Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wow i have a time machine, tomorrows 5770 review today

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:11:57 PM


Well this was a nice surprise.

Bit dissapointing, as i feared the poxy 128 bit bus has done for what should have been a stonking card.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=3036&c...


Mactronix
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:26:42 PM

Aw, c'mon. 128-bit? Seems as if they had 256 then it would beat the 4890...

Still though, 160$? DX11? Eyefinity? > GTX260?
+1ATI!
October 12, 2009 8:31:24 PM

Not too shabby. 4870 performance w/ less power consumption, eyefinity and DX 11 support. Decent mid-range card. I do agree that the 128-bit bus needs to go, but I guess thats what you get for a non-high end GPU.
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:33:35 PM

Dont see the logic in this even if they had gone 192 bit like some of the reviewers thought it might then it would in my opinion have been a suitable replacement for both the 4870 and 4890. the 4890 was basically a rehash to help get better clocks from the 4870 engine as far as i can see so calling it a product line is a bit much really.
I think they have missed the mark a bit here and cant justify the cost of what is basically an upgrade to get DX11 on to my PC, not at that price/ perf anyway. :( 
Hopefully we will see a differance when these cards are tested in a DX11 runtime enviroment. Still its early days and i guess we cant write the card of just yet based on 1 review.

Mactronix
a c 144 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:35:23 PM

in all honesty looking at 5850/5870 i'd expect the card will perform on par with 4870 or better. but still the HD5770 have DX11 to offer
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:35:44 PM

Anyone think there may be a chance that one of the board partners will make one with a bigger bus ? Are they even allowed to change such a feature ?

Mactronix
a c 144 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:40:17 PM

maybe they will but who knows.....remember what happen when they put GDDR5 module on 4850?
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:43:47 PM

Just checked as i thought i remembered something similar happening a while ago. Turns out that HIS made a X1650XT with a 256 bit bus(I had one) instead of the 128 bit bus the standard card had, so there is hope that it might happen.

Mactronix [:lectrocrew:5] (Me praying to the god of memory buses)
a c 144 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:48:55 PM

hope it will. i myself have set my eyes on 5770 as a candidate for my future upgrade :p 
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 8:57:47 PM

Yea well i guess a lot of it depends on what you have now and what you are looking to upgrade to and to do what with i guess. Im sure it will be a better card when tested under W7 anyway and as i said its early days but for me at least its looking like im waiting for either the refresh or the board partners to work some magic :D  If i didnt just get a new card a while ago it would be a shoe in but i did so cant justify the expense :( 

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 9:05:08 PM

Based on that I'm not impressed.
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 9:23:31 PM

As you say based on that..... Hopefully its not the same for other reviews, somehow i doubt it could be that far out though. I really think AMD have dropped the ball on a seriously good chance to convert most if not all mainstream gamers over to AMD/ATI cards here. If they had given this card a realistic bus size,(I still think 192 bit would have done it) and released a decent test platform, personally i would have gone with a section from an upcoming DX11 game to wet the appetite for the card and the new tech. Well if they had done that then people would be all over each other to get the cards in thier machines.
As it is im not that bothered any more.
Mactronix
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 10:12:13 PM

So as I see it, barely even 4870 performance? This is no upgrade card for many. If you already have a 4870/GTX260, you don't really want this. I was thinking with the better/bigger back end and higher clocks, it would do better then the 4870. I guess that little memory bandwidth holds it back to much. At $160 its ok, but cheaper would have been a lot better. For people who still use older cards like the 8800GS/GT, this isn't bad. But as said, its not great either. I guess we'll have to see what lower end card Nvidia can come up with.

Is this the $200 card AMD was supposed to come out with? The 5850 is $260, while this is $160. I thought AMD was aiming for a $200 card and I thought the Juniper XT was supposed to be it. Is there a Juniper XTX coming now?
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 10:20:51 PM

So it basically performs between a 4870 and a 4850. So there's really no reason to get a 5770 if these benchmarks are correct since the 4870 and 4850 are already $150 and $100 respectively. >_>
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 10:30:32 PM

