5830

[hal2010]

wasnt the 5830 supposed to be released yesterday?

 

[ewood]

I believe it should be released on the 5th of Feb.

 

[hal2010]

any word on specs and pricing

 

[chowmanga]

I'd expect the price to be a bit lower than 4890. However, some sources put the price at $230. As for specs, I can't find anything on the internet to give. But considering the 5800 series have a 256 bit bus width, the 5830 should have it too but with less stream processors than the 5850. This should give it great scaling for overclockers since the 5870 seems to be a bottlenecked by the memory bandwidth (as seen in some reviews, overclocking the core doesn't do as much as overclocking the memory). The 5770 suffers the same memory bandwidth problem when overclocking. Granted the 5770 performs similarly to the 4870, I'd put the performance around the level of the 4890. However, this is speculation as not much information can be found at this time.

 

[chowmanga]

Sorry, I forgot to add sources for the prices.

5830 priced slightly below 4890: http://www.techpowerup.com/112690/AMD_Readies_Radeon_HD_5830_Seals_Upper-Mainstream_Gaps.html

Priced at $239: http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17273/34/

 

[jyjjy]

The $230 seems more likely to me. The 5750, 5770 and 5670 cards have all been priced $20--30 higher than their HD4000 counterparts at launch.

 

[chowmanga]

The $230 seems more likely to me. The 5750, 5770 and 5670 cards have all been priced $20--30 higher than their HD4000 counterparts at launch.

Yeah, it definitely could be considering the premium amd is charging for having dx11 and all the perks that comes with the new gen. I've been waiting to get a new card and the 5000 series just doesn't seem to have the value I'm looking for yet. This is unlikely to change with the release of the 5830 but that doesn't keep me from hoping...

 

[jyjjy]

I've been waiting to get a new card and the 5000 series just doesn't seem to have the value I'm looking for yet.

Hmm. Both the HD5770 and HD5850 look like the best performance for the money in their price range. Not sure what "value" you were expecting if they aren't good enough.

 

[chowmanga]

Hmm. Both the HD5770 and HD5850 look like the best performance for the money in their price range. Not sure what "value" you were expecting if they aren't good enough.

Neither of those cards are a slouch. However the 5850 is beyond my price range and with the 5770 and 4870 similar in price and performance, I don't see the 5770 stand out. Trust me, I know all about the features the 5770 brings over 4870 but the scalability issues in overclocking it is the deal breaker for me. Even though you can overclock the 5770 much further than the 4870, it doesn't mean much if you're not seeing much gain. You're right, at this point the 5850 and the 5770 are the best choices at those price points but I just want more out of my money. Its personal preference.

 

[jyjjy]

Why would the HD5770 not gain much performance with an OC? I haven't heard anyone else saying that.

 

[chowmanga]

Look at the overclocking tables tables for each of the three cards in this review released here on THG: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-5770-overclocking,2473.html

Notice that the gtx275 and especially the 4890 gains much more from core overclocking. The 5770 gains very little from core overclocking and a ton from overclocking the memory. This is the scalability issue I'm talking about - the 5770 is memory starved.

I don't think it says explicitly that the scalability is an issue and while the performance is there, I'd be happier if the card was better balanced so that it provided more equal scalability with core and memory overclocks. This way I'd be held back by the limitations of the hardware, rather than inherent limitations on design. I want to be at the point where temps are whats stopping me from getting more fps, not drops in performance from overclocking the gddr5 too much when the core could be pushed further.

 

[jyjjy]

Look at the overclocking tables tables for each of the three cards in this review released here on THG: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-5770-overclocking,2473.html

Notice that the gtx275 and especially the 4890 gains much more from core overclocking. The 5770 gains very little from core overclocking and a ton from overclocking the memory. This is the scalability issue I'm talking about - the 5770 is memory starved.

I don't think it says explicitly that the scalability is an issue and while the performance is there, I'd be happier if the card was better balanced so that it provided more equal scalability with core and memory overclocks. This way I'd be held back by the limitations of the hardware, rather than inherent limitations on design. I want to be at the point where temps are whats stopping me from getting more fps, not drops in performance from overclocking the gddr5 too much when the core could be pushed further.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. First of all if it had issues with "scalibilty" that would mean that they were able to get a large OC but the performance didn't increase in line with OC amount but that's not what is going on in the article. The only thing that article shows is that they had a hard time getting a good OC in the core. They OCed the core 5% and the memory 19% and saw performance increase 8% overall. What is this "inherent limitation" of design that you are blaming on the memory? What does "drops in performance from OCing the gddr5 too much when the core could be pushed further" mean? They didn't stop OCing the core when it could be pushed further, they OCed it as much as they could. They didn't OC the memory too much, they OCed it as much as they could. The only thing that article shows is that the particular card they tested had a core that didn't OC well, that's it. I don't know where this other stuff you are talking about comes from.
Here is another article about OCing the card and they managed to get a 13% OC on the core and 21% on the memory;
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5770_hd5750/6.htm
and another with a similar OC;
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/10/12/amd_ati_radeon_hd_5770_5750_review/7
and one more with a good core OC but they couldn't OC the memory as much as others;
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd5750hd5770/3.html
So anyway the card has no issues with overclocking and that the memory OCs even more than the core is a GOOD thing as the memory bandwidth is a lil weak for a GPU of that caliber. I think you were basing way too much on one article and then started coming up with weird theories to explain their results.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

As with all ocees, your results may vary. Card to card, chip to chip, ram to ram, weve all seen it, so if you get one, and plan to oc, just hope you get a good oceer

 

[rodney_ws]

The $230 seems more likely to me. The 5750, 5770 and 5670 cards have all been priced $20--30 higher than their HD4000 counterparts at launch.

