Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Questions about Directx 11 and current gen gfx cards

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 18, 2009 3:36:57 AM

I am considering building a new computer next month and I have a BUNCH of questions.

Is the radeon 5770 is worth the purchase or should I just buy a radeon 4890 or GTX 275 instead? I'm considering getting a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor and I want to play Crysis, GTA IV, Need for Speed SHIFT.

Is Directx 11 going to be a big deal soon?

Also, if Directx 11 becomes mainstream, does it mean that current gen cards like the 4890 and the GTX 275, 285 will not be able to play Directx 11 games like Dirt2?

Finally, I have read that just like how Vista was coupled with Directx 10, Windows 7 will be coupled with Directx 11, so people who want to use Windows 7 should get a Directx 11-compatible card?

Sorry for all these questions but I feel that I am lacking info regarding Directx 11 and how it will affect gfx cards.
October 18, 2009 3:39:29 AM

from what everyone is saying. go with ATI 5xxx series.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2009 3:58:52 AM

1: 5770 ~ 4870
2: Games that use DX11 will still run, just in either DX10 or DX9 mode (depending on what features are avaliable). You won't have to worry about any GPU being able to run a game for quite some time.
3: I still doubt DX11 pickup will be any faster then DX10 was. Thats another debate though...
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 229 U Graphics card
October 18, 2009 4:01:36 AM

kageryu said:
Is Directx 11 going to be a big deal soon?


Well you been around since November or so 2006, what impact do you think DX10 has had ?

Quote:
Also, if Directx 11 becomes mainstream, does it mean that current gen cards like the 4890 and the GTX 275, 285 will not be able to play Directx 11 games like Dirt2?


No. DX11 will support all DX10/10.1 features

We just don't know how bigga deal DX11 will be....DX10 was certainly a huge yawn. We aren't likely to be in a position to judge for about 2 years.

The smart advice is sit tight and see how things shake out ..... Unless you have a failed GFX card or a game that just is unplayable on your current card, what's the rush ? Worse case if you wait, and Nvidia's next gen cards are a flop, you wind up with a better ATI card than you can buy today. The cards will have progressed from Rev A Hardware to Rev C hardware, the drivers will be more mature, the manufacturers will have moved past reference designs to tweaked ones gaining better performance, new models will be out and prices on today's models will have dropped.

If ya can't wait, or if you keep your graphics cards more than 2 years, I think the best choice is twin 5850's or a single 5870. Throw a PhysX card in if ya fancy that kinda thing.

If ya upgrade GFX cards very 18-24 months, then a 4xxx ATI or nVidia card that stacks up well gainst it's ATI cousin is a perfectly valid choice.

You specifically asked about the 5770. See these for further reading:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3658&p=14

"The value of the 5770 in particular is clearly not going to be in its performance. Compared to AMD’s 4870, it loses well more than it wins, and if we throw out Far Cry 2, it’s around 10% slower overall. It also spends most of its time losing to NVIDIA’s GTX 260, which unfortunately the 4870 didn’t have so much trouble with. AMD clearly has put themselves in to a hole with memory bandwidth, and the 5770 doesn’t have enough of it to reach the performance it needs to be at.

If you value solely performance in today’s games, we can’t recommend the 5770. Either the 4870 1GB or the GTX 260 would be the better buy.

So here’s the bottom line for the 5770: Unless you absolutely need to take advantage of the lower power requirements of the 40nm process (e.g. you pay a ton for power) or you strongly believe that DirectX 11 will have a developer adoption rate faster than anything we’ve seen before for DirectX, the 1GB 4870 or GTX 260 is still the way to go. "
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2009 5:54:31 AM

DX11 =/= DX10, sofar we have game demos at the card's launch, we didn't have that for the DX10 generation until months later. Also DX10 itself launched month after the cards, and was also a bigger implementation shift than DX11. And no you don't need it for Win7, or Win 7 for it, Vista is fine, and really for Vista you only needed DX9 for it to work at a general level, and that's the same as Win7.

You will likely be able to play any game in the near future be it DX11 or not, it will only beomce a restriction when that's the base and that's a ways off.

However, there are nice features of DX11 which may or may not be usable soon, and also direct compute also has better supoort for the HD5K than previous generations, and HD4K higher than the GTX series. Also you have more IQ options as well, so it's not just limited to DX11 alone persay.
What will/won't be important has yet to be seen, but many of the new features are already showing noticeable benefit;

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=2

The main thing to consider is if you're buying for last year's games or for next year's games & features?

If you want to see more of what the DX11 cards bring to the table look at the HD5870 reviews.

-Edit to correct link to proper page.-
m
0
l
October 18, 2009 6:13:16 AM

wait for a price drop, the technology isn't getting 100% utilized yet anyways.

When a few more dx11 games come out which actually utilize some of the new features well, that'll be the time to get it.

If you're really hard pressed on building a new pc in the next month, get a cheap video card to hold you over. It never hurts to have a backup card in case of a hardware failure anyways, I have a couple 8800gt's and a 4850 radeon from previous builds which I use for this purpose in my home because we have 3 pcs.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 18, 2009 7:04:39 AM

kageryu said:
I am considering building a new computer next month and I have a BUNCH of questions.

Is the radeon 5770 is worth the purchase or should I just buy a radeon 4890 or GTX 275 instead? I'm considering getting a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor and I want to play Crysis, GTA IV, Need for Speed SHIFT.

Is Directx 11 going to be a big deal soon?

Also, if Directx 11 becomes mainstream, does it mean that current gen cards like the 4890 and the GTX 275, 285 will not be able to play Directx 11 games like Dirt2?

Finally, I have read that just like how Vista was coupled with Directx 10, Windows 7 will be coupled with Directx 11, so people who want to use Windows 7 should get a Directx 11-compatible card?

Sorry for all these questions but I feel that I am lacking info regarding Directx 11 and how it will affect gfx cards.



