 11, 2009 8:12:16 PM

hmm, the phenom ii 720 aught to do better than the e8400 at clock to clock? But i think the phenom ii 720 can only overclock to 3.7ghz. But i only really intend to overclock to 3.2ghz from 2.8ghz. Also, is the 5850 as long as a GTS 250?!?! Looking at this, it looks comparably similar to the GTS 250's length? If that is the case, this card would be a dream to have in my computer. WIth the case i have i would have 3cm between the gpu and case metal to fit the pci connectors if it extended the GTS 250 length by quite bit, would they fit in? I think so if i attach them to the gpu first and then put it in the case. But then looking at this review, it shows that two of the power connectors are at the front, if that is the case then it should fit without any worries at all in the case.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 9:26:49 PM

The 5850 is 24cm long and the 2 6pin power connectors are at the front.

I think you'll be fine aslong as you crank up the fan speed to about 40%

I just did some very quick benchmarks on Crysis, im very disappointed, maybe i expect to much from it.

Anyways. 1280x1024 Very High No AA Average: 36.02 Minimum: 21.8 Maximum: 45.16

1280x1024 Very High 16xAA Average: 30.185 Minimum: 18.84 Maximum: 36.34

1280x1024 high NoAA Average 56.91 Minimum: 33.59 Maximum: 76.37

!920x1080 High 8xAA Average : 36.225 minimum: 26.66 Maximum: 44.94


To me these seem really ***. but maybe its just because im using a beta release driver. I also get very poor results in company of hereos......

Might get a refund : /
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 11, 2009 9:44:51 PM

forget what i just said!

Those results were in DX10 mode

DX10 1680x1050 very high no AA average: 32.08

DX9 1680x1050 very high no AA Average: 68.73


DX10 is the devil!
October 11, 2009 9:56:03 PM

ahh, you see what i mean. That's why i need a 5850 lol. I am intending to play it at high settings, or maybe medium with a bit of aa and fsaa. No that sounds about right. With the GTS 250 i get about 30 to 40 fps on medium settings. On high settings it stuggles and i get about 28 FPS lol. by fsaa i mean 4 and aa 2. Maybe i can see how it looks without aa maybe it looks better. To be honest with aa enabled i see more jagged lines than i do with aa off, it's just that they are smaller jagged lines. If that is the case with that card, it sounds too good to be true, that it has it's power connections at the front it will fit in my case like a dream. lol super micro atx case, although still if it had its power connectors at the sides and it was longer it would still fit my case without modifications. i could stick a gtx 295 with a power upgrade, but with 5850 means i can stay with my psu. And for my other games i don't need a GTX 295 to play COD 4, since i get 110 FPS average with 4 aa and 8 fsaa with a GTS 250. Without overclocking either cpu or gpu. Ok cpu on 3ghz which is 200 mhz more lol.

Lol are you taking the p i s s. You want a refund just because you get reasonably low frame rates on crysis. For that game you need CFX 4890 or SLI GTX 275 lol. You know what i mean. The GTX 285 doesn't do great on Crysis on very high settings either and the 5850 is meant to be slightly less than the GTX 285. But this card is awsome, remember 151 WATTS!?! Seriously that's revlutionary for that amount of performance. Crysis is an odd game, when putting it on medium settings it looks like an average 128mb graphics game or slightly less and still i get low frame rates. And games like Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on max settings i get 90 FPS average (with aa and fsaa high), aught to get that really on Crysis lol medium settings. You know what i mean, that game is meant to be for show offs who have 2 or 4 high end graphic cards who want to play it smoothly. In my opinion, 40 FPS is not smooth, on the internet if someone has 70 FPS they will find it easier to fight against you. but obviously if they're bad at gaming they might lose.
October 12, 2009 9:53:25 AM

on dx 9 you can't get ultra high settings for Crysis, you can only get high that's what i heard about. So no wonder massive difference. Although can you uninstall dx 10 and run dx 9 on windows vista? But then dx 11 is coming out, is that meant to be even slower. Can that be put onto Vista?
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 10:33:08 AM

Yeah I think when your playing the actual game you cant have very high settings for DX9, but i was only using the benchmarking tool, which had no problem using very high settings with DX9.

I cant believe how much performance hit there is from DX9 to DX10 and it doesnt look much different IMO.

I've heard that DX11 will come out for windows7 first but it'll come out for Vista later.

