Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4870 xfx versus 5750

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 13, 2009 10:18:58 PM

Hi guys i am building an i7 system and was wondering which is better a 512mb 4870 xfx graphics card or a new sapphire 1gb 5750 is there much difference i am running a 20 inch monitor cheers

More about : 4870 xfx versus 5750

October 13, 2009 10:20:01 PM

also the 5750 is cheeper at £92
October 13, 2009 10:21:52 PM

or is it worth getting the 5770 which is less than £20 more
Related resources
October 13, 2009 10:36:29 PM

looked at the stuff you gave me in the toms review the 5770 is rated ok. maybe not as fast as the 4870 1gb but i am after the 512 mb one in that series the one gb is expensive. also it says that $15 is a no brainer for the extras u get on the card.
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 10:42:33 PM

That's assuming you'll take advantage of the extras. :) 

I just thought those links would help you decide. I guess if I had to choose between the 5770 and a 4870 512MB, I'd choose the 5770 because it's shiny and new.
October 13, 2009 10:44:19 PM

thanks if however i had the money i guess u would suggest i go for the 4870 do u think the 256 bit will make much difference
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 10:52:10 PM

I'll refer you to the benchmarks again. Yes, the 128-bit RAM bus is the achilles heel of the 57x0 cards.
October 13, 2009 11:08:01 PM

Wait a minute harrypot your going i7 right? as in LGA 1136? So you will have pre enabled crossfire?
Then go HD 5770. Nuff said.
First of all, reviews are very unstables. Sometimes it beats HD4870, sometimes its same level, and sometimes it beats HD4890.
I say this is a driver problem and WILL be fixed soon. It should beat a HD4870 and be a little less better then a HD 4890.

Now You HAVE the BEST crossfire in the world. LGA 1366. you SHOULD use it.
I mean check this out man:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-tes...

Scales at 100%. Never saw that in my whole life.
It beats a HD 5850 AND a HD 5870.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-tes...

Once again, near 100% scale. It goes head to head against a HD5850 CROSSFIRE and a HD5870 CROSSFIRE AGAIN.

Now to show you crysis for example :

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-tes...

At a low resolution, it still playable. If you crossfire, it becomes same as if you got a HD5850.

I think it's enough said. Everything seems driver related. Future Catalyst centers will probably boost this card's performance good enough.
You can buy one now at 150$ it will be good enough, and wait for holidays to get another one at 100~$ and you will have a very good build, the most scalable build I ever saw in my life.

Now all the FPS are pure theoretical. First of all, you will NOT use MSAA 2x, thus winning ~5to10 fps.
You WILL overclock this baby thus winning 3 FPS exactly
you WILL overclock your CPU thus winning 5 FPS exactly (recent benchmark on toms)
There WILL be driver updates, thus wining ~3 FPS once again.

Tadam, Crysis is fully playable at 1280x1024 and very playable at 1600x1200.

To explain the scalability of this GPU is simple. A GPU needs nothing more then 256.
HD5850 and 5870 are already 256. When you crossfire, you are now with 512bit bandwidth. it's a total waste, and can cause lose in scales. That is why they both scale at around 70%.

This baby right here is 128bit, 256 if you crossfire. it's PERFECT. it will PERFECTLY scale, thus reaching near 100% scalability.
All the rest is pure driver related. And the software was tested on Vista. You win 3~ fps going windows 7 (benchmark). And you are safe for future games because DX11 makes hardware work better, thus giving a better gameplay. So your card will be "upgrading" instead of decreasing performance in the next year.

Go HD5770. You wanted a HD4870? this gives you the same power but you have DX11 and EyeInfinity. And the scales are awesome. You will be able ANYTIME to overperform HD5850 and HD5870.

Nuff said? ;D
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 11:10:12 PM

Why? What difference does 256 vs 128 make? If it was 256 with that performance, what would that change? There is no 256bit version anyways, so why dream? Its performance is what it is. If it provides the level of performance you want, buy it. If you already have a 4870, your better off not getting the 5770.
October 13, 2009 11:23:56 PM

... Wait you didnt quit get my post.

Here what I said. For a 128bit, it goes head to head against a 256bit. Thats extreme performance here sir.

