Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

5770 Improving????

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 15, 2010 1:37:28 AM

Im looking to get the 5770 or the 4890 for my build right now. I have seen all the test and benchmarks, and i've seen the 4890 outperform the 5770. I'm currently looking for a faster card, rather then features. I have heard that while the 5770 is not that fast right now as the drivers improve the card will match the 4890 or maybe even surpass it. I was curious to wether this was true, or even possible. Thank for all the help!!!! :) 

More about : 5770 improving

a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 1:50:36 AM

It will improve, but also, the 5830 isnt far away either, and it will be just that much better, but you may get 5-10% out of the 5770s yet
February 15, 2010 1:54:39 AM

oz73942 said:
Im looking to get the 5770 or the 4890 for my build right now. I have seen all the test and benchmarks, and i've seen the 4890 outperform the 5770. I'm currently looking for a faster card, rather then features. I have heard that while the 5770 is not that fast right now as the drivers improve the card will match the 4890 or maybe even surpass it. I was curious to wether this was true, or even possible. Thank for all the help!!!! :) 

It is hardly possible as it is bottlenecked by its 128bit memory bandwidth. There is no way to make it better when there is already a bottleneck on it.

HD5770 is a huge fail of ATI. However, HD5770 has better CF scaling and so it would be the better choice if you are considering CF in the future.
Related resources
a c 358 U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 3:40:19 AM

I agree with the above. Improved drivers can increase performance, but ultimately it will be restricted by the 128bit memory bandwidth.

The HD 5770 is not a bad card as long as you keep your expectation reasonable. I will probably drop a HD 5770 into my HTPC for occasional gaming on my HDTV when I get tired of my 9600GT.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 3:56:43 AM

Did anyone ask what res?
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 8:24:53 AM

The 5770 is not memory bandwith limited, this has been proven Here.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 9:06:19 AM

I'll dig out some benchies later - but have recently been seeing the 5770 rock way past the 4890 in some tests...
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 9:24:58 AM

Well it probably will in a few, here it beats the gtx285 in some games, mostly older ones that would benefit more shader power.

There is no 'bottleneck' occuring with this card, it is what it is and at 3 times smaller than a 285gtx it certainly isn't 'huge fail' under any circumstance.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 9:29:49 AM

am almost tempted to take back what I said about it rocking past the 4890...

Know I saw those kinda benchies somewhere as was interested as my bro bought a 5770 recently and was impressed to see it beat the 4890 by a good amount.

Does beat the 4870 in a lot of tests though.
February 15, 2010 9:44:01 AM

jaguarskx said:
I agree with the above. Improved drivers can increase performance, but ultimately it will be restricted by the 128bit memory bandwidth.

The HD 5770 is not a bad card as long as you keep your expectation reasonable. I will probably drop a HD 5770 into my HTPC for occasional gaming on my HDTV when I get tired of my 9600GT.



andy5174 said:
It is hardly possible as it is bottlenecked by its 128bit memory bandwidth. There is no way to make it better when there is already a bottleneck on it.

HD5770 is a huge fail of ATI. However, HD5770 has better CF scaling and so it would be the better choice if you are considering CF in the future.


Huge fail?? Haha Fanboy . Its a huge success. Stop spreading lies and post honestly.

a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 10:38:13 AM

andy5174 said:
It is hardly possible as it is bottlenecked by its 128bit memory bandwidth. There is no way to make it better when there is already a bottleneck on it.

HD5770 is a huge fail of ATI. However, HD5770 has better CF scaling and so it would be the better choice if you are considering CF in the future.