I guess i was expecting more from a £218 card. I mean its barely playable at 1280x1024 very high with NoAA.

If you want i can do another test with:

1280x1024 DX9 Very high with 4xAA????

Let me know =]
October 12, 2009 11:13:51 AM

no the ati 5850 seems like a very attractive deal. Your getting better performance than a GTX 275. It only uses 151 watts!!! It has it's 2 pci power connectors at the front and it is not as long as the 4870x2 this card should be a dream to fit inside my computer. As someone has said, when the new drivers are updated and are relaeased the 5850 might get a performance increase. That sounds about right you know, Crysis seems is a card destroying game. For the GTS 250 it seems to play all of my 128mb min graphics games on full settings with aa and fsaa. COD 4 plays like a dream, Far Cry never falls bellow 100 FPS lol. But i would like to see a bit more performance on G.R.A.W and Turok which sometimes i am getting 40 FPS average. In some levels. At the moment i am waiting for my zalman cnps 9500-nt cooler to come. I'm replacing the Arctic Cooler with it. I don't think there'll be much of a cooling performance increase. What do you rekon?
October 12, 2009 11:15:41 AM

have you got Turok, and is it actually possible to downgrade to dx 9? From dx 10? Try playing it on 1280 x 1024 with aa on 4 and fsaa on 8.
October 12, 2009 12:17:32 PM

Just thought I'd add my 2cents on the Crysis frame-rates. I just built a new PC with an i5 clocked to 3.2ghz and a 5850 and it seems to have absolutely no problem running Crysis at 1920x1080 on Very High Everything with 8xAA. Can't give you exact framerates as I haven't measured yet but I've experienced no hiccups so far, everything is perfectly smooth and playable, which I find quite odd as a lot of people are saying they still can't run it smoothly.
October 12, 2009 12:19:43 PM

Can't Edit for some reason but forgot to add that's in Dx10 mode.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 12:37:24 PM

I think you'll notice some differance in cooling performance, probably not a huge amount though. And yes it is possible to play a DX10 game in DX9 mode.

1280x1024 DX9 High 4xAA Min: 35.90 Max: 75.36 Avg: 62.78

1280x1024 DX10 High 4xAA Min: 26.51 Max: 63.44 Avg: 49.025

1280x1024 DX10 Very High 4xAA Min: 21.22 Max: 37.95 Avg: 31.555

1280x1024 DX10 Very High NoAA Min: 22.04 Max: 48.57 Avg: 39.47

No I don't have Turok. The only games i have is company of heroes, call of duty world at war, Race driver grid, fear 2.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 12:47:28 PM

hey mouner, Could you please use the crysis benchmark tool so i can compare my results to yours, I'd really appreciate it.

I used your settings (1920x1080 very high DX10 8xAA) and got very poor results

Min: 15.56 Max:28.25 Avg: 24.495
October 12, 2009 3:22:16 PM

"omgitsfatal" your results sound more realistic. And also when you say you play at 1920 x 1080 resolution, it depends how you interpret what a smooth game play FPS is. For me i cantell the difference between 60 FPS and 30 FPS. I struglle with 30 fps and i don't find it playable. But maybe at least with a 5850 i could play it on medium settings with 4 aa and 8 fsaa? Possibly get over 60 FPS average? Or at least around 58. With my GTS 250 with 2aa and 4 fsaa, i'm getting 30-40 FPS. That sounds silly lol, how dx 10 is reducting fps from my game. Could that be the case with other games as wel lol, like COD 4 if i were to run that on dx 9 it would run faster? But then would the graphics actualyl look slightly worse. Or does it not really effect anything, i though that games with 128mb weren't using dx10 and dx10 wouldn't benefit them in anyway.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 4:19:41 PM

Im pretty sure Call of duty world at war is direct X9, it uses the same graphics engine as call of duty 4 modern warfare.

If you use DX9 at 1280x1024 high detail and 4xAA you'll get over 60FPS average.

Just tryed my mates quadcore Q6600@3.4ghz and got about 2-6 more FPS average arcoss the board.

For me 40+FPS is playable, and i wouldnt want the minimum to be below 35FPS.

DX10 looks slightly better, but i dnt think its worth the performance hit. I hope DX11 isnt going to bring my 5850 to its knees >.<
October 13, 2009 11:22:35 AM

so there's no point putting dx 9 lol anyway? if it is only a 6 fps increase. So games like COD4 run fine on dx10?
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 1:10:23 PM

No, I found there to be a 2-6FPS increse going from a E8400 to a Q6600

COD4 is not DX10

Theres a big performance hit going from DX9 to DX10, but not all games are DX10, most are only DX9.