I wouldnt want to try playing those games at that resolution with a 5770 the 128 bit bus will restrict the performance, so if you decide on a DX11 card then the 5850 is where i would be looking.

Most probably not . Main thing is we dont really know what the image quality/differance side of things is going to be like so from that point of view its all guess work for now.

No the cards wont be able to play DX11 only games but thats years off so not to worry as said they will just play the games in DX10/10.1

W7 will have DX11 and Vista will get it sooner or later but you dont have to have a DX11 card just because the OS is running DX11.

Mactronix
m
0
l
October 18, 2009 1:53:48 PM

If the price of the 5850 drops enough by Black Friday or Cyber Monday, I will buy it. Otherwise, should I buy a 5770 or a 4890? I know that the 5770 performs about 10% less than the 4870 but it supports Dx 11.
m
0
l
October 18, 2009 8:34:28 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
Well you been around since November or so 2006, what impact do you think DX10 has had ?

Quote:
Also, if Directx 11 becomes mainstream, does it mean that current gen cards like the 4890 and the GTX 275, 285 will not be able to play Directx 11 games like Dirt2?


No. DX11 will support all DX10/10.1 features

We just don't know how bigga deal DX11 will be....DX10 was certainly a huge yawn. We aren't likely to be in a position to judge for about 2 years.

The smart advice is sit tight and see how things shake out ..... Unless you have a failed GFX card or a game that just is unplayable on your current card, what's the rush ? Worse case if you wait, and Nvidia's next gen cards are a flop, you wind up with a better ATI card than you can buy today. The cards will have progressed from Rev A Hardware to Rev C hardware, the drivers will be more mature, the manufacturers will have moved past reference designs to tweaked ones gaining better performance, new models will be out and prices on today's models will have dropped.

If ya can't wait, or if you keep your graphics cards more than 2 years, I think the best choice is twin 5850's or a single 5870. Throw a PhysX card in if ya fancy that kinda thing.

If ya upgrade GFX cards very 18-24 months, then a 4xxx ATI or nVidia card that stacks up well gainst it's ATI cousin is a perfectly valid choice.

You specifically asked about the 5770. See these for further reading:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3658&p=14

"The value of the 5770 in particular is clearly not going to be in its performance. Compared to AMD’s 4870, it loses well more than it wins, and if we throw out Far Cry 2, it’s around 10% slower overall. It also spends most of its time losing to NVIDIA’s GTX 260, which unfortunately the 4870 didn’t have so much trouble with. AMD clearly has put themselves in to a hole with memory bandwidth, and the 5770 doesn’t have enough of it to reach the performance it needs to be at.

If you value solely performance in today’s games, we can’t recommend the 5770. Either the 4870 1GB or the GTX 260 would be the better buy.

So here’s the bottom line for the 5770: Unless you absolutely need to take advantage of the lower power requirements of the 40nm process (e.g. you pay a ton for power) or you strongly believe that DirectX 11 will have a developer adoption rate faster than anything we’ve seen before for DirectX, the 1GB 4870 or GTX 260 is still the way to go. "


I am with you
100 %

ok...maybe not the twin 5850's since he didn't even ask that
but one should be enough if you can afford it.

5770/ 4890
definitely the HD 4890 (even though I hate the card)
you get better performance
and it's 10 dollars more than the 5770 with the mail in rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 7:06:27 AM

kageryu said:
If the price of the 5850 drops enough by Black Friday or Cyber Monday, I will buy it. Otherwise, should I buy a 5770 or a 4890? I know that the 5770 performs about 10% less than the 4870 but it supports Dx 11.



If you use AA then both cards are about the same. If you dont use AA then the 4890 has a handy advantage over the 5770. If you plan this card to last a while, over a year then get a 5770 but if you plan to get a newer card within that time frame, up to a year, then i would get the 4890 personally.
I dont see DX11 being that prevelant in games before then but i could be wrong. Just my opinion.

Mactronix
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 10:47:48 AM

Ehsan w said:

definitely the HD 4890 (even though I hate the card)


Umm.... But I like it...

I think the 4890 is a great card and all, but if there is anyway you can afford it, get the 5850. If not I would still go with the 5770 or wait awhile.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 12:30:19 PM

I'm still wondering why AMD decided to go with a 128-bit bus. I mean seriously, how did they not see how big a bottleneck that was going to be?

Considering teh x770 is generally the top mainstream card of a generation, AMD may have backed themselves into a corner by making the 5770 so broken. You simply can not recommend buying them at their price point.
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 12:37:21 PM

gamerk316 said:
I'm still wondering why AMD decided to go with a 128-bit bus. I mean seriously, how did they not see how big a bottleneck that was going to be?

Considering teh x770 is generally the top mainstream card of a generation, AMD may have backed themselves into a corner by making the 5770 so broken. You simply can not recommend buying them at their price point.



in benchmarks the 128bit bus does not seem to be a bottleneck. a number of benchmarks have shown the cards perform admirably.

i think from a business perspective they made the right call. AMD has played a very good hand with this round of GPUs.

all the 5xxx family are faster than the last gen, while giving the silicone room for movement in a few months time while nvidia shows its hand. im sure the product line will echo the events of the last. the 4870 -> moved to the 4890. bit of tweaking and they had a small, power efficient wafer with was cost effective.

amd seems to be more concerned with forcing nvidias hand at the moment, for nvidia to have to drop prices on the 2xx range which is a huge die must be hurting them.
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 12:53:26 PM

I've just ordered a 5770 for a few reasons:
1) I don't plan on changing it anytime soon so the DX11 compatibility is welcome for when it starts getting used as I don't want to buy something that will limit me in 24 months time.
2) I think when DX11 is used that this card has a lot more to offer and will perform better than we've seen so far.
3) The low power consumption means that I will save a big wad of cash a year that I can use for other things, like saving for another 5770 in 2-3 years time.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 1:46:47 PM

gamerk316 said:
I'm still wondering why AMD decided to go with a 128-bit bus. I mean seriously, how did they not see how big a bottleneck that was going to be?