Wait a minute....just wait a minute.
I was ragged hard last week for mentioning this fact about the 128-bit interface and was told that was a thing of the past due to it's ddr5 and other features.
Say it isn't so!
My 7600GT could never outperform an X800XL and this was just 2 1/2- 3 years ago. It was like yesterday to me.
Oh, pipelines. Can't we squeeze just a bit more ketchup through the cap?
February 15, 2010 11:08:09 AM

Thinking that a newer card should beat any older card is like saying that the 2010 Honda civic 1.6 should beat the 1989 Ferrari because it is newer! It is a complete ignorance.
the HD5770 is equivalent to HD4770 and not to the 4890! and it surpassed the 4770 in every test so it is NOT a fail nor a breakthrough, it is where it should be!
February 15, 2010 12:00:32 PM

kikireeki + 1
February 15, 2010 12:06:31 PM

witcherx said:
Huge fail?? Haha Fanboy . Its a huge success. Stop spreading lies and post honestly.

Gosh, AMD fanboy! Go read HD5770 review and every review I read so far regard it as a failure.

Its price is on par with HD4890 but worse than HD4870 in row FPS. What a great success!
a c 130 U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 12:37:21 PM

OK to play devils advocate here and maybe get an actual answer this time.
How does it actually work then ? How does the card go about putting the info through the interface ?

What for example is the usual size of any given oh say texture, that would be put through ?
Or in other words would a 128bit card cause a situation where info would need to be split up to go through it ? If so this causes latencies dosent it ?
Is it just that a 256 bit interface can push more chunks of info through at a time, you would think it obviously can but you cant take anything for granted with PC's can you

So does a 128bit card just ram it through 128 at a time and its just a case of the speed of the ram canceling out the differance or what ?

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 12:45:07 PM

I have seen this explained before and some don't agree but it makes sense.
Last generation....New 5 series gen
4890....58xx not released
4870....5870
4850....5850
4770....5770 *both 128bit gddr5*

Also the cards were released in a different order. Prior gen, 4850,4870,4890, this time
they worked backwards 5870, 5850, 5770. this generation is 35% superior up and down the line to its true predecessor.

edit: its the pricing of the 5770 when compared to the now lower prices of the 4 generation that people have higher performance expectations.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 12:56:08 PM

We can expect a 5% increase in performance as drivers mature. I doubt they will be able to pump enough juice out that.

@ magneezo

You were probably told that because the HD 5770 has a limit in potential when talking about over clocking, or at least pushing bandwidths higher. The memory bus with stock settings does not become a bottleneck because the card was never meant to be as powerful as the 5800 series. It was meant to compete with the 4800 series while providing DX 11 which is what it is doing.

As far as price goes it's a pretty good deal. Remember the HD 4850 HD 4870 and HD 4890 all had $200+- price brackets when they first came out. The HD 5770 cards are coming out at $165~, so keep that in mind.
February 15, 2010 12:59:28 PM

REVIEWS:

Quote:
But we don’t have that luxury with the Radeon HD 5700 series. 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.

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

Quote:
If you belong to that group and are looking at “Radeon HD 5700-series,” expecting a big step up in performance, even the 5770 is a disappointment. After all, if you own a 4870 or 4890 already, that card is faster in today’s games.

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

PRICE:

XFX HD-487A-ZWFC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5: $169.99

XFX HD-577A-ZNDC Radeon HD 5770 XXX Edition 1GB 128-bit DDR5: $189.99

HD5770 is worse than HD4870 in most cases and still cost more.

February 15, 2010 1:01:05 PM

andy5174 said:
Gosh, AMD fanboy! Go read HD5770 review and every review I read so far regard it as a failure.

Its price is on par with HD4890 but worse than HD4870 in row FPS. What a great success!


How can you say its Huge fail. Bing it and you will see it has received so many awards. Just because you feel or believe it, you should not continue to pass on your false beliefs.
February 15, 2010 1:04:38 PM

andy5174 said:
Quote:
But we don’t have that luxury with the Radeon HD 5700 series. 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.

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


Quote:
If you belong to that group and are looking at “Radeon HD 5700-series,” expecting a big step up in performance, even the 5770 is a disappointment. After all, if you own a 4870 or 4890 already, that card is faster in today’s games.