All the more reason for you to be pulling for team green! All of the 4000 series parts were launched against some VERY stiff competition from Nvidia and had to be priced accordingly... the 5000 series? Nvidia still hasn't sold a single DX11 GPU and definitely doesn't hold the performance crown... AMD/ATI is just doing what they're supposed to be doing... charging a price premium for a premium product.

 

[JofaMang]

From what I have read on numerous reviews over the interwebs, is that the 5770s have very GOOD CF scalability, especially considering the immature drivers. This has been somewhat backhandedly attributed to the 128bit bus limiting a single cards performance, but allowing multiple card configurations to run at a high % of scale, due to the cards limitations almost always being on the card, and not the system installed. I am not technically proficient enough to back these concepts, just repeating what I have gathered over time.

 

[notty22]

A 5770 is slower than a cheaper 4870 every day of the week. And if you o/c both the gap widens. Hopefully this new card is more like a 5850 than a 5770. Of course the 5850 was supposed to be 269.99 and everyone in the beginning saw the price of that dropping in ensuing months. But in light the huge performance gap between itself and the 5770, They took the route of raising the pricepoint of the 5850 instead of lowering the price of the 5770.

 

[jyjjy]

A 5770 is slower than a cheaper 4870 every day of the week.

If you use the old beta drivers every day of the week then sure, I guess so, but unless you have invented time travel the HD4870 is no longer cheaper.

 

[Rustyy117]

Of course they did, ATi are a business and are out to make money, with no competition they can charge higher prices, yes its annoying that there so expensive, but there not doing anything wrong. Just making money

 

[JofaMang]

At least they opened with a crazy competitive price, and let the market dictate from there, as opposed to opening at a crazy high price, and letting the market and competition cut it down.

Launch prices were competitive with a non-existant competitor. These are small premiums considering the performance the cards give in direct comparison to current offerings.

 

[hallowed_dragon]

^^^Guys your are preaching to the wrong person here. Read his other posts and see that your efforts are meaningless.

 

[Rustyy117]

At least they opened with a crazy competitive price, and let the market dictate from there, as opposed to opening at a crazy high price, and letting the market and competition cut it down.

Launch prices were competitive with a non-existant competitor. These are small premiums considering the performance the cards give in direct comparison to current offerings.

Very true, ATi's HD5850 beating nVidia's fastest single GPU card for less money and offering better features/tech.......makes it an easy choice for someone looking for great performance and the latest tech.

 

[notty22]

^^^Guys your are preaching to the wrong person here. Read his other posts and see that your efforts are meaningless.

This coming from someone who mentions he hates a company in every other post.
laughing it off doesn't hide what that is.

 

[hallowed_dragon]

This coming from someone who mentions he hates a company in every other post.
laughing it off doesn't hide what that is.

Nice to mention only part of my specific post. As I said, my hate for the company only affects my purchases. If nVidia has better parts I will recommend them to others as I have previously in the past

 

[Mousemonkey]

AMD Radeon HD 5830 issue found during validation process

 

[chowmanga]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. First of all if it had issues with "scalibilty" that would mean that they were able to get a large OC but the performance didn't increase in line with OC amount but that's not what is going on in the article. The only thing that article shows is that they had a hard time getting a good OC in the core. They OCed the core 5% and the memory 19% and saw performance increase 8% overall. What is this "inherent limitation" of design that you are blaming on the memory? What does "drops in performance from OCing the gddr5 too much when the core could be pushed further" mean? They didn't stop OCing the core when it could be pushed further, they OCed it as much as they could. They didn't OC the memory too much, they OCed it as much as they could. The only thing that article shows is that the particular card they tested had a core that didn't OC well, that's it. I don't know where this other stuff you are talking about comes from.
Here is another article about OCing the card and they managed to get a 13% OC on the core and 21% on the memory;
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5770_hd5750/6.htm
and another with a similar OC;
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/10/12/amd_ati_radeon_hd_5770_5750_review/7
and one more with a good core OC but they couldn't OC the memory as much as others;
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd5750hd5770/3.html
So anyway the card has no issues with overclocking and that the memory OCs even more than the core is a GOOD thing as the memory bandwidth is a lil weak for a GPU of that caliber. I think you were basing way too much on one article and then started coming up with weird theories to explain their results.

GDDR5 memory has built in error checking. AMD implemented it so that if an error is detected, the memory will resend the data. This will lead to a drop in performance if too many errors have to be corrected. Unlike GDDR3 where you'll see artifacting when the memory is pushed too far, overclocking the GDDR5 too much will result in a drop in frames because of the frequent resending of data.

As for design limitations consider this. The architecture for the 5000 and 4000 series are similar as they're evolutions on the r600. Both the 5770 and 4870 have 800 sp's while the 4870 has almost double the memory throughput. As you said yourself, memory bandwidth is weak for that GPU. I'd rather not have to deal with alleviating the bottleneck.

I prefer to look at AIB partner's card rather than samples straight from AMD: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5770_vaporx_overclock/

Overclocked, you see a 10fps gain in batman no AA and at most a 9fps gain in l4d. Far Cry gets 6fps and crysis gets 2 and all these numbers from from the lowest resolution. At the resolution I play at, gains are smaller and thats just not enough for me. Call me greedy, but when the 5770 keeps the games I want to play under 60fps now, I'm going to see the card age quickly when newer games come out in the future, even with driver updated. I've been keeping a close eye on the 5770 and have read many reviews of the card, especially one with aftermarket coolers, and I would be the first one to recommend it to someone who needs a card NOW. For myself, I'd want to pay less for that card.