But I refered to the CROSSFIRING capability of this baby.
Why dont you get the same performance with a CF HD4870? because the bandwidth of that particular card is ALREADY 256. When you CF, your now with 512bit bandwidth. TOtally useless. This is why you get as low as 60~50% scale.

With the HD5770, at 128bit, you already have the performance of a HD4870 1GB.
Now, when you crossfire it, you get 100% Scale. 100%. Thus making the buy of a HD4870 POINTLESS. Why? because you go from 128 to 256 bit, being the "perfect" bandwidth. This is why it crossfire so well.

Of course if you ALREADY own a HD4870 then HD5770 is pointless. why would you go from a high end card to a mid range card ANYWAY?? O.O
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 13, 2009 11:30:09 PM

If your post was aimed at me BBoy, I was posting as you posted. I didn't see your post. I was making a comment about;

Quote:
do u think the 256 bit will make much difference


Now for you however.

Quote:
Why dont you get the same performance with a CF HD4870? because the bandwidth of that particular card is ALREADY 256. When you CF, your now with 512bit bandwidth. TOtally useless. This is why you get as low as 60~50% scale.


You don't get to add the specs like that. Just like you don't add the memory together, you don't add the "bitness" or any other specs. They are two cards working together, they don't become one.
October 13, 2009 11:49:56 PM

Oh ok
well anyway you dont ADD that way but its about it. My point was anything over 256 is excessive for nothing, so no matter if its 512 or 257, its still too much, thus giving less performant scale.
If I remeber well, the "perfect" bandwidth was 196bit but that was with HD4870/4890 I dunno about the 5000 series.
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 14, 2009 9:15:32 AM

If they used DDR3 memory, 256 would barely be enough, 512 would have been better. Again, just knowing 128 or 256 isn't enough. You also need to know the type of ram, and the frequency it runs at. I love pointing out the 6800GT/7600GT. The 6800GT used a 256bit memory bus, with slow DDR3 memory. The 7600GT used faster DDR3 memory, and didn't suffer to much from its 128bit memory bus. And because DDR5 transfers four times as fast as DDR3, a 128bit DDR5 bus is the same as a 512bit DDR3 bus. The memory bus size is neither good or bad, its just a part of the card.
October 14, 2009 1:07:02 PM

I believe the 4870 would be slightly faster in gaming, but no DX 11, which may not be a big deal for a while, and no support for 3 monitors at a time.

The 5770 would also consume less power and make less noise, which may or may not be important to you.

Maybe you could save money on some other components and step up to a 5850. Tom's showed that at 1920x1080 (or maybe it 1920x1200) that there was almost performance increase in most games going from 2.66ghz quad to a 3.8ghz.
October 15, 2009 4:24:43 PM

i am at the top of my budget i am afraid so no more money available
October 15, 2009 4:27:16 PM

they are bothe the same price more or less around £122 i am getting it to replace a factory overclocked gainward 9800 gt at the moment it will just be a single card but plan to cossfire it in the future. i have had very few radeon cards. and have seen practically none in my line of work as an it deployment engineer for the nhs. what are they like are they any better than the geforce? thanks
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 15, 2009 4:37:20 PM

My order of recent cards. ATI 9600Pro, 9700Pro, x1800XT, 8800GS. As you can see, I've used both. Honestly, I don't have a problem with either one. Each card was faster then the one before it, but while playing games its not like I hated using one. I'm still using the 8800GS, works fine. My wife is still using the x1800xt, works fine. From an end user stand point, I really doubt you'd be able to tell the difference.

For you the hard part will be the slightly faster performance of the 4870, or the cooler/less power using and DX11 support of the 5770. Either card will be faster then your 9800GT.
October 15, 2009 8:42:52 PM

I also believe that this SLIGHT faster performance from 4870 will soon disapear.
Don't forget HD4870 was tweacked to the max with drivers, it came with its own bugs and many people lived with that for quite a few months.

