Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

HD 5850... worth the extra $120?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 4, 2010 8:52:25 PM

I thought for sure I had made up my mind about going with a 5850 over a 5770, but is it really worth the extra $120? The sapphire versions of both cards i was looking at are $180 and $300 last time I checked. so is the extra money really worth it?

I'll be gaming on this computer, sure, but I'm willing to sacrifice some detail in games with a 5770 and put that money towards other parts (such as a better cpu).

My monitor's resolution is 1600x900. Will i be happy with a 5770? Will i get medium graphics or better on all games?

Thanks for any responses; I've been debating this for so long now, I think my head is going to explode! :p 

More about : 5850 worth extra 120

Best solution

a c 1408 U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 8:55:05 PM

Based on the resolution you will be happy with the HD5770 and you can pick them up for about $150-160 now http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Share
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 8:56:41 PM

The 5850 is worth the extra $120 (less than GTX 260's performance vs more than GTX 285's) but not for your resolution, the 5770 would be fine.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 9:03:20 PM

There is no difference, get the cheapest one or if OCing the best cooler.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 9:05:28 PM

alright, so the only difference in the model i linked and the model that rolli59 linked is the cooler? which one is better? the one i linked looks nicer, imo haha.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 9:25:08 PM

Well I would reco,,emd the 5850 and it is worth it. I played Crysis on my 40inch samsung which is 1920x1020. IT played great without AA. I even used the xbox controller and it played like a console game. If you buy the 5850 you can use it like a console as well but seeing as you have a 1600x900 its not so bad and I think you should invest in the $150 dollars. If your motherboard has crossfire capabilities it might be worth considering getting 2 5770's but if you have patience, Id wait and eventually get 2 5850's!!
m
0
l
a c 363 U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 9:27:45 PM

I would go with the HD 5770 for your current resolution.

If you plan on upgrading to a larger monitor, then the HD 5850 would be the better choice especially if you really want to use high quality graphics settings all the time and be ready for newer games.

The HD 5770 basically has the same performance of the HD 4870 and uses less power, but with DX11. The HD 4870 is still capable of playing most current games set to high quality graphics at 1920 x 1080/1200, however, playing future releases at that resolution will probably require you to drop down to medium grahpics quality.
m
0
l
a c 1408 U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 9:28:53 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
I'm down on the 5770

1. many of the designs blow air into the case.

2. performance pales next to the 260 and 4870

3. It's just not "all it could been" http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3658&p=14

The 5850, 5870 and even the 5970 are easier to recommend.

People forget that the HD57xx is the mid range card you are comparing it to a older generation high end card and they are trading blows. That is what we got with nvidia's 7600GT on release and that same website praised it because it would trade blows with 6800ultra.
Then again I have a hard time recommending HD5850 for $310 when you can get HD5870 performance with 2xHD5770 for $310
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 9:54:54 PM

I think i'm gonna go with the 5770 because i just bought this monitor and don't plan on upgrading it for a long time. now all i have to do is pick the best card... i was going to go with the sapphire version i linked, but many sites test the xfx or HIS version. could anyone tell me which is the best company to buy from?
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 9:56:30 PM

rolli59 said:

Then again I have a hard time recommending HD5850 for $310 when you can get HD5870 performance with 2xHD5770 for $310

That assuming that you have 2xPCI-ex16 slots and games you play support CF.
And problem with CF is that it wont allow you to use different output on 2 monitors.
Also having 5850 allows you to upgrade to CF later when single 5850 will not be enough.
m
0
l
a c 1408 U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 10:23:57 PM

xrodney said:
That assuming that you have 2xPCI-ex16 slots and games you play support CF.
And problem with CF is that it wont allow you to use different output on 2 monitors.
Also having 5850 allows you to upgrade to CF later when single 5850 will not be enough.

But by then we buy a HD6850 because it is new and supports DX11.1 and the HD5850 is in the same spot an the charts as HD4850 today!
m
0
l
a c 231 U Graphics card
January 10, 2010 5:13:17 PM

jaguarskx said:
I would go with the HD 5770 for your current resolution.

If you plan on upgrading to a larger monitor, then the HD 5850 would be the better choice especially if you really want to use high quality graphics settings all the time and be ready for newer games.

The HD 5770 basically has the same performance of the HD 4870 and uses less power, but with DX11. The HD 4870 is still capable of playing most current games set to high quality graphics at 1920 x 1080/1200, however, playing future releases at that resolution will probably require you to drop down to medium grahpics quality.


At his current resolution, it's not that bad a choice ....if it was $140. If one is playing at 1920 x 1200 however, it's a DX11 that can't play even current DX11 titles w/o a "colossal" impact on performance. And Dirt2 has only minimal incorporation of Dx11 features.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dirt-2-performance-...

Enabling DirectX 11 has a massive impact on performance. The Radeon HD 5750 and 5770 can easily handle the high 2560x1600 resolution in DirectX 9 mode, but in DirectX 11 mode things become very choppy.

It looks like these new DirectX 11 cards are quite efficient when it comes to AA, as the results don't change all that much. Only the Radeon HD 5750 and 5770 really suffer, but 1920x1200 performance remains playable, [min fps = 24.5] if not ideal.


m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 10, 2010 8:16:23 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
If one is playing at 1920 x 1200 however, it's a DX11 that can't play even current DX11 titles w/o a "colossal" impact on performance. And Dirt2 has only minimal incorporation of Dx11 features.
[/i]
You mean title, singular, not "titles." Using one game and the first game to incorporate a new technology to make broad assumptions that apply to every other game produced in the future is a rather large mistake. The first DX10 games took a huge performance hit as well but that did not keep up over time. Also if you look at the other game released in the US that uses DX11(battleforge) it actually improves frame rates.
m
0
l
!