Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why the new ATI series are so cheap???

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 28, 2009 1:37:46 AM

I cant belive what I see, ATI new video card series cheaper than older ones, the 5770 is arround 170USD and the 4870 or 4890 are around 200USD, what happened, whats the problem with them, I have my 260gtx one year old, and it cost me 240 USD, would it be a good idea to change it for the new ati???

More about : ati series cheap

October 28, 2009 1:47:34 AM

The thing about the 5770 is currently on average due to lack of DX11 games the 5770 is out performed by the 4770 but the 5850 is an extremely solid card for the price and well worth the money
Edit: woops I meant 4870 sorry about that
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 2:00:06 AM

The $160 5770 performs equal to a 4870, which costs $150. And the $110 5750 performs equal to a 4850, which costs around $100.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 28, 2009 2:02:46 AM

@Aloid

Did you mean 5770 outperformed by 4870?

@santa2142

First, ATI has had a die shrink since 4770. Skills and efficiency improves with time and technology. Also, a die shrink would mean lower production cost, although the amount spent on R&D can certainly make up for the reduction in cost. Not to mention economy of scale.

Secondly, the way I see it, ATI is still charging a premium for all its 5000 cards since our beloved green team still does not have theirs out yet. When GT300 comes out, ATI can definitely slash prices like crazy and go on war against them.
The HD4800 came out cheap because nVidia's cards were already in the market. Hence, the only thing ATI could do was to aim for value for money.

However, they are not cheap. Look at 5800 series. They go above $200 where in reality, they should be around the same price (or perhaps slightly higher) as the 4800 series since they are aimed at replacing the 4800 lineup.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 2:03:18 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
The $160 5770 performs equal to a 4870, which costs $150. And the $110 5750 performs equal to a 4850, which costs around $100.


Yes but the 57xx series are A) 40nm B) dx 11) c) able to do eye finity
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 2:18:07 AM

Ok, but how abbout compatibility problems, I've heard a lot of complains with the 4870 since it came out, and I never used ATI ,except for my moms old PC with a 9250 and it sucked XD. I trust Nvidia, despite the very high price I love them
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 2:21:35 AM

santa2142 said:
Ok, but how abbout compatibility problems, I've heard a lot of complains with the 4870 since it came out, and I never used ATI ,except for my moms old PC with a 9250 and it sucked XD. I trust Nvidia, despite the very high price I love them


Well, numbers don't lie.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 3:20:22 AM

alikum said:

First, ATI has had a die shrink since 4770.


Nope, die is bigger, process is same. :whistle: 
Only if you meant the 4870 would that be correct.

Quote:
Secondly, the way I see it, ATI is still charging a premium for all its 5000 cards since our beloved green team still does not have theirs out yet.


Ok that comment would seem to indicate you meant the 4770 for the case the OP finds himself in.

Quote:
However, they are not cheap. Look at 5800 series. They go above $200 where in reality, they should be around the same price (or perhaps slightly higher) as the 4800 series since they are aimed at replacing the 4800 lineup.


Same current price or same launch price?
There are the same launch price, and there's no way the 5800 series should be the same current price.


Anywhooo, pricing of old versus new has less to do with ATi than AIBs/OEMs where they clear stock and maximize return of remaining old parts; ATi primarily sells them the original chip/GPU and the OEMs the work to maximize their profits after that. It's like anyone clearing old inventory to make way for new. You don't want just pennies for parts, but you also don't want to pay overhead to keep inventory.

Share
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 3:22:01 AM

yannifb said:
Yes but the 57xx series are A) 40nm B) dx 11) c) able to do eye finity

A & B yep
C = ? O_o

m
0
l
October 28, 2009 3:56:05 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
A & B yep
C = ? O_o


Lol your right i dont think eyefinity people would do that on the weaker cards
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 4:02:55 AM

yannifb said:
Lol your right i dont think eyefinity people would do that on the weaker cards


... Because 6 monitors on a 5870 is easier than 3 on a 5770?

I think you'll see a bunch of people use it, just like they did with the TH2Go on cards like the GF8800GTS-320/640.

Edit: not the majority, but still a bunch who can easily throw together older monitors, or already had dual monitors for editing and such.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 4:06:59 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
... Because 6 monitors on a 5870 is easier than 3 on a 5770?

I think you'll see a bunch of people use it, just like they did with the TH2Go on cards like the GF8800GTS-320/640.

Edit: not the majority, but still a bunch who can easily throw together older monitors, or already had dual monitors for editing and such.