Hd5770 is like a new born, not tweacked no NOTHING.
So I think the "FINAL" result/dx11/eye infinity/super scaling would be quite worth the 1 or 2 month at a HD4870 like performance ...
a b U Graphics card
October 15, 2009 9:16:33 PM

harrypot said:
they are bothe the same price more or less around £122 i am getting it to replace a factory overclocked gainward 9800 gt at the moment it will just be a single card but plan to cossfire it in the future. i have had very few radeon cards. and have seen practically none in my line of work as an it deployment engineer for the nhs. what are they like are they any better than the geforce? thanks



If you plan to crossfire in the future it makes sense to get the newer card-- the same model will still be around in a year, while the 4870 models probably will not be.

Also, as I continuously remind people on all forums here the new 5700s are VERY power efficient. (so was the 9800gt you had) Depending on what PSU you currently have you might not want to upgrade to field the wattage to run twin 4870s. The 4870/50 and 5770/50 cards are similar in performance--so having to purchase a new $80-100 psu could be the real financial difference.
October 15, 2009 9:24:11 PM

I think he will still have to purchase a new PSU.

New Radeon cards require you at least 40 amps on the 12 V rail
And at least 55 if you crossfire.
A 650W Antec Earthwatt for 80$ should be enough.
(it's not a BIG deal, but you will experience better gameplay,and less crashing for sure.)
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 15, 2009 11:59:57 PM

Quote:
New Radeon cards require you at least 40 amps on the 12 V rail


Says who? I thought they used less power, not more. This means 30A is fine.
October 16, 2009 12:06:30 AM

No they require more Amp.

Radeon HD 5770
The card requires you to have a 500 Watt power supply unit at minimum if you use it in a high-end system. That power supply needs to have (in total accumulated) at least 40 Amps available on the +12 volt rails.

Radeon HD 5770 CrossfireX (2-way)
A second card requires you to add another 108 Watts. You need a 550 Watt power supply unit if you use it in a high-end system. That power supply needs to have (in total accumulated) at least 55 Amps available on the +12 volt rails.

The Amp might be one reason for the new power of the 5000 serie? :D 
isnt that the base of overclocking? providing more power and making it turn faster?
Dunno :D  But i dont mind having to buy a new PSU since fermi and future GPU will probably also be 40A, So I better prepare now and save in the future ;D
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 16, 2009 6:27:06 AM

Its nice that you posted all that, but where is the linky? Lets take a look shall we?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Here is an XFX 5770, and they say you only need a 450W. It can't take 40A for the system, as 40A x 12V = 480W, which is more then the 450W that XFX says you need. Lets check out Toms review next shall we?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5770,2446...

Which uses less watts, the 5770 or the 4870/90? The 5770 system at load uses 207W, while the 4870s system uses 253W. The 4890s system is even higher (as expected seeing as its a volt modded 4870) at 270W. Seeing as it uses less Wattage, it needs less Amps. Again, a 30A/450-500W PSU will be fine for running a single card.
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 16, 2009 7:24:47 AM

Thinking about this more, if you look at the toms chart, adding another 5770 for CF only added ~144W more in load power. At 12V, this means each card uses about 12A of power. (12V x 12A = 144W) This means two cards themselves is only 24A, so a stout 34A 500-550W PSU could power a CF rig, assuming you have a lower power CPU. I personally would rather have a 600W/40A PSU so I could use a quad core and have some head room.
October 16, 2009 9:09:21 PM

was looking at an ezcool 700 watt infiniti psu for £40 on ebuyer.com if u know a better one for no more money and it is available in the uk. i would really appreciate it. as it is going to be fitted to a new psu, i would like some advice on that to power that card and a core i7 920. running windows 7. thanks ad

p.s. if you are after windows 7 on sunday 18th october there is 25% off on ebuyer.com
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2009 9:13:49 PM

Do not skimp on PSU purchases. I would not trust a brand like "ezcool." A bad PSU purchase could cause abrupt shutdowns, other errors, and worse, fry components. Antec Earthwatts (as suggested by bboy) is a quality power supply and highly recommended.
October 16, 2009 9:14:02 PM

5770 versus 4870 still not convinced either way there is arguments for both cases. which will be better in direct x 9 games. overall do you think as i still play some retro games. and i love strategy games too crysis is awesome though and i enjoy that. though i have to run it in direct x 9 at the mo as dx10 on my card is rubbish 5 frames per second on 1280 by 1024 at high absolute rubbish get the same out of 8500gt but in dx9 storms along very fast indeed. but i would like to be able to play the game to the full.
October 16, 2009 9:14:49 PM

what wattage do u reccommend
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2009 9:16:38 PM

The 4870's performance is slighty better for around $10-15 cheaper.
The 5770's performance is better in DirectX 11 games (e.g. future-proof), has immature drivers (e.g. general performance will increase as drivers mature), has ATi Eyefinity support (in case you want to add monitors), has lower power consumption, and runs cooler.