Considering teh x770 is generally the top mainstream card of a generation, AMD may have backed themselves into a corner by making the 5770 so broken. You simply can not recommend buying them at their price point.



+1

The value, Price /perf seekers would agree with you but people are still buying them. They are meant for mainstream but even so its a bit contradictory to say "hey its on a 128 bit bus because its meant for main stream and these guys don't use high resolutions usually" Then they put Eye-finity on it for multiple monitors ? Now it could be me but in the same way mainstream users don't tend to use higher resolutions, I'm fairly sure one monitor would be the norm as well.

As you say at the price point it really is a no brainer. If we had a couple of really good DX11 games that proved DX11's worth(which i think we will get fairly soon) then the card may make some sense. However at my UK price point of around £125 for a 5770 it just personally doesn't make sense at all, I'm lucky enough to have a Crossfire board with a spare slot sitting there and so if i did need more graphics power i would just slot another 4770 in at £ 70. This pairing wipes the floor with a 5770 and is very close to a 5850, driver and game issue aside obviously.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 1:48:34 PM

gamerk316 said:
I'm still wondering why AMD decided to go with a 128-bit bus. I mean seriously, how did they not see how big a bottleneck that was going to be?

Considering teh x770 is generally the top mainstream card of a generation, AMD may have backed themselves into a corner by making the 5770 so broken. You simply can not recommend buying them at their price point.


The 5770 is a tad too expensive right now.. unless you are in love with dx11 a bit too much.. However, they went 128bit on the bus to save money. It may seem like a silly idea for now.. but this wil allow them to eventually sell it for much much less and not bleed money, probably still even make a profit. From a corperate perspecetive it makes a lot of sense. When teh time comes to cut the price to $100 I'm sure they will be glad they can still make a good profit on it. I'd have to think the only reason it is so expensive now is due to relatively poor yields out of the gate.

They need something to fill the hole between 5770 and 5850 though and I was a bit surprised they made the 5770 as slow as they did.. I'd expect they have the 5770 where it is so that when the 5850's that dont pass the mustard (5830, 5790, whatever they call it) start coming out it actually has a logical place in the lineup to fall.

Anyway, to the OP.. I'd go with the 5770 myself (the power requirements are too sexy to mee, but I'm sure others have higher priorities), though I would strongly suggest that you work towards a 5850... But if cash and raw perforamance are your thing, then dx11 really is not something you have to worry about for some time to come. Though you certainly will miss out on some features in a few games that won't be song long from now.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 1:50:56 PM

daedalus685 said:
The 5770 is a tad too expensive right now.. unless you are in love with dx11 a bit too much.. However, they went 128bit on the bus to save money. It may seem like a silly idea for now.. but this wil allow them to eventually sell it for much much less and not bleed money, probably still even make a profit. From a corperate perspecetive it makes a lot of sense.

They need something to fill the hole between 5770 and 5850 though and I was a bit surprised they made the 5770 as slow as they did.. I'd expect they have the 5770 where it is so that when the 5850's that dont pass the mustard (5830, 5790, whatever they call it) start coming out it actually has a logical place in the lineup to fall.

Anyway, to the OP.. I'd go with the 5770 myself, though I would strongly suggest that you work towards a 5850... But if cash and raw perforamance are your thing, then dx11 really is not something you have to worry about for some time to come. Though you certainly will miss out on some features in a few games that won't be song long from now.



Got to agree with you on the performance, i know these things dont always pan out but based on the hardware specs of the card it should be faster anyway in my opinion.

Mactronix
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 4:10:42 PM

mactronix said:
Got to agree with you on the performance, i know these things dont always pan out but based on the hardware specs of the card it should be faster anyway in my opinion.

Mactronix


These cards will show what they can do, when the new titles employing DirectCompute will emerge.
You know, for PhysX you need nVidia only GPU/PPU.
DC is harder to use than PhysX, but hardware independent. If you were to write a new game which one would you choose? Especially if you tend to use even some DX11 features and want to add some physics capabilities there?
And, creating quality graphics with DX11 requires less detailed meshes, thanks to tesselation unit.
So, for DX11, in fact the GPU memory bandwidth isn't a big deal. Less triangles are fetched from memory, anyway.

The situation here is exactly the same as the one at launch of Vista. nVidia had the cards ready for DX10 while ATi was 6 months behind. Now just the table's reversed.

Wait for the new titles employing DX11 stuff to emerge.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 4:32:12 PM

Mostly true, but then again it dosent alter the fact ( If the charts in the reviews are accurate) that the 5770 is basically a 40nm 4890 and as such should be faster, which it isnt.
DX11 really isnt relevant to this, even though it is probably true that when compared to older DX version GPU's the 5770 will get faster when DX11 is used.

Mactronix
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 4:50:34 PM

5770 core is a 40 nm 4870/4890 mostly, right but not exactly.
Memory bandwidth is only one of the differences.
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 4:59:40 PM

If you are really worried about DX11, I would suggest going onto ebay and getting a GTS250 (9800GTX+) for like... 70 bucks and laying low for a year to see what DX11 has to offer. (GTS250 should do you till then.) If you think its not worth it, or to overpriced, then you can pick between any card you had hoped for. Plus, more mature benchmarks will apear with them cards.