The resolution matters- if a 5770 doesnt perform to great at 1900x1200, then you'd prefer a 5870 for those types of monitors.
You get what i mean, just work with me here :D 

Also does anyone know the performance hit if you use a 5870 with 3 monitor eyefinity (1920x1080)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 4:29:39 AM

I understand what you're saying, but remember, resolution scales with price too.

It would be more likely 3 x 1280x1024/1440x900/1600x900 than 3 x 19x12/10, which is similar to the old TH2Go which couldn't do 1920 resolution until DP suppport.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 2:10:31 PM

@GreatGrapeApe

I meant they started since 4770 :D 
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 2:16:36 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:

Same current price or same launch price?
There are the same launch price, and there's no way the 5800 series should be the same current price.


Anywhooo, pricing of old versus new has less to do with ATi than AIBs/OEMs where they clear stock and maximize return of remaining old parts; ATi primarily sells them the original chip/GPU and the OEMs the work to maximize their profits after that. It's like anyone clearing old inventory to make way for new. You don't want just pennies for parts, but you also don't want to pay overhead to keep inventory.


I meant launch and current. In theory, that should be the way it is but in reality, it isn't because of the lack of competition, additional features and most importantly to clear off the 4000s.

Yeap, I agree with you, which is why I said the 5000 series ain't cheap. Just wait for nVidia to release theirs and you can see the truly "cheap" 5000 series and by that time, 4000 would've been cleared (hopefully).
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 2:35:28 PM

santa2142 said:
Ok, but how abbout compatibility problems, I've heard a lot of complains with the 4870 since it came out,


I haven't... and I have one.


santa2142 said:

and I never used ATI ,except for my moms old PC with a 9250 and it sucked


You are basing your opinion of ATi's on a golden 'oldie GPU? :heink: 





m
0
l
October 28, 2009 3:15:54 PM

santa2142 said:
Ok, but how abbout compatibility problems, I've heard a lot of complains with the 4870 since it came out, and I never used ATI ,except for my moms old PC with a 9250 and it sucked XD. I trust Nvidia, despite the very high price I love them


That makes you a not-so-smart consumer. I've had FX5500 from nVidia and it sucked. Yet, despite that, I gave 8600GT a go on my first PC. It was similar in performance and cheaper than 2600xt back then. Drop your prejudice against ATI and you'll find yourself saving alot more, unless of course money is not a problem for you.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 4:39:14 PM

The new ATi series is so cheap because ATi loves us. Just makes me wish I would've gotten a bigger folding table for more than one monitor.... stupid tiny apartment. What'm I saying, I'm broke anyway (still want to upgrade, P/P is beautiful right now).
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 5:00:56 PM

The cheapest HD5770 is $35 dollars more expensive than the cheapest HD4870 on newegg right now. Considering their relative performances I don't see why anyone would go out of their way to comment on how cheap it is. Personally I think it's rather overpriced.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 5:25:59 PM

The new cards are priced where they should be. The best performing single card (not single GPU) is the GTX 295, which you get for $420 if you include the rebates. Next is the 5870, which costs $380, then the 285, and so on.

If you look beyond just performance, the new ATI cards have an edge in DX 11 support (probably won't be a practical advantage until at least a year from now) and lower power/heat.

In a couple of months a 5870x2 should be out and will be the new leader, but it will likely sell for something like $639.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 6:22:37 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
OK, would you rather have this card with all the DX11 goodness?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
259 to 289$ thats better and faster and more feature packed, or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
This card, 349 to 389$, which is running hotter, drawing more power, isnt as fast, and has fewer features, and less forwards looking?


I would get the 5850. It's a better deal. But the 5850 doesn't perform better than the 285. Maybe it does. Depends on what source you use. Anyway, no contest, get the 5850 and save $75.
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 6:41:36 PM

most reviews agree that a single 5850 beats (though not by a large margin) the GTX 285, and 2 5850s in CF beat the GTX 295 (which is a dual GPU card too)
m
0
l
October 28, 2009 6:48:04 PM

OK. The 5850 is better than the 285 in every way and costs less. I was wrong.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2009 10:01:43 PM

And its 90 to 100$
Alot of people dont really realize how good these cards are, and in a few months will be even better, and will own in DX11 games of course.
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 12:12:57 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And its 90 to 100$
Alot of people dont really realize how good these cards are, and in a few months will be even better, and will own in DX11 games of course.


Ugh im confused now... is it worth it to buy a 5870 or should i get a 5850
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 1:04:57 AM

jennyh said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dpBJq5nHs4

You might just be surprised at how well a 5770 runs wow on 3 24" screens...