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


Looks like you are seeing the whole picture through those "two" words. I would suggest you also read user reviews and not only depend on the site reviews. The site reviews are based on various parameters and comparisions.

I can also post so many links where it has received awards. So stop spreading your beliefs on others and downgrading such good cards.
February 15, 2010 1:07:26 PM

Typical fanboy response.

They will never admit it no matter how many evidences you show them.

Sigh!
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 1:11:41 PM

as kikireeki mentioned already: "the HD5770 is equivalent to HD4770 and not to the 4890!" or 4870

The 4870 is replaced by the 5870 etc

The older 4870 (seems very old now) and 4890 are sold cheap to clear stock so are good value - bringing them into the 5770's ballpark (at least for the 4890pricing)

The 5770 does beat the 4870 in quite a few games now anyway.

That the 5770 is competing well with the 4870 shows some decent progress :) 
a c 271 U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 1:15:11 PM

witcherx said:
Just because you feel or believe it, you should not continue to pass on your false beliefs.

Pot, kettle, black?
February 15, 2010 1:17:34 PM

andy5174 said:
Typical fanboy response.

They will never admit it no matter how many evidences you show them.

Sigh!



And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 2:01:33 PM

/facepalm

Why does this happen every time someone starts a thread? Is the whole world retarded? (No, that was not used in satire... ;)  )

The 5770 is slower than a 4870.. It is pretty clear that the 5000's are slower clock for clock than the 4000's. Anand has shown that pretty well in the 5450 review. The 5770 is not bottlenecked (as shown by BFG).. it is simply slower than a 4890 given the same clocks and shader cores.. I guess dx11 was not free.. but that is neither here nor there...

That being said.. some people value dx11, so let them buy it.. No one in their right mind is going to upgrade from a 4890 to a 5770... but it makes a lot of sense to get the 5770 is you are buying new today..

I don't understand how something aimed at an entirely different market from what one might be looking for is a huge fail on that fact alone... This generation was an anomaly in that the last gen prices were through the floor when it came out.. would people have been more comfortable if the 4870 was priced back up to the release prices before the 5000 series came out? In the grand scheme of things the pricing seems rather fine now.. though many who don't care about dx11 and want raw power would have been out half a brain if they chose the 5770 over the at the time $150 4870s.

Isn't it almost always the case that the old slightly faster cards are cheaper than the new shiny ones?

Is it profoundly stupid to get a 5770 is you already own a 4870/4890? Damn straight it is... but why do people have such a bug up their asses about this card still? It is cheaper than a 4890, is almost the exact price of any 4870s left, and it consumes much less power than a 4870 for very much equivalent performance. Seems like a fine card for someone building a mainstream rig today.. When on earth has a mainstream card ever been placed as a logical upgrade or the previous generations high end?

an you expect the 5770 to get faster with drivers? Yes, but don't ever expect it to perform clock for clock with a 4890. The new cores are simply slower than the old ones, i suppose a cost for dx11, though I don't fully understand why that is.. mind you it is not all that unheard of for a new generation to sacrifice performance on each part at the cost of more features and parts.
a c 130 U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 2:05:59 PM

So no one knows then ? It would seem to me that to be calling it one way or another you would need to actually know what you are talking about.
I mean if there are as many articles calling it one way as there is the other then who do we beleive.
there must be a technical reason for one to be correct or not so which is it ?

Mactronix :D 
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 2:13:03 PM

mactronix said:
So no one knows then ? It would seem to me that to be calling it one way or another you would need to actually know what you are talking about.
I mean if there are as many articles calling it one way as there is the other then who do we beleive.
there must be a technical reason for one to be correct or not so which is it ?

Mactronix :D 


Noone knows what?

The 5000 series seems to be slower clock for clock than the 4000 series along the entire lineup.