Pretty much, unless like me you still use an 8800GS. Or if you REALLY want DX11/Eyefinity. For all of you who use an 4870/4890 or the GTX260 or better, you'll want to avoid.
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 10:32:51 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
So it basically performs between a 4870 and a 4850. So there's really no reason to get a 5770 if these benchmarks are correct since the 4870 and 4850 are already $150 and $100 respectively. >_>


Exactly so if the people with these cards are not the ones they wer aiming at who were they aiming at

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 10:52:02 PM

Id hold off on deciding on these cards perf. Its been shown that they arent BW limited, so, its either drivers, or a bad preview, which then , you can remember the source.
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33953894
Not sure how itll fare at this point. Its winning in FC2, so it could be drivers, with a boost here, it could surpass the 4870 and be close to the 4890 in perf, and its what Im looking at, somewheres in between the 4870 and the 4890
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 11:44:57 PM

Just to let everyone know, the bus cannot be changed, and going with a 192bit memory configuration would've meant either more or less RBE/ROPs and thus either a castrated card or a card with alot more transistors (and likely a less balanced configuration compared to their top->bottom line-up).

And Mac, remember the X1650XT was a different chip than the X1650Pro, it's not up to the AIBs to determine bus-width above the top end for a range, it needs to be supported, and usually it's supported downwards in that they either disable parts or else they reduce the interface to chip ratio and thus make 64bit or 32 bit (for the very low end) configurations without having to change the chip.

As JDJ mentions FartCry2 shows even with 8XAA it hangs well with the others that have more memory bandwidth, and it looks like it'll be an interesting situation as we see more tests because it has more back-end power than the other HD4Ks, and the shader power should be slightly better than the HD4890 also, so I have a feeling this is only the early performance of a card that will likely hang well with the HD4870 and then win some lose some with the 4890 over time.

This review is a little too brief and limited for my tastes, promising for the laptop sector though if they build something based on this (I think 700/1000 would be a good balance, heck even 700/700 would likely do well in most older games including Oblivion and allow easy 1920x1200/1080 on mosty laptops, especially if paired with the mobile core i7/i5 solutions).
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2009 11:53:41 PM

I do believe that the drivers are off by quite a bit yet. Compare this to a 4770 and I can't see any good reason why it would have such a small increase in performance.
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 1:18:23 AM

Meh, it's a mainstream card. A cheaper-to-produce replacement for the 4850/4770.
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 1:38:11 AM

I guess it makes sense that way, and the 4850 was a high end card just over a year ago. That is probably why the 5770 seems less than spectacular now.

It is also easy to forget that the 4870 is still a very powerful card. It's on a different level from the 4850 so i guess the 5770 really is a step forward.
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 1:52:54 AM

The 5770 should be a pleasant surprise once all the benchmarks are said and done. Everything I've seen regarding it make the card a solid value, and not just with DX11, over the last generation.

It isn't meant to be a world-beater, I think people forget that sometimes.
October 13, 2009 1:56:03 AM

AMD was going to charge $200 for this card, and romours said it would have a 192-bit memory bus and like 1120 stream processors.
I think those specs are more likely to be reserved for a future 5830, maybe?
Still, it would have been nice for the 5770 to be on-par with the 4890.... especially since it's like $10 more expensive than the 4870.
Good thing is, heat and power consumption has gone way down (which were major problems for the 4870), and it has yet to be seen how DX11 will perform in these cards.
I guess yesterday's high-end is today's mainstream, which is good, considering improvements and price.
I'll get a 5770 for xmas probably, and I'm upgrading from a GF 8600 GT, so I'll see a great performance increase and I think it's just better to pay the extra over the 4870 for its features and reduced energy consumption and heat.
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 2:00:46 AM

The card is going for $160 on newegg.
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 2:20:10 AM

Well, I think (assuming these numbers are correct/not held back by drivers) some came into this with a little too high hopes, expecting another 4770. This card will be a good value once it is priced where it should be (right now prices are probably kept high to sell 4800s) but it is a x7xx card, not an x8xx card. The 4770 was more of a test card they decided to produce and just assigned a random number to, and although it performed like a x8xx card all the numbers were gone, so it was called an x7xx. The 5770 was planned from the start so it should have a more logical market segment - clearly below the enthusiast cards. Hopefully something like a 5830 will come out in time to fill the cheap low-high end slot that the 4770 oddly claimed last round (that rightfully belonged to the 4830).
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 2:47:55 AM