I have to say while I'm not gonna support WoW being too intensive of a game, with that many players and screen and that much happening that's pretty impressive, actually; especially, keeping in mind that's a mid-range budget card.
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 1:09:51 AM

i say get a 5850...i don't think the performance difference justifies the price difference. also, the 5850 is enough for pretty much every game for now (except maybe crysis), consumes lesser power, and is cheaper. it should cover you for all games for atlest 4-6 months, maybe more. if and when you feel the need for something better, just get another 5850 and crossfire. the prices should have dropped by then considerably.
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 1:58:05 AM

I have to try one first. today I played Resident Evil 5 in coop on ATI 4870 (1600x1050) and it was going well untill the 2nd or 3rd mission where it lagged, only that lvl, than it went ok, my friend was beside me playing with a 250gtx (1920x1080) and didnt go lag any time, we both played full graphics AA x8
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 2:02:34 AM

santa2142 said:
I have to try one first. today I played Resident Evil 5 in coop on ATI 4870 (1600x1050) and it was going well untill the 2nd or 3rd mission where it lagged, only that lvl, than it went ok, my friend was beside me playing with a 250gtx (1920x1080) and didnt go lag any time, we both played full graphics AA x8


no way a 250 can outperform a 4870 at a lower res. Was he playin on the lowest detail?
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 2:17:42 AM

Probably because they dont have enough of a performance gain to warrant a high price hehe. No...This is how AMD like to compete...performance for value...wheras Nvidia usually tend to have the upper hand in performance but they charge a hefty premium for it.
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 2:42:10 AM

smoggy12345 said:
Probably because they dont have enough of a performance gain to warrant a high price hehe. No...This is how AMD like to compete...performance for value...wheras Nvidia usually tend to have the upper hand in performance but they charge a hefty premium for it.


the 5xxx series cards have the performance crown right now....
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 2:53:12 AM

yannifb said:
the 5xxx series cards have the performance crown right now....


and will continue to have it for a while, before Nvidia comes out with the 300 cards, amd will produce the dual 5870 which will beat fermi. a dual fermi's price will be out of sight.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 4:30:30 AM

santa2142 said:
I have to try one first. today I played Resident Evil 5 in coop on ATI 4870 (1600x1050) and it was going well untill the 2nd or 3rd mission where it lagged, only that lvl, than it went ok, my friend was beside me playing with a 250gtx (1920x1080) and didnt go lag any time, we both played full graphics AA x8


Well considering one of those cards doesn't exist I would say you're dreaming bud! :pfff: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 6:10:39 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Well considering one of those cards doesn't exist I would say you're dreaming bud! :pfff: 


I was gonna say it must suck to have friends that lie to you about their performance to seem superior in some way. :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 6:13:12 AM

Especially at 8AA, as the G92s sucked at higher AA compared to todays cards, just renaming the card doesnt change that
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 6:50:58 AM

santa2142 said:
I have to try one first. today I played Resident Evil 5 in coop on ATI 4870 (1600x1050) and it was going well untill the 2nd or 3rd mission where it lagged, only that lvl, than it went ok, my friend was beside me playing with a 250gtx (1920x1080) and didnt go lag any time, we both played full graphics AA x8


I own a 4870 and I can tell you the card doesn't get outperformed by a weak 250. There are 3 possibilities:
1. Your friend lied. He was using a lower resolution.
2. Your friend lied. He was not using AA at all.
3. You lie.
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 7:13:22 AM

santa2142 said:
I have to try one first. today I played Resident Evil 5 in coop on ATI 4870 (1600x1050) and it was going well untill the 2nd or 3rd mission where it lagged, only that lvl, than it went ok, my friend was beside me playing with a 250gtx (1920x1080) and didnt go lag any time, we both played full graphics AA x8



Thats strange.... considering earlier you said:

Quote:

Ok, but how abbout compatibility problems, I've heard a lot of complains with the 4870 since it came out, and I never used ATI ,except for my moms old PC with a 9250 and it sucked XD. I trust Nvidia, despite the very high price I love them



Considering also the 250 GTX does not exist, and I'm sure you can see why many board members are quite skeptical... to say the least.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 8:15:24 AM

Quote:
Ok, but how abbout compatibility problems, I've heard a lot of complains with the 4870 since it came out, and I never used ATI ,except for my moms old PC with a 9250 and it sucked XD. I trust Nvidia, despite the very high price I love them


:lol:  How the hell can you love a company. What did it do to you? Help you when you were in trouble? Feed you if you were hungry? :heink: 

Now, on topic. I give a little credit to the OP. Maybe he got confused between the 250 GTS and the non-existing 250 GTX, but the game comparison is from a fantasy book.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 10:17:13 AM

brockh said:
I have to say while I'm not gonna support WoW being too intensive of a game, with that many players and screen and that much happening that's pretty impressive, actually; especially, keeping in mind that's a mid-range budget card.