BFG has shown that memory is not bottlenecking the 5770. Anand has shown that the 5450, which has the same clocks and shader core numbers as the 4550, performs worse. Thus the new shaders must be slower. It was originally hypothesized by most that the 5770 was slower than the 4890 (same core count and clocks) because of the memory BW... but given what we know now it is more likely the shaders are just slower.

It is thought that this slow down was due to drivers.. it could still be.. this is where all the hope that the drivers would bring improved performance came from. However, I think it is far more likely that dx11 just cost some performance. We will see improvements with drivers, but the 5770 will never catch up clock for clock with the 4890, at least not entirely. The idea that drivers would increase performance was based on the memory not being an issue, which it seems not to be. However, I will remain pessimistic that drivers can bring the sky.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 2:54:33 PM

New shader models etc, which means possible driver improvements, no gaurantees.
I guess its like buying the old 9800x2, which nVidia quit making and eoled early on as well, over the 260, where it was often cheaper, and always better in perf in many games, maybe the 260 was total fail? Maybe nVidia was ripping people off with their pricing?
It happens from 1 gen to the next, sometimes an older cards price/perf is better, if not just to clear inventory
a c 376 U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 3:46:04 PM

andy5174 said:
REVIEWS:

Quote:
But we don’t have that luxury with the Radeon HD 5700 series. 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.

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

Quote:
If you belong to that group and are looking at “Radeon HD 5700-series,” expecting a big step up in performance, even the 5770 is a disappointment. After all, if you own a 4870 or 4890 already, that card is faster in today’s games.

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

PRICE:

XFX HD-487A-ZWFC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5: $169.99

XFX HD-577A-ZNDC Radeon HD 5770 XXX Edition 1GB 128-bit DDR5: $189.99

HD5770 is worse than HD4870 in most cases and still cost more.

LOL
This is one of the most slanted posts I've seen in a long while.
First did you purposely look for the cheapest HD4870 you could find and the most expensive HD5770?
Here's an HD5770 of the same brand that is $18 cheaper than that HD4870;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Bolding the "even the 5770 is a disappointment" in that second quote when the context is necessary even to understand what they are saying seems disingenuous. How about quoting this part of the conclusion of that article instead?
Quote:
But paying an extra $15 for Eyefinity, bitstreaming, and the promise of DirectX 11 should really be a no-brainer.

Anandtech is about the only site that didn't give the HD5770 glowing reviews and all of the initial reviews are based upon beta drivers as the HD5770 was the first card of a new series. I forget where but I remember reading in a review of a different card that driver improvements already have the HD5770 matching or beating the HD4870 in performance. Furthermore the reviews you are quoting were from a time when you could get a 512mb HD4870 for $125 and a 1gb for $145. In that context the HD5770 WAS overpriced but those days are long over. The HD5770 is clearly the best card for the money at around $150 now based on just performance even if you ignore DX11 and the other advanced features of the series.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 9:15:05 PM

mactronix said:
OK to play devils advocate here and maybe get an actual answer this time.
How does it actually work then ? How does the card go about putting the info through the interface ?

What for example is the usual size of any given oh say texture, that would be put through ?
Or in other words would a 128bit card cause a situation where info would need to be split up to go through it ? If so this causes latencies dosent it ?
Is it just that a 256 bit interface can push more chunks of info through at a time, you would think it obviously can but you cant take anything for granted with PC's can you

So does a 128bit card just ram it through 128 at a time and its just a case of the speed of the ram canceling out the differance or what ?

Mactronix


Mac you might be interested in reading This.
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2010 9:31:02 PM

While everybody is looking for the one big reason why the 5770 performs like it does...there is no one reason.

This card can beat the gtx285 in some older games while barely beating a 4850 in others. The middle ground is somewhere close to 4870/gtx260 performance.

It's about drivers, architecture, shader power, texture power, memory bandwidth just like every other card before it.