I agree in the sense that the 4770 was most likelt miss named, and would have been better the 48xx something.
The fact it was on the smaller process made it outperform something similar on 55nm tho, but if it was done on the 55nm, its perf wouldve been lower.
Yea, therell most likely be a 5830 of some type, but only after theres enough stock to do so, or yields get better
October 13, 2009 2:59:16 AM

5830 with a 192mem bus would be kool, just wonderin though i wonder how this thing would fare on a resolution higher then 1900x1200 . after all you never know what the future holds and maybe resolutions higher then that on a flat screen will become affordable in the near future. then im wonderin how would this mem bus affect it. but at this piont i think 1900x1200 is no problem.

also as far as i can tell, it seems like it can do better then 4870 the higher the graphic settings where. also the higher the higher the resolution, on crysis and far cry2. makes me wonder if that review was accurate or if its just drivers. they said that with higher resolution the performance dropped alot.

but it looked to me like on the crysis and far cry2 page, the 4870 dropped more, and this is how i figured that. on max settings the difference for the 5770 from 1200x1000 res to 1900x1200 res was 11fps. but the difference in frames per second between resolutions of 1200x1000 to 1900x1200 on the 4870 was far more drop in FPS of 16-17 fps. so with improved drivers and more complex games, it looks to me that the 5770 is a great deal better, and thats just gonna scale with dx11 and newer games
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 7:49:20 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Just to let everyone know, the bus cannot be changed, and going with a 192bit memory configuration would've meant either more or less RBE/ROPs and thus either a castrated card or a card with alot more transistors (and likely a less balanced configuration compared to their top->bottom line-up).

And Mac, remember the X1650XT was a different chip than the X1650Pro, it's not up to the AIBs to determine bus-width above the top end for a range, it needs to be supported, and usually it's supported downwards in that they either disable parts or else they reduce the interface to chip ratio and thus make 64bit or 32 bit (for the very low end) configurations without having to change the chip.

As JDJ mentions FartCry2 shows even with 8XAA it hangs well with the others that have more memory bandwidth, and it looks like it'll be an interesting situation as we see more tests because it has more back-end power than the other HD4Ks, and the shader power should be slightly better than the HD4890 also, so I have a feeling this is only the early performance of a card that will likely hang well with the HD4870 and then win some lose some with the 4890 over time.

This review is a little too brief and limited for my tastes, promising for the laptop sector though if they build something based on this (I think 700/1000 would be a good balance, heck even 700/700 would likely do well in most older games including Oblivion and allow easy 1920x1200/1080 on mosty laptops, especially if paired with the mobile core i7/i5 solutions).



Ah the voice of reason speaks again, yea guess i did get a bit carried away with being dissapointed about the bus.
Now you mention it i think the X1650 XT was basically a cut down 1950 so that makes more sense as well. Im going to get stuck into some reviews now but am hoping some will include a W7 machine to see how MT and any other possable optimisations may make a differance.

Mactronix
October 13, 2009 8:02:41 PM

ATIs low end card just about keeps up with the 4870, i dont know what all of you where hoping for, plus DX11 its a good card
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 12:17:40 AM

I think the issue is that while the 5770 is between the 4850 and the 4870, the 4770 is well ahead of the previous generation 3870, not just under it.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 12:29:38 AM

randomizer said:
I think the issue is that while the 5770 is between the 4850 and the 4870, the 4770 is well ahead of the previous generation 3870, not just under it.


That is an unfair comparison though. The 4770 was created right at the end of the main 55nm phase, and is why it looked so good 5 months ago.

I like to compare chips on a transistor vs transistor basis. There is almost nothing between the 5770 and 4870 in that regard with both coming in ~1 billion.

What the 5770 gains in optimisations, it loses on memory bandwidth. This is the real difference between the cards, but dont forget that the 4870 is *still* an incredibly powerful card. 16 months ago the 4870 just blew away everything, it was only later that we realised how power hungry and hot/loud it was.

Look at these new 5-series. My new 5850 draws much less power, and I can hardly hear it above the noise of my case fans.

Improvements are being made on a lot more fronts than just plain fps.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 12:39:34 AM

I was kind of responding to rangers' question of "what were we hoping for?" I know it's not a very good comparison (not exactly apples and oranges, more like Red Delicious and Royal Gala).