Also, by then the card you was hoping for will most probbally have more then $70 bucks knocked of its start price so you won't loose anything in the long run. Plus, you win a free GPU, and still pay the same price.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 5:10:51 PM

mactronix said:
Well im struggling to see a meaningfull differance. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20670&page=4


Mactronix


There isn't a meaningful difference. I'm not sure what duzcizgi is on about, but the only "changes" should make the card faster clock for clock (and will in dx11 games). However, that drop in memory bandwidth is where the performance drop is coming from. I do not understand why they did it except to allow for much lower prices when they feel like it. It leaves too large of a hole in the product lineup I can't see them designing for which has me assuming that either another card that will fall between the 5770 and 5850 is coming relatively soon, or there are driver issues.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2009 5:29:44 PM

^^ The problem with that, is it more or less indicates that performance for the low end cards will be far lower then initally expected. And if NVIDIA chooses to engage in a price war (they CAN afford it...), AMD, which still has not turned a profit, could really get hurt.

All AMD needed was for the 5770 to be as good as the 4870, something which is not always the case. From a performance standpoint, its an idiotic decision. If this is an indication of where the rest of the lineup will be, then AMD may have given its competiiton an opening to grab the Price/Performance crown, as the 5770 is clearly overpriced for its performance levels.

And I STILL have serious questions about the FPS cost of tesselation; If its as high as I expect, then this card in particular may come crashing down to earth in a hurry...we'll see in a few months. (Where exactly is the swarm of DX11 titles again?)
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 6:07:08 PM

gamerk316 said:
And I STILL have serious questions about the FPS cost of tesselation; If its as high as I expect, then this card in particular may come crashing down to earth in a hurry...we'll see in a few months. (Where exactly is the swarm of DX11 titles again?)

I'm not so sure. I reckon there's a big amount of hardware on that card that's just there for the new DX11 that noone has tested yet. I doubt that it will be a big performance hit.
m
0
l
October 19, 2009 9:30:16 PM

I'm not sure, but shouldn't dx 11 give BETTER performance?
but really, nobody's expecting more than 3 fps....
and in a year from now, i'd rather have performance over dx 11
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 12:28:44 AM

mactronix said:
Mostly true, but then again it dosent alter the fact ( If the charts in the reviews are accurate) that the 5770 is basically a 40nm 4890 and as such should be faster, which it isnt.


Should be faster than what?
I see alot of criticism of the price point, but that happens whenever a new card comes out (oh last year's is cheaper, oh two of the crap card can out bungholio the current card) but it's the longer term tha proves the worth of the newer card as a card but maybe not the value/pricing near launch.

People seem to forget that the HD4K series got a major boost from it's drivers later in life, and wonder why doesn't this new card win out of the box.

Since he has a month before his planned build time things will become cleaer one way or another, and with any hardware purchase, waiting past the intial launch period is always a good idea if you're looking for a deal on pricing.

Quote:
DX11 really isnt relevant to this, even though it is probably true that when compared to older DX version GPU's the 5770 will get faster when DX11 is used.


I'm not sure if you mean relevant to the discussion or to your comparison to the HD48xx series?
For the discussion it's relevant if it's a long term buying decision, for the comparison it's only relevant in that it has no equals in the price range, but it does have competitors that can perform similarly now, but at the cost of those additional features.

So you can buy another card that performs 10% better now, but will never get better or the one that performs 91% as well as the other card, but will imrpove over time, and also cost less to run during that time?

So if you're looking at 'all' of the aspects, then the cost of use would also be an issue, and over time, it's going to cost you more for those other options to get similar performance.

It would've been nice to see other additional features and options for the HD5770 but as we already discussed, that would require other design considerations that seem to get lost in the discussion for most people.
m
0
l
October 20, 2009 12:35:26 AM

Is it possible to crossfire a 4890 with a 5770 or 5850 when the price drops? I don't see many good reasons to buy a 5770 at the moment because I will be playing DirectX 10.1 games like GTA IV, Crysis, and Need for Speed SHIFT for now. I have no use for Eyefinity because I don't want three monitors...Too expensive. Finally, as many people said, the price/performance ratio of the 5770 is not that great.

However, if I cannot crossfire a 4890 with any of the 5xxx series cards, then I'll settle for a 5770 or 5850 if the price drops or I find a miraculous discount coupon/combo with it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 12:53:35 AM

gamerk316 said:
^^ The problem with that, is it more or less indicates that performance for the low end cards will be far lower then initally expected. And if NVIDIA chooses to engage in a price war (they CAN afford it...), AMD, which still has not turned a profit, could really get hurt.


nVidia can't afford it, they can't afford to continue to make the chips they make because of their higher cost of production. They have no leverage in this as they have nothing to offer as a premium, so they would have to compete solely on low-balling the price and since their chip is a much MUCH larger chip, and their boards are more costly more complex boards, and withouth any other products in the market it's not like nV's interested in producing fresh hardware just to lose money on it.

(Where exactly is the swarm of DX11 titles again?) said:
(Where exactly is the swarm of DX11 titles again?)


Swarm of DX11 titles? It's not even officially launched yet and there's already 2 titles out there that can use it, and you said it would be what 1 or 2 years was before the first title?
Going from saying it was going to take forever for them to come, now there's not enough of them at launch for you. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 1:05:13 AM

kageryu said:
Is it possible to crossfire a 4890 with a 5770 or 5850 when the price drops?


Nope, not in the traditional sense, even the available work-around would essentially cost so much as to make the issue of HD5770 v 4870 v 5870 a moot point.

Since you've got time, I'd suggest you wait at least for the 512MB version of the card which would fit your budget better, it wouldn't give you longer legs into the future but it might satisfy those who are only interested in price. Also, it's quite likely that when the HD5870X2 aka HD59x0 comes out that it will push all the cards before it down the price food-chain and put the HD5850 into your price range.


m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 1:21:03 AM

I'm not seeing this supposed bottleneck at hi res, in fact I've seen a couple of examples where the 5770 gets better at the top resolution.

The 128-bit bus is overstated as an issue I feel. What it does is allow for cheaper cards that are slower in performance, and that makes a lot of sense.