I'm sure you remember Grid, the ATI's won that by a huge margin no matter what Nvidia card. That's just shader power in action. Games like Crysis are heavily texture biased, they favour Nvidia by a long shot.

If you look at that link i posted earlier, you'll see how well the 5770 does vs the gtx285 in older games. Neither card has been optimised for those games - they are far too old to bother with. So, what you are seeing is pure 'number crunching' or shading power giving the victory to the 5770.

This page of older game benchmarks is a little evidence of my theory.
February 16, 2010 12:25:00 AM

Thanks for all the sweet info. I'm going to go a head and gamble on the 5830 for the time being.
February 16, 2010 1:00:23 AM

I always knew it that AMD fanboys are full of nonsense and I confirm it once again with this thread. Sigh!

HD5770 is a mainstream card which AMD should earn most money from. However, AMD has missed getting a lot of money from me and others due to HD5770 being a failure.

I will stick with nVidia once again if HD5830 also disappoint me.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:08:47 AM

Actually the GTX 285 competes with the 5850, its not as powerful. the gtx 260 is more powerful than the 5770. For something in between you have to go back to ATI's old series, Nvidia or wait for the 5830.
a c 376 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:09:38 AM

andy5174 said:
However, AMD has missed getting a lot of money from me and others due to HD5770 being a failure.

The HD5770 is a failure in what sense? It offers the best performance at its price by a good margin while offering the latest tech... if that is failure what do you consider a success?
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:16:42 AM

oz73942 said:
Im looking to get the 5770 or the 4890 for my build right now. I have seen all the test and benchmarks, and i've seen the 4890 outperform the 5770. I'm currently looking for a faster card, rather then features. I have heard that while the 5770 is not that fast right now as the drivers improve the card will match the 4890 or maybe even surpass it. I was curious to wether this was true, or even possible. Thank for all the help!!!! :) 


Here are a few tests ;) 













February 16, 2010 1:24:04 AM

@jyjjy:

Look at the charts above!

HD5770 is always worse than HD4870 when they are not equal and it still cost more.

What do you consider as a failure if this is not a failure?
a c 271 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:28:38 AM

andy5174 said:
@jyjjy:

Look at the charts above!

HD5770 is always worse than HD4870 when they are not equal and it still cost more.

What do you consider as a failure if this is not a failure?


And lets revisit this thread in a few months and see whether the 5770 has improved through drivers to overtake the 4890 or not.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:35:46 AM

Mousemonkey said:
And lets revisit this thread in a few months and see whether the 5770 has improved through drivers to overtake the 4890 or not.


I dont think the 5770 will be able to surpass the 4890 performance-wise regardless of the driver improvements, might get close but that is about it...
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:39:52 AM

notty22 said:
I have seen this explained before and some don't agree but it makes sense.
Last generation....New 5 series gen...


It has nothing to do with the previous generation, it has to do with cost of higher bitwidth and the need. It's not practical to make an odd bitwidth so it's either 128 or 256, so why both with 256bit if you don't have the transistors (hell they chopped DP because they were too tight), nor the pricing margins.

And the HD5770 may be 128bit, but it has more memory bandwidth than the HD4850, and does outperform it.

As for the 128bit limit, if it was such a limit, should the HD5770 not scale well under Xfire, since it would be 'bottlenecked' by the 128bit memory?

Remember it's not bandwidth or size of VRAM that's doubled in Xfire, so care to explain how the HD5770 outperforms the HD5870 at those higher resolutions? With or without AA, that 128bit memory seems to do fine if you put enough other resources behind it;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/picture/?src=/images/video...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/picture/?src=/images/video...

You get both above and below performance, but it's not a hard set limit due to the 128bit memory, and only naive people believe that an parrot it. :pfff: 

It may not fit some people's "bang for the buck" expectations, but it's far from a bad card, and even further than being a failure (especially when you consider cost of production, as well as cost of ownership in power consumption).