That was on full graphic settings too, without AA. The most suprising thing is 5760x1200 resolution on a 128-bit bus card.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 10:20:17 AM

jennyh said:
That was on full graphic settings too, without AA. The most suprising thing is 5760x1200 resolution on a 128-bit bus card.


Wintergrasp :D 
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 2:36:57 PM

ok sorry for my mistake, it was a 4850 and 250gts, both cards full graphics in resident 5, the only issue the ATI had was on that lvl, the super lag, i dont know why, all other game parts was running great, same as the 250gts.
If you have a 360 controller and a nice PC play the re5, graphics are little better than x-box, and you dont get lagged when playing mercenarys while having a bunch of zomies arround. (the 360 contriller is because aiming with mouse is spetialy dificult, i noticed that vertical aiming is more sensible than horizontal and you cant change it.)


------------------------------------------
PC gamer forever
------------------------------------------
Destcop: core2 quad 6600 2.5ghz| 8gb ram ocz ddr2 800mhz| Nvidia nForce 780i motherboard| seagate 500gb 7200rpm HDD| 260gtx 896mb| asus H243H 24'' 1080p monitor| Cooler Master case
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 3:57:44 PM

Maybe it is because ATI moved to 40nm sized GPU which would cut the cost for making the video card, thus, making the price cheaper for customers. In other words, the smaller the GPU, the cheaper the cost for making the video card and that would decrease the price too.

This is why in the past NVIDIA Geforce GTX 200 series cost more than Radeon HD 4000 series because NVIDIA failed to die shrink their GPU to 55nm and ATI tends to adopt newer tech and die shrinking their GPU before NVIDIA does. Maybe this is due to NVIDIA's approach by favouring Big Single Monolithic GPU which was the opposite to ATI's approach. ATI's approach was the idea of making Multiple Smaller GPUs over a big single monolithic GPU and to sell cheaper high-end video cards with decent performance.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 6:28:18 PM

santa2142 said:
ok sorry for my mistake, it was a 4850 and 250gts, both cards full graphics in resident 5, the only issue the ATI had was on that lvl, the super lag, i dont know why, all other game parts was running great, same as the 250gts.
If you have a 360 controller and a nice PC play the re5, graphics are little better than x-box, and you dont get lagged when playing mercenarys while having a bunch of zomies arround. (the 360 contriller is because aiming with mouse is spetialy dificult, i noticed that vertical aiming is more sensible than horizontal and you cant change it.)


------------------------------------------
PC gamer forever
------------------------------------------
Destcop: core2 quad 6600 2.5ghz| 8gb ram ocz ddr2 800mhz| Nvidia nForce 780i motherboard| seagate 500gb 7200rpm HDD| 260gtx 896mb| asus H243H 24'' 1080p monitor| Cooler Master case


The 4850 is a good deal cheaper than the GTS 250 and is a big difference in comparison to the 4870. I'm not suprised, especially if it was the 512MB version. Nothing much to see here. :/  Also it's odd you prefer the Xbox controller on the PC... very odd. I'm gonna guess you grew up playing consoles before you got a computer, because usually it's the other way around.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 6:28:58 PM

santa2142 said:
ok sorry for my mistake, it was a 4850 and 250gts...


Now it's not this, it's this, how is anyone supposed to give you credibility on that?

Uhhh.... I have this friend, he has an S3 Chrome 543 GTXX and it kicks the A$$ of all ATi & nVidia cards at all resolutions. :kaola: 
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 29, 2009 6:43:52 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Now it's not this, it's this, how is anyone supposed to give you credibility on that?

Uhhh.... I have this friend, he has an S3 Chrome 543 GTXX and it kicks the A$$ of all ATi & nVidia cards at all resolutions. :kaola: 


I have Larrabee.

...


....

Take THAT!

Odds are I did not spell correctly.
m
0
l
October 29, 2009 10:05:32 PM

shadow187 said:
I have Larrabee.

...


....

Take THAT!

Odds are I did not spell correctly.


Actually i think you spelled it right :ouch: 
m
0
l
!