ATI could have released the 5830, with lower clocks...but I'm thinking that would be a crippled 5850 that probably overclocks to the same level anyway. Better to save money on the memory bus, that way the cards fit their price bracket and overclocking is limited by the bus. The 5770 is in a difficult price range, but taken overall it's the only sensible choice in its price range.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 8:23:39 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Should be faster than what?
I see alot of criticism of the price point, but that happens whenever a new card comes out (oh last year's is cheaper, oh two of the crap card can out bungholio the current card) but it's the longer term tha proves the worth of the newer card as a card but maybe not the value/pricing near launch.

People seem to forget that the HD4K series got a major boost from it's drivers later in life, and wonder why doesn't this new card win out of the box.

Since he has a month before his planned build time things will become cleaer one way or another, and with any hardware purchase, waiting past the intial launch period is always a good idea if you're looking for a deal on pricing.

Quote:
DX11 really isnt relevant to this, even though it is probably true that when compared to older DX version GPU's the 5770 will get faster when DX11 is used.


I'm not sure if you mean relevant to the discussion or to your comparison to the HD48xx series?
For the discussion it's relevant if it's a long term buying decision, for the comparison it's only relevant in that it has no equals in the price range, but it does have competitors that can perform similarly now, but at the cost of those additional features.

So you can buy another card that performs 10% better now, but will never get better or the one that performs 91% as well as the other card, but will imrpove over time, and also cost less to run during that time?

So if you're looking at 'all' of the aspects, then the cost of use would also be an issue, and over time, it's going to cost you more for those other options to get similar performance.

It would've been nice to see other additional features and options for the HD5770 but as we already discussed, that would require other design considerations that seem to get lost in the discussion for most people.


As i said earlier in the thread as it seems that the card is basically as far as the main archetecture goes a 40nm 4890 then it should be faster, certainly than its is if not faster than the 4890 or does die shrinking not yeild improvements anymore ? People keep saying the 128 bit bus isnt a factor as far as its not restricting the card and as this is the only major differance going by the chart i posted i feel the comparison is fair.
And DX11 isnt relevant to why the card performs as it does.

Now i understand that its a new series card and you would know more than most here so let me ask you this, Is this Archetecture and the DX11 feature parts of it really causing issues here as far as the drivers go ? Because most of the reviews i have seen are saying that the main of it is still the same as the 4 series, now if its true and the guts of it are the same then i fail to see how they dont have a decent set of drivers to run it. or is it the case that there are a lot of small differances that the sites are just not going into ?

Mactronix
m
0
l
October 20, 2009 10:11:05 AM

mactronix said:
Well im struggling to see a meaningfull differance. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20670&page=4


Mactronix


When you look at the charts only, yes, little difference. DX10.1 vs DX11.1, Eyefinity support, higher memory clock vs larger memory path.

The main difference is: 4890 is the high end of the last generation. 5770 is the midrange of this generation.

If you want to have a look at the exact architectural differences between these two GPUs, please have a look at AMD website, you can see more information.
The number of transistors are up from 956 M to 1.04 B, although memory bandwidth is down.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-rad...

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-rad...

From this, I can say that they are quite different products, although they have many in common.

Besides, with a premium, in fact AMD/ATi is launching the GPU with headroom in case nVidia would start a price war. These prices at the moment are launch prices and it looks to me at least, it's fair enough.

(Remember the prices nVidia was asking on launch without anything new on horizon from ATi?)
Is ATi also raping? Yes, but more gently.

m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 12:44:19 PM

duzcizgi said:
When you look at the charts only, yes, little difference. DX10.1 vs DX11.1, Eyefinity support, higher memory clock vs larger memory path.

The main difference is: 4890 is the high end of the last generation. 5770 is the midrange of this generation.

If you want to have a look at the exact architectural differences between these two GPUs, please have a look at AMD website, you can see more information.
The number of transistors are up from 956 M to 1.04 B, although memory bandwidth is down.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-rad...

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-rad...

From this, I can say that they are quite different products, although they have many in common.

Besides, with a premium, in fact AMD/ATi is launching the GPU with headroom in case nVidia would start a price war. These prices at the moment are launch prices and it looks to me at least, it's fair enough.

(Remember the prices nVidia was asking on launch without anything new on horizon from ATi?)
Is ATi also raping? Yes, but more gently.


So what it seems you are saying then is that when you look at a detailed specification chart that deals with the main architecture and lists all the output rates and fill rates as being the same then its somehow misleading ?
But when you look at the manufacturers pages which are focusing on the key improvements and abilities of each specific generation then it all of a sudden becomes clearer ?
I'm not interested in the price point, I personally think its too high and wont be buying one but that's a marketing decision that AMD have made and the card is selling so good to them. They are entitled to mark the card up if its clearly better than anything the opposition can offer. That is after all how it works historically with graphics cards.
What I'm saying is that given the hardware specs of the card 5770 being so close, (as shown in the fairly detailed spec's chart i have linked to) to a 4890 and given the die shrink i personally think it should be faster than it is.
Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 12:44:58 PM

Quote:
nVidia can't afford it, they can't afford to continue to make the chips they make because of their higher cost of production. They have no leverage in this as they have nothing to offer as a premium, so they would have to compete solely on low-balling the price and since their chip is a much MUCH larger chip, and their boards are more costly more complex boards, and withouth any other products in the market it's not like nV's interested in producing fresh hardware just to lose money on it.


I'm talking about company profits, not profit per chip. Do you honestly think NVIDIA isn't above taking a loss to cripple AMD? AMD simply does not have any cash on hand, and any forced price drops would force them to cry uncle long before NVIDIA does.


Quote:

Swarm of DX11 titles? It's not even officially launched yet and there's already 2 titles out there that can use it, and you said it would be what 1 or 2 years was before the first title?
Going from saying it was going to take forever for them to come, now there's not enough of them at launch for you. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]


Memo to self: Use [/sarcasm] tags more often. That quote was in response to a few people here who kept proclaiming how everyone would suddenly swap to DX11...