It may not be what alot of people expected, but it's more or a step forward from its previous generation than the GTS250.
February 16, 2010 1:54:46 AM

OvrClkr said:
I dont think the 5770 will be able to surpass the 4890 performance-wise regardless of the driver improvements, might get close but that is about it...

Agree!

HD5770 is memory bandwidth limited already with immature drivers, so I don't think it is possible for HD5770 to surpass HD4890 even with mature driver.

However, I personally would go with HD5770 over HD4890 if I considered CF in the future as HD5xxx has much better CF scaling.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 1:55:29 AM

Whats your point, so it scales well in crossfire? You have to spend twice the money and your playing the same game/resolution. It has half the work load. It would be a more massive fail, if it didn't at least show good numbers in crossfire. Just the usual amd/ati logic.
February 16, 2010 1:59:00 AM

notty22 said:
Whats your point, so it scales well in crossfire? You have to spend twice the money and your playing the same game/resolution. It has half the work load. It would be a more massive fail, if it didn't at least show good numbers in crossfire. Just the usual amd/ati logic.

HD5770 DOES show good numbers in CF. Look at the charts posted by OvrClkr.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 2:02:56 AM

andy5174 said:
HD5770 DOES show good numbers in CF. Look at the charts posted by OvrClkr.

I never said it didn't.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 2:03:57 AM

Yea, I tested a pair of XFX 5770's in CF and the results were amazing, only game where I saw a massive DROP in FPS was Dirt2 (Ultra settings 1680x 1050 including x16QSAA)....
a c 376 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 2:09:07 AM

andy5174 said:
@jyjjy:

Look at the charts above!

HD5770 is always worse than HD4870 when they are not equal and it still cost more.

What do you consider as a failure if this is not a failure?

lol
Yes, I'm aware that at launch with beta drivers the HD5770 was slightly less powerful than the HD4870.
Are you aware of how it performs with current drivers? Are you aware that it is NOT more expensive than an HD4870 and hasn't been for a long while? Are you aware that the limitations of the 128 bit bus is largely mitigated by the DDR5 ram?
I still don't see how its a "failure" even if its performance had never improved and an HD4870 was still cheaper but that's a question for an alternate reality anyway. It's inarguably the best card at it's price point right now in the real world and far from what can reasonably be considered a "failure."
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 2:37:20 AM

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

How is the 5770 a failure? How is it MORE expensive than the 4870? How is it memory bandwidth limited?

lowest price on 5770: $145 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Lowest price on 4870: $155 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/ite...



So you pay $10 less for basically the same performance with less heat, less power consumption, eyefinity, DX11, and readily available extra cards for crossfire.

Yeah that is a HUGE failure, it is better or equal in every way for less!!

The 5770 is not memory bandwidth starved right now, when crossfired it TIES with the 5870 with half the memory bandwidth and the EXACT SAME COUNT OF SHADERS.

What do you want for $150? Do you want a card that beats the GTX 285? OR should it beat the GTX 295 too?

As for the OP, if you don't care about the features than the 4890 and the GTX 275 are better cards for you.

http://www.provantage.com/galaxy-technology-27xif9hu1qu...
http://www.amazon.com/XFX-RadeonHD-4890-Graphic-HD489XZ...

That said, if you can wait then the 5830 is an EXTREMELY interesting product that should be out soon.
February 16, 2010 2:42:32 AM

What's your problem?

Watch the charts shown by TOM, Anandtech and OvrClkr. They are all against your results.

It is clever to compare products of different brands in different shops.

Do you also compare of the price of i5 at Newegg with the price of i7 at Microcneter?

Sigh!
February 16, 2010 2:46:43 AM

How about looking at the price in countries other than US? Let say, Oceania.

HD5770 is hugely more expensive than HD4870 and it's on par with HD4890 in price here.

p.s. Don't expect others to respect you if you use "what the fxxx" against others, retard.
!