Look at my Crysis results.

DX10 1680x1050 very high no AA average: 32.08

DX9 1680x1050 very high no AA Average: 68.73

Same settings used except 1 is DX10 and the other is DX9, my framerate more than doubled!
October 14, 2009 10:03:38 AM

Could you happilly do some tests on Crysis again for me please. On medium settings with 4 aa and 8 fsaa on a 1280 x 1024 resolution. Could you clock your processor to 3.2ghz please for me so it makes it more realistic for me since i have my processor clocked to 3.2ghz. Have you got the q6600 or the e8400? if it's the q6600 could you clock it to 3.1ghz please for me, to make it as clocse to the phenom ii 720 so i can generalise how much fps i would get if i got the ATI 5850. Then could you try 2 aa and 4 fsaa for me please, with the same resolution and medium settings, thanks.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 15, 2009 10:45:19 AM

I have a E8400 The Q6600 is my friends.

@3.2ghz 1280x1024 meduim 4xAA DX9

Min: 45.11 Max: 111.04 Avg:79.675

@3.2ghz 1280x1024 medium 2xAA DX9

Min:43.26 Max: 97.81 Avg: 71.405

(somehow got worse FPS with less AA)

You could probably crank it up to high with 4xAA on DX9 and still get decent framerates. 3.2ghz didnt seem to bottleneck to much.

Oh btw i just put a thermalright HR-03 GT cooler on my 5850 runs at 28C idle and 57C under Furmark :)  instead of 83C and now completely slient
October 16, 2009 2:36:49 PM

could you put 2aa and 4 anistropic filtering, i thought you see fsaa was anistorpic.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 16, 2009 3:19:29 PM

theres no option for it. but you could force it through CCC.I m sure it would run fine with 16xAF and 4xAA all high @ 1280x1024
October 18, 2009 2:50:19 PM

hmm, i think 2aa and 4af sounds better. Do you prefer catalyst drivers or NVIDIA drivers. Catalyst more easier to use? That's what i rekon. Plus shows you picture of what aa and af looks liek which is a plus.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 3:31:03 PM

uhmm....couldnt tell you tbh coz ive never had an Nvidia card before. I do like ATi's CCC, very easy to use and gives you alot of infomation
October 19, 2009 3:35:07 PM

wow that sounds pretty amazing, you coolint that thing to that temperature. What ram speed are you using. Me corsair xms2 800mhz.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 3:43:18 PM

im using 4gig of OCZ platinum edition PC2-8000 running at 890mhz 5-5-5-12

Currently selling half my PC on ebay now : / gonna miss 4.5ghz E8400
October 19, 2009 3:47:41 PM

why? What you upgrading with? A quad core lol and what speed. Don't sell the 5850 lol, don't be silly.
October 19, 2009 3:51:37 PM

so it would be stupid not to get 5850. Do you rekon so far NVIDIA are screwed pretty much, how ATI have better cards than them and are cheaper as well, or much better for the price. They not only win the enthusiasts, who want the best, people who want the most energy efficiency, people who want the best performance for the price. Do you rekon NVIDIA could go downhill if they don't decrease prices of their current GPUs or introduce the GTX 300 series soon lol? It's funny how gaming rigs have eventually led me to AMD ATI,despite i have never had an intel computer. The only advantage with AMD though is price, because apart from that their processors are worse off, only the price means that their processors are worth buying.
a c 126 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 5:13:08 PM

Im upgrading to a EVGA P55 FTW Motherboard, A intel Core i5 750, and 4gig of G.Skill 1600mhz 7-7-7-20.

Im going to try to get 4ghz out of the i5, but i'll settle for 3.6ghz.

Nvidia are indeed in the s++t unless they bring out very powerful DX11 cards for a decent price, IMO they would have to drop the prices of the GT200 series alot aswell.

AMD look to gain a big market share in the mainstream GPU market.

only time will tell if Nvidia have completely lost this round, have to wait to see what the GT300 series brings.
Personally I don't care, i know what i want and thats 2x 5850's in crossfire with Thermalright HR-03 GT's :D 


Cant wait to see some DX11 games.


So when are you planing on getting your 5850???
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!