My point still stands: The 5770 makes no sense whatsoever at its current price point.
m
0
l
October 20, 2009 1:35:57 PM

mactronix said:
So what it seems you are saying then is that when you look at a detailed specification chart that deals with the main architecture and lists all the output rates and fill rates as being the same then its somehow misleading ?
But when you look at the manufacturers pages which are focusing on the key improvements and abilities of each specific generation then it all of a sudden becomes clearer ?
I'm not interested in the price point, I personally think its too high and wont be buying one but that's a marketing decision that AMD have made and the card is selling so good to them. They are entitled to mark the card up if its clearly better than anything the opposition can offer. That is after all how it works historically with graphics cards.
What I'm saying is that given the hardware specs of the card 5770 being so close, (as shown in the fairly detailed spec's chart i have linked to) to a 4890 and given the die shrink i personally think it should be faster than it is.
Mactronix


Mactronix,
I'm not telling you to buy this card. I myself won't buy it either. I'm just telling you: compare apples with apples. What you're telling is, last year's oranges are better than this year's lemons. I accept that 4890 is faster than 5770, so is GTX285. But are they in the same segment of products? Even if the prices were similar?

What the chart you send is telling that they are more or less the same. Well, I can say that a 1996 BMW 3.16i and a 2010 Ford Focus 1.6 have the same engine specs (1.6 liter, electronic injection, gasoline powered, 4 cylinders). But why the 1996 BMW can run faster than 2010 Ford Focus 1.6?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 2:00:43 PM

mactronix said:
As i said earlier in the thread as it seems that the card is basically as far as the main archetecture goes a 40nm 4890 then it should be faster, certainly than its is if not faster than the 4890 or does die shrinking not yeild improvements anymore ? People keep saying the 128 bit bus isnt a factor as far as its not restricting the card and as this is the only major differance going by the chart i posted i feel the comparison is fair.


Except that that chart is only part of the difference. And a die shrink yields nothing, and a process shrink only yield speed improvements if the speed is increased. The options usually from a process shrink (as long as it's not a bum process like the 80nmH of the R600) are higher speed or more efficient operation and higher yields, or a balance of the two. In this case it seems rather obvious that ATi/AMD was looking for efficiency and yields rather than simply increasing the clock speeds. As for the chart, it's all well and good to simply produce the # x X @ Y freq and say they're the same, but there's other improvements going on, which you should already be aware of simply from the HD2K->HD4K improvements or ATi vs nV differences, where specs alone are not as handy as actual testing of what's under the hood. Look at ground level testing, it's holding it's own for a new design that uses about 1/2 the die space. The tests at the Tech Report shoudl give you an idea immediately that you chart means very little as the HD5770 and HD4890 don't mirror each other, and the HD5770 destroys the HD4890 in the shader intensive Perlin Noise test;
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17747/5

Looking through that review the card fits in well above where I'd expect it as something that's essentially a x600 part, but to most it's coming in below their elevated expectations.

It's still early to expect maximum utility out of a new part, so instead of looking at just game performance when criticizing a design (which is what you guys are doing more than price [oh they shouldn't have used 128bit, etc]). It might even be held back by the bus width, but I still don't see what the alternative is as we've already discussed that an odd bitwidth was not practical, and a 256bit memory path would simply increase die size, lower yields and increase board cost/complexity. Remember it's still got more bandwidth than the 256bit HD4850, which is still nice, and I think more people would be impressed with that feat if that little surprise wasn't already brought forth with the HD4770. For what the part is supposed to be, it does the job well despite there being better price competitors out there. It's essentially like every generation out there, when it first launches, everyone compares it to 2x the fire-saled old cards. The G80 sucks!! I can get 2 or even 3 X1950Pros for less and Xfire them together and outperform it.... Price is never the friend of new hardware.

Quote:
And DX11 isnt relevant to why the card performs as it does.


Just as relevant as 128bit memory, because it's a design choice and a price choice, and since none of you guys provide a single shred of evidence that it is the bus's fault, and not immature drivers or unoptimized scheduler, etc. then it is relevant for both the pricing and the design considerations, and for the discussion that seems to be the focus and something where 1-2fps loss to the HD4870 seems to people to be a defeat worth noting, but not the additional features. People equally criticized the HD5870 not having a 512bit bus (or an odd # as if they were randomly generated) because theoretically that could be a weak point, but it's weak compared to what? Why didn't they put in 2000 SPUs? Why not double the ROPs, etc. And IMO even then whatever came out of the foundry someone was going to say, of well, it's too bad they didn't double that feature, because THEN it would be Awesome. :pfff: 

Quote:
Now i understand that its a new series card and you would know more than most here so let me ask you this, Is this Archetecture and the DX11 feature parts of it really causing issues here as far as the drivers go ? Because most of the reviews i have seen are saying that the main of it is still the same as the 4 series, now if its true and the guts of it are the same then i fail to see how they dont have a decent set of drivers to run it. or is it the case that there are a lot of small differances that the sites are just not going into ?


As you can see in the raw tests, it's a combination of both. I don't doubt that the HD5770 can use more memory, the HD5870 would be interesting with a 512bit memory interface too, but it's a question of what can you design for. And while the HD5K series shares alot of similarities in it's base parts, the sum of those parts are different, both from the setup to the way the RBE is redesigned. The changes to the LDS and GDS and RBE Cache are things that AMD's software guys will take a while to get used to having and exploiting, the changes in the Assembler and Dispatcher are supposed to make things more efficient, but they still need to be optimized because they rely on software to handle thread execution and load balancing. I have a feeling the dispatcher's micro-code start with what works best for the HD5870, and even that would be their expectation of what works well for the HD5870 with only limited experience with the new arrangement of the components, especially the addition of the Hull and Domain shader which changes the load balancing equation from the start. I think it will take a few months to get efficiency from it, and yet we're comparing the optimized HD48xx to a new HD5770 as if they would be on par for efficiency right out of the box.