It's good that power consumption and noise reductions are back on the agenda. My GTX275 is silent unless I play games, then it gets up to 80C and roars. Well, roars a bit less than my X1950 pro did 24/7.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 2:50:09 AM

But as Ive said before, the 4770 was somewhat misnamed, and could have been the 4830, if ATI hadnt already had plans to make that card as well, and of course the fishing with the new node etc.
I say, give em a break for misnaming 1 card, at least it was only 1 that was somewhat confusing, not their whole market profile heheh
October 14, 2009 3:07:48 AM

I agree with most of you guys that HD5770 is disappointing. I would pick up a HD5830 if it is to be released in two weeks. Otherwise, HD4890.
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 8:54:23 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
But as Ive said before, the 4770 was somewhat misnamed, and could have been the 4830, if ATI hadnt already had plans to make that card as well, and of course the fishing with the new node etc.
I say, give em a break for misnaming 1 card, at least it was only 1 that was somewhat confusing, not their whole market profile heheh



Just don't see where you are coming from JD, they could have called the 4770 what they liked and it still wouldn't alter the fact that when it was released it was a good fast card at a reasonable price point.
The 5770 has 1 quarter more SP's that the 4770 did has double the Ram and some different outputs. Yes i know that's being very simplistic about it and i know there are other differences as well. The thing is though the differences, in my opinion don't add up to a 66% price increase.(Based on UK pricing) Sure i was expecting to pay more for the card but its just priced too high for what it is.
I'm not saying its a bad card far from it but I'm not buying it at that price is all. Either AMD decided to make a loss or just about break even on the 4770, which i find hard to believe, or they are bumping up the prices on this card. I see no reason why anyone could think based on whats come before (4770) that the vast majority of the people who are disappointed are wrong to be so.
AMD priced the 4770 where they did knowing the performance of the card and so creating this expectation that the same or very similar would happen again this time around, so they created this what is to my mind totally understandable expectation in the market.
I have said elsewhere on the forum that its to be expected that they would start bumping the prices up some point. Just a little to soon and too steep is all. If this card had been just that bit more affordable people would have swallowed it without a word.
So are AMD being to eager with the price rises or did they under price the 4770 ? Either way its their doing and i for one completely understand peoples responses.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 12:51:52 PM

Yeah, I agree. I think the card is great and where I would expect, but as DX11 has yet to show its worth and ATI is not forthcoming with the evidence, the card's performance alone does not justify the price. I can't help but get the feeling that ATI is "fishing" like both companies did in the old days. In other words, putting the cards out priced somewhat high, especially when they have low quantities, just to see what people will buy them for. If they don't have a ton yet, I could understand pricing them high, since they are in no rush to sell them. However, like matronix pointed out, the question is if this is too soon. Most everyone is comfortable with ATI being the best price vs perf., but if they continue to hold the speed crown as well, will people be comfortable with the higher prices that come along with that?
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 1:07:30 PM

You say the card is where you would expect but others (review sites) were expecting it to be around the 4890 or solidly all over a 4870 which it isnt. looking at the hardware stats between the 4770/4850/4870 and 4890 compared with the 5770 it looks pretty obvious to me that something is wrong with the performance of the card. Could be drivers but if thats the case then they are seriously bad drivers or else its all tied to the price being so high to help shift the 4870 and 4890 cards that are left out there.

Mactronix
October 14, 2009 1:14:57 PM

mactronix said:
You say the card is where you would expect but others (review sites) were expecting it to be around the 4890 or solidly all over a 4870 which it isnt. looking at the hardware stats between the 4770/4850/4870 and 4890 compared with the 5770 it looks pretty obvious to me that something is wrong with the performance of the card. Could be drivers but if thats the case then they are seriously bad drivers or else its all tied to the price being so high to help shift the 4870 and 4890 cards that are left out there.

Mactronix

Agree!
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 1:16:25 PM

Oh sorry, I meant for the number it was assigned. I would expect a x7xx card to be well below the x8xx and more on par with the previous gen mid-high end (4870). I agree with you that the perf numbers don't quite make sense in respect to the hardware, but we won't know for sure if that is a bandwidth flaw or a driver flaw until a couple real sets of drivers are out.
!