I think it's a fairly simple decision. Do you want the little bit more performance that may not last, or do you want the 5770? The only thing about it is it would be more compelling at $10-15 cheaper where the 4870 is. It will drop eventually, but you will be paying that premium if you choose to buy it now. Also, for a little bit more (with rebates) you can get the HD 4890 which I still think is a solid purchase.

harrypot said:
what wattage do u reccommend


A 600 watt power supply would probably do you fine as you don't seem to want anything too outrageous. If you provide me with a preferred site I may be able to find you one.
October 16, 2009 9:58:08 PM

This is really teh best PSU for you, you will NEVER experience problems.

Also there is more then wattage needed, you also need to know the AMP on the 12 rail volt

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/141006

It has EVERYTHING you need for a little 20e more expensive
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 16, 2009 11:59:45 PM

Interesting link.

Quote:
For each card that you add, add another 108 Watts as a safety margin.


As they said, thats for the full system load, including Cold Cathode and other stuff. For those of us running a simple Dual or quad system without all the extras, you don't need all that crap. I don't know why they would say you'd need 40A, you didn't with the 4870/90, and this uses less power. If you only need around 125W per card, 34A is enough for CF. We're getting off subject however, so this should move to PM if need be.

+1 for the Earthwatts 650. Good PSU, you shouldn't have any problems with it.
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 17, 2009 12:49:06 AM

List isn't complete. I didn't see a single PSU <500/550W for either Corsair or Antec on that chart. Considering how stout the EA500 is that I have, I should have no problem running a 4870/5770/5850. I think its more quick reference rather then all inclusive.
October 17, 2009 5:18:34 PM

So i should go with the radeon 5770 is that the common view. and hope the drivers improve. and this 650 watt psu, which should be enough power or is there a better one. also i am having trouble finding a case in the uk that will hold the card due to its rather large size. anyone got any iedeas about that. would prefer a clear sided case but i am open to ideas top of the budget is £70 would prefer ebuyer.com but dont mind any uk company even ebay. have a thermaltake m9 at the moment its is tiny much to small by far. only just fits my 9800gt with aroun 2mm to spare. and the air flow is rubbish. thanks
October 17, 2009 5:19:38 PM

also what will the 5770 be like in dx 9 any better than the 9800 i have
October 17, 2009 5:20:15 PM

price on 5770 has increased now over £130 is it still worth it
a c 171 U Graphics card
October 17, 2009 11:26:01 PM

That depends on what the other cards are. I'm not in the UK, so I have no idea. Yes, the 5770 is better then the 9800GT.
October 19, 2009 8:06:00 PM

what about a case in america for a 10.5 graph card glad to hear about the 5770 being better. other cards are the ones metioned in this string. cheers
November 5, 2009 8:42:26 AM

I can recommend a couple of cases, from Ebuyer too as that seems to be your prefered retailer -

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/159031 A Chieftec case that looks like a copy of the Coolermaster Stacker, this is a big case and supports the eATX motherboards so plenty of room inside for big graphics cards.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/177119# Coolermaster CM690, good quality Coolermaster case with some nice features. Designed to mount the PSU at the bottom of the case for better airflow and thermals for the PSU.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/175411 Antec 600 gaming case with loads of space for big fans to be fitted. Upside down PSU fitting again

All depends on whats most important to you. Space (Cheiftec), cooling (Antec 600) or combo of both (CM690).
November 5, 2009 4:19:23 PM

i think that 5770 will be very laggy with dx11
a c 171 U Graphics card
November 5, 2009 11:13:54 PM

Proof?
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2009 1:41:21 AM

4745454b said:
Proof?

+1:) 

I'm also calling BS on gaga93.
!