Even if it were simply HD4K x 1.x it would require re-working to fix, just like how the HD4K series is 'essentially X times more of an HD3K, it's not as simple as that and we didn't see performance improvements until a few months in, and then the biggest improvement about 9month later.

I still want to see the comparison of the HD5770 vs 48xx in a wider variety of tests like Rightmark, so that it's easier to pick out the strengths and weaknesses. Looking at early performance in games is not a good way to judge the value of a design, because too many influences are involved.

It'll be interesting to see how it matures, the thing that does bother me but is likely of no concern to most people (especially value gamers) is the loss of the DP calculations, which kinda ruins my hopes for a nice balanced mobile part if Juniper is to be the primary mobile platform. It shouldn't matter much to most people out there, but I wanted it for application testing and design, so to me that's a bigger loss than the 128bit memory bus, which would of course be nicer to see larger, but not practical to implement, I just don't know what the transistor budget would've done to die space and whether or not it had to go or else other things had to go (or else make a geometrically bigger part).

I think we wouldn't be having this discussion if the HD5770 launched at 50mhz faster, and $50 cheaper, but to me that's more about hitting a fps/$ mark on some graph, and not an important factor in design choices, which is where the 128bit but would fit in.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 2:29:36 PM

gamerk316 said:

I'm talking about company profits, not profit per chip. Do you honestly think NVIDIA isn't above taking a loss to cripple AMD?


What like they've been doing for the past year + bleeding money to keep the GTX series out there? ATi is profitable, nVidia's graphics department currently isn't, so what is the point of them bleeding even more money to prop up a part that unattractive unless significantly cheaper? All that does is increase their loss, that's like saying 'we are losing 10c on the dollar, but we make it up on volume'. Alot of the people interested in the new cards don't want the last generation for less, it's not good enough, and especially when you factor in cost of ownership as well. Is your strategy that nV should next start paying people to take their cards away? At what point do you think deficit financing is a pointless endeavour? 10s of millions or 100s of millions of dollars? Right now ATi is raking in the money (far less than they could have had they priced the HD5870 higher), and then of course they can price cut when the Fermi comes out, and then the Fermi will be considered 'crap' because it didn't use 512bit memory and will get 0.01c per fps lower, right? :sarcastic: 

Quote:
AMD simply does not have any cash on hand, and any forced price drops would force them to cry uncle long before NVIDIA does.


Actually no, ATi is profitiable, so if a price war were to ensue, their lower costs would put them in a far better position than the money losing nVidia, who rely on their ION money to make green, not their GPUs. So nV would and already has cried uncle with their EOLing of their mid-high G2xx parts.

Quote:
Memo to self: Use [/sarcasm] tags more often. That quote was in response to a few people here who kept proclaiming how everyone would suddenly swap to DX11...


This first memo to yourself should be to remember your previous myopic statements about DX11 before being sarcastic about it, it makes you look like an A$$! My comment was in response to you who said DX11 would never come and doesn't matter. Don't need a sarcasm tag, because I'm serious about your misleading people about DX11 (especially your comments about running on down-level hardware), thus making you anything but an authority on it's benefit or perceived benefit.

Quote:
My point still stands: The 5770 makes no sense whatsoever at its current price point.


Sure it makes sense, but not to anyone strictly focused on current performance in current games under the basic setup. However there's a ton of features (including DX11) that make it more than about just fps/$, and even fps/$ if someone were to look beyond the price tag alone.
I have NEVER been one to say new hardware competes with old on price alone, but I'm also not ignorant enough to equate launch prices with design choices or the overall value of hardware. Those that focus on that alone probably extolled the value of the GF4ti over the R9500 to criticize it as well, and we all know how crap the R9500 was. :p 

That they are selling well is indication enough that the price point makes alot of sense, to thin out the lookie-loos from the serious shopper who see more than simple charts and 2 sentence reviews.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 3:08:37 PM

@ TGGA,
Thanks for the explanation and yes you are right there are a few points that i really should have known.
Not sure if that last line in your reply to gamer was intended to include me, but either way, a bit unfair i feel as what other medium do we have to judge a cards merits on.

Im not completly ignorant of the advantages and improvements yeilded by DX11 and would definatly consider myself to be pro advancement. I have a copy of W7 sitting in the caddy now waiting for instalation(running RC now) and i will get a DX11 card sooner rather than later. I jumped on the 4770 the second (literally) that it launched and while its a good card i wouldnt have missed too much had i waited for this.

But then thats the way of things with PC's i guess, no i think i will wait a bit this time around and get one of the cudstom cooler cards like a HIS ICEQ when they come out.

Mactronix
m
0
l
October 20, 2009 3:19:27 PM

gamerk316 said:
I'm still wondering why AMD decided to go with a 128-bit bus. I mean seriously, how did they not see how big a bottleneck that was going to be?

Its easy to answer, 128bit and HALF the size of the big brother means CHEAP production, much cheaper than 4870/90, what to speak of GTX260. If you dont go for the extreme settings, its not much bottlenecked, its not meant for a extreme gamer anyway.

gamerk316 said:

Considering teh x770 is generally the top mainstream card of a generation, AMD may have backed themselves into a corner by making the 5770 so broken. You simply can not recommend buying them at their price point.

Broken... how? Because of ~10% lower fps than previous gen high-end single gpu cards? Its not like fps is set in stone. Drivers will improve new gen, programmers will use 5xxx as the base platform and play along its strong sides = AMD will enjoy the same benefit Nvidia had with G80, then you have DX11 games (another 20-30% advantage over old gen).

That was about pure speed, how about extras, like very low power consumption? If you dont care about the bill, how about very silent work? I dont buy you wont care about that. I wont even go for eyefinity, improved audio, etc.

Considering all that, how is 5770 a failure or broken? Even if you still prefer old gen, stock wont last long, AMD will leave that market for the 5700 series.
m
0
l
October 20, 2009 3:53:59 PM

fwgx said:
I've just ordered a 5770 for a few reasons:
1) I don't plan on changing it anytime soon so the DX11 compatibility is welcome for when it starts getting used as I don't want to buy something that will limit me in 24 months time.
2) I think when DX11 is used that this card has a lot more to offer and will perform better than we've seen so far.
3) The low power consumption means that I will save a big wad of cash a year that I can use for other things, like saving for another 5770 in 2-3 years time.


Yo! you are OTS.

The best advantage IMO these new cards have is "" ENERGY Efficiency "" + performance. They perform better then the olg Gen card and are less power hungry.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 3:59:52 PM

mactronix said:
@ TGGA,
Not sure if that last line in your reply to gamer was intended to include me, but either way, a bit unfair i feel as what other medium do we have to judge a cards merits on.


Nah more the reverse, some of my reply to you was really influenced by my frustation with him and his previous statements. The last line there is just my general impression that people are overly critical of launch products, which really shoul maximize their price to make supply and demand meet better to make the most profit from those who are looking for the latest and greatest first (this is the known cost of being an early adopter), where it's not about the fps/$ it's about buying potential as well as the shiny new-car feel of owning an '09 model versus and '08. It also relates to the fact that people are not taking into account the other benefits, because while it may be just fps/$ for them it doesn't mean the other aspect were a wrong choice or valueless, just valueless to that person. DX11 support, CS & OpenCL support, multimonitor support, potential video processing boost (adding SAD to the ALUs), improved audio, better performance/watt, all of those offer potential value depending on how much you ascribe a # to those. For many people there's a 0 in each of those slots but I don't know if that's ignorance or simply that they are focused on a specifc situation. Anyone who only plays CSS or WOW, won't see much/any values in those, except maybe the performance/watt for those long frag/game sessions, but anyone loking for beyond what they currently do, those values should increase over time.

The other thing, is I understand your feeling with regards to the HD4770 launch versus this launch, but I don't see them as the same, like I said, I think if you consider this as a proper 5690 launch and forget the history of an HD4770, it's a pretty solid launch, and to me the equivalent of the HD5770 would be yet to come, whereas this is the best that they could fit in the dimension they determined would be optimal (sounds like they ran out of space considering the loss of DoublePrecision which was available onthe HD4770, but is of limited value to most gamers).

However, from the sounds of things this generation might not live long enough to get an equivalent if they expect to move to the hecka-crazy-core-name-thingy next year. I have a feeling the HD5770 which is selling well now, will continue to sell well, as they lower the price over time to bring in the people who were sitting on the sidelines during the launch.

I'm all for value, but I see this more as a marketing/pricing issue more than an engineering issue, and that's what gets me a little annoyed, although more at people who don't know what they're talking about like gk316, not you who I think is more reacting to wanting something that was rumoured, and then being a little crest-fallen by the reality missing the mark, and then saying "well I'm not going to pay that much for THAT, I was epecting more, I'll wait for the price to fall", but I think if you sit back and look at their mid-range part, it's still pretty nice, and reminds me more of the old old X700 launch (which everyone wondered what it would be like with 256bit memory with everything else being similar to an R9800) than the HD4770 launch. Their good within the limitations of what's best for manufacturing and long-term pricing, not launch pricing.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 4:10:22 PM

@ TGGA,
Yea you pretty much summed up where im coming from, as you say when you think about it considering the whole series they need somewhere for the failed Cypress cores to go dont they. If they made the 5770 any better then they wouldnt have a gap to fill now would they ;) 

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 5:59:53 PM

Yeah and also they would be far more strained for price drops when they want the HD5770 to be their low-ball part against the nV mid-range.

right now it looks cheaper to make than a GTS250 and about the same as an HD4770, so that puts them in a very flexible position, able to charge high prices now so that demand is quelled to match supply, and then over time, drop the prices and keep demand hot.

And if there are HD58xx rejects they do have a dumping ground, but I doubt they'd bother with that until Q1 of next year, I wouldn't be surprised if the HD5770 sees some speed refreshs at the same time, compressing that gap you speak of.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 6:33:17 PM

I remember having a similar talk when the 4670 came out, and, as a new card, of course its price was higher, and we tried to tell a few people this, and thatd it eventually come down under the 9600 and would be a fill in for that price perf point, and this was before the 4770, and didnt know itd be that in-between spot.
Anyways, yes TGGA is right as always, all the HW to SW switching is causing underperformance, how much isnt known.
But, just like nVidia came out with their baddaboom drivers, and so too ATI came out with s afew perf drivers later, I believe we will see some nice perf gains with these cards, and itll be interesting to see them restested when the x2 cards come out, by then the drivers will be better.
Anyways, intro pricing isnt always a 4xxx series nice surprise, tho its good when it happens, the perf will get better, and the prices will drop, and as W1zzard said, we still may not see those x2 cards til next year as he said
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 6:35:54 PM

Also, regarding the still somewhat unknown effects of the 128 bus, down the line, there may be higher clocked ram coming to these cars as well, if truly needed
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 6:42:20 PM

Well i was kind of hoping that by waiting for the non reference designs i might pick up a little speed as well as the better cooler, yes i know never satisfied, well it cant hurt to hope can it. I see that there is a voltage adjustable model out by Asus but haven't looked at the review yet.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 6:59:58 PM

Whatll be really interesting is down the road DX11 games have more honus on the devs now, with less FF HW, and will be seen in the games they make, as well as the differing approaches of the shader makeup
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 7:07:11 PM

Well the card is already faster in DX11 than DX10 according to battleforge benchmarks anyway, and i would assume they are concentrating on making the card perform in DX11 rather than DX10 anyway so it seems that there are increases there waiting to be had.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2009 8:04:12 PM

And we may get a better picture down the road as to whos actually coding well in their games as well, especially, as we move away from DX9 into DX11
m
0
l
!